bar_scene_gambler

Right, fair enough. That's a bit of a relief to be honest.

Yeah, I've mixed it up. I'm applying to 3 funded MA programs. The rest are PhD's. Even then though, who knows?

Hey! I'm applying to Loyola too! Damn, I was hoping I wouldn't be competing against any of you.

Who does? I appreciate the response. *sigh* I was hoping there might be backup in case I didn't get in anywhere, but it looks like I'll be making coffee for a year if I don't get accepted anywhere. Seems like that's about all my BA is good for lol.

How do you teach? Do you have an MA already? Just out of curiosity.

I've buried myself in reading and writing. So far over the break I've read Faust, Walden, an assortment of essays by Emerson, some various science fiction, and I've begun Difference & Repetition. It's helped keep my mind off things. I also spent 18 hours drawing a concept web for authentic and inauthentic Being-towards-death in Being & Time, because I didn't feel like I understood it after my independent study last semester. I've also decided to take a full course load this last semester, just to finish strong. So basically, I'm working on so much that I don't even have the time to worry about applications.

I pretty much left those sections blank for everything except for Warwick, where I'm applying for a Fulbright.

I hope it's a good one for all of us.

I'm sorry I just wanted a community of well-informed, qualified commenters.

I'm sure this thread was created to let others know that, though they may comment here, they're not qualified to make claims like "I think everyone vastly overestimates the writing sample". It may be true in your discipline and it may be true in others, but it's simply false when it comes to philosophy, and pretty much anyone who is familiar with academic philosophy will be able to tell you as much. As for whether or not you agree, you're welcome to your opinion, but frankly, I could care less if you disagree. What I care about is that you stop acting as if you're correct, because you are blatantly incorrect when it comes to philosophy and pretty much everyone on this particular forum has told you as much. The fact that you stubbornly cling to your incorrect impression only solidifies the opinion that you don't know what you're talking about when in comes to philosophy.

And not just telling him that he was wrong, but also giving reasons why. I swear, it's like we're talking to a brick wall.

Like I just got done telling you, it would have been fine if you had just stuck with "I think" and then, when everyone gave you reasons why your original impression was incorrect, recanted. But you didn't. You kept going, giving the incorrect impression that the writing sample is less important than it is based upon non-philosophy sources and personal experience, not nearly enough to be a qualified opinion and certainly not enough to justify your first impression.

Oh, and if you want specific examples of bad advice that you've given, I can give you one. In the topic "What is the Upper Bound for Number of PhD Programs to Apply To?" You make the comment that Now, if it had ended there, it would have been fine, except that many people told you that in philosophy that is simply not the case, and you refused to back down. It is widely accepted that in philosophy the Writing Sample is the most important part of the application. Why? Because the vast majority of faculty you talk to will tell you as much, programs like the University of Chicago put on their website that the writing sample is extremely important, blogs like Splintered Mind tell you that a good writing sample can make up for a bad application etc. You cited your defense with appeals to the social sciences forum and other non-philosophy sources. And I'm not even going to get started on the "if there were more qualified applicants there would be more positions available" argument that you tried to have. This is what everyone is referring to when we say you're giving bad advice. Perhaps advice is the wrong word to use, maybe incorrect impression is better. You're giving an incorrect impression based upon knowledge of a sub-field which is not philosophy. And instead of backing down and saying that you were wrong when all of us stepped up to tell you why you were wrong, you appealed to sources which were not philosophy, and continued to argue. This attitude is potentially dangerous for any who might come along and believe your confidently-claimed bullshit and, say, put less effort into their writing sample than they should. Oh, and by the way, appealing to authority still doesn't mean that you're qualified to talk about the applications process in philosophy.

