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

[isostheneia]

Yeah, I don't think it would hurt at all. Naming professors at the institution you're applying to... well, that's a different topic.

 

Do you think naming professors you'd like to work with is a bad idea? It seems to me that there are only a couple situations in which this could really hurt you:

 

• The professor(s) you name don't work on what you think they do
• You overlook some noteworthy people in the department who work on your areas of interest, while naming professors with only tangential interests
• Someone reading your app works on your areas of interest and feels slighted by your failure to mention them specifically

The first two seem easily solved by actually looking into the research of the professors you mention, rather than rattling off names based on a cursory glance at the department website. And the last point just seems a bit unreasonable to me - of course prospective students will mention well-known professors at a great rate than newer assistant/associate professors. So mentioning professors doesn't seem too harmful to me.

 

Of course, it probably doesn't matter a whole lot either way, since (as Schwitzgebel points out) statements of purpose tend to be poorly written in general, and adcoms are mainly looking to see whether you can describe your research interests in a halfway coherent manner and whether you seem like a good fit with the department. Whether you mention specific professors doesn't seem to have a tremendous impact on those, at least to me.

[Infinite Zest]

Do you think naming professors you'd like to work with is a bad idea? It seems to me that there are only a couple situations in which this could really hurt you:

 

• The professor(s) you name don't work on what you think they do
• You overlook some noteworthy people in the department who work on your areas of interest, while naming professors with only tangential interests
• Someone reading your app works on your areas of interest and feels slighted by your failure to mention them specifically

The first two seem easily solved by actually looking into the research of the professors you mention, rather than rattling off names based on a cursory glance at the department website. And the last point just seems a bit unreasonable to me - of course prospective students will mention well-known professors at a great rate than newer assistant/associate professors. So mentioning professors doesn't seem too harmful to me.

 

Of course, it probably doesn't matter a whole lot either way, since (as Schwitzgebel points out) statements of purpose tend to be poorly written in general, and adcoms are mainly looking to see whether you can describe your research interests in a halfway coherent manner and whether you seem like a good fit with the department. Whether you mention specific professors doesn't seem to have a tremendous impact on those, at least to me.

 

Yeah, it's probably a good thing if you do it correctly. I did it for one school which had only two professors with overlapping research interests.

 

Here's what my professors told me:

 

- If 10 people at school X work on Y, don't mention that you're interested in professor Z's work on Y. Instead, try and talk about the department strengths.

 

- Like you said, it's possible to overlook important people working on a topic you're interested in. Don't do that.

 

- You could misinterpret the work of a professor or highlight aspects of it that aren't really noteworthy or original. This seems like a risk you have to take when you make detailed comments about someone's work, so, in a sense, it's a risk you must take if you want to say something specific about a professor. On the other hand, if you make vague, general statements about the work, then it looks like you haven't read the professor's stuff at all.

Edited January 1, 2015 by Infinite Zest

[Infinite Zest]

And the last point just seems a bit unreasonable to me - of course prospective students will mention well-known professors at a great rate than newer assistant/associate professors. So mentioning professors doesn't seem too harmful to me.

 

I, of course, agree, but you never know if the person reading your application will be acting reasonably.

[Infinite Zest]

Of course, it probably doesn't matter a whole lot either way, since (as Schwitzgebel points out) statements of purpose tend to be poorly written in general, and adcoms are mainly looking to see whether you can describe your research interests in a halfway coherent manner and whether you seem like a good fit with the department. Whether you mention specific professors doesn't seem to have a tremendous impact on those, at least to me.

 

I think this is, for the most part, true. It probably doesn't matter too much either way.

[cestbon]

I think it makes sense to name some relevant profs you've formed relationships with in some way. E.g. I mentioned the name of a prof from a course I audited, since the course was at another institution and I had actually done everything for the course, including writing a term paper that became my sample. So I said something like "I audited course X with Prof Y at Z University, and the term paper for that course became the basis of my writing sample."

