Is it OK to ask why I got rejected?

[exaznable]

I am planning to reapply next year. I know that at this point there is nothing much I can do other than having a better writing sample. But it would be very helpful if I can get a sense of what the drawback of my application was and how far I mad in the admission process.

 

So, is it acceptable to ask why I got rejected to the departments I applied to? I am bit worried, because I will apply to some of same programs. I think they won't remember in any case, but who knows..

 

 

[Duns Eith]

Sometimes it is a roll of the dice.

[Mechanician2015]

I am planning to reapply next year. I know that at this point there is nothing much I can do other than having a better writing sample. But it would be very helpful if I can get a sense of what the drawback of my application was and how far I mad in the admission process.

 

So, is it acceptable to ask why I got rejected to the departments I applied to? I am bit worried, because I will apply to some of same programs. I think they won't remember in any case, but who knows..

 

So long as you ask in a polite, professional manner, it is even encouraged by some programs(I've heard about the myth of department in the humanities that have specialized staff to give feedback to those who request it).

 

In my case, I gave the 3 programs that rejected me about 3 weeks after notification. I asked them politely for feedback, expressing very clearly my agreement with their decision. Department (A) answered the day after: by policy we can not disclose what was discussed in the AdComm meeting. At (B ), the director of the program took the time(1 week after my inquiry, but that is comprehensible) to write a note letting me now that the main issue was funding and availability of my intended research area(I could tell, since they receive 120-160 applications every year and accept between 4 and 6 students). School © never replied... to think that they were my first choice...

 

tl;dr: Ask politely, don't challenge their decision(since it's already made), but don't expect a lot of feedback since they are not actually forced to do it(Although after a $95 app fee I would say it's kind of a moral commitment... but they won't care).

Edited April 25, 2015 by Mechanician2015

[philstudent1991]

Sure. Ask nicely. I did this as well and got feedback from several places. But also, don't expect anything profound. They will likely just say "You were great but we had 200+ applicants for 5 spots" or whatever. 

[ianfaircloud]

I am planning to reapply next year. I know that at this point there is nothing much I can do other than having a better writing sample. But it would be very helpful if I can get a sense of what the drawback of my application was and how far I mad in the admission process.

 

So, is it acceptable to ask why I got rejected to the departments I applied to? I am bit worried, because I will apply to some of same programs. I think they won't remember in any case, but who knows..

 

Just from memory, it felt like most programs in one way or another discouraged applicants from doing this (either by saying something on the website or by saying something in an email notification). Usually it's under "FAQ" on the admissions portion of the philosophy site. NYU, for instance, says: "As stated above, we get many excellent applications and can only extend offers to a small handful of them. Many strong applications are unsuccessful. As a matter of policy, we are not permitted to discuss details regarding individual decisions." So if you're going to contact a program about this, make sure that the department hasn't already told you not to ask!

 

In summary, I guess I see no problem asking some departments why you were not admitted. The cost is minimal. Perhaps some people benefit from this, too. And even though some departments don't want you to ask, you could actually get some information, somewhere, from someone, in response to a request. However...

 

I admit I'm somewhat skeptical that you will get much of anything valuable (notwithstanding the above suggestions that it has worked for some people). Here's why. What are the chances that you will connect with the people who actually reviewed your application, the people who actually decided against you? If you do, what are the chances that even they will know why they didn't admit you? Did they, for instance, keep detailed notes about each applicant whom they denied admission? I've been told by members of admission committees things to this effect: It's really, really tough to distinguish some of these applications. Unless your application did have a weakness that was apparent to them but not apparent to you, the members of admissions committees may be no better positioned to help you than you are.

 

There's another problem with asking: The problem is that the reason you were denied admission to one place probably isn't the reason you were denied admission to some other place. In fact, it's possible that the reasons could be conflicting! Maybe you'll hear back: "Yeah, we thought you focused too much on feature X of your background." Suppose the other school denied you admission for this reason: "We thought you focused too little on feature X of your background."

 

All this is to say that I think you could drive yourself crazy with this.

 

What might be more helpful is to connect with someone at a good philosophy department who has worked on an admissions committee. Ask that person to look at your application to spot weaknesses. The obvious drawback of this solution: How many people out here have access to someone like this who would be willing to do this? Another thing: You could talk with your advisor about your application. Most of us have done that. You could also ask people on the forum whether they might look over your materials. The advisor option is probably best. The problem there is that not everyone has a great advisor.

