Am I a strong candidate for PhD programs?

[ilovephilosophy]

I'm entering my senior year and so will be applying for PhD programs this fall. I've heard a lot of different things about how competitive the process is, so I'm wondering where I stand/what a realistic expectation would be as far as where I'll get offers from. Here's my general profile:

-Undergrad institution ranked in the low 50's overall, not particularly strong in philosophy though (small department, young but promising profs)

-On track to graduate summa cum (overall GPA of at least 3.9, will probably end up around 3.92 or so)

-4.0 in the Philosophy major (completed)

-3 essays published in various undergrad journals, 1 that I'm told might land in a professional journal

-Writing sample probably quite a bit above average

-Have not taken the GRE, but consistently scoring mid 700's on both sections in practice tests

-Scoring low 170's on practice LSAT tests (going to apply for joint PhD-JD programs, not sure if the Phil departments even see LSAT though?)

-Summer research with the dept. chairperson

-Will TA for the dept. chairperson next year, supposedly I'll get to lecture at least a few times

-Letters of Rec. will have nothing but outstanding things to say, and all will be from philosophy professors with whom I've worked closely

So, what am I looking at here? Any chance of getting offers from a school in the top 10? Top 20? Top 30? Funded offers? Or should I just study for the LSAT more and consign myself to a boring legal career?

Edited June 23, 2011 by ilovephilosophy

[lyonessrampant]

You look live a very competitive applicant. Philosophy departments require higher GRE scores than a lot of other disciplines, and if you get what your practice scores are, you'll be competitive in that regard. If your writing sample is as strong as you think and you have a focused, well-written SOP, you seem like you'd be competitive for top 20 and maybe top 10 programs. Apply widely is the best advice I can give you; this is a very competitive process and it can be somewhat arbitrary so give yourself lots of options, picking 3-4 top 10, 3-4 top 20, and maybe 4 or 5 in the 20 to 50 range. I'd recommend applying to some PhD only programs; there aren't a ton, as far as I'm aware, joint PhD/JD programs; they're usually MA/JD. Maybe also apply to just a few MA programs for backup options and perhaps just a few law school only programs. If you get a 170 LSAT, you'll be very competitive for excellent law schools (lots of my friends went that route and got offers at NYU, Columbia, and other top programs with mid 160-170 scores and strong writing samples). I'd recommend asking yourself if you're committed to the joint degree or really want to go the academic route or professional route. Do you want to teach law? If so, the MA/JD with an LLM option might be better. Do you want to be a prof in a philosophy department who focuses on legal theory? Then the joint degree might be a good idea, but if you want to be housed in a philosophy department and do work on legal issues implicated by ethical theory (for instance), then I'd just do the Ph.D. route and take a few legal theory courses at the law school housed at your future university. That way, you get the courses you want but don't have to trudge through things like civil procedure, property, and criminal law. This way you also will be fully funded whereas the joing JD/MA(or PhD if you can find them) programs are unfunded or only partially funded. A PhD offer will likely include tuition, stipend, and health insurance. Law schools are providing a surfeit of lawyers, so unless you really, really want to go the law route, going 100K or more into debt for a law degree may not pay off. I'm not saying there will be a lot more job options in philosophy either, but if you don't accrue debt along the way, it gives you more flexibility later, and if you can get into a top 20 or so program, you'll probably leave with job offers. In short, think about what you really want and then apply specifically with those goals in mind. To cover all options, apply to only Ph.D., only JD, only phil MA, and joint JD/MA or Ph.D. programs and see what you get into. If you're already preparing for the LSAT and getting those kinds of practice scores on the GRE and LSAT, you might as well go for it. Best of luck!

