2018 Philosophy Applicants, Assemble!

[Duns Eith]

On 5/10/2017 at 7:53 PM, iunoionnis said:

So it looks like my wife's only willing to live in places with beaches or in the South. Guess my list of schools just got a lot shorter!

When I applied my wife and I made a radius of 8 hr drive one of our limitations, due to family (our fathers are of questionable health, our mothers really want to be close enough to visit grand kids if they happen -- which is likely) and general appeal of climate. But it did help make the list shorter!

On 5/10/2017 at 11:31 PM, évariste said:

Then I don't think we will be competing at all, haha--I'm wary of living outside of blue states...
(CMU really matches my interests, but...swing state?  Thank god there's no scarcity of universities in New England...)

Huh. I'm surprised. What difference does this make, practically? It isn't like any major city is red, and should someone have difference of opinion what damage or threat is that to you?

[thehegeldialectic]

On 5/10/2017 at 11:31 PM, évariste said:

Then I don't think we will be competing at all, haha--I'm wary of living outside of blue states...
(CMU really matches my interests, but...swing state?  Thank god there's no scarcity of universities in New England...)

For her (and for myself), it's more about the cultural differences and Sittlichkeit than matters of professed belief (also, any major city in the South is going to swing blue). In the South, regardless of opinion, you would never see a person blare on the horn, yell profanities at a stranger, or openly display racist convictions. If it happens, it's really, really shocking socially unacceptable behavior. It's a hospitality based culture, and feels very different than the North East.

Edited May 12, 2017 by iunoionnis

[hector549]

On 5/9/2017 at 3:25 AM, évariste said:

But, a couple of questions: is a Ph.D too much of a long shot, given I'll only have had one year of philosophy (and only one year of "real" college) at the time of application?  I'm only two classes short of finishing the major right now, but don't have much evidence of longitudinal philosophical interest.

I don't think that will matter at all, as long as your GRE, grades, paper, and letters are good. I went to a tiny branch campus of a state university for several years. Then I briefly went to a different campus, left for a few years, took some classes at a community college, went to a different branch campus of the state uni, before finally transferring to a different university, where I changed my major and finished up my undergraduate degree in philosophy rather quickly. I was worried that so much bouncing around would hurt me, even though my grades, etc were good. That ended up not being the case.  I don't think anyone took notice or cared. I wouldn't worry about it much.

On 5/10/2017 at 11:31 PM, évariste said:

Then I don't think we will be competing at all, haha--I'm wary of living outside of blue states...
(CMU really matches my interests, but...swing state?  Thank god there's no scarcity of universities in New England...)

I grew up in central Pennsylvania, though I have lived in Pittsburgh for a long time. Culturally, Pittsburgh and Philadelphia are very far removed from the more rural and suburban areas in the center of the state. Obviously, your concerns are yours, but if CMU is a good fit, it might be worth applying and visiting, and seeing what you think first-hand. Pittsburgh isn't perfect, but it's a very liveable and progressive city with some great universities, and it's far more cosmopolitan than its reputation might suggest.

Edited May 13, 2017 by hector549

[soproperlybasic]

On 5/10/2017 at 4:31 AM, évariste said:

Ooh, hey, which one?  My school is hosting a diversity-in-philosophy conference next Friday...

PIKSI Boston in June!

[tmp3]

For anyone applying for philosophy graduate programs in Fall 2017, please join this group! "Philosophy Graduate Applicants 2018"  
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1575546452486383/

[thehegeldialectic]

1 minute ago, tmp3 said:

For anyone applying for philosophy graduate programs in Fall 2017, please join this group! "Philosophy Graduate Applicants 2018"  
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1575546452486383/

Just beat me to it.

[tmp3]

Haha. Sorry, Colin!

[Phallosopher]

Greetings everyone,

I'll be applying to MA and MA/PhD programs in philosophy for fall 2018. I have a MA in a different discipline already, but given how frequently my research borders on philosophy, I have decided to redirect my gaze rather than keeping one foot in each country and looking around without enough certainty.

