How are Oxford BPhils regarded by American PhD admissions committees?

In our new "how can we help you?" thread, a reader asks:

How is the Oxford Bphil regarded by American PhD admissions committees? In particular, how are BPhil grades/marks and transcripts regarded by American PhD admissions committees?

Standard advice for applying to philosophy PhD programs is to get *stellar* grades and straight A's in philosophy, and if not, to do an MA afterwards...and to definitely show no decline in your grade trajectory.

The particularities of the Oxford BPhil makes it hard to interpret this advice because:

1. In theory, marks range from 0-100, with marks above 65 "merit", marks above 70 "low distinction", above 75 "middle distinction" and above 85 "high distinction." In practice, virtually nothing is given a mark above 72, and there is a very high variance in marks...with a "Distinction" awarded for the degree as a whole for any candidate whose five highest essay marks average above a 67 average and whose thesis is marked 70 or higher...

2. People don't talk openly about grades on the BPhil because it has a pretty atomized and zero-sum competition culture...but if a transcript with grades below 70 (or, 75?) is considered blemished, it is difficult to understand how so many BPhil grads seem to get into good to excellent American PhD programs given that average BPhil marks are between 65 and 70 across the cohort, but almost everyone in the BPhil from the US coming with a near perfect transcript, often from unambiguously elite schools. Did we all sort of screw ourselves by incurring this transcript risk on the BPhil?

So, how are BPhil transcripts interpreted by US graduate admissions committees?

What is a Bphil transcript equivalent to an American MA 3.9 (or, whatever the defacto cut-off is before a transcript requires explanation)?

I have no idea, and didn't know about any of the issues the OP mentions. Given how idiosyncratic the BPhil grading system is, I too wonder what admissions committee members make of it.

What do readers think? Does anyone with experience in PhD admissions have any inside insights?

Comments

[Daniel Greco]

Here's my sense, as someone that has done a decent amount of grad admissions, but doesn't recall how I've reacted to or discussed the bphil in particular. (So I'm going based on what I think I do, rather than memory.)

Grad admissions is so competitive that the chance to stand out matters a lot, and good grades/recs from the bphil mean more than good grades/recs from pretty much any American ugrad. So even if the average bphil student does, well, average, they still wouldn't have had a good chance without the bphil, so there's not much downside. Whereas the students that excel really are helping their chances. So that's a little mental model where doing the bphil might well be a good strategy in expectation for many students.

[Elizabeth]

I think people know that only excellent undergrads get into the BPhil in the first place. Good/excellent PhD programs understand the BPhil and its idiosyncracies.

[UK Based]

I don't have an answer to this, but just wanted to note that this is not unique to the Oxford BPhil.

To my knowledge, all UK MAs/MPhils/undergraduate degrees (excepting perhaps some in Scotland?) work in a similar way to this. The precise rules about what gets you a 'Distinction', 'Merit', etc. overall might vary a little, but generally very few things (except logic courses) are marked higher than around a 78, with very occasional marks in the 80s.

In my decades long time teaching in the UK, I've never seen an essay get more than 85. (The old line is that if an essay/dissertation is given a mark in the 90s, then it should likely be good enough to be published as is in a top journal...)

[Despite all this, the food & weather in the UK are terrible]

I was admitted to several strong American phd programs with a UK MA. The UK MA is not the same as the Oxford BPhil, but it too has an idiosyncratic grading system. I have no idea what went on in admissions—perhaps I was admitted where I was _despite_ my MA track tracked. But my strong suspicion is that admissions committees have a pretty good sense of the difference between the UK system(s) and typical American grades. (A number of people were in my program despite foreign degrees whose grading measures don't easily track the American all-As style.)

My secondary strong suspicion is that the 'standard advice' is close but not quite right: doing well matters, but 1) doing well is considered relative to what faculty know about the system (and they know about Oxbridge), 2) minor differences (e.g. 3.7 versus 3.9) just don't matter very much), and 3) admissions is done holistically. If they have a sense that you went to a very rigorous program, if your writing sample is interesting and rich, and if you have testimonial support they can rely on (strong letters from known & known to be discerning faculty), then they won't squint to look for small signals in doing well.

[EFB]

In reply to UK Based...

I did an MSc at LSE in the mid-2000s and on the grading criteria, it explicitly said that a 75 on the thesis was considered publishable quality.

