Chances with a 2.91 GPA

[Guillaume]

^ Your points are well received about the OP pursuing a second BA. Though as someone else mentioned, 1) the possibility of getting into even a decent MA in philosophy with that GPA is not high. With that lackluster BA GPA and a low-ranked MA the opportunity of getting into a decent PhD program is even more unlikely. You're right that s(he) may be able to teach at a community college with the MA in hand. 2) But even that is a pretty shitty opportunity given the fact that s(he) will most likely be part time and essentially making what a Walmart employee brings home

 

3) Another option is getting a BA and/or MA abroad. Places such as KU Leuven cost like 1k US a year and I believe many of the big name European schools can be funded through US loans.  

 

1) I already responded to this in my previous post. See MattDest. See ZiggyPhil. 

2) I didn't find this statement to be productive as it fails to acknowledge that the OP is already doing this AND enjoys it.

3) I would not suggest this course of action. Several thoughts...

 

A. The benefit of attending a "Leiter ranked" MA program is that the faculty there are better known which theoretically provides an admissions committee with a better understanding of the quality of your preparation for PhD work and the ability of your recommenders to evaluate your ability to do PhD level work relative to other graduate students.

 

B. If the OP is interested in doing analytic philosophy and is not interested in the continental tradition, his options in Europe are fewer and he may unfortunately be mislabeled by American analytic departments as "continental" due to his European degree.

 

C. Why would you presume that the OP, with his "lackluster GPA," does not stand a very good chance of admission to a U.S funded M.A program but that he would have a shot at "big name European schools?" It seems like you could only argue this if you assume that the admissions standards in Europe at "big name European schools" are lower. If this be true then...

 

D. This suggestion is kind of a link turn to your original argument. You don't see the benefit in attending a "low ranked" (read: unranked) MA program in the U.S., presumably because you question their rigor or reputation, but you then suggest he or she go to Europe, where you perceive the admissions standards to be lower than the U.S., as a way to improve his or her chances at being accepted to an American PhD program?  I have to admit, I found this line of thought to be highly inconsistent. .

 

OP, best of luck to you. I stand by my previous statements.

Edited July 8, 2014 by Guillaume

[MorganFreemanlives]

another option is a canadian MA. since the usual route in canada is MA first, lots of places will offer the MA. The other advantage is that canadian education is far more stable so to speak than the HUGE academic disparity in American institutions so being accepted to an unknown MA wont hurt as much.  the fact that they often offer some funding helps.  it will still be difficult since you have to prove to them why they should take you over a canadian student with equal or higher stats, but it is a chance.

[sacklunch]

1) I already responded to this in my previous post. See MattDest. See ZiggyPhil. 

2) I didn't find this statement to be productive as it fails to acknowledge that the OP is already doing this AND enjoys it.

3) I would not suggest this course of action. Several thoughts...

 

A. The benefit of attending a "Leiter ranked" MA program is that the faculty there are better known which theoretically provides an admissions committee with a better understanding of the quality of your preparation for PhD work and the ability of your recommenders to evaluate your ability to do PhD level work relative to other graduate students.

 

B. If the OP is interested in doing analytic philosophy and is not interested in the continental tradition, his options in Europe are fewer and he may unfortunately be mislabeled by American analytic departments as "continental" due to his European degree.

 

C. Why would you presume that the OP, with his "lackluster GPA," does not stand a very good chance of admission to a U.S funded M.A program but that he would have a shot at "big name European schools?" It seems like you could only argue this if you assume that the admissions standards in Europe at "big name European schools" are lower. If this be true then...

 

D. This suggestion is kind of a link turn to your original argument. You don't see the benefit in attending a "low ranked" (read: unranked) MA program in the U.S., presumably because you question their rigor or reputation, but you then suggest he or she go to Europe, where you perceive the admissions standards to be lower than the U.S., as a way to improve his or her chances at being accepted to an American PhD program?  I have to admit, I found this line of thought to be highly inconsistent. .

 

OP, best of luck to you. I stand by my previous statements.

 

From my understanding the admission standards at the big name (e.g. Oxbridge) European schools for M* degrees are much lighter for American students. We are cash cows and they know it. In my limited experience I have never heard of an American student (I would guess I have known 20 or so students that have applied and been admitted to some sort of M* at Oxbridge, etc.) being denied admission to such schools for an M* in my field (ancient history). Philosophy is not my field, so disregard my suggestions accordingly! . I have no idea what the admission stats for an MA at places like Tufts, Georgia State, UMSL, and so on, but I imagine they are somewhat more competitive (at least lower than 50% acceptance rate), or no? Of course getting into one of those programs would be preferable to what I'm suggesting. But I figured I would mention the possibility of access to (good?) faculty abroad where it is possibly easier to gain admission (or as you said there may be no faculty of interest for him/her at such places!), as well as significantly cheaper at certain schools. 

cheers

[MorganFreemanlives]

From my understanding the admission standards at the big name (e.g. Oxbridge) European schools for M* degrees are much lighter for American students. We are cash cows and they know it. In my limited experience I have never heard of an American student (I would guess I have known 20 or so students that have applied and been admitted to some sort of M* at Oxbridge, etc.) being denied admission to such schools for an M* in my field (ancient history). Philosophy is not my field, so disregard my suggestions accordingly! . I have no idea what the admission stats for an MA at places like Tufts, Georgia State, UMSL, and so on, but I imagine they are somewhat more competitive (at least lower than 50% acceptance rate), or no? Of course getting into one of those programs would be preferable to what I'm suggesting. But I figured I would mention the possibility of access to (good?) faculty abroad where it is possibly easier to gain admission (or as you said there may be no faculty of interest for him/her at such places!), as well as significantly cheaper at certain schools. 

cheers

idk, the oxford b.phil is very prestigious, they can afford to be more strict in selection standards.  BUT Oxbridge is at a bit of a disadvantage in not being to offer funding to all their students, losing them to other top 10 or even top 20 who do fund them. prob even more so for cambridge.

 

oxford's b.phil quite recently accepted 22 (or was it 27?) of 220 applicants. for a Master's program thats quite competitive, but considering many of the b.phil do the d.phil at oxford,and many top places will welcome a b.phil student,  it may be the easiest top 10 statistically speaking with the added bonus of being able to leave elsewhere without the 4-5 year commitment of a more traditional ph.d in the states if need be. when taking into consideration the funding crisis, oxford prob accepts at least 35 or 40 students knowing they will lose a few to other schools.

 

NOW, the tricky part is to get accepted with funding. when you multiply the chances of admission with the probability of full funding (i have heard numbers between 10-25% i really dont know , i can totally be wrong here) you realize that getting full funded place at the b.phil is now more comparable to a place at a top 10. on the bright side, if you are wealthy or can afford the loans,you will have it easier, and you wont worry about being a TA , at least not exactly in the states.

[Guillaume]

From my understanding the admission standards at the big name (e.g. Oxbridge) European schools for 1) M* degrees are much lighter for American students. We are cash cows and they know it. In my limited experience I have never heard of an American student (I would guess I have known 20 or so students that have applied and been admitted to some sort of M* at Oxbridge, etc.) being denied admission to such schools for an M* 2) in my field (ancient history). 2) Philosophy is not my field, so disregard my suggestions accordingly! . I have no idea what the admission stats for an MA at places like Tufts, Georgia State, UMSL, and so on, but I imagine they are somewhat more competitive (at least lower than 50% acceptance rate), or no? Of course getting into one of those programs would be preferable to what I'm suggesting. But I figured I would mention the possibility of access to (good?) faculty abroad where it is possibly easier to gain admission (or as you said there may be no faculty of interest for him/her at such places!), as well as significantly cheaper at certain schools. 

cheers

 

1) HHH is correct about the perception of the b.phil There is a difference between a M.Phil and an M.St at Oxford and their admissions requirements and rates of admissions are different.

 

2) *Dead*

 

While I certainly appreciate sacklunch's desire to be helpful, posters like this are exactly why I stated, "Also, for what it's worth, the gradcafe is filled with well meaning people who are all too willing to offer advice about various topics of which they have a varying degree, if any, expertise. Take it all with a grain of salt and learn from people who've actually already been there ie. MattDest." 

[CognitiveAesthetics]

I appreciate all the feedback and will incorporate them into my plans. 

 

I would like to clarify that if I cannot get into a Philosophy program, I am still interested in applying to any other program that allows for a comprehensive study of theoretical issues relating to politics, social justice and ethics (various English programs allow for this).  Again, this is why I am still considering simply applying across the spectrum, within different departments and programs at different universities (European, included).

I see that there are conversations here about the ruthlessness of academia, especially when it comes to getting tenure-track positions.  I have no illusions about that.  I understand fully that academia is incredibly exclusive and becoming more so as many PhDs from the most well-regarded programs are finding difficulty securing secure positions. 

