Successful Statement of Purpose?

[ekant]

Hey all. I'm new to this "Philosophy" section of the GradCafe forums. I'm a second semester senior (undergraduate) with a major in Philosophy and a major in English. I applied to a bunch of English PhD programs back in November. I didn't get into any. This is kind of a good thing, mainly because I recently came to the realization that I really actually want to pursue Philosophy for graduate studies. I've done much more work in Philosophy and it's quite silly that I chose the English path for graduate studies. I knew something wasn't right.

I'm wondering if anyone here might be willing to share their successful Statement of Purpose document. I have one for English, but obviously it didn't do me very well, and this is a different discipline, so I'd like to see how the S.O.Ps differ.

I will be applying for the Fall of 2013. I'm assuming that applications should probably be in around December or January, but I want to get a very big head start on this and really create a top notch S.O.P, writing sample, etc.

Thanks!

Edited March 18, 2012 by ekant

[UnbearableNausea]

Hi Ekant,

Though you are likely looking for an example of the type of format, length, etc. that is typical of a statement of purpose in philosophy, all of the information, and perhaps even how it is presented, what is included, downplayed, highlighted, etc. is particular to the author. For someone with a weak GPA from missing courses due to a medical condition, he or she may choose to mention the extenuating circumstances early, later, or focus more on other activities that demonstrate a commitment to academics, and so on. The best advice I have heard is to work closely with your philosophy professors on your personal statements, and go with their advice.

However, there are some reliable sites that have great information on this and other aspects of grad school in philosophy. Here is more general advice from two of the top philosophy blogs:

A post with substantive comments on the function of personal statements in philosophy and suggestions for what to include can be found here at Brian Leiter's blog (of the Philosophical Gourmet):

http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2007/09/advice-on-perso.html

Also,

Eric Schwitzgebel has a long-standing (and regularly updated) series of blog posts for grad applicants. Here is the section on personal statements. I would also suggest the other posts in the series. The comment section on every post is also a trove of information, as Eric S. responds to comments whenever they are posted. A lot of the regular questions have been addressed there.

http://schwitzsplinters.blogspot.com/2007/10/applying-to-philosophy-phd-programs_08.html

Hope these are helpful!

Edited March 19, 2012 by UnbearableNausea

[magog]

I agree with what Nausea said. But (and I know this isn't the topic of this thread, but still), I tend to believe that your writing sample is far more important than your SOP.

May I ask what your philosophical interests are, and if you have any idea where you'll be applying?

[ekant]

Hello, Nausea and magog. Thank you for answering! Those websites are indeed helpful. I am working with a professor, but I wanted to get a few varied viewpoints.

I agree that the writing sample is far more important, but I've heard SOPs can potentially hold significant weight as well.

I am primarily interested in the philosophy of art and aesthetics. More specifically, my studies have found focus on the philosophy of literature (meaning and truth in art) and hermeneutics. On a sort of separate path, I've also done a lot of work on the notion of the sublime (posed in philosophy, poetry, prose, etc.) its relationship to environmental ethics. Although those are my main interests, I feel pretty well read in many areas of philosophy. I've taken: Theories of Knowledge; Philosophy of Science; Metaphysics; Existentialism; Philosophy of Art; Philosophy of Film; Symbolic Logic; Literary Theory and Criticism; Philosophy of Religion; Survey of World Religions; Senior Thesis (55 page thesis paper); and I chair an Undergraduate Philosophy Conference.

Thus, I'm looking for aesthetic heavy programs. Right now my list is: CUNY, UChicago, UOregon, Temple U, New School, Villanova, UMinnesota, UIllinois Urbana-Champaign. Do you know of any other good ones? I've just began searching, really. I'm trying not to shoot so so so high. I know how goddamned competitive it is out there. I have a very high GPA, but my GRE scores lack. I never have been (and probably never will be) a good standardized test taker. I've taken the test three times now, and each time I've done a bit better but not good enough. I'm going to take it once more before sending this application round out. I got rejected from 12 English PhD programs from February to now. I unfortunately sent apps to too many reach schools.

