Dear 2015 applicants, here is what we have learned from the 2014 season

[philstudent1991]

2015, don't let anyone tell you that you don't have enough qualifications to get accepted. Apply to reach schools, and apply bravely. Miracles do happen here on TGC (not just on 34th Street). 

Yes, but really research where you would be a good fit. Don't be a dfindley, and apply to the top schools despite weak everything. Research and see what makes a "strong" applicant. Believe in yourself and be confident, but realize that many applications are over 100 dollars each, and you shouldn't apply based on a whim or on unrealistic expectation. But like philosophia said, miracles do happen. You miss 100% of the shots you don't take, etc. etc.

[PHILSTUDENT22]

Take the GRE very seriously. Make sure to at least score somewhere in the 90th+ percentile in verbal, and aim for at least 75th+ percentile in math. writing doesn't matter at all (within reason). Take a look at the scores posted from accepted students on grad cafe (it's disgusting how many of them are perfect or near-perfect).

Don't bitch about how the GRE is irrelevant to philosophical promise - everyone knows that. But the fact of the matter is, sub-par scores can and will likely get you shut out. That's just how the system works. 

I managed to get accepted in the 20-40 range and wait-listed in the top 15 with a GRE verbal of 160 (84%). But this is the lowest successful score I've seen, and I know it hurt me at other places.The rest of my stats are perfect (4.0 GPA from a well-ranked school, excellent letters from top people in their field, lots of graduate classes and conferences, publishable writing sample, etc.). 

In retrospect, I wish I took the time to study thousands of arcane vocab words. If you are well-read, you may already have a high vocabulary and get in the 90s without studying. Take a practice exam or two to find out. If not, study for several months. Flash cards all day every day is the only way. 

 

 

[Monochrome Spring]

Don't put all of your eggs in one basket. Make sure that there are multiple professors at each program that you would be willing to work with. Your top choice may turn out to be a poor fit for you, move to another university, etc.

[greencoloredpencil]

Take the GRE very seriously. Make sure to at least score somewhere in the 90th+ percentile in verbal, and aim for at least 75th+ percentile in math. writing doesn't matter at all (within reason). Take a look at the scores posted from accepted students on grad cafe (it's disgusting how many of them are perfect or near-perfect).

Don't bitch about how the GRE is irrelevant to philosophical promise - everyone knows that. But the fact of the matter is, sub-par scores can and will likely get you shut out. That's just how the system works. 

I managed to get accepted in the 20-40 range and wait-listed in the top 15 with a GRE verbal of 160 (84%). But this is the lowest successful score I've seen, and I know it hurt me at other places.The rest of my stats are perfect (4.0 GPA from a well-ranked school, excellent letters from top people in their field, lots of graduate classes and conferences, publishable writing sample, etc.). 

In retrospect, I wish I took the time to study thousands of arcane vocab words. If you are well-read, you may already have a high vocabulary and get in the 90s without studying. Take a practice exam or two to find out. If not, study for several months. Flash cards all day every day is the only way. 

 

 

 

This is so very true. For me the problem was the math portion, I was in the 90s for my verbal percentile but below the 70th for my math. Really study for it. Take it seriously. I thought I wouldn't have to worry about it as a philosophy applicant, especially coming from a very highly regarded school and having very strong other credentials as part of my application. This wasn't true. One of my letter writers even told me that it was the biggest problem in my application. 

[Hypatience]

I got a perfect verbal but only 155 on the quant (60something percentile) and I managed some top offers. I had to write it twice to even get that quant score. I think even if your math is weak, you can squeak through at the great places if you have a good application otherwise. Just wanted to say that there's hope if, like me, you're completely hopeless with numbers.

[ungerdrag]

Great discussion so far. Hypatience, PHLSTUDENT22, monochrome spring and others are making solid points.

 

I'll just add that the writing sample is probably the most important part of your application. Four things about that:

1. Write something you know a lot about. (If you don't know a lot about any one topic yet, get a short reading list from a professor.)
2. Try to keep your main idea simple. Your first couple of paragraphs should summarize it clearly—so clearly that even people working in other areas will know what you're trying to say.
3. You won't win points for sounding dismissive, but you will for sounding fair-minded.
4. Please, please, please: simplify your prose. Avoid clutter, delete fancy words, use short sentences, and stay on topic.

Hope that helps. Good luck, future folks.

