Writing samples discussed by Leiter

[Griswald]

This post is probably of interest to most readers here. Any thoughts or comments?

[SelfHatingPhilosopher]

The original emailer is just clearly confused as to what goes on to MA programs and is speaking from ignorance.

 

First, as many commentators mentioned, MA students are by no means a distinct class of wealthy philosophy students. In fact, if anything it's the opposite. A number of students who seek an MA seek it because their undergraduate eudcation wasn't the best. If one came from wealthy parents, one would not have gotten a less than first rate education in the first place.

 

Second, the charge that writing samples aren't reflective of a student's work is just confused. First of all, philosophy has for a long time been collaborative. Pick up an article or book, and you'll see a list of acknowledgements of other philosophers who had suggestions that helped produce the final product. I don't see anything inherently wrong with feedback. Second, I think the emailer has an incredibly wrong impression regarding the sort of feedback MA students receive from professors. Thirdly, as one of the commentors mentioned, undergraduates often have writing samples that have experienced some sort of advisement as well. Many writing samples are products of senior theses where a student has worked with a professor closely on a paper.

 

The original email confirms my suspicions that I've mentioned before on this forum: "If I voted to admit the best 20 writing samples, they would nearly all come from MA programs." I'm offended though that he attributes this to some conspiracy from MA programs to game the system rather than the simple fact of what MA programs are purported to be: programs that fund promising philosophy students to devote two years of their time exclusively to philosophy at a graduate level. It's no wonder why MA students are submitting the best writing samples.

[ianfaircloud]

The original emailer is just clearly confused as to what goes on to MA programs and is speaking from ignorance.

 

First, as many commentators mentioned, MA students are by no means a distinct class of wealthy philosophy students. In fact, if anything it's the opposite. A number of students who seek an MA seek it because their undergraduate eudcation wasn't the best. If one came from wealthy parents, one would not have gotten a less than first rate education in the first place.

 

Second, the charge that writing samples aren't reflective of a student's work is just confused. First of all, philosophy has for a long time been collaborative. Pick up an article or book, and you'll see a list of acknowledgements of other philosophers who had suggestions that helped produce the final product. I don't see anything inherently wrong with feedback. Second, I think the emailer has an incredibly wrong impression regarding the sort of feedback MA students receive from professors. Thirdly, as one of the commentors mentioned, undergraduates often have writing samples that have experienced some sort of advisement as well. Many writing samples are products of senior theses where a student has worked with a professor closely on a paper.

 

The original email confirms my suspicions that I've mentioned before on this forum: "If I voted to admit the best 20 writing samples, they would nearly all come from MA programs." I'm offended though that he attributes this to some conspiracy from MA programs to game the system rather than the simple fact of what MA programs are purported to be: programs that fund promising philosophy students to devote two years of their time exclusively to philosophy at a graduate level. It's no wonder why MA students are submitting the best writing samples.

Wow, I couldn't agree more.  And I want to point out that the comments on this post (http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2014/02/phd-admissions-writing-samples-and-ma-programs.html) are very, very helpful.  I'm so glad that Leiter posted this.  I think there's been all kinds of confusion and ignorance, frankly, about MA programs.  I almost cried when I read this philosopher's letter to Leiter, because it's extremely disappointing to hear that someone with such power over our lives would be so mistaken about the relevant facts.

 

I love this comment, btw: "The Onion title for this 'concern' would read: 'Evidence That Hard Work Contributes to Success Sends Philosopher Into Moral Quandry'."

Edited February 3, 2014 by ianfaircloud

[philosophe]

I agree with your comments, but I also am concerned about the trend towards the MA basically being a requirement to get into a solid PhD program. I mean, even if you are funded, that's still an extra two years of opportunity cost, and results in almost 9 years to getting your PhD. This is still a significant obstacle for people who can't afford to not work, because of loans, families, etc. I also think the additional time is a significant deterrent for women, making it even more difficult for them to achieve and complete their PhD. 

 

I don't mean to generalize and I'm sure that there are many people that do not fit this mold, however it does seem to me that one is more likely to be able to complete this 9 year task if one is male, single, not planning on having a family anytime soon, and from a middle class or higher family. I'm not implying that people come from wealthy families so much as I am recognizing that this is more difficult perhaps to the point of impossible for the truly poor, or for women who want to have a family before age 35, or for those needing to repay undergrad loans. 

