Billy Goehring

FWIW, I got into a good MA program my first round with only one letter from a philosophy professor--my other letters were from French and English professors. It's better than an incomplete application!

I second that. I'm continental through and through. I'm in my first year of a PhD in a department that's trying to become more pluralistic. My cohort is pretty much split down the middle vis-à-vis the analytic/continental divide, and the difference is very real. Our questions are different, our references are different, our methodologies are different, etc. They complain about the continental courses and we complain about the analytic courses. The more analytic-leaning students tell me that there is no divide. That philosophers today aren't continental or analytic--that we're all just "doing philosophy." "Well, what about people like Zizek or Badiou?" "Ah, well--that's different. Those aren't philosophers." No divide. Right.

I didn't know the funding came through! Congrats! This sure makes up for last round, huh? Well-deserved.

Going to Oregon!

I keep reading over these sentences. I'm not sure if I understand the point you're trying to make. If anything, what you've described here is "pretty boring," but I don't think it describes the problems of humanism (or anti-/post-/whatever- humanism), philosophically or otherwise. And to claim that humanism doesn't interest philosophy is to pretty much spit in the face of five hundred years of European philosophy (if not thousands of years of Greek, Chinese, and Indian philosophy). And while I'm not really into OOO myself, come on--it's obviously more complicated than that. It's more than just denying any special status to human experience: OOO is making an ontological claim; if the above analytic philosophers have made the same claim, it's only by omission (viz. they don't privilege the human because they don't bother asking those sorts of questions). This might be a formal equivalence, but they're clearly very, very different projects. And I don't think our only options are, "It's either trivially true or utter bullshit."

Honestly, I wouldn't worry as much about placement. They're both good schools--rather than thinking about the placement rate as such, ask yourself what kind of networking opportunities you'll have. Does the department have enough faculty that interest you (with whom you might take courses, who would be in a good position to write letters for you, etc)? Are the courses interesting enough to you that you trust you'll be able to write knock-out conference papers (and maybe writing sample)? You say you want "both continental and analytic"; what sort of PhD program do you want to attend? Which MA program makes that outcome seem more likely? I'm just spitting here--my only point is that you should look beyond percentage points and success rates and consider your own goals and the potential resources at hand. A school might place 100% of its students in programs you don't want to attend.

So I'm still talking to two of my waitlists, but I'm 90% sure I'll be going to Oregon (PhD) as well! I'm really nervous about living in Eugene, but after talking to some current students I'm pretty jazzed. That might not be official enough to belong on this thread, but whatever. Rejected: Boston College Wait-list: DePaul, Duquesne, UTAustin (Comp Lit) Accepted off waitlist: Oregon DePaul only has one spot left to fill--I'm on an unranked list of four people. Small chance, but it's still possible. Duquesne is pretty much done for me--they already made offers to two of us in the MA program, so I think my chances are pretty slim. And since I'm not so crazy about UTAustin, I'm almost fairly certain that I'll be going to Oregon, too, Lawrencevonbuskirk.

This! Especially with regard to placement. At almost any other program, you're going to have at least some degree of collegiality. The NSSR students I've met spend so much time working outside of class, they're lucky if they know their colleagues' names. In any funded program, you'll hopefully receive a T.A. position, and teaching will be an important part of your degree. I can't imagine entering the job market with little to no teaching experience, and without really knowing my professors (how could you expect them to write you an informed recommendation?). We all know that the faculty at NSSR are dazzling, but--unless you have a way to fund your degree and find your own avenues for teaching--I wouldn't take the offer, personally.

Also--what is your motivation for sticking to Leiter's ranking? As anon530 said, Emory, Villanova, et alios are all top-notch programs for German Idealism and Critical Theory. I'm not sure what there is to gain by abandoning those for Leiter--it's not like these schools have terrible placement rates or have low expectations for their students.

