Billy Goehring

I think they're still going out. Historically, it's taken a while for the waitlist to be notified. Many of us were originally on the waitlist (myself included!), so don't interpret a waitlist offer as bad news should you end up on it.

Congratulation to all those who have already received offers and put on waitlists! I'm a current PhD student at the University of Oregon; I stop by every once out of curiosity (now that I'm not madly refreshing the results page, preserving a thick cloud of anxiety and stress out of what must have been deep-seated masochistic tendencies). Anyway, I wanted to highhhhly recommend reaching out and contacting current students at your prospective schools, even if you aren't slated for a campus visit. It's been said (but bears repeating) that you're not only deciding the next several years of your professional and intellectual life, but your social and personal life as well. Getting a sense for how graduate students get along, whether or not there's a sense of community of camaraderie among them, whether they're generally enjoying their lives [at that school, in that city, in that part of the world, in that climate, in that dating pool, etc]. Of course, if you've been accepted to Oregon, are on the waitlist, or are just interested in our program, I'd be happy to chat! I'm a little biased (obviously), but I can promise to be as honest and informative as possible. Consider me a very, very early welcome wagon (as I have been for a few years now).

That was my best guess. I'm just surprised that they took it as grounds for declining an offer ("Would have declined anyway").

Interesting! They told us grad students that there were 190 or so this year; someone should have been more careful. But yeah, because our program is unique with regard to our feminism requirements, because we have several people who do American philosophy (i.e. Pragmatism, Native American Philosophy), and because we're a SPEP school with several continentalists, we tend to draw applicants from wide and far. I think that's what accounts for how competitive admissions are here.

No, not at all! It's only alarming because it means someone's talking trash. Btw looks like you're having a good season! Excited to see where you go.

As a current student at Oregon, this really surprises me. For what it's worth!

My only concern is that placement doesn't appear to be enough of a factor in determining the list. I don't have a dog in the race, since I'm Continentalist through and through, but it seems to me that this is meant to be a ranking for professional philosophers (or those aspiring) by professional philosophers. The "quality" of a department's faculty is certainly pertinent information for aspiring students, but that quality won't mean much if it can't get you a job. While most of the time a high ranking corresponds to a high placement rate, this isn't always the case. An applicant might shy away from a T50 school simply because of its ranking, even though it may have a stellar placement rate. It's not restricted to philosophy--one of my exes was in the English department at Brandeis. While nowhere near its neighbor, Harvard, in terms of ranking or pedigree, Brandeis PhDs routinely found employment in TT or Tenure-related positions. Brandeis has a better placement rate than Harvard, in fact. I wish this was more explicit in the PGR and other department rankings.

In a lot of philosophy departments, alas, this is the rule rather than the exception. I've been to quite a few departments that I would describe as "viper nests." Everyone is out for blood, and the most aggressive are usually also the least insightful/nuanced/attentive to the text itself. In my experience, it usually comes from deep-seated anxiety and insecurity. Many philosophy students (and many graduate students, generally speaking, I'd wager) have a gnawing fear of being perceived as inadequate. I've taken many, many cross-listed courses and courses outside the philosophy department--if I were you, I'd just stay the course. If you're worried about asking an elementary question, just be above-board about it. Besides, the fundamentals can never get too much attention--I find this particularly true about Marx and Marxism. The entire class will be too proud to admit that they don't "really" understand the relationship between use-value and exchange-value (etc), and these basic concepts get passed over (and then ugly misunderstandings and miscommunication in class follows as a result). Or take them at their word. If they ask "You said x; do you mean y?" questions, push them on it. "What is at stake between x and y? Why is y more accurate than x? Perhaps I'm wrong, maybe you can direct me to the text where y is the case rather than x?" On the one hand, this meets (this type of) philosophers where they live; on the other, it brings things back to the text (which is your place to shine, as an English student!). Long and rambling way for me to say that I know the feeling! Hang in there.

