Rollontheground

It wasn't out of fear. It was more about timing. Though I stand by my question, it was insensitive to ask right now. I am a little shocked by the response though. The second I attempt to critique anything, I'm accused of oppression. How that's philosophical, I'm not sure.

I don't know why this has to be so shocking. Several people made a claim, I challenged that claim; I was challenged back. However, if I were to be lambasted for thinking … that would be unacceptable. I deleted it, originally, because I realized that this might not be the best time (I know I'm an insecure wreck right now). But the cat's out of the bag …

Personally, I trust that this guy knew what he was talking about. Professor of Psych who has dedicated his whole career to intelligence better be able to remember a simple statistic like that. — Unless he's just making it up; but I don't wish to a accuse him of that. And your claim is valid; I didn't realize he didn't cite anything. I just remembered reading it a while ago.

Deleted.

I should qualify what I said earlier. I don't think anyone is necessarily screwed at a small school. It's the writing sample that matters. The letters usually rank people against other philosophy students the recommender has had. Thus, different caliber schools would seem to require different percentages to be deemed "excellent." I gave those hypothetical percentages with the assumption that all other application components are equal. So, let's assume that two applicants have the same GRE scores, an equally awesome writing sample, and same GPA. Let's also disregarding the notoriety of the letter-writer. If all this were so, I would expect a letter from an Ivy League Professor that says "this applicant is in top 10% of philosophy students" to hold equal weight to a letter from a professor at an unranked, unheard of school that said "this applicant is in the top 1 or 2% of philosophy students." And again, I have no way of confirming this. It's just my opinion; I don't want to scare anyone!

^ 170/170

Right, I'd call those schools top 5%ish schools. This is all hypothetical of course; I don't really have any idea what I'm talking about. Hume, absolutely on the sample. I don't know if unheard-of colleges are screwed; like I said, i just suspect that they're expected to be in the top two percent.

I think it's a form of advertising. Schools allocate rewards in accordance with the applicants' merit in the hope that he or she will one day become an awesome philosophy professor with his or her own google page, which will include graduate education. Then you're supposed to think, "Wow, this dude went to Harvard; I want to go to Harvard!" That, and perhaps it's presumed that all of your students will love you and want to go to the same grad school you did. The other answer could be the Good Will Hunting situation. Every department would love to have a Will in it, but Will doesn't have any money. The department is willing to pay for Will, but doing this and not paying for others might be seen as inegalitarian. So, to get out around this, they offer all accepted applicants packages, regardless of their financial background.

This is what happens when House fans go to grad school ...

I did not read this whole thread, but I assume an "excellent letter" quantifies the applicant's position relative to other philosophy majors in the letter-writer's department. To qualify as excellent, I would assume that, from a small no-name school, a letter-writer would need to state that the applicant is in the top 2% or so, whereas I suspect top 10% would be sufficient from an Ivy, or PGR-endowed department. More personal comments that show potential couldn't hurt — e.g., "So and so's paper on X will be publishable after a few minor revisions"

Barney!

I have two white-boards in my apartment on which I sketch ideas, paper structures, etc. I was stalking the results page, looking at everyone's GPA and GRE data, trying to find out who got into what schools, who's likely to remove themselves from the wait list and whatnot, and I just started writing it down.

I wish it were.

I have a flowchart of wait list hypotheticals on my whiteboard. I think it's more stressful than actually waiting to hear back, the whole so close but so far thing. Best of luck.

Don't we all? Seriously. Phil majors are pretty bad with that.

I'm very anxious about this whole process. If I watch TV I'm wondering about how my apps are doing, or what I'll do if I don't get in; whenever I'm reading and put the book down for a moment to reflect on what I read, I wind up ruminating on this whole app situation. The only thing I've found so far that 100% relaxes me is translating Greek — but of course, even here one can never risk translating Classical Greek, lest the difficulty of the syntax cause oneself to question one's self worth. Is it sad when Atheists find consolation in the Greek New Testament?

