The Philosophers' Cocoon

A safe and supportive forum for philosophers.

Owned & Moderated by Marcus Arvan (University of Tampa)

Contact: marvan@ut.edu

Blog mission & moderation policy

IMPORTANT NOTE on how to ensure anonymity in commenting
Job-Market Reporting Thread (2025-26)
Job-Market Discussion Thread (2025-26)

recent posts

about

Choosing a writing sample for PhD program applications: critical or positive argument?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, an upcoming PhD program applicant writes:

I am applying to PhD programs this upcoming cycle as an MA student. I have received very conflicting advice on the importance of having a "positive" writing sample rather than a critical one. The current paper I have prepared is a critical paper, though it is one that several professors and colleagues (including those working in the same area) have looked over and praised. The criticism has some large significance (if I'm right!) for a very recent subfield of normative ethics. But I am worried that my sample will not be well-received at top 25(ish) programs because it does not advance a strong positive argument. Could anyone provide any perspective on this issue? All feedback is appreciated.

Good question, and I'm curious to hear what readers think. Here's one anecdote: way back in the early 2000's when I applied to PhD programs, I initially used a critical writing sample. Then, one day I heard from the chair of an admissions committee at a top-15 program asking me if I had any other writing sample (I'm guessing they were on the fence about my application, and weren't enamored with my writing sample). I submitted a more ambitious paper with a more original positive argument, and after I sent it in, I was accepted into the program later that same day. This is just one anecdote, but as someone who now thinks that it's generally much easier to criticize other people's arguments that to provide a good original positive argument of one's own, I'm guessing that it's probably more advantageous, all things being equal, to use a writing sample that advances an original argument. 

But again, these are just my thoughts and experiences. What are yours?

Posted in

6 responses to “Choosing a writing sample for PhD program applications: critical or positive argument?”

  1. SB

    I’d suggest you don’t worry too much about this and just submit what you and your professors can agree to be your best paper. Most programs care more about overall fit than any particular property of your writing sample. If you are defending an argument that they like to see defended, then it is good. If you are criticizing an argument that they don’t like to see criticized, then it is bad. If you’re discussing something no one in the department cares about, then it is bad. So you can submit the next Gettier paper and get rejected, and submit something even mediocre someone big in the department happens to care a lot about and get in.

    Reply
  2. Prof. Assist

    I’m a strong vote in favor of submitting your very best paper, whatever that may be. This is your chance to truly show off; bring your A+ game. As the submitter notes, not all critical papers are alike! The truly excellent ones aren’t simply negative; they’re doing something useful (e.g., clarifying the debate, blocking off a line of discussion that’s going nowhere, advancing a new point alongside the critique, etc.) There’s often less of a clear distinction between a positive and negative paper than we might like to admit. Every philosophy paper is critical in some capacity! And I think it’s super rare for someone to have an incredibly strong positive argument, pre-PhD. To the extent that it’s strong, it’s likely already been said somewhere. (Which can be OK, depending on how this non-uniqueness originated!) But our poster is less likely to fall into this difficulty regarding positive arguments, given their MA.
    From what I’ve seen, the best pre-PhD program papers tend to make smaller, negative moves (especially given the word limits of writing samples). And as Marcus points out, if a committee really likes your more negative piece but wants to see more, they can always ask. But that requires getting your foot in the door and impressing the committee first. I’m less likely to ask for more if all I have is positive piece that’s ambitious and could be truly great, but isn’t there yet or is undercooked. At this stage, it’s hard to tell if it’s just the difficulty of the subject matter or difficulties with the author that aren’t easily fixed. New material will be read in light of the earlier work, too. (Anecdotally: I was in the same position as Marcus with one school, back in the day. But heard only crickets after I sent another paper.)
    The only times I would be truly concerned are if the critical piece (a) makes nitpicky points that don’t really matter to the overall debate, (b) points to something that’s pretty obviously and easily fixed, or (c) attacks a Big Name you’re applying to work with. I think (a) and (b) indicate something you shouldn’t submit, no matter how clever or polished. Those would give me perhaps a wrong idea about what you can truly do. Regarding (c): Here, tread with care! Some philosophers are absolutely fine with critique (and we all should be!), but it’s all in how you approach things. (Complimenting them in some way is a good idea!) I suspect folks who warn against critical pieces are thinking of something like (a)-(c).
    The best thing to do is to get advice from folks about what your best paper is, and go from there. And OP is already doing this. Good luck!

    Reply
  3. Prof. Assist

    A quick follow up: Your writing sample is my first chance to meet you, qua philosopher. I’ve seen what others say about you (via grades, which can vary in rigor, and via recommendations, where American letter writers are praising people to the skies).
    And I’m meeting you (hopefully) on your own terms, since this is your chance to show me what you can do. I’m assuming you’re showing me your very best, and will make judgments in light of that. Who do you want me to meet?
    It’s an unfortunate fact that even terrific papers won’t always be well-received when they should be. But that’s a problem that pervades every level of philosophy. If a shiny department looks at your truly sparkling paper and says “hard pass” for the reasons you worry about, that’s a sign (to me) that attending that program would crush your spirit, make you miserable, and fail to help you reach your true potential. They’re not the ones for you. Even though you may really want to be in a particular department when applying, remember that you’re vetting them as much as they’re vetting you. (Would this be a healthy or good place for you to be for 5-7 years?)
    Another anecdote: When applying, my best paper was in philosophy of religion. Some told me submitting in philosophy of religion would spell professional death. In reality, the person who became my advisor liked my application so much that I was invited to a professional conference.
    There’s a real risk in approaching applications of any kind with a gamification mindset. Obviously, it’s important and prudent to do things like tailor cover letters. But I’ve seen people drive themselves bananas trying to game the system, when, in my observation, there is no practical difference between those who obsessively check things like the grad cafe/phil jobs wiki and those who don’t. The only real guarantee is that you’ll give yourself Massive Anxiety. And you deserve better than that! Just do your best, and please be good to yourself.

    Reply
  4. Alex Guerrero

    My view on this is that you should send your best paper, where ‘bestness’ for these purposes is a function of (1) clarity/precision/careful argumentation, (2) ambition/interest/importance of the project, and (3) philosophical creativity/ingenuity.
    Many purely negative/critical papers do very well by (1), but less well by (2) and (3). Of course, a negative/critical paper could do well by all three. But often these papers feel both narrow and somewhat obvious. Many views out there have significant problems, as we all know, so it is not that hard or interesting to point out another problem.
    One can do better by both (2) and (3) by thinking about some of the broader implications of the negative criticism, considering possible ‘repairs’ on the part of the view you are criticizing and considering why those might or might not work (and what we might learn from that), and even pivoting into advancing some positive views about the problem, perhaps informed by the failure of the view one is criticizing.
    In general, I encourage people to step back and ask the question: can I imagine someone on the admissions committee getting positively excited, genuinely jazzed, about this writing sample, so that they will do what they can to be my champion in advocating for my admission to the program? Is it doing something interesting? Is it engaging, careful, charitable, exciting?
    Obviously, it’s a tall ask to do all of this well. And depending on the program and the rest of your file, it might be enough to just demonstrate significant competence by doing well with (1). But for many places, competence will just get you past the first cut. Then people will really dig into the writing sample, and you want them to feel like they’ve found treasure!

    Reply
  5. op

    I appreciate all of the advice here. After talking with colleagues who have/will apply to programs, it seems that the writing sample is (perhaps obviously) a big source of stress. The reason is not just that it is hard to write (though of course, it often is) but that it is just so subjective as to what will be well-received that anything we write feels subpar. Of course, we know this will be the case throughout our careers. But given the stakes of being accepted to a really high-quality program, I think the anxiety about the writing sample is fitting. It is hard to have any degree of confidence that a sample is good when the standards seem to vary so widely (e.g., positive vs. critical, what is “interesting” and what isn’t, what is original and what isn’t…), and this lack of confidence is a bit demoralizing to some of us. But all we can do is our best and see where it takes us. Thanks again for the help.

    Reply
  6. Santa Monica

    @op: If it helps with your and your colleagues’ worry, the fact that goodness standards vary might be viewed (rather than as a Kobayashi Maru thing) as the central reason why people get admitted, hired, and promoted as philosophy students and professors simpliciter. If we cared about and thought only the same things, there wouldn’t be sub-fields or departments or debates or papers. (Also, we might all be god.) Be yourself, for the same reason it’s the best way to date: who or what you’re looking for will find you!

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Discover more from The Philosophers' Cocoon

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

Continue reading