[UnbearableNausea]

These areas are not really my strengths and so I cannot say much about which programs are strong. You should definitely look at what the Philosophical Gourmet (linked above) says with regard to which programs focus in these types of areas. Leiter breaks them up into tiered groups, but really most of the programs are going to have more/stronger faculty in that area than schools who are not even listed for that focus. I have heard people speak highly of Purdue's philosophy and literature, although it is not really a ranked program (if that matters to you at all).

As for the GRE, one thing I would suggest (if possible) is to pay the extra money to take a prep-course and do so with enough time to really focus on studying the material provided. These programs teach tricks that save you time and can help make any guesses you must make more likely to land a correct answer. The application process is a black box from our end, and so it is difficult for any of us to know what factors weigh more heavily at certain schools versus others, but high tests scores never hurt. Low scores can, but again, no one knows to what extent. If I were you I would not take the test more than one more time unless you feel certain you will get a much higher score, as you do not want to waste money or time if you continue to get the same score. Focus instead on really tuning up your writing sample, and let your letter writers talk you up.

[ekant]

I have checked out the Philosophical Gourmet report a few times, but I've been told to take those rankings with a grain of salt. It has been a wealth of information for getting started, though. I too have heard people speak highly of Purdue's Philosophy and Literature program, but I heard that having a "Philosophy and Literature" PhD makes you less marketable for jobs. That could be completely wrong though, I'm just going with what a few of my profs told me. The program seems to fit my intersts VERY well, which is what is most important, right? I also don't mind about the not ranked thing. Many of the PhD programs that I will be applying to are "not ranked," yet they're all still super competitive. Crazy process out there.

I may have to take the plunge and pay for a prep-course. One of my professors was a GRE/SAT/LSAT tutor for a long time, so he gave me free tutoring this past summer. I learned some of the tricks, but I'm just such a goddamned bad standardized test taker. I can do quite well on the Verbal and Analytic, but the Math is killer for me. I'm not a bad mathematician, but I don't thrive on that section of the test by any stretch.

The application is such a crap shoot. Everyone applying has very high GPAs, great LoRs, good SoPs, good writing samples, etc. I wonder how they choose sometimes. Shit is crazy competitive and crazy grim.

[twwright]

Just a few cents. First, take a look at Warwick's Philosophy & Literature program. It's very good. Second, try to pick schools based on a much more precise measure than an `overarching' topic. It will become very difficult to pin this down at a lot of places. You'll get a better feel for what departments are like if you find some professors there who do things in the fields you like. Start by picking a paper you rea like, maybe one you cited. You should have lots of references from your thesis. Then look up the people who wrote the articles! Many times you'll find that they're still alive and around, doing something nice.

I'd recommend Michigan for phil/language (which is probably what you actually want if you care about truth and meaning), except I've heard Walton (the ace there) is difficult to work with (don't know how true this is). I would also suggest UMiami's department. Amie Thomasson is a precious aesthetician and metaphysician.

I also notice a discord between your interests. Without being too cut-and-dry, some of your interests seem to be analytically weighted and some are continentally weighted. (For example, you'll be hard-pressed to find a philosophy at, say, CUNY, who will share your interest in hermeneutics.) Make sure you can tell which departments fall into which stint. The New School, for example, trades in continental (perhaps even party-line continental) philosophy. You won't find too much Tarski or Quine. Continental specialties often make it difficult to get a job, since America is dominated primarily by analytic philosophers. Be sure you're clear on which department will offer what. Many departments will have proficiency in both subject areas, and I imagine that's where you'll like to go. Suggestions include UAlbany, UPenn, Syracuse, and UNC/UConn (particularly for William Lycan).

As for your original question about statements of purpose, I'd be glad to share mine privately with you. Drop me a message if you'd like me to, along with my acceptance/waitlist/rejection list. I also wrote a blog post not too long ago about how I went about writing my SoP, but I can't seem to find it. If I stumble on it, I'll share.