My primary interests lie in the intersection of epistemology, aesthetics, and logic. I'm going to be looking at programs that are open to students with an interdisciplinary mindset or non-traditional background. So far the schools recommended to me by the philosopher I kept in touch with from undergrad are: Georgia State and UCSD. Any others would be welcome.

On this site I'd be particularly interested in connecting with students who transitioned into philosophy from another background and conquered the institutional logistics thereof.

I'm also hoping to talk to students from a traditional background (earned BA in philosophy) who would be able to give me some tips on what philosophy departments would worry I am missing, and how to get it or demonstrate that I have it.

[évariste]

On 5/12/2017 at 7:56 AM, iunoionnis said:

For her (and for myself), it's more about the cultural differences and Sittlichkeit than matters of professed belief (also, any major city in the South is going to swing blue). In the South, regardless of opinion, you would never see a person blare on the horn, yell profanities at a stranger, or openly display racist convictions. If it happens, it's really, really shocking socially unacceptable behavior. It's a hospitality based culture, and feels very different than the North East.

On 5/12/2017 at 6:35 AM, Duns Eith said:

When I applied my wife and I made a radius of 8 hr drive one of our limitations, due to family (our fathers are of questionable health, our mothers really want to be close enough to visit grand kids if they happen -- which is likely) and general appeal of climate. But it did help make the list shorter!

Huh. I'm surprised. What difference does this make, practically? It isn't like any major city is red, and should someone have difference of opinion what damage or threat is that to you?

It's more a question of bureaucracy, because trans rights have been everyone's pet soapbox in the last couple of years...which is all well and fine, except that all this political football actually impacts some day-to-day lives.  E.g. political climates do put pressure on health insurance coverage (with a significant chunk of policy governed at the state level), so continued access to hormones is a thing.  Also, the whole bathroom issue--I'd prefer not to worry about whether my using a toilet will be outlawed 

I am really not trying to sound like a snowflake!  I'm not indignant or angry or anything--just pragmatic.  While I care about cultural fit, it's really not a huge factor for me in terms of choosing schools; unfortunately I do have to prioritize my basic needs, however.

On 5/13/2017 at 10:56 AM, hector549 said:

I grew up in central Pennsylvania, though I have lived in Pittsburgh for a long time. Culturally, Pittsburgh and Philadelphia are very far removed from the more rural and suburban areas in the center of the state. Obviously, your concerns are yours, but if CMU is a good fit, it might be worth applying and visiting, and seeing what you think first-hand. Pittsburgh isn't perfect, but it's a very liveable and progressive city with some great universities, and it's far more cosmopolitan than its reputation might suggest.

Thank you so much for sharing your experience!  I've only ever driven through PA, but, yes, more reasons to get excited for the Great Grad School Road Trip   I grew up in Canada and live in California, so I'm pretty spoiled by liberalism...

Semi-related (but very general) question: a few of you mention spouses; is grad school just a horrible option for those who want to eventually have families but who aren't already engaged/married?  (Semi-related because LGBT presence/prominence is pretty affected by political climate, but if getting my Ph.D means resigning myself to permanent bachelorhood anyway (side effect of academic productivity?), then I guess the absence of an LGBT community isn't really going to matter...)

[Duns Eith]

On 5/16/2017 at 5:38 AM, évariste said:

It's more a question of bureaucracy, because trans rights have been everyone's pet soapbox in the last couple of years...which is all well and fine, except that all this political football actually impacts some day-to-day lives.  E.g. political climates do put pressure on health insurance coverage (with a significant chunk of policy governed at the state level), so continued access to hormones is a thing.  Also, the whole bathroom issue--I'd prefer not to worry about whether my using a toilet will be outlawed 

I am really not trying to sound like a snowflake!  I'm not indignant or angry or anything--just pragmatic.  While I care about cultural fit, it's really not a huge factor for me in terms of choosing schools; unfortunately I do have to prioritize my basic needs, however.

That makes far more sense.

