lesage13

Careful. They made Socrates drink the hemlock for that...

Isn't the waitlist nagging getting old now? It's only the first week of March and there are still some schools yet to be heard from (ahem, U Mass). Also, it's not like our chances of getting in off our respective waitlists will get better if others decide sooner, ceteris paribus. Relax. I know it's stressful (I should know, with this being my second round of apps...), but so is having to make a decision that'll profoundly impact the next 5-7 years of one's life. I'm sure there are much more interesting or productive discussions to be had.

FWIW, I think an efficient, clear, and focused presentation of a readily identifiable and digestible question or topic is a necessary feature of any great paper. This is also something I really struggle to achieve in my own work. I find that thinking hard and long about scope and structure at the beginning of the writing process really helps with this. Specifically, I try to: (1) Set a narrower scope of investigation than I'm comfortable with, since it's always easier to add than to cut; (2) Work out short definitions of all the concepts I'll be referring to in the paper and set out all my arguments in schematic form, even if I won't present these ideas in so formally in the paper itself; and (3) Set out distinct and well defined sections, with each serving an explicit, non-overlapping role in the paper, and work within these. The idea is basically to take a modular approach in order to better keep track of the moving pieces throughout the paper writing process. This is helpful for cutting down on unnecessary tangents, for figuring out the progression, and for making changes later on. Generally, I find that better mental organisation often translates to more focused end products on paper.

This is a great idea for a thread. I also thought it was really cool that some were sharing their writing samples and other work here. Personally, I didn't put mine up because I was worried about being identified through my sample by snooping professors--even though I haven't posted anything I think I'd regret, just paranoid, really. But it might be a good idea to start an anonymised repository of work somewhere (e.g., a shard dropbox or google drive or something) both so we may trade comments and so future applicants may get a sense of the level of work required for developing a writing sample. Would this be something anyone here would be interested in?

How is the department in your AOS? How's it's placement? Personally, I'd take a sure thing over rolling the dice again if you're already in at a mid-tier department that's strong in your AOS and has a track record of placing well. As others have pointed out on this board, the PGR overall rankings doesn't necessarily track the kinds of things that a prospective grad student should be looking for when deciding where to go/apply--if that's what you're worried about wrt the PhD offer you have. (Btw, have you visited either school?) I think that fit, climate, and placement are all more important than a department's overall rank, but that's just me. Also, given the kind of randomness at play in grad admissions, know that there's a chance that you might not do as well next season, even with an MA under your belt.

I think you should hint at it being likely that you'll have more than one offer--maybe something like, "I'd like to visit so that I'll be able to make a faster and more informed decision should I be fortunate enough to receive an offer from SchoolX. Given how hectic the end of the application season can be, I'd want to render my decision as quickly as possible for everyone's benefit." If you have the means to visit without help from the dept, then put the emphasis of the request on meeting the faculty and current grad students, and don't bother mentioning travel expenses or accommodations. If you will need some help, then I'd ask about their advice for possible accommodations, conditional on them permitting you to visit, and put this after asking about meeting current grads so that you can suggest without saying that you'd like them to have a current grad put you up. Something like, "I'd especially like to meet with any current grad students in my area. Also, if it's OK for me to visit, could you suggest where I could find affordable accommodations in the area?", will work. A free place to sleep will save you a bunch, even if you're only staying for a night or two. I strongly recommend not asking for help in the form of money if you can help it. If they are willing to fund your visit, they'll offer it regardless of whether or not you've asked, but if not, then you risk offending them in the process. If there is a faculty member that has expressed an interest in you or your work, then send the request to them rather than the DGS. It'll be them you'll be most interested in seeing, so there's no point bothering the DGS if they aren't willing to give you the time of day.

Basically the same story here. 3.2 UGPA; 4.0 MA GPA. Accepted to a school in the mid 40s (but really great in my area) and a solid school just outside of the top 50, as well as a waitlist at a top 30 school (and still waiting to hear back from a few others). MA program was a small but wonderful program in Canada too, so don't think that it's either a top MA program or bust.

I'm facing a two-body problem as well, albeit a significantly different one, so I'll be rooting for you to get in off the waitlist (well, more so than my default level of rooting for other applicants)!

A bit off topic. but can I infer from your sig that Wisconsin has told you either that you are 'very likely to be admitted' or that 'you are relatively high on their waitlist'? I'm interested, since I've been waitlisted by Wisconsin as well, but haven't heard anything since their original email saying that they won't have any information about waitlist positions till closer to Apr.