I've always thought that people on TGC were a little paranoid. "What if I put X on Y part of the application, and this or that professor reads it and tells the adcom at another university? What if someone on the adcom finds my instagram and sees that I'm not *really* a vegetarian?" As someone who clearly isn't worried about anonymity, I think it should be said that no one gives a shit about grad cafe. Professors are busy people, and the grad students lurking around don't give enough of a shit to go around making trouble for you. Unless your posts contain explicit threats to the adcom, or some really scandalous, compromising information, I can't imagine anyone caring. I wouldn't be worried about "complaining about the system"; what could possibly come of it? You gripe about the cost of GRE scores, and then the DGS at Rutgers finds out and strikes your name from the list?

Have you checked out SPEP's list? I can't confirm/deny that it's comprehensive, but here is a list of continental-friendly graduate departments--both US and Canada. http://www.spep.org/resources/graduate-programs/ FWIW, I've heard good things about Guelph, Western, and Trent.

That depends. (I think I was a part of your anecdotal evidence). It's certainly hard to find summer work for us graduate students (and this might have been what I conveyed), but I suspect things are very different for people looking for "real" jobs. The downtown area has practically sprung up ex nihilo over the last two years, so things might very well be better for your wife (depending, of course, on what she does). But of course, since I'm not in that situation, this is only conjecture piled atop more conjecture. And leviathaaaaan---do I spy a quote from Hegel's Naturphilosophie? Beautiful! Anyway, just my two cents, as always. All I have to offer are my own UO anecdotes and Duquesne and hearsay vis à vis other departments. So take with a grain of salt, obviously.

It's not my field! But I was pretty impressed by Bruno Latour's Science in Action. Everything I've read about Catherine Malabou has been pretty stellar. Jean Cavaillès's On the Logic and Theory of Science, as well. Lastly, I've heard good things about Georges Canguilhem--I haven't read him myself, but some people I trust recommend him. Sorry if this list is too French--I have a pretty strong stomach for French philosophy (since it's my AOS), but I realize that a lot of people have no patience for it. For what it's worth, I think these books are worth putting up with the dense (so-called "obscurantist") language. And while we're at it, do you have any good recommendations for more mainstream philosophy of science? I've read many of the classics (Popper, Feyerabend, Hacking, Kuhn, Lakatos) and a bit of the history of science (viz the history of biology and geology), but I'm pretty much in the dark as to what analytic philosophers are talking about right now vis à vis science.

I don't think we run the risk of making philosophy "prefer good test takers"--there are so many other factors involved, and GRE scores are by no means the most important component. No adcom would say, "Well, she turned in a terrible writing sample and her statement indicates that she has absolutely no overlap with the research interests of our faculty, but look at these test scores! Maybe we ought to give her a shot." I'm also not sure what you're talking about vis-à-vis Asia. Speculative is an understatement. I presume you mean northeastAsia (typically considered to consist of China, Japan, and Korea). I think it's problematic to treat these different countries as if they all utilized the same educational system and shared the same values. I also don't know about referring to nations of people as "hardworking populations" who, for all that, are not as inventive or dynamic as their counterparts in the US. And per capita, scandinavian countries, Germany, and the UK produce far more nobel laureates than the United States--and for much of the Nobel prize's history, it should be noted, the United States was the only real scientific and academic arena, since much of Europe and East Asia were recuperating from decades of war. It should come as no surprise that China has not produced as many Nobel laureates as the US--but I don't see any reason to suggest that the Chinese aren't as innovative as anyone else.

Just be thankful you're doing your homework! A lot of applicants never both to get the "real scoop."

