How many programs should one consider?

[thatsjustsemantics]

Dear GradCafe community,

It's fairly quiet this season, but maybe that will change after application deadlines. I have a question: how many schools should one (at least or at most) apply to?
I'm considering 15 programs, but that's nearly $1800 in application fees (Application fee + GRE scores). I was thinking about cutting off 3 to 5 programs. The problem is that I have a lot of top 20 schools in my list. Should I just cut NYU, Princeton, Rutgers, and Ann Arbor from my lists because of how competitive they are? What do you think?

S.

Edited October 30, 2015 by thatsjustsemantics

[gughok]

Dear GradCafe community,

It's fairly quiet this season, but maybe that will change after application deadlines. I have a question: how many schools should one (at least or at most) apply to?
I'm considering 15 programs, but that's nearly $1800 in application fees (Application fee + GRE scores). I was thinking about cutting off 3 to 5 programs. The problem is that I have a lot of top 20 schools in my list. Should I just cut NYU, Princeton, Rutgers, and Ann Arbor from my lists because of how competitive they are? What do you think?

S.

I've seen people applying to about that many, and it's often recommended to try for about as wide a range, but it's unfortunately true as you say that the expensive is prohibitive. People are recommending to me somewhere between five and ten so far, though I still don't have a finalized list.

From what I've heard my professors say, then, you'd be safe applying to just ten. But if the cost and time of applying to more aren't an issue for you, you've got nothing to lose and plenty to gain there (assuming they're good programs).

Don't give up on the more competitive schools unless you're absolutely certain you don't make the cut - and I'd venture to say you can't make that determination yourself. My own professors have told me that every application cycle, people who seem like definite admits are shut out while borderline cases have unexpected success. You aren't on NYU's admissions committee so you don't know what they're looking for, and given how much luck seems to play into these things, you'd be ill-advised to try and guess.

[NathanKellen]

I recommend you apply to all the schools on your list, unless your advisers tell you otherwise. You don't want to be looking back on this experience and be thinking "What if I had applied to X, Y and Z as well..".

[philstudent1991]

I recommend you apply to all the schools on your list, unless your advisers tell you otherwise. You don't want to be looking back on this experience and be thinking "What if I had applied to X, Y and Z as well..".

I agree with this. However, I also think there is no reason to apply to programs that you cannot imagine yourself attending. We all know how competitive academic jobs are in philosophy, and we all know that pedigree ends up being weighted pretty heavily in hiring. So, if your aim is to get a job, it seems to make sense to stack your applications towards the top and not worry just about getting in somewhere. Yes, in all likelihood you will be rejected from NYU (and I say that knowing nothing about you as an individual, instead reasoning from how competitive NYU is). So if you want to spend your 100 bucks more frugally there are probably better investments. But I would consider cutting schools at the bottom of your list too, since I think there are only a handful of schools worth attending if your main goal is a tenured, research position in philosophy. If you just want to get a PhD in philosophy from whoever will have you, apply wherever, but I don't think that's a good idea  

[thatsjustsemantics]

Everyone is making good points on the ambivalent decision of choosing which graduate schools one should apply to. Ultimately, I decided to cut two schools (UT-Austin & UC San Diego). Although I envisioned enjoying studying in both places, I decided that applying to schools with at least some notable strengths in metaphysics (according to the Philosophical Gourmet) would be a better idea, given my interest in metaphysics.

As for cutting schools at the "bottom of the list," I'm not so sure that that is wise. Given that one's chances of attending a lower leiter ranked school is better than a much higher one, if there are low ranked schools that are a genuine fit then of course one shouldn't cut them, especially if at this stage you're thinking more about getting shut out than getting tenure.

 

Edited October 30, 2015 by thatsjustsemantics

[jjb919]

All of my advisers during my MA program told me to apply to at least 8-10 schools, for the simple reasoning that the application process can't be predicted and the more schools you apply to the greater the chances that you'll be accepted somewhere. I originally planned to apply to nine schools.

But given my individual circumstances that I've laid out in previous posts, I know that even if I am accepted into multiple programs, it is more likely that I will not enroll in a PhD program than I will (how much more likely I can't quite say). I could no longer stomach the idea of paying over $1,000 on a shoestring budget to maybe get accepted to one or 2 schools and maybe not even go. So I looked back at my list and decided to cut the schools that I felt I probably wouldn't go to, even if they re the only school I am accepted to. My list went from nine to four. I'm much more comfortable paying around $450 than over $1,000, even if that means my chances of getting in to one of the four schools I apply to is smaller.

From a purely probabilistic standpoint, I have shot myself in the foot. But from a wider standpoint (given my family, financial situation, and potential career options), I think I'm making the smarter choice to limit my applications.

[thatsjustsemantics]

All of my advisers during my MA program told me to apply to at least 8-10 schools, for the simple reasoning that the application process can't be predicted and the more schools you apply to the greater the chances that you'll be accepted somewhere. I originally planned to apply to nine schools.

