Last January I posted some thoughts on applying to graduate school in philosophy. Many people seem to have found that post helpful, and now that people are thinking about applications for next academic year (yes, it's time to get cracking!) I'm finding myself beseiged with questions, so I thought I'd expand and update my reflections in a series of posts. The current post will address the issue of deciding whether to apply at all, and where.
Warning: This might be depressing!
It's Extremely Competitive
At U.C. Riverside (ranked 31 in the Philosophical Gourmet Report), we received about 200 applications last year, of which we admitted 24 (more than usual for us) for an entering class of 11. Students we admitted typically had GPAs of 3.8 or more, and most of them had virtually straight A's (that is, almost no A-minuses) in their upper-division philosophy classes by senior year, if they were applying as undergraduates. Of our entering class of 11 students, four had perfect 4.0 GPAs in their last enrolled institution (whether undergrad or MA).
To get into the top-ranked philosophy departments is considerably more difficult than to get into UCR. To my knowledge no UCR undergraduate has ever been admitted to a top-15 philosophy Ph.D. program (certainly not in the 10 years I've been here), though we've had some students with straight A's, very strong letters, and excellent writing samples. When I was a student at Berkeley, it seemed that almost all my classmates were from top universities (Harvard, Princeton) or renowned liberal arts colleges (Amherst, Swarthmore). The few who weren't from such name-brand institutions seemed to have done time at such colleges (a classmate from Northeastern, for example, had spent a year at Oxford and had letters from professors there). I don't want to suggest that it's impossible for a student from a middle-tier school to get into a top Ph.D. program, but the odds appear to be long even if you're valedictorian.
When I applied to graduate school in 1991, I had literally straight-A's from Stanford (except for an A- and a B+ my very first term and one A- later) with a liberal sprinking of A+'s (one semester I took four courses and received four A+'s), very strong GREs (800/790/750, back when it had three sections), what seems to me now in retrospect to be a good writing sample, and letters from leading philosophers (Fred Dretske, John Dupre, and P.J. Ivanhoe) one of whom later invited me to contribute to an anthology based on one of my undergraduate essays (and so presumably wrote a strong letter). I was not admitted to Harvard.
For comparison, here are the admissions data from the Harvard Law School admissions site:
Admissions Criteria
Applicants accepted: 12.2%
Number of 2006 applicants: 6,810
Number of 2006 matriculants: 558
LSAT range (25 to 75 percentile): 169 to 175
GPA range (25 to 75 percentile): 3.95 to 3.72
and Harvard Medical:
Admissions Criteria
Applicants accepted: 4.9%
Average MCAT: 11.7
Average GPA (4.0 scale): 3.79
It seems a safe bet that it's considerably harder to get into Harvard Philosophy than Harvard Law or Medical.
The best 1-2 majors at U.C. Riverside every year have GPAs around 3.9. Those who apply to graduate schools typically land in schools ranked in the 25-40 range.
Prospects After Admission
Although I haven't seen data on this, my impression is that most philosophy Ph.D. programs have completion rates of 50% or less; that most of the people who do finish take longer than advertised, often 7-9 years (though Stanford and Princeton have reputations for being quick); and that most of the people who drop out do so during the dissertation phase, after already having completed several years of study. I also suspect that women complete at substantially lower rates than men. (Why that should be is an interesting question!)
Those students who do complete their degrees don't always find tenure-track teaching jobs -- and those who do find tenure-track jobs often have to apply for several years, be willing to move anywhere in the country, and settle for schools they've never heard of. (If you're in a large metropolitan area and willing to teach at the community college level, and if you're patient about piecing together temporary "freeway flier" jobs for a few years, you may be able to stay local after graduation.) Students completing their degrees at top ten universities have a better chance of finding a job at a school they've heard of before, but are often not taken seriously as applicants at lower prestige schools.
Here's what happened to my entering class of eight at U.C. Berkeley (ranked about #3 or 4 nationally at the time were were admitted): One dropped out after the first year, two dropped out after 7-9 years, two completed their degrees after 7-9 years but never found permanent teaching positions, one ended up at a respectable but not renowned liberal arts college (Marquette) after about 12 years of study, one went to SUNY Albany after 6 years of study (then later moved to U.T. Austin), and one (I myself) went to U.C. Riverside after 6 years of study, though for methodological reasons it may be distortive to include myself in these data.
Coming out of U.C. Riverside, my impression is that about half of our successful students end up teaching community college (some never complete their degree and don't show up on the official "placement" lists). Those who land at four-year schools (often after a couple years of looking) are generally (but not universally!) at lower prestige colleges. Here's our placement record. Bear in mind that many two-year schools do not have "community college" in their name.
I advise students not to consider graduate school in philosophy unless (1.) they'd be happy teaching philosophy at a low prestige college and are willing to move almost anywhere in the country, and (2.) even if they never finished the degree they would have found the process of studying philosophy at the graduate level intrinsically worthwhile.
My sense is that the last criterion is key to completing the degree. Students who are extrinsically motivated in their education are unlikely to complete a dissertation in philosophy. There are no real deadlines, no structure imposed by your advisor. You simply have to sit down and think and read and write about the same topic, without much outside help or direction, for a few years. At the same time, you're in a very anxiety-producing situation: Your whole career depends on how good your dissertation is, and the power your dissertation chair has over you -- in the form of approving or not approving your dissertation chapters and in writing a good or a weak letter for you at the end of the process -- is enormous. This is not a situation in which people who are not powerfully intrinsically motivated to do philosophy are likely to succeed.
