aglaea

Yeah right, if they'll work with you! These superstar professors have so many advisees already that they reject advising requests all the time. Also, Linda Williams has retired and is not accepting any students. When they do agree to work with you, they have little bandwidth for actual advising, and try to slow the students down. Several of these are notorious for drawing out the qualifying exam and prospectus processes for years, such that their students are in their 5th or 6th year before they begin writing their dissertations!

Berkeley Rhetoric shouldn't be a "good candidate" on anyone's list! As a current PhD student, I want to wish you luck with all other applications, for Berkeley Rhetoric should be your last choice. It is, in the words of a colleague this morning, "a sinking ship." Not a single student from last year's admitted cohort accepted the offer, because they realized how disconnected the faculty is, how pettily political, how unsupportive. The reason students take an average of 9 years to graduate isn't that they love the program, it's because they're stymied at every step: exams rescheduled at the last minute (or just not sent to them on the appointed day), 6th and 7th drafts of a prospectus rejected, professors refusing to advise students or then backing out... You can imagine why so many students leave: change departments, move schools, or simply disappear. Courses are a joke, professors don't come to events or their own office hours, new hires are the faculty's friends rather than applicants with whom students would want to work, the administration is ridiculous, and they renege on funding offers. Good luck!

At what point is it appropriate to begin listing one's new PhD affiliation? I'm thinking conference papers, publications, facebook...

Thank you, superhamdi, for pointing out the bias involved in the acceptance process. I highly recommend (the Philosopher) Jennifer Saul's work on the topic, starting with her article in the Philosophers' Magazine: http://philosophypress.co.uk/?p=1079 Look at how many comments in this thread presume masculinity, addressing "boys" and "guys". We're all guilty, and if you believe you're impartial, then take this test: https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/demo/ On the original topic, I'd also stress the importance of professors' interests. My stepmother's advisor bluntly stated when she met him for the first time, "You know why you were accepted, right? You research what I research, and I wanted a new graduate student this year." I doubt that dynamic has changed much.

That should have read "I'm happy to explain."

Nope! PM me if you're interested in St Andrews and I'm explain.

I second Phdoobiedoobiedoo regarding avoiding the terminal Master's, unless you have absolutely no background in Philosophy. Especially avoid those programs that are essentially money-making schemes for the university. I made the mistake of doing St Andrew's MLitt, and the town's beauty aside, I cannot say enough negative about the program. All I learned was to despise the philosophy profession. Perhaps its better to be driven from the field before you're in too deep, but I do think many of my friends from that program who went into different disciplines or left academe entirely would have made excellent philosophers, had they not been tossed around as moneybags for a pointless year.

Congrats, fjn, on what I presume was an acceptance from Northwestern! Would you tell us about yourself?

Thanks, jshade240, and congrats! Are you willing to tell us anything about yourself, such as your background or where you applied?

How exciting! I hope we find out about more acceptances today...

Two people registered acceptances to Northwestern on the results page. If it's anyone here, can you tell us anything else? Was it an acceptance email, or an email to check your status on the application page? Was there any funding information or fly-out invitation?

Is there a professor in your department who may know about previous students from your university who went to the US for graduate studies? In terms of programs to consider, I assume you've checked the philosophical gourmet? http://www.philosophicalgourmet.com/breakdown/breakdown13.asp Yes, that's also what we call conference papers. It sounds like you have a strong cv, but I'm in no position to give advice. Best of luck with your applications!

Nice to see Chantal Mouffe, one woman amongst nearly two dozen. The best thing I'm reading is Benhabib and respondents' Another Cosmopolitanism, although Alain Badiou's pop-philosophy In Praise of Love is fun.

Is there any way, short of calling departments, to find out which departments interview finalists when fly-outs for admitted students will be?

You have a great range of schools, and 'they' say relevant specialties like your musical background do play a role. Good luck!

What interesting research! I look forward to seeing where you choose - good luck!

Ah, academic elitism. How we still manage to justify it puzzles me. Well best of luck!

Torturous! (What do you think we're all doing on TGC?) Where have you applied?

Pretty impressive! Your numbers look good, and you have a master's already? This question is prying, but our interests are similar, so I was wondering: why aren't you applying to more prestigious programs, like Rutgers, Oxford, or Yale?

Do any schools interview? That can be an early indication of one's chances. I'm hoping to hear back from Northwestern, Yale, and MIT in about a month.

bluecheese, would you be willing to tell us about your background?

I've started a thread for this year's applicants:

To start it off, I've applied to Princeton, MIT, Oxford, Yale, Harvard, Columbia, and Northwestern for epistemology and feminist ethics. Background: US Liberal Arts BA, Fulbright, UK MA, strong GPAs and GREs, one publication and several conference papers.

As decisions start to roll in, I thought it might be interesting and comforting to start a thread for this season's Philosophy applicants. Where are you applying? What are your interests? What is your background?