[Two Espressos]

I'm entering my senior year and so will be applying for PhD programs this fall. I've heard a lot of different things about how competitive the process is, so I'm wondering where I stand/what a realistic expectation would be as far as where I'll get offers from. Here's my general profile:

-Undergrad institution ranked in the low 50's overall, not particularly strong in philosophy though (small department, young but promising profs)

-On track to graduate summa cum (overall GPA of at least 3.9, will probably end up around 3.92 or so)

-4.0 in the Philosophy major (completed)

-3 essays published in various undergrad journals, 1 that I'm told might land in a professional journal

-Writing sample probably quite a bit above average

-Have not taken the GRE, but consistently scoring mid 700's on both sections in practice tests

-Scoring low 170's on practice LSAT tests (going to apply for joint PhD-JD programs, not sure if the Phil departments even see LSAT though?)

-Summer research with the dept. chairperson

-Will TA for the dept. chairperson next year, supposedly I'll get to lecture at least a few times

-Letters of Rec. will have nothing but outstanding things to say, and all will be from philosophy professors with whom I've worked closely

So, what am I looking at here? Any chance of getting offers from a school in the top 10? Top 20? Top 30? Funded offers? Or should I just study for the LSAT more and consign myself to a boring legal career?

I second the advice that lyonessrampant gives. From what I know, your GPA and expected GRE scores will make you competitive. lyonessrampant is correct in that philosophy departments value GRE much more than other humanities departments. A GRE combined score of 1450 or so (you expect scores in the mid 700s on each, so you should be fine) will make you competitive for top programs. You seem apprehensive about law (you bemoan "consign[ing] myself to a boring legal career"), so I'd apply to philosophy PhD programs over law school. Apply widely, and remember that the job market for philosophy professors is as bad as or even a little worse than other humanities disciplines. By landing in a top program that both caters to your subfield and provides rigorous academic training, you should be very marketable for tenure-track jobs, though.

However, I think the best way of gauging your abilities is to ask your professors (perhaps those whom you plan to write your LORs): you mentioned that they are young and up-and-coming, so they would know the current state of philosophy graduate programs best.

Good luck!

[vitaminquartet]

Surely what will really determine admissions - provided that grades and gre scores are above a certain difficult to know threshold - is what sort of writing sample you have and what sort of letters of recommendations you have (and importantly, from whom).

Since we don't know your writing samples or letter writers or letters, we can't evaluate your chances (and even if we did know those things, we wouldn't be well positioned to know how an admissions committee would interpret them).

It seems at least reasonable to think that your application wont be thrown out on the basis of grades and gre scores - but making the 'first cut' is not a great indication of whether or not you'd actually gain admission (though obviously failing to make the 'first cut' means that you wouldn't). So I think thats all that can really be said.

Do everything you can to maximize your chances of admission, and apply as widely as you are comfortable.

As someone who has done both a Philosophy MA and a JD (in law) I would discourage you from going into law as a backup plan - the atmosphere and work is radically different from philosophy, and the job prospects suck, the first year is a boot camp and you'll only be funded if you go to a school lower in the rankings than one you could obtain without funding (which is just how it works).

[ZeeMore21]

At this level of study, grades and GRE scores don't mean much, plain and simple. I expect that most applicants will be superb in that area of the application. It comes down to the personal statement and writing sample.

Also, are you really being sincere with your post? It's kind of offputting when people list great qualifications and somehow are wondering if it's good enough. You have to be confident in your abilities...if you are not, it will come out in your personal statement.

Edited June 29, 2011 by ZeeMore21

[vitaminquartet]

Also, are you really being sincere with your post? It's kind of offputting when people list great qualifications and somehow are wondering if it's good enough.

I did think there was something a bit offputting and even a bit trollish for someone to say, basically 'I only have a perfect 4.0 in my philosophy courses and a nearly perfect 3.92 in my other classes, I also have all of these other wonderful things going on and I could have been published in a professional journal! - is perfection good enough to have a shot at a top 30 program, or should I consign myself to a loserly career as a lawyer?'