 

Some posters on here suggest that I should give up on graduate school all together.  While I think this sort of crass, dismissive bluntness is important to hear, I don't think that's something I'm ready to do just yet.  I think it's better to try, however dismal my chances are, than to give up.  As I've stated previously, I'm really enjoying teaching at the community college.  Not only have I been doing it for a year now, but I was just signed to continue to teach for the Fall semester.  I was offered to teach a course in History for the summer, but declined due to pressing issues related to my day-job - the one that actually pays the bills.  But more to the point, I think it's very difficult to convince me that graduate school isn't for me, when I occupy most of my free time communicating with various academics and thinking about academic-related issues.  Again, my main point I'm trying to make is that this is something I enjoy.  It's not about the money (though realistically, of course that's nice), nor is it about the prestige.  Rather, it's about doing something that I enjoy, and that I think is beneficial.

 

Alas, if all options fail, and I get rejected from every single program, then I will happily reside in continuing my full-time corporate job and teach part time, whenever possible.  But try and apply, I will.  Of course, I will provide updates once I hear back.  But this won't be for another year or so anyways.

[redigloos]

For what it's worth, my GPA is also very low. However, I was told by two professors I talked to that high GRE scores, good recommendations, and an awesome writing sample would do a lot to make up for this. 

I remember hearing that, according to some study, your undergraduate GPA is one of the worst indicators of your success in a graduate program. This seems intuitively accurate, given the amount of undergrad work that is basically bullshit (showing up to learn what you already probably know, busy work that serves no real purpose, and ridiculous general education requirements, half of which serve no purpose other than propagating bourgeois ideology). I can only assume graduate admissions committees would take such a study into account and look mostly at indicators other than GPA.

[MorganFreemanlives]

For what it's worth, my GPA is also very low. However, I was told by two professors I talked to that high GRE scores, good recommendations, and an awesome writing sample would do a lot to make up for this. 

I remember hearing that, according to some study, your undergraduate GPA is one of the worst indicators of your success in a graduate program. This seems intuitively accurate, given the amount of undergrad work that is basically bullshit (showing up to learn what you already probably know, busy work that serves no real purpose, and ridiculous general education requirements, half of which serve no purpose other than propagating bourgeois ideology). I can only assume graduate admissions committees would take such a study into account and look mostly at indicators other than GPA.

i count disagree more.  gpa in a philosophy major when taking into consideration the quantity and difficulty of classes is one of the best indicators of qualities necessary but not necessarily sufficient for grad school in philosophy, it shows commitment , interest  an how serious you are roughly, by gpa when the material isnt suspect.  granted this is without any horror stories involving general education nor that spanish class you flunked which is why philosophy gpa and the last 2 years are most important. considering the flaws of everything else you turn in...

 

GRE-  the bias here is overwhelming. same with the SAT. to give you an anecote. i was done with my first two years of college at 17 which included stuff like multivariable calculus, with a 3.75 gpa, an had won a junior national level chess championship, and have scored in the 130+ in an IQ  test administered at my school, yet when i took the SAT which is supposed to measure college readiness, i always scored in the high 500 low 600 range. same problem applies to GRE. reason was simple, i have no speed in  non-creative thought, being used to self study, and 3 hour chess matches made me incapable of fast decisions even when i can get an answer.  i dont doubt the gre in a few cases can point to superior abilities but it does so by heavily discriminating against other talented folks even in traditional definitions of intellect. the fact they make a whole business of our tears doesnt help.  the fact schools like cornell and oxford with 200 and 300 or so applicants dont require gre's speaks for itself.

 

letters of rec- the problem here is that anything other than great or perfect is a detriment,and some professors even with lots of good to say due to personal stances on objectivity may not be capable of expressing the capabilities of a student as well as others. the prestige factor is also relevant here although i dont find as disadvantageous. good teachers often produce good pupils after all.

 

statement of purpose.-given philosophy's limited job flexibility, there is not much one can say here. they at best supplement a good application  and are hardly if ever app-breakers, unless there is a severe AOI  conflict maybe.

 

writing sample:this with gpa are the two most important factors, but this alone isnt sufficient for any justified demarcation of applicants. i remember reading a post in the leiter reports stating how well the applicants each year get at writing superb writing samples, often being worthy of publication in decent (but not stellar) journals. in summary, writing sample must be supplemented in a a successful aplication unless you are kripke.

 

yeah, GPA is mighty important. ultimately the bias you will face for low gpa boils to this.  if you have to explain a flaw to me  X or Y and this one of the most important parts of an app, i will naturally be very skeptical, especially considering the amount of apps that will surely not have that problem.