 

I realize I may be called out on this, but I do think it is a valid point.

 

In the end, while I understand the training is great and the experience is a plus, I still think in an ideal world, BA students should be able to seriously compete for a spot at the table.

Edited February 3, 2014 by philosophe

[SelfHatingPhilosopher]

I don't mean to generalize and I'm sure that there are many people that do not fit this mold, however it does seem to me that one is more likely to be able to complete this 9 year task if one is male, single, not planning on having a family anytime soon, and from a middle class or higher family. I'm not implying that people come from wealthy families so much as I am recognizing that this is more difficult perhaps to the point of impossible for the truly poor, or for women who want to have a family before age 35, or for those needing to repay undergrad loans.

 

The thing is, all I can say is that sometimes things aren't fair. I don't think the issue is that MA's are driving out BA's. Even without MA's, there'd be far too many applicants than there are PhD positions, and that there'd be far too many PhD positions than there are jobs. Not everyone can become a philosophy professor.

 

I think it's misdirected to be worried that the underprivileged are disadvantaged to become a philosophy professor. Everyone else is already enough disadvantaged. The philosophy admissions process shouldn't be concerned with correcting for histories-long woes of socio-economic discrimination. That should be the focus of government policy, so that there are no longer any underprivileged, and who can then compete on the same level as everyone else in competiting for MA and PhD slots.

Edited February 3, 2014 by SelfHatingPhilosopher

[alethicethic]

I agree with your comments, but I also am concerned about the trend towards the MA basically being a requirement to get into a solid PhD program. I mean, even if you are funded, that's still an extra two years of opportunity cost, and results in almost 9 years to getting your PhD. This is still a significant obstacle for people who can't afford to not work, because of loans, families, etc. I also think the additional time is a significant deterrent for women, making it even more difficult for them to achieve and complete their PhD. 

 

I don't mean to generalize and I'm sure that there are many people that do not fit this mold, however it does seem to me that one is more likely to be able to complete this 9 year task if one is male, single, not planning on having a family anytime soon, and from a middle class or higher family. 

 

While I understand the training is great and the experience is a plus, I still think in an ideal world, BA students should be able to seriously compete for open PhD slots. 

 

I share your concern for the relative unfriendliness of the modern academy towards women and families. Yet, I support MA programs, for a number of reasons already stated by others.

 

I'd rather see a restructuring of the discipline, the academy, and the social structure to be more humane in general, in terms of allowing young people to balance careers with families. Because in an academic career, first, you get the BA; possibly an MA; then a PhD; then the tenure clock; and then you're an associate professor, who are the busiest people in the academy. So really, only people who make senior professor could have children? In what, their 40s? At the height of their career? The time in an academic career when you have the most free time is during the dissertation-writing phase. But, most grad students can't afford to have children (who can, these days?)

 

The point is, two years on that kind of time scale makes little difference. And it's not healthy, necessarily, to plow straight through like that. Students get a lot of benefit from taking some time off between a BA and graduate school--in part to find themselves, and in part to be sure that they genuinely want to commit to this career path. So, I think that the solution is rather to change the overall structure, which currently reflects outmoded assumptions that the worker has a partner at home who cooks, cleans, and takes care of the children. 

[MattDest]

I'm glad that the commenters essentially set the original correspondent straight. It's really distressing that someone with this much obvious bias against MA programs is sitting on an admission committee. 

 

I agree with your comments, but I also am concerned about the trend towards the MA basically being a requirement to get into a solid PhD program. I mean, even if you are funded, that's still an extra two years of opportunity cost, and results in almost 9 years to getting your PhD. This is still a significant obstacle for people who can't afford to not work, because of loans, families, etc. I also think the additional time is a significant deterrent for women, making it even more difficult for them to achieve and complete their PhD. 

 

I don't mean to generalize and I'm sure that there are many people that do not fit this mold, however it does seem to me that one is more likely to be able to complete this 9 year task if one is male, single, not planning on having a family anytime soon, and from a middle class or higher family. I'm not implying that people come from wealthy families so much as I am recognizing that this is more difficult perhaps to the point of impossible for the truly poor, or for women who want to have a family before age 35, or for those needing to repay undergrad loans. 

