napoleon314

I've got a full ride with $3k/month stipend at an economics PhD program. I'm not going to pass that up for a second-choice philosophy program. I was sure at least one would bite, though... alas.

Ugh... So implied rejections from: Harvard, Yale, NYU, Oxford, and now Columbia? Life is bleak. For Chrissakes, why don't they make it official and put me out of my misery?

I'm going to second the advice about not doing law school. I graduated magna cum laude last December from a top-20 ranked law school, and my deeply held opinion is that it is generally horrible for philosophically inclined people. Superficially, I agree, the two professions seem to require similar skill sets. I think this is illusory. Philosophical argumentation is about getting at how things are. It's about articulating plausible premises, valid inferences, and sound conclusions. Argumentation in law is vastly different. Here's how you argue in law: you look to some rule that a medieval English judge arbitrarily pronounced, sift through centuries of subsequent cases applying the same rule, carving out exceptions, exceptions to exceptions, etc. Then you basically insist that some configuration of rules derived from that history of case law applies to the case you're presently arguing, and therefore that it should come out your way. Of course, the other side will dig up its own set of rules leading to a contrary verdict, because the law is often inconsistent. The two sides then just shout at each other about which fact pattern the disputed case more closely resembles. And that just describes the "glamorous" part of lawyering. The "substance" of legal reasoning. The reality of it is that you'll probably be sitting around most of the time devising ways to fool some megacorporation's lawyers by wording small print in a contract negotiation in such a way that your client is favored in case of some contingency. If you think scrutinizing small print for twelve hours a day is fun, then maybe law is for you. Also, lawyers and law students are horrible, horrible people. Basically, to be a successful law student, you have to enjoy being a bitch. The exception to all of this is law and economics, which is similar to analytic philosophy insofar as it uses formal methods (microeconomic analysis) to analyze the law. The only way I managed to survive was to get very close to the one guy doing law and economics at my law school, and take all the classes he offered (and a healthy dollop of philosophy of law). Also, insofar as career prospects go, it is NOT at all secure. The reasons why the legal profession is suffering a sharp decline in demand are complicated, but the short story is that big law firms used to hire droves of associates to sift through mountains of documents in complex corporate litigation cases--that allowed reasonably good students from reasonably good law schools to secure jobs starting at $160k. But three factors have pretty much destroyed that market. First, since most records are now digitized, search costs are almost nil, and you don't need dozens of junior associates to comb through paper anymore. You just type in search words, and the computer does the work. Second, the legal profession is parasitic on other industries. As the economy tanked, the legal market therefore felt the full force of the downturn. Third, there are just too many law schools. In my area alone (population 300k), there are four law schools each pumping out 200-300 new lawyers every year. There just isn't the demand for that many lawyers. Do a cost-benefit analysis. The cost of law school will likely be at least $100k of debt and three years of your life (I have $100k of debt, my brother who is also currently a law student has $300k of debt). Unless you're a top student at a top law school, you're not going to get one of those now rare $160k junior associateships at a big law firm. That means you'll either have to grovel for some small firm to take you at $50k, hang up your own shingle and practice out of your parents' basement, or work in the public sector. The public sector job market is really horrid, too, and the pay is even worse. A starting public defender salary is $40k. Even if you do end up making a smidgen more money as a lawyer than you would doing something else, you've got to factor in the debt (and interest, which won't be insubstantial), as well as burning three years where you're not making anything. The opportunity cost is enormous. You're almost certainly better off learning plumbing. Even if you can put up with the assholes (lawyers are every bit as horrible as the cliches, and law students are worse--I know, I was recently one of them!), the payoff is so horrible, it's almost impossible to justify. Unless you think you've got a serious shot at being at the top of your class at a school ranked (note: in law, USNWR ranking matters a lot--pedigree is half the game), then I can't imagine a single sane person doing it. I know I've covered this already, but I can't emphasize strongly enough how horrible the people in the legal profession are. Just imagine the biggest jerks you knew from undergrad. Now, imagine that pool distilled to just the purest, most unadulterated douchebags. Thems your classmates. On a practical note: the one nice thing is that you can take the LSAT to see how you'd do. It's a reasonably good predictor of success, but it's a fantastic predictor of where you'll get in. Basically, if either your GPA or LSAT is in the 75th percentile (of students admitted to the school in question--not of test takers. If you're only 75th percentile of test takers, then don't bother applying anywhere), you'll get an admission (but if neither, then you definitely won't). The one nice thing about law school is the predictability about admission and the ease of admissions process (you just fill out one universal application, and tell LSAC which schools to send it to). Given the market, even if you think you can deal with everything else and excel at spouting fallacies (ad hominem arguments are the very point of discrediting witness testimony) and bullshit arguments for the rest of your life, I wouldn't bother if you don't have the grades or LSAT to get into a top 30 school. Anything else, and you're gambling.

NYU seems to have started making calls, yet my phone has been tragically silent.

Wow. That's nuts. But congrats on the other top 5. I guess what I was hoping for was: the GRE and publications offset the grades, and it'll be down to your LoRs and WS. What I was fearing was: grades not good enough to make it past the first hurdle. Obviously, it's all speculation. Not sure why people have such a hard time playing the guessing game. Yeah, but even 3.6 is rare, no? In other news, it looks like Stanford has released a torrent of rejections today. Condolences to those affected.

Because at this point, speculation soothes the anxiety. Or fuels it. Really? I got the impression that less than 3.7 was pretty problematic for the schools I applied to. Yeah, I tailored each statement, mentioning professors, with whom I'd like to study, and explaining why I thought the school was a good fit. And they all are good fits, with the possible exception of MIT and Princeton. Got the reject from MIT. Fair enough. I doubt I'm the only person here feeling inadequate. Meh, this is going to be a hellish couple weeks for me, until I get my first admit (assuming I get one).

Bernard: Yeah, obviously no one can say without WS, statement, and LoRs. The question is whether I get past the hurdle, "good enough to get looked at."

Hello All: Just got the reject from MIT, and am despairing a bit. UG GPA: 3.6 (film major; philosophy, math minor). Law GPA: 3.6 (magna cum laude). GRE: 170/166/5.5 Both UG and Law School are reasonably well ranked. UG philosophy grades not stellar (even mix of A's and B's). Philosophy of law grades from Law School all A's. Recommendations: two well-known philosophers of law at Law School and an economist (well known in the field of law and economics, but maybe not so much in philosophy). Publications: Have several publications in law and economics, and a presentation at a major economics conference. Am coauthoring a book with the economist on the philosophical foundations of law and economics for Cambridge University Press as part of a series on philosophy of law. AoI: Philosophy of Law, Logic (semantic and set theoretic paradoxes). Applied: NYU, Rutgers, Oxford, Princeton, Harvard, Yale, Mich, Columbia, UCLA. Mostly, I'm concerned about the grades. Assuming recommendations and WS are fine, anyone think I'm in for a disappointing application cycle? I realize my schools are extremely competitive, but I've got an Econ backup, so there was no sense in applying to "backup" schools. The book helps, but it's forthcoming (we're still writing it), so I'm not sure how much stock adcoms will put in that. Still, major university press. I just don't know what to expect, and I'm freaking out a bit.