But given my individual circumstances that I've laid out in previous posts, I know that even if I am accepted into multiple programs, it is more likely that I will not enroll in a PhD program than I will (how much more likely I can't quite say). I could no longer stomach the idea of paying over $1,000 on a shoestring budget to maybe get accepted to one or 2 schools and maybe not even go. So I looked back at my list and decided to cut the schools that I felt I probably wouldn't go to, even if they re the only school I am accepted to. My list went from nine to four. I'm much more comfortable paying around $450 than over $1,000, even if that means my chances of getting in to one of the four schools I apply to is smaller.

From a purely probabilistic standpoint, I have shot myself in the foot. But from a wider standpoint (given my family, financial situation, and potential career options), I think I'm making the smarter choice to limit my applications.

Yes, it really is surprising how few people talk about the "counterfactual grief" that some applicants anticipate: say I apply to 10 programs at a cost of $1100; out of those ten programs, I get into at least two of my top five choices. I counterfactualize: "so if I had applied to my top five choices only, I could have saved over $500! Hells Bells!"

Edited October 30, 2015 by thatsjustsemantics

[SamStone]

I am planning on applying to 15 schools. From what I have been told, 10-15 applications is a good way to go. However, I have also been advised to only use 5-7 of my 15 applications to top-20 programs. As I have my list of schools now, 9 are in the top 20. So I will mostly likely be rearranging my list, since having a wider range of schools (I'm assuming) will raise the possibility of getting  some (or at least one) acceptance.

As people have already suggested, I think it is a really good move to get advice from you advisor, or from the professors that are writing your letters of recommendation. Not only could they possibly help balance out your list—I had originally had a few schools on my list, that, when my advisor asked why I wanted to go there, I realized I shouldn't be applying to them—but they also might have some suggestions of schools to apply to that you hadn't already seriously considered. 

[maxhgns]

I applied to 5. I got into 3/5, but if I had to do it again I'd apply to around 10. But I had an MA going in and knew what my AOS was going to be, and it's a very, very small AOS: there's a handful of decent PhD-granting departments in North America, and maybe a double handful in the UK.

 

Honestly, I'd say apply to as many as you can afford to apply to, so long as you're a good fit for the department and are genuinely interested in going there. You're going to be living and learning there for a long time, so it matters--especially since you probably won't find a job afterwards. You don't want to be regretting your time in grad school. The norm for internet-aware applicants not that long ago was about 15 departments. I think things have settled back down to the 10ish range now. Remember that a lot of applicants just pick the Leiter 20 or so and apply to them all, regardless of fit. My anecdote isn't data, but I'll say this: I was a good fit for three out of the five programs I applied to (I was a nebulous fit for one, and a terrible fit for the other). Guess which ones accepted me?

[philstudent1991]

All of my advisers during my MA program told me to apply to at least 8-10 schools, for the simple reasoning that the application process can't be predicted and the more schools you apply to the greater the chances that you'll be accepted somewhere. I originally planned to apply to nine schools.

But given my individual circumstances that I've laid out in previous posts, I know that even if I am accepted into multiple programs, it is more likely that I will not enroll in a PhD program than I will (how much more likely I can't quite say). I could no longer stomach the idea of paying over $1,000 on a shoestring budget to maybe get accepted to one or 2 schools and maybe not even go. So I looked back at my list and decided to cut the schools that I felt I probably wouldn't go to, even if they re the only school I am accepted to. My list went from nine to four. I'm much more comfortable paying around $450 than over $1,000, even if that means my chances of getting in to one of the four schools I apply to is smaller.

From a purely probabilistic standpoint, I have shot myself in the foot. But from a wider standpoint (given my family, financial situation, and potential career options), I think I'm making the smarter choice to limit my applications.

This is where I've come to as well. I won't go as low as four, but I've gone from 12 to 10 to 8 and maybe I'll go as low as 7. I want to get a PhD in philosophy and be a professor one day, but I know that the chances of a healthy career plummet the lower down the rankings one goes, and I know there are other meaningful ways to spend a life outside of academic philosophy, so that's why I've decided to apply just to a few excellent fits and not throw myself into 14 apps (like I did last time) just to be admitted anywhere.

[ianfaircloud]

Consider all of them, but reduce the list to those to which you will apply. Apply only to programs which you would consider attending. Don't apply to so many programs that you can't submit quality and tailored applications to each. Don't apply to so many that you can't afford the fees. Outside of these restrictions, I would apply to as many as possible.

[rising_star]

On 10/30/2015, 5:18:53, thatsjustsemantics said:

As for cutting schools at the "bottom of the list," I'm not so sure that that is wise. Given that one's chances of attending a lower ranked school is better than a much higher one, if there are low ranked schools that are a genuine fit then of course one shouldn't cut them, especially if at this stage you're thinking more about getting shut out than getting tenure.

Unless philosophy works very differently from other schools here, I'm not sure that there really is a better chance of attending a lower ranked school, especially if the fit isn't as good. There are so many tales on this board of people who get rejected from all of their lower ranked schools but admitted to the higher ranked ones, largely because the fit--and consequently the SOP--were much better for the higher ranked schools. 

