maxhgns

It's impossible to know, but the total applicant pool is probably in the thousands (somewhere between one and two, I think). For one thing, there are 75 ranked PGR programs, another 12 that get a mention but are unranked, the unranked/unmentioned notables you mention, and dozens of MA programs across the US, Canada, and the UK. Although some schools do get a lot of overlap (i.e. the ones with 200-300+ applicants, like most of US T10), most don't get nearly as much overlap as you might think. A large number of people who post at WGI, for example, apply to the US T10 and then scatter their applications around. Huge numbers of people apply to unranked programs and maybe one or two ranked ones. Tons more apply for MAs, many not even attempting PhD applications yet. Things are further complicated by the fact (if it is one--it seems like a reasonable conjecture, anyway) that most UK/Canadian/Australasian programs don't attract quite as many US applicants as US programs do UK/Canadian/Australasian applicants, and that many applicants in those countries aren't interested in applying out-of-country. Even if your global odds were something like 1/2, however, your real odds are much, much poorer. In reality, you're competing against 200-300 other people for fiveish spots (or ten-fifteen if we count waitlists). A great many applicants do not make it in on their first go. Many never make it in at all. It's also worth pointing out that the vast majority of applicants you're facing off against are "competitive," and every bit as good as you even if they didn't apply to the US T10 (or didn't get in while you did). It's an immensely complicated process precisely because there are so many factors and so many applicants. And once you're on the job market, everything gets way, way worse and way, way more competitive. There, you're facing off against hundreds of supremely qualified people for a single spot. Consequently, I think the only safe conclusion is that your odds--no matter your stats--are not very good. You can mitigate that to an extent, however, by applying both broadly and selectively: don't just send an application to the US/International T20; instead, find 10-20 schools which are very good fits. Admissions committees notice fit, and when you're facing off against hundreds of others, you desperately want to get noticed.

Who've they hired in those areas recently? I didn't see anyone in the Leiter threads, but that's obviously not comprehensive. The only Oregon hire I found was Mark Alfano.

Frankly, I don't think the PGR report is particularly credible or knowledgeable about Canadian MAs. It looks like it just mentions whatever ones came to mind. Myself, I'm not as well informed about MAs as I am about PhD programs, but I don't think we've got any truly weak MA programs: they all look pretty decent to me. In my estimation, though, the MAs at SFU, Victoria, UAlberta, Queen's, Calgary, Toronto, Dalhousie, and UBC (in no particular order) are all very strong. I think the single best MA in the country is SFU's, though.

Check out section III, entitled "financial aid": http://www.hawaii.edu/phil/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=360&Itemid=91 And don't be shy about emailing the grad director/coordinator.

I replied with some school suggestions in your other thread, but want to say this here so everyone can see it: Don't worry about where you "have a chance". Worry about where you'd fit in well (in terms of research interests, interdisciplinary opportunities, etc.) instead. All kind of people with all kinds of stats get in all kinds of places, and very few people are well placed to tell you that you are or aren't good enough for school x (and even if you are or aren't, you might still succeed or fail there). There are just way too many people applying everywhere. So apply to as many schools as you can afford to, taking into account your fit with those departments. Your interests should be the only factor that precludes your application somewhere, not your (or someone else's) wild guess about your odds (your odds are slim everywhere anyway--everyone's are!).

I'd echo the suggestions of looking at Chicago, Riverside, and Georgetown, and add Northwestern, McGill and Chicago-Illinois. You'll have to trawl through all the homepages for PGR-ranked departments to see which have what you want, but that's a start, at least. Ethics + Continental is something of a difficult combination, department-wise. But that's a good thing, since it'll help narrow things down and ensure a better fit.

Look at where faculty are being hired. Financial woes are creating problems for most philosophy departments, but a few seem to be growing themselves nonetheless. A number of programs are facing significant retirement numbers in the near future, so keep an eye out on whether they manage to replace those lines or not. If they do, they'll probably blip down for a few years while the junior faculty start churning out their work, but they'll probably float back up en masse a few years later as those formerly junior faculty establish themselves. Senior appointments will weigh heavily on the PGR in the short-term, but long-term staying power comes from solid junior hires. In the US, Connecticut-Storrs and WashU look like they're on the rise; they've both been hiring like crazy. In Canada, UBC looks like it's pouring in money in an effort to turn it into a go-to mind/cogsci department.

