Weaknesses in Application

[franz]

I applied to five PhD programs (DePaul, Villanova, Memphis, Penn State, and the New School for Social Research) this application cycle and have heard back from all, save NSSR. The results were the same as last year - rejection, no waitlists or interviews. Unlike last year, though, I don't feel as bad about it for a number of reasons. First, I applied to five terminal MA/MTS/MAR programs in religion and gained admission at one (Duke), with others' opinions stating that my chances should be fairly good with the rest (U Chicago Divinity, Yale Divinity, and Notre Dame). And, as a side note, I'm really happy about this option presenting itself to me, and, with greater pondering lately, the idea of subsequently pursuing a PhD in religion has become a more serious and attractive option.

Second, I felt my philosophy applications were far stronger this year. I gave an effort I feel far happier with and took a lot more time working on my writing sample and SOP than last year. So, in this spirit, I'm looking to see what feedback some of you could give on the weaknesses of my application and how I might best improve it. And, hopefully, this might help others too in bettering their applications.

Honestly, judging from the time I devoted to working on the writing sample and SOP and feedback of professors on my SOP and strengths as an applicant, I thought my chances would be much better this application season. On the other hand, the results could simply result from the numbers one deals with in applying to PhD programs and only having a BA.

I graduated last year from a small liberal arts school with a good reputation. I double-majored in philosophy and German, along with minoring in English. Overall, my GPA was 3.6, with a 3.46 in philosophy and 3.8 in German (3.8 in English, if that matters). My philosophy grades show a few blemishes. I got a C in symbolic logic (senior year), a B in an analytic class (junior), and a B- as a sophomore in ancient philosophy. As a whole, my transcript has some blemishes in the sciences and math (e.g. barely passed economics and chemistry, a semi-decent grade in computer science).

On other numbers, my GRE scores show a similar result. Verbal and writing scores lie in the top 10th and 7th percentiles, respectively, while my quantitative score is in the bottom 5th.

My research interests reside solidly in continental philosophy. They are philosophical pessimism, phenomenology, philosophy of literature, intersections of Eastern (mostly Buddhism) and Western philosophy, and the philosophy of religion. As thinkers of interest often fall in more than one of these areas, I'll just list them. They include Heidegger (without the political aspects), Kierkegaard, Schopenhauer, Gadamer, Ricœur, Merleau-Ponty, Nietzsche, Borges, and Kafka.

Languages also interest me a lot, and I currently know Geman, French, Danish, Norwegian, and Serbo-Croatian. Around my junior year, I began translating some works of Scandinavian philosophy that have never appeared outside of their original language. Apart from being interesting in their own right, they relate to some aspects of Schopenhauer and Nietzsche. Last year, I stumbled upon a philosopher (who wrote in Serbo-Croatian) whom I'd like to translate, and, I think, academics in the Balkans lost interest in him after the Communist era began. His works mostly deal with Schopenhauer and Nietzsche as well. I wouldn't say these thinkers are earth-shattering (nor did I portray it as such in the SOP), but they could prove interesting to some as engagements with and commentaries on Schopenhauer and Nietzsche and work in philosophical pessimism and ecophilosophy. (I'd rather not publicly detail either translation project too much at the moment.)

I spent about six months total on the writing sample, including the studying the various topics and thinkers and writing. When I returned to last year's writing sample during the summer, it became clear that the paper (a final paper from a seminar on Kant's Critique of Pure Reason - a critique of Heidegger's interpretation of Kant) I used last year was, simply, not my best. So, I wrote a new paper that I can confidently say is my best work. It's on Gadamer's Truth and Method and dealt with the philosophy of literature and philosophy of religion (Kierkegaard, with a smidgen of Augustine). (Mainly, it viewed the possible role of literature in the activities of philosophy and how Gadamer's hermeneutical framework allows for this. The philosophy of religion formed an example of how one might apply this framework to an exemplary work of literature in order to help addressing a question concerning Kierkegaard.)