(Continental) Philosophy student, currently getting my M.A. at Duquesne University. I'm on four waitlists--maybe nothing will come of it, but I'm asking myself the tough questions now so that I won't get overwhelmed if I get more than one offer. Three of my waitlists are in philosophy programs; the fourth is for UT Austin's comparative literature PhD. I won't bore you with my life story. Short version: I did my B.A. in French and English at a middle of the road state university; during my stint there I started reading philosophy to impress a boy; now I'm studying early modern and 20th century French philosophy (philosophies of nature, post- and anti-humanism, social and political philosophy, contemporary metaphysics, blah blah blah). So here's the problem. I'm familiar with the goings on of graduate lit courses. I have a pretty good idea of the sort of periods/languages/literatures I would study if admitted. It's not so much that I'm worried about comparative literature itself; what's missing is that I don't know how to assess graduate departments (something I should have learned to do before applying, I KNOW). For example--with philosophy, I know the names. I know which schools will someday land me a job and which schools have killer faculty and which schools have snotty, competitive grad students. UT Austin Comp Lit looks good, but I'm worried I'll find out (much too late) that I won't have the sort of freedom I thought I would, or that job placement is really non-competitive. Can anyone give me the low-down on UT Austin? I'd like to have a better idea of how high or low to prioritize it on my list of (virtual, but not actual) offers. Thanks!

Yeah--this is my last semester at Duquesne. Maybe it's my AOI--I just can't fathom applying to 15-20 schools (I met a guy who applied to 26!). Would people *really* be happy in any of those departments? Or better yet, do people think they "fit" in all those departments? I think they'd save themselves a lot of stress and disappointment if they really thought through that part of the process.

I think NYC is really, really skewing your perception. I mean, I don't know what cities these are in and I don't know anything about your lifestyle, but I've lived off a LOT less than 15k. Unless you're a big spender or want to pay outrageous rent, you should be fine. But like others have said, ask current students.

Yeah, I can't really speak to those programs--my school doesn't charge an application fee. Professors do adcom work in their spare time (of which they have little), and then a few assistants in the office process all the paperwork and keep track of applicant files. But if the school is getting 100 bucks per applicant? That might be another story. In all honesty, though, most of the schools I applied to have been pretty nice and responsive.

He wasn't necessarily complaining. And you're right--it is their job to handle such requests. But it's not their job to do whatever you want. So if you need something changed or demand for them to make an exception for you, remember that they're not obligated to do you a favor. And besides, there was a fucking deadline. So I'm not sure if they even have to handle your request at all. And pestering them about whether they are in the decision making process really isn't going to make it any faster. What a child.

I don't know. I've seen first hand what kind of work these people do--know how we're all at our wits' end? Yeah, well multiply your anxiety by two hundred people. The guy at our office read me (anonymously, of course!) just a small sample of the kinds of e-mails they get every day: "Can you change my file? What if this part of my application is late? Why do you still have a paper application; it's ridiculous! I only have two letters of recommendation--how will that hurt my chances?" Individually, these kinds of requests/questions/etc. wouldn't be a big deal. But those folks get hundreds and hundreds of those emails. When do you think you'll make a decision? Have you made a decision? Can you tell me your decision? So I understand why they said "shame on you"; you turned in your application--once it's in, you're locked and loaded. They know you might go to conferences and write interesting papers and meet interesting people between December and April--but for the sake of paperwork, what's done is done.

You and I have talked about this at length--and for those of you who also have an M.A., I'm sure you've heard similar stories: ABD students who never submit to conferences, never publish, don't focus on being better teachers or networking with the right people, etc. Then it's time to hit the job market and they blame a bad recession for their lack of success. I mean, yeah, I'm not an idiot--it's a shitty market. I'm not a denialist. But I remember hearing about my undergrad university's hiring process--some of the applicants are just unhirable. One of my professors said he met candidates who, although they had publications and good references, were so so so socially awkward (sometimes with little to no teaching experience!) that there was no way in hell anyone would let them near undergraduates (let alone offer a tenured track position!). Finding a job isn't guaranteed, but too many people put too little effort into making themselves marketable in the first place.

THIS THIS THIS THIS. I've had this explained to me a thousand times over, but it can't be repeated too often. They only want/need so many people studying (your AOI here).

I shouldn't be quibbling, but it should be noted that the "tradition" referenced here is maybe one hundred years old (depending on how you date it). I'm obviously biased--I'm a continentalist. Even if the difference is only stylistic (to avoid any polemics), Analytic philosophy is a markedly different from most everything before it that we'd consider philosophy, so I'd hardly call it traditional. For better or for worse!