[adm com mem]

I think people are less focused on grades and more focused on writing samples (and, for some people, letters) than you are imagining. And I think this is especially true for people with MAs, transfers, BPhils, etc--more time for them to have mastered writing a real piece of philosophy, that piece of philosophy will be focused on more than whether their grades are mediocre or good. (Though I also second what people say here about people in the US being pretty aware of how BPhil grading and British MA grading works.)

[Circe]

I know about a dozen examples of Oxford BPhils going on to get their PhDs at elite, R1 institutions in the US (and then going on to become tenure-track professors at elite, R1 institutions in the US). So I think it is fair to say that they very strongly regarded. Related: insofar as references matter, think about who the letter writers for stellar BPhil candidates are likely to be...

[Henry]

I did an MSc in Scotland (which in the US would have been an MA).

A note in my PhD application packet explained the British grading system.

There is also a way to convert. I earned 'merit' overall, which translates to something like "Magna Cum Laude" in the US system. In short, committees at the top US universities are well-versed with the British system.

Note: I think the way the British write recommendation letters is more of a concern:

UK: "This student is as good as any...."

US: "This is the BEST student the world has ever seen. Plato would have been honored to have them, and they would have no doubt top Aristotle. Reminds me of a young Wittgenstein but with the insights of a Rawls or Quine...."

[UK Based]

In reply to EFB...

Yes, I think that at that time, that might have been the case. One thing that has happened in the last 10/15 years or so has been an increasing drive to 'use more' of the grade range. This doesn't mean that someone will actually get 100 (or even 90!), but it means that truly excellent work that previously might have been given a mark in the low 70s, now gets marks in the high 70s, or even the low 80s.

My sense is that this is a good move. It allows us more scope to reward excellent but not exceptional work with a mark in the low 70s, and the exceptional work will get 76+

We do now give out more firsts (in the mid-2000s, my memory is that almost everyone got a 2:1!), and so some people claim grade inflation. But my view is that while there is some inflation (more at the bottom end with people being less willing to give 3rds or 2:2s), it is more that we now mark more fairly to reward students when they do excellent work (I also think students work harder now than they used to and are likely on average better, but that's another matter for another thread...). A lot of people got high 2:1 in the past that I think really did deserve firsts.

[US committee]

To answer Op's last question: as an admit committee member, my (perhaps idiosyncratic) sense is that 3.9 is roughly equal to 70 on British transcripts, both depending on schools. After that, it is *all* about the rest of the application packages.

[AwkwardAtOxford]

To follow up on my original question and reply to Daniel Greco...I literally have no idea what counts as "good grades" or "excelling" at the Bphil means to US committees.

I do not think this is a UK grades vs US grades matter, or even Oxbridge grades vs US grades. BPhil essays are marked within Oxford seem to have much more exacting and random patterns than other UK, or even other Oxford philosophy masters degrees seem to, or that the official grading rubric would imply.

In the grading rubric, papers with "publishable elements" are meant to be marked 75-85, with "publishable quality" work marked 85-100...but I've seen examiner comments on essays stating that they are publishable, or even explicitly that they should be published with grades 65 to 72.

My impression is that this is not even close to the way the Cambridge MPhil in Philosophy or Mphil in Political Thought and Intellectual History are graded (degrees many Oxford Dphil students have). It also seems, in practice, much more exacting than the grading standards of the Oxford MPhil in Philosophical Theology.

I know that no one gets into PhD programs on the basis of grades, and writing sample quality is the most important once committees are actually reading writing samples...but since good programs seem to get 300-400 applicants, my understanding is that most applicants are eliminated from consideration on the basis of grades.

So, should someone BPhil program think they are pretty safe from first-cut elimination if they have a certain average? Is a distinction on the degree as a whole sufficient to avoid grade-based elimination even if the essay average only a high merit (the Bphil thesis is overweighted relative to the BPhil examination essays)?

[adm com mem]

Your understanding is wrong; I am very confident that programs are not tossing applicants with BPhils out in the first round purely on the basis of grades. Also, I don't teach at an elite program, and we tend to be pretty good at combatting prestige bias, but even at my program having managed to get into the BPhil and get one is probably going to get your application looked at. (Though I really think very few programs are making first cuts based on grades in general; if/when they are if there is a grading system that doesn't make sense/isn't familiar to an admissions committee they are going to look at other aspects of the application, not just immediately throw it in the trash. Sure, if someone is from someplace with notorious grade inflation like Harvard and they have a B- average, their application will likely get thrown in the trash. But even then people would probably take a couple seconds to look at trajectory over time, very quickly skim a letter or statement to see if there is an explanation, etc.)