The original poster obviously knew his/her grades were good enough because he/she couldn't have done any better in philosophy - its not he/she is asking about his/her chances of overcoming some academic disadvantage or mixed record or marginal record. Posting something like that, might be motivated by genuine if unwarranted lack of confidence, or it might somewhat motivated by bragging, and have the effect of making people who lack those perfect statistics (who perhaps have mere 3.8's or 3.7s and didn't publish in an undergraduate journal, which is btw, not something that I've ever heard as a plus factor, though I doubt it hurts) feel insecure, or even like they ought not to apply so highly.

[ZeeMore21]

I did think there was something a bit offputting and even a bit trollish for someone to say, basically 'I only have a perfect 4.0 in my philosophy courses and a nearly perfect 3.92 in my other classes, I also have all of these other wonderful things going on and I could have been published in a professional journal! - is perfection good enough to have a shot at a top 30 program, or should I consign myself to a loserly career as a lawyer?'

The original poster obviously knew his/her grades were good enough because he/she couldn't have done any better in philosophy - its not he/she is asking about his/her chances of overcoming some academic disadvantage or mixed record or marginal record. Posting something like that, might be motivated by genuine if unwarranted lack of confidence, or it might somewhat motivated by bragging, and have the effect of making people who lack those perfect statistics (who perhaps have mere 3.8's or 3.7s and didn't publish in an undergraduate journal, which is btw, not something that I've ever heard as a plus factor, though I doubt it hurts) feel insecure, or even like they ought not to apply so highly.

Definitely agree with your here. Perhaps the OP could explain his or her motivations. If it is seriously a lack of confidence, than I do apologize. If it is bragging, I would suggest that the OP get over his or her ego quickly....that type of need to brag to get attention and feel important can only hurt when it comes to application season. There are many people who might not have your numbers, but are just as qualified, or perhaps more qualified, to enter a graduate program. Just some advice.

Edited June 30, 2011 by ZeeMore21

[natsteel]

I did think there was something a bit offputting and even a bit trollish for someone to say, basically 'I only have a perfect 4.0 in my philosophy courses and a nearly perfect 3.92 in my other classes, I also have all of these other wonderful things going on and I could have been published in a professional journal! - is perfection good enough to have a shot at a top 30 program, or should I consign myself to a loserly career as a lawyer?'

The original poster obviously knew his/her grades were good enough because he/she couldn't have done any better in philosophy - its not he/she is asking about his/her chances of overcoming some academic disadvantage or mixed record or marginal record. Posting something like that, might be motivated by genuine if unwarranted lack of confidence, or it might somewhat motivated by bragging, and have the effect of making people who lack those perfect statistics (who perhaps have mere 3.8's or 3.7s and didn't publish in an undergraduate journal, which is btw, not something that I've ever heard as a plus factor, though I doubt it hurts) feel insecure, or even like they ought not to apply so highly.

I understand this kind of reaction to the OP, but I think it stems more from a lack of knowledge regarding the competition for places in a top 10 or top 20 program. I think a lot of people coming from non-name brand undergraduate schools wonder how they might possibly stack up against strong candidates who did their undergrad at top schools. That said, the OP did say he was at an undergrad school ranked in the low 50s. I had the same kind of questions when applying and I was coming from a regional university system. I think some of it stems from the notion of "If I did this at a less-than-stellar undergraduate school, what have the kids at Harvard, Princeton, and Yale done and what will their applications look like?"

[Two Espressos]

I understand this kind of reaction to the OP, but I think it stems more from a lack of knowledge regarding the competition for places in a top 10 or top 20 program. I think a lot of people coming from non-name brand undergraduate schools wonder how they might possibly stack up against strong candidates who did their undergrad at top schools. That said, the OP did say he was at an undergrad school ranked in the low 50s. I had the same kind of questions when applying and I was coming from a regional university system. I think some of it stems from the notion of "If I did this at a less-than-stellar undergraduate school, what have the kids at Harvard, Princeton, and Yale done and what will their applications look like?"