And no, you don't sound like a snowflake. Whatever that means (I hate the term being thrown around), you're just being sensitive to the fact that your livelihood is in some political jeopardy in a relevant way. It'd be nice not to have that be a factor, even though on a federal level there are some concerns.

Semi-related (but very general) question: a few of you mention spouses; is grad school just a horrible option for those who want to eventually have families but who aren't already engaged/married?  (Semi-related because LGBT presence/prominence is pretty affected by political climate, but if getting my Ph.D means resigning myself to permanent bachelorhood anyway (side effect of academic productivity?), then I guess the absence of an LGBT community isn't really going to matter...)

Grad school is hard on any relationships, as it takes so much time, effort, and energy, and it has a way of creeping into other things. There is the pressure of I could do more! constantly. So, it is probably easiest when you're single-but-well-connected.

It's gotta be difficult to start something new while in grad school, but I bet it depends on a ton of factors you can't change easily: how well you're paid, what the work load is, whether you're extremely fast reader and learner, whether you can handle stress well. I.e., situation and temperament.

[philoguy]

Hi all, my department advisor recently had a discussion with my M.A. cohort about the upcoming Ph.D. application season. It was, overall, a pretty scary talk so I figured I'd come on here and float some questions about my prospects given my stats. 

My M.A. program is a first-year program at a large university that has had an interdisciplinary program for a while, so it does have a track record of PhD admission success, the body of applicants are not large and the vast majority of them went on to study political philosophy/applied ethics. I attended my school for a few reasons: convenient location (I was working in the same city at the time of my acceptance), faculty that are somewhat if not very prominent in my AOI (mind, CogSci, moral psychology, animal cognition/ethics, phil of biology), and I felt at home based on my visit and correspondence with various professors. Attending my current university did not come without its drawbacks: I turned down some better-known M.A. programs (Claremont Grad, SFSU, Carleton University) and accepted an offer at my current school before I got off the waitlist at some really top notch programs (UWM, Georgia St.). However, I've really enjoyed my time here and have developed great relationships with those aforementioned faculty.

With that said: Entering year 2 of the program, I have a 3.9 GPA. This is a big improvement on my 3.3 overall and 3.6 major GPA at my undergrad institution (a top liberal arts school). My GRE scores are 160, 164, and 5.5 (85th, 87th, and 98th percentile). My recommendation letters are probably going to be very good, 2 of the 3 coming from professors who are somewhat to very well known in their fields. I'm working on polishing the living hell out of my writing sample. My current goal is to get into a top 10-20 program based on my interests.

Things that I'm worried about: 1) undergrad GPA (see above); 2) My GREs - they seem strong to me, but I feel as if I have any shortcoming in such a competitive pool it could prove fatal; 3) No publications: I have submitted some papers to conferences and journals but no word yet; 4) My M.A. program, as stated, is in its infancy but I'm hoping this will be mitigated by the recommendation letters coming from well-known faculty

Anyways, thoughts about how realistic acceptance to a top 15 (maybe top 10?) school is given my current academic standing would be much appreciated. Do I have a shot? Do I need to get something published/speak at a conference? Retake my GREs? 

Edited June 27, 2017 by philoguy

[thehegeldialectic]

On 6/27/2017 at 3:20 PM, philoguy said:

Anyways, thoughts about how realistic acceptance to a top 15 (maybe top 10?) school is given my current academic standing would be much appreciated. Do I have a shot? Do I need to get something published/speak at a conference? Retake my GREs? 

Are you talking about the top fifteen philosophy programs, or the top fifteen in your area of specialty? For example, if you were applying to the top 15 Hegel programs (i.e. all of them), you would have a pretty decent shot of getting into one of them. But if you are talking about the top fifteen programs in the nation (or in a really big field), I would say it's probably better to steer clear of these.

I hate to discourage you, but the reality is that you will be competing against hundreds and hundreds of applicants at these top schools. Many of these will be ivy-league undergraduates with a 4.0, near-perfect GRE scores, fluent German or Ancient Greek, famous letter writers, and a significant amount of graduate coursework because their undergraduate department offered linked courses.Some of them may have even published a paper, others have presented at conferences.

