katethekitcat

If you apply, you might get in, especially if you find a university that's a good fit for your research interest. That fit matters more than your stats.
 
If you don't apply, you have a 0% chance of getting accepted and continuing with your career in research.

I've always struggled with this question because it seems like a "turtles all the way down" thing. Why a certain PI - well, I like your research. Why do you like their research - well, because I like microbiology and evolution. Why are you intrigued by microbiology and evolution - etc, etc. At what point are you allowed do throw up your hands and say, "I just am!"?

This application cycle, I requested a letter from a professor who, although he'd written me glowing letters of recommendation for internships in the past, often had difficulty doing so on time. I factored that in and asked him for a letter two months before the letter was due. I clearly stated, "I am hoping to have my applications done by [insert date]. Do you think you could have the letter finished by that time? If not, what would work for you?" If he needed more time, he could ask for it - but it gave him the opportunity to name the date, which gives me a date I can reasonably hold him accountable to. He chose it himself - the actual school's date didn't even have to be mentioned. I received the letter in plenty of time - and even had built in enough of a safety margin I was able to last-minute apply to other places.
 
Professors are doing us the favor by writing letters. Not the other way around. They don't owe you anything, especially with that attitude. It is your responsbility to do your research on deadlines far enough in advance to account for the fact they might have 20 other letters to write, a full class load, research to conduct, committees to sit on, families...I agree with the posters above. If I was a professor and found out a student was blatantly lying to me for this purpose, I would not only refuse to write a letter, I would share this information with my department. A student who has no qualms about doing this is going to have no qualms about manipulating data to meet a submission deadline for a conference.
 
Loric, you have over 400 posts in this community. If it really digusts you so much, no one is forcing you to hit that "post" button. You're welcome to depart for other forums that better appreciate your analysis of strangers.

Of course a person like you who got rejected and waitlisted from 3rd tier schools are more knowledgable than me. LMAO

Dude, chill out. There is no reason to be an ass on here especially since the focus of this conversation is not you, but Flux1100 asking for advice. Good for you on getting into those schools, but unless you are on the admissions committee at those schools your point is irrelevant to the current conversation.
 
Flux1100, I think that unless you already have something lined up for the summer you should take your professor up on his offer. REUs are extremely competitive and it is difficult to find a volunteer position in an external lab unless you know someone. However, if you are able to get an external offer, I recommend taking it. Different labs use different techniques and skills and there is always something to learn from the experience.
 
Your LORs should be from people that know you well and can vouch for your skills, so keep that in mind. If you still need one more LOR, ask a professor that had and like if you can be a TA for them next semester or over the summer.
 
No matter what you decide, good luck! I hope it all works out in the end!

"I bet there's a 101 class out there that reads Sophie's World."
 
You'd win that bet, as I know someone who teaches it (I have no basis for thinking that a good or bad idea, however)
 
I do think it's best to play to someone preexisting interests, and I think someone who is interested in math is far more likely to enjoy Russell than Plato.  However, if you think "On Denoting" is a good first exposure to philosophy, especially outside of a classroom where it can be thoroughly discussed/explained, I fear you have lost touch with what it's like to be a philosophical newcomer. 

I really don't understand why we're throwing names of philosophers and works around as if they're going to be universally attractive. I know if someone gave me Russell's "On Denoting" (or the other suggestions here) as an example of what philosophers did, I would never have decided to major. I probably would have dropped it and never looked at philosophy again. The reason why I stepped into philosophy to begin with was because the first thing I read, Self-Reliance, was absolutely beautiful and spoke to me and my personal sense of taste. Of course, I've grown since then and reading something outside my area of interest isn't going to make me abandon the field, but you have to get them through the door before you can broaden their horizons. I don't know why we're assuming philstudent's brother is only going to be interested in mathematics. One shouldn't aim at his current interests or what he thinks is useful, one should aim at what he thinks is absolutely indispensable, the thing that speaks to very core of his being. In my case, it was the desire for individuality, but it could be anything. Of course, that makes our task impossible because out of all of us, I'm pretty sure only philstudent knows his brother that well.

we have modified the traditional method of molecular cloning. With this modified method, the cloning efficiency can be obviously improved. Here is the paper about this method.
 
