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

[AquinasDuo]

On 2/27/2014 at 10:50 PM, dgswaim said:

I must admit I'm surprised at how many people mention the cost of sending transcripts. My school never charged me for a transcript. I didn't know that was a thing. Not sure how I feel about being charged for proof of one's own grades.

 

My US schools don't (except one that does, but only after 30 a semester which is unlikely to be reached), but it costs good money to get things sent from overseas.

 

Anyway...

 

I have done this five times to increasing success. It seems this year will be my final time, unless the PhD program I pick proves to be an ill fit in which case I may end up going around once more after the MA step (I don't plan on this, but I know it is done - sometimes even with department suggestion and full support). Here are some things I have learned:

 

(1) By and large GRE and GPA are only to get you over a minimum bar, and to compete for college/university level funding. Generally, it seems that as long as you aren't cut based on your numbers then they won't matter much thereafter until/unless you are competing for a fellowship. 

 

(2) Writing Sample is KEY. The only real difference between last year and this is my writing sample and it gave me a material and quantifiable bump (only essentially concrete because of my multiple years of pattern setting)

 

(3) Apply broadly. It is painfully expensive, especially when it doesn't work, but with so much of the process being based on chance and intangibles, it is the best bet. 

 

(4) Remember fit - it makes and breaks. Last year I got a nice email from FSU that my application was great, but there was no one for me to work with there so they had to pass. Often when those odd situations like someone who broadly failed getting into a top program, or someone widely successful getting rejected from a low program, it was fit that caused it. 

 

(4b) Make contact with the department early, especially someone with whom you would like to work. This will help with fit. I saved myself from repeating FSU with Edinburgh this year by emailing ahead and finding out that no one wanted to do what I am doing. 

 

(5) Make sure you do whatever you can to allow your letter writers to write a strong letter for you. Do well in their classes, and overall. Be part of the department. Go to talks and engage with the speaker. Keep in communication with them, and have them be part of your continuing work (thought don't annoy or use them!). These things and more ensure that the letter writer has data in hand that makes the strong - and more personal - letter. 

 

(6) Keep organised, and keep on your documents and recommenders. You are project manager of your application in a very real sense; do your job!

 

(7) Be realistic in review of your qualifications, and cynical about the whole affair. It is sad, but things like your pedigree and the prominence/known-ness of your letter writers do matter. If you have great stats and a love for the discipline but have no name writers who don't know anyone at the school to which you are applying and you are coming out of a small or second tier school, then you ought be ready to fair poorly. 

 

(8) Do an MA. I wish I had. Specifically, an MA from one of the household name programs like Tufts, Brandeis, NIU, Georgia Tech, WUSTL, etc. It may also help to see if a program you like has a sort of feeder program. For instance, a lot of Western Michigan people end up at Missouri.

 

(9) Don't get rusty! It is easy, especially when you are applying and are no longer in school, to focus on applications and lose some of your chops in Philosophy. I feel I have, in part because I teach Intro to Phil and so have been inundated with the basics for too long, and know it makes the idea of visits all the more stressful. Indeed, for those schools that make the wait list and acceptance divide based on the visit, it could hurt in a material way. 

 

(10) Don't think about any of the school to which you apply after you apply unless you get accepted. The most heartbreaking part is when a school you personally wanted to go to says no, and it's worse if you looked up the campus and area, and talked about it, and gotten all excited. A big part of surviving the season is avoiding the bummer-filled troughs as time goes by and results start coming out. 

 

(11) Finally, realise that some programs are really nice, and some are pretty rude, and try to focus on communicating with the nice ones. This is because they will, and it will be more pleasant, but also because that is a good sign that the people there are more the type you'd like to work with for the next 3-7 years. This is also a handy screen because it is automatically biased and subjective, and allows you to make valuations without working about PG Rank, or placement, or other things are honestly really hard to use as data for a quality, personally optimal, rational choice. 

 

 

I hope some of this helpful to someone. I'll go back and add/edit later.

