Writing sample risks

[SamStone]

What, if any, are any topics that you think would be "risky" topics to use for your writing sample?

I realize that taking any strong stance in an unpopular direction is a chancy, but are there general topics that seem more risky than others? For instance, is taking a pragmatist stance in the philosophy of science a good/bad idea? Does writing a history paper on Schelling, Fichte, or Hegel, in itself, have an effect on your chances of getting in? How about arguing that philosophers don't pay proper heed to the details of quantum physics? etc.

Of course, there are exceptions—every applicant wants to write something to fits (at least somewhat) within their field of interest, and some departments will be excited about what others will not—but I'm just wondering if people think any topic is specifically "dangerous"...

 

[sidebysondheim]

I don't see how it could as long as you do it well. There are definitely going to be some topics that will be harder, but that's only because it's harder to say something new/original and insightful about some topics and to do it well without overstepping what your argument warrants. I don't know if taking a strong stance in an unpopular direction is chancy, if you are able to argue for it in a compelling way. If you take a strong stance that's unwarranted, then that won't work. But then it doesn't matter if what you're arguing for is unpopular or not.

 

Hopefully that was of some help.

Edited November 12, 2015 by sidebysondheim
clarify a statement

[gughok]

I am not an expert but I agree with sidebysondheim. As long as you demonstrate research potential by presenting a good argument, you've done what you need to do.

If it helps, my own writing sample is a criticism of a general line of argument that's got significant traction in my subfield. I'm applying to the university where the professor who advanced that particular line of argument is working - and he's a pretty big deal. My own professor has advised me only to tone down the exasperation in my paper (alas, writing at 1am will do that to you), but otherwise told me not to worry that I'm basically submitting a sample in opposition to a star professor at one of the departments to which I'm applying.

[sidebysondheim]

I thought of something else that might be helpful: Your ability to write a well structured paper is incredibly important. One of the things my undergrad advisor told me is that someone will likely read your introduction to get your thesis and general roadmap. From there they'll flip through the pages to see if the argument progresses in the way you stated and that things aren't taking longer or shorter than they need to. If everything is organized as such, they'll actually read the whole thing. Now, there's no reason to think this is the way every person who will read your writing sample is going to approach it, but it does make sense and she does know of adcoms (and journal/conference referees) that do approach reading in this way. 

To piggyback on gughok, tone is incredibly important too. My advisor and I went over my writing sample sentence by sentence to make sure nothing was too flippant, exaggerated, or essentially: that nothing I was going to say would piss anyone off. There's a difference between disagreeing with a position, while respecting it and giving it fair treatment, and a rude dismissal. In this particular case, it's important (or at least helpful) to have an advisor who knows how their colleagues at other universities (and potentially your adcom) will respond to certain types of locutions. 

[SamStone]

Yea, what both of you are saying makes sense. Thanks for the helpful responses. Especially the thoughts on the tone of one's writing..

Its interesting—and encouraging—that you both think there aren't really any specific topics that would be poor choices, so long as they are written and argued well. For some reason I got the feeling that some might be worse choices just based on the topic itself.

[nonexistententity]

A piece of advice I've heard from several professors is to make sure your writing sample displays your skill in dealing with arguments and concepts. In my case, this meant that it was better not to submit my thesis on Plato, since that was mostly exegetical and philological rather than argumentative. Even if it was on Plato.

So based on that, I'd say that any topic that is not "strictly philosophical" can be risky.

Also, you need a topic that is/can be interesting even for those who are not already interested in it. You can't be exactly sure who reads it and who gets to decide, so more recondite topics are a greater risk - it's more difficult to get someone enthusiastic about Fichte's criticism of Reinhold than about Kant's refutation of idealism, for instance.

[ianfaircloud]

On 11/11/2015, 10:11:47, SamStone said:

What, if any, are any topics that you think would be "risky" topics to use for your writing sample?

 

This is a FANTASTIC QUESTION. For PhD applicants, I believe that the subject of the writing sample can make a crucial difference in the success of an applicant! Remember that the people who read your sample are thinking, "Would this person fit in here? Who would this person work with? Could I advise this person? Do I understand this paper? Do I know, based on my reading of the literature, that this person understands these difficult issues? Am I well-positioned to evaluate this candidate?"

Accordingly, you should strive to select a subject matter that is:

1. accessible to a lot of potential readers (relevant philosophers at the departments to which you're applying);

2. not so narrow as to exclude too many readers or suggest that you want to work on something so narrow that nobody in the department could advise you or would want to advise you;

3. not in an area that lies outside your areas of interest (because again, the reader is selecting people with whom s/he would actually want to work; and readers are selected according to the subject matter of the paper); and,

4. not in an unusual area of philosophy, unless you are absolutely sure that you want to do that kind of philosophy.

Let me give you an example. I wrote a paper on evolutionary psychology and metaethics. That's a hot topic right now, but the problem is that it's an empirically-based area. It's sciency. It's biology. People see it and think philosophy of biology. They think niche interest. My application only got a serious look from one department (Madison) that at the time had very serious people thinking about both biology and metaethics. Otherwise, I think the paper relied on too many empirical claims, and the bottom line is that people thought that I wanted to study biology for six years in a PhD program. Really, my interest was metaethics. I would have been better served by writing a paper more purely philosophical and more accessible to people working in value theory more generally.