Jump to content

maxhgns

Members
  • Content Count

    476
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    15

maxhgns last won the day on November 10

maxhgns had the most liked content!

1 Follower

About maxhgns

  • Rank
    Macchiato

Profile Information

  • Location
    Canada
  • Application Season
    Not Applicable

Recent Profile Visitors

5,410 profile views
  1. Just be careful: not all of those schools fully fund all of their PhD students (most do, but a few don't). Also, you should probably avoid Villanova, which has had problems with racism for years, and I don't think they've worked them out yet.
  2. I'm inferring it based on my own experience, my experience securing grants, applicants I've known, and paying attention to application cycles (here and elsewhere) for the last eleven years. Nothing more. I'm not on an admissions committee, never have been, and am unlikely to ever be. But look, my point is this: 10% over-under is a good rule of thumb. 100%+ is not. If the page limit is 10, you really can't hand in 20. You have to pay attention to the formatting requirements. There's plenty of room to disagree about what counts as a reasonable percentage over-under, but I really don't think
  3. If the length is 10-15 pages, and you submit 21-22, then you have exceeded the required length by 40%-120%. That's way too much. If it's 15-20, then you're exceeding it by 5%-47%. That's fine at the low end, too much at the high end. You can give yourself room to manoeuvre of about 10%. More than that is excessive. Enlist someone's help to help you cut. There are also good tips here.
  4. Admissions committees do often seem to try to balance the distribution of areas of interest across the program, and within cohorts. So if a program has a smaller number of specialists in a popular subfield, it will often be harder to get a spot there than if you were applying to the same program but in a subfield with more faculty in it, or in a less popular subfield. Some subfields have very poor representation in North American doctoral programs, however, and that can make gaining admission to those programs in those subfields harder. Aesthetics is like that, for example: there are fewer app
  5. FWIW, I think it's worth making a note of the programs that do this (with the explicit reasoning that they want to better support their current grad students). Those are programs you want to attend, when you can.
  6. It happens all the time, but your writing sample should be in philosophy, and so should some of your references. As thursday observes, the path is much easier with a philosophy MA first.
  7. The best resource for graduate education in aesthetics is the ASA's Graduate Guide to Aesthetics in North America. There's no harm in getting a funded MA, apart from opportunity costs. Where PhDs are concerned, yes, be aware that there are 0-2 jobs in aesthetics every year. And be aware that it's a low-status subfield, so other philosophers tend to look down on people who specialize in it. Experimental philosophy/cog-sci oriented approaches are much higher-status, and could be a good primary direction from which you could then branch out into aesthetics. I should add, however, that y
  8. I know several people who've done this, and it seems to have worked out fine. Remember, however, that the law market is also saturated. It's not as bad as the TT market is for philosophy, but still! It's worth bearing in mind as you choose courses and internships.
  9. Yeah, that's what I mean. I would think those are programs where those kinds of interests could be supported. It's not because they're analytic, though; it's because they have a strong historical contingent which includes those periods/movements. Otherwise, as far as I know, those interests (apart from Kant) are mostly only alive at straight-up SPEP programs.
  10. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that historically-oriented and continentally-oriented departments will be friendlier to those interests than analytically-oriented departments. Pragmatism and logical positivism aren't super lively in "analytic" departments, and Kant, well. The historical distinctions aren't really a good guide to what counts as "analytic" these days. Don't let that discourage you. Lots of top-notch departments have a strong historical bent which I'm sure will be perfectly friendly to your application. I'm just not sure that, given your interests, you're quite t
  11. Don't play the game of trying to predict which areas will be hot when. It's not a game you can win, except by luck. And it's not a game you'll be well-equipped to play until the end of your PhD at the earliest, when you're much more familiar with the discipline, your fields, have been on the market a number of times, have done the conference circuit a bunch, etc. (Besides which, most hot areas are only briefly hot--that is, they heat up for a few years then hiring peter out because the demand has been mostly filled). Cultivate a diversity of interests, and follow those interests. It's standard
  12. FWIW, there seems to be more awareness of the Kyoto School in religious studies departments.
  13. While you're not wrong, you need to realize that this is absolutely commonplace throughout the discipline, and not enough people care to make a difference. For instance, I'm still waiting to get 500+ rejections for job applications I sent up to five years ago, including rejections for jobs for which I was interviewed. I rather suspect not. But remember, too, that the April 15 deadline is a deadline for American schools to extend first-round offers, nothing more.
  14. Sounds like there's no harm in asking to be considered!
  15. I'm not sure this is right. PhD prestige is a huge factor on the job market, to be sure, and I agree that "analytic" departments are more prestigious, on the whole, than most continental programs. That said, (1) the prestige hierarchy for analytic departments is not a rank ordering, and once you get past a double fistful of departments it really starts to lose its effect (or seems to), (2) prestige's largest contribution seems to be towards hiring in research-oriented departments with a PhD program (which is to say, if your PhD is from too low down the rankings--and "too low" is surprisin
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.