<p>Depending on how you define top programs 
I believe it is correct HYP only offer fully-funded PhD slots. Chicago a few years back said they were going to fully-fund all their PhDs but they still accepted paying MA students into the same program. It’s complicated sometimes.</p>
<p>“I believe it is correct HYP only offer fully-funded PhD slots.”
Not correct</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I had absolutely no problem understanding sewhappy’s statement.</p>
<p>And also, philosophy PhDs are always fully funded at Harvard, Princeton and Yale, in addition to a handful of other wealthy schools. alh is right; menloparkmom is wrong.</p>
<p><a href=“If%20you%20go%20the%20Princeton%20Philosophy%20site,%20you%20might%20be%20somewhat%20surprised%20at%20the%20undergraduate%20degrees%20-%20from%20Calvin%20College,%20UArizona,%20Monash%20University,%20UPitt%20-%20more%20striking%20to%20me%20was%20the%20number%20of%20MIT%20Ph.Ds.%20But%20then,%20what%20do%20I%20know%20about%20philosophy?”>quote</a>
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Apparently not a lot, at least not about its academic landscape; MIT has one of the five strongest programs in philosophy in the US.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>From what I’ve heard from Profs and friends in top PhD programs, the top elite private universities along with a few top publics like Berkeley almost always provide funding. If they don’t provide funding, the subtext is that they don’t really feel you’re qualified and thus…never really wanted you in the program unless you’re willing to self-fund to “mitigate any potential damage you may cause to the department’s reputation”. In fact, being self-funded in such contexts is almost always seen as a red flag that a given grad student is a wealthy dilettante not to be taken seriously when it comes to academic job searches or research/thinktank positions.</p>
<p>“The impression I got was that most grad humanities programs don’t fully fund.”
Masters programs [ 1-2 years] are not fully funded, or even partially funded at all, in most cases. PhD Programs [4-6+ years] are generally funded [ i.e.tuition is free] , and the programs at “more elite” U’s[ the ones with large endowments] are generally fully funded[ stipends or fellowships in addition to free tuition].</p>
<p>U of Pittsburgh, one of the top Ph.D. programs in philosophy, funds everyone for 5 years. (It usually takes longer to get a Ph.D. in philosophy.) You are expected to teach during certain years.
[Fellowships</a> & Funding | Philosophy | University of Pittsburgh](<a href=“http://www.philosophy.pitt.edu/graduate/fellow.php]Fellowships”>http://www.philosophy.pitt.edu/graduate/fellow.php)</p>
<h1>123 - I stand corrected :)</h1>
<p>Would you say it was an unusual to accept a student who wasn’t fully-funded?</p>
<p>Do you think the ability and willingness to pay would get you in these days?</p>
<p>jonri, if full funding is for five years and it generally takes longer to get a philosophy PhD, how do students cover the gap?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Though no elite school will admit it, it can and I know of at least one case from an HYP from a Prof. </p>
<p>However, the only people who take advantage of it are scions of wealthy families who treat the PhD program as little more than an expensive pastime.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>One math PhD student at an HYP covered his additional 4 years by working as a hotel busboy during his dissertation research/writing stage. Of course, he never let on about this to his advisor as working outside of department sanctioned jobs was/probably still is verboten.</p>
<p>^^good to know:) and perhaps very helpful to some reading </p>
<p>-also retired people who can afford it and always wanted to do it. I can think of two cases but considered them anomalies for the purpose of this discussion.</p>
<p>OTOH I learned this week about two universities that, at least in a particular dept, offer a fully funded MA</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A fellow graduate student in biochemistry supported himself through part of his PhD program by working on the University’s landscaping crew. We would see him early in the morning, riding on the back of a truck in his green work clothes with the other laborers. He would stay in the lab until late at night doing his research. He is now department chair at his state’s flagship U. </p>
<p>I think the take-home message from the blog is that getting in to grad school is like everything else, it’s as much who you know as what you know. This is certainly true in the sciences and perhaps even more so in the humanities.</p>
<p>The 99% say otherwise. Also there is lots more research funding floating around to support grad students than there was 20 years ago. So if they don’t offer you something they do not want you very badly. If you still want to prove them wrong fine. But for most that’s a bad strategy.</p>