On the bright side: It's delightful to be able to spend your time surrounded by others as nerdy about philosophy as you are -- peer-to-peer interactions are one of the most rewarding aspects of graduate school -- and you have great liberty to explore almost any topic you want in seminars, independent studies, reading groups, and later your dissertation. Also, unlike law school or medical school, almost all ranked philosophy Ph.D. programs will give you some combination of fellowship and teaching support so that if you live frugally you needn't borrow money or hold down jobs outside of philosophy in order to get through school.
Choosing Where to Apply
If all this hasn't soured you on the prospects of graduate school in philosophy, then you're just the sort of maniac who might succeed! The Philosophical Gourmet Report is the natural starting place for thinking about where to apply, along with with advice from your professors. Once you have a sense of about where you might expect to land in prestige level based on the features of your application, you might select about four schools at that level, two more prestigious schools as longshots, and two fallback schools. Look at faculty profiles (on each department's web page) and at the Gourmet's specialty rankings to see what schools have strengths in the areas or points of view that appeal to you. If you find that geography is a major factor for you, you might consider whether you'll be ready to be geographically flexible in your job search later; if not, bear in mind that community college teaching is the most likely outcome.
Should You Apply to an M.A. Program First?
If you're determined to get into a Ph.D. program in philosophy and you don't have the application for it straight out of undergraduate, an M.A. can be a springboard to a Ph.D. program. Generally speaking, however, if you can get into at least a mid-ranked Ph.D. program straight out of undergraduate, it's advisable to do so. The very top-ranked programs seem mostly to prefer stellar undergraduate applicants over applicants with stellar grades in M.A. programs and only nearly stellar undergraduate records. (There are exceptions, though, so if you wouldn't be happy with any but a top ten department and are only admitted to mid-ranked departements, you might consider a good M.A. program; but the odds are low and you might actually end up worse off in the end! Here, for example, is Houston's placement record, and here is Milwaukee's. Bear in mind that students who do not complete the program, which may be a substantial percentage, are not included on such lists.)
About half of U.C. Riverside's Ph.D. students enter with M.A.'s. Most of those students also did fairly well as undergraduates (3.5-3.8-ish undergraduate GPA). I'd guess that the proportion of students entering with an M.A. is higher at U.C.R. than at most peer instititions, but I'm not sure.
Although technically most community colleges only require their professors to have an M.A., most people who find permanent community college teaching positions nowadays either have a Ph.D. in hand or nearly finished.
Update on Ph.D. Placement (Sept. 20)
A reader advised me to look at SUNY Stony Brook's placement record. Although they are not ranked in the Gourmet report, this year they placed students in several good tenure track positions including Emory and Colorado-Boulder, and they have also placed well in the past. I suspect their track record is unusual in this respect, and may have to do with the sense some people have that the Gourmet Report is unfair to a network of schools including Stony Brook, Penn State, and Vanderbilt. Those schools may, then, have better placement records than their unranked status suggests. This could be the case regardless of whether the Gourmet ranking is fair (about which I mean to take no stand): The point is that some people will see those schools as very good and view their Ph.D.'s favorably.
But also, even from schools about which there is general consensus that they're at the middle of the pack, people do occasionally land jobs at ranked Ph.D.-granting departments or at prestigious liberal arts schools. In 1997, U.C. Riverside placed a student at Wisconsin-Madison, and a student of ours from the early 90's, after moving a few times, was recently hired at Washington-Seattle. Also, last year UCR hired a Ph.D. from Georgetown to a tenure-track position. For a fuller perspective on placement, look at departments' websites.
My point is not that such things are impossible -- or that it's impossible to get into Princeton's Ph.D. program from Cal State San Bernardino -- but that such events are relatively rare.
Update: Applying to Your Own Department (Sept. 21)
Undergraduates at schools with Ph.D. programs will be tempted to apply to their own programs. Presumably, they're having a positive experience and enjoying the good opinion of their professors, if they're considering graduate school in philosophy. They will receive good advice against this from their letter writers.
Every department has a character. Certain philosophers and issues will be taken as core, others not much discussed. How seriously is Davidson taken? Wittgenstein? Heidegger? Modal realism? Contemporary English philosophy of perception? Different approaches will be valued -- keeping up with the journals or emphasizing the classics, valuing the empirical or the a priori, applied ethics or metaethics, etc. Of course, faculty will have diverse opinions on these issues, but that doesn't prevent the shock and surprise -- or simply the breath of fresh air -- that students feel going to a department where things are viewed very differently on the whole!
Students who spend their whole careers in a single department thus risk a stunted and provincial view of philosophy. It's also difficult for them to gain an accurate sense of how their advisors are perceived by the field as a whole. They will learn less from taking classes from the same professors again than they would from a new crop of professors. They may also find it's very different being a star undergraduate than an average graduate student; the tone of their relations with their mentors will change.
When I have served on admissions committees I have argued that we should have a higher bar for our own students than for others. Still, it can be difficult to reject a student when your colleague down the hall insists that she deserves admission!
Update (Sept. 25): Some helpful discussion of community college placement here.
Update (Sept. 28): Should You Despair?
Okay, you're at Cal State Whatever or Southern Iowa Christian, and you would love to be an Ivy League professor of philosophy someday. Is there simply no hope? I would hate to counsel despair. At every step, there are a small number of people who do the unlikely: Get into a top-ranked Ph.D. program from a non-elite school, get an elite starting job from a middle-ranked Ph.D. program, move from a non-elite university to an elite one later in their career.
