[Ziz]

...that philosophy is such a competitive PhD programme to get into (no matter what rank school you're looking at), there are always hundreds of applicants for each school, yet this forum is DEAD?

[tarski]

For some reason we/they like to be all sneaky and anon-posting in the who_got_in thread at lj, there's more than 750 posts in the thread now. I've been visiting this and that forum since August.

http://community.liv...page=7#comments

[adri86]

I agree that prospective philosophers seem to be bustling about predominantly at the livejournal forum, which may detract from their participation here.

However, I think the fact that it is particularly competitive to gain admittance to a Ph.D. program in philosophy may actually contribute to the anonymity or apparent lack of posting altogether. The reason is that, in a field in with fewer spots available, the academic world is smaller. In a smaller academic world in which you have connections, the more easily you may reveal your identity which is something many people on forums such as these would rather avoid. Call it narcissistic paranoia or whatever, but I am one such paranoid applicant if I may admit it.

Less dramatically, this forum is a place where we can express our anxieties and both gain and solicit advice in a uniquely comfortable and accepting environment in virtue of the level of anonymity.

Just a little speculation over a few empirical questions. Haha. But I'm a skeptic about a priori knowledge, so that's not so bad for me!

[tarski]

Interestingly enough, the worry about revealing details online and so on was opened up for discussions on Leiter's blog today. One key quote:

http://leiterreports...s.html#comments

Quote

So let me get this straight.

The question is whether a committee that has maybe 200 serious applications to read in a four-week period while carrying on with teaching, administration and (perhaps even) family life will be likely to spend time doing possibly wholly irrelevant further research on candidates, beyond the fat dossiers they already have to read.

I'm sorry if this is damaging to Brian's correspondent's self-esteem, but I think the answer's obvious: they're just not that into you.

However, that's just about being worried about admissions people knowing who we are: maybe there is also a genuine worry about hiding from each other, because we (or some of us, depending on school) are in such a tight competition. The who_got_in crowd can definitely be a little aggressive sometimes, which is why I've adopted the practice of listening in there for interesting information, but otherwise posting here.

[Ziz]

Ah I see! I'm not acquainted with who_got_in but that would explain it. I'm not sure I want to subject myself to that! I will content myself with the nice philosophers who do post here

Saw the Leiter report comments yesterday too - I have to admit I was a bit relieved even though I don't think I have anything scandalous online .

[tarski]

Ziz, on 20 January 2010 - 06:44 AM, said:

Ah I see! I'm not acquainted with who_got_in but that would explain it. I'm not sure I want to subject myself to that! I will content myself with the nice philosophers who do post here

Saw the Leiter report comments yesterday too - I have to admit I was a bit relieved even though I don't think I have anything scandalous online .

Oh my... I just saw the latest comment by Ludlow in that thread (AKA Sklar), who made the sensible comment that even if we aren't worried about our online footprint now, we should be thinking ahead to worrying about it for jobs. The "oh my" came from googling his pen name, it has some interesting results.