 

Finally: This is one of the many reasons that philosophy admissions can be like a black box. We've tried our best -- really, we have -- to shed some light on the black box that is philosophy admissions. There are now several good blogs that help with this. My survey last year generated data on something like 80+ applicants, and that information is available to everyone. But probably the most troubling thing about philosophy admissions -- next to how difficult it is to be admitted anywhere -- is that we don't know enough to predict how any particular applicant will do. (In fact, much of it wouldn't be predictable, even with all the information.) You can't do it "right" and expect to be admitted. That's so damn frustrating for people. Trust me, I get it. It's not like law admissions, where there's really a formula to determine the outcome. That doesn't mean we (in philosophy admissions) won't keep trying.

[exaznable]

So long as you ask in a polite, professional manner, it is even encouraged by some programs(I've heard about the myth of department in the humanities that have specialized staff to give feedback to those who request it).

 

In my case, I gave the 3 programs that rejected me about 3 weeks after notification. I asked them politely for feedback, expressing very clearly my agreement with their decision. Department (A) answered the day after: by policy we can not disclose what was discussed in the AdComm meeting. At (B ), the director of the program took the time(1 week after my inquiry, but that is comprehensible) to write a note letting me now that the main issue was funding and availability of my intended research area(I could tell, since they receive 120-160 applications every year and accept between 4 and 6 students). School © never replied... to think that they were my first choice...

 

tl;dr: Ask politely, don't challenge their decision(since it's already made), but don't expect a lot of feedback since they are not actually forced to do it(Although after a $95 app fee I would say it's kind of a moral commitment... but they won't care).

 

This is a good information! Thanks. I may try to ask some programs that I am not going to apply again. I hope they will give some feedback to me. 

 

Sure. Ask nicely. I did this as well and got feedback from several places. But also, don't expect anything profound. They will likely just say "You were great but we had 200+ applicants for 5 spots" or whatever. 

 

But at the same time, I can see that asking feedback might not be helpful for me in any case. Thanks for this answer too!

[exaznable]

Just from memory, it felt like most programs in one way or another discouraged applicants from doing this (either by saying something on the website or by saying something in an email notification). Usually it's under "FAQ" on the admissions portion of the philosophy site. NYU, for instance, says: "As stated above, we get many excellent applications and can only extend offers to a small handful of them. Many strong applications are unsuccessful. As a matter of policy, we are not permitted to discuss details regarding individual decisions." So if you're going to contact a program about this, make sure that the department hasn't already told you not to ask!

 

In summary, I guess I see no problem asking some departments why you were not admitted. The cost is minimal. Perhaps some people benefit from this, too. And even though some departments don't want you to ask, you could actually get some information, somewhere, from someone, in response to a request. However...

 

I admit I'm somewhat skeptical that you will get much of anything valuable (notwithstanding the above suggestions that it has worked for some people). Here's why. What are the chances that you will connect with the people who actually reviewed your application, the people who actually decided against you? If you do, what are the chances that even they will know why they didn't admit you? Did they, for instance, keep detailed notes about each applicant whom they denied admission? I've been told by members of admission committees things to this effect: It's really, really tough to distinguish some of these applications. Unless your application did have a weakness that was apparent to them but not apparent to you, the members of admissions committees may be no better positioned to help you than you are.

 

There's another problem with asking: The problem is that the reason you were denied admission to one place probably isn't the reason you were denied admission to some other place. In fact, it's possible that the reasons could be conflicting! Maybe you'll hear back: "Yeah, we thought you focused too much on feature X of your background." Suppose the other school denied you admission for this reason: "We thought you focused too little on feature X of your background."

 

All this is to say that I think you could drive yourself crazy with this.

 

What might be more helpful is to connect with someone at a good philosophy department who has worked on an admissions committee. Ask that person to look at your application to spot weaknesses. The obvious drawback of this solution: How many people out here have access to someone like this who would be willing to do this? Another thing: You could talk with your advisor about your application. Most of us have done that. You could also ask people on the forum whether they might look over your materials. The advisor option is probably best. The problem there is that not everyone has a great advisor.

 

Finally: This is one of the many reasons that philosophy admissions can be like a black box. We've tried our best -- really, we have -- to shed some light on the black box that is philosophy admissions. There are now several good blogs that help with this. My survey last year generated data on something like 80+ applicants, and that information is available to everyone. But probably the most troubling thing about philosophy admissions -- next to how difficult it is to be admitted anywhere -- is that we don't know enough to predict how any particular applicant will do. (In fact, much of it wouldn't be predictable, even with all the information.) You can't do it "right" and expect to be admitted. That's so damn frustrating for people. Trust me, I get it. It's not like law admissions, where there's really a formula to determine the outcome. That doesn't mean we (in philosophy admissions) won't keep trying.