Of course, one may always improve the SOP and writing sample, but I felt as if I'd really put my best effort forth on these. There were extensive revisions on each over a period of about 2-3 months.

By the way, I don't think this carries a lot of weight with philosophy PhD applications, but perhaps my job might be a (small) plus. Tailoring it it to what I can say in a public forum, it's in education and aspects of it include working with refugee children.

So, there is an overview of my application.

Already, I see some potential weaknesses, though others might think differently. GPA could certainly be one, and the SOP could have presented my interests as being too detailed and set, though two professors gave feedback on it and said it was quite strong. Additionally, people elsewhere online said that some departments might view my range of interests in literature, translation, and languages as a distraction and better suited for a literature, religion, or interdisciplinary program.

Departmental fit is also a concern of mine. I did write a professor from each program, and two from my top choices sent back very nice replies, strongly encouraging me to apply.

On the writing sample, the topics and thinkers might not have interested any of the people on the adcoms. The latest relevant secondary literature I could find on this aspect of Gadamer (they were quite scarce) was from about thirty years ago.

I'm confident LOR were all strong. One of the three came from a professor of German. His work in literature involves a lot of philosophy and theory, and much of my work in his courses straddled the boundaries of literature and philosophy. I reasoned, due to my interest in the German tradition of continental, his LOR might prove helpful, but another LOR from a philosophy professor might have helped more.

Oh, and I'll mention this as well, in case it's significant. Last year, I applied to Stony Brook, and, despite rejecting me for a PhD, they admitted me to their MA program, with my application having less clear and well-written SOP and a writing sample that I know wasn't my best.

On the other hand, perhaps these almost unanimous rejections really do mostly relate to numbers of applicants, number of programs I applied to, not having an MA/not applying to terminal MA programs, and the departments themselves, whether in terms of fit or acceptance rates. Or, maybe I'm better off going the religion route, which I'm now planning on doing for an MA/MTS/MAR this fall, instead.

I'm just feeling a bit perplexed after all this. I know a lot of people don't get in, and I think my feelings more relate to uncertainty about my general chances (considering interests, SOP, LOR, writing sample, etc) of gaining admission to a philosophy program, as I have considered grad school in English literature and German literature too. And now, with religion forming a strong possibility, I'm wondering if that's a better path for my interests.

Sorry for the long post, and thanks in advance for any thoughts!

Edited March 3, 2017 by franz

[Tecumseh Valley]

First thought is that, if you want to apply to PhD programs in Phil again, and if you go to Duke, then take graduate classes in their excellent Phil department. That way, when you apply again, you'll have graduate courses on your transcript, showing that you can handle graduate level work in Phil. This will help overcome any questions that PhD programs have about your undergrad transcript. If you hit it off with any philosophy professors there, you also gain another recommender. David Wong and Owen Flanagan both work on East/West philosophy, mostly Buddhism. 

[Ibycus]

I'd guess the biggest issues are grades and Quant GRE. It would be troubling to me as an ad com member that your philosophy GPA is significantly lower than your overall GPA, and, as you mentioned, that might make them think you'd be better off studying languages or religion. The GRE might be an opportunity to offset that somewhat, but a low Quant GRE score tells the same story. I'm not sure how much continental programs care about math stuff, but if they care at all, I think that could kill your application on its own given how competitive the process is. 

I don't know anything about Gadamer, but as you point out, maybe your SOP was a bit obscure. If you can write on something you're sure ad com members care a lot about, I think it's to your advantage. 

Good luck with religion if you choose to go that route! I considered it for a while as well. 

P.S. Just finished rereading The Trial, and I'm feeling like the admissions committees have me seated before the Law at this point....

[Ibycus]

I will detail the weaknesses in my apps as well; my case may be instructive for others.

I went to a Great Books college for undergrad, and my degree is in "Liberal Arts," not philosophy. Of my letter writers, one has an MA but no PhD, one has a PhD in Political Theory, and one has a PhD from the Committee on Social Thought from Chicago, so technically no philosophy PhDs. I would have chosen philosophy PhD folks ideally, but I thought it better to go with the people who knew my work best and who could write me the best recs, and they had other advanced degrees. I assume my letters were a weakness, especially since my undergrad institution is kinda hermetically sealed from academia. 

My writing sample was a fresh essay I wrote this year (three years out of undergrad) on the Repugnant Conclusion. (I intentionally wrote on recent analytic philosophy to show that I care about stuff besides the Great Books.) I got a little feedback from my letter writers but did it basically solo. I was worried I would come off as a raving lunatic, but Colorado said they liked it, so I guess it could have been worse. My SOP was minimalist and non-committal. I did not tailor it to individual programs besides a basic university name drop for each one at the end. I'll say sample and SOP were probably kinda neutral for me.

My GPA was 3.92 (3.94 in the last two years), and I aced the GRE. I assume these were my strengths. 

Colorado accepted me, Chicago rejected me, and the other six places I applied have accepted others, but have told me nothing. It looks quite possible that I will go 1/8, but there is still a sliver of hope at UT Austin for example. A friend from undergrad who went to Stanford Law told me that a prof there said their philosophy PHD program will basically never accept a student with just a non-philosophy BA, so shooting for some top 20s may have been too ambitious on my part. 

[franz]

7 hours ago, Ibycus said:

I'd guess the biggest issues are grades and Quant GRE. It would be troubling to me as an ad com member that your philosophy GPA is significantly lower than your overall GPA, and, as you mentioned, that might make them think you'd be better off studying languages or religion. The GRE might be an opportunity to offset that somewhat, but a low Quant GRE score tells the same story. I'm not sure how much continental programs care about math stuff, but if they care at all, I think that could kill your application on its own given how competitive the process is. 

I don't know anything about Gadamer, but as you point out, maybe your SOP was a bit obscure. If you can write on something you're sure ad com members care a lot about, I think it's to your advantage. 

Good luck with religion if you choose to go that route! I considered it for a while as well. 

P.S. Just finished rereading The Trial, and I'm feeling like the admissions committees have me seated before the Law at this point....

An analytic professor, who had somewhat recently finished grad school, at my undergrad department said that the quant GRE shouldn't matter for continental programs, as my interests don't involve math. Otherwise, in his opinion, if I were applying to analytic or philosophy of math programs, this would kill my application.

Yes, I think the issue for the writing sample is likely finding a balance between something on thinkers/subjects that I'm interested in and that which is more current and the ad coms might know more about/find interesting. I thought making it about both philosophy of literature and philosophy of religion might help in increasing the chances of this, but these could be two narrower areas of interest for a lot of ad coms too.

Thanks!

By the way, on the topic of Kafka ... if you like that theme of an individual facing a looming, bureaucratic opponent and want to read something else a bit more humorous (though Kafka can be pretty funny), you might enjoy Hašek's novel The Good Soldier Švejk.

[Schopenhauerfanboy]

Simply put, I would have applied to more schools. Even the most exceptional applicants can get shut out by not applying to enough places. I would aim for at least 10 schools, but ideally closer to 20 if you can. A friend of mine, who is now a tenured professor and a graduate of UC-Riverside's PhD program, applied to 20 schools. He was shut out by 19 of them, but accepted at UC-Riverside. He was clearly good enough to have been accepted at most of the other programs as well, but his success was dependent upon him increasing the volume of his applications 

Edited March 5, 2017 by Schopenhauerfanboy

[Ibycus]

31 minutes ago, Schopenhauerfanboy said:

Simply put, I would have applied to more schools. Even the most exceptional applicants can get shut out by not applying to enough places. I would aim for at least 10 schools, but ideally closer to 20 if you can. A friend of mine, who is now a tenured professor and a graduate of UC-Riverside's PhD program, applied to 20 schools. He was shut out by 19 of them, but accepted at UC-Riverside. He was clearly good enough to have been accepted at most of the other programs as well, but it's a really good enough he increased the volume of his applications. 