Great students from non-elite schools do sometimes make an impression on a "top ten" admissions committee. Maybe our best UCR students have been a bit unlucky. There's certainly some degree of chance in the process. Is your glowing letter from someone that someone on the admissions committee happens to really respect? (It's a small world!) Does your writing sample really resonate with someone?
It can also help to be pro-active. For example, can you drive across town, or apply to an exchange program, or take some time off, to take or audit courses at an elite university (as my friend from Northeastern did)? Can you attend talks, colloquia, conferences around town and out of town, and possibly make some connections or at least give your letter writers fodder for backing up their claims never to have seen so energetic and dedicated a student?
But most importantly: Polish, polish, polish that writing sample! (And do so under the guidance of at least one professor.) If a committee member reads a polished, professional sample she feel she has learned something from, in prose that compares favorably with the typical journal article (not through being flowery or technical but through being elegant and precise), that's an applicant she'll want to admit, more so than the Harvard student with the 3.95 GPA who has a so-so sample. But very few undergraduates can write such samples. Which is why, of course, they're so precious.
All that said, bear in mind that for anyone an Ivy-League career is a longshot. (Well, maybe Kripke was destined.) I would not advise pursuing a career in philosophy if you wouldn't be happy teaching at a non-elite school.
Update: Oct. 29, 2008:
David Brink at UCSD has posted some general reflections for prospective graduate students here. I agree with most of his remarks, except:
(1.) If you're aiming for a job in a research-oriented department, you should probably aim for a graduate department more elite than just the top 25 (though a small percentage of people from mid-ranked departments (roughly 20-40) do find research-oriented jobs).
(2.) To say that "Anything below a 3.5 [GPA] at UCSD is going to be problematic at top programs" seems to me to substantially understate the importance of GPA, unless UCSD students are doing vastly better than UCR students in gaining admission to top programs and unless UCR is more selective about GPA than top programs in philosophy.
(3.) In my experience, GRE doesn't pay much of a role in making the "first cut" among applications, though I do suspect this varies substantially from department to department, depending on institutional factors and the views of particular committee members about the importance of such measures.
Part II of this series (Grades and Classes): is here.
46 comments:
I suspect their track record is unusual in this respect, and may have to do with the sense some people have that the Gourmet Report is unfair to a network of schools including Stony Brook, Penn State, and Vanderbilt.
It's not clear just what you're saying here. Are you claiming that people hire graduates from such programs not because of the quality of the people being hired but because the hiring departments seek to redress a perceived wrong?
Eric,
Does the data you have present not scream at you that something, somewhere, is going horribly wrong? It almost knocked me down.
If philosophy graduate programs were genuine competitive businesses, they would go down in flames -- imagine a skill-intensive company where 50% of its new hires quit before they finished training, or before they finished their first big project. It seems to me that the company would quickly go bankrupt or else have a huge incentive to quickly change its practices.
We could go on about how a lack of accountability harms graduate programs, but there are other interesting issues, too.
Why are philosophy graduate programs fail so many of their students? There are a number of possibilities (tell me if I missed any!):
(1) Students these days are simply bad. No matter who was admitted, there are simply not enough good students;
(2) The job market is so poor that once students fully grasp this fact they simply make a cold economic decision to not continue;
(3) Phil undergrad programs are teaching the wrong skills;
(4) Phil undergrad programs are teaching the right skills, but spending their time encouraging the wrong students to go to grad school;
(5) Phil grad programs are admitting the wrong students;
(6) The culture/structure of phil grad programs is so poor that it actively drives away its students.
Now, (1) might be the case. Maybe philosophy is simply so hard that it's impossible to have a good retention rate. (2) might be true as well, though I think that information is readily available enough that I doubt it's the leading factor.
Notice that (3)-(6) all constitute indictments of the management structure of philosophy graduate programs, if one or any of them is true. From what you and others have written, it sounds as if (6) might be the place to start. Your remark on how anxiety-producing the dissertation stage is underwrites this intuition.
Is anyone at your institution – or any institution – interested in these questions? If not, doesn’t that constitute a serious failure of leadership?
Is there an incentive for grad programs to address their hemorrhaging of admitted students? If not, doesn’t that constitute another serious failure? One could say “the cream rises to the top”, except that it looks as if as many as 90% of potentially qualified students never get a decent shot, thanks to the structure of graduate study.
Graduate study is one of the only fields I can think of that actively discourages talented people from trying to enter the profession. Contrast this with, say, Google, who makes it extremely attractive to want to work there, thereby ensuring that the top talent will want to sign on.
The bottom line is this: admitting and beginning to train students who will end up leaving the program prior to receiving their degree is a waste of your department’s money, a waste of your faculty’s time and skill, and seriously negatively impacts that student’s life and career prospects. That suggests a moral as well as a strong functional argument for actively treating this situation as a genuine problem and working to address it.
I have yet to see any public evidence of concern along these lines from graduate programs themselves.
I'm open to the idea that I'm missing something obvious, or am otherwise horribly off the mark. But I've seen similar data and suggestions before, and they are never placed in a broader, self-inquisitive context.
Gregory: I mean only not to take a stand on whether those departments are treated unfairly or not. I'll revise the post to make that point clearer.
That's a great set of issues, Charles! From what I've seen, there is *some* concern about this among faculty -- at UCR and Berkeley and elsewhere -- but the concern is not proportional to the gravity of the problem. I'd like to see some systematic "where are they now" analyses of entering classes, with some sort of diagnosis of what went wrong when students didn't finish. That seems to me a necessary first step.