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24613256
 
It may be especially valuable for some challenging cloning, such as blunt-end cloning, single-enzyme-digested sticky-end cloning, and some double digested DNA cloning.
 
If you have trouble during molecular cloning, maybe you can have a try. If you have a publication, please do not forget to cite our paper. Thank you before hands.

Hello, who can tell me how to make it known by more people?

Yes, there can be a place for you in women's studies. What you have to understand is that the whole academy is your place by default, and that the creation of spaces that don't devalue voices unlike yours is an incredibly important function of women's studies departments. If you don't understand why that is, I imagine you don't really get what the discipline is about and don't have much of a future in it.

Why don't you ask a relevant professor at wherever you're going?

Anyone who lists Plantinga, Loux, and Inwagen (three very religious Notre Dame Philosophers) as the most important/central/fundamental writers on metaphysics (or anything other than mainstream Christian apology) is exposing some extreme Christian centrism and taking you on a ride. If you are only interested in religiously-motivated metaphysics or Christian apology/theism, they might be a good place to start, but by no means do those philosophers accurately represent a "groundwork in analytic philosophy." It is a groundwork in Christian philosophy and Christian metaphysics.

This is just from memory from when I applied a few years back...I heard from all places by the third week of March (most were by the end of February). Rejections were e-mailed; all the places I was accepted, called.

Is it possible, rather than scores or GPAs or the quality of writing samples, it's actually your area of personal interest that's hurting you?
 
I am currently employed at major research university, one that many people on this forum have expressed great desire to be admitted to. Through my job, I've come into contact with current graduate students, professors, and deans, etc, all who have a connection to the philosophy department. One professor who sits on the admissions committee told me about an applicant they'd had who had applied with an AOI of the French existentialists. He had a perfect GPA, perfect GRE scores, he had a letter of recommendation written by the field's leading philosopher, who basically told the committee, "This student will be as good as or better than me someday." They turned him down two years in a row simply because neither they - nor any other program in the country - had room for that area of interest. It was too popular, too tapped out, and the scholarly community just already had researchers in the area. This professor also told me that's not uncommon. "Not meeting the minimum threshold" can translate to, "This year, we need one philosophy of science student and one person studying this particular chapter of Wittgenstein." An academic department at the University of Toronto know they're going to be looking for a professor of religion, so they've already started looking at candidates among the nation's PhD students. Oh, by the way, they're going to need this professor in five years.
 
The same thing happens in math and science. My best friend is in the mathematics PhD program at the University of Iowa. Last year, they extended 10 offers, expecting 4 students to accept; by fluke chance, all 10 accepted and about 70% were focusing in linear algebra. Although the department would never tell you this, it means, no matter who applied this year, maybe 1 or 2 would receive offers, and if you said you wanted to study linear algebra, you had no chance. But they obviously can't put that on their website - it would ruin their reputation for all future years.
 
Whatever the big fad in philosophy is today: do they really need any more people to study it? Since it's currently "hot," that means there's already PhD students studying it, and the ones already in the department are certainly enough - far more than enough - to fill any future teaching jobs. Once someone becomes a professor, they can hold on to that job for thirty, forty, fifty years. Is it in a school's best interests to continue taking PhD students in that area, or is in their interests - for their placement rates, to keep unique publications flowing - to take PhD students in areas that might become big in the future? Yet, meanwhile, a lot of people are still applying in this area since it's suddenly become so popular.
 
Just some thoughts - and I'm not actually working in the field of philosophy. But the field of philosophy can only have so many scholars in so many areas, and whether or not that area is already full seems more relevant than if you got 2 additional points on the quantitative section of your GRE. I read these forums often, and I haven't seen a single person (well, among the people who haven't been, er, forcibly ejected) who had less than what they considered "a stellar application." If they're all stellar, the only thing that separates you is: who chose an area of study in which universities are short on scholars?

Is it possible, rather than scores or GPAs or the quality of writing samples, it's actually your area of personal interest that's hurting you?
 