Just a quick note--community colleges can actually be pretty good gigs. It's not the institution that's shitty, it's the kind of position available--I know several people with reasonable workloads, decent pay, and job security at community colleges. As for working part-time and making Walmart wages--I'd hate to break it to you, but there's no guarantee that it won't happen to you. Working as an adjunct is not something that only happens to lowly MA graduates or people from low-ranked programs; it's become a reality. Up to 75% of all college professors are not tenure-track. Going to a better-ranked (notice, I didn't say "better") program can certainly help your chances of avoiding adjunct work, but you should go into this thing with the understanding that it's a very, very possible future--maybe not forever! People do eventually land good jobs. But don't trick yourself into thinking that a good school will guarantee you a good job right out of the gate.

Also, people, don't forget that many schools have page requirements. If the limit is 15 pages, turning in 25 pages won't necessarily get you disqualified, but since adcoms go through hundreds of applications, there's no real incentive for them to read an extra ten pages. Every professor I've talked to about admissions has said the same: follow instructions. Going over the limit is bad news for conferences, journal submissions, etc--it's best to get into the habit now of working within page or word-count limits. A strong paper that follows the app's instructions is going to do better than a strong paper that doesn't.

I attended Duquesne for my MA and am now a student at U Oregon, so I have a good deal of inside information on both. And FWIW, I would apply to a mix of MA and PhD programs, but you shouldn't be discouraged by not having a B.A. in philosophy. I wasn't a philosophy major and i know several other students (who went straight to PhD) who weren't either. Having a strong app and good letters is more important (and can certainly make up for not having an "official" background in philosophy). I obviously don't care much for anonymity, but feel free to private me if you have any questions!

The Thai explains your username, then. Everyone I know who studied in Thailand is obsessed with mangosteen (I'm still not convinced it's a real fruit). Anyway, I second the advice above. Most--MOST--students don't come in fluent in French and/or German. You'll do that during your program. French and German can certainly help your chances, but your goose is far from cooked. I'd go ahead and apply.

I'm not going to make the expected critique of the PGR rankings (i.e. the usual tirade from a "SPEP School" student), but now that I've talked to people who know Leiter, who have been involved in the ranking, and who come from both Leiter-ranked schools and otherwise, I feel that I should reiterate what I've been told a thousand times: PGR is the most reputable comprehensive ranking of graduate programs only because it was the first comprehensive ranking of graduate programs. The closer you look at the list (as several of you have done), you discover that plenty of "lower ranked" schools have stellar placement rates (and that "higher ranked" schools hardly guarantee placement). But shouldn't a higher ranking indicate a better chance on the job market? You might also notice that faculty at lower ranked or non-ranked schools publish no less often (and in no less reputable journals) than faculty at higher ranked schools. I'm certainly not suggesting that all programs are equal, but one would do well to do his or her own research. Insert all that business about fit and research interests here, but also try and track down the dept's placement record. If a dept is placing its graduates consistently and the faculty is crazy about the same things you're crazy about, it matters little whether it's a "Top 20" or a "Top 50" school. BTW, from the rumor mill, Leiter has been a little shady when it comes to moving schools up in the ranking. I've heard stories of departments asking him to reconsider their programs; he responds by inviting the department to invite him as a speaker, "so that he can get a better look at the department" (naturally, with the usual speaking fee). This is usually enough for a school to rise 5-10 places on the list. But that's only hearsay; I'm not entirely convinced, myself. But it might be enough to remind that the PGR isn't some federally run, impartial study on the quality of philosophy graduate programs and the success rates of their students--it's the pet project of one professor and his friends.

God I love this about reading Aquinas. The Philosopher, The Commentator, The Master, The Theologian... What happened? Why did we stop writing like this?

Oh I'm comfortable doing so because I really don't have a problem with my department (University of Oregon). Like I said, we place nearly all of our PhDs, and I'm very impressed and inspired by my faculty and colleagues. So I don't see a need for anonymity. But I wanted to share my experience because it's a lot more common than one might think. It's a harsh truth about the whole process that I don't think gets enough attention among applicants. I've met students from many other programs who have similar anxieties about their choices--many of us are just so excited to get in somewhere and we don't really know what we're getting ourselves into (hindsight is 20/20, after all). It looks like many of you don't need the advice, since it seems you've all applied to good fits. Also--I should clarify that I'm not miserable! It's just a state of affairs that I think can be pretty easily avoided (and it should be emphasized more often).