 

Great, I think I will only add this in I find it is relevant to the research areas that I am discussing. 

[isostheneia]

On the other hand, if you make vague, general statements about the work, then it looks like you haven't read the professor's stuff at all.

 

This is the one that most worries me. At one department, for instance, I emphasized that I would like to work with professor X, since X is a big name in the stuff that I do. X introduced a certain position/interpretation, so I made sure to mention that and how influential it's been on me already. But citing the fact that X came up with this position/interpretation could look like I only know the most basic aspects of X's work. Personally, I think it was still worth mentioning - it shows that I know why I'm a good fit at this department in terms of interests.

 

I, of course, agree, but you never know if the person reading your application will be acting reasonably.

 

This is certainly a good point. The personal preferences and attitudes toward applicants of members of adcoms certainly vary considerably. But I suspect that, on the whole, adcoms tend toward being decently reasonable. Maybe I'm just being naive.

 

I think this is, for the most part, true. It probably doesn't matter too much either way.

 

Right. I don't think that a stellar statement of purpose can really do much to improve your application. It can show that you're capable of speaking intelligibly about your interests and can display professionalism, but if you're capable of doing that in your statement then it would likely come across in the other parts of your application as well. So I think the main goal here is to avoid making glaring errors, while providing adcoms knowledge of your areas of interest.

[cestbon]

Do you think naming professors you'd like to work with is a bad idea? It seems to me that there are only a couple situations in which this could really hurt you:

 

• The professor(s) you name don't work on what you think they do
• You overlook some noteworthy people in the department who work on your areas of interest, while naming professors with only tangential interests
• Someone reading your app works on your areas of interest and feels slighted by your failure to mention them specifically

The first two seem easily solved by actually looking into the research of the professors you mention, rather than rattling off names based on a cursory glance at the department website. And the last point just seems a bit unreasonable to me - of course prospective students will mention well-known professors at a great rate than newer assistant/associate professors. So mentioning professors doesn't seem too harmful to me.

 

Of course, it probably doesn't matter a whole lot either way, since (as Schwitzgebel points out) statements of purpose tend to be poorly written in general, and adcoms are mainly looking to see whether you can describe your research interests in a halfway coherent manner and whether you seem like a good fit with the department. Whether you mention specific professors doesn't seem to have a tremendous impact on those, at least to me.

 

 

I think this is, for the most part, true. It probably doesn't matter too much either way.

Looking into their research, reading their work for some schools, and including this in my SOP made it more interesting I thought, but not applying somewhere just because I have not comprehensively researched certain professors seems like it could be a missed opportunity. I have tried to research their work at least to some extent, even if I'm not mentioning their names.

[isostheneia]

Looking into their research, reading their work for some schools, and including this in my SOP made it more interesting I thought, but not applying somewhere just because I have not comprehensively researched certain professors seems like it could be a missed opportunity. I have tried to research their work at least to some extent, even if I'm not mentioning their names.

 

I think you've got the right idea. It's a good idea to look up the work of the people you'd be interested in studying with regardless of whether you try to convey some deep knowledge of their work in your statement. (Otherwise, you're more picking names out of a hat than making an informed decision based on fit.) But one certainly needn't refrain from applying somewhere just because one hasn't done some huge amount of research into all the relevant faculty members.

[Infinite Zest]

I think you've got the right idea. It's a good idea to look up the work of the people you'd be interested in studying with regardless of whether you try to convey some deep knowledge of their work in your statement. (Otherwise, you're more picking names out of a hat than making an informed decision based on fit.) But one certainly needn't refrain from applying somewhere just because one hasn't done some huge amount of research into all the relevant faculty members.

 

Agreed.

[Gnothi_Seauton]

One last piece of advice:  When you start getting offers, really start thinking about how far your stipend will get you given living costs, especially if you are used to one type of lifestyle that might not be possible elsewhere.  Having to adjust your lifestyle (say, having to live with several roommates in a fairly noisy environment when you are used to living alone in a quiet area) can really impact not only how effectively you study, but your general psychological condition as well (mostly through the stress of the transition).  I think this kind of consideration should be a deciding factor between similarly attractive programs and might even be reason to accept a less attractive program's offer if the gap between how you live now and how you'd have to live going forward is wide enough.  