I am currently employed at major research university, one that many people on this forum have expressed great desire to be admitted to. Through my job, I've come into contact with current graduate students, professors, and deans, etc, all who have a connection to the philosophy department. One professor who sits on the admissions committee told me about an applicant they'd had who had applied with an AOI of the French existentialists. He had a perfect GPA, perfect GRE scores, he had a letter of recommendation written by the field's leading philosopher, who basically told the committee, "This student will be as good as or better than me someday." They turned him down two years in a row simply because neither they - nor any other program in the country - had room for that area of interest. It was too popular, too tapped out, and the scholarly community just already had researchers in the area. This professor also told me that's not uncommon. "Not meeting the minimum threshold" can translate to, "This year, we need one philosophy of science student and one person studying this particular chapter of Wittgenstein." An academic department at the University of Toronto know they're going to be looking for a professor of religion, so they've already started looking at candidates among the nation's PhD students. Oh, by the way, they're going to need this professor in five years.
 
The same thing happens in math and science. My best friend is in the mathematics PhD program at the University of Iowa. Last year, they extended 10 offers, expecting 4 students to accept; by fluke chance, all 10 accepted and about 70% were focusing in linear algebra. Although the department would never tell you this, it means, no matter who applied this year, maybe 1 or 2 would receive offers, and if you said you wanted to study linear algebra, you had no chance. But they obviously can't put that on their website - it would ruin their reputation for all future years.
 
Whatever the big fad in philosophy is today: do they really need any more people to study it? Since it's currently "hot," that means there's already PhD students studying it, and the ones already in the department are certainly enough - far more than enough - to fill any future teaching jobs. Once someone becomes a professor, they can hold on to that job for thirty, forty, fifty years. Is it in a school's best interests to continue taking PhD students in that area, or is in their interests - for their placement rates, to keep unique publications flowing - to take PhD students in areas that might become big in the future? Yet, meanwhile, a lot of people are still applying in this area since it's suddenly become so popular.
 
Just some thoughts - and I'm not actually working in the field of philosophy. But the field of philosophy can only have so many scholars in so many areas, and whether or not that area is already full seems more relevant than if you got 2 additional points on the quantitative section of your GRE. I read these forums often, and I haven't seen a single person (well, among the people who haven't been, er, forcibly ejected) who had less than what they considered "a stellar application." If they're all stellar, the only thing that separates you is: who chose an area of study in which universities are short on scholars?

Is it possible, rather than scores or GPAs or the quality of writing samples, it's actually your area of personal interest that's hurting you?
 
I am currently employed at major research university, one that many people on this forum have expressed great desire to be admitted to. Through my job, I've come into contact with current graduate students, professors, and deans, etc, all who have a connection to the philosophy department. One professor who sits on the admissions committee told me about an applicant they'd had who had applied with an AOI of the French existentialists. He had a perfect GPA, perfect GRE scores, he had a letter of recommendation written by the field's leading philosopher, who basically told the committee, "This student will be as good as or better than me someday." They turned him down two years in a row simply because neither they - nor any other program in the country - had room for that area of interest. It was too popular, too tapped out, and the scholarly community just already had researchers in the area. This professor also told me that's not uncommon. "Not meeting the minimum threshold" can translate to, "This year, we need one philosophy of science student and one person studying this particular chapter of Wittgenstein." An academic department at the University of Toronto know they're going to be looking for a professor of religion, so they've already started looking at candidates among the nation's PhD students. Oh, by the way, they're going to need this professor in five years.
 
The same thing happens in math and science. My best friend is in the mathematics PhD program at the University of Iowa. Last year, they extended 10 offers, expecting 4 students to accept; by fluke chance, all 10 accepted and about 70% were focusing in linear algebra. Although the department would never tell you this, it means, no matter who applied this year, maybe 1 or 2 would receive offers, and if you said you wanted to study linear algebra, you had no chance. But they obviously can't put that on their website - it would ruin their reputation for all future years.
 
Whatever the big fad in philosophy is today: do they really need any more people to study it? Since it's currently "hot," that means there's already PhD students studying it, and the ones already in the department are certainly enough - far more than enough - to fill any future teaching jobs. Once someone becomes a professor, they can hold on to that job for thirty, forty, fifty years. Is it in a school's best interests to continue taking PhD students in that area, or is in their interests - for their placement rates, to keep unique publications flowing - to take PhD students in areas that might become big in the future? Yet, meanwhile, a lot of people are still applying in this area since it's suddenly become so popular.
 
