In our December "how can we help you?" thread, a reader writes:

Inspired by the thread on letters of recommendation, I have a question about elitism and graduate admissions. I recently saw a current PhD student say that institutional prestige (including fame of letter writers) is the most important component of one's application, whether one has a great sample or not.

I am now curious–for those in PhD-granting departments, does it seem like the institutional prestige plays a bigger role simply because of unrecognized/unmanaged ignorance related to elitism, or is it that the adcom members are simply more likely to respect and know the letter writers, thereby giving more weight to their letters? Further, does this matter depending on the ranking and reputation of the institution?

Depending on those answers, I am curious as to how someone coming from a low-ranked or unranked PGR program that is still an R1 university with famous faculty fit into the picture. If they have one or more famous letter writers, does institutional prestige begin to matter much less? A little less? Or is there something else about prestige that will end up penalizing even someone with a famous letter writer from an R1 university (e.g., grade inflation)?

I know Eric Schwitzgebel has posted about this, and my own scouring of current PhD students on department websites leads me to believe that elitism plays a role in admissions to Ivy league programs and PGR top-ranked private schools (e.g., Georgetown). However, when you get below a certain rank you begin to see institutional prestige matter far less or perhaps not at all (e.g., UC Boulder seems to have many PhD students from small/unranked schools).

All of this leads me to hypothesize that even ignoring fame of the letter writers and the skills you get from higher-ranked schools, the simple fact that you went to a highly-ranked school can bolster your application in the eyes of adcom members who consider their programs to be "elite" (aka, upholding the literal definition of elitism), but not as much for programs who consider themselves not-elite, or who have made efforts to mitigate the effects of what Kristie Dotson would call pernicious ignorance.

note: I did not seriously consider the idea that elitism is recognized and endorsed by elite institutions to try and be charitable, but if someone haves reason to believe otherwise let me know

I think it would be good to hear from admissions committee members about this. I will say that I have heard, at least anecdotally, that a few highly ranked programs have taken active steps to combat elitism in grad admissions. However, all other indications are that elitism still plays a large role in philosophy, and indeed, in academia more generally. For example:

  • Eric Schwitzgebel found in 2019 that elite philosophy PhD programs mostly admit students from elite undergrad institutions, and that only 11% of students in the elite PhD programs he studied were from institutions not nationally ranked in US News & World Report.
  • Helen De Cruz found in 2018 that philosophy PhDs from low-ranked departments rarely secure employment in high-ranked departments.
  • This 2015 study found steeply hierarchical inequality in faculty hiring across three disciplines, with just a quarter of all universities accounting for 71 to 86 percent of all tenure-track faculty in the U.S. and Canada. The study also found that "18 elite universities produce half of all computer science professors, 16 schools produce half of all business professors, and eight schools account for half of all history professors."

Whatever the cause, it seems that elitism is a big thing in academia. But still, it might be good to hear from readers, particularly those who have served on grad admissions committees. How would you answer the OP's questions:

  1. Does it seem like the institutional prestige plays a bigger role simply because of unrecognized/unmanaged ignorance related to elitism, or is it that the adcom members are simply more likely to respect and know the letter writers, thereby giving more weight to their letters?
  2. Does this depend on the rank and reputation of the institution?
  3. If [someone coming from a low-ranked or unranked program] has one or more famous letter writers, does institutional prestige begin to matter much less in grad admissions?
Posted in ,

3 responses to “Elitism in graduate program admissions?”

  1. Anonymous ad com member

    I’m in a program near the bottom of the PGR in admissions committee. We scored writing samples anonymously to make a first cut (longlist). Then we revealed identities to look at other considerations (letters, statement of purpose etc). I recall a good writing sample though not one of the best, was from someone from Princeton. We discussed the files and someone said “this person will probably not pick us, they’ll probably get an offer from a higher-ranked place” (nothing in the statement of purpose indicated they were interested particularly). So we put a few people from lower-ranked programs with an equivalent record ahead of them in our ranking for invitations. So, prestige can also work against one.

  2. Hmmm. . . .

    Is it elitism or just using letter writer fame (due often to knowledge of good philosophy), school prestige (due often to educational quality), etc. as evidence of potential in an epistemically difficult position (being on an ad comm)?

  3. Michel

    Perhaps it’s worth reminding the original poster (and others!) that ‘elite’ undergrad institutions ≠ programs with high PGR ranks. The PGR is a measure of graduate program prestige, and that’s different from undergraduate program prestige. There’s some overlap, to be sure, but not as much as you might otherwise think.
    What that means is that there will be quite a few “small”, primarily undergraduate schools with more clout in the PhD admissions process than many R1s with PhD programs in the discipline.
    In terms of practical advice (from someone not at all involved in PhD admissions!): You can’t really control where you did your undergrad and what its reputation is, so I wouldn’t sweat it. Instead, I’d concentrate on getting the best possible letters from faculty intimately familiar with your work. I don’t think there’s much point in trying to game the system by submitting letters from ‘famous’ scholars who don’t know you very well. (Besides which, as an undergrad you’re probably not a very good judge of your professors’ reputations yet!)

Leave a Reply

Discover more from The Philosophers' Cocoon

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading