Schwitzgebel writes:

"Here's what I did. First, I looked to see which of the top ten Leiter ranked philosophy PhD programs consistently displayed undergraduate institution information for their graduate students. Two did: Princeton and Berkeley. Of the 121 graduate students listed on their websites, 119 had undergraduate institution information listed. Of these, 25 were from foreign universities -- typically elite universities (especially Oxford). Excluding the foreign students leaves a pool of 94 students with US undergraduate university listed (21 also listed some graduate work, typically an MA). I then looked at the US News and World Report rankings of their undergraduate institutions.

Twenty-seven students (29%) come from just eight universities: The US News top 10 National Universities. [...] Another seventeen (18%) come from the universities ranked 11-25 ... Ten more (11%) come from universities ranked 26-50. And of these ten, seven are from universities with elite graduate programs in philosophy ... Only three universities ranked 51-100 are represented...Many of the remaining students are from elite schools in the US News category "National Liberal Arts Colleges" ... Only eighteen students (19%) come from all the remaining universities in the United States combined. And even this number overestimates the number of students with genuinely nonelite backgrounds: Three are from Reed College, which though only ranked #57 among liberal arts colleges has a very strong tradition in philosophy; and at least another nine supplemented their undergraduate work with master's degrees or other work at elite schools or places with strong master's programs...

To help give a sense of how thin a representation this is of nonelite schools, consider that there is not a single student on this list from the two biggest public university systems in the country: the Cal State system (412,000 students) and the SUNY system (468,000 students, but that number includes students in two-year colleges and technical institutes). Even the UC system is poorly represented once we exclude the two most elite universities (Berkeley and UCLA): The remaining campuses ... are represented by only a single student from Santa Barbara."

Schwitzgebel does not conclude that admissions committees are being "unfair, much less explicitly elitist," nor that there is no chance of a CSU student getting accepted in the big leagues. The professor's data is both troubling and confirm my experiences. As a product of the CSU system myself, I can attest to the fact that getting into any graduate program--masters or Ph.D.--is extremely challenging. Receiving an offer at a top ten school would be even more daunting, if not close to impossible. My first reaction to the data was, "Which CSU student thought they could get into NYU in the first place?" I caught myself reinforcing the state school stereotype of subpar education. (I loved my state school experiences and worked with brilliant professors, for the record.)

I've never met anyone who knew they wanted to get a Ph.D. in philosophy when they were in high school. I haven't met many youth in high school who knew what philosophy was. So, outside of trying to get into the "best" or highest ranked school you can get into (or can afford), many philosophy undergraduates find themselves thrown into a philosophy department, agnostic to its reputation. It is this reputation that will be a resource or liability for future schooling. Academic pedigree is a significant factor in the admissions process of graduate programs, I'm told univocally. But how much weight should this bear?

I don't think it's a surprise that where you received your degree is included in admissions decisions, nor is taking into account one's grade point average. (GRE scores are a bit more controversial.) Along with an impressive writing sample, letters of recommendation are often touted as being one of the most important factors. These letters are tied to an applicant's home school.  It's having a member from the philosophy club vouch for you. The problem is that the letters may not be read unless the applicant meets certain criteria beforehand. While it is rare to find a philosophy department admitting to GPA/GRE minimum cutoffs, former professors and brave souls on the internet suggest this is a practice for some, but not all, institutions. I've seen more transparency in other fields, e.g., psychology graduate schools. GPA and school pedigree may put your application on the "Thank you for applying" pile before your letters are read.

After students have fallen in love with the life of mind, students gather the courage to ask their professors for letters of recommendations so they can continue the gravy train that is college. Or, if they are lucky, a teacher will show interest in the student's potential and ask them about their interest in graduate school and offer to write on their behalf. The admissions committee reviews the undergrads three letters, taking note of influential scholars, alumni, or acquaintances perhaps. But CSU students might not have mega-philosophers in their department--they may not know of the faculty who is more "known" than the rest.  Having a prestigious teacher on the faculty is out of the control of the student. (The larger question is why aren't there high profile scholars at C$U-nowhere?)  Students should ask their advisors who should write letters for them, but even then, a student may not have had classes with the highest profile teacher, may think they will get a better reference from a new lecturer, or the top dog of the department may be known for something outside the scope of the student's research interests.

It seems that undergraduate institution and letters of recommendation, in turn, are largely decided by decisions made long before one had the desire to apply to a top notch graduate program.  It would be fascinating to have a test case: take a CSU student with a perfect GPA, outstanding GRE scores and writing samples, combined with glowing recommendations from the "top" professors at the applicant's school. Would this student get into a top ten philosophy program? Given the data we have now, it does not look promising. Dr. Schwitzgebel hypothesizes that it may be so difficult to discern the best candidate that they "play the odds and the odds almost always say that the Harvard student is more likely to succeed than the Cal State student."

The same hurdles apply to being accepted into less prestigious schools. It is tough to get in anywhere, and with the philosophy job market being terrible post diploma, getting rejected may be a blessing in disguise. Nevertheless, the admissions data of CSU students getting into top programs is troubling, especially considering the size of the CSU student body. What can the CSU teachers and advisors improve on? If they are not already, be brutally honest about graduate school admissions and one's chances of being admitted, attrition rates, and the current job market.

So you can't get into Harvard; so what?

I think it is important for philosophy students to keep in mind that philosophical work happens outside the academy too. Even if you don't get into Yale, or any program at all, you can continue on with your investigations; you can still publish if you want to; you can even create blogs for fascinating people to read. Having a Ph.D. from Oxford would be amazing--no doubt--but philosophy at its best is about the work, both personal understanding and informed participation in society. And you don't need a Ph.D. from anywhere for that.