Eric,
This is a wonderful and really depressing post. I just wanted to quickly comment on the Stony Brook issue, lest your readers get the wrong idea. It is my understanding that Stony Brook receives well above 200 applicants every year for the PhD program of which it takes somewhere around 12. Thus, while Stony Brook may have a high placement record considering it isn't ranked in the PGR top 50, that does not mean prospective applicants should view it as a shortcut to a good job.
Eric: I appreciate your response and willingness to revise your post. (Also, it's kind of you take your time and provide prospective students with this kind of advice.) It's hard, however, to see how your revision is supposed to help clarify the issue I asked about.
To cut to the point: just what is the subject of the phrase "may have to do with the sense some people have" etc.? It seems to be "[Stony Brook's] track record." Do you see the problem? The sentence seems to offer an explanation of Stony Brook's placement record. And the explanation seems to be some people's sense that Stony Brook and like schools are unfairly unranked. If that's not what you're saying (and I hope you see how offensive a claim that would be), you would need to do more to make it clear.
Thanks, Colin, for the helpful point. I don't want to pretend to be an expert on the Stony Brook situation!
Gregory, I'm unsure what your concern is. One's institution of origin -- and correlatively the perceived eminence and philosophical judgment of one's letter writers -- is a major factor hiring committees consider when looking at new Ph.D.'s. It seems reasonable to infer that Stony Brook's good placement record reflects the sense of some people on hiring committees that Stony Brook is a better department than their unranked status suggests. And people who think that, in my experience, tend to think that the fact that Stony Brook is unranked has to do with some unfairness in the PGR.
Eric: Surely, people would think the report is unfair because they thought the department is better than its unranked status would suggest. That is why it seems wrong to claim that the reason its graduates get hired is that people hiring think the ranking is unfair.
Hey Eric and others,
Thanks very much for this post -- a very interesting a pressing set of issues. I'm curious whether there's a tension in the following two statements:
"...my impression is that about half of our successful students end up teaching community college ... . Those who land at four-year schools (often after a couple years of looking) are generally (but not universally!) at lower prestige colleges."
and
"At the same time, you're in a very anxiety-producing situation: Your whole career depends on how good your dissertation is..."
I'm a graduate student at the University of Florida in the final stages of dissertation writing. As a UF graduate, my prospects will probably be among small four-year liberal arts colleges or community colleges. (At least that's what been the case for the last few crops of UF grads.) When I try to imagine the interview process in which I set across from an interviewer from a small liberal arts college (or community college), it's difficult to picture the interviewer asking much of anything about research (let alone about a specific dissertation topic). It seems to me they'll be much more concerned with how willing I'll be to teach 15 credit hours a semester, serve on committees and engage in the community (or church?) activities, etc. Don't get me wrong: I love to dish out an earful about conventionalist modal semantics, but it just doesn't seem they'll be that interested.
Here at UF there is a constant, low-grade rumble to the effect that one's dissertation must be excellent, or else awful things will happen. And I'm lucky to be intrinsically motivated to think and write about my dissertation topic (else I would be among the 50% that are gone after three years). I'm curious if anyone can give an eye-witness account of what it's like to interview for the less-presitigious jobs at small colleges and community colleges and whether the dissertation is actually that big a deal.
A fine point of language, that. But what I actually said was:
"may have to do with the sense some people have that the Gourmet Report is unfair.... This could be the case regardless of whether the Gourmet ranking is fair (about which I mean to take no stand): The point is that some people will see those schools as very good and view their Ph.D.'s favorably."
I need to introduce the point about unfairness and "having to do with" is weaker than "because". The last sentence then disambiguates, if there was any confusion. So I think it's clear enough. I hope you don't feel that I myself have been unfair.
A brief piece of inside information from Milwaukee to add to your otherwise very informative post. While we do have the occasional student who does not complete the program, by far the vast majority of our students do so. I think you have to keep in mind that it is much easier to complete a 2 year master's degree--even when you have decided that a career in philosophy is not for you--then it is a PhD program. So our placement record should be representative, indeed we try to make it as informative as possible.
Thanks for that info, Margaret. Faculty from some other M.A. programs have told me that their completion rates are rather low. So completion rate is definitely something to look into if you apply to M.A. programs!
Eric,
I am currently enrolled in a PhD program that is ranked in Epistemology. However, my interests are mostly in Ethics (though issues of justification intrigue me somewhat). When I applied, the professor profiles indicated that the faculty would have more working interest in Ethics than they actually do. I am wanting to transfer. Do you recommend finishing the MA first? Also, when looking to new programs, how do you recommend discussing faculty interests without making it feel like an interview?
Thank you for your time.
I don't think it matters much whether you finish the M.A. first.
I'm not sure I fully understand the concern behind your last question. (It *is* an interview, of sorts.) Once you've been admitted, you can chat with basically any faculty you like, if you contact them first to find a time that's convenient for them. There's nothing like "So, what are you currently working on?" (followed by, if necessary, "Oh, that's interesting, tell me more") to get a faculty member going!
Greetings, and although this thread is more or less dead, I'm linking the whole thing to my own page advising my undergraduates; thanks for writing this!
Regarding an earlier post, just in case the author checks back, I wanted to respond to something Jesse said: "I'm curious if anyone can give an eye-witness account of what it's like to interview for the less-presitigious jobs at small colleges and community colleges and whether the dissertation is actually that big a deal."
