What do you mean by your "letters of rec. are excellent" ?

[PhD applicant]

I was just chatting with one of my letter writers today, making jokes about getting shutout and he said "don't worry, you'll get in," and I was like, "ha, ha." Now I'm wondering if the letter writers know more about how this shit works than I do. Or if they are just as delusional as I am.

Then I started thinking about what the hell is a good letter anyways? How do I know what mine look like next to yours? This is annoying the hell out of me. Is a generic but somewhat approving letter from a famous philosopher going to outweigh a non-generic abnormally detailed over-zealous letter from a nobody philosopher? How do these things work?

[csphdapplicant]

Well, it entirely depends on the people who are reading your applications but in general an excellent LOR from an not very known professor is better than a mediocre LOR from a famous person.

[MattDest]

I honestly have no idea how this works either. I imagine that famous philosophers' letters tend to weigh more because of name recognition. I bet that it helps even more if they know the letter writers or have experience with past applicants from that recommender. 

[TheVineyard]

Well, it entirely depends on the people who are reading your applications but in general an excellent LOR from an not very known professor is better than a mediocre LOR from a famous person.

 

I actually don't think this is true, to be honest. Maybe excellent from a person you have met and worked with before is better than mediocre from star-studded eminent lord of philosophy, but there is no way a bright shining letter from someone they have never heard of is any better than a polished turd.

Edited February 22, 2014 by TheVineyard

[philstudent1991]

At least one of mine said something along the lines of, one of the best in 15 years, his few equivalent students got phds in philosophy. but I feel that's a pretty middling letter with letter inflation these days lol

[PhD applicant]

At least one of mine said something along the lines of, one of the best in 15 years, his few equivalent students got phds in philosophy. but I feel that's a pretty middling letter with letter inflation these days lol

 

At least you know what it says. I opted not to have access, thinking it best to trust my choice of letter writers. And I haven't asked them what they wrote either. So all I can do is think "How awesome do they think I am next to how awesome yours think you are?" Totally pointless and unhelpful things to think about.

[dgswaim]

I actually don't think this is true, to be honest. Maybe excellent from a person you have met and worked with before is better than mediocre from star-studded eminent lord of philosophy, but there is no way a bright shining letter from someone they have never heard of is any better than a polished turd.

This is absurd.

[TheVineyard]

This is absurd.

 

Think what you want. If the person reading your application has never heard of your letter writers, there is no inherent trust, no understanding of good judgement, no "pipeline" of excellent students coming from this letter writer, etc. If you get a letter from a very well known professor who has produced many great students who have gone on to be very successful, that letter doesn't need to say "OMG THIS STUDENT SHOULD BE A PROFESSOR RIGHT NOW HES GREATEST STUDENT NORTH AMERICA" it can simply say, "This student receives my full endorsement and recommendation. I fully believe he is ready to purse graduate school right away" and that will be enough because of the professor's strong track record.

So no, it really isn't absurd. But it also isn't as comforting for those coming from schools without known professors. =/

Edited February 22, 2014 by TheVineyard

[philophilosopher]

Think what you want. If the person reading your application has never heard of your letter writers, there is no inherent trust, no understanding of good judgement, no "pipeline" of excellent students coming from this letter writer, etc. If you get a letter from a very well known professor who has produced many great students who have gone on to be very successful, that letter doesn't need to say "OMG THIS STUDENT SHOULD BE A PROFESSOR RIGHT NOW HES GREATEST STUDENT NORTH AMERICA" it can simply say, "This student receives my full endorsement and recommendation. I fully believe he is ready to purse graduate school right away" and that will be enough because of the professor's strong track record.

So no, it really isn't absurd. But it also isn't as comforting for those coming from schools without known professors. =/

I think it should be enough to have a PhD in philosophy to evaluate one's potential in the discipline. I would hope most adcoms would realize this as well. Baseball scouts are not the most eminent baseball players, but they can be excellent scouts because they recognize true potential and talent when they see it based on their experience and understanding of the necessary elements to succeed. I would imagine the same idea holds in philosophy professors writing letters of rec. they can evaluate someone's potential and write a letter according to the best of their knowledge. Granted they may not be right all the time (but who is?), but they certainly have the experience and familiarity to contribute a meaningful evaluation.

[PerpetualApplicant No More]

Think what you want. If the person reading your application has never heard of your letter writers, there is no inherent trust, no understanding of good judgement, no "pipeline" of excellent students coming from this letter writer, etc. If you get a letter from a very well known professor who has produced many great students who have gone on to be very successful, that letter doesn't need to say "OMG THIS STUDENT SHOULD BE A PROFESSOR RIGHT NOW HES GREATEST STUDENT NORTH AMERICA" it can simply say, "This student receives my full endorsement and recommendation. I fully believe he is ready to purse graduate school right away" and that will be enough because of the professor's strong track record.