Edited July 12, 2014 by HegelHatingHegelian

[Establishment]

I'm sort of reminded of Korsgaard's facebook status a while back about gpa's: "After reading a large number of graduate applications, I have some advice for my younger friends. If you find yourself getting straight As in college, don't bask in the glory of it. Transfer to a harder school!" (Relevance in that professors are looking at your GPA's and where you attended)

 

I personally think philosophy GPA's are very important. If you're going to be making C's and B's in your philosophy courses... why is it going to change in graduate school? Which is why, when you have a low overall GPA, you want to be able to show that if you consider your philosophy GPA, over the last year or two, your grades are solid. If you can't satisfy that sort of qualification... if you're applying to graduate school with low grades in your current philosophy courses... you're just as well as done at all PhD and MA programs.

 

I pretty much agree with HegelHatingHegelian's rating of the application components.

[redigloos]

I guess the only reason I disagree personally is that, no matter what school you're at or what your major, undergraduate studies are almost always BS. Chances are, if you're actually interested in the subject, you already know everything you're going to learn in the classroom. I will keep an eye out for the study I mentioned (can't remember where I heard about it, but now I'm interested!), since that would be pretty difficult to disagree with.

 

Of course, my personal opinion doesn't make a difference in admissions, and there I would defer to the two professors I spoke with. Neither said, by the way, that low GPA is irrelevant, unimportant, or even forgivable. They just said it's not the end of the world.

 

And I'll add that, even if I don't get into any schools this round of admissions, I plan on applying again repeatedly.... which the OP should also consider. Hopefully, once 20 years or so separate us from our GPAs, they'll reconsider.

Edited July 12, 2014 by redigloos

[MattDest]

I guess the only reason I disagree personally is that, no matter what school you're at or what your major, undergraduate studies are almost always BS. Chances are, if you're actually interested in the subject, you already know everything you're going to learn in the classroom. I will keep an eye out for the study I mentioned (can't remember where I heard about it, but now I'm interested!), since that would be pretty difficult to disagree with.

You have to realize the irony in claiming that undergraduate studies are "almost always BS" but attempting to apply to graduate school. Given that the vast majority of philosophy PhDs teach undergraduates, are you just intent on keeping up the "BS"? 

 

GRE-  the bias here is overwhelming. same with the SAT. to give you an anecote. i was done with my first two years of college at 17 which included stuff like multivariable calculus, with a 3.75 gpa, an had won a junior national level chess championship, and have scored in the 130+ in an IQ  test administered at my school, yet when i took the SAT which is supposed to measure college readiness, i always scored in the high 500 low 600 range. same problem applies to GRE. reason was simple, i have no speed in  non-creative thought, being used to self study, and 3 hour chess matches made me incapable of fast decisions even when i can get an answer.  i dont doubt the gre in a few cases can point to superior abilities but it does so by heavily discriminating against other talented folks even in traditional definitions of intellect. the fact they make a whole business of our tears doesnt help.  the fact schools like cornell and oxford with 200 and 300 or so applicants dont require gre's speaks for itself.

 

It's wrong to think that GREs are meant to point to "superior abilities" - clearly you have them  . They are meant to assess one's ability to succeed in graduate school. The predictive ability is limited in scope (just like the SAT/ACT), but that doesn't mean it is completely useless. GREs are actually a decent predictor of graduate school success [this is ETS' website, but it cites valid research... you can see more on Schwitzgebel's blog about data from UCR]. I don't think that good scores will necessarily be a huge boost in an application, but I would say that low scores would be a strike against an applicant. 

[MorganFreemanlives]

You have to realize the irony in claiming that undergraduate studies are "almost always BS" but attempting to apply to graduate school. Given that the vast majority of philosophy PhDs teach undergraduates, are you just intent on keeping up the "BS"? 

 

 

It's wrong to think that GREs are meant to point to "superior abilities" - clearly you have them  . They are meant to assess one's ability to succeed in graduate school. The predictive ability is limited in scope (just like the SAT/ACT), but that doesn't mean it is completely useless. GREs are actually a decent predictor of graduate school success [this is ETS' website, but it cites valid research... you can see more on Schwitzgebel's blog about data from UCR]. I don't think that good scores will necessarily be a huge boost in an application, but I would say that low scores would be a strike against an applicant. 

yes, im aware of the statistics. GRE is a good indicator of grad school success but you cant leave it at that. the people who naturally score really well are often people who have been trained as good test takers most of their life. they get the ETS mentality subconsciously because of training. the point of the GRE is to measure something that goes beyond itself, otherwise no one would care for GRE's since all they would measure is your GRE readiness but when such exams show a preference for one restrictive neurotic student life at the detriment of others, thats when there is a problem.  im also amazed at the fact no finds ETS academic monopoly frightening.