[overoverover]

One last piece of advice:  When you start getting offers, really start thinking about how far your stipend will get you given living costs, especially if you are used to one type of lifestyle that might not be possible elsewhere.  Having to adjust your lifestyle (say, having to live with several roommates in a fairly noisy environment when you are used to living alone in a quiet area) can really impact not only how effectively you study, but your general psychological condition as well (mostly through the stress of the transition).  I think this kind of consideration should be a deciding factor between similarly attractive programs and might even be reason to accept a less attractive program's offer if the gap between how you live now and how you'd have to live going forward is wide enough.  

I think this is spot on. You might also be a person who just won't be happy in a given environment (whether that be a city or a small town—different strokes and all). That might seem rather trivial when compared to faculty and such, but if you aren't going to be functioning well in that environment then none of that stuff really matters. 

[AquinasDuo]

Gnothi_Seauton, on 02 Jan 2015 - 11:18 AM, said:

One last piece of advice:  When you start getting offers, really start thinking about how far your stipend will get you given living costs, especially if you are used to one type of lifestyle that might not be possible elsewhere.  Having to adjust your lifestyle (say, having to live with several roommates in a fairly noisy environment when you are used to living alone in a quiet area) can really impact not only how effectively you study, but your general psychological condition as well (mostly through the stress of the transition).  I think this kind of consideration should be a deciding factor between similarly attractive programs and might even be reason to accept a less attractive program's offer if the gap between how you live now and how you'd have to live going forward is wide enough.   

I think this is spot on. You might also be a person who just won't be happy in a given environment (whether that be a city or a small town—different strokes and all). That might seem rather trivial when compared to faculty and such, but if you aren't going to be functioning well in that environment then none of that stuff really matters. 

 

I know I am a little late to the party, but I wanted to be sure and re-emphasize that this advice is very, very important to heed. Environmental factors - especially living conditions - can ruin your work, which might well turn out to ruin your career. I can attest to this first hand, and have seen others hit harder than I. 

[Duns Eith]

Related to above:

 

www.areavibes.com

 

This site provides some hard data for cost of living, crime rate, employment rate, median rent, etc. All statistics come with a comparison with the national average, but you can also set two cities in comparison with one another, in case you are deciding between the two.

[Apathium]

I gave it %50 chance to be accepted to at least 1 school out of the 10 that I applied. I was accepted into exactly one school, which would be my 5th or 6th priority (and also 6th school sorted with respect to the gourmet list). This school is no Ivy (I applied to 4 top ten programs), but a good school, a good city and the POI's are also among the top people in the department seems is very important.

 

I guess the outcome is far better than I expected.

 

Thing is it was striking in my case to me was to see the effects of random, seemingly irrelevant factors contributing to a Ph.D. admission. That one school accepted me right away, with POI's and department members sending personal mails about how much they want me. They sent me unofficial mails almost 15 days after the application deadline, much before they extended official admissions. None of the other schools even waitlisted me. I think this is due to the random variables I mentioned. I believe all schools get more applications with good grades, GRE, recommendations, and samples than they can accept. These factors can distinguish the top 30 from 300 applicants, but distinguishing top 10 among those top 30 is very hard. Even the writing samples will be almost equally good. So people look at other factors. In my case I think they were factors like:

 

- My personal background, political situation, some of the classes I took from politics which aligns with chair of admissions of the school, and the POI.

I was sure it would be a negative to some people, but also was sure it would be a plus for some others. So don't be afraid to be open and honest about your history. Someone somewhere will like you.

 

- Their knowledge concerning my home school where I did the MA and BA.