<p>Re: post #29 – D is fully funded for 5 years in a program which is likely to take 6 or 7. During the research/dissertation years (research will be done abroad) the student applies for external fellowships or departmental fellowships for support. Then, while working on the dissertation, they will continue to teach and get paid for it (as opposed to the teaching they do as part of their funding packages before starting their dissertation).</p>
<p>Needless to say, they learn to live on a shoestring!</p>
<p>How people do it varies. Some schools let you “defer” funding. So,e.g. if you got a NSF grant for your first two years, the U might let you take that and then begin funding you in your 3rd year for 5 years. Ditto for a Goldwater or Truman Scholar. Or, you might just look for outside funding. I know in history there are at least some grants for people writing dissertations than are good candidates for books. </p>
<p>Often, students who are at the ABD (all but dissertation) stage continue as TAs. In science, they might be lab supervisors. English students might work in the writing center. At Harvard, many grad students stay on as “house” tutors. See [Grad</a> Students Vie To Be Tutors | News | The Harvard Crimson](<a href=“http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2011/2/23/applicants-number-houses-tutor/]Grad”>Grad Students Vie To Be Tutors | News | The Harvard Crimson)</p>
<p>Many get regular jobs, e.g., teaching in a private high school, and take longer to finish the thesis.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not surprised in the least. The Philosophical Gourmet ranking of philosophy grad programs, based on a broad survey of philosophy faculty, currently lists Pitt #4 (one step behind Princeton), MIT #6 (tied with Harvard), and Arizona #13 (tied with Columbia). Monash is a highly respected Australian University with a good philosophy program, currently ranked #3 in Australia by the Philosophical Gourmet; its raw score on the PG scale would place it at a level comparable to Northwestern, Johns Hopkins, and UVA. </p>
<p>Calvin isn’t well-known outside philosophy circles, but it’s an undergraduate LAC in Grand Rapids, MI affiliated with the Dutch Reformed Church, with an outstanding tradition in philosophy. Its faculty includes some highly respected philosophers, and it’s been sending its graduates to top philosophy grad programs for a long time.</p>
<p>I think some of what’s described in the OP goes on in many fields, but perhaps in philosophy more than most. It’s a relatively small field, with a relatively small number of schools having really outstanding graduate programs. The people at those top schools all know each other and respect each other’s work. Many of the faculty at other elite institutions (including top universities and LACs without necessarily the strongest philosophy programs) are their former students, who are looking to send their own top students to the elite graduate programs. So it’s all a little incestuous, but if you’re on the admissions committee for a top graduate program and you get a letter from a highly esteemed figure in the field telling you Mr. Doe or Ms. Roe is the most promising aspiring philosopher since Immanuel Kant, you pay attention. </p>
<p>Actually, there’s a story, probably apocryphal, that when the eminent logician Saul Kripke (for many years on the Princeton faculty, now at CUNY Graduate Center) was graduating Harvard and seeking admission to graduate programs, he asked his mentor, W.V.O. Quine–then widely regarded as the world’s greatest logician–for a letter of recommendation. Quine reportedly wrote a one-sentence letter: </p>
<p>“Dear colleagues,
Saul Kripke is the world’s greatest logician.<br>
Sincerely,
W.V.O. Quine.”</p>
<p>To no one’s surprise, Kripke was accepted. </p>
<p>If you get the same letter from someone you never heard of at East Podunk State, you think they have a screw loose. Same with your former students, or your former professors, for that matter; if you think highly of them, you’re going to give them the benefit of the doubt. </p>
<p>Interestingly, though, in philosophy the magic circle of privileged places doesn’t respect the US News rankings all that much. The Philosophical Gourmet top 5 are NYU, Rutgers, Princeton, Pitt, and Michigan, followed by “usual suspects” Harvard, MIT, Yale, Stanford, UC Berkeley, and (mildly surprisingly) UCLA and UNC-Chapel Hill. Arizona at #13, CUNY Graduate Center at #15, Texas at #20, UCSD #21, Indiana #23, and UC-Irvine #23 all rank ahead of schools like Duke (#25), Penn (#30), and Johns Hopkins (#43).</p>
<p>I agree with those who say attending an elite undergraduate institution gives you a huge leg up in this process. But if you read the blog linked in the OP carefully together with the Princeton data cited by mini, it is also a strong rebuttal to those who say graduate program rankings are irrelevant to one’s undergraduate choice. I can tell you from personal experience that letters of recommendation from the highly respected philosophy faculty at places like Michigan, NYU, Pitt, and Rutgers will go a long way toward securing a spot in a top philosophy Ph.D. program, and are every bit as valuable at that level as an undergrad degree from Amherst or Northwestern–and possibly more so.</p>
