B's in grad school? Chances at PhD program?

[overduephil]

Hi all,

 

I'm new to this site. I didn't know that a forum like this existed until a classmate mentioned it to me the other day, so if there's a forum about this already, do let me know. 

 

I'm currently an MA student in philosophy at a somewhat known school. I plan to apply this fall to (hopefully) start in fall 2016 and I just wanted advice on whether B's in grad school will hurt my chances. I received A's, some A-'s, and a B+ and a B during my studies so far. The B was in logic and the B+ was in ethics/metaphysics, which are not my areas of main interest. Both courses were taken in my first semester of grad school. The professors are known in the department for being really tough markers (and the ethics/metaphysics prof is well-known in his field), which is something my letter writers will indicate. But, I'm not sure how my chances at mid-ranked to top programs will be considering the two B's. 

 

Although I did ask professors about this, I would really like some students' perspective on the matter. I know grades are not the only component of an application, but I'm really worried about the B's. Does anyone know of any success stories of students who have gotten B's in their MA and were successful in PhD applications? Should I really be this worried? Am I doomed already?  

[sidevans]

It's certainly not ideal, but I don't think it will kill your chances. It will help if you have really great GRE scores - often, a deficit in either GRE or GPA can be offset by outstanding marks in the other. And since the writing sample and letters of recommendation are the truly crucial parts of an application, you should should make those absolutely as good as possible. It might help if your letter writers address the difficulty of the courses you got B's in, though I would refrain from doing so in your personal statement. That said, admissions committees do look for success in graduate-level coursework as an indicator of how well you'll do in their programs.

 

Overall, yes, it will likely hurt your chances, but no, you're not already doomed.

[philstudent1991]

It helps that it's not in your AOS and other strong elements can overcome it. But the B in logic will be worrying to some because PhD programs almost universally have a logic requirement, and it will be harder than logic at the MA most likely. Since your applications are likely already out, however, all you can really do is take it easy and hope something pans out. The B+ I wouldn't worry about, especially if you are at a known school. 

[ianfaircloud]

I'm currently an MA student in philosophy at a somewhat known school. I plan to apply this fall to (hopefully) start in fall 2016 and I just wanted advice on whether B's in grad school will hurt my chances. I received A's, some A-'s, and a B+ and a B during my studies so far. The B was in logic and the B+ was in ethics/metaphysics, which are not my areas of main interest. Both courses were taken in my first semester of grad school. The professors are known in the department for being really tough markers (and the ethics/metaphysics prof is well-known in his field), which is something my letter writers will indicate. But, I'm not sure how my chances at mid-ranked to top programs will be considering the two B's. 

 

Although I did ask professors about this, I would really like some students' perspective on the matter. I know grades are not the only component of an application, but I'm really worried about the B's. Does anyone know of any success stories of students who have gotten B's in their MA and were successful in PhD applications? Should I really be this worried? Am I doomed already?  

Sid Evans's point is absolutely right, that the grades have not likely doomed you(r application). And here's a piece of general advice to everyone: Do realize that there is only so much control we have over our fates, and paradoxically this can be a comfort at a time when many of us wonder what we should have or could have done differently. In the meantime, take comfort knowing that, given the very wide-ranging expectations and priorities of philosophers who will read your applications, there simply are few exceptionless rules about philosophy admissions.

 

I'm telling you this in complete and utter honesty: At the MA program that I attended -- a very strong program! -- several philosophers in the department care little about grades and disregard test scores altogether! One professor, whom I deeply admire, tells me that it's all about the writing sample for him. If you can't produce a great piece of written work for your one application to the program, that's enough for him. On the other hand, if your work demonstrates promising philosophical potential, he's excited to bring you on board.

 

Overduephil, your question inspired me to produce a post on the philosophy admissions blog. I hope you and others will read the post and offer criticism or feedback generally. In my view, there are three things that an applicant can do to minimize the effect of a weak transcript:

 

1. Know how to tell the story around your transcript weaknesses.

2. Ask your letter-writers to tell this story.

3. If there are salient weaknesses on the transcript, briefly note them in the application.

Edited January 30, 2015 by ianfaircloud

[a_for_aporia]

Hi all,

 

I'm new to this site. I didn't know that a forum like this existed until a classmate mentioned it to me the other day, so if there's a forum about this already, do let me know. 