My only experience was with a Canadian MA program, so take this with a grain of salt, but I think it's worth remembering that the role of the MA is very different in the US and Canada. In Canada, it's a prerequisite for doctoral study. Although the major Canadian PhD programs do allow applicants to enter straight from their UG, the culture of Canadian higher education is still such that MAs are part of the expected trajectory. In the US, on the other hand, they're viewed more as remedial than as essential. That's not to say that the programs in Canada are better than the good American ones, or anything like that. It's just to say that the expectations tend to be pretty different. So, for example, while a large number of American MA students may be working to compensate for a low number of UG philosophy courses (e.g. a minor or less), the default expectation in a Canadian MA is that everyone was an Honours student. Similarly, because the MA is viewed as a required stepping stone in Canada, the funding situation tends to be better. That said, I don't think that, by and large, there's a significant difference in quality of philosophy MA education on either side of the border, at least when we're considering mid- and top-range MAs in both countries. The top-range American MAs tend to be more recognizable, especially for American audiences, but if you're Canadian I think you're just as well off staying in the country for the MA. Maybe even better off, given the funding situation.

I have (and had) an MA, but did not vote in the poll because the MA option does not accurately reflect my situation. I'm from (and in) a country that typically requires an MA before the PhD already. It had nothing to do with proving myself! (Although there's no doubt in my mind that the experience was valuable, and that I was a much stronger applicant as a result.)

If it were me, I'd probably opt for UVic. The extra money is a very nice and useful bonus, it's on peoples' radars, and it's an all-around nice place to be. Plus, it's a dedicated MA program now, so you won't have to fight to stay afloat like you would at Toronto (remember: PhD ranking =/= MA ranking). Waterloo seems decent to me, and the community there is close-knit and pleasant, but in my mind UVic stands out as a better place for the MA. YMMV.

Congratulations! That's a great dilemma to have! I don't quite understand what you mean by UCB being the only Gourmet-ranked program: the Gourmet report doesn't rank MAs, and MAs are very different beasts from PhDs. I also don't quite understand your remark about LMU's program being very new--it's 12 years old! Newish, certainly, but not very new! I voted for LMU--however, my first inclination was to Boulder. Here are some of the reasons why I ended up voting for LMU: *Funding. I know you said it wasn't an issue for you, but it would be for me. When the choice is money vs. no money, I think money wins out. Especially when money comes attached to an excellent school and education. *LMU has guaranteed conference travel funds. That's fantastic, and very useful for your development. *The Teacher Oriented Practicum sounds like a wonderful initiative that would prove extremely useful for your development, and for easing the transition to PhD teaching/TAing. *A 90% placement rate is nothing to sneeze at, even if the bulk of those schools have been continentally-oriented and you're more into language (some of those schools are pretty snazzy for language, after all!). I don't think many MA programs--especially non-terminal ones--are anywhere close. *LMU cohorts are quite small. Boulder has 54 students. The attention really is worth something. *An MA is an opportunity to explore subjects with which you may be less familiar, and to develop your skills. The point is to demonstrate mastery in philosophy as a whole, and in an area generally, not on some specific issue (that's for the PhD). Focus on your core area doesn't matter that much, as long you're capable of writing a thesis on it nonetheless (viz., there's at least one faculty member there who could supervise it). Even if courses in your area aren't offered regularly, you can establish a reading course (and reading groups, etc.). It's worth pointing out, however, that this point also counts in favour of Boulder, which also has a fairly wide swathe of course offerings.

I'm not a fan of the NSSR for the following reasons: *The funding sucks.The debt one would have to accrue is horrendous (especially for a nominally Marxist institution!). *The placement, from what I gather, is not great. Unfortunately, given the funding, this becomes a very serious problem. *There are about ten full-time faculty members for over 100 students. That's a truly shitty ratio. I appreciate that NSSR's faculty are excellent, and I'm sure the quality of education there is also excellent. But I just can't see how one could reasonably attend the program, given the above. I certainly don't think that the NSSR's advantages outweigh the full funding you're being offered at Kentucky and (probably) Oregon.

