maxhgns

Note, however, that this is not Western's philosophy department; there's very little continental going on in their philosophy department. The main ones would probably be McGill (PhD only), Alberta, Concordia (MA), Toronto, Guelph, and Memorial.

Stumpf is awesome (and short-ish), but if you've a decent grasp of the major thinkers in the history of philosophy already, it won't add much to your knowledge.

Congratulations and good luck, but this is the philosophy subforum. You're looking for physics, I believe. =)

Kaplan's last student is a friend of mine (he defended recently), and our faculty have pretty close ties to UCLA. My info isn't official, but I think it's trustworthy, at least as far as Kaplan is concerned (note that he's 81!). As far as Burge is concerned, I can only report a lot of talk about him winding down soon. He might well still be taking students--that, I don't know (he's only 68). But I do know you can't count on Kaplan.

There are a fair few Wittgenstein scholars at Toronto (plus language folks). There are also quite a few at Queen's (Kingston, Canada), although they have fewer full-on language faculty. So those might be worth adding to the list above.

Kaplan graduated his last student last year, and I think Burge is also on the verge of retirement...

FWIW, there is at least one (other) philosopher of mind (broadly construed) who dabbles in aesthetics at a PhD-granting institution, and who's published a few things in the field: Jesse Prinz. He's actually got a book on the psychology and ontology of art coming out with OUP soon (this year, I think). That helps make CUNY safer and a better fit for the original poster, I think.

Not to shoot down your contribution, DerPhilosoph, but Noë hasn't done much work in the philosophy of art at all (he's got virtually no publications in it, and certainly none in the main journals). He's one of those people who specializes elsewhere but has some non-primary interests in the philosophy of art (there are a fair few of those people). And his brief foray into the aesthetics of dance was pretty dismal. I'm sorry to say it, but I think that it would be a mistake to do a PhD in the philosophy of art under his primary direction. He could be a great complement, to be sure, but as a primary supervisor... well, no. Sherri Irvin is awesome, and you're right to point out that Oklahoma now offers a terminal Master's degree in addition to the PhD. I'd forgotten about that.

You should know that the word on the grapevine is that Kivy will be retiring soon (he's 79 or 80, after all). Rumour also has it that Levinson and Carroll aren't particularly available these days, and may be winding down their obligations themselves. That's not at all to say you shouldn't apply there, or see if they'll supervise you, it's just so that you're aware of the impending doom in the philosophy of art, which may well hit before or when you're ready to apply. It's definitely worth applying there, since one never knows, but you should at least be forewarned. There are still a few other holdouts with faculty whose primary AOS is the ("analytic") philosophy of art. McGill (David Davies) and UBC (Dominic McIver Lopes) are two of the more important ones. The other important department is Columbia, which hosts Lydia Goehr (her work is more historical in focus, but there's plenty of analytic support at Columbia, and she's well versed in it too). Jenefer Robinson is at Cincinnati, but I don't know whether she takes students any more (she's pretty old now). Anne Eaton is at UIC. And there's Oklahoma, where Sherri Irvin is currently. After that, the pickings in North America get quite slim due to retirements, deaths, guttings (e.g. Temple), and a general lack of hiring. There's Miami, where Amie Thomasson works, although I think it's fair to say that her primary interests are in metaphysics, and only incidentally in the philosophy of art. OSU has Robert Kraut, but I don't think he's done very much for the last several years. That's about it, I'm sorry to say. On the NA MA front, things are better. In addition to the usual excellent MA programs, there are several with faculty that are top-notch philosophers of art, such as Trinity University and the University of Houston (there are lots more, but these are the two I remember offhand).

Continental philosophy is perhaps more hospitable to aesthetics, and to figures-based approaches to the philosophy of art, but it's a totally different beast and not really worth one's time if one is interested in analytic philosophy of art (which, like most analytic philosophy, is problem-based). In a solid "analytically-oriented" department, you can still get the exposure and training required to do continentally-acceptable work in aesthetics (via the history of philosophy); the reverse, unfortunately, isn't usually true, since you need a good background in metaphysics and phil. of language to do good phil. of art (that's just to point to a trend, not to say one can't buck it). Phil. of art/aesthetics tends to be pretty friendly across the analytic/continental divide, but the graduate training required for each is pretty different. Although I do think that an MA would be very helpful, I also think it's worth trying to get into a few PhD programs (you never know, after all). Don't worry about your letter writers: you can't really control them or their background at this point, short of getting new ones somehow. The real problem is that, at the PhD level, there's not a lot of ("analytic") phil. of art in North America, let alone the US (ruling out Canada means ruling out two of the best programs). And many of the pre-eminent faculty at ranked doctoral programs (a rare breed these days, since most analytic philosophers of art aren't at PhD-granting institutions) are on the verge of retiring, or already spend very little time in NA (preferring Europe). A few are also contemplating moves elsewhere, so keep an eye out. Finding a program that's a good fit for and can support your interests may prove challenging, and may force you in a very competitive applicant pool (for which a better background in philosophy might serve you better).

How about Frege's Foundations of Arithmetic? The first 80 pages especially, since that's where he gives an overview of existing views on what numbers are and puts his own thoughts forward. It's a very easy read, written by a formidable mathematician, and very important philosophically.

NIU. It's a very, very rigorous MA program, and you won't have to worry about the living expenses.

Frege's Foudations of Arithmetic is one of the most important starting points.