Bear in mind two important points: (1) Liberal-arts colleges, in my experience so far, as still quite interested in having excellent scholars in our employ, and the quality of our faculty do figure into things like the U.S. News & World Report rankings of liberal arts colleges. (2) As Eric points out in his initial post above, all the more prestigious schools' graduates are ALSO competing for our 'less presitigious' jobs, so from my side of the interviewing table, it's clear to me that I am swimming in a wealth of quality dissertations! I don't need to set aside the importance of a good dissertation or writing sample because I am looking at 500 good dissertations. Do you take my meaning? In other words, I'm saying this, and I apologize to Eric for repeating what I think he's already said quite well: The labor pool is so unbelievably crowded that I have my pick of quality scholars, so to deprioritize the quality of the dissertation is misguided.
Thanks, BigK!
I have a comments feed for the whole blog, so not a comment slips by -- not even on these "dead" posts!
I do hope people will continue to comment and post here, since I regard this series on applying to Ph.D. programs as more or less a continuing service (as long as the quantity of comments doesn't become unmanageable). I plan to update the posts next fall and I may incorporate ideas from some of the more helpful comments.
I found this an extremely informative and thought-provoking essay. Breaking into academia is very hard indeed! I am quite a bit older than Professor S., did my Ph.D. at the same university as he did (in another field), did the British equivalent of a postdoc, published my dissertation as a book, and couldn't get even a nibble in the tenure-track market in the USA. I would note that I did not go to a famous college and our college at that time did not have grades, meaning I had no GPA, but I had had a pertinent internship, wrote a senior thesis, and had letters of recommendation personally known to many big wigs, saying I was the best student they ever had. The thing is that after my post-doc and being untrained for the so-called real world outside academia, I had to figure out what I would do. Getting to the end of the story first, I am a librarian on the tenure track and soon to come up for tenure at a community college in my home town of New York. I took some personality tests like the Strong Interest Inventory which said I'd be well suited to be a librarian. I took the plunge and had a graduate assistantship. It was an incredibly humbling experience for a guy who was probably the same age at Professor S., who is an associate professor at a UC school. Library school was a cinch, I had several jobs which I will not bore the reader with, and finally I am on track, but have not had the kind of success I have envisioned. Students, what you face will be based to the vicissitudes of the market and demography, but clearly most of the job market has shifted to adjuncts, people don't have to retire at 65 or even 75 and may never be replaced, there are still discriminatory affirmative action policies, mandates, attitudes or whatever you want to call them that will be used to rationalize not hiring you, and there are loads of people at all ages and who went to graduate schools at all times who have trained themselves to be academics and who are applying for the same jobs you are, and more and more universities you wouldn't expect have been creating and putting through students in their own Ph.D. programs, so there are not just the 30 to 50 Ph.D. programs you think there were. It's a rough world out there, and the goal is a tenure track job that will enable you to concentrate at least some of the time on intellectual questions and keep you in a world of communicating with people interested in the same kinds of questions you are. And because of the segmentation of intellectual questions into smaller and smaller subdomains, you will be working in a college where no one will be able to relate to what you are working on. This is what you will face. You must realize this now. This, and the fact that academia is not respected as it was during the post-World War II period of 1946-1989. Good luck to all.
My question is pretty specific to my situation but may be of some interest to some.
Would you say it is a bad idea to take time off between M.A. work and applying to Ph.D. programs? Would this look odd to programs?
Obviously, many students do the terminal M.A. thing in order to bolster their application and so don't apply until after having their M.A. conferred. But would taking further time off raise any unwanted questions in the minds of application committee members?
Also, were I to take such extra time off (2 academic years) would it be to my advantage to audit graduate classes? Part of me feels like this would further such undesirable questions because they may just think, "Hey, he has a graduate degree, why didn't he just apply right away if he was actually able to audit classes?"
Thanks for all the info! It's helpful, though I won't be applying to schools for 1.5 years.
Jay: Thanks for your comment. People do need to realize it's incredibly competitive -- not as competitive as professional sports, probably, but less different than you might think. For this reason, I re-emphasize that it's absolutely crucial to be intrinsically motivated.
Panties: I suspect there's a lot of variation between individuals and between committees on how time off is seen, so I'd say it adds a wild card into the process that may make the outcome less predictable. It depends partly on what you're taking time off to do. If you are able to audit graduate classes in the intervening time, that looks good. (I don't know about your particular situation, but most professors are very reluctant to allow auditors in their graduate courses unless they have a prior relationship with that person.) Even better if you can actually enroll in some of those classes for a grade. One compromise, if the professor agrees, is to officially audit but also to do all the work including writing an essay for the professor, having the professor tell you at the end what grade you would have earned. It won't show up in any transcript, but if the professor writes you a letter of recommendation later, she can mention such a "virtual grade".
There's nothing that says that a person will succeed in graduate school like strong performance in graduate courses at a school with a good Ph.D. program.
P.S. -- If you do audit, throw your heart into it. If you come off half-assed, there's no way you'll get a good letter.
Hello Professor Schwitzgebel,
Thanks a bunch for your *honest* words regarding grad school. I don't understand how some readers were upset at you for telling us something that we *all* should hear (even if it ain't pretty).
I just wanted to ask you why is it that a fine school like UCR isn't able to send it's top Philosophy students to top grad schools, as you've said? Is it an issue of name bias, etc? It's a sad fact because some students at UCR (like at ANY school) are really darn passionate and good @ what they do.