No. My first-time around, I was really only looking to apply to MAs (it's the norm in my country to have an MA before entering a PhD program). I applied to two PhDs as an afterthought, but ended up going to a fully-funded MA (I had a choice between several, actually). It was a good thing that I did it that way, because it became apparent that I knew virtually nothing about the process, customs, etc. It would have been an exceptionally poor run at PhD programs. Even so, armed with a modicum of knowledge, my application for PhDs a couple years later was still not as well-informed as it could or should have been. It worked out fine in the end, but I would tackle the process very differently now. IMO, funding is everything. There's no sense going into debt, because the job and earning prospects are miserable. If my MA wasn't fully funded (or almost fully--a couple grand is not a big deal debt-wise), I wouldn't go. Given a choice between a PhD program and an MA, I'm not sure what I'd choose. The safe option is, in a sense, the PhD. On the other hand, the transition to graduate school is hard (both in terms of work and expectations, but also mentally/emotionally). I probably learned the most I ever have during my MA year, and that's because I started doing work with which I was entirely unfamiliar (my UG was history/continental-centric, whereas my MA was all contemporary analytic). It was a fantastic experience, and gave me a much better and broader understanding of the field. I had a chance to TA, and to start developing pedagogical skills. The experience didn't just make me a better applicant, it gave me a real glimpse into what professional philosophy is like--and that's not something I really understood before. If I'd gone straight into a PhD, I'd have struggled a lot more with the material, the expectations, and I probably wouldn't have fit the department very well. The MA's preparation was invaluable, and has made my PhD progression to date pretty smooth sailing. I don't think the delay is serious either. I mean, my MA was one year, and my PhD will take 4-5 (probably 5; I'm in year 3 and can't imagine finishing next year, since I haven't even really started yet!). and I took a year in between the two to prep my applications. The average for people without an MA seems to be 6-7 years, which is wholly comparable. The difference is that I have more courses and experience under my belt than most students who go straight from their UG to their PhD, and I probably had a slightly easier time of it overall, since I was already accustomed to the stresses and expectations. Now, to answer your question (sort of): would I opt for a strong MA over a low-ranked PhD offer? Maybe, and maybe not. The ranking of the PhD would not factor into it. Rather, it's a question of what I'd want out of the MA vs. what I'd get out of the PhD. If the PhD is not a very good fit (in terms of my desired AOS and cognate areas), then I'd ditch it for the MA. If it was a good fit, then I'd probably take it because there's no substitute for certainty. But since my priority after UG was to familiarize myself with different fields of philosophy and to develop my interests, it made more sense for me to take an offer of a funded MA (well, even if I'd had the choice!). What makes most sense for you may well differ.

OK, there are a few issues here: 1.) Perhaps the more useful guide for programs is the American Society for Aesthetics' Guide to Graduate Study in North America: http://www.aesthetics-online.org/graduate/guide.pdf 2.) The Gourmet rankings in philosophy of art are a little problematic because, as you can see, the evaluation of some programs is skewed. Where the median and mode are nowhere close to the mean, it's because one evaluator gave a deviant score (in McGill's case, the person would have had to score it a 0 or a 1, which is kind of ridiculous). Temple was unranked, and therefore inserted by the board of evaluators at the level they thought roughly appropriate. 3.) UBC is by no means a "sure bet" or a "back up": it's a high quality program with extremely competitive admission. If, as you say, you're not at all interested in other areas of analytic philosophy (e.g. mind, epistemology), I'm sorry to say you would then stand virtually no chance of admission (because you'd be miserable). 4.) Philosophy of art and aesthetics can be slightly different beasts, with the first focusing more on meta- questions and centering on recent work done in what's sometimes called "analytic" philosophy. Aesthetics, on the other hand, is often more closely related to questions of perception and beauty, and the historical and phenomenological traditions. Those are very imperfect characterizations, and most scholars blur them quite a bit, but it would be useful for you to become clear on what interests you most so that you can choose a program that would better fit your interests. Most of the Gourmet-ranked programs, for example, are of the former persuasion (in fact, just about all). If you have no interest in core areas of analytic philosophy, that would make you a very bad fit there. 5.) The way coursework works as a grad student is different. Even if a department offers only one or two courses in your area per year (and believe me, 2 is VERY high for aesthetics in North America), that doesn't mean you can only do two: you can do reading courses, you can set up reading groups, you can audit courses once you're done coursework, you can take courses in cognate fields (e.g. mind, language, metaphysics) and then try to relate them back to what you do, etc. No matter what, you'll probably have to take courses in all kinds of stuff you think is boring in order to meet distribution requirements. 6.) The best programs (for aesthetics/phil. of art) in Canada are UBC and McGill. McGill can do a better job of accommodating a less analytic inclination (UBC can't at all, really), if that's what you're into. In the US, please forget about the New School: they've got 10 permanent faculty, 110 graduate students, and virtually no funding for any students. It's a trap. If you have zero interest in "analytic" philosophy or "analytic" aesthetics, then you could still check out Chicago and Northwestern in addition to the SPEP schools. In the UK, you should check out Warwick for philosophy and Leeds for art history (for philosophy only if you're interested in analytic aesthetics/phil. of art); the funding is an issue, but I think you might qualify for a Chevening scholarship. 7.) Your credentials/background sound excellent; I don't think that's going to hamper you. The real trick, I think, is to have a clear idea of what you want, and where your interests lie. Philosophy of art/aesthetics is a small field, and even smaller in North America. The problem is that there's a division in that subfield between the kinds of questions and problems people are interested in, and those people don't often work in the same departments. So if you're not at all interested in core analytic areas like mind, epistemology, or metaphysics, the departments listed in the Gourmet report are pretty much not for you (and UBC is *definitely* not a good choice). Have a look at the Graduate Guide instead; it offers a lot more information. Good luck. It's good that you've started researching early.