I would frame it as a preemptive measure for making your decision easier (and therefore quicker, which would be helpful for them as well, given the following scenario) in case you are accepted off the waitlist late but must decide between multiple offers with no time to visit.

I had a two year strategy when I applied out of my MA. Going into the fall of the last year of my program (two years), I applied primarily to schools in the top 30. The idea was that I could treat the first time around as a dress rehearsal and get the GRE under my belt while also giving myself a free shot at a dream school--you never know if you'll get lucky. This year, my second year, I applied again to top schools as well as a few more realistic picks. The nice thing about this strategy is that it gives you two shots at getting into top schools, a much less stressful time if/when you apply again, and plenty of time to retake the GRE should you need to. But all this depends on whether you have the luxury of taking a gap year to apply again, and whether you have the money to spend on two rounds of apps.

Discussions at Leiter's blog (http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2007/09/advice-on-perso.html#comments), and Schwitzgebel's blog (http://schwitzsplinters.blogspot.ca/2012/05/applying-to-phd-programs-in-philosophy.html?m=1) are relevant.

I knew this would be controversial... FWIW, I've known people who've been successful at top schools with both tailored and untailored statements. And I've been told that I'm a wonderful fit at schools I've been accepted to, despite not having tailored my app. Generally, I dont think we need to worry about adcoms getting the impression that they're just a safety pick to us or that we're unserious--the cost of the app alone, given the typical student's finances, is enough to ward off throw away apps. Perhaps I should've added that I did not mean to suggest that one should not take the statement seriously, nor that tailoring can't help. Do take it seriously, and do tailor it if you truly cannot further improve your sample. But given limited time and mental resources, your time will likely be better spent on one's sample, because the gains from tailoring are quite minimal and the sample is the most crucial part of one's app that's also under one's control.

Here's a potentially controversial piece of advice that I'd pass on to anyone who's thinking of applying in the future: Don't spend too much time on your statement of purpose. In fact, I wouldn't bother tailoring it at all. Best case scenario, you tell the committee something they already know. Worst case, you say something wrong and really damage their impression of you. I'm a big fan of just being honest about your interests and academic history (notable courses and past work, etc.), and leaving it at that. Basically, think of the opposite of what you're supposed to do for a job cover letter/resume. I think adcoms read statements for three reasons: (1) to get a sense of what the applicant is about, (2) to see if the applicant can describe their area of interest competently, and (3) to see if the applicant and proof-read. Everything else is just window dressing; make sure you hit those notes, but know that there's not much point to adding anything else. Moreover, your time is much better spent on your writing sample--and trust me, there is no such thing as enough time for working on your writing sample. My statement took about two days and most of that was spent waiting for feedback; I spent 3 months on a sample adapted from a thesis that I worked on for a year and it still isn't as good as I would've liked. (N.B., I've been accepted by one school ranked in the 40s and one unranked, and I'm waitlisted at a school in the top-30.)

If climate [EDIT: as in weather... no idea what it's like for women or POC there] is a concern, you might want to consider UVic, which has a nice, temperate climate to go with a pretty decent MA program.

The following is from Eric Schwitzgebel's blog (http://schwitzsplinters.blogspot.ca/2007/10/applying-to-philosophy-phd-programs.html): The following question was posted in the comments: Here is Schwitzgebel's answer:

All I wanted to do was make a clarificatory point about an unfortunate terminological ambiguity that may not have been obvious to those who are not familiar with this fairly niche (in philosophical circles, at least) position in political philosophy. As you admitted yourself, your comment was a sketchy sketch on an internet forum. I explicitly said that I did not think you were making any interpretive or definitional error. I sketched a general definition to draw out the ambiguity and to help clarify any confusion for the sake of others who might not have read what you or I have--imagine how unhelpful it would've been if I had merely said, 'There's an ambiguity here!', and left it at that--and suggested an alternative term to help avoid any confusion going forward. I did not mean to personally insult you. I'm sorry if you feel insulted. There is a lot to unpack in the latter half of your comment (quoted above) and I think I would disagree with much of it. It's an interesting topic for me (did my MA thesis on the relationship between political normativity and moral normativity), so I'm game for chatting about it some more. However, if you think that'll just end up being so much time wasting bickering, then I'll happily wander off to some other part of the internet.