Thank you for this long response! I think I would ask some departments to which I will not apply next year without any expectation to get a valuable feedback. It is actually very obvious what I should do (mostly, writing a better sample).

 

I just wanted to have a sense of what will happen next year, because I am now anxious due to this year's result. I think you're right. The problem is that it is so difficult to predict my odds. Everyone told me that writing sample is the single most important factor. It's good, but it may also give the delusion that I can get accepted from the programs of my choice IF my writing sample is awesome. Maybe it's true, but maybe not. I wish it's true so that I can have hope to push me to work hard, but I don't want to have a false belief.

 

I am in a very good terminal master's program (T-7). So fortunately, I have a fabulous advisor who has done this process with different students for many years. I've talked with him a lot, and with other professors here too, but the conclusion of our conversation almost always was "No one knows what will happen." 

 

Currently, I am worried mostly about my undergraduate degree and grades. I am from South Korea, and I didn't major in philosophy (I didn't even take a philosophy class, except an introductory one 13 years ago). My undergraduate institution is prestigious in Korea, but I doubt that philosophers here can notice this. My undergraduate grades are not good, but all professors here I've showed my transcripts said that my grades would not matter so much. I thought that because it may be hard for admission commitee to interpret my undergraduate transcripts, my letters and performance here would be much more important, which I wanted to be the case. But perhaps my undergraduate degree and grades are crucial, given the competition level of the process. Worrying this kind of things is so painful, because there is nothing I can do but worrying. 

 

I've looked up the survey from your blog. Thanks so much! It was really helpful. The survey seems to suggest that even for a student with a master's degree, his or her undergraduate degree, major and grades matter. Maybe it is just because someone who was good from the start tends to write a better sample or have better letters. In any case, I don't know how seriously I should take it into account.

[philstudent1991]

 

 

I am in a very good terminal master's program (T-7). So fortunately, I have a fabulous advisor who has done this process with different students for many years. I've talked with him a lot, and with other professors here too, but the conclusion of our conversation almost always was "No one knows what will happen." 

I was wondering about that. It seems like you can phrase the question more politely and fruitfully this way. Rather than, "hey why'd you reject me" you can say "I was rejected at your program this time around, but I was accepted to MA program X and will be applying out in a few years' time. I was hoping you might be able to give me some advice as to how I can make the most of my time at program X."

[abreak]

I agree with others who have posted in this thread that the admissions committee probably can't or won't tell why you weren't admitted (although, again, it probably wouldn't hurt to ask). What I'd recommend is that you talk with your advisor or referees and ask them what they think the weakest part of your scholarly profile is and how you can start to improve on it this year.

 

 

I didn't major in philosophy (I didn't even take a philosophy class, except an introductory one 13 years ago)

This could be a strike against you, depending on how closely related your current discipline is to your interest in philosophy. If, for example, you're majoring in geology and propose to study German Romanticism you may have a hard time convincing the committee that you have an adequate background in the topic you studied. I should say that I managed to get into a philosophy program after majoring in Classics, but it happened to be a classics program that specialized in ancient philosophy and I proposed to work on ancient philosophy. In any case, if there is a possible gap it might be worthwhile to take a few philosophy courses, especially advanced courses in your general area of interest, or perhaps to take a few courses on other philosophical topics to give yourself a more rounded philosophical background.

[twentysix]

I tried to ask for one program, they didn't reply at all.

 

I think it just depends on the department/school and if whoever you contact is feeling helpful.

[jailbreak]

Finally: This is one of the many reasons that philosophy admissions can be like a black box. We've tried our best -- really, we have -- to shed some light on the black box that is philosophy admissions. There are now several good blogs that help with this. My survey last year generated data on something like 80+ applicants, and that information is available to everyone. But probably the most troubling thing about philosophy admissions -- next to how difficult it is to be admitted anywhere -- is that we don't know enough to predict how any particular applicant will do. (In fact, much of it wouldn't be predictable, even with all the information.) You can't do it "right" and expect to be admitted. That's so damn frustrating for people. Trust me, I get it. It's not like law admissions, where there's really a formula to determine the outcome. That doesn't mean we (in philosophy admissions) won't keep trying.

