lesage13

Where are they now?

A good start might be the Gettier problem. It plays intuitively, has a jarring but hard to deny conclusion, and is very distinctly philosophical. And the original paper is like two pages and change, so your brother really has no excuse not to read it.

2-3 articles/chapters per 3 hour class was typical where I did my MA. Assignments varied with the prof, but a 'long' paper was about 15-25 and a 'short' paper was around 10-15. You'll be expected to participate regularly in discussions, but you probably already knew that from your MA. I bet if you looked around, you could find old links to past syllabi and reading schedules on a few department pages or even a prof's personal website...

One thing that gets overlooked quite a bit is the fact that happier students will tend to be more productive and have better dissertations, and personal considerations like a preference for places with a vibrant film culture bear directly on how happy one will be. Of course, this isn't as relevant to your future job market opportunities as considerations like placement, but giving its due weight might help you tip the scales if everything else turns out to be a wash. EDIT: Full disclosure, I'm wait-listed at one of the two places you're trying to choose between.

Yeah. I'm on my phone and have fat fingers (wasn't trying to upvote myself either), lol.

I don't want to derail this thread further, but I also don't want anyone reading that and getting the wrong idea about an important subfield of philosophy. Bioethics is a form of applied ethics. It is concerned primarily with the ethical issues surrounding biomedical practice and research. Related issues include the impact and application of biomedical technologies, and the dissemination of scientific knowledge with respect to questions surrounding informed consent. If evolution enters the story at all, it will be in one of two ways: (1) Concerns about genetic research protocols; or (2) The application of genetic technologies, including genetic testing (e.g., privacy concerns, discrimination concerns, etc.). Bioethics is not concerned with the import of evolutionary theory per se for ethics or metaethics. See http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminist-bioethics/#BioMov, and http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/theory-bioethics/. This is the last comment I will make on the issue in this thread. Again, I apologise to the OP. Hopefully, others will have more helpful and relevant contributions.

Don't listen to [TheVineyard]. He has no idea what bioethics is.

Lol, just noticed that. Hopefully, it's a typo and not the adcom's idea of a cruel joke.

Not sure if this has already been said, but for those still waiting to hear from UMass, I found the following on their website today: "We are still evaluating applications for our PhD program. But if you have not heard from us by Friday, March15, then your application is no longer under consideration."

Sorry, should've made it clear that I had in mind the the test's predictive power specifically with respect to philosophy grad success, which is the focus of the discussion at the Schwitzgebel post I linked to. Anyway, thanks for the link to that summary, it's really great--and definitely worth a look for anyone interested in the issue.

This is really, really disappointing. I can understand (3), since university admins have few metrics they can understand (being non-experts) for evaluating fellowship candidates. That (1) and (2) are the case is bullshit. Standardised tests clearly disadvantage groups that everyone in the profession agrees are underrepresented (members of minority and low-income groups). The obvious point here is that low-income students are less likely to have the funds for enrolling in expensive test-prep programs and buying prep materials, both of which can have tremendous positive effects on test outcomes. But it's also true that females and non-Whites, with the exception of Asians, tend to do less well than males and Whites/Asians on the GRE (http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~oliver/sociology/GREGroups99.pdf; http://chronicle.com/article/ETS-Shares-Data-on-First-Crop/137435/). Worse yet, it's at best unclear whether it's predictive of success at the graduate level. Eric Schwitzgebel has some data pointing to the success of V-scores at predicting GPA in grad courses, but there's an issue with sample size (37) among other worries (http://schwitzsplinters.blogspot.ca/2012/02/surprising-and-disappointing-predictors.html). To my knowledge, that's the closest anyone's gotten to making a positive case for the predictive power of the GRE. Given all this readily available information, reliance on the GRE scores by adcoms is mentally lazy at best. One could also probably make a good case for connecting the discipline's diversity problem to such attitudes. Trained philosophers should really know better.

This is a bit of a tangent, but I think it's in-line with the spirit of the thread. I have pretty decent GRE V and Q scores (97% and 75%, respectively), and have been moderately successful this application season (accepted by a program in the mid-40s and waitlisted by a program in the mid-20s). But my AW score was brutal--35% (3.5) and I can't help but wonder if that got my app tossed at certain places. I wonder if anyone else had a shockingly low AW score too, and if so, whether they'd be willing to share their A/W/R here. Mostly, I hoping to hear that someone with a low AW score has been successful at top programs so I can stop kicking myself for choosing not to retake the GRE.

Mostly agreed. Miller's An Introduction to Metaethics is also a great primer on the development of metaethics. I would replace Rawls's Theory of Justice with the later Political Liberalism (don't bother with the Restatement I don't really think it adds much). Though I also think that political philosophy deserves a separate list. Such a list should probably include Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia and Sen's Development as Freedom.

No, just saw Hypatience's post above mine after I finished writing mine. That she got a named fellowship explains why she's been to only one around here to hear from UMass so far. Also, congrats, Hypatience.

2015 applicants might find the APA Guide to Graduate Programs helpful (http://www.apaonline.org/?gradguide).

Can anyone confirm? No email here yet EDIT: Nevermind.

This is something that I probably really needed to hear. I'm still terrified of embarrassing myself with strange faculties (as opposed to the familiar professors I've come to admire and adore at my MA)--I just have to keep in mind that it's a visit, not an interview!. Any tips on how to bring up sensitive subjects?

Hey, I've got a visit coming up and I was wondering if those who've been through the process would be willing to share their experiences or thoughts, including any warnings or tips.

Why do you have to poo poo everything? And while it is sometimes hard to read the tone of comments on the internet, I was clearly not being super serious. I just thought it'd be a fun way to lighten the mood--though, admittedly, there wasn't much uptake. You really need to dial back the pedantic nitpicking. Being right for the sake of being right is not smart, just tiresome and childish.

I don't know about that. If I did metaphysics and were single (my partner sometimes snoops on here when she's bored at work ), I'd probably steal that "My metaphysics are awesome" line for my dating profile. My main move would also be suggestively saying "Let's get meta-physical."

That sounds seriously cool. I wish I got more teaching opportunities like that in my MA. Good luck, I hope it goes well!

It's the repeated nature of the requests that make them naggy. Anyway, I was being a bit off the cuff there about the forbidden thread. There was one, but then it got hijacked and massively derailed by a pedantic blowhard to the benefit of no one.

I haven't been really keeping track of who go in where and what people's options are (aside from that guy ), but even if what you say is true, I still don't see how nagging them about it at this point helps. Moreover, it creates unnecessary pressure on those who are honestly undecided--who are also apparently forbidden from having a thread for discussing their decisions on here. I'm definitely sympathetic to those who's hopes are entirely riding on the waitlist roulette and I agree that the nagging isn't the worst thing, but I can't see how it can be a good thing (at best neutral, at worst bad, because it creates undue stress/guilt in others).

Great. Now we'll all get in trouble

I thought about starting a new thread, but it seemed most appropriate here... What were the best and worst rejection letters you received so far? I'm not sure about anyone else, but Toronto's rejection letter was hands down the best rejection I've gotten in two application seasons. It was honest and kind without being deceptive, and you could really tell that Jennifer Nagel put a lot of thought into it. Brown's was the worse, only because it's exactly the same letter as the one they rejected me with last year, word for word minus the year--it was also pretty terse and cold to begin with too.