Jump to content

philophilosopher

Members
  • Posts

    35
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Application Season
    2014 Fall
  • Program
    Philosophy

philophilosopher's Achievements

Caffeinated

Caffeinated (3/10)

23

Reputation

  1. Oh sure, it's really simple, especially for a Marx class. All you need to do is ensure that in every comment you include, at a minimum, the following phrases at least once: alienation, commodity fetishism, and ideology. If you are met with strong assertions, you have two options: reference esoteric secondary literature so that you can condescend your interlocutor into silence, or, subtly suggest that their viewpoints are bourgeois. The former is less polemical and therefore more ideal. Careful though, if you do refer to secondary literature, you can quickly become enmeshed in an ever-escalating battle about who you have and haven't read. When you find yourself in one of these battles, never admit to not reading someone; it always gives you interlocutor/enemy the upper hand. Also, say everything with total confidence. Don't even entertain potential fallibility.
  2. Declined a GSU MA offer. It seems like a really solid program. I hope it helps someone!
  3. The New School doesn't accept applicants straight into the PhD program, only the MA. Then, once you have gone through their MA, you are eligible to apply for the PhD. At least, this is my understanding of their process.
  4. Got it, thanks! You are definitely not out of your element.
  5. Underdrag, you have done well in you application season, but I have a small question to ask you about your writing style. I have never once in life been advised to use contractions in formal writing, but you frequently say "I'll" and "don't" instead of "I will" and "do not." Is there any reason why you do this or have you never been advised against it? Or is there something else I am missing here?
  6. Try this link: https://apply-humanities/uchicago.edu/status
  7. I will be visiting Emory around the end of March. When will you be visiting Johannes? Also, I have a few questions about the visiting process. Although we are already accepted to the program, I am still anxious about the visiting process. What do you all plan on doing when visiting and chatting with professors and students? Obviously we all want to get a feel for the department, but I am wondering how anyone thinks the best way to do that is. All I can think of right now is determining what the professors are currently working on and what they see there future career plans being (some of the professors I would like to work with have been profs for a long time so I would like to know if they are thinking about going emeritus/retiring soon). Any other ideas or suggestions?
  8. That's a good idea, but there is one problem that strikes me immediately. It is possible that different schools offer different students different funding packages, isn't it? If so, then the current system has no way of allowing that (as far as I saw) to be corroborated.
  9. I was accepted to GSU and I will most likely be declining (also, a friend was accepted and this friend will most likely be declining as well). I am not completely sure yet though. I will keep you posted. Where are you on the waitlist?
  10. A lot of things you just said are extremely cursory and misleading. The issue is that many schools that are primarily continental with well-published faculty are not included anywhere on the list, and part of the reason for this is the allegation of a biased methodology that favors analytic departments. So, obviously there are continental rankings in the report (no one is denying that); what they are denying is that those continental rankings are a fair and accurate representation of the quality of all continental departments in the US. Also, the second issue you raise is somewhat troubling. Many small departments can be of excellent quality if the people in that department publish quality material in their areas of specialization. The PGR fails to properly account for quality qua quality and is instead skewed by quantity. Imagine if your main AOI is Phil of Mind and there was a three-person department composed of David Chalmers, Daniel Dennett, and Josh Knobe. This program would be excellent for you but, in the PGR (which is heavily based on the quality and quantity of research), this program may very well be ranked as equal to a mediocre department composed of 10 people working in phil. of mind whose total amount of publishing is comparable to or more than Chalmers, Dennett, and Knobe solely because of the fact that there are more people doing more research. It seems obvious that the small department would be a much stronger in terms of phil of mind, but, the PGR would have no way of indicating it. That is the issue with the larger university bias; it practically eliminates the consideration of a small cohort of strong faculty to be ranked well in the PGR. Note: obviously this is a fictitious example and I am not really familiar with phil. of mind; there is no need to get into nitpicking about who is a good in phil. of mind. Also, though it is probably a rare case that such a cohort of small yet prolific and excellent faculty exists and remains unnoticed, the fact is that the PGR theoretically has now way of accounting for this or factoring it in fairly.
  11. A few notes/comments. I think it is really funny that a lot of us (myself most definitely included) initially characterize our schools based on the PGR; it is quite amazing how dominant and pervasive it has become, primarily because (I assume) it is the only statistically/methodologically rigorous ranking of philo departments by philosophy academics. It is definitely a pharmakon: it can most certainly be useful as a starting point, but over-reliance on it can likely lead to missing out on some really cool programs with good faculty and good placement records. I am interested in continental philosophy and so I definitely applied to some "speppy"schools, like Vandy, Boston College, Emory, etc. Most of those schools have really solid placement records but our almost ignored in the PGR. I don't really know the point of this post, but, it is quite striking to me how easily I am subsumed into adopting one set of rankings (the PGR) simply because it is so easily available and so widely regarded. There is definitely a merit in doing the grunt work and "shopping" around to other non-PGR-ranked schools. EDIT: I also really do not think there is such a thing as a safety school in philo grad admissions, at least for grad admissions with funding. There are so many applicants for so few spots. Even at the lesser known schools, there are so many applicants that the pool is bound to be somewhat competitive. Maybe there are some rare students who know they will end up somewhere. But that somewhere is by no means guaranteed because departments seem to admit candidates based on a variety of factors with varying degrees of import in the components of an applications.
  12. This is an excellent thread! To be honest, I found it very difficult to choose schools and navigate the massive amount of (oftentimes biased) information. Obviously, the PGR was a good place to start, and, of course, I consulted my undergrad profs a little bit. In the end, I really only chose schools based on the faculty they had who were working in my area and who stuff I had read and was familiar with. I told myself that I would only apply to schools that, provided I was accepted, I would actually really want to attend. As a semi-safety, I applied to two funded masters (even though they are not really safeties because they are so competitive) that had at least one faculty member working in my AOI.
  13. I guess the issue then is what exactly do you mean by "pipeline" and also if you think that the eminence of a letter-writer is more effective and successful than the familiarity of a the letter writer with the applicant. Also, I am wondering if you mean this descriptively and prescriptively. If you do mean this descriptively, how could you possibly know?
  14. You're completely missing the salient features of the analogy. The idea was not that the scouts and professors had similar "primary jobs." The idea behind the analogy was that both positions, while not mandating fame or eminence to be a scout or a professor, are in a position to evaluate the talent/potential/capacity for excellence in others and can evaluate others well.
  15. MattDest, that is such exciting news! Congratulations!!!! What made you accept so early, especially before you have heard back from all of your schools? Obviously, I am sure you loved the program and whatnot, but how did you remove the doubt that there may be a program which you like more by the end of the admissions season?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. See our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use