bar_scene_gambler

You assume your own conclusion by claiming that without power racism and sexism would not exist. We're philosophers here and should be above such things. Of course there are cases where we say something is racist or sexist without a relevant power structure. I just gave you two ordinary examples. What is prejudice without a power structure? Is it just prejudice? If so, would it be better to call the exclusive use of the pronoun "she" prejudiced or discriminatory? Does that sit better with you?

I suppose that's the problem I'm having. Maybe it's because I've been reading too much OLP, but it seems to me that since there are cases where it makes sense to say "X is racist/sexist" and have X be something unrelated to a power-structure at play, then power structures aren't inherent in the meaning of the word. I'm not a fan of academic re-definitions if there already exist perfectly sensible definition in our everyday language. It also seems to me that, if the usage of the word is only standard in academia, then it is an unusual usage of the word. If it boils down to that though, then I guess the conversation can't really continue, because we're talking about language in two completely different ways. What's the point (serious question)?

I'm sorry about Boulder. That's tough luck. Are they going to be refunding the cost of submitting GRE scores?

When did I claim that it serves no purpose? I said that it's typically seen as useless, implying that others typically see it as useless (I even included the scare-quotes for emphasis). As for why I'm making this point, bad advice is bad advice, and I wouldn't want someone actually following your bad advice if it potentially harms their chances of getting into a program.

That's an odd use of the word "sexism" and "racism". Is it possible to say, "X is racist", and have X be something that isn't based upon a power structure and still makes sense? Of course it is. If X were, say, a black man calling a white man a "cracker" or "honky" for some reason or another, we would say that he was being racist. The first thing to come to our minds wouldn't be, "That is non-existent reverse racism". That's just pointless philosophizing after-the-fact. The situation I described is just as racist as a white man calling a black man a nigger, and plain sense tells us that. What that indicates, to me anyways, is that power structures are not essential to the meaning of the word "racism". However, in all usages of the word racism that I can think of, discrimination or prejudice are implied. Can we do the same thing for sexism? Let's say that a woman sees a single father trying to calm his crying infant daughter and remarks that only a woman is capable of properly raising a little girl. We would probably say that's a sexist remark. We certainly wouldn't say, "Don't be such a reverse-sexist!". After all, how could we since such things don't exist? Furthermore, what does inventing the term "reverse-racism/sexism" do exactly if it can't even exist? It seems about as useful as discussing unicorns. It seems to me that these are, at best, misuses of the words.

I don't know if the limit is stringent or not. Some of the departments that I applied to said that if the writing sample was longer, you could still submit it, but they wouldn't read past the limit. It probably varies by department though.

That's not really how it works. Capability does not affect demand. If the demand exists for a product, then someone will find a way to supply it, not the other way around. Philosophy is typically seen as one of the more "useless" disciplines in the humanities, and so there isn't much of a demand for philosophers. Philosophy produces no goods and no services (beyond education), so it's seen as ancillary to disciplines such as engineering, chemistry, applied mathematics, etc. (basically STEM fields). Take the STEM boom. There was a sudden demand for people educated in science, technology, and mathematics, both in the public and private spheres, and so funding and attention increased for said fields. With more funding and attention, departments were able to hire more faculty. With the increase in faculty and funding, more spots were opened for graduate applicants, and so on. It's not that STEM fields suddenly received funding and attention because there was an increase in qualified applicants. Rather, it was because funding and attention increased, and so more qualified applicants were able to be admitted and more faculty were able to be hired by departments.

Yeah, I don't know much about the History dept and how they get along with the other departments. I spoke to graduate students in Philosophy and in Social Thought, and those two departments, at least, seem to form a pretty tight-knit group, though of course every department has its dramas. Leiter and Pippin (who I would kill to have as my committee chair) refuse to sit on the same committee and so on. UMich is really awesome. I also visited their department, and the facilities (especially the Asian Studies dept.) are pretty great. The Philosophy department was just too analytic for me though, so I had to drop it from my list.

No? It's not as if qualifications or fit determine the amount of positions available, the department does. And the department makes those kinds of decisions based upon the amount of funds available and the amount of time that faculty have to work with their graduate students. The economy and demand for philosophy professors, more than anything, determines whether or not there are positions and programs available to support applicants.

University of Chicago is my dream school, though I can't decide which program I'd rather be in. I'm aiming for the dual degree in Philosophy and Social Thought, so I suppose it doesn't matter which one I am accepted to right of the bat (assuming I am accepted to one). I think the why is pretty apparent. They're both great programs with great faculty that work in areas of personal interest and fund well. Plus, they have stellar placement records. I also really liked some of the graduate students that I met when I visited. The graduate student environment there seems really warm and friendly. What about you philstudent?

Fair enough, and I appreciate you making the point. EDIT: Actually, I do think that there might be a problem with your definition of sexism, only because I don't think that it's necessary for there to be an oppressive power structure in order for there to be sexism. Women can absolutely be sexist, because all sexism really requires, in its most basic form, is a prejudice or discriminatory attitude towards another based on gender. Power structures and oppression are a result of sexism, not an essential component. If you're implying that it's impossible for a woman to be sexist, then that's just silly. In all though, it's really a pointless conversation to have here. The point I was trying to make is that there's no necessary connection between using a particular pronoun and who one cites.