My non-US home university has a better reputation among non-gourmet-top-10 people since most professors here did their US Ph.Ds. in non-top-10 schools. I feel like lack an established name among the top schools. But my POIs in the school that accepted me knew at least some people in our home faculty. This is a factor beyond my control. A very important one.

 

- One of the POIs in this school was was most engaged with the literature I engaged in my sample, among the POIs in other schools I applied.

Don't use a sample outside of your AOI. You can get good schools like that, sending a political philosophy sample with epistemology and phil of language as top interests, but you will get better schools if you use samples in your AOI, and pick the schools to apply with good prior research on which POI's work closer to the exact topic you are writing in. I think I could not do this research sufficiently, but luckily that 1 school and the POIs turned out to be some of the closest people to my topic. Another explanation why only one school accepted me with enthusiasm, while others rejected right away.

 

 

So, the final thought: Care for every detail that you send with an application package. Your implications, details pointing out on what kind of a person you are, like typos, or stuff in your cv, hints in SOP about your personality. Every small detail is an important variable.

[philstudent1991]

I actually don't think the process is as opaque as some seem to think. It's very difficult, but straightforward enough. 

 

Step 1: Go to a very good undergraduate school. (If it's too late for that, go to a well-regarded and funded terminal MA) ((there are exceptions; some people do well coming from unknown undergrads, but almost no one))

 

Step 2: Have very good grades, especially in philosophy

 

Step 3: Have acceptable GRE scores. I would say anything above 165V will be just fine, maybe even lower. And for Q, lower is fine (150s?) Writing should be 5 or up, maybe 4.5 and up. (Again, there are exceptions) 

 

Step 4: Have good letters of recommendations. It would seem that, coming from undergrad, having professors say "best student I've ever had" is pretty standard, due to letter inflation and just that it's more competitive than ever. But there are plenty of good letters that do not say this. Examples of how you excelled are also good. Letters from top programs and MAs will almost certainly not be so flattering, but they will mean more coming from places with better students. 

 

Step 5: Have an excellent writing sample. It doesn't need to change the discipline. It needs to have a tightly argued thesis, be crisp and professional, hook in to a contemporary debate and be grounded thoroughly in the relevant literature. 

 

Step 6: Be a good fit with the program. Even if your app is excellent, if you say you want to work on Plato and they don't have anyone doing Greek, you aren't going to be accepted. 

 

So there you have it, 6 steps to success. Obviously there are exceptions at every step, but in general this schematic is solid: Good institution, excellent grades, good GRE, great letters, excellent sample, good fit. 

 

Good luck!

[Duns Eith]

On 2/26/2014 at 9:53 AM, philosophe said:

The one thing I regret is not contacting professors in my areas of interest prior to applying. I would recommend you do that, since it can't hurt (as long as you are polite and ask relevant questions).

This is interesting advice, because I have had several schools that ask for you to list every interaction with faculty, if you have had any contact. Take this with a grain of salt, but my colleague heard that this practice implies that the person is selected not to take part in evaluating your application, so as to keep the adcomm unbiased. If true, this is radically opposite UK school system, where connecting with a professor of interest is a prerequisite to admission.

[necessaryandsufficient]

8 hours ago, Turretin said:

This is interesting advice, because I have had several schools that ask for you to list every interaction with faculty, if you have had any contact. Take this with a grain of salt, but my colleague heard that this practice implies that the person is selected not to take part in evaluating your application, so as to keep the adcomm unbiased. If true, this is radically opposite UK school system, where connecting with a professor of interest is a prerequisite to admission.

 

 

 

I went to a panel with two DGAs at top schools who said that contacting professors prior to applying really isn't necessary (unless you have genuine questions about the program, their work, etc.). They said that they expect your interests to change when you go through two years of coursework and that it can look presumptuous–particularly for undergrads–to act like you know what you'll write your dissertation on before even doing any graduate coursework (and by this, I mean behavior beyond saying whose work you're interested in/who you might be interested in working with in the SoP). One of them described the application as being an application to a department rather than to a particular faculty member. I'm sure this attitude varies from school to school, but perhaps this will be helpful to someone.