[dgswaim]

Whatever you do, make sure to be underdrag and you'll be just fine. Otherwise it's really a bit dicey. 

[humean_skeptic]

Whatever you do, make sure to be underdrag and you'll be just fine. Otherwise it's really a bit dicey. 

 

Wish I could up-vote this five times instead of just once. 

 

And I have to wonder: Would David Hume himself get into all the Top Ten Leiter-ranked PhD programs in Philosophy?

[humean_skeptic]

Great discussion so far. Hypatience, PHLSTUDENT22, monochrome spring and others are making solid points.

 

I'll just add that the writing sample is probably the most important part of your application. Four things about that:

1. Write something you know a lot about. (If you don't know a lot about any one topic yet, get a short reading list from a professor.)
2. Try to keep your main idea simple. Your first couple of paragraphs should summarize it clearly—so clearly that even people working in other areas will know what you're trying to say.
3. You won't win points for sounding dismissive, but you will for sounding fair-minded.
4. Please, please, please: simplify your prose. Avoid clutter, delete fancy words, use short sentences, and stay on topic.

Hope that helps. Good luck, future folks.

 

Good advice! 

[lesage13]

2015 applicants might find the APA Guide to Graduate Programs helpful (http://www.apaonline.org/?gradguide).

[ianfaircloud]

Take the GRE very seriously. Make sure to at least score somewhere in the 90th+ percentile in verbal, and aim for at least 75th+ percentile in math. writing doesn't matter at all (within reason). Take a look at the scores posted from accepted students on grad cafe (it's disgusting how many of them are perfect or near-perfect).

Don't bitch about how the GRE is irrelevant to philosophical promise - everyone knows that. But the fact of the matter is, sub-par scores can and will likely get you shut out. That's just how the system works. 

I managed to get accepted in the 20-40 range and wait-listed in the top 15 with a GRE verbal of 160 (84%). But this is the lowest successful score I've seen, and I know it hurt me at other places.The rest of my stats are perfect (4.0 GPA from a well-ranked school, excellent letters from top people in their field, lots of graduate classes and conferences, publishable writing sample, etc.). 

 

 

I just want to offer an alternative view, for what it's worth. And before I do, I'll just put this out there: I work for a major national test-prep company -- in fact, I teach GRE -- and I score quite well on these and other standardized tests.  My opinion isn't jaundiced by frustration over poor scores. (Of course that's not to say that anyone else's opinion is jaundiced.) 

 

There's no doubt in my mind that departments use cut-offs. But I think 90+ verbal and 75+ quantitative is much higher than what's necessary. I also think that faculty on admission committees tend to know very little about how to interpret GRE scores. If the score looks even decent "on paper" -- say, 155+ quant and 160+ verbal -- then that's probably enough for most members of admission committees. Some philosophers don't care at all about the scores and will literally ignore them. Some departments don't require scores. The GRE is becoming less relevant, based on my experience as a teacher of GRE-prep, particularly after the revisions on August 1, 2011.

 

I think I wasted a tremendous amount of time prepping for the GRE several years ago. I went from the 49th percentile to the 99th in verbal. That was overkill. Get yourself into the 160s -- a 165 is a fantastic score, in my view -- and move on. I'm convinced that no one has been admitted to a dream program in philosophy because of a perfect or near-perfect GRE score.

 

There are components of the application that are tremendously important. The writing sample, the letters, the transcripts. And then much of what matters is beyond your control. In life, many of us believe that much more is within our power than is the case. We believe this because we have to believe it. But in truth, much of what happens to us is the product of chance and circumstance. This is particularly true in philosophy admissions, because of the ridiculous level of competition, the subjectivity of the review process, and the mathematical improbability of success.  

 

So give it your best, without doing harm in the process. Then afterward, if you fail (as I may have), then you move on knowing that you gave it a good shot.

Edited March 11, 2014 by ianfaircloud

[TheVineyard]

Here's my (new) summary:

You don't win this war without people to fight for you.

Make it your undergraduate life's work to get people excited about you, invested in your success, and willing to sacrifice for your well-being. Be the most interested and most engaged student in the department. Develop a "hit list" of professors to take and get letters from. Find ones that you think could help you reach your goals, take classes with them, ask for letters early, and consult these professors often. Do what graduate students do.

This, I believe, was the key to my application-season success coming from a philosophy program that hasn't placed a student into a top 30 school in 15 years or a top 50 school in 7.