 

I realize that you made a concerted effort to avoid having this post coming off negatively, but I'm worried about how harmful these types of generalizations are. Saying "I don't mean to generalize" and then making an extreme generalization is just as bad as saying "I don't mean to be a racist, but...". As many of the commenters on Leiter's blog have pointed out (about their own respective universities), the make-up of graduate students at my program simply do not fit this mold. 

 

Your (very true) point about it being hard for women and people without financial means is relevant to the entirety of academia. In the overall picture, the two years spent on a terminal MA (especially if it is at a well-funded program) is a drop in the bucket. 

[ianfaircloud]

I'll chime in more later.  Very nice discussion here.  I'll say quickly that I want to legitimize the views on both sides here (as expressed by Philosophe and Selfhating).  I think it's easy to give a "what about me" story here, and I think those deserve our attention.  Mine is a what-about-me story: I came from a weak background, and if it weren't for an MA program, I'd be out of consideration.  So what about me?  I was 17 years old when I made the decision to attend a very weak undergraduate institution.  I've matured a bit since then, and I'm glad I have the second chance via an MA program.

 

Oh, one more thing: Is there some proper way to use the vote-up and vote-down tools on this site?  What about a comment merits its being voted down?  Just wondering.  I think I'm applying different standards.  I'm not voting down posts merely because I disagree with the person.  But I noticed that one person has been voting down a lot of my posts (like almost every post of mine in another thread).  That feels like a misuse of the tool.  But maybe I have that wrong.

[Griswald]

In the overall picture, the two years spent on a terminal MA (especially if it is at a well-funded program) is a drop in the bucket. 

I find this claim hard to assess. People value their time differently, and it doesn't seem unreasonable to me that someone might count an extra two years spent doing an MA as a big deterrent. 

That said, I'd be interested in seeing some empirical data on how much longer it takes people that go the MA route to complete a PhD and find a job. It's plausible that it takes them longer because, as has been pointed out, completing an MA takes 2-3 years, and most of the credit doesn't transfer. But it also seems plausible to me that students entering PhD programs with an MA will be more focussed and determined to finish the PhD quickly. If MA holders are much less likely to languish as ABDs for many years, it could be that their average time to completion of the PhD is shorter than students who enter with BAs.

[MattDest]

Oh, one more thing: Is there some proper way to use the vote-up and vote-down tools on this site?  What about a comment merits its being voted down?  Just wondering.  I think I'm applying different standards.  I'm not voting down posts merely because I disagree with the person.  But I noticed that one person has been voting down a lot of my posts (like almost every post of mine in another thread).  That feels like a misuse of the tool.  But maybe I have that wrong.

 

I wonder this too. For my own part, I mostly use it if I think the post is aggressive/mean-spirited, or if I think it has bad advice that one shouldn't follow. I don't use it for posts that I merely disagree with. I disagree with philosophe's post in this thread, but it was a respectful post that engaged the topic.

 

When dfindley used to write something like "I just want a smoking hot wife to cook for me" or that we were all fools who worshipped the wrong philosophical gods... well... downvote. 

[MatintaP]

The thing is, all I can say is that sometimes things aren't fair. I don't think the issue is that MA's are driving out BA's. Even without MA's, there'd be far too many applicants than there are PhD positions, and that there'd be far too many PhD positions than there are jobs. Not everyone can become a philosophy professor.

 

I think it's misdirected to be worried that the underprivileged are disadvantaged to become a philosophy professor. Everyone else is already enough disadvantaged. The philosophy admissions process shouldn't be concerned with correcting for histories-long woes of socio-economic discrimination. That should be the focus of government policy, so that there are no longer any underprivileged, and who can then compete on the same level as everyone else in competiting for MA and PhD slots.

I'm sorry, but "that sometimes things aren't fair" is no legitimate argument. Sure, finding a job as a philosophy professor is to an extent a bleak prospect for everyone. That, however, does not mean that it is not infinitely more difficult for women and other historically excluded minorities to go to grad school in philosophy or that it must continue to be so. You cannot simply acquiesce to systematic injustice simply because that is the way things are or because "not everyone can be a philosophy professor." That is the worst kind of meritocratic fatalism.

And I think it's wrong to suppose that the government is the sole entity responsible for correcting historical injustice. It is also incumbent on individuals and other institutions, including universities to correct the wrongs in which they also have historically partaken.