I'm not sure how true it is that you ought to take the Gourmet Report with a grain of salt. This week on Leiter Reports (philosophy blog by the founder of the PGR), Kieran Healy has been guest blogging about the PGR's results. He's a sociologist who's done some extensive studies on the PGR and his findings are starting to look like they're showing that the PGR really isn't all that skewed. Additionally, Schwitzgebel has made a post about the hiring practices among PGR schools. He noted that 100% of the top ten school's hires come from PhD programs in the top 20 of the PGR. Additionally, he notes that there is a very low likelihood of breaking into the top 50 for teaching if you don't attend a top 50 for the PhD. I am always slightly skeptical of Schwitzgebel (he seems to be very crude and, sometimes, accidentally pretentious), but I've heard general agreements from professors within my department and others'. The PGR, it seems, is the standard. And while that's no indication that a smart, hard-working individual can't achieve at a school not PGR-ranked, it's certainly an indication that PGR rank does matter.

Additionally, if you're coming from a school not generally known to have a renown philosophy department, it's good to look into acceptance rates from recent graduates. If most graduates from your school went to Rice, e.g., it might be good to apply to Rice (since your chances will be higher). Also, don't get too wide-eyed. A very, very smart student graduated from my university several years ago with a 4.0, highest Greek honors, Phi Beta Kappa, nearly 100-page Honors thesis which was granted approval by both the psychology and philosophy department, and had two summers spent doing x-phi/psych research at MIT and he was not accepted into any programs. I wondered how, what seemed like such an awesome student, could get rejected from a philosophy program. So, I searched for an answer. Here I found out that he had only applied to NYU, Rutgers, Oxford, Princeton, Harvard, and St. Andrews. Fortunately he applied to law programs, as well, as is now attending Harvard Law (turns out it's easier to get into their Law program than their Philosophy program). He simply aimed too high.

One way to think about admissions is like this: picture the smartest person you've ever met. Now multiple him by forty, and put all forty people into a competition for a single admission spot at a top-tier university. That's sort of the way philosophy admissions can be. =/ Can you get into a top program? Sure, someone does, right? Just make sure to aim for schools both at the top level, the middle level, and the bottom level. Your odds of success will be much higher.

Best of luck!

[Note: I make some cases in this post quite strongly than they might actually be. There is likely a hermeneutically-interested philosopher at CUNY, for example. It's just meant to give you an idea of the thing I'm talking about; I don't hold rigidly to anything I've said as if it's gospel or necessarily true.]

[ekant]

Twwright,

Thank you for that very in depth and thoughtful response. I really do appreciate it.

I will PM you for your SoP and acceptance/rejection/waitlist list.

Haha, I have indeed looked up those professors - those cited from my thesis - and have begun contacting them with general inquiries about the schools they profess at. You're right, it is very difficult to pin down schools by just an 'overarching' topic, but I'd like to look for schools with aesthetic heavy theorists, at least.

Michigan, because of their phil/language program, is a school that has alwasy intrigued me. UMiami has also been a prospective on my list for a while. There is a slight discord in my interests, mainly because I'm not sure exactly which route I want to go in yet. I figure graduate studies will help me flesh out my interests in a more cogent manner. Studying both English Literature (literary and critical theory) and Philosophy has been quite the fortune and misfortune. My interests end up falling within both the analytic and the continental paradigms. I already go to school in upstate NY and want to leave the central/upstate NY area (I don't think I can bear four more years here), so no go on Albany or Syracuse, but UPenn and UNC and UConn are all wonderful suggestions.

That is a crazy story about your friend, the one with the perfect GPA, 100 page honors thesis, etc. It seems as if he did simply aim too high. I'm glad he is successful in law, though. I have the fear of aiming too high as well. I really want to aim for schools at the top, middle, and bottom. I applied to 12 PhD programs in English this past round and got rejected from all 12. I did, though, apply to almost all top schools. It was naiive and silly. I also realized that I really want to study Philosophy, so I passed up the one offer I did get.

Thanks again! I'm going to PM you now.

[UnbearableNausea]

Additionally, if you're coming from a school not generally known to have a renown philosophy department, it's good to look into acceptance rates from recent graduates. If most graduates from your school went to Rice, e.g., it might be good to apply to Rice (since your chances will be higher). Also, don't get too wide-eyed. A very, very smart student graduated from my university several years ago with a 4.0, highest Greek honors, Phi Beta Kappa, nearly 100-page Honors thesis which was granted approval by both the psychology and philosophy department, and had two summers spent doing x-phi/psych research at MIT and he was not accepted into any programs. I wondered how, what seemed like such an awesome student, could get rejected from a philosophy program. So, I searched for an answer. Here I found out that he had only applied to NYU, Rutgers, Oxford, Princeton, Harvard, and St. Andrews. Fortunately he applied to law programs, as well, as is now attending Harvard Law (turns out it's easier to get into their Law program than their Philosophy program). He simply aimed too high.