[philstudent1991]

On 3/14/2014 at 2:48 PM, AquinasDuo said:

 

 

(8) Do an MA. I wish I had. Specifically, an MA from one of the household name programs like Tufts, Brandies, NIU, Georgia Tech, WUSTL, etc. It may also help to see if a program you like has a sort of feeder program. For instance, a lot of Western Michigan people end up at Missouri.

 

 

All great advice! But I think you meant Georgia State

[PhD applicant]

I think I just had an epiphany about my shutout. I'm stupid. On top of that, and more importantly, I should have applied to schools where my professors had connections. That is why I am stupid. I expect people not to be bureaucratic assholes, but they can't help it, and I should have known better. I just realized that there were schools that would have fit my interests perfectly that some of my most supportive professors had connections at and therefore could have gotten a discrete phone call from a connection, possibly on an admissions committee, and gotten me in with the right comments. I stupidly ignored this and looked for the best schools suited to my interests, assuming that people were not going to be political. I believe that many people who got in may have played this game more intelligently than I did. I had some great supportive professors who have connections at perfectly respectable schools with good departments in fields that interest me and I moronically ignored that when choosing my schools. I'm a fucking idiot. I could totally have gotten in. As it is, I applied to schools where the only connections at my university are with professors that know nothing about me and probably would have said "Oh, so&so, I don't know anything about them, they must not be very interesting or whatever" and that made me look like shit to the schools I applied to. In retrospect, I should have kissed the total ass of the professors who were connected to my schools of interest prior to applying there. But more probably, since I don't like kissing asses, I will apply next year to schools that I have genuine good connections to at this point. 

I guess my advice to next year's applicants would be not to underestimate any political bullshit that might occur. Where political bullshit even has the remote possibility of occurring, it will probably occur. It's probably a law of physics or something.

[dgswaim]

There might be some truth to the above post. I should say, though, that the three schools that had strong connections to my letter writers (Rice, Baylor, and UT) all rejected me (well... I'm pretty sure UT did anyway). So take from that what you will.

[PhD applicant]

Yeah, well, it's also possible that my entire application (materials, etc.) just sucked.

[wandajune]

Responding to the posts above: I did get into the one school at which my professors had connections, but I also got into 7 others where there were no meaningful connections. I think maybe having connections to a school could help boost your application, but it's neither necessary nor sufficient toward getting in.

[Table]

I should have applied to schools where my professors had connections. That is why I am stupid. I expect people not to be bureaucratic assholes, but they can't help it, and I should have known better. I just realized that there were schools that would have fit my interests perfectly that some of my most supportive professors had connections at and therefore could have gotten a discrete phone call from a connection, possibly on an admissions committee, and gotten me in with the right comments. I stupidly ignored this and looked for the best schools suited to my interests, assuming that people were not going to be political. ... I'm a fucking idiot. I could totally have gotten in. As it is, I applied to schools where the only connections at my university are with professors that know nothing about me and probably would have said "Oh, so&so, I don't know anything about them, they must not be very interesting or whatever" and that made me look like shit to the schools I applied to. … I guess my advice to next year's applicants would be not to underestimate any political bullshit that might occur. Where political bullshit even has the remote possibility of occurring, it will probably occur. It's probably a law of physics or something.

 

Is there any particular reason you think this is why you were shut out? "Connections" definitely matter in the sense that a letter writer an adcomm knows and respects will help more than someone no one has heard of. We all know adcomms apparently think it's easier to interpret a letter coming from someone famous/generally well known. A letter writer with some kind of positive personal/professional connection to a school presumably helps in the same way.

 

But it seems pretty unlikely that all, most, or many of the schools you applied to contacted professors in your department that were not associated with your app in any way. 