Edited March 11, 2014 by TheVineyard

[PHILSTUDENT22]

I just want to offer an alternative view, for what it's worth. And before I do, I'll just put this out there: I work for a major national test-prep company -- in fact, I teach GRE -- and I score quite well on these and other standardized tests.  My opinion isn't jaundiced by frustration over poor scores. (Of course that's not to say that anyone else's opinion is jaundiced.) 

 

There's no doubt in my mind that departments use cut-offs. But I think 90+ verbal and 75+ quantitative is much higher than what's necessary. I also think that faculty on admission committees tend to know very little about how to interpret GRE scores. If the score looks even decent "on paper" -- say, 155+ quant and 160+ verbal -- then that's probably enough for most members of admission committees. Some philosophers don't care at all about the scores and will literally ignore them. Some departments don't require scores. The GRE is becoming less relevant, based on my experience as a teacher of GRE-prep, particularly after the revisions on August 1, 2011.

 

I think I wasted a tremendous amount of time prepping for the GRE several years ago. I went from the 49th percentile to the 99th in verbal. That was overkill. Get yourself into the 160s -- a 165 is a fantastic score, in my view -- and move on. I'm convinced that no one has been admitted to a dream program in philosophy because of a perfect or near-perfect GRE score.

 

There are components of the application that are tremendously important. The writing sample, the letters, the transcripts. And then much of what matters is beyond your control. In life, many of us believe that much more is within our power than is the case. We believe this because we have to believe it. But in truth, much of what happens to us is the product of chance and circumstance. This is particularly true in philosophy admissions, because of the ridiculous level of competition, the subjectivity of the review process, and the mathematical improbability of success.  

 

So give it your best, without doing harm in the process. Then afterward, if you fail (as I may have), then you move on knowing that you gave it a good shot.

I think I agree with most of this. "Good GREs certainly won't get you in, but they keep you from getting cut." is the slogan to take home. Getting into the mid-high 160 range for verbal is really a must I think (and this corresponds nicely to 90+ percentile). You simply won't have knowledge of how much the particular committee values GRE scores, and so it's in your best interest to take them seriously. Don't give a lazy committee member a reason to throw out your app prematurely.  

The importance of GRE scores is hotly debated. Everyone has different evidence that they rely on, and often (or so I think) people reach claims that their evidence doesn't really support. So for transparency, here my evidence:

1) First-person testimony from a committee member at Notre Dame claiming that several of his/her fellow committee members valued the GRE very highly as the "only objective piece of information about a student that couldn't be fudged" -  and moreover, they thought low GREs discredited (i) GPA (likely due to grade inflation), and (ii) writing sample (likely due to level of faculty help).  

So, depending on the committee, a low GRE score may infect the rest of your application.

2) Acceptance results posted on grad cafe. It's truly disgusting how many perfect 170s and 169s get offers from the top 15 PGR schools. One possible explanation is that the best students happen to have the best GRE scores. (Ask yourself if you truly believe that!) Even if this were true, however, you would still see at least a couple outliers - but there are none to be found. Of course, its certainly true that some rejects have higher scores than the original acceptances - and this shows that the GRE isn't weighed as heavily as other factors...but we all know that. The point is simply that it's important, even if less so than other parts of your app. 

3) Many committees have openly admitted that perfect or near-perfect GRE scores (and GPA) make you a good university fellowship candidate (usually comes with more money and less TA responsibilities for a few years). And given that committees know full well that many of their first offers will be rejected, this lends incentive to give several first offers to people with such GRE scores. 

Those are the main points that support my belief - there are others, but less significant. 

It would be interesting to start a new thread titled something like "lowest successful GRE scores" - maybe there are some outliers that are just being shy. This would be good for future applicants to see. 

 

[Table]

2) Acceptance results posted on grad cafe. It's truly disgusting how many perfect 170s and 169s get offers from the top 15 PGR schools. One possible explanation is that the best students happen to have the best GRE scores. (Ask yourself if you truly believe that!) Even if this were true, however, you would still see at least a couple outliers - but there are none to be found.

 

I only looked at Harvard, but 1/3 admitted students in the first page of results that posted scores had relatively low scores: 163V/155Q. Not saying that GRE isn't important, but there are at least some outliers. 

[PHILSTUDENT22]

I only looked at Harvard, but 1/3 admitted students in the first page of results that posted scores had relatively low scores: 163V/155Q. Not saying that GRE isn't important, but there are at least some outliers. 