If you're thinking about ways to winnow down the list of schools you apply to, I'd think long and hard about two factors: 1) placement record (for the type of thing you want to be doing*), and 2) funding (that is, years of funding, funding compared to cost of living, amount of teaching/TAing to get that funding, etc.). A third factor I'd include is time to degree. Even if you think you'll be able to finish on the shorter side of the average, it helps to know what that average is...

*What I mean is that if you want to work at a liberal arts college, then you want to go to a school that has a good track record of placing their graduates there. Even better if your POI or potential committee members have a good track record doing so. If you want to work at a RU/VH, it's the same kind of consideration. A program that's great at getting their students jobs at RU/VH may be absolutely terrible at it for LACs (and vice versa). Similarly, if you want to be in a particular region after graduation, it can help to look for programs with strong placement in that region (such placement could be at regional state universities, community colleges, LACs, etc.). I realize it's way early to be thinking about where you might want to be a professor but these things definitely matter.

[maxhgns]

38 minutes ago, rising_star said:

Unless philosophy works very differently from other schools here, I'm not sure that there really is a better chance of attending a lower ranked school, especially if the fit isn't as good. There are so many tales on this board of people who get rejected from all of their lower ranked schools but admitted to the higher ranked ones, largely because the fit--and consequently the SOP--were much better for the higher ranked schools. 

That's exactly right. Competition for admission is fierce all along the PGR rankings, and it's not necessarily any harder at one end of the PGR than it is at another. You can't assume anything like a stepwise progression up or down.

It's also not true that one's chances of a "healthy career" plummet as you down the PGR. There's good evidence that one's chances at employment in a PhD-granting department plummet if one does not attend one of three PhD programs, but after those three the jobs don't really track rank. And that's only for jobs at PhD-granting institutions, and not at all adjusted for factors like the country of the institution. Since these kinds of jobs are just a minority of the jobs that are available, however, it's not safe to draw too many conclusions from them. The point is just that placement doesn't map neatly on to PGR rank at all.

[thatsjustsemantics]

1 hour ago, maxhgns said:

That's exactly right. Competition for admission is fierce all along the PGR rankings, and it's not necessarily any harder at one end of the PGR than it is at another. You can't assume anything like a stepwise progression up or down.

It's also not true that one's chances of a "healthy career" plummet as you down the PGR. There's good evidence that one's chances at employment in a PhD-granting department plummet if one does not attend one of three PhD programs, but after those three the jobs don't really track rank. And that's only for jobs at PhD-granting institutions, and not at all adjusted for factors like the country of the institution. Since these kinds of jobs are just a minority of the jobs that are available, however, it's not safe to draw too many conclusions from them. The point is just that placement doesn't map neatly on to PGR rank at all.

I agree with what has recently been said about the correlation between PGR rank and career placement, but I would like to add that I am suspicious about our dependance on the notion of 'fit' in our analysis of which schools we should cut or should not. First of all, as far as I know, 'fit' designates a correspondence between applicants' philosophical interests and the research interests of faculty at the program to which one is applying. I will go ahead and reject that we can quantify the correspondence. Applicants research what courses are regularly offered by faculty at the program and whether there may be faculty who are interested in supervising the course of applicants' study at the program.

I do not think that one should apply to a program, whether ranked high or low according to the PGR, if one cannot make a reasonable case for why their application is a sensible choice given their philosophical interests and academic background. However, I think it is worth mentioning that lower-ranked programs have an incentive to offer admission to more applicants than higher-ranked programs because many assume that between two schools where there is some fit and there is a significant difference in rank, applicants tend not to choose the school with the lower rank. My reasoning is that due to such an incentive, it would be wise for applicants not to cut lower-ranked schools if there is good fit, as opposed to cutting a higher-ranked school where the fit is less clear.

For instance, I am having some trouble explaining my fit at Cornell now that Ted Sider and Jill North moved to Rutgers, yet I still think the school is a good fit given my interests. Between Cornell and UMass Amherst, however, I would rather cut Cornell, even though it is about ~10-15 ranks higher than UMass (according to the fallible PGR). My judgment is that UMass would help me develop my potential as a philosopher  more so than Cornell would, based on the correspondence between faculty research and my interests.
 

Edited November 25, 2015 by thatsjustsemantics
words and reasons and semantics

[rising_star]

2 hours ago, thatsjustsemantics said:

I agree with what has recently been said about the correlation between PGR rank and career placement, but I would like to add that I am suspicious about our dependance on the notion of 'fit' in our analysis of which schools we should cut or should not. First of all, as far as I know, 'fit' designates a correspondence between applicants' philosophical interests and the research interests of faculty at the program to which one is applying. I will go ahead and reject that we can quantify the correspondence. Applicants research what courses are regularly offered by faculty at the program and whether there may be faculty who are interested in supervising the course of applicants' study at the program.

I don't think that I or anyone else here would say that fit can be quantified. But, that doesn't make it any less relevant when considering where to apply. I would also say that the current course offerings aren't a clear indication of faculty interests. I know, for example, that the course catalog for my PhD department listed a number of courses which were no longer being taught because the faculty person who was teaching them had shifted their research interests away from that particular topic.