 

I'm currently an MA student in philosophy at a somewhat known school. I plan to apply this fall to (hopefully) start in fall 2016 and I just wanted advice on whether B's in grad school will hurt my chances. I received A's, some A-'s, and a B+ and a B during my studies so far. The B was in logic and the B+ was in ethics/metaphysics, which are not my areas of main interest. Both courses were taken in my first semester of grad school. The professors are known in the department for being really tough markers (and the ethics/metaphysics prof is well-known in his field), which is something my letter writers will indicate. But, I'm not sure how my chances at mid-ranked to top programs will be considering the two B's. 

 

Although I did ask professors about this, I would really like some students' perspective on the matter. I know grades are not the only component of an application, but I'm really worried about the B's. Does anyone know of any success stories of students who have gotten B's in their MA and were successful in PhD applications? Should I really be this worried? Am I doomed already?  

 

What is your graduate GPA, if you don't mind my asking? 

[jailbreak]

Overduephil, I have mixed feelings about offering my opinion. As philstudent1991 points out, it's too late to do anything about your applications to programs. Will hearing advice bring you down, knowing that there's nothing that can be done now?

 

Here's what may not bring you down: Sid Evans's point is absolutely right, that the grades have not likely doomed you(r application). And here's a piece of general advice to everyone: Do realize that there is only so much control we have over our fates, and paradoxically this can be a comfort at a time when many of us wonder what we should have or could have done differently. In the meantime, take comfort knowing that, given the very wide-ranging expectations and priorities of philosophers who will read your applications, there simply are few exceptionless rules about philosophy admissions.

 

I'm telling you this in complete and utter honesty: At the MA program that I attended -- a very strong program! -- several philosophers in the department care little about grades and disregard test scores altogether! One professor, whom I deeply admire, tells me that it's all about the writing sample for him. If you can't produce a great piece of written work for your one application to the program, that's enough for him. On the other hand, if your work demonstrates promising philosophical potential, he's excited to bring you on board.

 

Overduephil, your question inspired me to produce a post on the philosophy admissions blog. I hope you and others will read the post and offer criticism or feedback generally. In my view, there are three things that an applicant can do to minimize the effect of a weak transcript:

 

1. Know how to tell the story around your transcript weaknesses.

2. Ask your letter-writers to tell this story.

3. If there are salient weaknesses on the transcript, briefly note them in the application.

 

I'm confused why people keep saying that nothing can be done. Overduephil says clearly that they are applying next fall to be admitted in 2016, so no applications have yet been submitted and they will have at least another semester of coursework on their transcript...

[ianfaircloud]

I'm confused why people keep saying that nothing can be done. Overduephil says clearly that they are applying next fall to be admitted in 2016, so no applications have yet been submitted and they will have at least another semester of coursework on their transcript...

Misread the post. Yes, it looks like plenty can be done! Thanks for noting.

[MattDest]

Although I did ask professors about this, I would really like some students' perspective on the matter. I know grades are not the only component of an application, but I'm really worried about the B's. Does anyone know of any success stories of students who have gotten B's in their MA and were successful in PhD applications? Should I really be this worried? Am I doomed already?  

 

 

I got one B+ in my MA, and you can see how my applications turned out in my signature. I don't think grades will necessarily sink your applications, but it's obviously not ideal either. LIke others have said, you can't change any of it now - just finish out the rest of your coursework as best you can and kill your writing sample. 

 

I'm telling you this in complete and utter honesty: At the MA program that I attended -- a very strong program! -- several philosophers in the department care little about grades and disregard test scores altogether! One professor, whom I deeply admire, tells me that it's all about the writing sample for him. If you can't produce a great piece of written work for your one application to the program, that's enough for him. On the other hand, if your work demonstrates promising philosophical potential, he's excited to bring you on board.

 

I understand this is coming from a good place, but I want to register that I don't think this is the case at PhD programs. These programs are trying to fill an extremely small number of spots, and usually they have over 100 applications to wade through (for example, my incoming class at Arizona was 5 students, and they had over 200 applications). Every piece of your application speaks to some of your potential, even if it is only very limiting. Grades that you received in MA coursework (which are, on average, based almost completely on the quality of a term paper) are going to be pretty strong indicators of how you will do in graduate level coursework. 

 

Most MA programs have less applicants with more spots to fill. It's easier for faculty on admissions committees at MA programs to just look for potential, but I don't think many PhD programs have that luxury. 