So when you're going up against students with a B.A. who already have graduate level coursework, it's going to make you stand out less.

So what can you do? I would focus on narrowing your focus towards the reputation of particular professors rather than programs. 

As for your particular worries:

1) I would worry about your undergrad GPA the least. The purpose of the M.A. is to show improvement. You've got it. 

2) My GREs - It's not bad, but could be higher. While it might cause you problems when applying to schools with thousands of applicants, it's perfectly fine for getting into somewhere in general. 

3) No publications - I mean, if you have stuff submitted and under review, that's at least something. But try as hard as you can to get at least one published in something respectable. Also, conferences are much easier to get into, so just apply to every one where you can say something. If your school has a colloquium as well, it's a good way to get some papers listed on your CV.

Besides this, having an original, groundbreaking, and/or innovative writing sample is the most important thing. Keep trying to get it published as well. 

Edited June 28, 2017 by iunoionnis

[Glasperlenspieler]

On 6/27/2017 at 0:20 PM, philoguy said:

Hi all, my department advisor recently had a discussion with my M.A. cohort about the upcoming Ph.D. application season. It was, overall, a pretty scary talk so I figured I'd come on here and float some questions about my prospects given my stats. 

My M.A. program is a first-year program at a large university that has had an interdisciplinary program for a while, so it does have a track record of PhD admission success, the body of applicants are not large and the vast majority of them went on to study political philosophy/applied ethics. I attended my school for a few reasons: convenient location (I was working in the same city at the time of my acceptance), faculty that are somewhat if not very prominent in my AOI (mind, CogSci, moral psychology, animal cognition/ethics, phil of biology), and I felt at home based on my visit and correspondence with various professors. Attending my current university did not come without its drawbacks: I turned down some better-known M.A. programs (Claremont Grad, SFSU, Carleton University) and accepted an offer at my current school before I got off the waitlist at some really top notch programs (UWM, Georgia St.). However, I've really enjoyed my time here and have developed great relationships with those aforementioned faculty.

With that said: Entering year 2 of the program, I have a 3.9 GPA. This is a big improvement on my 3.3 overall and 3.6 major GPA at my undergrad institution (a top liberal arts school). My GRE scores are 160, 164, and 5.5 (85th, 87th, and 98th percentile). My recommendation letters are probably going to be very good, 2 of the 3 coming from professors who are somewhat to very well known in their fields. I'm working on polishing the living hell out of my writing sample. My current goal is to get into a top 10-20 program based on my interests.

Things that I'm worried about: 1) undergrad GPA (see above); 2) My GREs - they seem strong to me, but I feel as if I have any shortcoming in such a competitive pool it could prove fatal; 3) No publications: I have submitted some papers to conferences and journals but no word yet; 4) My M.A. program, as stated, is in its infancy but I'm hoping this will be mitigated by the recommendation letters coming from well-known faculty

Anyways, thoughts about how realistic acceptance to a top 15 (maybe top 10?) school is given my current academic standing would be much appreciated. Do I have a shot? Do I need to get something published/speak at a conference? Retake my GREs? 

 

1 hour ago, iunoionnis said:

Are you talking about the top fifteen philosophy programs, or the top fifteen in your area of specialty? For example, if you were applying to the top 15 Hegel programs (i.e. all of them), you would have a pretty decent shot of getting into one of them. But if you are talking about the top fifteen programs in the nation (or in a really big field), I would say it's probably better to steer clear of these.

I hate to discourage you, but the reality is that you will be competing against hundreds and hundreds of applicants at these top schools. Many of these will be ivy-league undergraduates with a 4.0, near-perfect GRE scores, fluent German or Ancient Greek, famous letter writers, and a significant amount of graduate coursework because their undergraduate department offered linked courses.Some of them may have even published a paper, others have presented at conferences.

So when you're going up against students with a B.A. who already have graduate level coursework, it's going to make you stand out less.