I was also wondering how much you think that "talent" in Philosophy is gained or just "innate." What are you insights?
All the best,
Rishi
Thanks for the kind words, Rishi! I suspect that UCR's less-than-stellar track record is due to several factors, including perceived institution quality, the disadvantage of the quarter system for writing really good philosophy essays that can be used as writing samples, and just plain old bad luck. Not much to be done about the first of these; to address the second, I recommend doing an independent study or honor's thesis where you can explore an issue in more depth; and to address the third, students might consider applying to a large number of schools to reduce the effects of chance.
As to whether philosophers are made or born, I'm inclined to think that only a small proportion of people find in themselves the interests and instincts of a philosopher -- which generally reveal themselves around age 13, I think, when a few of us start to find it engaging to think about questions like "what if the world doesn't exist behind that door?" while the rest of our peers just say "dude, you're nuts". But without rigorous academic training, the philosophical instinct is unlikely to result in philosophy that other people will find worth reading.
Thanks for all the useful (if somewhat depressing) information. I would like to apply to some programmes for the 2009 term, but have some questions. I know you've said that it's difficult to be accepted to a well ranked university from a small university - I studied philosophy in Ireland, where I took a BA and MA. Also, it seems to look bad on the application if you have taken some time off from academia. If I am accepted to a programme, I will have been out of acadamia for three years at that time. What I would like to ask is, do you think that these things are equally disadvantageous when applying to other departments, for example political science. My interest is political theory, and so I feel that I can do the same work in a political science department with a strong interest in theory as a philosophy department with a strong interest in political theory. Do you think that this is true?
Also, since academia seems to be next to impossible to break into, as far as getting a teaching job goes, might I be giving myself more options with a phd in political science than in philosophy? For example, would someone with a phd in political science, with a focus on political theory, not have the opportunity to work in philosophy departments, political science departments, as well as for governments, NGOs, etc (assuming the person is able to carry out empirical and statistical research as well)?
Thanks for your help!
All the best.
Anon, June 22: I don't know anything about political science admissions standards. Although there are a few exceptions, generally a Ph.D. in philosophy, and not some related field like political science, is necessary to find a job teaching philosophy at the university level.
The three-year wait after completing your M.A. isn't a big deal, though maybe not ideal if you haven't been doing something related to your research interests. Being from a university that isn't widely known or respected is, I think, a substantial disadvantage, but not necessarily a fatal one, depending on the rest of your application.
This has been an interesting read, and towards the end there has been some discussion of gaps between MAs and Ph.D applications.
For me it is a more extreme gap. My MA was completed in 2003, so for me it has been a good while! During that time I have been teaching Philosophy to 16-17 year olds (A levels in the UK).
I got a 1st in my BA from University of York (UK), and a distinction in my MA (also at York), but didn't feel ready at that stage to continue.
I have been considering for some time completing a Ph.D and have the intrinsic desire that you spoke of, though I would still want to try for a top school if possible.
I suppose my question is: would these factors mean that an application to a top-15 US university would be pointless for me? And if so, or if not, is there anything I could do in particular to improve my chances?
Rodders, I think the fact that you've been involved in philosophy continuously since your M.A. would mitigate any concerns about your time off, and perhaps even make your application stronger than that of someone coming straight out of a Master's. I see no reason not to aim high, especially if you have the grades, sample, and letters for it. But it's always good to apply to a spectrum of differently selective schools.
Hi Eric,
I'm applying to grad school for the 2009 term, but am confused as to which schools are within my reach. It's difficult to discern from ranked lists exactly where someone like me might fall. I also can't decide whether to apply to MA or PhD programs.
Some background: I graduated from Oberlin this past May with a philosophy GPA of 3.4 (I was a slacker, but intend to reform myself). I've been told repeatedly that I have a great skill for writing that is beyond the capabilities of most of my peers (I mention this only in regard to the importance of the writing sample). I intend to get a PhD in philosophy because I love it and can't imagine studying anything else; I'm also hoping to use it as a background for law study.
Since my GPA is lackluster, I had hoped to do well as an MA student, then try for a PhD/JD at a prestigious institution. But your post suggests that this might not be the best course of action...
Do you have any suggestions for me based on my background and objectives - in regard to how to use ranked lists and decide between PhD and MA programs?
Competitiveness for admission and position in the rankings do tend to correlate, though of course not perfectly. Oberlin is a respected school, but a 3.4 in philosophy will make it difficult to be admitted to an elite program unless there's something exceptional about your application (such as knock-your-socks-off letters and sample).
I don't want to seem too pessimistic about Ph.D. prospects from good M.A. programs. Check out placement records (I know Houston and Milwaukee have theirs up online). Some students from such programs do get into the top-ten schools, and a substantial proportion get into mid-ranked schools.
One thing I don't know very well, though, is how competitive it is to get into the more prestigious M.A. programs. Tufts is pretty competitive, I've heard. There are also some decent but less prestigious M.A. programs (with weaker placement records) that are not very competitive at all.
I'd also inquire carefully into graduation rates. Some programs admit almost everybody but graduate few.
Eric, thanks so much for your quick reply! This is a great blog.
Eric,
First off, I can't begin to tell you how valuable I find your comments on the philosophy grad school admission process. Thank you!