[ianfaircloud]

I understand this is coming from a good place, but I want to register that I don't think this is the case at PhD programs. These programs are trying to fill an extremely small number of spots, and usually they have over 100 applications to wade through (for example, my incoming class at Arizona was 5 students, and they had over 200 applications). Every piece of your application speaks to some of your potential, even if it is only very limiting. Grades that you received in MA coursework (which are, on average, based almost completely on the quality of a term paper) are going to be pretty strong indicators of how you will do in graduate level coursework. 

 

Most MA programs have less applicants with more spots to fill. It's easier for faculty on admissions committees at MA programs to just look for potential, but I don't think many PhD programs have that luxury. 

 

The professor to whom I refer above (i.e. the one who places so little emphasis on grades and scores) doesn't think so much about whether a person will do well in PhD admissions. He thinks about whether the person will do well as a philosopher, and he simply thinks the only important indicator is the quality of the writing sample. I think there are professors like this all over the place. This goes to show that there simply aren't exceptionless rules about how philosophers will evaluate applicants at any level, PhD or MA. True, grades matter to most philosophers on admissions committees. That I can accept. No doubt about it, as someone said above, bad grades aren't a good thing for applicants. They're a bad thing. My point is that it's actually quite surprising how possible it is to do well with mediocre grades, thanks to professors like the one I described.

 

EDIT. Just a thought about my post, to which MattDest thoughtfully replied. It's important to understand my point in the context of a reply to the worry that an application might be doomed by grades in the B-range. Now that I think about it, if someone reads my post out of context, that person may think that I mean to underestimate the importance of grades. I think MattDest's crucial point, if I may say so, is that in a world of very competitive PhD admissions, grades can really undermine an applicant. If you're a young undergrad reading this, and you hope to apply one day to PhD programs, know that your grades are extremely important. The survey results from last cycle indicate that successful applicants generally have very high grades.  If, however, you are a rising senior or finishing an MA and wondering whether you ought to even bother to submit PhD applications with B-range grades (and I take it that's who we're discussing, based on the original post): I don't think your application is doomed, because in fact, I've worked with a few philosophers who for the most part don't even look at the grades.

Edited January 30, 2015 by ianfaircloud

[sidevans]

Every piece of your application speaks to some of your potential, even if it is only very limiting. Grades that you received in MA coursework (which are, on average, based almost completely on the quality of a term paper) are going to be pretty strong indicators of how you will do in graduate level coursework. 

 

True, grades matter to most philosophers on admissions committees. That I can accept. No doubt about it, as someone said above, bad grades aren't a good thing for applicants. They're a bad thing. My point is that it's actually quite surprising how possible it is to do well with mediocre grades, thanks to professors like the one I described.

 

One of the most important things to remember in assessing one's chances is that philosophy professors have wildly different opinions on which elements of an application are important, and which are close to useless. So, some professors will think that GRE scores are crucial, while others don't even look at them. Same goes for grades - some professors won't want to admit anyone who has blemishes on his/her transcript, while others think they're highly relative.

 

It's basically impossible to know the preferences of the professor(s) who will end up reading your application at any given department. With that in mind, one's strategy should be to make all elements of one's application as good as possible, to try and look good in the eyes of professors with diverse preferences. However, (and this goes especially for grades and GREs) if you do have a weak part of your application, your application does have a chance of being read by someone who doesn't care about that part. This partially explains how applicants can get admitted to some higher ranked departments and rejected from some lower ones. There's just a high level of randomness.

 

This is to say that I'm in agreement with both MattDest and Ian - many professors will care about grades, so having weak grades hurts the strength of one's application. Nonetheless, your application very well may be read by someone who doesn't care very much about a few bad grades, so having bad grades in no way ruins one's chances completely.

[MattDest]

 

EDIT. I think MattDest's crucial point, if I may say so, is that in a world of very competitive PhD admissions, grades can really undermine an applicant. If you're a young undergrad reading this, and you hope to apply one day to PhD programs, know that your grades are extremely important. 

 

This is exactly what I meant to emphasize. I didn't mean to undermine your general comment (as someone with both a shitty undergrad GPA and a mediocre grad GPA, I'm so thankful for professors like the one you mentioned), but I just wanted to signal to potential applicants that they should actually care about the types of grades they receive if their ultimate goal is grad school.