Good advice. I ended up regretting "only" applying to eight schools (and spending $1000 dollars in this process), though I did luck out with Colorado. 

[Schopenhauerfanboy]

36 minutes ago, Ibycus said:

Good advice. I ended up regretting "only" applying to eight schools (and spending $1000 dollars in this process), though I did luck out with Colorado. 

Congrats on that offer - great program. I would have applied to 20 if I could, but I already spent close to 2000$ on my 12 applications (counting GRE, transcripts, etc). 

[franz]

59 minutes ago, Schopenhauerfanboy said:

Simply put, I would have applied to more schools. Even the most exceptional applicants can get shut out by not applying to enough places. I would aim for at least 10 schools, but ideally closer to 20 if you can. A friend of mine, who is now a tenured professor and a graduate of UC-Riverside's PhD program, applied to 20 schools. He was shut out by 19 of them, but accepted at UC-Riverside. He was clearly good enough to have been accepted at most of the other programs as well, but it's a really good enough he increased the volume of his applications. 

That makes a lot of sense, considering the sheer numbers involved in this process. I did worry that I should have applied to more programs, but I found departmental fit an issue too. As a result, I wondered if it was even prudent to increase the number of schools applied to, if it resulted in stretching the fit too thin. This was a question for me even with two of the programs I applied to this year somewhat (Penn State and NSSR).

[Glasperlenspieler]

While there's certainly a sense in which graduate admissions is a lottery and thus the "buy more tickets" approach makes sense, I think it's important not to underestimate the importance of "fit". Simply applying to more schools isn't going to help you if those schools don't match with your interests, SOP, writing sample, background, etc. Now determining fit as an applicant isn't always easy. The more I learn about the programs I've been accepted to, the more amazed I am at how they each (in different ways) line up with what I'm interested in and the materials I submitted, even in ways that I hadn't realized or couldn't have know when I applied. I'm realizing these things now because 1) I can research the schools more thoroughly since I have fewer schools to look at and 2) I now have an open line of communication with the departments that I didn't have before. As an applicant, you're often in the dark about these things (I know I was) but that doesn't mean they're not at play. This is not to downplay the randomness inherent in the process. It's certainly there. Yet, unless you're interests are extremely undefined (which is a problem in itself) or so mainstream that the're covered in almost any major department (which is probably a double-edged sword), I find it highly unlikely that there are 20 programs that would be a strong fit. So you're efforts might be better spent in thoroughly researching the departments you are considering and closely tailoring your applications to the (perhaps large) handful that really do coincide with your areas of interest.

Edited March 5, 2017 by Glasperlenspieler

[hector549]

@franz I believe you acknowledge that you didn't apply to any terminal MAs in philosophy this cycle. If you apply again, it's probably a good idea to do so. I applied to 7 PhDs and 7 MAs. It's looking like I'll be shut out of PhD admissions, but I've already gotten two funded offers from MAs, and a third MA acceptance that will likely include a funding offer as well. I applied to programs that were analytically inclined, because that lines up with my interests. It sounds like your interests are focused on more continental thinkers, so maybe it would be harder for you to find a funded MA that fits your interests. Nonetheless, I'd recommend trying for a funded terminal MA if you're able to do so. Like me, perhaps you'll have better luck.

Edited March 5, 2017 by hector549

[Ibycus]

54 minutes ago, Glasperlenspieler said:

While there's certainly a sense in which graduate admissions is a lottery and thus the "buy more tickets" approach makes sense, I think it's important not to underestimate the importance of "fit". Simply applying to more schools isn't going to help you if those schools don't match with your interests, SOP, writing sample, background, etc. Now determining fit as an applicant isn't always easy. The more I learn about the programs I've been accepted to, the more amazed I am at how they each (in different ways) line up with what I'm interested in and the materials I submitted, even in ways that I hadn't realized or couldn't have know when I applied. I'm realizing these things now because 1) I can research the schools more thoroughly since I have fewer schools to look at and 2) I now have an open line of communication with the departments that I didn't have before. As an applicant, you're often in the dark about these things (I know I was) but that doesn't mean they're not at play. This is not to downplay the randomness inherent in the process. It's certainly there. Yet, unless you're interests are extremely undefined (which is a problem in itself) or so mainstream that the're covered in almost any major department (which is probably a double-edged sword), I find it highly unlikely that there are 20 programs that would be a strong fit. So you're efforts might be better spent in thoroughly researching the departments you are considering and closely tailoring your applications to the (perhaps large) handful that really do coincide with your areas of interest.

Yeah, my problem was sort of that I can't narrow my interests down much further than "normative and applied ethics" at this point. I could say I'm some sort of consequentialist, but I didn't even really want to play that card in the statement of purpose either. So while I listed some problems in ethics that happen to interest me, it was hard to select programs that fit much better than others. This is why in some sense I should have just applied to like 30 of the top 50 PGR places, but ain't nobody got time for that...

[enayqq]

Of the programs you listed I also applied to Penn State and DePaul and have been accepted and waitlisted, respectively. I interviewed with both departments. We have a handful of similarities in our applications -- no MA, interest in languages and translation (I'm a double major in phil and linguistics, with proficiency in a couple of languages) and of course continental AOIs including phenomenology and German phil. So, concern for the aspects in which we overlap, like applying with only a BA and having widespread supplementary interests, I frankly wouldn't be too worried about. What's more, I only applied to 6 PhD programs ... so, there's that as well.

Therefore, I do feel I have to push back on you a bit and say that your quant GRE and low grades in science/math/analytic phil might definitely be considered weaknesses in your application. In my own SOP I made it a point to (briefly) stress my competence in those areas and my performance in analytic courses such as symbolic logic and philosophy of language. I would have to assume that all the applications these programs receive are from students who excel and have interests in continental phil, of course, so a well-rounded applicant who is competent in contemporary analytic methods in addition is simply going to make for a more ideal applicant than one who is not. In that regard, I really would think that poor performance in these areas does have the potential to hurt your application, contrary to what your prof told you. And, with all due respect, I'm not sure whether I would take advice from an analytic professor on what would or would not affect my chances of admission to a continental program very seriously  but that's just me. Whether or not you still disagree, working to improve your quant score and competence in analytic phil certainly wouldn't hurt at this point.

[franz]

3 hours ago, hector549 said:

@franz I believe you acknowledge that you didn't apply to any terminal MAs in philosophy this cycle. If you apply again, it's probably a good idea to do so. I applied to 7 PhDs and 7 MAs. It's looking like I'll be shut out of PhD admissions, but I've already gotten two funded offers from MAs, and a third MA acceptance that will likely include a funding offer as well. I applied to programs that were analytically inclined, because that lines up with my interests. It sounds like your interests are focused on more continental thinkers, so maybe it would be harder for you to find a funded MA that fits your interests. Nonetheless, I'd recommend trying for a funded terminal MA if you're able to do so. Like me, perhaps you'll have better luck.

You are correct in noting that I didn't apply to any terminal MAs, and I think it's becoming clearer that I should consider this possibility the next season I apply. According to some on the religion forum, this might constitute the best sort of program for me if I enter an MA/MTS program in religion first, as I will most likely do. The reasoning of this seems to go that, if one has an MTS degree or attended a divinity school (even if it's for an MA), philosophy programs might feel some suspicion about one's commitment to or abilities in philosophy and want to see completion of a terminal MA first. Frankly, I really no have idea about this perspective and am not in a position to reflect on it beyond a level of speculation.