So what can you do? I would focus on narrowing your focus towards the reputation of particular professors rather than programs. 

As for your particular worries:

1) I would worry about your undergrad GPA the least. The purpose of the M.A. is to show improvement. You've got it. 

2) My GREs - It's not bad, but could be higher. While it might cause you problems when applying to schools with thousands of applicants, it's perfectly fine for getting into somewhere in general. 

3) No publications - I mean, if you have stuff submitted and under review, that's at least something. But try as hard as you can to get at least one published in something respectable. Also, conferences are much easier to get into, so just apply to every one where you can say something. If your school has a colloquium as well, it's a good way to get some papers listed on your CV.

Besides this, having an original, groundbreaking, and/or innovative writing sample is the most important thing. Keep trying to get it published as well. 

I largely disagree with this advice, or if not disagree, then I would at least emphasize things a little bit differently. The odds of *anyone* getting into a top 15 program are low. I don't think that means you shouldn't apply. I wouldn't worry much about your GPA. If you can keep your MA GPA up that should more or less mitigate concerns about undergrad GPA. Your GREs are fine. Nothing spectacular but not bad. I wouldn't bother retaking it if I were you. I don't think publications really matter. Hardly anyone has a publication applying for PhD programs. If you can get something published in a top journal, that's great and you'll probably be successful in applications, but that's not the norm. Don't try to publish just to publish. At this point in your career, you're probably better off not publishing than publishing in a mid-tier or worse journal. In terms of MA prestige, it certainly doesn't hurt coming from a top program, but you can't do anything about that at this point and people do get into to top programs from unknown programs. 

All this is to say that your stats shouldn't keep you out. You're odds of getting into a top 15 program are low, but that goes for everyone else too. What it will come down to is your writing sample and how strong of a fit you are for the program. If someone on the admissions committee takes a particular liking to your writing sample, you're in. You don't have a lot of control over this and a lot of it is luck. All you can do it produce the best sample you can that showcases your skills and interests, asks intriguing questions that are likely to catch someone's eye, and apply to programs that are the best fit for you. Good luck!

[philoguy]

17 hours ago, iunoionnis said:

Are you talking about the top fifteen philosophy programs, or the top fifteen in your area of specialty? For example, if you were applying to the top 15 Hegel programs (i.e. all of them), you would have a pretty decent shot of getting into one of them. But if you are talking about the top fifteen programs in the nation (or in a really big field), I would say it's probably better to steer clear of these.

I hate to discourage you, but the reality is that you will be competing against hundreds and hundreds of applicants at these top schools. Many of these will be ivy-league undergraduates with a 4.0, near-perfect GRE scores, fluent German or Ancient Greek, famous letter writers, and a significant amount of graduate coursework because their undergraduate department offered linked courses.Some of them may have even published a paper, others have presented at conferences.

So when you're going up against students with a B.A. who already have graduate level coursework, it's going to make you stand out less.

So what can you do? I would focus on narrowing your focus towards the reputation of particular professors rather than programs. 

As for your particular worries:

1) I would worry about your undergrad GPA the least. The purpose of the M.A. is to show improvement. You've got it. 

2) My GREs - It's not bad, but could be higher. While it might cause you problems when applying to schools with thousands of applicants, it's perfectly fine for getting into somewhere in general. 

3) No publications - I mean, if you have stuff submitted and under review, that's at least something. But try as hard as you can to get at least one published in something respectable. Also, conferences are much easier to get into, so just apply to every one where you can say something. If your school has a colloquium as well, it's a good way to get some papers listed on your CV.

Besides this, having an original, groundbreaking, and/or innovative writing sample is the most important thing. Keep trying to get it published as well. 