One way to think about admissions is like this: picture the smartest person you've ever met. Now multiple him by forty, and put all forty people into a competition for a single admission spot at a top-tier university. That's sort of the way philosophy admissions can be. =/ Can you get into a top program? Sure, someone does, right? Just make sure to aim for schools both at the top level, the middle level, and the bottom level. Your odds of success will be much higher.

I would agree with these statements, but I disagree with their degree.

First, with regard to the friend mentioned, I should hope he did not send in a 100 page honors thesis in with his application, as I doubt anyone, even faculty at NYU, MIT, etc. would read any more than 10 or 15 pages of even a top-notch writing sample, if that. I would even go so far as to say sending that large of a writing sample in (unsolicited) is rude, and risks damaging your application. Additionally, as I have noted in another thread, if the results survey is to be trusted then individuals with 3.18 GPAs and the like can gain funded offers from mid-ranked programs. With the exception of general advice (i.e. do as well as you can on every aspect of the application) the application process is somewhat of a black box. Individuals with top stats are sometimes rejected, individuals with weaker areas are sometimes offered top spots. None of us here are in a position to offer more than anecdotal evidence or general advice from those in a position to know, like Eric S. and Brian L.

As for the competitive nature of top tier programs, I agree with the spirit of these comments but not the hyperbole. Yes, realistic candidates for the top ten PGR programs must not only be brilliant but have sterling records and a good measure of luck. That being said, the difference between realistic candidates for the 50th ranked program and the 10th ranked program is the difference between, say, 97th percentile and 99th percentile. It is well-documented that philosophy majors score higher on most, if not all, types of tests and one can infer from statistics like these that philosophy majors are some of the brightest students coming out of any given school. In light of this, admission into any ranked program is an indication of at least above-average intelligence. Cases like I note above where there exist some lacunae in the application and yet a funded position is offered from a top ranked program likely indicates an incredibly strong aspect that outweighs any weaknesses present. A very low GPA, relatively speaking, might be outweighed by an incredibly tight writing sample, though I would say the chances the inverse would be the case are slim.

As a side note, the suggestion to apply widely is a wise one. I would also add that one should pay careful attention to the ranking in specific areas of study and not simply the general rankings of the PGR. Programs that are not as highly ranked in general may nevertheless be ranked as a top program for a specific focus. Given the current (competitive) climate, a reduced number of spots in ranked programs, and the economy, it is wise to apply to more "safeties" and fewer reaches than in the past. This would include MA programs and unranked PhD programs.

[eugvdeb]

I think that the statement of purpose is fairly important because it seems to me that if it's concise, it's a good bet to be read by the committee, and I think the statement goes a long way in showing both that you are a quality candidate and that you are a good fit for the department. I would agree with the consensus here that the writing sampe is more important, but I might qualify that by saying that is true insofar as you've already made it to a certain cutoff which the other elements are helpful in getting you to. That's speculation, though, as always.

ekant, I was admitted to two of the programs that you have on your list, and will be attending one of them in the fall. If you message me on here with your email address, I'd be happy to send you application materials and answer questions, etc.

[Javslavin]

My two cents on the matter:

I agree that the writing sample is possibly the most important element to an application once you've made the first or second cut and departments are putting more than 10 mins into looking at your dossier. However, getting there is a bit more of a hurdle.

Naturally 'Good grades and good GREs keep doors open'. It also seems to me that glowing letters (a standard necessity) merely keep you in a holding-pattern. That is to say, unless you have a great name writing your letter, it seems that letters wont necessarily give you a boost at best, and may harm you at worse.

To me, the personal statement is a key piece that enables you, as an applicant, to do at least two things: i) make sure that your dossier gets into the right hands for further review, and ii) mitigate any moral hazard you might carry.