 

I guess I don't understand why we should strive for a formula for graduate admissions. I get that a lot of people invest a lot of their lives into these applications and end up with nothing to show for it, and to some extent there's something morally repugnant about that fact. But on the other hand, there are good reasons why philosophy admissions aren't as formulaic as law admissions. Unlike many law schools, philosophy programs don't have hundreds of spots -- they often only have 5 or 6. I think it's obviously better this way, because if they accepted many more, very few of them would be able to get jobs after investing 5-7 years of their lives in grad school, and there wouldn't be enough funding for everyone. But if we're going to accept that it's best to keep matriculating numbers low, we will also have to accept that admissions will always have an element of luck and uncertainty; when admissions rates hover around 2 or 3%, it's just not possible that everyone will be able to get in where they want to go (and some may be shut out). And the numbers of accepted candidates at any one school are so small that it's hard to glean anything of statistical significance from the people who were chosen. Additionally, the writing sample is an important part of philosophy admissions (often it's the most important part), and evaluating writing sample quality is always going to be somewhat subjective. It's not something you can really account for in a formula or a survey. At the same time, I think the admissions process would be worsened if writing samples weren't a major element -- after all, composing philosophy articles is the cornerstone of what it means to be an academic in philosophy, and we are/were asking admission into that world. 

[ianfaircloud]

I guess I don't understand why we should strive for a formula for graduate admissions. I get that a lot of people invest a lot of their lives into these applications and end up with nothing to show for it, and to some extent there's something morally repugnant about that fact. But on the other hand, there are good reasons why philosophy admissions aren't as formulaic as law admissions. Unlike many law schools, philosophy programs don't have hundreds of spots -- they often only have 5 or 6. I think it's obviously better this way, because if they accepted many more, very few of them would be able to get jobs after investing 5-7 years of their lives in grad school, and there wouldn't be enough funding for everyone. But if we're going to accept that it's best to keep matriculating numbers low, we will also have to accept that admissions will always have an element of luck and uncertainty; when admissions rates hover around 2 or 3%, it's just not possible that everyone will be able to get in where they want to go (and some may be shut out). And the numbers of accepted candidates at any one school are so small that it's hard to glean anything of statistical significance from the people who were chosen. Additionally, the writing sample is an important part of philosophy admissions (often it's the most important part), and evaluating writing sample quality is always going to be somewhat subjective. It's not something you can really account for in a formula or a survey. At the same time, I think the admissions process would be worsened if writing samples weren't a major element -- after all, composing philosophy articles is the cornerstone of what it means to be an academic in philosophy, and we are/were asking admission into that world. 

 

I do agree with this. I don't think we should strive for a formula. It's hard to imagine what kind of formula would be workable and would produce desirable outcomes. The formulaic element of law admissions is there by necessity, as you suggest. There are benefits and drawbacks to a formula. The benefit is that people (in my experience) don't feel as cheated: they are told exactly what to do, and they do it. It's predictable. You invest the time, you get a certain GPA, a certain LSAT. You do those things, and you automatically get an offer corresponding to your performance by the numbers. There's something that feels right about that. I guess there's an intuition that fairly equally-situated people (in the broadest sense) who put in the same effort, ought to get the same result. But it just can't be that way with philosophy admissions, in part because the important credentials are evaluated holistically (as they ought to be). The drawback of a formula is that it denies applicants the chance to be evaluated as whole people whose relevant qualities extend beyond tests and grades. Of all fields, philosophy ought to be one that appreciates the whole person. Law schools often pretend to evaluate applicants holistically. They do not, because they can't. Instead they strive to position the class so that they maintain or improve their rankings on US News.

 

In summary: We might complain that philosophy admissions isn't formulaic or predictable, only for two reasons: some of us wish it could be that way for us; and maybe we think it ought to be a little more predictable than it is right now. But we accept that it can't and shouldn't collapse into a formulaic and mechanical process.

[perpetuavix]

As someone who spent a fair amount of time with the data from last year's survey (is another one going to happen this year? I'd love to expand the data set.....), I don't think the goal was ever to find a formula. Which might seem a little strange, because I posted something that was basically a formula that spits out a probability.

It may look like one can just plug in their stats to the regression equation and get out a probability for their chances of getting at least one offer of admissions, but it doesn't work like that at all. The things that I found that correlated best with application success were GPA, verbal GRE scores, and gender. I hope it goes without saying that correlation isn't causation, but the people who were most successful did have a lot of similarities. While it's impossible to quantify things like writing sample quality, fit, or strength of recommendation letters, we can look at the 'numbers' of an applicant. To me, the results from last year show that things like GPA and GRE scores do seem to correlate with the more subjective measures of quality: if you have a high GPA, it's probably because you've done good work in your classes and will get stronger letters. Obviously, having good grades doesn't cause one to be a stronger writer or a better candidate generally; in fact, there were plenty of candidates who were shut out who had almost identical numerical profiles to those who received one or more offers. 

So we're never going to have an exact formula that can determine someone's chances of acceptance, but it's still valuable to know what a successful candidate.