 

15 hours ago, Glasperlenspieler said:

 

I largely disagree with this advice, or if not disagree, then I would at least emphasize things a little bit differently. The odds of *anyone* getting into a top 15 program are low. I don't think that means you shouldn't apply. I wouldn't worry much about your GPA. If you can keep your MA GPA up that should more or less mitigate concerns about undergrad GPA. Your GREs are fine. Nothing spectacular but not bad. I wouldn't bother retaking it if I were you. I don't think publications really matter. Hardly anyone has a publication applying for PhD programs. If you can get something published in a top journal, that's great and you'll probably be successful in applications, but that's not the norm. Don't try to publish just to publish. At this point in your career, you're probably better off not publishing than publishing in a mid-tier or worse journal. In terms of MA prestige, it certainly doesn't hurt coming from a top program, but you can't do anything about that at this point and people do get into to top programs from unknown programs. 

All this is to say that your stats shouldn't keep you out. You're odds of getting into a top 15 program are low, but that goes for everyone else too. What it will come down to is your writing sample and how strong of a fit you are for the program. If someone on the admissions committee takes a particular liking to your writing sample, you're in. You don't have a lot of control over this and a lot of it is luck. All you can do it produce the best sample you can that showcases your skills and interests, asks intriguing questions that are likely to catch someone's eye, and apply to programs that are the best fit for you. Good luck!

Thanks all, sincerely appreciate the advice.

[thehegeldialectic]

17 hours ago, Glasperlenspieler said:

At this point in your career, you're probably better off not publishing than publishing in a mid-tier or worse journal.

This advice gets repeated often on the internet, but I don't think it's actually true. While it might not look impressive to have, say, ten pay-to-publish articles, I have never seen any evidence that publishing in a mid-tier journal can actually damage your career. 

But generally speaking, my point is that there are plenty of, in my view, perfectly fine programs that aren't considered "top tier," these so-called "top tier" programs are often difficult to get into given the enormous amount of applications, and there are plenty of other great schools where famous philosophers are doing groundbreaking work, so why not focus on these programs? 

Besides this, the Leiter reports are in my view largely subjective, arbitrary, and for some reason the University of Chicago (Brian Leiter's school) always makes top 10 ...

Edited June 29, 2017 by iunoionnis

[ThePeon]

1 hour ago, iunoionnis said:

This advice gets repeated often on the internet, but I don't think it's actually true. While it might not look impressive to have, say, ten pay-to-publish articles, I have never seen any evidence that publishing in a mid-tier journal can actually damage your career. 

But generally speaking, my point is that there are plenty of, in my view, perfectly fine programs that aren't considered "top tier," these so-called "top tier" programs are often difficult to get into given the enormous amount of applications, and there are plenty of other great schools where famous philosophers are doing groundbreaking work, so why not focus on these programs? 

Besides this, the Leiter reports are in my view largely subjective, arbitrary, and for some reason the University of Chicago (Brian Leiter's school) always makes top 10 ...

University of Chicago is actually ranked 21, and has never been higher than rank 20.

Also, I'd partially agree and partially disagree about the PGR. Yes, there are biases and methodological flaws to the PGR. It privileges the views of philosophers who work at R1's and is biased against non-western and most continental philosophy (and if you're interests lie in those areas, it is less useful). And yes, there are schools that are lower ranked (or unranked) that have relatively good TT placement rates, albeit mostly into teaching positions. And yes, most universities with a PhD program in philosophy will have a high quality department with actively publishing scholars.

But the PGR isn't (completely) random and arbitrary. It's a fairly large survey of members of the Profession and their views of each program, it's not just Leiter's subjective opinion (in fact, Leiter isn't even going to be running the next iteration of the PGR). The vast majority of TT research jobs in philosophy go to graduates of the top 10-to-15 programs, and there still is some correlation between rank and overall placement rates, though there are exceptions to that in both directions. And, in my own research into schools, the top programs do tend to be stronger in a wider array of subfields while lower ranked programs are often only strong in one or two areas.

Edited June 29, 2017 by ThePeon

[Glasperlenspieler]

1 hour ago, iunoionnis said:

This advice gets repeated often on the internet, but I don't think it's actually true. While it might not look impressive to have, say, ten pay-to-publish articles, I have never seen any evidence that publishing in a mid-tier journal can actually damage your career. 