[dgswaim]

I agree with Matt and Ian in that ceteris paribus, you should want your grades to be good and let your efforts reflect that desire. If I could change anything about my academic career thus far it would be the shitty grades I got in my first couple years as an undergrad. Obviously it's possible to overcome these things, but I sure wish I didn't have to. The unfunded PhD offers I had last year might have been funded ones had those grades been better for all I know. I really like my MA program, but still, it would be nice to not have it that I'm working extra hard to maintain a 4.0 in an MA program to compensate for my poor early showing as and undergrad. But then youth is wasted on the young, as they say.

[overduephil]

Thanks for all the advice given so far!

 

I do agree with a majority of you that grades are really important for PhD admissions (which is why I am so worried). Since I can't do anything about them, I'm going to have to do prove my philosophical strengths in the other parts of the application. 

 

Sid Evans's point is absolutely right, that the grades have not likely doomed you(r application). And here's a piece of general advice to everyone: Do realize that there is only so much control we have over our fates, and paradoxically this can be a comfort at a time when many of us wonder what we should have or could have done differently. In the meantime, take comfort knowing that, given the very wide-ranging expectations and priorities of philosophers who will read your applications, there simply are few exceptionless rules about philosophy admissions.

 

I'm telling you this in complete and utter honesty: At the MA program that I attended -- a very strong program! -- several philosophers in the department care little about grades and disregard test scores altogether! One professor, whom I deeply admire, tells me that it's all about the writing sample for him. If you can't produce a great piece of written work for your one application to the program, that's enough for him. On the other hand, if your work demonstrates promising philosophical potential, he's excited to bring you on board.

 

Overduephil, your question inspired me to produce a post on the philosophy admissions blog. I hope you and others will read the post and offer criticism or feedback generally. In my view, there are three things that an applicant can do to minimize the effect of a weak transcript:

 

1. Know how to tell the story around your transcript weaknesses.

2. Ask your letter-writers to tell this story.

3. If there are salient weaknesses on the transcript, briefly note them in the application.

 

 

Ianfaircloud, thanks for the blog post about addressing weaknesses in an application. It's really useful. I hope others read it. I will share it to those I know with weak spots in their apps. 

 

 

What is your graduate GPA, if you don't mind my asking? 

 

 

I'm not done courses, but so far it's 3.67 on a 4.0 scale. I am hoping that when I finish theses courses this semester that I can raise that a bit. But, I don't think it matters much considering the B's. 

 

I got one B+ in my MA, and you can see how my applications turned out in my signature. I don't think grades will necessarily sink your applications, but it's obviously not ideal either. LIke others have said, you can't change any of it now - just finish out the rest of your coursework as best you can and kill your writing sample. 

 

 

I understand this is coming from a good place, but I want to register that I don't think this is the case at PhD programs. These programs are trying to fill an extremely small number of spots, and usually they have over 100 applications to wade through (for example, my incoming class at Arizona was 5 students, and they had over 200 applications). Every piece of your application speaks to some of your potential, even if it is only very limiting. Grades that you received in MA coursework (which are, on average, based almost completely on the quality of a term paper) are going to be pretty strong indicators of how you will do in graduate level coursework. 

 

Most MA programs have less applicants with more spots to fill. It's easier for faculty on admissions committees at MA programs to just look for potential, but I don't think many PhD programs have that luxury. 

 

You must have had an awesome application apart from the B+ if you got into all of those schools and now you're at Arizona. Congrats. I hope I get to see a similar fate. 

 

One of the most important things to remember in assessing one's chances is that philosophy professors have wildly different opinions on which elements of an application are important, and which are close to useless. So, some professors will think that GRE scores are crucial, while others don't even look at them. Same goes for grades - some professors won't want to admit anyone who has blemishes on his/her transcript, while others think they're highly relative.

 

It's basically impossible to know the preferences of the professor(s) who will end up reading your application at any given department. With that in mind, one's strategy should be to make all elements of one's application as good as possible, to try and look good in the eyes of professors with diverse preferences. However, (and this goes especially for grades and GREs) if you do have a weak part of your application, your application does have a chance of being read by someone who doesn't care about that part. This partially explains how applicants can get admitted to some higher ranked departments and rejected from some lower ones. There's just a high level of randomness.

 

This is to say that I'm in agreement with both MattDest and Ian - many professors will care about grades, so having weak grades hurts the strength of one's application. Nonetheless, your application very well may be read by someone who doesn't care very much about a few bad grades, so having bad grades in no way ruins one's chances completely.

 

Thanks for all of your advice so far. Really useful. 

