|
|
Part III - Graduate Study
|
|
|
A. Applying o Graduate Schools |
Most of the Group 1-3 programs receive between 150 and 250 applications, and admit typically 5% to 20% of that total. It has been suggested by some that there will be significantly more academic job opportunities in the near future than there have been for some thirty years. Many of the faculty hired during the job boom of the 1960s will be retiring over the next ten years; and there will be an increase in college enrollments beginning in the mid-1990s. After an upswing in the academic job market in the late 1980s, the job market tanked for most of the 1990s, though the situation has improved in the last two years. Several factors may continue to retard junior job growth, including: (i) repeal of the mandatory retirement age for professors (which happened in 1993); (ii) increasing reliance by universities on adjunct and part-time faculty; (iii) influx of foreign PhDs. The financing of higher education is currently undergoing a major restructuring: while top research universities offer huge salaries and light teaching loads to the leading "stars," other universities are cutting back on teaching staffs and relying more and more upon graduate students and adjunct faculty. These trends do not bode well for employment prospects, though they may be offset by an upswing in enrollment in the coming years. (An extended economic downturn will, of course, prevent universities from expanding staffs to accomodate enrollments, and will likely exacerbate the increasing reliance on adjuncts and part-time faculty.)
Students considering graduate school must think about their willingness to move to new, and perhaps unattractive places, in order to secure a position in academia at the conclusion of their studies. Students should also keep in mind that many, perhaps most, of the academic positions in philosophy in the United States are at institutions of higher learning that have as their primary function general education, rather than intensive training in philosophy. There is, moreover, a growing culture gap between what is taught at the leading graduate programs (moral realism, naturalistic theories of mental content, theories of truth) and what sorts of jobs are available (openings for specialists in African-American philosophy, environmental ethics, history of modern philosophy with an emphasis on race and gender issues). However, data for the 1995-96 academic year (collected by the American Philosophical Association) showed that areas like African and African-American Philosophy, Asian Philosophy, and Feminism were heavily in demand as "Areas of Competence": i.e., areas in which a candidate could do advanced undergraduate teaching, even though the area was not the candidate's specialization. One thing this data suggests is that most departments continue to view the traditional canon of philosophical topics as their central mission--thus seeking specialists in these areas--even as they have responded to political and other pressures by seeking candidates who can do undergraduate teaching in some of the newer, and perhaps more faddish fields. (For more on the job market, see my essay for the Chronicle of Higher Education at http://chronicle.com/jobs/v45/i17/4517spotlight.htm)
In evaluating applicants, programs generally consider five factors: GRE's, academic record, undergraduate institution, letters of recommendation, and sample of written work. (Note: some top programs do not require the GRE.) There is every reason to suspect that programs will rely upon GRE scores and grades to reduce the size of the applicant pool to a more manageable size for careful scrutiny. It would behoove students whose GRE's or grades are not indicative of their philosophical potential to flag this in their application, and perhaps to have faculty recommenders do the same.
Programs consider an applicant's undergraduate institution to the extent that there may be concern about the adequacy of the student's preparation for graduate work, especially in contemporary analytic philosophy. Applicants from very small liberal arts colleges (by which I do not mean places like Swarthmore, Smith, Kenyon or Reed) and universities with philosophy faculties outside the analytic mainstream should make special efforts to convey that they have had suitable preparation and exposure to various areas of philosophy (e.g. ethics, philosophy of language, history of philosophy, etc.). (See also the discussion of M.A. programs, above.)
At the later stages of the admissions process, a student's sample of written work can really make a difference. Students are well-advised to work hard in preparing a strong writing sample.
When it comes time to choose a school, students should ask to be put in touch with
graduate students currently at the program, as they will likely be able to provide the frankest assessment of life--intellectual and otherwise--at the school. This is particularly important for the following schools, about which I have received repeated comments from current and former students (especially after soliciting information via the Update Service last year). You should treat this only as a "red flag" that requires further investigation, since these are all outstanding departments with many obvious merits:
Princeton University: students give the program high marks, but with one important caveat, well-expressed by a recent graduate: Princeton "can be an unfriendly place for those who are less prepared: there are few or no survey-style graduate courses, and it is very easy for those without a lot of background in philosophy to have difficulty keeping up. The program is quite competitive, and students are often judged quickly and harshly."
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor: again, many laudatory comments for the quality of the faculty, training and financial support, though several remarked on the fact that "difficult personalities" on the faculty make this a sometimes "unpleasant" or "intimidating" environment; like the comment about Princeton (above), some students describe the faculty (or at least some faculty) as quick to "rush to judgment" and as "insensitive to student needs." This is, as one very recent graduate reported, consistent with the department's strong placement record: "fear," as this graduate noted, inspires the students to work hard! (As a graduate of this program [but last in residence in '91], my perceptions were less negative than those reported, which leads me to think this is a matter of personal sensitivity and also with whom one works.)
University of Pittsburgh: one worry voiced by several current and former students concerned some divisions among faculty, and also competitiveness among students, esp. vis-a-vis faculty who are much sought-after as advisors (Brandom, McDowell). None of that was reported in HPS at Pittsburgh.
An interesting case is Rutgers University, New Brunswick, whose reputation is that the faculty are inaccessible. In fact, numerous students denied this was so, though it was admitted that faculty are less likely to be "hanging around" the department than is perhaps true elsewhere. But faculty were almost uniformly reported to be ready and willing to make themselves available to students. Students also report excellent funding and support on the job market, as well as a stimulating and cooperative atmosphere in seminars and the program generally.
A number of other programs get repeatedly enthusiastic endorsements from current and former students, as well as visiting faculty: Massachussetts Institute of Technology; Cornell University; University of Arizona; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; University of Massachussetts at Amherst. Of course, prospective students should still talk to a range of current students even at these programs; things can change.
Students should also be aware that Departments have a tendency to exaggerate their current faculties: essentially retired faculty are often listed as though they were regular members of the teaching staff; faculty that just departed often continue to appear in brochures. Students should query departments about particular faculty members of interest to insure that they will be there upon the student's arrival.
Students should also take with a grain of salt the self-assessments of program quality offered by faculty trying to recruit students: it is fair to say that "puffery" is the norm. Students are better off relying on the opinions of faculty at other institutions to which the student is applying, and this Report. You should also, of course, consult your own faculty advisors, though keep in mind they may have their own parochial biases and blinkers as well. Students might also look for tangible indications to verify representations of program excellence: e.g.,
(1) quality of the other schools at which members of the faculty have had job offers or held visiting appointments;
(2) professional honors and awards received by faculty (e.g., fellowships from the NEH, ACLS, NSF, and Guggenheim; visiting fellowships at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavior Sciences at Stanford, and the National Humanities Center; prizes like Lakatos, Matchette, and Johnsonian; papers reprinted in The Philosopher's Annual; editorial positions with major journals; membership in the American Academy of Arts & Sciences and British Academy; etc.).
(3) job placement record of the institution;
(4) whether faculty have published in the most selective and prestigious journals (e.g., Philosophical Review, Mind, Journal of Philosopohy, Ethics, Philosophy & Public Affairs; and then a notch below these, Noûs, Philosophy & Phenomenological Research, Philosophy of Science, and so on). 1
(5) whether faculty have published books with the leading philosophy presses (Blackwell, Cambridge, Cornell, Harvard, London Routledge, MIT, Oxford, Princeton). 2
It is also worth considering more general institutional factors in choosing a graduate school. For example, some universities are in financial trouble, which affects not only graduate-student support, but the quality of support services and research facilities. Other programs, by contrast, have sizable private endowments that permit them to recruit faculty, bring in visitors and speakers, and support a wide array of philosophical activities. Finally, students may want to investigate the faculties in areas related to philosophy: e.g., political science, economics, law, history. Some schools have much to offer beyond their philosophy departments; while others are notable mainly for the quality of their philosophy faculty (see the rankings, above).