Take a look at the essays you wrote five years ago. How many of them are you proud of, that is, you would be happy to show them to your current professors as a quality piece of work? The fact of the matter is you grow a lot over the course of your undergraduate career and what you though was a great idea at the beginning maybe doesn't look so cool now. I think it's fair to assume that the sort of growth you will experience over the course of a PhD program is equal if not greater. So five years down the line, that cool paper may not be something you want associated with your name, especially when it comes to tenure review. Now, if you get the approval from a top-notch journal, then perhaps that's a good reason to think you're really on to something. Otherwise, you're probably better of holding onto those ideas and developing them as your skills as a professional develop. What's currently belongs in a mid-tier journal, may belong in Nous is you're patient enough.The other issue with publishing is the amount of time it takes to publish and go through the process in comparison to the actual reward (whether valuable feedback or a publication). At this point the math usually doesn't work out in favor of publishing. If your advisor thinks that you have produced something that is worth trying to publish, then by all mean, go for it. Otherwise, I think publishing just for the sake of publishing is unhelpful at best and counterproductive at worst. 

 

1 hour ago, iunoionnis said:

But generally speaking, my point is that there are plenty of, in my view, perfectly fine programs that aren't considered "top tier," these so-called "top tier" programs are often difficult to get into given the enormous amount of applications, and there are plenty of other great schools where famous philosophers are doing groundbreaking work, so why not focus on these programs? 

I agree with this, but that doesn't mean you should discourage people from applying to top-tier programs. You can apply to both. It's certainly silly to apply to top-tier programs just because they're top-tier, but if they're the best fit for your interests, then so be it. Besides, if the goal is to get an academic job, I think there's something to be said, for limiting your search to top programs (in your field). The fact of the matter is, that with some exceptions, is much harder to get a job out of a low ranked program.

 

1 hour ago, iunoionnis said:

Besides this, the Leiter reports are in my view largely subjective, arbitrary, and for some reason the University of Chicago (Brian Leiter's school) always makes top 10 ...

This is simply not true. Chicago is currently just outside of the top 20 on the PGR and as far as I'm aware, it's never been in the top 10, nor has UT-Austin, where he was at when he started the PGR. Yes, there are problems with the PGR. In my opinion it's not perfect, but a useful too. There's plenty of reasons to criticize it, but please don't use blatant falsehoods to do so. (Edit: crosspost with ThePeon, who gives a more comprehensive response to this point)

Edited June 29, 2017 by Glasperlenspieler

[hector549]

I have to agree with @Glasperlenspieler, I don't think admissions committees for PhD programs care a jot about whether you've published something or not, and whether you've presented at conferences. I don't know if sub-par publications could hurt your career in the long term or not; perhaps that's so. In any case, I think there are more useful things on which to focus time and energy.

The most important things with respect to PhD admissions are that you have an excellent writing sample and strong letters. Also important are GRE scores and grades. @philoguy, at this point your undergrad GPA is beyond your control anyway, as is the prestige-level of your MA institution. As for your GREs, my sense is it's probably not worth putting in lots of study hours to possibly raise them a couple of points from where they are now. They're already decently strong. I think if I were you, I would focus on getting strong letters, working on your sample, and getting good grades in your remaining coursework.

Edited June 29, 2017 by hector549

[isostheneia]

6 hours ago, iunoionnis said:

This advice gets repeated often on the internet, but I don't think it's actually true. While it might not look impressive to have, say, ten pay-to-publish articles, I have never seen any evidence that publishing in a mid-tier journal can actually damage your career. 

For what it's worth, I've heard (in conversation) from a few professors who regularly sit on search committees that they actively count mid-tier publications against applicants. One example given was that they would think better of an applicant with one publication in Nous than an applicant with one publication in Nous and one in a mid-range specialty journal. Granted, these comments have mainly been from professors in top 10 departments - it's entirely possible that there's a significant difference in hiring strategy between such departments and others. But it's at least some direct testimonial evidence that mid-tier publications can be harmful.