 

I do have a big worry about the B-range grades. If I apply to a school that cuts students based on their grades or GPA, then I might not make it past the first rounds, which means they won't get a chance to see read my writing sample and the rest of the application. Unless, I'm completely wrong about how most departments work? I'm referring to departments that get over 200+ applications. They have to cut it somehow, and I guess GPA and GRE are the first places to make such a cut. Yeah, the randomness is the annoying part of applications, but can also work in favor of an applications. 

 

I agree with Matt and Ian in that ceteris paribus, you should want your grades to be good and let your efforts reflect that desire. If I could change anything about my academic career thus far it would be the shitty grades I got in my first couple years as an undergrad. Obviously it's possible to overcome these things, but I sure wish I didn't have to. The unfunded PhD offers I had last year might have been funded ones had those grades been better for all I know. I really like my MA program, but still, it would be nice to not have it that I'm working extra hard to maintain a 4.0 in an MA program to compensate for my poor early showing as and undergrad. But then youth is wasted on the young, as they say.

 

But, you do have excellent MA grades, so that might work for you during the PhD app season. However, I do agree that it'd be nice not to have to do the extra work, and hopefully PhD committees can see past the early mistakes.

 

The professor to whom I refer above (i.e. the one who places so little emphasis on grades and scores) doesn't think so much about whether a person will do well in PhD admissions. He thinks about whether the person will do well as a philosopher, and he simply thinks the only important indicator is the quality of the writing sample. I think there are professors like this all over the place. This goes to show that there simply aren't exceptionless rules about how philosophers will evaluate applicants at any level, PhD or MA. True, grades matter to most philosophers on admissions committees. That I can accept. No doubt about it, as someone said above, bad grades aren't a good thing for applicants. They're a bad thing. My point is that it's actually quite surprising how possible it is to do well with mediocre grades, thanks to professors like the one I described.

 

EDIT. Just a thought about my post, to which MattDest thoughtfully replied. It's important to understand my point in the context of a reply to the worry that an application might be doomed by grades in the B-range. Now that I think about it, if someone reads my post out of context, that person may think that I mean to underestimate the importance of grades. I think MattDest's crucial point, if I may say so, is that in a world of very competitive PhD admissions, grades can really undermine an applicant. If you're a young undergrad reading this, and you hope to apply one day to PhD programs, know that your grades are extremely important. The survey results from last cycle indicate that successful applicants generally have very high grades.  If, however, you are a rising senior or finishing an MA and wondering whether you ought to even bother to submit PhD applications with B-range grades (and I take it that's who we're discussing, based on the original post): I don't think your application is doomed, because in fact, I've worked with a few philosophers who for the most part don't even look at the grades.

 

Interesting. I have a general idea as to why some profs favor the writing sample, but can you tell me why the prof you admire thinks so? 

 

Edited January 31, 2015 by overduephil

[alopachuca]

I'm telling you this in complete and utter honesty: At the MA program that I attended -- a very strong program! -- several philosophers in the department care little about grades and disregard test scores altogether! One professor, whom I deeply admire, tells me that it's all about the writing sample for him. If you can't produce a great piece of written work for your one application to the program, that's enough for him. On the other hand, if your work demonstrates promising philosophical potential, he's excited to bring you on board.

 

I've suspected this myself. Maybe it's not a prevalent attitude but I've seen it in undergrad. One professor said very casually to me, "I've noticed that the best students, they don't get good grades". I know mostly everyone here would object to that, but keep in mind he was speaking anecdotally. 

 

Who knows if we can draw any parallel between what some departments look for when they're hiring compared to when they're handing out grad acceptances. But if we can, professors have said that departments don't care about grades even close to as much as they care about hiring people who will be good professors. (David Schmidtz said in his advice on the academic job market that people don't receive offers because they're boring). I asume that an applicant's ability to produce mature, creative, interesting work might, in some eyes, outweigh an imperfect grade history.

 

I actually remember a couple of classes where I read with deeper rigor, had better insights, and generally put in a lot more work than some of my friends and peers, and yet they were getting better grades because they were strategic about how much work they did (for example, how many readings they could skip, how many lectures they could skip, etc.). Grades, I think, can be more telling of an applicant's ability to get work done, maintain good work habits, prioritize with large workloads, and meet deadlines responsibly. Which is also very important.