Hold on, let me just quote what I said: I'd like to highlight two especially important part there. First, I said currently. I don't particularly care whether or not you've been admitted to many graduate programs. In fact, you could have been admitted to 100 different graduate programs, and it still wouldn't matter. You know why? Because you have never been a part of the philosophical community. That leads me to the second important piece. We're talking about philosophy, not whatever the hell it is that you do. I'm not going around and discussing how other fields function and how admissions committees in other fields choose applicants. You know why? Because I couldn't possibly know as well as those who have been a part of said community. The reason why we prefer other philosophy applicants and those who have been through applications in philosophy before isn't because we want to listen to our own opinions, it's because philosophers know what's going on in philosophy (notice how I'm emphasizing philosophy?), while you're just guessing. You aren't qualified to talk about philosophy just because you've been through applications in your own field before. You're at least just as inexperienced as the rest of us, except you haven't been talking to philosophy faculty and monitoring trends in applications and emailing philosophy faculty at other programs for the last two years (which, by the way, I have been doing). So, short story long, we're really sick of hearing you speak as if you were qualified when in reality (and as fuzzylogician has pointed out) what you're spewing is unqualified, confident-sounding bullshit.

I think the main reason why we're irritated with you and other non-philosophy applicants is because you're unqualified to speak about the applications process in philosophy in any meaningful way, given that you are neither currently applying, nor have you ever applied for placement in a philosophy department. On top of that, the comments that you have made, especially in relation to your confusion over why there aren't more positions available to philosophy applicants, betray not only an ignorance of the way that graduate programs function in philosophy, but also a basic ignorance of the way academia and the economy function. Frankly, your comments are unwanted and unwarranted. I don't know how I or fuzzylogician could possibly make ourselves more clear.

I teach you the Über-flake! Your snowflake is something to be overcome! What have you done to overcome it?

Woah woah woah. Let's not be so hasty. I am a pretty special little snowflake.

Honestly, the only time I dropped names was if I had already spoken with said professor or in situations where I said, "program X has many great scholars working on philosopher/theme Y, including blah blah blah". Keep it simple, keep it safe.

Lol yeah, I'm pretty good friends with him though, so I'm not terribly worried about him getting pissed off. I told him that if he doesn't have my letters in by tomorrow, I'm going to text him all day tomorrow.

I just nag the shit out of them. I've sent 4 emails to the same person today

I would at least contact Yale and ask them whether or not they have access to your scores. It would be very bad if ETS messed up and you don't know about it.

No, I don't believe I will get in anywhere, but I've always had a self-deprecating manner about my work and my abilities. I hold no expectations in regards to my admissions. As for reactions, I've learned that you can't trust your closest friends regarding your chances. Even your best friends want you to succeed, and so they'll often tell themselves, and you, that your chances are great, even if they know that your chances are slim to none. Only after the rejections start rolling in will they honestly describe what your chances were in hindsight, not due to malice or ignorance, but because they cared too much to be honest with themselves. The majors in my department all do this to each other without realizing it. We all believe that we're the dimmest of the bunch and that everyone else will get in somewhere, and I think that kind of attitude stems from the usual doubt that seems common among philosophers and an appreciation for the talents of others. As for advisers, mine are pretty out of the loop in terms of graduate programs. They've all praised me highly, but that means little if they're unaware of the difficulties of graduate admissions. It's a clusterfuck, and we're all aware of it. Everyone knows how shitty it is, but the only people you can rely on for honest assessment are those that don't know you and don't care about your feelings or whether or not you'll get in. At any rate, I'm not anxious about the process because I hold no expectations. If I don't get in, I'll be bitterly disappointed, but I won't be devastated. I'll just spend another year taking courses and working on my applications.

Just to be clear here, I do not side with the increasingly racist and sexist comments of dfindley. I'm all for gender-neutral writing, I just don't that the exclusive use of one pronoun over the other is​ ​actually gender-neutral.

What does? The general disagreement or the distaste for academic language? Because the latter isn't exactly uncommon.

An odd one at that, but I can except a simple presentation. But what should I call prejudice absent a power structure if not sexist or racist? Just prejudice?