 

i think completely abolishing GRE is not best either. i would recommend an optional approach where an applicant can choose to send their scores if they find them high enough to supplement their applications an here is why.  GRE should be like what many gifted programs in the U.S do. there is a standardized test that if you score high enough, you are in, but not reaching that score can mean many things, and the student can join the program if he can prove himself elsewhere.  its a conditional   

 

IF you score high in this exam-> you are X (were X can mean intellect, creativity, talent, book smarts ect) but  NOT "IF.....high in exam" does not imply a detriment ~X. that would be a logical fallacy. unfortunately many grad programs are doing the opposite of my suggestion. if you score good to great, they wont hold it against you, or at best give you a slight advantage but if you score average, (often not being bad,) they will hold it as a detriment and it makes NO sense.

 

now all else being equal under my suggestion, if two applicants are exactly or almost exactly equal and one submitted a high score in GRE, Then i think its reasonable to let it be a tie breaker given the tough situation this would be,  but other than that, i find no excuse in most practices of using the GRE today for philosophy programs.

Edited July 13, 2014 by HegelHatingHegelian

[redigloos]

You have to realize the irony in claiming that undergraduate studies are "almost always BS" but attempting to apply to graduate school. Given that the vast majority of philosophy PhDs teach undergraduates, are you just intent on keeping up the "BS"?

It's wrong to think that GREs are meant to point to "superior abilities" - clearly you have them . They are meant to assess one's ability to succeed in graduate school. The predictive ability is limited in scope (just like the SAT/ACT), but that doesn't mean it is completely useless. GREs are actually a decent predictor of graduate school success [this is ETS' website, but it cites valid research... you can see more on Schwitzgebel's blog about data from UCR]. I don't think that good scores will necessarily be a huge boost in an application, but I would say that low scores would be a strike against an applicant.

For the record, I've only taken one class with a grad student. It was one of the best classes I've taken, probably because I was in high school at the time. I have no reason to think the grad students would teach more superficially than the professors. If anything, the grad students I know seem to remember being undergrads and realize we're not all idiots.

[MattDest]

yes, im aware of the statistics. GRE is a good indicator of grad school success but you cant leave it at that. the people who naturally score really well are often people who have been trained as good test takers most of their life. they get the ETS mentality subconsciously because of training. the point of the GRE is to measure something that goes beyond itself, otherwise no one would care for GRE's since all they would measure is your GRE readiness but when such exams show a preference for one restrictive neurotic student life at the detriment of others, thats when there is a problem.  im also amazed at the fact no finds ETS academic monopoly frightening.

 

I have no idea what it means to "get the ETS mentality subconsciously because of training", but the statistics that I'm showing you suggest that the GRE does predict something beyond itself. That is the entire point of what I just posted. It predicts (with a limited scope) graduate school success. That doesn't mean that people who don't do well won't be able to do well in grad school, nor does it mean that everybody who takes it is going to succeed. But none of the portions of the application reliably predict success, that's why we have so many components. 

 

For the record, I've only taken one class with a grad student. It was one of the best classes I've taken, probably because I was in high school at the time. I have no reason to think the grad students would teach more superficially than the professors. If anything, the grad students I know seem to remember being undergrads and realize we're not all idiots.

 

My point was that it seems odd to think that undergraduate classes/degrees are bullshit while pursuing a career that will almost inevitably lead to you teaching undergraduate classes. That's like thinking that horoscopes are useless but pursuing a career in writing horoscopes.  

[redigloos]

Ah. Well I know there are a few professors who managed to run intense courses that taught me a lot, and I hope to be one of them. Sorry if my judgment came off as more categorical than that for rhetorical reasons.

Plus, I still have the very selfish motivation of wanting to learn everything I can in my field. That's definitely the real incentive for grad school, although I would enjoy teaching as well.

[MorganFreemanlives]

I have no idea what it means to "get the ETS mentality subconsciously because of training", but the statistics that I'm showing you suggest that the GRE does predict something beyond itself. That is the entire point of what I just posted. It predicts (with a limited scope) graduate school success. That doesn't mean that people who don't do well won't be able to do well in grad school, nor does it mean that everybody who takes it is going to succeed. But none of the portions of the application reliably predict success, that's why we have so many components. 