I don't get this at all. I don't see how there is any necessary connection between using she as a gender-neutral pronoun and citing a woman. Sometimes it just happens to be the case that there aren't any women who have done relevant work regarding what one is writing about, and that's okay. I usually just alternate he and she in my examples so as not to favor one or the other, but I'm not going to disdain those who use "she" as a gender-neutral pronoun (though I do think disdaining those who use he as gender-neutral is a bit strong as well. Honestly, although they may write in a sexist fashion, it's also kind of sexist to only use she as a gender-neutral pronoun). Regardless, you shouldn't be disdaining anyone because of their pronoun usage. It's ridiculous.

Alright, can we just draw the line here and end this? Clearly Loric spoke out of ignorance, and everyone even remotely familiar with the applications process for Philosophy (emphasis for you Loric) PhD's knows the importance of the writing sample. The writing sample may be less important in other areas of the humanities, but it clearly isn't here (especially after all the evidence provided). With that out of the way, can we get back to less stressful discussions? This particular forum has become quite dramatic over the last month or so.

Not going to disagree with you there. But hey, it's not like things can get much worse for your applications. How did the department chair of MIT respond to you mocking his research?

Then by all means, feel free to stop participating.

Much appreciated fuzzylogician.

Yep. I've truly been put in my place. I just can't compete with coffee and Kant. I guess I'll just have to settle for tea and Goethe.

It's certainly been dramatic since the arrival of our little crank. I have to admit, his borderline schizophrenic insanity has become somewhat endearing to me over these last few weeks.

My guess if you were destined for Thailand from the beginning, although mocking the department chair at MIT probably didn't win you any favors.

Awwww. I'm not all alone. I appreciate the empathy, for what it's worth.

I think you may have hit the nail on the head. Perhaps it's the case that we see philosophy from two vastly different perspectives. For me, philosophy being a profession is incidental, and so I feel discomfort at the professionalization. I guess this is just me hitting bedrock and turning my spade, so to speak.

No no, of course not. I should have been more clear. His blog gives the impression that he is a pompous ass (I think we can all agree there). I've spoken with grad students at U Chicago and they all assure me he is, in person, quite a lovely human being, and I don't doubt that. I appreciate you pointing that out though. I apologize for not being charitable enough. Of course there are brilliant people who get shut out, and I'm sure one could call that bad luck. My reservations come mainly from the growth of MA programs. They have their merits, I know, but I don't think that there need to be more or that it should be standard to do an MA before pursuing one's PhD. I don't quite like that philosophy seems to be growing in that direction.

There is no "getting lucky" in the application process. They don't pick your name out of a hat or roll some dice. Sure, mistakes are probably made, but if one has had an excellent education and been well-prepared, then one will more than likely get in somewhere. These are all excellent points. Not everyone knows what they want to do with their education, and I concede on that point. But it's not enough to convince me that the growth of MA programs is a good thing. Actually, I believe it is the most plausible one. Leiter may be a pompous ass, but he makes a great point about the state of Nietzsche studies here. And that was over 8 years ago. From what I can tell, things haven't gotten much better. And you're still ignoring the fact that the list you provided is minuscule in terms of all the MAs available and that, should you not receive an MA, you're more than likely adding to the mountain of debt you've already accumulated in receiving your BA (unless you got lucky). My point was either you buy your way in at a non-funded MA or you're the best of the best and get the funded MA, which seems like a return to philosophy being the course of study of the wealthy or the brilliant.

You're neglecting the obvious fact that if you had to take out money for your undergraduate degree, you're already in the hole. And I'm sure that it isn't the case that most MA programs will give one assistance in the manner that you describe. U Wisconsin at Milwaukee, arguably one of the best MA programs out there, only offers it's students a little over 8000 for 9 months. And places like Tufts don't even do that. It's a rarity to find an MA program that funds as well as somewhere like Georgia State. And to be honest, it's not that these programs disenfranchise the poor, because the poor usually get need-based aid. It's the middle that gets squeezed (those who have too much money to qualify for aid and too little to fully fund their education). This is the point I made. We don't need MA's to solve the problem, we need better educators at the BA level. It doesn't say anything good that we need MA programs to do the work BA programs should be doing. It's just like Nietzsche Journals. You can tell Nietzsche scholarship is in a really sad state because of the rise of Nietzsche Journals. It says that Nietzsche scholarship isn't seen as good enough for regular journals. Likewise, the fact that we feel that we need MA programs speaks to a decrepit state of philosophical education at the undergraduate level, which isn't something that we ought to support. Instead of bolstering MA programs, why not focus on making PhD's in Philosophy better educators? Why not focus less on survey and more on focused study? These are purely rhetorical questions and I have no answers, which is obviously of no help to anyone. But my point is that the growth of MA programs are a symptom of a disease, not a sign of strength. Which isn't to say that those who attended MA programs did the wrong thing. Rather, the concept itself is flawed.

This: http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/jan/30/university-applications-subjects-age-gender-country doesn't necessarily address the argument I put forward regard Philosophy, but it does show that the lion's share in applications comes out of STEM fields in the UK (not sure if we're talking about the US exclusively or not). This data, if anything, supports the claim that I made that the economy affects the rise in "employable fields". As for more specific hard data, I'm at a loss. I don't have anything except individual department sites at hand. Has anyone done a general study of admissions data? If you look at Georgia State's department, or Duke here:http://gradschool.duke.edu/about/statistics/admitphl.htm, or Northwestern here:http://www.tgs.northwestern.edu/documents/Program%20Statistics%20Files/program-stats-files-2012-2013/P20PH_adm_enr.pdf and so on, you see a general upward trend in applications, but I'm not sure if that's representative or not. Again, this is all speculative, but it's not like there is no data available.