 

Independently of everyone's particular experience with MA's, the bottom line is that funded MA's are far scarcer than funded PhD's. Even if funded spots in PhD programs are already scarce enough, it seems to me that few people would be inclined to go into debt to get an unfunded PhD, whereas many, given their professional goals, would feel forced to do an unfunded MA, if they think it will improve their chances of getting into a funded PhD. Now, you could say that it is their own personal choice, for which they are responsible, but I think there is something really unfair about a person having to either give up on their professional goals or acquire huge amounts of debt to achieve it. To me that is a problem to be contended with, despite the scarcity of academic positions. That sometimes things aren't fair just won't do it.

[Table]

The comment sent to Leiter is pretty bizarre. I'm glad the person sent it to him, though, so it could get the responses it is getting. This is presumably not the only person with weird misconceptions about MA programs.

 

I agree with your comments, but I also am concerned about the trend towards the MA basically being a requirement to get into a solid PhD program. I mean, even if you are funded, that's still an extra two years of opportunity cost, and results in almost 9 years to getting your PhD. This is still a significant obstacle for people who can't afford to not work, because of loans, families, etc. I also think the additional time is a significant deterrent for women, making it even more difficult for them to achieve and complete their PhD. 

 

I don't mean to generalize and I'm sure that there are many people that do not fit this mold, however it does seem to me that one is more likely to be able to complete this 9 year task if one is male, single, not planning on having a family anytime soon, and from a middle class or higher family. I'm not implying that people come from wealthy families so much as I am recognizing that this is more difficult perhaps to the point of impossible for the truly poor, or for women who want to have a family before age 35, or for those needing to repay undergrad loans. 

 

I completely agree. There are disciplines where an MA is all but required to get in a quality phd program, and I would hate to see philosophy go in that direction.

This isn't anti-MA. I think MA programs a great for people who, like ianfaircloud brings up, come from weak undergraduate institutions or found philosophy late in their undergraduate career. But I think it would be really unfortunate if an MA became a necessary step toward getting a phd. I was disappointed to see that several of the comments on the Leiter thread seemed to favor this. I think philosophe's concerns are all good ones. And if it happened, remember, most of the people that apply straight to phd programs would be applying to MA programs. It would get much more competitive on the MA-level. And since MA spots are much less likely to be funded, that would probably mean many more people accumulating debt. 

 

If departments were to rank applicants purely based on quality of writing sample, the highest-ranked applicants would probably be people who had solid undergrad phil educations and then also got MAs. If admissions committees didn't take time in philosophy into account, MAs would presumably become essentially mandatory. And if admissions committees are looking for the people with the most potential for their program, and not people who can produce the best philosophy now, it only makes sense to take the extent of an applicant's philosophy background into account when evaluating their writing sample. That doesn't mean just discount beautiful work from MA applicants; some people in MA programs don't really have more philosophy experience than others in BA programs. 

 

 

The thing is, all I can say is that sometimes things aren't fair. I don't think the issue is that MA's are driving out BA's. Even without MA's, there'd be far too many applicants than there are PhD positions, and that there'd be far too many PhD positions than there are jobs. Not everyone can become a philosophy professor.

 

I think it's misdirected to be worried that the underprivileged are disadvantaged to become a philosophy professor. Everyone else is already enough disadvantaged. The philosophy admissions process shouldn't be concerned with correcting for histories-long woes of socio-economic discrimination. That should be the focus of government policy, so that there are no longer any underprivileged, and who can then compete on the same level as everyone else in competiting for MA and PhD slots.

 

This comment is kind of shocking to me. "Sometimes things aren't fair" is not a good response to a worry that a new trend may unfairly disadvantage certain groups. Trying not to have admissions standards that are disproportionately prohibitive to members of disadvantaged groups is not trying to "correct for histories-long woes of socio-economic discrimination." What? 
"I think it's misdirected to be worried that the underprivileged are disadvantaged to become a philosophy professor. Everyone else is already enough disadvantaged." It's hard to become a philosophy professor, so there's no reason to worry if the standards especially disadvantage the underprivileged? What? 

 

I'd rather see a restructuring of the discipline, the academy, and the social structure to be more humane in general, in terms of allowing young people to balance careers with families. … The point is, two years on that kind of time scale makes little difference. 

 

Your (very true) point about it being hard for women and people without financial means is relevant to the entirety of academia. In the overall picture, the two years spent on a terminal MA (especially if it is at a well-funded program) is a drop in the bucket. 