 

 

My point was that it seems odd to think that undergraduate classes/degrees are bullshit while pursuing a career that will almost inevitably lead to you teaching undergraduate classes. That's like thinking that horoscopes are useless but pursuing a career in writing horoscopes.  

yes the gre supports something beyond itself, it supports students who have trained for a test that wasnt supposed to be studied for and students who have lived in a "high score is most important above all" mentality which incorporates plenty of asian students (im not bashing them, i consider southeast asians and jewish populations to be the among the most hardworking populations).  in a philosophy program we will not be bombarded with multiple choice exams and often trivial, "decipher which word fits best among 3 reasonable choices "

 

what im going to say here is controversial and highly speculative and is an idea a math major friend of mine told me so take it with a grain of salt.  he told me that although  southeast asia has a superior and more hardworking population of students in secondary school compared to our failing american system, this is not seen at the post-secondary level an that even among the top students in both university systems , the american counterparts are more often the ones discovering significant breakthroughs, nobel and field prizes ect, and his explanation is interesting; in southeast asian countries you study for a test so perseverence and work ethic is valued more than critical thinking or creativity (you can thank confusianism for that) so if you want lots of  decent to good doctors, and architects ,  and lawyers, asia is fine, but if you want innovators at the highest level and in all fields, america is better. interesting but a bit speculative, but at least it corresponds with the statistics. asians score highest in math, presumably asians born here whose parents were born in the mainland score highest since the language barrier is not there ect.

 

do you want an area like philosophy to prefer good test takers? unfortunately even philosophy departments which are willing to not look at GRE scores are forced to for financial distribution by the graduate schools of arts and sciences because some lay bureaucrat wants to make his life easier to pick between students to fund. this situation is what's happening at the U of Wisconsin at Madison where the philosophy program allows you to not submit gre scores but if they are not submitted, you cant receive a fellowship

[Billy Goehring]

yes the gre supports something beyond itself, it supports students who have trained for a test that wasnt supposed to be studied for and students who have lived in a "high score is most important above all" mentality which incorporates plenty of asian students (im not bashing them, i consider southeast asians and jewish populations to be the among the most hardworking populations).  in a philosophy program we will not be bombarded with multiple choice exams and often trivial, "decipher which word fits best among 3 reasonable choices "

 

what im going to say here is controversial and highly speculative and is an idea a math major friend of mine told me so take it with a grain of salt.  he told me that although  southeast asia has a superior and more hardworking population of students in secondary school compared to our failing american system, this is not seen at the post-secondary level an that even among the top students in both university systems , the american counterparts are more often the ones discovering significant breakthroughs, nobel and field prizes ect, and his explanation is interesting; in southeast asian countries you study for a test so perseverence and work ethic is valued more than critical thinking or creativity (you can thank confusianism for that) so if you want lots of  decent to good doctors, and architects ,  and lawyers, asia is fine, but if you want innovators at the highest level and in all fields, america is better. interesting but a bit speculative, but at least it corresponds with the statistics. asians score highest in math, presumably asians born here whose parents were born in the mainland score highest since the language barrier is not there ect.

 

do you want an area like philosophy to prefer good test takers? unfortunately even philosophy departments which are willing to not look at GRE scores are forced to for financial distribution by the graduate schools of arts and sciences because some lay bureaucrat wants to make his life easier to pick between students to fund. this situation is what's happening at the U of Wisconsin at Madison where the philosophy program allows you to not submit gre scores but if they are not submitted, you cant receive a fellowship

 

I don't think we run the risk of making philosophy "prefer good test takers"--there are so many other factors involved, and GRE scores are by no means the most important component. No adcom would say, "Well, she turned in a terrible writing sample and her statement indicates that she has absolutely no overlap with the research interests of our faculty, but look at these test scores! Maybe we ought to give her a shot."

I'm also not sure what you're talking about vis-à-vis Asia. Speculative is an understatement. I presume you mean northeastAsia (typically considered to consist of China, Japan, and Korea). I think it's problematic to treat these different countries as if they all utilized the same educational system and shared the same values. I also don't know about referring to nations of people as "hardworking populations" who, for all that, are not as inventive or dynamic as their counterparts in the US. And per capita, scandinavian countries, Germany, and the UK produce far more nobel laureates than the United States--and for much of the Nobel prize's history, it should be noted, the United States was the only real scientific and academic arena, since much of Europe and East Asia were recuperating from decades of war. It should come as no surprise that China has not produced as many Nobel laureates as the US--but I don't see any reason to suggest that the Chinese aren't as innovative as anyone else. 