[humean_skeptic]

What I have learned from the 2014 season, and would like to pass onto the 2015 applicants: If you get put on a wait list at one of your top picks, become as proficient as possible at staying active in your free time by reading and writing philosophy, exercising, socializing with friends/family/boyfriend or girlfriend, and maybe even getting a paper up to a high enough standard to submit to a good journal. Even if you think you have a strong chance at getting in off the, just assume you won't get in, and stay as active and ambitious as possible in the meantime. 

 

Bottom line: Waiting is torture. So don't wait. Do productive things instead. 

[PhD applicant]

Is there any particular reason you think this is why you were shut out? "Connections" definitely matter in the sense that a letter writer an adcomm knows and respects will help more than someone no one has heard of. We all know adcomms apparently think it's easier to interpret a letter coming from someone famous/generally well known. A letter writer with some kind of positive personal/professional connection to a school presumably helps in the same way.

 

But it seems pretty unlikely that all, most, or many of the schools you applied to contacted professors in your department that were not associated with your app in any way. 

One of my letter writers told me this after my apps were all submitted: "School X will be calling professor Y, because they know him, so you should make sure he knows you." I was like "Is that how it really works?" and he said "Yes, this is a small community. That's how this field works." I did not, in the end, take that advice. I didn't think much of professor Y, so did not want to kiss up to him, and did not. I'm sure when he got the call from school X, he had nothing good, or nothing at all to say, since I had never taken classes from him. This was the "bad" connection I had to the schools I applied to. And I won't be making this mistake again.

[Alex Madlinger]

Hey I'm from the Religion page and I noticed that you were having some disagreements on the importance of the GRE. I had some experience with this in my application process that I thought you would find helpful.

I wanted to be a minister when I was an undergraduate. I went to seminary and decided I wanted to study religion professionally instead. So I have an MA from a seminary and I applied for five MAs in Departments of Religion or similar programs this season. Anyway, like I said I wasn't focused on academics, so my GPA wasn't fantastic (3.25). I emailed top programs in my field and said something like, 'My undergrad GPA isn't great, if I kick ass on the GRE can I make up for that.' Duke, for one, told me that the GRE is weighted higher than the undergraduate GPA. Emory told me not to worry about my undergraduate GPA at all if my GRE was strong. I scored 169/156/5.0 on my GRE and I got accepted to MAs at Duke, Wake Forest, and the University of Minnesota.

I'm not saying my GRE is what got me in. I have a 3.9 GPA in my seminary MA, four years in Greek, three in Hebrew, good LOR, and a strong writing sample. The moral of the story, the point I'm trying to get across, is that you shouldn't be afraid to ask your programs if you have questions. I scored poorly on Q. I expected to score 162 but I got nervous and choked. Since my V score was ridiculous I never retook the test. But I'm curious if raising my Q to 162-163 would seriously help my chances to get into a top PhD. Given my experience with emailing programs this season, I plan to just email some of my top choices and ask them.

Edited March 17, 2014 by Alex Madlinger

[ianfaircloud]

Well, hopefully the 2015 applicants will benefit from the results of the comprehensive Philosophy Admissions Survey, which has now been posted:

 

faircloudblog.wordpress.com/philosophy-admissions-survey/

[ianfaircloud]

Hey I'm from the Religion page and I noticed that you were having some disagreements on the importance of the GRE. I had some experience with this in my application process that I thought you would find helpful.

I wanted to be a minister when I was an undergraduate. I went to seminary and decided I wanted to study religion professionally instead. So I have an MA from a seminary and I applied for five MAs in Departments of Religion or similar programs this season. Anyway, like I said I wasn't focused on academics, so my GPA wasn't fantastic (3.25). I emailed top programs in my field and said something like, 'My undergrad GPA isn't great, if I kick ass on the GRE can I make up for that.' Duke, for one, told me that the GRE is weighted higher than the undergraduate GPA. Emory told me not to worry about my undergraduate GPA at all if my GRE was strong. I scored 169/156/5.0 on my GRE and I got accepted to MAs at Duke, Wake Forest, and the University of Minnesota.