[franz]

4 hours ago, enayqq said:

Of the programs you listed I also applied to Penn State and DePaul and have been accepted and waitlisted, respectively. I interviewed with both departments. We have a handful of similarities in our applications -- no MA, interest in languages and translation (I'm a double major in phil and linguistics, with proficiency in a couple of languages) and of course continental AOIs including phenomenology and German phil. So, concern for the aspects in which we overlap, like applying with only a BA and having widespread supplementary interests, I frankly wouldn't be too worried about. What's more, I only applied to 6 PhD programs ... so, there's that as well.

Therefore, I do feel I have to push back on you a bit and say that your quant GRE and low grades in science/math/analytic phil might definitely be considered weaknesses in your application. In my own SOP I made it a point to (briefly) stress my competence in those areas and my performance in analytic courses such as symbolic logic and philosophy of language. I would have to assume that all the applications these programs receive are from students who excel and have interests in continental phil, of course, so a well-rounded applicant who is competent in contemporary analytic methods in addition is simply going to make for a more ideal applicant than one who is not. In that regard, I really would think that poor performance in these areas does have the potential to hurt your application, contrary to what your prof told you. And, with all due respect, I'm not sure whether I would take advice from an analytic professor on what would or would not affect my chances of admission to a continental program very seriously  but that's just me. Whether or not you still disagree, working to improve your quant score and competence in analytic phil certainly wouldn't hurt at this point.

Thanks for pointing this out. Congratulations on the admission and waitlist too!

Admittedly, it's difficult for me to examine because, frankly, I don't know what I could do to improve in these areas, save for bettering my GRE quant score. I've struggled a lot with math and the sciences since high school. (Though it's a standardized test and not a course, I got nearly perfect marks on the reading and English sections of the ACT/SAT and scored incredibly low on the math sections.) Even with tutoring, regularly seeing the professors for help, studying a lot, and help from science major friends, it remained a terrible slog to get passing marks in the science classes in college. Logic and philosophy of math were similar, with the latter being slightly better. I'm not at all trying to give an excuse, though, but it feels as if these are areas in which I don't know if I stand a great chance of improving. I don't know what else I could do at this point for the bad analytic grades on my transcript, as I've already graduated. And, in a way, I feel like I did truly put forth the best effort to do well in these courses and have somewhat put them aside as spheres of less skill, in favor of concentrating on other areas. Still, that might not make up for lacking in these areas.

You're completely right to point this out as a weakness. Perhaps it's solely my own wish, but I partly hoped that the ability with languages and translating works out of languages with low numbers of non-native speakers, especially in the Anglosphere, might make up for the analytic cracks. That being said, I acknowledge this is partly my own desire, owing to that feeling of not being able to progress well and hitting a wall in the sciences/math/analytic phil. Also, it could rather likely be the case that translations from Scandinavian languages and Serbo-Croatian interest few professors. Alternatively, in complete fairness, it could also be an issue that even fewer might have the background in order to assist with such projects, or these sorts of skills might not exceed those of having a solid footing in analytic in terms of helping an application.

(Interestingly, similar to your noting of your abilities in analytic phil, I emphasized in my SOP my translation projects and abilities with languages (I'm self taught in a number of them, by the way) to open up a wider range of philosophical thought to my work, particularly from Slavic languages.)

And no worries for that either, haha. I had asked both of the continntal professors in our department, and they said they had no idea about whether the low quant score would matter. So, they told me to ask that analytic professor, who was the most recent to have been in grad school.

If I may ask, by the way, are some of your AOIs in political or social philosophy? When I wrote a professor from Penn State, whom I thought had interests closes to mine, he, essentially, told me not to apply because my AOIs weren't in social or political philosophy and wouldn't fit the department. (It is true that my AOIs don't concern social or political topics.)

Edited March 6, 2017 by franz

[enayqq]

3 hours ago, franz said:

Thanks for pointing this out. Congratulations on the admission and waitlist too!