Edited February 3, 2015 by alopachuca

[ianfaircloud]

The question is, why might a professor care almost exclusively about writing sample and overlook grades and GPA?

 

Interesting. I have a general idea as to why some profs favor the writing sample, but can you tell me why the prof you admire thinks so? 

 

My sense from talking with this professor is that he simply believes that, since quality of writing is the measure of a philosopher, it ought to be the measure of an applicant. Is that simplistic? After all, we nearly always (justifiably? necessarily?) judge a philosopher by the content of her written work (the ideas contained, the quality of the expression). There are many reasons, besides incompetence, that a person may perform poorly in terms of grades and test scores.

 

It seems like a person simply can't "do philosophy" (at least in our context*) unless she can produce quality, written work. That's what it is to "do philosophy" in our context. So why not have the applicant "do philosophy" in the application and evaluate the applicant on how well she can do philosophy?

 

*Of course, there are famous philosophers who have been evaluated on the basis of their oral communication alone.

[Cecinestpasunphilosophe]

The question is, why might a professor care almost exclusively about writing sample and overlook grades and GPA?

 

 

My sense from talking with this professor is that he simply believes that, since quality of writing is the measure of a philosopher, it ought to be the measure of an applicant. Is that simplistic? After all, we nearly always (justifiably? necessarily?) judge a philosopher by the content of her written work (the ideas contained, the quality of the expression). There are many reasons, besides incompetence, that a person may perform poorly in terms of grades and test scores.

 

It seems like a person simply can't "do philosophy" (at least in our context*) unless she can produce quality, written work. That's what it is to "do philosophy" in our context. So why not have the applicant "do philosophy" in the application and evaluate the applicant on how well she can do philosophy?

 

*Of course, there are famous philosophers who have been evaluated on the basis of their oral communication alone.

 

Because, I worry, many writing samples are not an individual applicant doing philosophy - or, at least, not that individual uniquely. There was a discussion elsewhere on this forum about the benefits and drawbacks of attending MA programs in philosophy, and one of the salient points of the discussion was that most top MA programs devote significant resources to ensuring that graduates from their programs produce the best writing sample possible. This means, however, that many of those writing samples have received the input of numerous professors, have (likely, I imagine) been the principal focus of the student during much of their first semester in the MA program, and so forth. I think it's too simplistic to argue that the writing sample is simply a candidate doing philosophy. A candidate from a prestigious MA program will have had much more support in producing their writing sample than any given undergraduate, and a candidate from a T20 school's undergraduate program will in turn likely have had far more institutional support than from a small liberal arts college. 

So yes, GPAs can be skewed through course selection, and often demonstrate organizational abilities as much as "pure" academic ability. GREs often are only really representative of one's ability to write tests well. But I think one ignores a lot of the underlying factors at play when one claims that a writing sample gives admissions officers a pure insight into a student's academic ability.

 

I once had a senior professor at my department tell me that when he sits on admissions committees, the first thing he looks at is transcripts - but not for the marks. Instead, he looks at the courses an individual has taken. He said that seeing an individual's choice of courses over four years (the difficulty thereof, the breadth and depth of interests both within philosophy and in other disciplines, an so forth) told him more about the candidate as a person than pretty much anything else in the application. I've always quite liked that idea.

Edited February 3, 2015 by Cecinestpasunphilosophe

[ianfaircloud]

Because, I worry, many writing samples are not an individual applicant doing philosophy - or, at least, not that individual uniquely. There was a discussion elsewhere on this forum about the benefits and drawbacks of attending MA programs in philosophy, and one of the salient points of the discussion was that most top MA programs devote significant resources to ensuring that graduates from their programs produce the best writing sample possible. This means, however, that many of those writing samples have received the input of numerous professors, have (likely, I imagine) been the principal focus of the student during much of their first semester in the MA program, and so forth. I think it's too simplistic to argue that the writing sample is simply a candidate doing philosophy. A candidate from a prestigious MA program will have had much more support in producing their writing sample than any given undergraduate, and a candidate from a T20 school's undergraduate program will in turn likely have had far more institutional support than from a small liberal arts college. 

So yes, GPAs can be skewed through course selection, and often demonstrate organizational abilities as much as "pure" academic ability. GREs often are only really representative of one's ability to write tests well. But I think one ignores a lot of the underlying factors at play when one claims that a writing sample gives admissions officers a pure insight into a student's academic ability.