First, remember that 2 years can make a big difference to women in their early-30s who want to have biological children.
In addition to the time, though, doing an MA is a significant additional risk. You do an MA and then hopefully get into a phd program, and then hopefully finish, and then hopefully get a job. For people with little to no financial safety net, adding another layer of uncertainty is a big deal. Especially if doing an MA involves debt for most people, as it presumably would if MAs became essential required.
"Just a drop in the bucket" is still adding to the bucket. 
 

 

I realize that you made a concerted effort to avoid having this post coming off negatively, but I'm worried about how harmful these types of generalizations are. Saying "I don't mean to generalize" and then making an extreme generalization is just as bad as saying "I don't mean to be a racist, but...". As many of the commenters on Leiter's blog have pointed out (about their own respective universities), the make-up of graduate students at my program simply do not fit this mold. 

I really don't see any "extreme generalization" in "one is more likely to be able to complete this 9 year task if one is male, single, not planning on having a family anytime soon, and from a middle class or higher family." It's easier to complete an economic-risk-intensive process if you're from a privileged background. It's easier to complete a time-intensive process if you don't have or want a family or wouldn't need to be a primary caregiver. These are pretty mundane facts. 

And remember that philosophe was talking about MAs becoming essentially required. Right now, many people from elite undergraduate institutions and especially privileged backgrounds get into phd programs directly from their BAs. The makeup of MA students would change if almost everyone needed one. 

(And uh even if philosophe had said "all MA students are wealthy white men!" or something… No, that would not be just as bad as saying something racist. Really not even close.)

[MattDest]

First, remember that 2 years can make a big difference to women in their early-30s who want to have biological children.

In addition to the time, though, doing an MA is a significant additional risk. You do an MA and then hopefully get into a phd program, and then hopefully finish, and then hopefully get a job. For people with little to no financial safety net, adding another layer of uncertainty is a big deal. Especially if doing an MA involves debt for most people, as it presumably would if MAs became essential required.

"Just a drop in the bucket" is still adding to the bucket. 

 

This is a good point. But I think that this badly misrepresents the reality of who is attending MA programs. The reason that this risk is becoming increasingly necessary is that people from less prestigious undergraduate institutions are wanting to get accepted into top-tier programs, but find it impossibly difficult to gain admission into them. An applicant might apply to PhD programs and MA programs as an undergrad, and get roundly rejected by PhD programs but accepted into a few MA programs. These applicants are surely taking another risk by going to an MA institution. But the alternative option for those in less prestigious universities seems to me to forgo a career in academia altogether. (See Eric Schwitzgebel's post, Sorry, Cal State Students, No Princeton Grad School for You!)

 

If you look at the population of California State University students (here), and compare it to more prestigious universities, I imagine you will find that the former tends to have a higher population of under-represented minorities, and especially financially-disadvantaged students. This seems to show that an MA acts as an equalizer for this problem, rather than exacerbating it. 

 

So, when I worry about generalizations that an MA program tends to work against disadvantaged minorities, I'm worried that these generalizations are not accounting for the rather severe institutional disadvantages that make the MA programs necessary in the first place. 

 

 

 

 

(And uh even if philosophe had said "all MA students are wealthy white men!" or something… No, that would not be just as bad as saying something racist. Really not even close.)

 

Sorry if my comparison wasn't clear. It was that if you preface a statement with, "I don't want to generalize" and then make a generalization, this is similarly bad to saying "I'm not a racist" and then making a racist claim. Not because of the content of the claims, but because of the self-contradictory nature of them. I realize that re-reading my post makes it sound as though I think these generalizations are equivalent to the harms of racist comments, but that was not my intention. 

[philosophe]

 

The comment sent to Leiter is pretty bizarre. I'm glad the person sent it to him, though, so it could get the responses it is getting. This is presumably not the only person with weird misconceptions about MA programs.

 

 

I completely agree. There are disciplines where an MA is all but required to get in a quality phd program, and I would hate to see philosophy go in that direction.