Finally, students should consider "general reputation" and "geographical" factors. Graduate students sometimes benefit from earning their Ph.D. at a school with a good overall reputation (see the ranking of the top 25 research universities, above), even though the philosophy program may not be especially strong. Columbia and Penn, for example, have had placement records that compare favorably with more highly ranked programs (though this is likely in virtue of the caliber of students they attract in the first place); to some extent the programs piggy-back on the strength of the "Ivy League" status of the school as a whole. Similarly, the less prestigious the graduate program the more likely it is that its PhDs will get jobs in the region of the country in which the program is located. Students who do not get into their top choices for graduate schools should weigh these factors particularly seriously.
An important factor for students to consider is financial aid. As a basic rule of thumb, a student should not borrow money in order to pursue a Ph.D. in philosophy. Job prospects are too unpredictable, and salaries too modest, to make it sensible for a student to acquire substantial debt while earning a Ph.D. (Starting salaries for assistant professors of philosophy these days range from about $35,000 to $55,000, depending on the caliber of the school and the region of the country--low-to-mid 40s is increasingly the norm at the major research universities.) Any legitimate Ph.D. program will offer financial aid to promising students; the offer of such aid is a strong indication that that program wants the student to enroll. There are two basic types of aid packages, though there are many variations on these two basic types at different universities. Type A: "Fellowships" which provide relief from teaching the first year or two, or reduced teaching, plus tuition and a living stipend ranging anywhere from about $9,000 to $15,000 (look for the higher amounts in higher cost of living areas, or at schools that don't provide full tuition waivers). Type B: "TAships," which require undergraduate teaching, usually from the first year of grad school, in return for tuition (or most of tuition) and a living stipend. Private universities, like Princeton and Chicago, tend to offer more Fellowships than TAships, but they also typically put strict limits on the time a student may spend in graduate school. Large state universities typically have plentiful teaching opportunities, and are often more flexible in permitting students to work on their doctorates for 6, 7 and 8 years.
Let me emphasize again that there are many fine philosophy programs and many fine philosophers at work in the English-speaking world today. Almost all the programs evaluated here have produced graduates that have enjoyed productive and successful philosophical careers.
|
Back to top |
|
B. A Realistic Perspective on Graduate Study |
Students beginning graduate study in philosophy ought to have a realistic sense of what awaits them. You need to realize that job prospects are uncertain, that jobs at top departments and elite colleges are hard to come by, and that many who start PhD programs do not finish them. The following data may help provide some perspective--though it bears noting that this data is culled from a "top" graduate program; it is likely that data from less prestigious graduate programs is even more sobering. Students should check with particular programs for detailed information on matters like rates of attrition and completion.
In the fall of 1988, there were 47 students in the Ph.D. program at Michigan. Roughly a dozen years later, only about half the students held tenured or tenure-track positions. Several are currently seeking tenure-track positions--in some cases, after having sought, or held, one previously. 15 students from the fall of 1988 left philosophy largely voluntarily, to pursue other careers, go to law school, and the like. At least two, and perhaps as many as four, students (all men) from that fall were "forced out" of philosophy, after being unable to secure a tenure-track job (or, in one case, a tenure-track job the student could live with). Of those currently employed, the majority are still on tenure-track, and some of these will, in all likelihood, not get tenure. Of these, it would not be surprising if a few more left philosophy as well. In short, in another five or six years, the odds are that of the 47 Ph.D. students at Michigan in fall 1988, perhaps only 20-or-so will be full-time academics. The students actually employed in tenured or tenure-track positions in the academic year 2001-2002 held jobs at a wide variety of institutions, including Michigan (Ann Arbor), Texas (Austin), Ohio State (2), Georgetown, Oklahoma (Norman), Wesleyan, Smith, Kenyon, UC Santa Cruz, Harvey Mudd, Vermont (two), University College London, Bowling Green, Portland, Louisville, Cal State/Chico, South Carolina, Saint Louis, Cardiff (Wales), North Carolina State, Franklin & Marshall, Claremont-McKenna, and Kent (UK).
For 1995-96, there were 341 PhDs awarded in the United States and Canada, as reported by the Review of Metaphysics. Of these 341, just 17 were offered tenure-track jobs (or the equivalent) in top 50 Ph.D. programs or their foreign equivalents. Of these 17, six were graduates of Princeton, three of Pittsburgh, two of Michigan, and one each of Rutgers, Stanford, Iowa, Minnesota, Notre Dame, and Texas. Of these 341, a mere six were offered jobs at top fifteen programs. Of these six, two each went to Princeton and Michigan, and one each went to Pittsburgh and Rutgers.