 

I once had a senior professor at my department tell me that when he sits on admissions committees, the first thing he looks at is transcripts - but not for the marks. Instead, he looks at the courses an individual has taken. He said that seeing an individual's choice of courses over four years (the difficulty thereof, the breadth and depth of interests both within philosophy and in other disciplines, an so forth) told him more about the candidate as a person than pretty much anything else in the application. I've always quite liked that idea.

 

Two quick things in reply:

 

1. I understand the sentiment of your post to be: writing samples shouldn't be the only basis on which an applicant is evaluated. I wholeheartedly agree. If you meant something more, do say so.

 

2. To your point about MA programs helping students produce better samples: http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2014/02/phd-admissions-writing-samples-and-ma-programs.html. This highly relevant post discusses the same point. The comments are particularly apt and worth a complete read, in my view.

 

edit for grammar

Edited February 3, 2015 by ianfaircloud

[Establishment]

Because, I worry, many writing samples are not an individual applicant doing philosophy - or, at least, not that individual uniquely. There was a discussion elsewhere on this forum about the benefits and drawbacks of attending MA programs in philosophy, and one of the salient points of the discussion was that most top MA programs devote significant resources to ensuring that graduates from their programs produce the best writing sample possible. This means, however, that many of those writing samples have received the input of numerous professors, have (likely, I imagine) been the principal focus of the student during much of their first semester in the MA program, and so forth. I think it's too simplistic to argue that the writing sample is simply a candidate doing philosophy. A candidate from a prestigious MA program will have had much more support in producing their writing sample than any given undergraduate, and a candidate from a T20 school's undergraduate program will in turn likely have had far more institutional support than from a small liberal arts college.

 

That seems the most proper way of doing philosophy. One writes a paper, and receives feedback from their peers, be they undergraduates, graduates, professors, or a combination of both. Through getting published one must have their paper evaluated by their peers and often receive some written feedback. There's this insinuation (mind you, I didn't see this insinuation in your post, but it came up in a Leiter discussion before so I wanted to address this prejudice anyways) which is that MA writing samples are somehow "coached" by the professors and are not a good representation of one's written work. Anyone who has any experience with MA programs will know this isn't the case (and the overwhelming response in that Leiter discussion was to this effect).

 

While I don't think writing samples give pure insight into one's academic ability since there is an unfair playing field, I do think they are by far and away the best (and only real) source. The courses an individual has taken might tell more about about the candidate as a person, but they tell me nill about the candidate as a someone capable of doing (that is, writing) philosophy. (And I say this as someone who is suspicious that they were admitted to MA/PhD programs two years ago based on factors other than their writing sample, and who has henceforth discovered that they can't write to save their life.)

[ianfaircloud]

That seems the most proper way of doing philosophy. One writes a paper, and receives feedback from their peers, be they undergraduates, graduates, professors, or a combination of both. Through getting published one must have their paper evaluated by their peers and often receive some written feedback. There's this insinuation (mind you, I didn't see this insinuation in your post, but it came up in a Leiter discussion before so I wanted to address this prejudice anyways) which is that MA writing samples are somehow "coached" by the professors and are not a good representation of one's written work. Anyone who has any experience with MA programs will know this isn't the case (and the overwhelming response in that Leiter discussion was to this effect).

 

While I don't think writing samples give pure insight into one's academic ability since there is an unfair playing field, I do think they are by far and away the best (and only real) source. The courses an individual has taken might tell more about about the candidate as a person, but they tell me nill about the candidate as a someone capable of doing (that is, writing) philosophy. (And I say this as someone who is suspicious that they were admitted to MA/PhD programs two years ago based on factors other than their writing sample, and who has henceforth discovered that they can't write to save their life.)

 

Strange. I tried to upvote this post five times, but the system prevented more than one.

[Cecinestpasunphilosophe]

That seems the most proper way of doing philosophy. One writes a paper, and receives feedback from their peers, be they undergraduates, graduates, professors, or a combination of both. Through getting published one must have their paper evaluated by their peers and often receive some written feedback. There's this insinuation (mind you, I didn't see this insinuation in your post, but it came up in a Leiter discussion before so I wanted to address this prejudice anyways) which is that MA writing samples are somehow "coached" by the professors and are not a good representation of one's written work. Anyone who has any experience with MA programs will know this isn't the case (and the overwhelming response in that Leiter discussion was to this effect).