<p>Read the article, skimmed the posts. I don’t consider this news “sobering”, seems logical. People on CC need to remember there are hundreds of colleges below the top 100- most of these schools aren’t heard of outside their region. To me it makes sense that a UW-Madison grad wiould have an advantage over students at any of the other UW campuses for grad school admissions in any field. The flagship school has grad programs and most of the other schools are meant for bachelors degrees or mainly teaching masters levels. Students who want the grad level courses and research as an undergrad can transfer to UW-Madison. Logical that students have an advantage at the Madison school. btw- professional schools such as medicine and law are a different ballgame.</p>
<p>This example can be seen all over the country. Most colleges/universities are not attempting to prepare students for grad school (ie PhD, not the many education/business masters), nor should they. Course rigor does vary from school to school, as does student caliber.</p>
<p>Always exceptions to every rule. I have no problem with students needing to graduate from a top 100 or whatever school to have the best chance at grad programs. Each state has opportunities for students instate with their flagship so high costs are not necessary. I expect grad programs to recognize that not every potential student could afford the expensive private schools, but the best students should be able to take advantage of honors programs at their flagship U.</p>
<p>Message to top students- choose your public flagship over lesser public/private schools to optimize your grad school opportunities as well as your undergrad education if you don’t get into an elite school.</p>
<p>Someone could report on the ecomonics of grad school positions. I noticed a couple of years ago how many top flagship U’s with large numbers of math grad students cut back on their TA positions, and hence their available funded math grad student positions. These were the result of budget cuts affecting the numbers of undergrad math course sections.</p>
<p>Is James Franco full-pay??!!</p>
<p>You can find the lastest National Research Council ranking of Philosophy Graduate Programs here:</p>
<p><a href=“http://graduate-school.phds.org/rankings/philosophy[/url]”>http://graduate-school.phds.org/rankings/philosophy</a></p>
<p>It also includes data on graduate student funding. </p>
<p>Bclintock - only the MIT PH.Ds surprised me. The UArizona, Calvin, Monash, Pitt undergraduate degrees did not. As I suggested, going to the “right” undergraduate program makes a difference. But “right” and “Ivy” just aren’t the same thing - or at least here is another data point that would indicate it.</p>
<p>My son’s PhD program only accepted 12 students (I think) and they’re from a variety of schools…Ivies, Harvey Mudd, Wesleyan…down to some state flagships (including my son), and one school I had never heard of…tiny regional public. And, a few are int’ls from their home countries’ universities. This is a fully-funded PhD including tuition and generous stipend. </p>
<p>The acceptance rate into the program was below 5%. I think decision factors were: grades within major, GRE scores, LORs, and research/internships. </p>
<p>That said, even at the so-called safety schools my son applied to, we later found out they had low acceptance rates as well. It’s getting harder and harder to get accepted to PhD programs.</p>
<p>As spouse of humanities prof teaching in a a graduate program, I understand that, after GPA and GRE are taken into account, admission to PH.D. program comes down to recommendations and writing samples. The recommendations which carry the greatest weight are those from other research-oriented departments, and that means universities not LACs. Arizona, Pitt and several of the UCs, as well as Michigan and Wisconsin are very strong philosophy graduate programs so recommendations from their faculty will carry great weight. At the same time, Calvin College has produced some world-famous philosophy minds, so its students tend to do well in Ph.D. admissions. Writing samples which show original work – what Ph.D. students need to do – rather than collecting and surveying other work – is what a successful applicant needs. I also hear that Grinnell students do very well with some grad schools as well. </p>
<p>Finally, top schools will fund their top candidates through a combination of teaching stipends and internal grants and fellowships. Admission without funding is a nod that the applicant is not a strong admit. Even Ph.D.s from strong programs struggle to get tenure-track positions; you really need to be at the top of your program to get a research position after completion of your program.</p>