This isn't anti-MA. I think MA programs a great for people who, like ianfaircloud brings up, come from weak undergraduate institutions or found philosophy late in their undergraduate career. But I think it would be really unfortunate if an MA became a necessary step toward getting a phd. I was disappointed to see that several of the comments on the Leiter thread seemed to favor this. I think philosophe's concerns are all good ones. And if it happened, remember, most of the people that apply straight to phd programs would be applying to MA programs. It would get much more competitive on the MA-level. And since MA spots are much less likely to be funded, that would probably mean many more people accumulating debt. 

 

If departments were to rank applicants purely based on quality of writing sample, the highest-ranked applicants would probably be people who had solid undergrad phil educations and then also got MAs. If admissions committees didn't take time in philosophy into account, MAs would presumably become essentially mandatory. And if admissions committees are looking for the people with the most potential for their program, and not people who can produce the best philosophy now, it only makes sense to take the extent of an applicant's philosophy background into account when evaluating their writing sample. That doesn't mean just discount beautiful work from MA applicants; some people in MA programs don't really have more philosophy experience than others in BA programs. 

 

 

 

This comment is kind of shocking to me. "Sometimes things aren't fair" is not a good response to a worry that a new trend may unfairly disadvantage certain groups. Trying not to have admissions standards that are disproportionately prohibitive to members of disadvantaged groups is not trying to "correct for histories-long woes of socio-economic discrimination." What? 

"I think it's misdirected to be worried that the underprivileged are disadvantaged to become a philosophy professor. Everyone else is already enough disadvantaged." It's hard to become a philosophy professor, so there's no reason to worry if the standards especially disadvantage the underprivileged? What? 

 

 

First, remember that 2 years can make a big difference to women in their early-30s who want to have biological children.

In addition to the time, though, doing an MA is a significant additional risk. You do an MA and then hopefully get into a phd program, and then hopefully finish, and then hopefully get a job. For people with little to no financial safety net, adding another layer of uncertainty is a big deal. Especially if doing an MA involves debt for most people, as it presumably would if MAs became essential required.

"Just a drop in the bucket" is still adding to the bucket. 

 

 

I really don't see any "extreme generalization" in "one is more likely to be able to complete this 9 year task if one is male, single, not planning on having a family anytime soon, and from a middle class or higher family." It's easier to complete an economic-risk-intensive process if you're from a privileged background. It's easier to complete a time-intensive process if you don't have or want a family or wouldn't need to be a primary caregiver. These are pretty mundane facts. 

And remember that philosophe was talking about MAs becoming essentially required. Right now, many people from elite undergraduate institutions and especially privileged backgrounds get into phd programs directly from their BAs. The makeup of MA students would change if almost everyone needed one. 

(And uh even if philosophe had said "all MA students are wealthy white men!" or something… No, that would not be just as bad as saying something racist. Really not even close.)

 

 

Well said on every front, Table.

[DHumeDominates]

I'll chime in more later.  Very nice discussion here.  I'll say quickly that I want to legitimize the views on both sides here (as expressed by Philosophe and Selfhating).  I think it's easy to give a "what about me" story here, and I think those deserve our attention.  Mine is a what-about-me story: I came from a weak background, and if it weren't for an MA program, I'd be out of consideration.  So what about me?  I was 17 years old when I made the decision to attend a very weak undergraduate institution.  I've matured a bit since then, and I'm glad I have the second chance via an MA program.

 

Oh, one more thing: Is there some proper way to use the vote-up and vote-down tools on this site?  What about a comment merits its being voted down?  Just wondering.  I think I'm applying different standards.  I'm not voting down posts merely because I disagree with the person.  But I noticed that one person has been voting down a lot of my posts (like almost every post of mine in another thread).  That feels like a misuse of the tool.  But maybe I have that wrong.

 

You may be referring to Coggy. (S)he has been voting you down because (s)he disagrees with you about the whole Colorado, Boulder thing, I imagine. I also use the vote-down tool to indicate that I disagree with something, find it distasteful, needlessly argumentative, unproductive, etc. ... But I don't think anyone should really care about one's "reputation" on a site like this. It's basically irrelevant.

Edited February 4, 2014 by DHumeDominates

[ianfaircloud]

You may be referring to Coggy. (S)he has been voting you down because (s)he disagrees with you about the whole Colorado, Boulder thing, I imagine. I also use the vote-down tool to indicate that I disagree with something, find it distasteful, needlessly argumentative, unproductive, etc. ... But I don't think anyone should really care about one's "reputation" on a site like this. It's basically irrelevant.

 

All of the above.