Writing Sample Opinion

[bar_scene_gambler]

I'm having difficulty choosing a paper that I'd like to use as my writing sample, and I was wondering if you guys/girls could help. The first paper is a paper that I wrote in an upper-level course on Kant's Ethics. It attempts to find similarities between the Groundwork and the Metaphysics of Morals and Laozi's Tao Te Ching. I actually won an award for this paper at a conference, and out of everything I've written in the last few years, this is probably my best work, but it is also a bold comparison, which makes me nervous. I'm also concerned that I won't be taken seriously because it incorporates Chinese philosophy and because many of the schools that I'm applying to don't have faculty who work with Chinese philosophy. I'm worried that the faculty member who reads my paper won't know enough about Laozi in order to make an informed decision.

The second paper is one that I wrote for an upper-level epistemology course. It basically examines the question of whether or not experience is private. I use Norman Malcolm's, The Privacy of Experience, and Stanley Cavell's response, Must We Mean What We Say?, to examine the question of whether or not pain is a private experience, and the problems that I found with their interpretations. This paper is probably my best in terms of understanding the material that I was working with. The first comment I received on it was that it seemed like I was perfectly able to understand and explain both Malcolm's and Cavell's arguments. The problem is that my arguments against their interpretations are much weaker.

So my problem really boils down to choosing between a paper that is bolder and better shows my ability to do philosophy and a paper that is less bold but more technically sound. If anyone could give me their opinions on the matter and either challenge or confirm my concerns, I would be immensely grateful.

[objectivityofcontradiction]

Hi b_s_g, 

 

In my opinion (and the opinion of a few friends who were already in graduate school when I was asking them questions about WS, SOP, GREs, etc.) content or subject matter is the last thing you should be worried about when it comes to a writing sample. Unless it is blatantly clear that you have misrepresented a figure or given a highly suspect argument/interpretation that lacks textual support (which is obviously unlikely to be the case when it comes to the paper you choose to be your WS), members of admission committees are not going to be put off if they do not know much about the topic of your essay, nor are they going to be examining your essay to see what sort of take you might have on an issue. They aren't grading these papers. They don't care what they are about (unless they idea is way out in left field).. What matters is whether or not the paper shows that you are capable of doing good graduate level scholarship. This is not to say that it is a bad thing if the paper happens to be on a topic that you also include as an area of interest in your SOP. If your WS is on Nietzsche and you also mention wanting to focus on his thought during graduate school, this might then call for whoever is reading your WS to be a bit more conscientious about your knowledge of Nietzsche, i.e. to see whether or not you are 'on the right track.' In all likelihood some one will read the first page or two, flip to the middle to see whether or not you get down to some nitty-gritty examinations of a single passages or arguments, and then jump to the end. From what I have gathered it is more of a 'skimming' and less of a reading. I am nearly finished with my MA and as I recall when I arrived here last fall my supervisor (who don't get me wrong is fantastic) could barely remember what my WS was on. I took this to be standard. 

 

Check out Eric Schwitzgebel's (UC-Riverside) large entry on Graduate Level Philosophy in his blog The Splintered Mind, it is fantastic and extremely helpful. On this issue he says that the WS of 'promising candidates' are read front to back. He also says that he likes it when a WS is in line with a candidates SOP. So perhaps some of this depends on the school. Oh, and now that I think of it, UC-Riverside is also a pretty good place to study Nietzsche. You may want to look into it. 

Edited June 23, 2013 by STM17

[bar_scene_gambler]

STM,

Thank you so much for responding. The news that it's skimming is both good and bad. It means that, on the one hand, I'm not terribly concerned about someone being bothered by an imperfect connection between Kantian and Taoist ethics, but on the other hand, it also means that I'm uncertain as to what they're looking for in a candidate. I thought that they'd read through all of the writing samples, since they're supposed to be one of the major components of the application (a silly notion, now that I really think about it), but the fact that they don't means that I have no clue what the difference between a good writing sample and a bad one is aside from "is the writing clear and do they eventually get to the point?" And what exactly is it that makes someone a promising candidate?

And yeah, I've looked at Riverside. I'm just not sure I want to work with Maudemarie Clark or not. I haven't had the opportunity to look at her stuff, and since Leiter recommends her, I'm a little hesitant. 

[objectivityofcontradiction]

I wanted to quickly clarify what I said yesterday. I do not think that you should assume that your paper won't be read front-to-back. I actually think you should go into this whole business thinking that each and every part of your application will receive careful examination IF you are a 'promising candiate.' But assuming they will read the whole thing does not mean you should worry about what the paper is about. And the realistic POV to take would be that they may not read the whole essay. But assume they will! 

 

Re: 'promising candidate' --- Who knows what this means. If I had to make an initial guess it would be that the meaning of this phrase is contingent on the quality of your writing sample and the recommendations of your professors. 

[gatewayselect]

I'm having difficulty choosing a paper that I'd like to use as my writing sample, and I was wondering if you guys/girls could help. The first paper is a paper that I wrote in an upper-level course on Kant's Ethics. It attempts to find similarities between the Groundwork and the Metaphysics of Morals and Laozi's Tao Te Ching. I actually won an award for this paper at a conference, and out of everything I've written in the last few years, this is probably my best work, but it is also a bold comparison, which makes me nervous. I'm also concerned that I won't be taken seriously because it incorporates Chinese philosophy and because many of the schools that I'm applying to don't have faculty who work with Chinese philosophy. I'm worried that the faculty member who reads my paper won't know enough about Laozi in order to make an informed decision.

The second paper is one that I wrote for an upper-level epistemology course. It basically examines the question of whether or not experience is private. I use Norman Malcolm's, The Privacy of Experience, and Stanley Cavell's response, Must We Mean What We Say?, to examine the question of whether or not pain is a private experience, and the problems that I found with their interpretations. This paper is probably my best in terms of understanding the material that I was working with. The first comment I received on it was that it seemed like I was perfectly able to understand and explain both Malcolm's and Cavell's arguments. The problem is that my arguments against their interpretations are much weaker.

So my problem really boils down to choosing between a paper that is bolder and better shows my ability to do philosophy and a paper that is less bold but more technically sound. If anyone could give me their opinions on the matter and either challenge or confirm my concerns, I would be immensely grateful.

 

The usefulness of my advice will largely depend on where you are applying and hoping to attend.

 

So, to begin first of all: both of your papers seem to fall short in terms of general strategy. A stereotypical undergraduate paper is a "compare and contrast" paper. Some of these papers won't suffice for a good grade because all they do is... compare and contrast two different positions without actually producing an argument. Other "compare and contrast" papers will work fine for an undergraduate course because the undergraduate gives arguments as to why one philosophical position is better, or why both are mistaken, or what have you.

 

Either sort of strategy won't work well for graduate school, but this is the strategy I see your papers as following. In the first paper, you draw similarities between two different positions. In the second, you address two different positions and argue what is wrong with their interpretations.

 

That said, your second paper sounds more promising of the two. First, as you note, it is more technically sound. Second, the content but style of work will be more in line with how contemporary analytic philosophy is done today. In this way, a paper that is less bold would be advantageous. Third, you have a simple way to improve your second paper. Argue for an original position that is your own on whether experience is private or not.