Edited July 15, 2014 by Billy Goehring

[MorganFreemanlives]

1. gre has an effect on many promising students who dont fit the convenient models, and lets not get started  talking about bias on minorities

2. yes my bad, i meant northeast asia, japan, south korea and non-rural china

3.the countries you mentioned follow a system closer to ours than test obsessed asia,i just used the U.S to make the contrast simpler

4.are you seriously denying how hard working these students are for the sake of political correctness? here are a few examples

 

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120339767  korea stops on mega exam day

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2007/06/15/editorials/worst-student-suicide-rate-yet/  its not a mere boo from mom becase of a bad report card

i unfortunately cant find the china one, but it shows actual shrines with different university names and the name of their sons in these to pray for their admissions, which involves the results in their exams

 

the dominance of asian students in top universities is common knowledge. most surprising is caltech where they dont use the so called holistic approach and admit solely on merit.  they have aroun 50 percent asian population.

 

so, no im not merely speculating.

[alopachuca]

OP, since the comments have wandered a bit off the main concern,  I think the simplest (although not the most insightful) comment I can offer you (can't speak for anyone else) is that this is a field in which, for better or worse, there are always going to be more applicants with good recommendations, good writing samples, and good grades than can be admitted into a given program. Assuming you have the first two, the last point still puts you at a disadvantage over some students who will eventually be rejected (hypothetically of course). 

 

That being said, you should do your research and eventually work hard on your applications and send them in. I don't think anyone is automatically denied for having a 2.91. 

[ianfaircloud]

We have data on this. Last season, three applicants reported on the comprensive survey that they have undergraduate GPAs below 3.00. Of these three, two of them reported that they were wait-listed or admitted to T20 PGR programs. The other reported that s/he was shut-out. Notice that BOTH OF THESE successful applicants were attending top-20 liberal arts colleges or national universities.

 

Conventional wisdom is that applicants should draw attention to this kind of flaw and offer a reasonable explanation for it. My take: I would do this, but I would check with letter-writers to see whether they could go to some special lengths to make sure that the departments don't toss your application. I could see a professor placing a phone call or sending an email, in addition to touching on this in the recommendation letter. Ordinarily this sort of thing may not be welcomed by admissions committees, but yours is an extraordinary case. If one of your recommenders has a personal connection, this makes sense to me.

 

Also this: Obviously, obviously, something in your file must blow them away. But that's true for everybody

[qualiafreak]

I know this thread is very old, sorry, I just thought I'd respond in case anyone is reading this and losing all hope because of a low GPA. I have a 2.75 undergrad GPA from a small university with an even smaller Philosophy department, and my major is not Philosophy. So far I've been waitlisted with funding to two pretty good PhD programs and accepted with full funding into a great terminal MA, which I think will give me a springboard to get into a better PhD than I can get into now. So, all hope is not lost if even I can get waitlisted to PhDs

[ineedwine]

I'll add my own here, for additional hope. My overall GPA is 3.01 and my Phil GPA 3.59 (I got a D+ once upon a time and a few B-range grades). I was accepted to BC's MA program. What helped was having a decent sample, doing okay on the GRE, but most of all having a few very enthusiastic letter's, one of which did address the grades. I also made efforts to raise my GPA in my last two semesters, leaving with a 4.0 in philosophy classes in my last semester. 

If you have a low GPA, there is still hope. Form positive relationships with a few philosophy professors (and hopefully impress them) so you can secure outstanding letters, and write the best possible sample and statement you can. Then apply to many MA programs, because the chances are better there for low-GPA students like myself. Once you get into an MA program (maybe even a lesser-known one) you then have an opportunity to prove you can do graduate level work. Oh! One more thing, in the mean time, if you live in an area with a few colleges, check out their Philosophy departments and ask about auditing classes. That will show determination and also help keep you doing philosophy, and maybe even get you a letter-writer.

 

[ianfaircloud]

I know this thread is very old, sorry, I just thought I'd respond in case anyone is reading this and losing all hope because of a low GPA. I have a 2.75 undergrad GPA from a small university with an even smaller Philosophy department, and my major is not Philosophy. So far I've been waitlisted with funding to two pretty good PhD programs and accepted with full funding into a great terminal MA, which I think will give me a springboard to get into a better PhD than I can get into now. So, all hope is not lost if even I can get waitlisted to PhDs

 

Would you elaborate on what you mean by "pretty good PhD programs" and "great terminal MA"? Also are you able to give us more information concerning what you mean by "small university"? Do you mean that it's not a very good college? You're a very interesting and unusual case. The survey we ran last year suggests that your situation is extremely rare.