Just some thoughts - and I'm not actually working in the field of philosophy. But the field of philosophy can only have so many scholars in so many areas, and whether or not that area is already full seems more relevant than if you got 2 additional points on the quantitative section of your GRE. I read these forums often, and I haven't seen a single person (well, among the people who haven't been, er, forcibly ejected) who had less than what they considered "a stellar application." If they're all stellar, the only thing that separates you is: who chose an area of study in which universities are short on scholars?

Is it possible, rather than scores or GPAs or the quality of writing samples, it's actually your area of personal interest that's hurting you?
 
I am currently employed at major research university, one that many people on this forum have expressed great desire to be admitted to. Through my job, I've come into contact with current graduate students, professors, and deans, etc, all who have a connection to the philosophy department. One professor who sits on the admissions committee told me about an applicant they'd had who had applied with an AOI of the French existentialists. He had a perfect GPA, perfect GRE scores, he had a letter of recommendation written by the field's leading philosopher, who basically told the committee, "This student will be as good as or better than me someday." They turned him down two years in a row simply because neither they - nor any other program in the country - had room for that area of interest. It was too popular, too tapped out, and the scholarly community just already had researchers in the area. This professor also told me that's not uncommon. "Not meeting the minimum threshold" can translate to, "This year, we need one philosophy of science student and one person studying this particular chapter of Wittgenstein." An academic department at the University of Toronto know they're going to be looking for a professor of religion, so they've already started looking at candidates among the nation's PhD students. Oh, by the way, they're going to need this professor in five years.
 
The same thing happens in math and science. My best friend is in the mathematics PhD program at the University of Iowa. Last year, they extended 10 offers, expecting 4 students to accept; by fluke chance, all 10 accepted and about 70% were focusing in linear algebra. Although the department would never tell you this, it means, no matter who applied this year, maybe 1 or 2 would receive offers, and if you said you wanted to study linear algebra, you had no chance. But they obviously can't put that on their website - it would ruin their reputation for all future years.
 
Whatever the big fad in philosophy is today: do they really need any more people to study it? Since it's currently "hot," that means there's already PhD students studying it, and the ones already in the department are certainly enough - far more than enough - to fill any future teaching jobs. Once someone becomes a professor, they can hold on to that job for thirty, forty, fifty years. Is it in a school's best interests to continue taking PhD students in that area, or is in their interests - for their placement rates, to keep unique publications flowing - to take PhD students in areas that might become big in the future? Yet, meanwhile, a lot of people are still applying in this area since it's suddenly become so popular.
 
Just some thoughts - and I'm not actually working in the field of philosophy. But the field of philosophy can only have so many scholars in so many areas, and whether or not that area is already full seems more relevant than if you got 2 additional points on the quantitative section of your GRE. I read these forums often, and I haven't seen a single person (well, among the people who haven't been, er, forcibly ejected) who had less than what they considered "a stellar application." If they're all stellar, the only thing that separates you is: who chose an area of study in which universities are short on scholars?

Is it possible, rather than scores or GPAs or the quality of writing samples, it's actually your area of personal interest that's hurting you?
 
I am currently employed at major research university, one that many people on this forum have expressed great desire to be admitted to. Through my job, I've come into contact with current graduate students, professors, and deans, etc, all who have a connection to the philosophy department. One professor who sits on the admissions committee told me about an applicant they'd had who had applied with an AOI of the French existentialists. He had a perfect GPA, perfect GRE scores, he had a letter of recommendation written by the field's leading philosopher, who basically told the committee, "This student will be as good as or better than me someday." They turned him down two years in a row simply because neither they - nor any other program in the country - had room for that area of interest. It was too popular, too tapped out, and the scholarly community just already had researchers in the area. This professor also told me that's not uncommon. "Not meeting the minimum threshold" can translate to, "This year, we need one philosophy of science student and one person studying this particular chapter of Wittgenstein." An academic department at the University of Toronto know they're going to be looking for a professor of religion, so they've already started looking at candidates among the nation's PhD students. Oh, by the way, they're going to need this professor in five years.
 
