SURVEY idea, seeking your input! (Please respond!)

[ianfaircloud]

Please, for the sake of future applicants, take the time to read this and consider carefully my proposal. I really would like your help!

 

Philosophy admissions are among the most competitive and most difficult at the graduate level. As this forum (especially recently) indicates, one thing that makes philosophy admissions so difficult is that it's not completely clear what (if anything) makes the difference for success or failure. No amount of information will make philosophy admissions predictable. But I do think that more information would make it more predictable than it is now.

 

Many of you are putting philosophy admissions behind you. I'm among you, in the sense that I don't plan to reapply. Others will be back for a second (or third, . . .) round. For the sake of everyone involved, I think we (as a community) could take a step in the direction of law admissions by organizing the information we have and publishing it for all to see.

 

Law admissions are very predictable for several reasons. 

• One, it's largely based on a few numbers and formulas, not on subjective interpretations, personal connections, and subject judgments of the quality of a candidate's academic pedigree (though these are to some degree a factor even in law admissions).

• Also, there is so much information available to applicants. See, e.g., lawschoolnumbers.com, hourumd.com, and lawschoolpredictor.com.

We can't do what the community of people in law admissions has done. But we can take a step in that direction by gathering the data.

 

So I propose the following: Let's put together a survey of applicants. The survey will be honor-based, just as law admissions surveys are honor-based (and therefore not flawless).

 

To be successful, we will need a lot of people to take the surveys. But so far, the community has been responsive to surveys. (See my funding survey, for example, where we now have 30+ programs represented!)

 

What do you think:

 

1. What questions should be included in the survey?

 

2. Do you have any thoughts or suggestions about the survey?

 

I will put together something, one way or another. Assuming we get a lot of replies, I will then publish the unfiltered results so that anyone can interpret the results as s/he pleases.

 

I will also put together a "guide" for each of the top-50 departments, based on the results. And of course people will be able to critique my guide, because people will have access to the unfiltered information from the survey.

 

The survey will be program-specific, meaning that those who take the survey will fill out a survey for each program. This is time-consuming, but it's exactly what people in law admissions have done for a decade now.

 

Here are some questions that I believe could be included:

• Program name to which you applied
• Description of your undergraduate institution (USNews top 50? top 20? national university? regional? liberal arts?)
• UGPA?
• Prior graduate education in philosophy? From a Leiter top-six? 
• Areas of philosophical interest, as expressed (if at all) in the statement of purpose?
• Writing sample information: in which subfield in philosophy? appx number of pages? 
• Letters of recommendation: how many from endowed chairs? from senior faculty? from junior faculty? from non-philosophers?
• GRE scores: verbal (90%+, 75-89%, 50-74%,  . . . ) , quant, AW?
• Underrepresented minority?
• Other identity questions: sex, gender, nationality, ethnicity?
• Admitted, wait-listed, or denied?
• If admitted, were you admitted from the wait-list?
• Method of notification: phone, email, email-to-website, website-only, personal contact?
• Date of notification?

The questions would be mostly optional, I think. Also, I think the key is to keep things general enough so that the information isn't personally-identifiable. Though again, law surveys get similarly specific.

 

Now, we may discover that there aren't enough patterns in the data to draw any conclusions about what matters. But what if we discover that there are things that make an enormous difference? For instance, there was a rumor going around a few years ago that Cornell heavily weights academic pedigree.

[TheVineyard]

I think this would be fantastic. I'm especially interested to see the data on minority/women applicants vs the white male majority. The only factors that I think would be unhelpful to the quiz are method of notification and date of notification. The rest are all the right kinds of questions to be able to put together a "profile" of a successful applicant, and maybe give future applicants a better idea of where they should aim (or at least, where applicants like them have ended up).

 

[zblaesi]

I really like this idea, though I don't have any specific suggestions right now. (I'm still in a post-application depression, and my brain doesn't seem to be working.)

Also, for those who want to re-apply, I'm really interested in taking advantage of the amazing gradcafe community we have here and working toward helping each other succeed. In other words, I feel like it is a mistake to start re-applying without first strategizing on how to go about it. I plan to make a post on this soon, but just throwing it out there in the meantime.

[ianfaircloud]

Also add the questions list:

• Number of years outside philosophy
• Number of years since earning bachelor's
• Undergraduate major
• Hold any degrees not in philosophy?

[Glasperlenspieler]

Undergraduate minors? honors? 

 

Language abilities?

[perpetuavix]

You also might consider adding a question about work experience and/or teaching experience. 

[wildc4t]

Also, pubs.

[Establishment]

Also, pubs.