I just want to reference the above contribution about how hellish it can be working as a lawyer (80 hr work weeks, etc). And you can definitely find negative things to say about being a teacher. I don't have a stake in either--I've never gone to law school (but what PhilosophyHopeful said above is pretty much in line with what I've heard), and I have no plan to teach anything below university level (but the market/job security isn't what it's cracked up to be in many states). I love academia, and plan on staying--I'm just saying that the outside world isn't all gloom and doom. I mean, it's absurd to suggest that your options are limited to law, teaching, or academia. I'm sorry that 30hrs a week was so miserable for you, youdontknowme. And you're right--that was your experience and I can't speak to that. But I've worked as a telemarketer, a barista, a sales associate in corporate retail, a T.A., and a waiter--I've met plenty of interesting people; money was sometimes tight, but sometimes it turned around. I just don't want anyone to get the impression that the pressures/frustrations/disappointments of the outside world are somehow different from those in academia. There's still plenty of byzantine bureaucracy, administrative pressure, issues with salary and job security, day-to-day dealings with undesirable people, etc. But if the OP is considering his/her options sans graduate school--there are plenty of other options. That's all I'm saying. The OP should still apply next year if he/she gets shut out, but should also give non-academic work a chance in the meantime. No shame in that.

I don't know--after a while all these numbers start to look the same. And I never understand crowdsourcing for something that's ultimately pure speculation. How would we know what to say about your stats? Good GRE scores, a book deal, and a string of publications. I don't know what to tell you--your GPA looks pretty par for the course as far as the results page is concerned. Yeah, there are some admits with 4.0 averages; but then again, there are plenty of 3.6's and even a 2.97 with good results. Judging from what you told us, it's not unreasonable to think that your application was "good enough to get looked at," but the rest is conjecture--what about department fit? Did you tailor your statements to each department, or did you use the same for all? I think fit would be a much greater factor here than whether your book has yet to hit the presses. And besides, what do these numbers mean? For the most part, it's a crapshoot.

I definitely understand your frustration. And, since I've had to work full-time (in VERY non-academic settings) throughout my B.A. and M.A., I can tell you first-hand that the world is wide and varied. Even if it's just for a break before next round of applications, let the outside world surprise you.

Yeah, I like the list of "okay" schools--it's laughable! If you do continental philosophy, those are a few of the great schools. If you look down your nose at places like Emory, Stony Brook, and U Chicago, then maybe you should leave those programs alone--there are plenty of us who would kill to go there.

I applied to 4 in philosophy and 4 in comparative literature, so 8 total. I don't have a lot of extra money, so I only apply to programs I really, really want to attend. Last round I applied to four PhD and two MA programs (ended up 0a/3w/1r for Phd and 1a/1r for MA). Hopefully things turn out better this time around--I'm 0a/2w/0r for the time being. Deja vu.

While I generally agree with this post, the reference to Leiter makes me wonder if this is totally applicable ("top Leiter departments" tend to be--but aren't necessarily--more Analytic, and thus tend to be dismissive of continental philosophy). My own story is that I'm a Philosophy MA student with an undergraduate degree in French and English lit, and that I'm dating an English MA student. On a note related to edgirl's--in addition to considering your role in Art History etc. with regard to philosophy and to philosophers, you should consider how much room there will be in your new life for philosophy. We Continentalists have had it rough for decades in America; in the past it was perfectly acceptable to take refuge in other humanities departments. As my prof put it, there was a time when most comparative literature professors were philosophers in disguise. But those days might be coming to an end. I'm not sure about the Art Crit/Hist scene, but in comparative and national literature departments there is a real move away from theory in the service of making lit majors more "marketable." I would contact someone in an Art dept (that you're considering) and ask about job prospects--be upfront: is writing on or teaching theory a reasonable expectation for an Art Crit/Hist PhD? In a way it doesn't matter, following edgirl, whether philosophers take you seriously if you don't have the opportunity to do philosophy in the first place.

I'm in the midst of my own application results shenanigans, but since he doesn't have his own account: My boyfriend just got accepted to Brandeis (which means he's 1a/0w/2r, waiting on 9 more); he finished his M.A. there a couple years ago, so he's over the moon. I'm not sure if anything's set in stone yet, but he wants to know if anyone else has been accepted and would mind getting in touch with him. PM me if that's the case. Talking about him in the third person makes me feel like a boxer's promoter.