The same thing happens in math and science. My best friend is in the mathematics PhD program at the University of Iowa. Last year, they extended 10 offers, expecting 4 students to accept; by fluke chance, all 10 accepted and about 70% were focusing in linear algebra. Although the department would never tell you this, it means, no matter who applied this year, maybe 1 or 2 would receive offers, and if you said you wanted to study linear algebra, you had no chance. But they obviously can't put that on their website - it would ruin their reputation for all future years.
 
Whatever the big fad in philosophy is today: do they really need any more people to study it? Since it's currently "hot," that means there's already PhD students studying it, and the ones already in the department are certainly enough - far more than enough - to fill any future teaching jobs. Once someone becomes a professor, they can hold on to that job for thirty, forty, fifty years. Is it in a school's best interests to continue taking PhD students in that area, or is in their interests - for their placement rates, to keep unique publications flowing - to take PhD students in areas that might become big in the future? Yet, meanwhile, a lot of people are still applying in this area since it's suddenly become so popular.
 
Just some thoughts - and I'm not actually working in the field of philosophy. But the field of philosophy can only have so many scholars in so many areas, and whether or not that area is already full seems more relevant than if you got 2 additional points on the quantitative section of your GRE. I read these forums often, and I haven't seen a single person (well, among the people who haven't been, er, forcibly ejected) who had less than what they considered "a stellar application." If they're all stellar, the only thing that separates you is: who chose an area of study in which universities are short on scholars?

Is it possible, rather than scores or GPAs or the quality of writing samples, it's actually your area of personal interest that's hurting you?
 
I am currently employed at major research university, one that many people on this forum have expressed great desire to be admitted to. Through my job, I've come into contact with current graduate students, professors, and deans, etc, all who have a connection to the philosophy department. One professor who sits on the admissions committee told me about an applicant they'd had who had applied with an AOI of the French existentialists. He had a perfect GPA, perfect GRE scores, he had a letter of recommendation written by the field's leading philosopher, who basically told the committee, "This student will be as good as or better than me someday." They turned him down two years in a row simply because neither they - nor any other program in the country - had room for that area of interest. It was too popular, too tapped out, and the scholarly community just already had researchers in the area. This professor also told me that's not uncommon. "Not meeting the minimum threshold" can translate to, "This year, we need one philosophy of science student and one person studying this particular chapter of Wittgenstein." An academic department at the University of Toronto know they're going to be looking for a professor of religion, so they've already started looking at candidates among the nation's PhD students. Oh, by the way, they're going to need this professor in five years.
 
The same thing happens in math and science. My best friend is in the mathematics PhD program at the University of Iowa. Last year, they extended 10 offers, expecting 4 students to accept; by fluke chance, all 10 accepted and about 70% were focusing in linear algebra. Although the department would never tell you this, it means, no matter who applied this year, maybe 1 or 2 would receive offers, and if you said you wanted to study linear algebra, you had no chance. But they obviously can't put that on their website - it would ruin their reputation for all future years.
 
Whatever the big fad in philosophy is today: do they really need any more people to study it? Since it's currently "hot," that means there's already PhD students studying it, and the ones already in the department are certainly enough - far more than enough - to fill any future teaching jobs. Once someone becomes a professor, they can hold on to that job for thirty, forty, fifty years. Is it in a school's best interests to continue taking PhD students in that area, or is in their interests - for their placement rates, to keep unique publications flowing - to take PhD students in areas that might become big in the future? Yet, meanwhile, a lot of people are still applying in this area since it's suddenly become so popular.
 
Just some thoughts - and I'm not actually working in the field of philosophy. But the field of philosophy can only have so many scholars in so many areas, and whether or not that area is already full seems more relevant than if you got 2 additional points on the quantitative section of your GRE. I read these forums often, and I haven't seen a single person (well, among the people who haven't been, er, forcibly ejected) who had less than what they considered "a stellar application." If they're all stellar, the only thing that separates you is: who chose an area of study in which universities are short on scholars?