I have a quick question. At my college there is a cap on the number of philosophy courses I can take. (60 credits.) Luckily, a lot of our courses are cross listed with other departments. What this means is that when I sign up for the course, I have the option of taking the exact same course under one of two different departments. (For example, Phil. Language is cross listed with linguistics, Ancient and Medieval is cross listed with Classics, Phil Religion w/ religious studies, etc.) So, although all the cross listed courses are still taught by the philosophy department, my transcript lists the examples I gave as courses taught in departments other than philosophy. Unfortunately, I cannot change this due to the aforementioned cap on philosophy courses. Will this be a problem or should I not worry about this? Should I have one of my letter writers point this out in her/his letter?
I think this is something you might have a letter-writer point out. Not a big deal, but taking so many classes in philosophy (and doing well in them) seems to show a deeper commitment to and interest in philosophy than an otherwise similar application with fewer courses in philosophy.
In saying this, though, I don't want to create the impression that lots of classes in philosophy is a prerequisite for a Ph.D. program in philosophy. Strong students with short but excellent track records in upper-division philosophy are definitely still taken very seriously as applicants in my experience.
If it is not too late to ask, what is better to do in an MA program? Write a thesis or test?
I'd recommend the thesis, from which a writing sample could spring, which may help you develop a better relationship with a letter writer, and which is more like the kind of thing one will be doing in Ph.D. programs.
Dear Eric,
Thank you for your informative blog post. I graduated from MIT in 2007 with a B.S. in political science and a 3.4 GPA. I took only three philosophy classes at MIT, but went on to TA one of them for three semesters. However, I did all of this with just one professor, so my other recommendations will have to come from other departments.
I think I want to get a PhD in philosophy in order to study political theory, but I am deliberating over whether I should apply to MA programs first, since I majored in political science. Do you have any thoughts?
Thank you,
Claudia
Claudia, I'm inclined to think that an M.A. program is the most likely avenue in your sort of case. However, I'm reluctant to discourage students from taking a shot at Ph.D. programs straightaway, since you never know what might happen with a great sample and letters, and of course I can't evaluate such things in your case. You probably should consult with the philosophy professor you've TA-ed with.
Thanks for the helpful post, Eric! I'm finishing up my first year at an MA program. I had a good overall GPA as an undergrad in philosophy, and a 4.0 major-specific GPA, but I went to a small state college and figured it would be good to have an MA and a thesis before applying to PhD programs. My question is this: I have pluralistic interests, but I lean toward the continental end of things (Heidegger, Levinas). I have a great background in symbolic logic and analytic metaphysics, but I doubt they'll ever be my AOS. The Leiter Report glosses over most of the schools that my undergrad and grad professors think I should look at, and I'm inclined to stick with my passions rather than my hiring potential. Assuming I get into a PhD program at one of these colleges, do you think this will work against me getting a job AT ALL? I'm not aiming for a top-ten/elite university, just a college that will let me teach what I love, at a grad or undergrad level. I guess I'm wondering if what you've said in your post applies to all colleges, or if you're talking most about colleges in the top x%?
Also, several PhD programs I'm looking at are at Jesuit universities, which typically have more continental-focused programs (e.g. Fordham, Duquesne). They look great, but are secular institutions suspicious of Jesuit colleges? Would I risk being less likely getting a job at a secular institute and being trapped in the Catholic/Christian job market?
Thanks for any advice!
Graham, I'm not especially knowledgeable about such matters, so I'm reluctant to give advice. I would inquire carefully about the schools' past placement records (while bearing in mind that 1999-2007 were boom years in the philosophy job market, unlikely to be replicated soon). If they have done a good job placing their Ph.D.s in jobs of the sort you'd like, that should be encouraging.
I am an undergrad student going to transfer to finish my undergrad work, this comment you made interests me:
When I was a student at Berkeley, it seemed that almost all my classmates were from top universities (Harvard, Princeton) or renowned liberal arts colleges (Amherst, Swarthmore).
As one that wishes to get into a graduate program eventually, which schools would you suggest I should transfer to so I can get into a good graduate program later on?
I have one other question (related directly to grad school now) how important is it to get into a top 15/20 school if my goal is not job placement?
My goal in philosophy is not a big paying job (I would be happy at a small community college, getting just $40k per year), but more to contribute important ideas to the philosophical community.
Will philosophers tend to ignore people who did not receive a PHD from a top 15 school? If so, is this because most graduate schools don't train their students very well, or simply a bias among philosophers, or is it hard to stay up-to-date if one is not teaching at a top university?
Either way I will pursue philosophy to the PHD level, I'm just wondering how much harder things will be for me if I'm unable to get into a top 15/20 school.
Professor Schwitzgebel,
Would you say students are better off starting at a well-regarded (and funded) MA program and reapplying to doctoral programs following its completion instead of attending a lower-ranked (lower than 40 or so) PhD program? I've been accepted to both types of program and I'm not sure which to attend. There's obviously more funding at the PhD program, but I can't help but wonder if I can get into a higher-ranked program down the line (because I have strong GREs, undergrad GPA, etc., and I strongly suspect that my biggest problem with admissions has been my coming from a little-known undergrad department).
Thanks for your very helpful info!
Anon 6:53: I don't have much first-hand knowledge of this. I would recommend looking carefully at (1.)the M.A. program's Ph.D. program placement record *and* graduation rates and (2.) the Ph.D. program's job placement record (bearing in mind that the 1990s are probably closer to historically average than the booming 2000s), compared to that of the somewhat better ranked programs you'll get into if you do better than your peers in the M.A. program. Then think about whether the likely difference in outcome is worth the additional time and effort.