A further warning: almost all the Michigan students who had tenure-track offers from top ten departments during the 1990s spent 7-10 years in graduate school, with perhaps one exception.3 There is a sobering message in this: the kinds of skills needed to land a entry-level post are now the kinds of skills someone thirty years ago would have acquired after three years as a tenure-track assistant professor! The ferocious competition for jobs creates an incentive for students to spend a very long time perfecting their work.
|
Back to top |
|
C. Admissions Data |
Students frequently ask about their "chances" of gaining admission to PhD programs. Peterson's Guide to Graduate School does print such data, usually 2-3 years out-of-date. In 1998-99, I printed more current data for dozens of programs.
After talking with many philosophers about this data, and after having served on an Admissions Committee, I am now convinced that this data is more misleading than illuminating, and so will no longer collect and print it, and largely for reasons that appeared as cautionary notes in 1998.
(1) The volume of applications reflects a variety of factors: region of the country, particular specialties of a department, and the like. Acceptance rates also reflect various factors: again, region of the country, as well as factors like who that school is competing with for students, the size of the graduate program, the caliber of the overall applicant pool, and the like. Acceptance rates have little or no correlation with the quality of the students in a program: a program that only accepts 4% of applicants may be doing so because the applicant pool is mediocre or the size of the graduate program is small; a school that accepts 15% may be doing so because its applicant pool is first-rate, and it is competing with the other elite programs for those students. (In general, state schools have larger graduate programs than private schools.) There are large volumes of applicants in Continental philosophy every year; a school that draws on that applicant pool will have high volumes of applications. In short, there is hardly any correlation between volume of applications, acceptance rates, and quality of programs.
(2) Some schools do not even require GREs, and still others give it little weight. Median GREs are only a very crude proxy for your chances of admission. (Remember, too, that the median indicates that half the students admitted had lower GREs--perhaps much lower--than the one reported!)
(3) GPAs are an even cruder proxy. Most schools consider where the GPA is from: for most schools, a GPA of 3.5 from Princeton is more impressive than a GPA of 3.9 from an undistinguished college.
(4) Finally, data on the number of students admitted does not distinguish between those admitted with and without financial aid.
In the end, then, it is my considered opinion that numerical admissions data is not very useful in assessing your chances for admission.
|
Back to top |
|
Footnotes |
1 Other important professional journals include Philosophical Studies, European Journal of Philosophy, Philosophical Topics, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, Journal of Philosophical Logic, The Monist, Analysis, Synthèse, Phronesis, Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, Australasian Journal of Philosophy, Canadian Journal of Philosophy, Philosophy & Phenomenological Research, and Journal of the History of Philosophy. (Because of the now extraordinary cost of subscribing to Synthèse, this distinguished journal is likely to become less influential: many top research libraries can no longer afford to subscribe to it.) There are also certain highly specialized journals in fields like history of philosophy, aesthetics, jurisprudence, semantics, and logic that are reputable, for example: History of Philosophy Quarterly, Journal of Aesthetics & Art Criticism, Legal Theory, and Linguistics & Philosophy, among others. Back
2 Presses that are quite reputable overall--like Yale or Johns Hopkins or California--are not particularly notable in philosophy. Students should not think, however, that any book published by the top philosophy presses is necessarily good; far from it. Harvard, for example, will publish certain books simply because of the celebrity of the author or his or her affiliation with Harvard; the Cambridge "Modern European Philosophy" series, which under its prior editor, Raymond Geuss, set the standard for high-quality scholarship in this field, has declined markedly in quality since his departure; all the presses mentioned have brought out some real disappointments. But the fact remains that, overall, these presses produce the best philosophy, and philosophers at a genuinely top department will frequently publish with these presses. Back
3 The author of this Report is the possible exception: I spent only five years working on the PhD, but I had spent a prior three years earning the JD, during which time I also engaged in some philosophical study. Back
|
|