Is it possible, rather than scores or GPAs or the quality of writing samples, it's actually your area of personal interest that's hurting you?
 
I am currently employed at major research university, one that many people on this forum have expressed great desire to be admitted to. Through my job, I've come into contact with current graduate students, professors, and deans, etc, all who have a connection to the philosophy department. One professor who sits on the admissions committee told me about an applicant they'd had who had applied with an AOI of the French existentialists. He had a perfect GPA, perfect GRE scores, he had a letter of recommendation written by the field's leading philosopher, who basically told the committee, "This student will be as good as or better than me someday." They turned him down two years in a row simply because neither they - nor any other program in the country - had room for that area of interest. It was too popular, too tapped out, and the scholarly community just already had researchers in the area. This professor also told me that's not uncommon. "Not meeting the minimum threshold" can translate to, "This year, we need one philosophy of science student and one person studying this particular chapter of Wittgenstein." An academic department at the University of Toronto know they're going to be looking for a professor of religion, so they've already started looking at candidates among the nation's PhD students. Oh, by the way, they're going to need this professor in five years.
 
The same thing happens in math and science. My best friend is in the mathematics PhD program at the University of Iowa. Last year, they extended 10 offers, expecting 4 students to accept; by fluke chance, all 10 accepted and about 70% were focusing in linear algebra. Although the department would never tell you this, it means, no matter who applied this year, maybe 1 or 2 would receive offers, and if you said you wanted to study linear algebra, you had no chance. But they obviously can't put that on their website - it would ruin their reputation for all future years.
 
Whatever the big fad in philosophy is today: do they really need any more people to study it? Since it's currently "hot," that means there's already PhD students studying it, and the ones already in the department are certainly enough - far more than enough - to fill any future teaching jobs. Once someone becomes a professor, they can hold on to that job for thirty, forty, fifty years. Is it in a school's best interests to continue taking PhD students in that area, or is in their interests - for their placement rates, to keep unique publications flowing - to take PhD students in areas that might become big in the future? Yet, meanwhile, a lot of people are still applying in this area since it's suddenly become so popular.
 
Just some thoughts - and I'm not actually working in the field of philosophy. But the field of philosophy can only have so many scholars in so many areas, and whether or not that area is already full seems more relevant than if you got 2 additional points on the quantitative section of your GRE. I read these forums often, and I haven't seen a single person (well, among the people who haven't been, er, forcibly ejected) who had less than what they considered "a stellar application." If they're all stellar, the only thing that separates you is: who chose an area of study in which universities are short on scholars?

Hi you guys who received multiple offers, 
 
time to move on to withdraw from the wait lists and deny the offers that you will not take? Poor folks are waiting to get off waitlists in desperation.   This application season is almost over. You may get a drink from me  .

ME TOO (UMich, although not the MHSA). This may even affect where I attend - may have to switch in favor of Minnesota, where I get in-state tuition. I e-mailed the epi department directly last week with a ton of departmental questions and finance questions and still haven't heard back.

It' not unlike Pascal's wager.

( P * G) - C = E

Let P be the probability that your graduate student will produce some Great New Thing.

Let G be the perceived value of the Great New Thing.

Let C be the cost of fellowship and support over the course of the degree.

Let E be the expected outcome for the betters.

---

So Unis are sitting here saying, "man I think Bowties is gonna do something game changing - I'm 33% sure of it" and someone else says "I dunno I think catwoman is going to produce some really great things, maybe not game changing but really great - I'm 90% sure of it". So they all debate the numbers and agree. Then they punch in the equation and the highest E gets an acceptance.

Oh then it gets more confusing. Because they have to weigh how competitive you are in other programs and they have to adjust the cost and the probablity that you'll accept with a given fellowship.

I imagine they have a big super computer that does it all.

If anyone is headed towards UMichigan in the fall and would be interested in doing a group house, PM me. I've been talking to a few other science-y people and we think we found a place, but we need a few more people.

I've always struggled with this question because it seems like a "turtles all the way down" thing. Why a certain PI - well, I like your research. Why do you like their research - well, because I like microbiology and evolution. Why are you intrigued by microbiology and evolution - etc, etc. At what point are you allowed do throw up your hands and say, "I just am!"?