Edited December 28, 2016 by necessaryandsufficient

[Bryterlayter]

I've just got to say something about the GRE scores because this has been driving me crazy. A 165 is "acceptable"?? We already know that schools only use the GRE scores as a guideline, so how is that only being in the top 5% is "acceptable"!? The people who take the GRE are smart and trying to get into grad school also, if you were taking the test with your average Joe-Schmoe then sure, top 15% makes sense. But people keep saying that you need to have these ridiculous high scores and let's face it: Having perfect GRE scores doesn't guarantee any acceptance. As long as you get above 150 on everything (above 50th percentile), and probably 4.0+ on the writing (since writing is important for philosophy), I think it's perfectly fine. All of my professors have agreed with me and said to not stress about it and just get above 150. Other people have said that you'll only be admitted with scores above 160 and I think that's ridiculous too. Just pass and focus on what matters (good writing sample, good grades, etc)

Edited January 6, 2017 by Bryterlayter
Clarity

[753982]

On 1/6/2017 at 11:42 AM, Bryterlayter said:

I've just got to say something about the GRE scores because this has been driving me crazy. A 165 is "acceptable"?? We already know that schools only use the GRE scores as a guideline, so how is that only being in the top 5% is "acceptable"!? The people who take the GRE are smart and trying to get into grad school also, if you were taking the test with your average Joe-Schmoe then sure, top 15% makes sense. But people keep saying that you need to have these ridiculous high scores and let's face it: Having perfect GRE scores doesn't guarantee any acceptance. As long as you get above 150 on everything (above 50th percentile), and probably 4.0+ on the writing (since writing is important for philosophy), I think it's perfectly fine. All of my professors have agreed with me and said to not stress about it and just get above 150. Other people have said that you'll only be admitted with scores above 160 and I think that's ridiculous too. Just pass and focus on what matters (good writing sample, good grades, etc)

Unfortunately, although I can sympathize with your sentiments, this is a quixotic way to look at the GRE. The fact is, graduate school in philosophy is a seller's market. To get accepted, you need to try to put together a dossier with as few flaws as possible. The set of possible flaws includes mediocre or poor GRE scores relative to your competition. Does that make it right? No, not at all. But that's the way it is, and it's been that way for years. It's extremely competitive, and yes, you're right to think that even perfect GREs doesn't guarantee acceptance. You do likely need to hit a certain number (philstudent1991 was probably right to think it's something close to 165 in V, but perhaps it's as low as 162 or 163, which still puts you in the 90th+ percentile) to have a good shot at most PGR-ranked schools (whether an MA or a PhD program), though. Philosophy students tend to well on the GRE, and so to just end up with a verbal score in the upper 150s isn't really acceptable, especially if you're not coming from a pretty well-regarded undergrad. If you went to Harvard and did well, you might get away with it, but it'd be better to not have to take that risk given how competitive graduate admissions are in philosophy.

[thehegeldialectic]

On 1/6/2017 at 12:42 PM, Bryterlayter said:

 A 165 is "acceptable"?? We already know that schools only use the GRE scores as a guideline, so how is that only being in the top 5% is "acceptable"!? 

Because philosophy majors score higher on the verbal than any other major, including English.

If you have a verbal of 167+, then you have "good scores." However, if you just made it generally into the mid 160's, then you're in the same boat as most of the other applicants, and it's not going to be counted as a point in your favor, because it's not exceptional by any means.

If you are below 160, and especially if you are in the 150's, you will encounter a problem. The school of humanities likely requires the philosophy department to meet a certain average GRE score. This means that they might only be able to take one student with a GRE score in the 150's. It also means that you will be less competitive for fellowships, as these often involve GRE requirements. So basically, a low score *hurts* your chances because the department can only take in so many people with low scores. But a high score doesn't mean you'll get in, because at the end of the day, it's the writing sample and general fit that matters. 

Edited March 5, 2018 by iunoionnis