So no, it really isn't absurd. But it also isn't as comforting for those coming from schools without known professors. =/

A few points:

 

1) I think this is exactly right, at least in terms of what actually happens. We can argue about why, or whether it should be differently, but multiple faculty at different institutions have said the exact same thing, and Schwitzgebel says so explicitly on his blog. Further, I think one piece of evidence for things being this way is to be found in the success of top M.A. programs in placing applicants. A large part of what they do is give you more chances to get A's, help you with your writing, etc. but also significant is the fact that the faculty at these programs are active-letter writers (if not also active researchers) who send multiple letters out each year. As such, the adcoms are familiar with what "X is in the top 5% of my class" means from that letter-writer more than one who teaches at a school that does not regularly produce multiple Ph.D. applicants annually.

 

2) To argue conceptually anyway, I don't think the scout analogy applies: the primary job of a scout is to assess talent for 'the next level,' whereas the primary job of an undergraduate faculty member is to teach.

 

3) More importantly, I think this whole thread is setting up the issue in a way that misses something important. Specifically, we're talking about our letters as individual pieces of our application, when in reality they are a set that tell our story together. I'll try to illustrate with my own case; I apologize for the vagueness that follows (I don't want to reveal too much about the content of my letters).

 

I have two letters that I'd call very strong ("I fully endorse X's candidacy for any program, X is among my top students") and one that I'd call ridiculously strong (pretty close to "X is my top student," which I call ridiculous because even I don't think it's true!). The first two letters are from a really famous professor at a top Ph.D. program nearby and from a junior but well-known faculty member at my MA program (which is in the leiter top 10). The third was from a postdoc at said local top Ph.D. program, with whom I did the most work out of my three writers.

 

In isolation, my third letter probably isn't *that* compelling: the guy is a postdoc and thus not terribly well-known. But I wanted it because I think it fits in well with my other letters: the other two set the stage for saying I'm a strong student, and the third drives the point home. It could (I guess) still be interpreted as a weak letter in virtue of being from a postdoc, but it could also now plausibly be interpreted as a strong letter: since more well-known people have already said that I'm good, and this letter fills in more details because I've worked with this guy the most. In other words, my hope was that adcoms thought "well, big names A and B say X is smart, and X has worked with C the most, so we'll add C's praise on top of A and B's" rather than "Eh, C sucks, let's just look at X's letters from A and B."

[philophilosopher]

2) To argue conceptually anyway, I don't think the scout analogy applies: the primary job of a scout is to assess talent for 'the next level,' whereas the primary job of an undergraduate faculty member is to teach.

 

You're completely missing the salient features of the analogy. The idea was not that the scouts and professors had similar "primary jobs." The idea behind the analogy was that both positions, while not mandating fame or eminence to be a scout or a professor, are in a position to evaluate the talent/potential/capacity for excellence in others and can evaluate others well.

[TheVineyard]

You're completely missing the salient features of the analogy. The idea was not that the scouts and professors had similar "primary jobs." The idea behind the analogy was that both positions, while not mandating fame or eminence to be a scout or a professor, are in a position to evaluate the talent/potential/capacity for excellence in others and can evaluate others well

 

A "good scout" is a scout that regularly promotes good talent, recommends the right people to the right programs, and does this with consistency, which is exactly the point I was making. Podunk State College typically won't have a professor who has a pipeline of sending great students to great programs.

[philophilosopher]

I guess the issue then is what exactly do you mean by "pipeline" and also if you think that the eminence of a letter-writer is more effective and successful than the familiarity of a the letter writer with the applicant. Also, I am wondering if you mean this descriptively and prescriptively. If you do mean this descriptively, how could you possibly know?

[Occam's Razorburn]

I'm going to take a wild guess here and suppose that the opinions of adcoms are also divided on the issue. The reason for the speculation is that I've heard contradictory advice on the matter, both from professors and elsewhere (blogs, etc.) As with basically any other time I've come across a situation with no definitive answer in this ridiculous process, I've tried to find a happy medium. Surely it looks best if one has a mix of letters from junior and senior faculty (or people with varying degrees of eminence)? I'm not sure how deeply the adcoms think about this sort of stuff, but to me, a mix suggests that an applicant is capable of impressing the more recognizable names but also not too uppity or concerned with looking good to work with genuinely talented junior faculty whose interests match up with their own--and who can then comment extensively on that work.

 

Non-famous philosophers are on adcoms also, and I can only assume that they, too, would like students to work with. I believe this is why I was told not just to name the most famous or prominent person in a department who does what I want to do in Statements of Purpose. 

[AquinasDuo]

This is something I have long wondered, and as such I have had numerous conversations on the subject. Two things I have gleaned are:

 

(1) The 'fame' of the letter writer is not really the important part, though name recognition is, and in the end the actual thing being weighed is trust. So, the writer does matter, yes - this is unavoidable - but do not get down if none of yours are 'big names' as they could still be known and trusted by the ad-com committee (or member thereof). Ad-coms are made of people making people decisions, and just as I would trust by best friend's judgement on what computer I need (he is a professional in the field) over that of Bill Gates (bias aside), so too will a committee member trust someone she went to grad school with or corresponds with regularly over some big name across the continent that they have never met. [Of course, an exception might be a big name who's last 10 students are now peppered across the Ivy League and producing excellent philosophy, but then the trust is in the record not really just the person.] 