W/r/t (i): clearly indicating your interests (e.g., aesthetics), showing that you've done work in the subfield, and also indicating those faculty with whom you might work with in the department (a few active names should suffice) help guide your dossier towards whomever might have more experience in said subfield within the admissions committee. However, if the department isn't looking at bringing many or any grad students in this subfield in a given year, then such specificity only helps the department to cull your application for rejection.... which brings me to point (ii)

(ii): I think that this risk, one of specificity, is worth it unless you come from a very prestigious undergraduate program (e.g., Harvard) or have a very prestigious name attached to your dossier (e.g., Bob Brandom). Only in these conditions do I think that you can write your personal statement in a more 'airy' or personal manner: i.e., go on about how you got into philosophy, and how you've always been moved by the big questions etc. (Nb: I don't mean to sound condescending, or to assume that this is how you would write your sample, merely pointing out the counterfactual that if you were to write it as such, you take on a significant risk).

A quick example before I end. I come from a no-name, small, liberal arts college in the south. I drafted my personal statement in such a way as to highlight my accomplishments in the field, and to mitigate the moral hazard of coming from an un-prestigious institution with little candle-power in terms of philosophers. This was easier for me to do, as I had spent most of my junior year attempting to present at both undergraduate and professional conferences etc. In the end, my personal statement had very little in terms of personality, principally as I had been advised that if I wanted to get into a Philosophy PhD program that I, "Shouldn't take up fencing on the side". In order to balance out my lack of a 'personal narrative', one of my letter writers focused their letter on how I was a good student to work with (i.e., that I'm not an asshole).

To sum up, unless you're coming from a top undergrad school, or have support from a big name in the field, try to stick to your accomplishments and goals within philosophy in your personal statement. It might not work for everyone, but I've found it to be rather successful for me.

One last point about rankings, though. To some degree they are irrelevant, and things such as faculty involvement, how the grad students interact, the amount of funding and teaching are vastly more important than four spots on the PGR. However, all that being put aside, you should try to go to the highest ranked program you can get into - is there a selection bias in philosophy? Absolutely. (Nb: I do think that this probably doesn't apply as much to continental programs).

Hope some of this helps.

Edited March 25, 2012 by Javslavin

[twwright]

First, with regard to the friend mentioned, I should hope he did not send in a 100 page honors thesis in with his application[...] Additionally, as I have noted in another thread, if the results survey is to be trusted then individuals with 3.18 GPAs and the like can gain funded offers from mid-ranked programs. With the exception of general advice (i.e. do as well as you can on every aspect of the application) the application process is somewhat of a black box. Individuals with top stats are sometimes rejected, individuals with weaker areas are sometimes offered top spots. None of us here are in a position to offer more than anecdotal evidence or general advice from those in a position to know, like Eric S. and Brian L.

As for the competitive nature of top tier programs, I agree with the spirit of these comments but not the hyperbole. Yes, realistic candidates for the top ten PGR programs must not only be brilliant but have sterling records and a good measure of luck. [...] A very low GPA, relatively speaking, might be outweighed by an incredibly tight writing sample, though I would say the chances the inverse would be the case are slim.

Whoops. Didn't mean to say he sent the entire thesis; you're right, that would've been dumb. I was even told that around 8 pages is best (so long as they don't have a minimum 15pp. requirement).

I also certainly don't mean to say "don't apply to reach schools." My advice was more to be weary of applying to only reach schools. It also seems to be the case that direction of fit is an extremely important factor. The SoP is a chance to show how you fit like a puzzle piece into the school's system. Why you'd benefit from them, and why they'd benefit from you (without being pretentious). Since direction of fit is so important, getting into top ranked programs isn't impossible, but it's likely going to be a climb for many applicants. I think Eric S. suggests that the writing sample and SoP are the most important parts of the application, and I'd probably agree.

(In part, my motivation for agreeing is that I didn't have a good GPA. I had some family issues and some screwups freshman year. I also used an unpolished writing sample. I also had mediocre GRE scores. I'm certain my acceptances were based largely recommendation letters and my SoP. The university to which I'll attend fits like a glove around my interests, and my background and interests make me a good candidate for them.)

[objectivityofcontradiction]

Would any one care to PM there statement of purpose? Preferably some one who has applied to departments that are more continentally oriented. Thanks a lot.