Only apply to programs you would want to attend. I know that sounds silly, and that a lot of applicants think, "Well, gee, I'd be happy to get into *any* program!" First: I think OP hit the nail on the head--if you have to imagine yourself changing yourself and your interests drastically to fit into a department ("I'm not really into Philosophy of Mind, but I could learn!"), try putting yourself in the adcom's shoes. Why would they ever admit you, when there are plenty of applicants who aren't barking up the wrong tree? Second: Let's say you do get in. Consider your own sanity. I did not take this advice, and now I'm in a program that I'm struggling to adapt to. It's not a bad program--we have a good placement record and both students and faculty publish and conference regularly--but I find myself adjusting my interests to meet those of faculty members I have little in common with. Here's where I went wrong, and I hope people take this advice if they're deciding between acceptances or are planning on applying next year: look at the program's faculty, and pretend you're setting up your dissertation committee. Of course these things will change and your dissertation is still faint on the horizon, but put some thought into your committee before applying or accepting. If you can't form a dream team of professors whose work you aspire to emulate and whose shoulders you'd like to stand on--professors you're excited to work with--then strike that program off your list, no matter how highly Brian Leiter recommends it.

Duquesne, DePaul, Emory, Stony Brook, and Fordham are good places to start.

I do believe that Deleuze and Derrida wrote their own books. Deleuze wrote books on Hume, Spinoza, Proust, Bergson, Nietzsche, Kant, François Chatelet, Foucault, and Leibniz. Derrida wrote on Husserl, Kant, Heidegger, Descartes, Plato, Freud, et al. What point are you trying to make? "Be more like the philosophers you admire! Never mind that they had their own idols and their own engagements with historical and contemporary figures." It was perfectly alright for Jacobi, Reinhold, Fichte, Schelling, et al to comment on each other's work (and Kant!) endlessly. For that matter, I'm sure you have no problem with Kant writing on Leibniz and Wolff. It was acceptable for Nietzsche to write about Wagner, Schopenhauer, Hartmann, and Spir. And let's not forget that Spinoza was initially known as a Cartesian. Yes, many of us--particularly those of us known as continentalists--are preoccupied with history. That can be problematic. But don't knock history if you don't know anything about it.

Ok. Ok. One, Zizek and Badiou were just examples: I'm not here trying to spread the good word of Zizek; I'm not specializing in Zizek studies. But I do think you've made my point rather well. There are plenty of us who don't think Zizek (but again, feel free to fill in the blank here--Derrida, Deleuze, Sloterdijk, etc) is obtuse, that his work is not garbage, that people like John gray have misunderstood him. He uses references we understand, makes conclusions we can accept or reject--if there are times when he is hard to understand, we do take issue with him, but we don't automatically strike everything out as garbage or nonsense. But perhaps Zizek is a bad example; after all, very few actually work on Zizek. The point stands: from my perspective, I might be inclined to say that Rawls is absolute garbage: however, the difference is that I recognize that his work is perfectly legitimate as part of a certain way of doing philosophy (it may not be how I do political philosophy, but to each their own). Moreover, what was your point? That because they're Maoist, Zizek and Badiou can't be philosophers? Because they're difficult ("obtuse")? And believe it or not, you don't have to read Zizek's entire corpus to interpret his "stupid equivocations" when it comes to praising violence or anti-semitism--in fact, I've found that if someone quotes him making these stupid equivocations, one can just read a few lines above or below the cited portion to clear things up. You say that Zizek is not a 'philosopher' in any serious sense. But by this you mean to say, "There isn't a divide! There's just serious philosophy on the hand (e.g. cognitive science, analytic, etc) and not-so-serious philosophy on the other (Zizek, et al)." That is a divide.