 

If we do this, for the love of God there needs to be some way to address the notion of "publication quality". There's a huge difference between publishing in a vanity press, self-publishing, some random philosophy journal like Think, and then the biggies like Philosophical Studies, etc.

[Griswald]

With all of these variables, isn't it going to be practically impossible to analyze the raw data in a way that will be useful to future applicants?

[Establishment]

With all of these variables, isn't it going to be practically impossible to analyze the raw data in a way that will be useful to future applicants?

 

What I find useful about this project, but which might run into difficulties with preserving anonymity, is the potential to see a rather extensive description of the sort of applicants that get accepted into which programs so that one can compare themselves and see where they stand, and if any patterns emerge, then they emerge.

[Glasperlenspieler]

For comparison, this is what the classics forum is doing in regard to this kind of stuff: 

[Ryura]

Make sure there's also a section for "weird circumstances." I was in a bit of a weird spot: I did two years at one school, transferred, and graduated in one year from my new school.

Edited March 13, 2014 by Ryura

[ianfaircloud]

Undergraduate minors? honors? 

 

Language abilities?

 

 

You also might consider adding a question about work experience and/or teaching experience. 

 

 

Also, pubs.

 

 

If we do this, for the love of God there needs to be some way to address the notion of "publication quality". There's a huge difference between publishing in a vanity press, self-publishing, some random philosophy journal like Think, and then the biggies like Philosophical Studies, etc.

 

 

With all of these variables, isn't it going to be practically impossible to analyze the raw data in a way that will be useful to future applicants?

 

 

Make sure there's also a section for "weird circumstances." I was in a bit of a weird spot: I did two years at one school, transferred, and graduated in one year from my new school.

 

All good points, above. I'll respond briefly right now: Some variables are easier to "quantify" (that's not exactly the right term) than others. So when we add things like publications, it's more difficult (though possible!) to account for these. I think the undergraduate minors, undergrad. honors, and languages are pretty easy to include (and could be useful). I guess I'm trying to strike a balance here between asking too much and asking too little. We do need quite a few pieces of data in order to really figure out why certain applicants are doing better than others. So I'm really happy to hear all of the ideas so far. 

 

How would I ask the publication question? And the work question? 

 

One question I'm not asking: "How good was your writing sample?" It's pretty difficult to make use of that kind of 'data', as I'm sure you all would agree. So I want to avoid too many questions like that. Could a 'publications' question be written in such a way that it wouldn't become useless? Or maybe we just let the readers decide how useful is all the data. I mean, the whole point of my publishing the data is that everyone can decide for themselves what to make of publications, etc.

 

Thoughts?

[Gnothi_Seauton]

Just a thought:  You might want to figure out a way to account for the significance of the GPA in light of the quality of undergraduate institution.  I suspect that it's true that course difficulty does not perfectly track quality of institution, but I suspect there's a rough correlation.  I graduated with a 4.0, but my undergraduate institution is pretty weak (outside the top 100 US News) and so doesn't strictly compare with the GPA of, say, an Ivy League undergrad.  

 

Another thought:  Might want to add in philosophy GPA.

[philstudent1991]

This is a great idea! I'll be happy to contribute as much as possible

[PhiPhiPhi]

If we do this, for the love of God there needs to be some way to address the notion of "publication quality". There's a huge difference between publishing in a vanity press, self-publishing, some random philosophy journal like Think, and then the biggies like Philosophical Studies, etc.

It's not too hard on the analytic side (can't speak for continentals). The rules are basically this:

 

1. Publishing in a general journal only really counts if it's in the top 20: http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2012/04/the-top-20-general-philosophy-journals.html.

 

2. Publishing in a specialist journal only counts if its in the top 3 journals in that area (roughly), see this for an example: http://peasoup.typepad.com/peasoup/2005/10/ethics_journals.html .

[philstudent1991]

I don't think publications are common enough to be a factor worth trying to say anything about in your survey, not to mention it's impossible to measure their quality in a survey format.

[ianfaircloud]

Thanks for all this. If I have time, I'll put more into the survey tomorrow. I'd like to launch it by next week. 

 

I know that traffic to this site and my site is wayyyy down, so my fear is that people are just dropping off at this point! I'd like to catch everyone before they're gone. I know it's particularly tough talking about admissions at this point: fatigue, frustrating, disappointment, or just a feeling of moving-on. But, wow, I think this could be the best thing to happen to philosophy admissions in decades (if it works like I hope it will).

 

Continued discussion/thoughts appreciated!!!

[TheVineyard]

Thanks for all this. If I have time, I'll put more into the survey tomorrow. I'd like to launch it by next week. 