 

While I don't think writing samples give pure insight into one's academic ability since there is an unfair playing field, I do think they are by far and away the best (and only real) source. The courses an individual has taken might tell more about about the candidate as a person, but they tell me nill about the candidate as a someone capable of doing (that is, writing) philosophy. (And I say this as someone who is suspicious that they were admitted to MA/PhD programs two years ago based on factors other than their writing sample, and who has henceforth discovered that they can't write to save their life.)

 

Certainly not an insinuation I wished to make! I merely wanted to gesture at the same fact as you did, that writing samples cannot be viewed as providing pure insight into a candidate's academic ability, since there is a necessarily unjust playing field when one compares an applicant's writing sample out of an MA program and, say, a small liberal arts college. The MA candidate is likely doing philosophical work to the best of his or her philosophical ability at the time of his/her application - but the students without the same level of institutional support generally aren't performing at the same level because of differences that have everything to do with their institutions and nothing to do with their individual intellectual merit as a future academic. I worry that we often gloss over those institutional differences when we refer to writing samples as the best (or, often, the only) way of meaningfully evaluating a candidates "pure" academic ability.

[Chai tea]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scapegoating

[Establishment]

While writing samples are the result of institutional prejudices, can't it still be the case that writing samples serve a central place in evaluations? One might be able to identify that Candidate A from nowhere shows a lot more promise in his writing than Candidate B from an MA program, and that all Candidate A needs is the proper support.

Edited February 3, 2015 by Establishment

[isostheneia]

Regardless of the considerations about how applications should be reviewed by admissions committees, I think there's one practical consideration we can note: in preparing a writing sample, show it to everyone. Show it to professors, grad students, fellow undergrads, and listen to their comments. People with little knowledge of your particular issue can be especially helpful in detecting turns of phrase or entire discussions that are unclear, since they don't know the relevant terminology, and an adcom member might not either. This is, perhaps, especially important for undergrad students who done have the same institutional support as MA students or undergrads at high-ranked schools - it's all the more important to get feedback.

 

In terms of the fairness of judging applications by their writing samples, I'm inclined to say that the writing sample provides by far the most evidence of the sort of qualities departments should look for in an applicant, despite the difference in institutional support. At the same time, it's entirely possible for admissions committees to take into account the variety of levels of institutional support when judging writing samples. This just means that not all writing samples should be judged in exactly the same way, not that they should have varying levels of importance based on varying levels of institutional support. (I don't take this to be contrary to what any of you are saying.) While an adcom shouldn't fault the Harvard student for having shown her sample to many different people, a highly sophisticated paper may look all the more impressive because it was produced by someone from Oklahoma State - Woodward.

[tuv0k]

Hi all,

I'm new to this site. I didn't know that a forum like this existed until a classmate mentioned it to me the other day, so if there's a forum about this already, do let me know.

I'm currently an MA student in philosophy at a somewhat known school. I plan to apply this fall to (hopefully) start in fall 2016 and I just wanted advice on whether B's in grad school will hurt my chances. I received A's, some A-'s, and a B+ and a B during my studies so far. The B was in logic and the B+ was in ethics/metaphysics, which are not my areas of main interest. Both courses were taken in my first semester of grad school. The professors are known in the department for being really tough markers (and the ethics/metaphysics prof is well-known in his field), which is something my letter writers will indicate. But, I'm not sure how my chances at mid-ranked to top programs will be considering the two B's.

Although I did ask professors about this, I would really like some students' perspective on the matter. I know grades are not the only component of an application, but I'm really worried about the B's. Does anyone know of any success stories of students who have gotten B's in their MA and were successful in PhD applications? Should I really be this worried? Am I doomed already?

Hi,

I'm an applicant for this season with more than a few B+s on my grad transcript. My GPA was 3.67, but I only received one actual A-... yeah. I'm pretty certain this will hurt my chances, although I've stopped worrying about it. I'll post on this thread to let you know how things go. So far, wait listed by Duke.

Edited February 3, 2015 by tuv0k

[overoverover]

I'll openly admit to getting a lot of help with my writing sample. I sent lots of drafts to lots of people. If I were publishing it, I'd be morally obligated to probably list 8 people (minimum) in the acknowledgments section. But I don't think that makes my sample any less a measure of my philosophical acumen (and mine alone). I got a lot of help because I'm still a young philosopher, and at this stage it'd be absurd to not get as much feedback as possible from anyone whose opinion I trust and respect. After all, we are students currently, and part of that process is learning to do philosophy professionally.