On the Philosophy Writing Sample...

[pleasestaycalm]

I've reached an impasse with my writing sample: I've had multiple people critique it, each offering conflicting advice and obviously this would require some sort of balance between the conflicting parties. However what I'm struggling with figuring out is how "specialized" should the writing sample actually be?

My paper is on a topic in 20th century continental philosophy and I'm applying to programs that specialize in this area. I've had one advisor/critic tell me to refrain from elucidating the specific terminology and jargon relevant to the subject matter that I use in the paper because the people reading it are already familiar with the work of a major philosopher; however I've had another critic (who specializes in analytic philosophy) state that this is a tremendous risk because there is no guarantee that the graduate admissions committee member who reads the paper will have a working knowledge of this particular area of philosophy (in fact their approach to it could be inimical). But this is a perplexing question: if I'm applying to programs that specialize in 20th century continental philosophy, is it erroneous or presumptuous to assume that the reader will understand the jargon and terminology of the philosophical area that I have chosen? It is a philosophy paper after all, it seems rather difficult to write about a specific subject matter within philosophy without employing the use of philosophical terminology...

Thoughts?

[Bearcat1]

I have a rather specialized topic and I was advised by two professors who are helping me edit that I need to explain everything because the people I'm applying to work with may or may not be on the adcoms. So my writing sample might be read (judged) but people completely outside my area of interest, who therefore don't know what I'm talking about. I think the stuff that's common to philosophy is fine because you can assume that everyone reading it will be familiar with those concepts. But anything that's highly specific to a specialized area should be explained, at least enough so someone outside that area can still get the gist of the work. I hope that helps! I feel your frustration on the opposing reviews from those helping you edit.

[magog]

You don't need to explain the jargon any more than you would were you to use this paper as a seminar paper for a seminar on that particular thinker/subject. Presumably you are applying to programs (and have POIs) that do the type of work that you've written on, so, imo, if they don't know the jargon it's probably not a program you want to be in anyway. I think this is especially true for 20th century continental, assuming you're talking about the SPEP schools.

[pleasestaycalm]

Thanks Bearcat1 & magog!

[objectivityofcontradiction]

Content means nothing unless there is absolutely no one at the school you are applying to that would have a clue about the philosophers you are discussing and the basic ideas being expressed. It's all about showing them that you can write what would amount to a good graduate term paper. Worry more about the clarity of your argument and structure. My paper was super specific and I didn't change a thing about it. That's my take on it, anyways.

Edited December 11, 2012 by STMphilosophy