 

(2) The best way to get a strong letter is to make it. I don't mean write one for the recommender, I mean make effort to gather/create some good things for them to write about. For instance, one of my letter writers had no special contact with me other than one course; however, I was the top student in that course, went to a small conference on campus and impressed him/her, ran into him/her at a major professional conference, and kept in contact. I could have just taken the course, asked for a letter, and probably gotten a decent one, but in making it a point to be noticed in a positive light I made the letter much stronger (or at least able to be much stronger). For another, one of my writers (my research director) found him/herself in a bit of a bind because I had not done exceedingly well in the course for which they had me. But, since I had been top student in other classes they were able to focus on this instead as objective evidence for their subjective support. 

[turambar85]

 

(2) The best way to get a strong letter is to make it. I don't mean write one for the recommender, I mean make effort to gather/create some good things for them to write about. For instance, one of my letter writers had no special contact with me other than one course; however, I was the top student in that course, went to a small conference on campus and impressed him/her, ran into him/her at a major professional conference, and kept in contact. I could have just taken the course, asked for a letter, and probably gotten a decent one, but in making it a point to be noticed in a positive light I made the letter much stronger (or at least able to be much stronger). For another, one of my writers (my research director) found him/herself in a bit of a bind because I had not done exceedingly well in the course for which they had me. But, since I had been top student in other classes they were able to focus on this instead as objective evidence for their subjective support. 

 

Have we started referring to definite people as him/her now?  

[AquinasDuo]

Have we started referring to definite people as him/her now?  

 

I know that at least two of my writers are lurkers, if not posters, and I want to insure that I am as tactful as can be. Nothing more :-)

[PhD applicant]

I know that at least two of my writers are lurkers, if not posters, and I want to insure that I am as tactful as can be. Nothing more :-)

Shit dude I didn't even think of that...

hey, lurkers, if you are my letter writers, wassup? Also, um, nothing personal or whatever? (have I identified myself? ...) uh...

[zblaesi]

I know that at least two of my writers are lurkers, if not posters, and I want to insure that I am as tactful as can be. Nothing more :-)

 

Lol, that's hilarious. Good thing I love all my letter writers!

[TheVineyard]

Lol, that's hilarious. Good thing I love all my letter writers!

 

Well-played.

[Rollontheground]

I did not read this whole thread, but I assume an "excellent letter" quantifies the applicant's position relative to other philosophy majors in the letter-writer's department. To qualify as excellent, I would assume that, from a small no-name school, a letter-writer would need to state that the applicant is in the top 2% or so, whereas I suspect top 10% would be sufficient from an Ivy, or PGR-endowed department. More personal comments that show potential couldn't hurt — e.g., "So and so's paper on X will be publishable after a few minor revisions" 

[PhD applicant]

I did not read this whole thread, but I assume an "excellent letter" quantifies the applicant's position relative to other philosophy majors in the letter-writer's department. To qualify as excellent, I would assume that, from a small no-name school, a letter-writer would need to state that the applicant is in the top 2% or so, whereas I suspect top 10% would be sufficient from an Ivy, or PGR-endowed department. More personal comments that show potential couldn't hurt — e.g., "So and so's paper on X will be publishable after a few minor revisions" 

Using this diagnosis then, a person from a small school would just be... screwed. Because no matter how high a percentage ranking their professors say they are in their department, they're just top 1% of crap, which is still crap. That's really too bad. There should be some way of getting useful recommendations from unrecognized programs.

[TheVineyard]

Using this diagnosis then, a person from a small school would just be... screwed. Because no matter how high a percentage ranking their professors say they are in their department, they're just top 1% of crap, which is still crap. That's really too bad. There should be some way of getting useful recommendations from unrecognized programs.

 

There are more significant risks for accepting an unknown student from an unknown department recommended from unknown people. I see no rational reason for taking that unnecessary risk when there will be an abundance of fantastic applicants with fantastic writers from PGR ranked schools.

In my opinion, those coming from unknown schools have to absolutely wow the adcom with their writing sample, as it is the "great equalizer" in the sense that brilliance can shine through.

Edited February 26, 2014 by TheVineyard

[DHumeDominates]

I really don't think it's that risky at all to accept a student with an excellent application who comes from a really good liberal arts college (say, Williams, Dartmouth, Middlebury). What would be especially risky about that? These students should be able to compete with excellent students from Princeton, Georgetown, Arizona, etc.

[TheVineyard]

I really don't think it's that risky at all to accept a student with an excellent application who comes from a really good liberal arts college (say, Williams, Dartmouth, Middlebury). What would be especially risky about that? These students should be able to compete with excellent students from Princeton, Georgetown, Arizona, etc.

 

Those aren't no-name schools...my entire post is about no-name schools...