 

In my experience, a lot of people think they went to "lesser known" colleges when in fact they went to respectable colleges. I'll never forget when a very intelligent friend of mine claimed that he's a success story because he landed a top spot after having attended a "small college." The small college was actually a really good school in the US News top-20 liberal arts colleges. That's why I put together the rank-reputation key for last year's philosophy admission survey. One way to know whether you really attended a not-good college is to think about whether enrollment was more or less open. In other words, were there admission standards at all? Did you need a 2.0 high school GPA? Did you need a 900 on the SAT? There are many colleges that literally admit every applicant who has a high school diploma and no disciplinary/legal history. There are other colleges that literally don't have philosophy departments.

 

All the more reason that I want to know more about your story!!! Maybe you really beat the odds. It sounds like you did, just given the 2.75 GPA. That's quite shocking, actually. Did you have a letter from a well-known philosopher? Can you think of any reasons that we haven't mentioned here that might have helped your application stand out? What made your application different from the others? Do you have an interesting background? Most people (according to our survey data) say that they wrote a great writing sample, so that won't help much. But maybe there's something else unique about you or your application that could help us make sense of this result.

[Page228]

I'm curious too, and I say that as someone in a similar situation who got into a PGR-ranked department for an MA program. (I count myself extremely lucky for achieving that much. In my case, I think it's just a matter of fit.)

[qualiafreak]

Would you elaborate on what you mean by "pretty good PhD programs" and "great terminal MA"? Also are you able to give us more information concerning what you mean by "small university"? Do you mean that it's not a very good college? You're a very interesting and unusual case. The survey we ran last year suggests that your situation is extremely rare.

In my experience, a lot of people think they went to "lesser known" colleges when in fact they went to respectable colleges. I'll never forget when a very intelligent friend of mine claimed that he's a success story because he landed a top spot after having attended a "small college." The small college was actually a really good school in the US News top-20 liberal arts colleges. That's why I put together the rank-reputation key for last year's philosophy admission survey. One way to know whether you really attended a not-good college is to think about whether enrollment was more or less open. In other words, were there admission standards at all? Did you need a 2.0 high school GPA? Did you need a 900 on the SAT? There are many colleges that literally admit every applicant who has a high school diploma and no disciplinary/legal history. There are other colleges that literally don't have philosophy departments.

All the more reason that I want to know more about your story!!! Maybe you really beat the odds. It sounds like you did, just given the 2.75 GPA. That's quite shocking, actually. Did you have a letter from a well-known philosopher? Can you think of any reasons that we haven't mentioned here that might have helped your application stand out? What made your application different from the others? Do you have an interesting background? Most people (according to our survey data) say that they wrote a great writing sample, so that won't help much. But maybe there's something else unique about you or your application that could help us make sense of this result.

I'd like to retain some anonymity, so if you're curious about the specifics feel free to PM me.

By small university, I did not mean it wasn't respectable or was unselective; I should have been more clear. I think we admit ~30% of applicants. I transferred from a school that was larger in size so it was a change coming here. The first school I only went 2 quarters but it has a top 50 PGR Philosophy program. The school I'm graduating from has no Philosophy PhD or MA at all. It's a really small department, but I think part of that was good because it made me stand out to my professors. It was them who encouraged me to apply. I think it's likely my letters were strong, but they are not from well known philosophers. However, I think a couple of them may have had friends at a couple of the schools I applied to, so that always helps.

The MA I got into is Georgia State. So not the best in the country or anything but I think it's a good fit for what I want to do. The PhDs I'm wait listed for (now 3) are all top 50 PGR, one is in the top 25.

I'm not sure what made me stand out. It's probably a combination of little things. At some PhD programs I e-mailed the admissions coordinator during the application process and told him my name and situation to see if he thought I should apply. All the schools that responded said things like "we evaluate applications holistically," "a low GPA doesn't automatically exclude you," etc. I still thought it was possible my application would be discarded before my materials had the chance to be read, so I feel lucky in that regard. I think it's important to note that my 2.75 is from a STEM major, and I attributed it in my personal statement to Organic Chemistry and other upper level courses. I noted that my ability to memorize structures of molecules is in no way indicative of my philosophical ability. I suppose that the other components of my application were enough to prove that to them.

Edit: on the link you sent, my university is ranked 51-100 National.

Edited March 8, 2015 by qualiafreak