Admittedly, it's difficult for me to examine because, frankly, I don't know what I could do to improve in these areas, save for bettering my GRE quant score. I've struggled a lot with math and the sciences since high school. (Though it's a standardized test and not a course, I got nearly perfect marks on the reading and English sections of the ACT/SAT and scored incredibly low on the math sections.) Even with tutoring, regularly seeing the professors for help, studying a lot, and help from science major friends, it remained a terrible slog to get passing marks in the science classes in college. Logic and philosophy of math were similar, with the latter being slightly better. I'm not at all trying to give an excuse, though, but it feels as if these are areas in which I don't know if I stand a great chance of improving. I don't know what else I could do at this point for the bad analytic grades on my transcript, as I've already graduated. And, in a way, I feel like I did truly put forth the best effort to do well in these courses and have somewhat put them aside as spheres of less skill, in favor of concentrating on other areas. Still, that might not make up for lacking in these areas.

You're completely right to point this out as a weakness. Perhaps it's solely my own wish, but I partly hoped that the ability with languages and translating works out of languages with low numbers of non-native speakers, especially in the Anglosphere, might make up for the analytic cracks. That being said, I acknowledge this is partly my own desire, owing to that feeling of not being able to progress well and hitting a wall in the sciences/math/analytic phil. Also, it could rather likely be the case that translations from Scandinavian languages and Serbo-Croatian interest few professors. Alternatively, in complete fairness, it could also be an issue that even fewer might have the background in order to assist with such projects, or these sorts of skills might not exceed those of having a solid footing in analytic in terms of helping an application.

(Interestingly, similar to your noting of your abilities in analytic phil, I emphasized in my SOP my translation projects and abilities with languages (I'm self taught in a number of them, by the way) to open up a wider range of philosophical thought to my work, particularly from Slavic languages.)

And no worries for that either, haha. I had asked both of the continntal professors in our department, and they said they had no idea about whether the low quant score would matter. So, they told me to ask that analytic professor, who was the most recent to have been in grad school.

If I may ask, by the way, are some of your AOIs in political or social philosophy? When I wrote a professor from Penn State, whom I thought had interests closes to mine, he, essentially, told me not to apply because my AOIs weren't in social or political philosophy and wouldn't fit the department. (It is true that my AOIs don't concern social or political topics.)

In the case of the quant GRE, you would definitely be able to improve your score, as you mention (through practice tests, drilling problems, possibly a tutor). As for the undergraduate grades in math/sci/analytic, what’s done is done, but you might still consider auditing a graduate- (or even undergraduate-, honestly) level course in logic or analytic phil if you decide to do an MA program, for the experience and repeated exposure, if nothing else. I really do think this would improve your application.

I can say from experience that reaching proficiency in even ONE language (and a Slavic language at that) through self-study is no easy feat, so really, props to you on all of those, it's quite admirable. If you considered reframing your translation work from “I know it’s not ground-breaking” to “it is crucial to engage with philosophical perspectives of eastern Europe, especially given our current political atmosphere,” I’m sure it would prove to be a very unique strength in your application, rather than a potential “this student is interested in obscure phil with too few resources” weakness.

Of course, these suggestions are made under the assumption that you would consider reapplying to PhD programs in philosophy in the future. However, I believe it will be well worth it to re-examine, as you’ve already begun to do, whether or not a PhD program in phil is the best route, or even necessary, in achieving your professional goals. There is often more than one way to “scratch an itch” as it were, and as I’m sure you know.

I considered bringing up social/political phil with regard to Penn State in my previous response, but thought it might be too department-specific. But since you ask, I’m quite interested in feminist philosophy (and consequently philosophical issues of race, class, and gender) and particularly in investigating sociopolitical characteristics of language use, among other issues related to sociolinguistics. I’m sure this made me a very good fit for the department at Penn State. Not to be overly candid, but I find it odd that you claim that your AOIs don’t concern social or political topics, especially after listing literature, languages/translation, hermeneutics, religion, your job in education … ! But perhaps my own research interests are just coloring my perspective 

Thank you for the congratulations. And, feel free to PM me if you want to talk in more detail about applications. I would be happy to chat given our mutual interests.