I agree with you completely. I'm in the same situation--regional university system--and can see how the OP might be concerned about prestige and competitiveness (though still an undergraduate--and still over a year away from my application season--I have had similar concerns).

[Harry Balsagna]

I'm entering my senior year and so will be applying for PhD programs this fall. I've heard a lot of different things about how competitive the process is, so I'm wondering where I stand/what a realistic expectation would be as far as where I'll get offers from. Here's my general profile:

-Undergrad institution ranked in the low 50's overall, not particularly strong in philosophy though (small department, young but promising profs)

-On track to graduate summa cum (overall GPA of at least 3.9, will probably end up around 3.92 or so)

-4.0 in the Philosophy major (completed)

-3 essays published in various undergrad journals, 1 that I'm told might land in a professional journal

-Writing sample probably quite a bit above average

-Have not taken the GRE, but consistently scoring mid 700's on both sections in practice tests

-Scoring low 170's on practice LSAT tests (going to apply for joint PhD-JD programs, not sure if the Phil departments even see LSAT though?)

-Summer research with the dept. chairperson

-Will TA for the dept. chairperson next year, supposedly I'll get to lecture at least a few times

-Letters of Rec. will have nothing but outstanding things to say, and all will be from philosophy professors with whom I've worked closely

So, what am I looking at here? Any chance of getting offers from a school in the top 10? Top 20? Top 30? Funded offers? Or should I just study for the LSAT more and consign myself to a boring legal career?

You should probably just apply for a job as a paralegal.

[ilovephilosophy]

Thank you for the helpful replies, and sorry for the confusion. I'm not trying to brag or gloat; on the contrary, I'm worried about my chances. I wanted to post my credentials without giving much commentary in order to see what people on here would think of my overall potential. I think I'm about as strong a candidate as I could be coming out of the university I'm at, but I'm not sure exactly how optimistic that should make me. A small department with young profs at a school ranked in the 50's isn't exactly ideal, and I was wondering if people would point that out as a significant weakness.

I understand this kind of reaction to the OP, but I think it stems more from a lack of knowledge regarding the competition for places in a top 10 or top 20 program. I think a lot of people coming from non-name brand undergraduate schools wonder how they might possibly stack up against strong candidates who did their undergrad at top schools. That said, the OP did say he was at an undergrad school ranked in the low 50s. I had the same kind of questions when applying and I was coming from a regional university system. I think some of it stems from the notion of "If I did this at a less-than-stellar undergraduate school, what have the kids at Harvard, Princeton, and Yale done and what will their applications look like?"

Exactly

Edited July 12, 2011 by ilovephilosophy

[HaruNoKaze]

I applied to ASU's MA program in Phil for fall 2010, and I was rejected. I had strong letters of recommendation, writing samples my phil professors has read and approved, as well as a letter of rec from a math professor (analytical phil is very mathematical, and MA programs often look for high GRE Qual scores). I also traveled and attended a normative ethics conference held by ASU where I got to meet some wonderful professors, many of whom my phil professors knew professionally. Meeting me and having conversations with me, they thought I was brilliant and wanted me in the program. My GPA and GRE scores weren't high enough, and I was rejected. Basically, because their program is competitive and nationally ranked, they had to reject me, because of how low my numbers looked.

If you're looking at places like Columbia, NYU, UofMichigan, you might get in b/c you look great on paper, but everyone who's worked hard looks great on paper. However, it's hard to get anyone on the phone or talk with them in person. Nationally ranked programs that are not at the very top, I'd say like 10 and down, are often down to earth and communicative with applicants. It is a really difficult situation, and you may have an easy time getting in to programs b/c of how great you look on paper. If I was you, and I knew one or two particular school you wanted to get accepted to, see if they have any conferences coming up and if you can attend them. Some professors at conferences are great people, some are complete jerks! Conferences like APA get all sorts of phil profs flying in from all over the country, and it's a good opportunity for you to see who you would like to work with, as well as them to see if they would like to work with you.