I suppose that's somewhat low..(still above 90% in verbal)...but that's was one person from last year nonetheless. All the posts from this year for Harvard (even the wait-list) were perfect 170 in verbal. 

[lesage13]

1) First-person testimony from a committee member at Notre Dame claiming that several of his/her fellow committee members valued the GRE very highly as the "only objective piece of information about a student that couldn't be fudged" -  and moreover, they thought low GREs discredited (i) GPA (likely due to grade inflation), and (ii) writing sample (likely due to level of faculty help).  

So, depending on the committee, a low GRE score may infect the rest of your application.

2) Acceptance results posted on grad cafe. It's truly disgusting how many perfect 170s and 169s get offers from the top 15 PGR schools. One possible explanation is that the best students happen to have the best GRE scores. (Ask yourself if you truly believe that!) Even if this were true, however, you would still see at least a couple outliers - but there are none to be found. Of course, its certainly true that some rejects have higher scores than the original acceptances - and this shows that the GRE isn't weighed as heavily as other factors...but we all know that. The point is simply that it's important, even if less so than other parts of your app. 

 

This is really, really disappointing. I can understand (3), since university admins have few metrics they can understand (being non-experts) for evaluating fellowship candidates. That (1) and (2) are the case is bullshit. Standardised tests clearly disadvantage groups that everyone in the profession agrees are underrepresented (members of minority and low-income groups). The obvious point here is that low-income students are less likely to have the funds for enrolling in expensive test-prep programs and buying prep materials, both of which can have tremendous positive effects on test outcomes. But it's also true that females and non-Whites, with the exception of Asians, tend to do less well than males and Whites/Asians on the GRE (http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~oliver/sociology/GREGroups99.pdf; http://chronicle.com/article/ETS-Shares-Data-on-First-Crop/137435/). Worse yet, it's at best unclear whether it's predictive of success at the graduate level. Eric Schwitzgebel has some data pointing to the success of V-scores at predicting GPA in grad courses, but there's an issue with sample size (37) among other worries (http://schwitzsplinters.blogspot.ca/2012/02/surprising-and-disappointing-predictors.html). To my knowledge, that's the closest anyone's gotten to making a positive case for the predictive power of the GRE. Given all this readily available information, reliance on the GRE scores by adcoms is mentally lazy at best. One could also probably make a good case for connecting the discipline's diversity problem to such attitudes. Trained philosophers should really know better.

Edited March 11, 2014 by lesage13

[Table]

I suppose that's somewhat low..(still above 90% in verbal)...but that's was one person from last year nonetheless. All the posts from this year for Harvard (even the wait-list) were perfect 170 in verbal. 

 

I was only looking at acceptances, and only one person has posted stats with an acceptance so far. Good point on the wait list, though. 

 

 

Worse yet, it's at best unclear whether it's predictive of success at the graduate level. Eric Schwitzgebel has some data pointing to the success of V-scores at predicting GPA in grad courses, but there's an issue with sample size (37) among other worries (http://schwitzsplinters.blogspot.ca/2012/02/surprising-and-disappointing-predictors.html). To my knowledge, that's the closest anyone's gotten to making a positive case for the predictive power of the GRE. Given all this readily available information, reliance on the GRE scores by adcoms is mentally lazy at best. One could also probably make a good case for connecting the discipline's diversity problem to such attitudes. Trained philosophers should really know better.

 

Re: the mentally lazy bit, I've said this before, but I suspect a fair amount of the GRE boost is unconscious—super high GRE scores make adcomms think of an applicant as a "smart person," which makes them inclined to interpret the rest of the applicant's file more positively. 

 

Re: predictive power, a few studies have been done. This has a decent and short summary. 

[lesage13]

Re: predictive power, a few studies have been done. This has a decent and short summary. 

Sorry, should've made it clear that I had in mind the the test's predictive power specifically with respect to philosophy grad success, which is the focus of the discussion at the Schwitzgebel post I linked to. Anyway, thanks for the link to that summary, it's really great--and definitely worth a look for anyone interested in the issue.

[philstudent1991]

I can say from experience that a 169, 170 verbal doesn't guarantee a damn thing, and a lower verbal doesn't disqualify you. Also, a lower quant (155 or so) doesn't disqualify you, and certainly a high quant doesn't guarantee you anything. But to future applicants, I would say that you are really not doing yourself any favors if your verbal isn't 160 or more, and it would really be best if it was 165 or more. Others can comment if they feel that my comment is fair.