Hi Professor Schwitzgebel,
I will be applying to grad school for fall 2010. My concerns are these: (1) I transferred to my home university after spending 2.5 years at my previous institution due to the intense depression and feelings of isolation I was experiencing there. Mentally and emotionally, I am in a completely different, much healthier and more stable place. You mention that reasons for transferring, especially if it is not to a more prestigious institution, should be briefly addressed in the SoP. I am wondering: will this past depression & transfer hurt my application in any way, or raise unwanted questions about my ability to perform in grad school? If yes, do you have any thoughts about how to proceed?
(2) The school I am currently at is known mostly for its strength in Asian/Comparative PHL, and is ranked accordingly on the PGR under CHN PHL. I have a fairly broad foundation in Western (Continental) philosophy from my old school (I took 12 PHL classes there), and have taken 6 more classes on Western and Asian PHL at my current school—almost all of the18 are upper-division. My question is whether I should apply to a MA or a PhD program, seeing that I am not coming from a non-traditional department, which might hurt me? but otherwise have a pretty decent background in philosophy.
Some background: I have a 3.77 cumulative GPA and a 3.91 major GPA. I haven’t taken the GRE yet, but I have a strong writing sample on Spinoza (for which I won best undergraduate PHL paper last year and presented at an undergraduate conference) and strong recommendations. I will be doing a senior honors project next year and am helping one of my professors (a well-respected Chinese PHL scholar) write an introductory book on Chinese PHL for advanced students (still in progress and probably wont be published by the time I graduate). I think I have the intrinsic motivation you deem necessary for graduate study; my professors have often told I that I have “a natural philosophical talent”; and, despite all the drawbacks mentioned, I really just can’t see having a satisfied and rewarding life doing anything else.
Based on your experience and knowledge, what do you think my chances are at getting into a top program? Like others on this blog-series, I am unsure what level of prestige is realistic for me. Is there anything more I can do to improve my chances at a top program?
A thousand thanks for writing this blog! It has been very helpful and informative, if not humbling. Thank you for your time.
How would having a published article in a journal like Ethics/Philosophy and Public Affairs/Mind about Ethics affect a gard school application?
Anon 7:59: It is *very* impressive for a student to publish in a top venue like that. So impressive and improbable, in fact, that it would be something that would have to be clarified and addressed in the letters. However, if it's clear that the applicant has indeed done such a thing, that would be a major boost to the application.
If it's co-authored with a professor, most committees will assume (regardless of order of authorship) that the professor is responsible for its being of journal quality.
Publications in student journals and the like are not, in my experience, given much weight in considering grad applications.
Hello Eric,
Thanks for these posts! I've found them very helpful in thinking about my grad school search. I particularly appreciate your straightforwardness.
I've got a few questions for you if you're still answering these. I'm interested in your opinion since I'd ideally like to study in roughly the same area that you do your work.
I'm currently enrolled in an interdisciplinary cog sci program at my undergrad institution [I'm also double-majoring in philosophy proper]. Since my strong suit really is philosophy, I don't think I'll be applying in cognitive psychology, but I have been considering some of the interdisciplinary or dual phil/cog sci programs out there.
I suppose my questions are as follows:
1. Are there any real differences to applying to these programs than to straightforward philosophy programs? I know that at some institutions you have to first apply to a "home" program or department [which in my case would be philosophy]. How does this change things? For example, is applying to these programs more/less/equally as competitive as regular philosophy programs?
2. Should I even be applying to these programs? I've heard conflicting information about them. About a year ago at a conference I was told by a not-unknown philosopher [who does interdisciplinary work in philosophy of science/mind] that I "ought to pick a side" to study in and that persons coming out of interdisciplinary Ph.D programs can be seen as wishy-washy. However, two of my professors [currently situated in the psychology department] came from such programs, seem to be doing fine, and are pointing me towards a similar path. I'm wondering if there really are dangers to applying to interdisciplinary programs. Would graduating from one negatively affect my future job prospects? Are they really seen as less rigorous or somehow oddball compared to a traditional program in philosophy? How do the best cog sci programs compare to the top-ranked philosophy programs in phil mind?
3. As a quick third question, if these cog sci programs are a good idea, are there any resources like the PGR to use as a basic comparison? I know the PGR has rankings for philosophy of cognitive science and phil mind, but not all of the schools mentioned have the corresponding kind of psychology department that I'm interested in. Is there anywhere online I can get an idea of where these programs stand relative to each other?
Kat, I'm afraid my answers to your questions won't be as helpful as I'd like.
On 1: I don't really know. I think you'd have to ask institution-by-institution.
On 2: People's opinions vary, which means hiring committee's opinions will vary. It's very hard to find a position in philosophy, though, without one's primary training being from people in a philosophy department or one of a the rare closely related departments (usually with "Philosophy" in the title, like Pitt's Department of History and Philosophy of Science). Again, I'd look at the track records at the individual institutions -- bearing in mind that 1998-2007 was an unusually good period for seeking a job in philosophy.
On 3: I'm not aware of any ranking system specifically of such programs. If you're thinking about a philosophy appointment at the end and if you'll be mostly trained by philosophers, you might use the PGR's overall and specialty rankings.
Think about this: Most philosophers of psychology will be appointed by a committee of philosophers who are not themselves philosophers of psychology. The way they evaluate candidates will be the usual way that philosophers evaluate candidates. A letter from a prominent philosopher will mean more to them than a letter from a prominent psychologist. When they think of the quality of a school, they'll think mostly of the quality of the philosophy department and also secondarily of the school's general prestige. They'll know very little if anything about the school's prestige in psychology.
Post a Comment