 

I know that traffic to this site and my site is wayyyy down, so my fear is that people are just dropping off at this point! I'd like to catch everyone before they're gone. I know it's particularly tough talking about admissions at this point: fatigue, frustrating, disappointment, or just a feeling of moving-on. But, wow, I think this could be the best thing to happen to philosophy admissions in decades (if it works like I hope it will).

 

Continued discussion/thoughts appreciated!!!

 

I think one reason that traffic to your site is down because you stopped updating during a huge traffic time. I used to use the notifications section to keep up with stuff but when you took a big break it just threw me off and confused me so I quit checking. However, most people have heard from most of their schools now so it will probably be downhill traffic from here.

[gradcoffee]

How about class rank (within the major)?

[TheVineyard]

How about class rank (within the major)?

 

I don't even have such a thing, and I can't imagine that that is relevant to admissions over and above GPA/school information.

Edited March 14, 2014 by TheVineyard

[bar_scene_gambler]

How about class rank (within the major)?

Same as Vineyard. I'm not sure class ranks within the major are common, let alone class rank in general.

[Circle of Fourths]

This is a great idea! I am unsure if funding has been mentioned, but funding should definitely be in there. 

[Gnothi_Seauton]

I don't have a good picture of the format as of yet, but it might be helpful to have space for clarification in each category.  For instance, Master's GPA seems like an obvious category to include, if someone has a Master's, but while I have a Master's degree, I don't have a GPA for it since the school I attended doesn't grade that way.  Something similar might be needed for UGPA.  Suppose someone starts off with a low GPA, but then maintains a 4.0 junior and senior year.  That would seem relevant, but it might go unnoticed if someone simply reports, say, a 3.4 GPA.  Maybe that would be the way to handle the publication issue as well.  Have a category for number of publications, but then have space to clarify the nature of the venue(s) (top journal, undergrad/grad journal, professional journal no one's ever heard of, etc.) and the nature of the publication(s) (article, book review, etc.).

 

I think this is a great idea, by the way.  I wish I'd had access to this sort of information when I was compiling my applications. 

[ianfaircloud]

I think one reason that traffic to your site is down because you stopped updating during a huge traffic time. I used to use the notifications section to keep up with stuff but when you took a big break it just threw me off and confused me so I quit checking. However, most people have heard from most of their schools now so it will probably be downhill traffic from here.

 

I think you're right on the money. I was out of state and didn't have access to a good computer. Now I take it people are simply moving on. I mean, most of the excitement regarding notifications is behind us.

 

How about class rank (within the major)?

 

How many people have access to that? I'm curious whether others do. I've not even heard of such a thing! Maybe that's a strike against including it?

 

I don't have a good picture of the format as of yet, but it might be helpful to have space for clarification in each category.  For instance, Master's GPA seems like an obvious category to include, if someone has a Master's, but while I have a Master's degree, I don't have a GPA for it since the school I attended doesn't grade that way.  Something similar might be needed for UGPA.  Suppose someone starts off with a low GPA, but then maintains a 4.0 junior and senior year.  That would seem relevant, but it might go unnoticed if someone simply reports, say, a 3.4 GPA.  Maybe that would be the way to handle the publication issue as well.  Have a category for number of publications, but then have space to clarify the nature of the venue(s) (top journal, undergrad/grad journal, professional journal no one's ever heard of, etc.) and the nature of the publication(s) (article, book review, etc.).

 

I think this is a great idea, by the way.  I wish I'd had access to this sort of information when I was compiling my applications. 

 

I wish we could take into account every single thing -- including things like junior-senior GPA -- but I think the survey could become too long. One thing that has contributed to the success of the law school surveys is that they are pretty simple. I can easily read that the median GPA for those admitted to Department X is Y and that the median LSAT for that department is Z, etc. I guess we could have a comments area or something. Is that what you're suggesting? But when we figure the median score of someone admitted to X, of course we won't be able to use the comments for that part of it.

 

I think not every relevant detail can be included in the survey. Some details that are sort of glossed over (and this is the nature of surveys like these) include things like, "Did the person's GPA improve over time?" "Was it just one class that ruined someone's GPA, or was it a pattern of poor performance?" Etc.

 

I guess I hope my comment here comes off as, Yes, I think you're absolutely right that this stuff is relevant. But I don't want to make this so complicated and lengthy that people don't fill out the survey. And I want data that can be manipulated, compared, etc. I'm not sure what to do about the comments piece. Every applicant is more than a number, right? But I think we want to analyze the raw quantifiable data, too...