(Just to be clear, I don't mean to endorse their comments as reflective of good hiring practices.)

[thehegeldialectic]

I apologize for being inaccurate about the position of the University of Chicago on the Leiter Report. It was not my intention to report these facts inaccurately.

 

22 hours ago, Glasperlenspieler said:

If your advisor thinks that you have produced something that is worth trying to publish, then by all mean, go for it.

Of course, I would agree with this.

All I'm saying is that most M.A. students have already produced six term papers. Surely one of them is publishable. Maybe other departments are different, but our professors tell us that all of our final papers should be near publishable quality.

I'm also not convinced it's that difficult to produce publishable work. Journals are full of awful articles that don't deserve to be published. The recent Hypatia controversy is proof of how bad articles can be published in well-respected journals.

 

Edited June 30, 2017 by iunoionnis

[Duns Eith]

19 hours ago, isostheneia said:

For what it's worth, I've heard (in conversation) from a few professors who regularly sit on search committees that they actively count mid-tier publications against applicants. One example given was that they would think better of an applicant with one publication in Nous than an applicant with one publication in Nous and one in a mid-range specialty journal. Granted, these comments have mainly been from professors in top 10 departments - it's entirely possible that there's a significant difference in hiring strategy between such departments and others. But it's at least some direct testimonial evidence that mid-tier publications can be harmful.

(Just to be clear, I don't mean to endorse their comments as reflective of good hiring practices.)

Thankful for the bold. What a muddle-headed approach to expanding and proliferating your research, let alone hiring.

[maxhgns]

11 hours ago, iunoionnis said:

 

I'm also not convinced it's that difficult to produce publishable work.

 

It's not. The trick is actually getting it published, and that's a process that can take years--even for very good papers. The typical acceptance rate is around 5%. That's not because 95% of the papers are unpublishable.

 

Also... Let me be the first to tell you that the standards we tell our UGs we hold them to and the standards we actually hold them to are seldom the same. I was at a tippy-top university, and I don't recall ever reading an UG paper that was of publishable quality. Plenty had potential, though. Maybe their honours theses were; I never got to read one of those.

[kretschmar]

Can anyone speak to the relative merits of recommendations from philosophy and non-philosophy profs? I have a choice between an academic mentor in Religious Studies for whom I worked as a research assistant (who will certainly write an outstanding letter), and a philosophy professor I've had for only one course.

Also, is anyone else going for an MA in 2018 due to a non-philosophy undergraduate background?

 

[hector549]

39 minutes ago, kretschmar said:

Can anyone speak to the relative merits of recommendations from philosophy and non-philosophy profs? I have a choice between an academic mentor in Religious Studies for whom I worked as a research assistant (who will certainly write an outstanding letter), and a philosophy professor I've had for only one course.

I'd say the rule of thumb is that it's best to get letters from philosophers when possible. In this case, your choice of whom to select for letter-writers may depend on some of the following factors: what was the nature of the course you had with the philosophy professor? Was it a higher-level course? Did you have much interaction with the professor? Did you do well? If the answer to these questions is yes, I might be inclined to go with the philosophy professor. Otherwise, it does sound as though the Religious Studies professor would write you a good letter. Depending on the nature of the work you did with that person, though, it may still count for less than a letter from a philosophy professor.

If you're unsure about whether the philosophy professor will have enough information to be able to write you a strong letter, it's acceptable to ask.

Will your other letters be from philosophy professors? If the other two are from philosophy professors who know you well and will be strong letters, and you're just trying to find a third writer, it may also be less of an issue who you select.

It may also matter to a lesser degree who you choose for your third writer if you're applying principally to MA programs rather than PhD programs.

[soproperlybasic]

If you're strictly looking at becoming an analytic philosopher, would it count against you if you asked a continental prof for a recommendation? That prof knew me pretty well, and I actually got a better grade in her class than I did in a course I took on analytic phil. of mind that I found really difficult. She was also the one who wrote my rec. for the summer diversity institute I attended...