I don't think you're guilty of this, but your wording wrongly suggests (to my eyes, at least) that political realism and moral realism are comparable (there's a better word for what I'm trying to say, but I'm drawing a blank...) positions when they belong to very disparate debates. Moral realism is a metaphysical view that affirms the existence of the putative objects of moral statements and implies a cognitivist semantics of moral talk. Political realism, on the other hand, holds that moral principles should not (it's unclear what kind of normativity is intended here...) be invoked in normative politics, because such principles are too abstract for real politics (or some such). For the sake of clarity, if I have to talk about both in the same breath, I usually call political realism 'antimoralism' (following Bernard Williams, who described political realism as the rejection of 'moralism' in politics) and reserve the label 'realism' for metanormative views about the metaphysical status of moral/political properties.

The point wasn't that there isn't a divide; just that Zizek and, to a lesser extent, Badiou are often dismissed because their political writings lack merit and are needlessly obtuse as opposed to genuinely difficult (a qualification that I didn't think needed to be made, since it is connoted by 'obtuse', but here we are), rather than, as you suggested, because of the existence of some kind of divide within philosophy (a point that I take no stance on). In saying this, I am not dismissing any particular 'way' of doing philosophy. I don't see how this makes your point, unless you're arguing that any dismissal of the merits of Zizek's and Badiou's political work will inveritably be rooted in allegiance to one side of the putative divide. I cited two reasons to think that Zizek's work lacks merit, which I think also generally applies to Badiou: (1) He fetishises an abhorant ideology that has directly resulted in the deaths of millions of non-whites, and (2) He hides behind stupid equivocations that needlessly obscures his point. Nothing you've said rebuts either (1) or (2), and you haven't really pointed to any further mitigating consideration in their favour. His use of 'violence' is rather stupid, especially if he 'clears it up' in the preceding or following lines. Nothing is gained by the use of the term in this way other than possibly provoking a rise out of the reader--it's a cheap rhetorical trick at best. And of course you can be a maoist and a philosopher, provided that you've made other substantial contributions to the discipline--but maoism is no more a philosophy than Ayn Rand's Objectivism.

This isn't a 'divide' thing. This is a basic intellectual merit thing. Badiou's and Zizek's political theories are garbage and do not deserve the label 'philosophy'. I'm no Rawlsian liberal, but their fetishization of Maoism is just offensive. Really, it amounts to little more than old white men celebrating an intellectually fashionable ideology that caused the deaths of millions of non-whites. John Gray has an excellent takedown of Zizek's nonsense here: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/jul/12/violent-visions-slavoj-zizek/. I think much of it applies to Badiou as well. There is a response from Zizek (http://www.versobooks.com/blogs/1046-not-less-than-nothing-but-simply-nothing) to the effect that he's been misunderstood, but if Gray misread him, it's because his writing is obtuse and relies on stupid equivocations (Serously? 'Violence' in the sense that Gandhi was more 'violent' than Hitter?). And does he really expect his critics to have read his entire corpus before they can register a complaint? That's certainly one way to deal with possible objections: Produce more nonsense than your critics can realistically read, so you can always say that they failed interpret your claims in light of your entire body of work. Maybe Badiou's non-political work is better and makes him worthy of the label, but it certainly won't be because of his writings on politics. Zizek is not a 'philosopher' in any serious sense.