UW-M's strengths in metaethics and applied ethics. It's true that Texas-Austin looks much stronger in language and epistemology, but Wisconsin isn't entirely deficient in those respects (it has enough coverage to support the development of an AOC and auxiliary learning, and even an AOS if you work hard), and the two are comparable for metaphysics. Given your current preferences and the cognate areas attached to those preferences, my at-a-glance overview seems to weigh in Wisconsin's favour. Choosing Texas means abandoning metaethics; choosing Wisconsin doesn't mean abandoning language, although it does mean having to work harder for it if you do switch over (which you might very well do). I guess a fair bit hinges on that. There are a lot of ancillary factors that could weigh one way or the other (you probably get more bang for your buck in Madison, but Texas is offering a lot of financial incentives; Madison's grad program is ginormous, but Texas's has climate problems, etc.). And those kinds of things sway me more toward Madison, I think, but that's entirely a matter of my own preferences. It sounds like all these factors are adding up to Texas for you, and as long as you're OK with effectuating an almost immediate switch out of metaethics, that seems like a wise decision to me (you can always relegate it to an AOC!). I think that, given what you're saying, you might come to regret choosing Madison. So... Texas.

Don't use that word: it's a racial slur. (There's one small exception, because there are a people that call themselves Eskimo, but they're almost certainly not the people you have in mind. Those you probably have in mind are either Inuit, Yupik, or Aleut.) It sounds to me like your heart is with Austin. I'm not convinced that's the choice I'd make, but I'm not you, and your mind seems made up to me. Follow your heart, and you'll be happier.

I never knew Baylor even had a PhD program until I saw this thread. When I checked it out, however, I was astonished by the department's gender imbalance. EDIT: Also, their faculty have super-religious interests. I guess that's normal for that kind of place, but... wow.

FWIW, it's incredibly hard to know this stuff until you're really stuck in to the discipline and some of its subfields. And, in fact, aside from a few household (well, philosophy-household) names, most profs aren't particularly well known outside their AOSes (unless they blog or participate regularly in blog conversations and that kind of thing). You won't be well-placed to make those judgements until it's too late!

Actually, I think most of us don't really understand what the job market is like until fairly late in our graduate careers. Sure, we all know to parrot the line that it's bad, but... it's worse. As for Brown... their placement doesn't look abysmal to me. Their student body is comparable to ours (31 vs. 30), and we both graduate between 2-3 students a year, on average. That seems pretty normal to me. Yes, the bulk of their academic positions in the last two years have been postdocs--that really is just the job market doing its thing, though. Postdocs are a new normal, and the TT-job-out-of-grad-school is no longer the paradigm we're operating under. What you really want to see is TT jobs for those who graduated more than two or three years ago. And that's where you start seeing some, though not many. 'Course, the collapse of 2008 is doubtless partly to blame. Now, I'll grant you that their placement record is no all-star like Princeton's, and in terms of TT placements, it's worse than its nearby Gourmet buddies. But, honestly, it doesn't look terribad. Those recent postdocs actually make it seem decent, and it looks like their students have had some success with their Plans B. As for the reasons why... well, Brown's got a small department (15 faculty), and it's a lesser Ivy (so although it has the Ivy glow, it's got way less than Princeton/Yale/Harvard). Being fairly small also means that unlucky years look worse on the placement record, since there are fewer job seekers total to pick up the slack. And if just one person decided to abandon philosophy post-PhD, that also makes the placement record look worse for that year, since that might be all or half of the year's graduating class. Those are my 0.02.

McGill is currently relatively weak in political philosophy (their polisci and poli-theory departments are pretty strong), although they did just steal Daniel Weinstock away from UdeM (he's got half an appointment in philosophy, half in law), and Jacob T. Levy and Arash Abizedeh are likewise half-based in the department of philosophy. Weinstock has been one of Taylor's main interlocutors this decade. The other obvious interlocutor would be Will Kymlicka, at Queen's (the department there is mega-strong in political philosophy and applied ethics, less strong elsewhere). Taylor and Kymlicka are the two titans of multiculturalism and Canadian political philosophy.

No clue: that's not really one of the recognised subfields. You should, however, start by having a look at the programs where those people teach. Those are likely to be your best options.

My pedantic point of the day: philosophy of art =/= continental. There's "continental" philosophy of art, to be sure, and it tends to be coextensive with the history of aesthetics. If you have a look at JAAC and BJA, you'll see that such an identification is far from fair. As far as LSU goes, I think they have three faculty with secondary interests in the philosophy of art. One is a continentalist, two are not. As far as their publications go, however, iunno.

When you read Lewis's Truth in Fiction, make sure you also read the postscripts to that article. If you can't find them, I can email them to you. You need to read Walton's Mimesis as Make Believe. You should also read Currie's The Nature of Fiction and Davies's Aesthetics and Literature. You should also peruse Thomasson's Fiction and Metaphysics. That'll give you a really good handle on the fundamentals of the (analytic version of) the field, and give you what you need to start tackling the articles. (Woods's The Logic of Fiction is a really cool precursor to the debate too.)

For my part, I wouldn't do it--especially if I had a child. Life with a child can be rough enough even with a PhD stipend. It's not that going there would be a mistake necessarily, just that I'd be too concerned about the hole it would eat in my pocket, especially with a child to worry about. After the PhD, you'd have to worry about filling in that financial hole. Given the state of the job market, that might never happen. Even with a job in hand, it wouldn't be all that easy.

They matter for grant applications during your PhD, but not for much else. Unless you get several low grades, in which case your program may decide you're better off getting out.

Colin McGinn.