[franz]

@enayqq Thanks again for the reply, and that sounds great. I'll likely PM you sometime later today.

[lyellgeo]

On ‎3‎/‎2‎/‎2017 at 10:02 PM, franz said:

I spent about six months total on the writing sample, including the studying the various topics and thinkers and writing. When I returned to last year's writing sample during the summer, it became clear that the paper (a final paper from a seminar on Kant's Critique of Pure Reason - a critique of Heidegger's interpretation of Kant) I used last year was, simply, not my best. So, I wrote a new paper that I can confidently say is my best work. It's on Gadamer's Truth and Method and dealt with the philosophy of literature and philosophy of religion (Kierkegaard, with a smidgen of Augustine). (Mainly, it viewed the possible role of literature in the activities of philosophy and how Gadamer's hermeneutical framework allows for this. The philosophy of religion formed an example of how one might apply this framework to an exemplary work of literature in order to help addressing a question concerning Kierkegaard.)

Of course, one may always improve the SOP and writing sample, but I felt as if I'd really put my best effort forth on these. There were extensive revisions on each over a period of about 2-3 months.

 

 

While being impossible to know for sure, the main thing I would consider in terms of reapplying is the suitability of the writing sample. Unless your sample is at the level where you can publish it in a well-regarded journal, it can always be improved. Also, even a great writing sample may not be a good fit with the department's specific interests or approaches.

Some questions to consider in terms of the writing sample:

Is it clearly written, so that someone with a basic philosophy background could follow?
It is structured with a clear argument that develops?
Is the paper interesting? Is it important?
Does the paper demonstrate ability to engage with difficult philosophical subjects at a high level of analysis (i.e. does it demonstrate that you are able to do the work of philosophy?)
If a professor at the intended school happened to see your paper in a journal or other professional context, would they keep reading?
Compared to the papers in peer-reviewed publications and journals on your topic, what does your paper lack?
Is this paper publishable at a professional level? If not, what is holding it back?
Does the paper establish something significant for the current (think last 10 years) scholarship on this topic?
Does the paper establish something significant for philosophy at large?
Is the paper focused on a specific issue?
Does the paper explain its terms as far as is necessary?
Does the paper demonstrate familiarity with relevant philosophical history?
Does the paper resemble current work being done at the intended school, both in terms of method and subject?
Does the paper demonstrate a high level of competence with current scholarship and relevant secondary literature?
Can the paper easily be identified as philosophy, rather than, for example, literary criticism, history, textual exegesis, or applied theory?
Does the length and structure of the paper closely match the scope of its thesis? 
Does the paper demonstrate the ability for professional scholarship?
...

Some of the questions are a bit silly, and very few papers will meet all of those standards (those that do will do so in different ways), but this is (as far as I can tell, and based on my limited experience) the kind of standard you should be shooting for.




 

 

[hector549]

@franz I'd recommend checking out this list of funded MAs (apparently complete). I came across it when figuring out where to apply. Leiter mentions a handful on his site, but they're primarily analytic. Many of the schools on this list are also analytic, but I know that some of the schools listed lean more continental--for example, Miami of Ohio and Loyola Marymount. Here it is: http://dailynous.com/2015/11/18/ma-programs-in-philosophy-fund-students/

Edited March 14, 2017 by hector549

[franz]

5 hours ago, hector549 said:

@franz I'd recommend checking out this list of funded MAs (apparently complete). I came across it when figuring out where to apply. Leiter mentions a handful on his site, but they're primarily analytic. Many of the schools on this list are also analytic, but I know that some of the schools listed lean more continental--for example, Miami of Ohio and Loyola Marymount. Here it is: http://dailynous.com/2015/11/18/ma-programs-in-philosophy-fund-students/

Thanks for the link! I'll check it out. I had heard about Miami from a number of people before and should have considered that as an option.