That kind of defeatist attitude is self-fulfilling. And, to be honest, it's just not true. Someone who excels at philosophy will have many marketable skills: Conceptual analysis, critical thinking, strong reading and writing skills, etc. Now, it might be harder to 'market' (yes, those are scare quotes) these skills, given that even many non-philosophy academics have no idea just what it is we do, but they are by no means unmarketable. While I do think that there are certainly difficult obstacles between your average philosophy BA and the market, the lack of skills isn't it. (Actually, it's a big pet peeve of mine. Have you met anyone from these so-called practical majors like accounting or business? They don't actually _know_ anything; for instance, accounting majors surprisingly can't do math and don't seem to have to, and business majors can rarely explain what it is they're actually doing when they use models to predict performance. They do get a crash course on the heuristics and rules at work in business and accounting practices. But, without any analytic skills, they have a really hard time thinking outside of these rules and heuristics by themselves. By all accounts, malice wasn't the reason why the economy crashed, it was narrowmindedness. For more on this, see: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2006/06/the-management-myth/304883/) What we do lack is experience, but I think this will be true of just about any major that is either not focused on performing some practical task (e.g. accounting, nursing), or not co-op focused (e.g. some engineering programs, business programs). This shouldn't be underestimated, especially at a time where employers all seem to (paradoxically) want at least some experience for entry level positions. And we do face problems with perception that shouldn't be undersold--to many people, even those who should really know better (ahem, Hawking), we're either all new age hippies or creationists (I don't know which is worse). The problem is that we, as a discipline, don't seem to care very much about how our students fare after graduation if they're not continuing in philosophy. Worse yet, this is infectious. It infects the attitudes of students, dissuading them from really considering or developing interests in other career options--it certainly did for me. It also infects the attitudes of employers (and the general public), disposing them to believe that philosophers are all myopic navel-gazers. These feed into each other, building up until it certainly feels like one cannot realistically do anything with a philosophy degree (or two). I'll admit that when I posed the OP, I wasn't in the most optimistic mood. I was worn out from getting rejected from pretty much every school I applied to (still no acceptances), and I was tired of justifying my degree to my friends and family (not that they were assholes about it, but to me, the extreme ignorance was worse). The idea of not doing philosophy both depressed and terrified me. I didn't know what I would do otherwise or even what I would like to do, in part because you just don't think about that in this discipline. I still don't, really. However, I'm trying to get an handle on the situation rather than letting it defeat me. I'm trying to figure out my options, and luckily a professor in my department will be giving a talk later today on what one can do with a philosophy degree that isn't philosophy. More departments need to do things like this. And the discipline should actively encourage students to think about and explore non-academic career paths, and employers to think about employing students of philosophy. I don't think that this is a big ask.

The OP might find the discussion here helpful, even though it's about a slightly different dilemma: http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2013/02/choosing-between-graduate-programs-overall-vs-specialty-standing.html. Some relevant takeaways: (1) Don't mind the overall rankings, if the school is strong in your AOI(s); (2) A top-tier school that's a bad fit may end up hurting you in the long run; (3) Don't just check the overall placement of the school, also check how the students of your potential advisers have done, if the info is available; (4) A good fit will also mean that there will be a community of other grad students interested in your area, which could general beneficial and stimulating discussions; (5) Fit, fit, fit!

Is there anyone else who still hasn't gotten a response from Colorado, despite the rash of rejections posted today? The online app still says that my application is being reviews. I also emailed the DGS about my application a while back, but got no response. Are they just slow, or is there something up with my application?

Lol. Amazing, if true. To those who were wondering: Yes, I do plan on reapplying next year, if I get shut out this season--though I'm going to have to sit down with my supervisor and look more carefully at where to apply. My problem right now is (1) finding something relatively productive (and hopefully interesting) to do in the next year (other than working on my apps), and (2) figure out a Plan B in case I get shutout again (I'm not going to apply a third year). I'm hoping that the answer to (1) will contribute to solving (2). In any case, this will all be moot if one of my remaining apps pan out. But, I think that there is still a discussion that philosophers and those who aspire to be philosophers need to have here, given how competitive the field is (even just getting into a PhD program is brutal, nevermind finding a job after), and how (reportedly) terrible the job market is. The fact is that the vast majority of those who did a BA in philosophy will not (due to a lack of either luck, talent, or desire) end up becoming professional philosophers. Many of the talented, lucky few who get into PhD programs will not finish, and of the small fraction of students who will, many (most?) will get drummed out of the field after bouncing around for a few years as adjuncts. However, at least to me, it's not obvious what else one can feasibly do with a philosophy degree other than go on to another professional degree like law. And I don't think that this is due to a lack of imagination on my part. It's just not a topic that gets much attention in philosophy departments, for whatever reason, despite the fact that these are questions that most of us with philosophy degrees will inevitably have to answer.

I appreciate the thoughts on law school, and I think that the general sentiment is sound: Go to law school only if you want to become a lawyer for its own sake. I'm still on the fence about that, though I suppose that just means that law school isn't a live option for me--at least for now. And I suspect that this will be true for teachers' college as well. Working as an administrator sounds interesting, though. If anything, it'll keep me close to a school, and come with library privileges, which will be useful for polishing up that writing sample for the second go around. I guess the real problem is that I love school in part because I haven't really done anything else. And, especially coming out of an MA, I haven't had to think seriously about a possible place for me in the 'real world'. I suspect that this is a general problem for the academe, especially philosophy: Everything you do is geared towards making it to the next rung of academic achievement (e.g. getting into the PhD, finishing your dissertation, finding a job, getting published, getting tenure, etc.) that one's perspective becomes a bit myopic and narrow. Maybe the real silver lining in not getting into anywhere is that it'll force me to engage with the not-so-academic... :/