I'm not saying my GRE is what got me in. I have a 3.9 GPA in my seminary MA, four years in Greek, three in Hebrew, good LOR, and a strong writing sample. The moral of the story, the point I'm trying to get across, is that you shouldn't be afraid to ask your programs if you have questions. I scored poorly on Q. I expected to score 162 but I got nervous and choked. Since my V score was ridiculous I never retook the test. But I'm curious if raising my Q to 162-163 would seriously help my chances to get into a top PhD. Given my experience with emailing programs this season, I plan to just email some of my top choices and ask them.

 

I really appreciate this, and I don't want to sound like I don't appreciate it. I think your main point (as you say) is that asking questions can be helpful. Agreed.

 

I do want to say, though, that admissions in philosophy could be quite different than admissions in religion. Philosophy is one of the few fields in which the writing sample is taken very, very seriously. I think there are other differences, too. I have some experience in religion and theology at the graduate level. In my experience, GRE is weighted more heavily among those programs that don't weight the writing sample as heavily (or perhaps don't even ask for a writing sample).

[Alex Madlinger]

Religion and Philosophy could be hella different, but unless the difference is that in Philosophy people in the program are all mean old ogres, then the basic point (ask if you're curious) still stands.

More illustration of the point above. I actually got to talk to Mark Goodacre (an NT professor at Duke) for an hour yesterday about the admissions to the PhD process. Now, I don't expect that most people will get to have lunch with their POI like that (I was accepted to the MA and that's why I was visiting), but once again asking really helped. I found out the answer to the question mentioned above (it's definitely worth the money and time to retake the test) and I found out some other details about the admissions process at Duke, including the importance of the writing sample there, which is surprisingly their #1 concern.

Anyway, there could definitely be hundreds of differences between Philosophy and Religion, but in my experience professors are pretty willing to answer questions!

[TheVineyard]

at Duke, including the importance of the writing sample there, which is surprisingly their #1 concern.

 

This shouldn't be surprising. This is the stated #1 concern of every program. However, everything else about your application gives context for that writing sample.

[Alex Madlinger]

Full disclosure, I don't find it surprising at all but I was trying to avoid sounding combative to ianfaircloud, who had just said that Philosophy takes the writing sample more seriously than religion.

[ianfaircloud]

Anyway, there could definitely be hundreds of differences between Philosophy and Religion, but in my experience professors are pretty willing to answer questions!

 

Yup. Agreed.

[Cottagecheeseman]

Full disclosure, I don't find it surprising at all but I was trying to avoid sounding combative to ianfaircloud, who had just said that Philosophy takes the writing sample more seriously than religion.

Dude. Get off grad cafe and go work on your thesis.

[Alex Madlinger]

Hey why don't you shut up and go away

[Cottagecheeseman]

Hey why don't you shut up and go away

What like I'm gonna listen to someone who went to a seminary. Pffffffftttt...

Edited March 20, 2014 by zizeksucks

[Alex Madlinger]

I'd say, IDK leave us alone or go hang out with your friends or something. But you don't have any friends. You're a loser. And your dog is stumpy.

[Cottagecheeseman]

I'd say, IDK leave us alone or go hang out with your friends or something. But you don't have any friends. You're a loser. And your dog is stumpy.

Whatever man my dog is awesome.

[humean_skeptic]

Whatever man my dog is awesome.

 

Is this the point in the disagreement where I have to pretend to hold one of you back while that person says "Hold me back, bro!! Hold me back"?

[Alex Madlinger]

Seriously though his dog is stumpy. Kinda like a sausage with legs.

[dgswaim]

Seriously though his dog is stumpy. Kinda like a sausage with legs.

Mmmmmmm... sausage with legs...

[Cottagecheeseman]

Mmmmmmm... sausage with legs...

Yeah but if his breath is any clue he's gonna taste disgusting. Sorry man

 

Is this the point in the disagreement where I have to pretend to hold one of you back while that person says "Hold me back, bro!! Hold me back"?

You might need to do that but actually for real, not pretend.