[stressedout]

I can say from experience that a 169, 170 verbal doesn't guarantee a damn thing, and a lower verbal doesn't disqualify you. Also, a lower quant (155 or so) doesn't disqualify you, and certainly a high quant doesn't guarantee you anything. But to future applicants, I would say that you are really not doing yourself any favors if your verbal isn't 160 or more, and it would really be best if it was 165 or more. Others can comment if they feel that my comment is fair.

 

What about quant?

[philstudent1991]

What about quant?

As high as possible of course, but I've seen people get into top schools like Harvard with 155, 156ish

[greencoloredpencil]

What about quant?

 

 

As high as possible of course, but I've seen people get into top schools like Harvard with 155, 156ish

 

Everyone seems to have conflicting advice about the GRE, but one of my letter writers who is a big name in his subfield told me that it was likely my quantitative score that most hurt my applications and I was just slightly below this range at 153. 

Edited March 12, 2014 by greencoloredpencil

[ianfaircloud]

This is a great discussion, and I do respect the view that GRE is important. I think there's a lot of truth to what PHILSTUDENT22 says, above.

 

I want to add something interesting to this:

 

From personal experience, I know that master's programs treat these components a bit differently than PhD programs do. Master's programs care about how successful a person will be in PhD admissions, and so some master's programs may give more weight to the factors that they believe will influence success in PhD admissions. I know from personal experience that some members of an admission committee at a high-ranked master's program do give some serious weight to the GRE, only because these people believe that the GRE is important in PhD admissions. So ironically, the GRE becomes more important perhaps in admission to certain master's programs!

 

PhD programs, on the other hand, know that the GRE score won't play a roll in placement...

 

Anyway, the nature of our discussion is that much of it is speculative.

 

But I totally respect the view of PHILSTUDENT22 that a low GRE score can only hurt an applicant.

 

So a balanced approach: If you're already scoring 165 or so on verbal, don't spend much more time on the GRE.  Otherwise, put in a solid two months on GRE. Get to the mid-160s on verbal. I wouldn't do much beyond that. On the quant side, I say shoot for 160. But don't be too disappointed with an upper-150s quant score. Again, with the ignorance among members of admission committees, the optics of two scores in the 160s is probably enough. Though I'm willing to admit that there are exceptions to these rules...

[exaznable]

Thanks for this useful information, ianfaircloud!

But I am still wondering the importance of AW section in GRE, which seems to me less important than other sections. I got GRE score 3 years ago, and my verbal and quant score are pretty high (above 1500, I took old GRE). But my AW score is terrible (3.0). I think that this is because I am not a native speaker, and I took the test before I came to the U.S. (My typing speed was so slow at that time). I will apply to PhD program for next academic year, and I am considering retaking GRE during summer break. But I am not sure this is a wise move.

[ianfaircloud]

Thanks for this useful information, ianfaircloud!

But I am still wondering the importance of AW section in GRE, which seems to me less important than other sections. I got GRE score 3 years ago, and my verbal and quant score are pretty high (above 1500, I took old GRE). But my AW score is terrible (3.0). I think that this is because I am not a native speaker, and I took the test before I came to the U.S. (My typing speed was so slow at that time). I will apply to PhD program for next academic year, and I am considering retaking GRE during summer break. But I am not sure this is a wise move.

 

Send me a message privately, and I'll drop a few tips on the AW.

 

I'll say this: If you're a non-native speaker, then I hear that admission committees typically overlook the AW score. They *should* overlook that score, in my view, for non-native speakers. Having said that, we all know that life isn't fair. Members of admission committees may still hold you to some standard.

 

I suggest that non-native speakers shoot for a 4.0 on the AW.  If you can "pass" the TOEFL, then you can probably hit 4.0 with proper studying.

 

I also suggest that non-native speakers who earn <=4.0 on AW flag this in the statement of purpose (or some suitable place in the application). Say something to the effect of, "I'm not a native speaker, and the AW score reflects this."

 

Typically non-native speakers should also be given an upward "adjustment" from admission committees on the verbal score, as well.

 

Really, the GRE is designed for native speakers. So (for what it's worth) it's extremely unfair for an admission committee to judge a non-native-speaker candidate's qualifications on the basis of GRE scores.