This. And the arrogant belief that I'll work harder than others.

Alrighty. Hopefully Grad Cafe users are the creme de la creme and we're all next in line on our lists. Best of luck everyone!

Differance and Johannes, This is so good to hear. I'm on the wait list at Fordham too, but I'd accept; they're my top choice. I was told the wait list contained the top 15% of applications. Did anyone else get the same number? — i.e., am I in the 85%ile, or is everyone on the wait list?

To be honest, I haven't had that much exposure to French Continental, but I do love Sartre; and Flynn seems to be one of the few people still writing about him who in the U.S. I read a few of Patterson's articles, and those coupled with Hartle's willingness to work philosophically on Augustine got me to apply. (It's so hard to find Augustine scholars who aren't in Theology/Religion departments — and I really want to get out of those.) There's also this guy Kevin Corrigan who's part of their LIBERAL STUDIES program who does everything I've been doing for my M.A. — i.e., mapping out Antiquity's influence on Late Antiquity. Overall, I was drawn to how eclectic Emory is, how accommodating they seem to be with respect to people whose interests don't fit so neatly into particular disciplines.

I'm trying to stay with my girlfriend (soon-to-be fiancé) who's applying to this really niche field in special education that doesn't have licensed programs in Chicago. I've wanted to kill her for this since I started researching possible schools. I would've killed someone to be at Chicago or Northwestern, and one of my Professors is well-connected with a few of their faculty members. Austin would guarantee a job, and I'd love to work with White and Woodruf. The only reason I applied to Baylor was because of Dr. Schultz, whose AOIs I could've written (besides the feminism)! And Stony Brook is like 45 minutes from my house. — I think the other five make perfect sense though, right?

Hey everyone. Just saw this thread. 3.6 GPA (Calculated from my two schools: 3.22 Freshman and Sophomore year; 4.0 Junior and Senior — Let's just say I started caring a little late in the game. Major GPA = 4.0) 166V/155Q/5.0A M.A. in Church History from an Ivy-affiliated Seminary M.A. doesn't use a 4.0 scale, but I suppose the equivalent would be about 3.9. I was the Philosophy Club President, graduated Summa Cum Laude, got the Best Philosophy Senior award, and got this really prestigious award that was only given to the top three students per graduating class (sort of like having 3 valedictorian awards, two of which don't require speaking at graduation). Phi Sigma Tau and presented at three undergraduate conferences. I read Greek, Hebrew, and French — SLOWLY. My writing sample is 17 pages on one of Augustine's particular appropriations of Plato (instead of just vaguely saying Augustine shares ontological similarities with Plato); and I think it's pretty good — and I don't think its main topic has ever been discussed. My letters were solid (I've seen two of them). AOI: Nietzsche (and Existentialism/Phenomenology), Ancient, Late Antique-EarlyMedieval I think Austin and BU are the only schools I'm applying to that are ranked on PGR. I've been lurking for a while. Just wanted to formally introduce myself and to wish everyone GOOD LUCK! And I really wish more people included these sorts of stats in their acceptance/rejection listings; it would be so helpful. I'm a little afraid that my verbal isn't quite high enough; and I wonder if my no-name liberal arts college will affect me. Also, my letters are from relatively unknown Professors. I have no fucking idea whether or not I'm going to get into anything. Less if I'll get a job when I'm out. But it's this or law. And I really, really don't want to be a lawyer.

I felt I missed out on Religion in Undergrad, and if I applied straight to a Ph.D. in Phil (and if I somehow got in), I'd constantly be asking myself whether I'd be happier in a Religion Ph.D. Besides, it's interesting to see all the different ways one can argue that three actually equals one!

I'm 3/4 through an MA in Church History. It certainly helped, but I don't think as much as a Philosophy MA would have.

Furtive, is it a HUGE deal? This stuff comes naturally to me, but then again I don't HAVE to study languages. I assume the pressure would contribute to the difficulty. I assume you love learning new languages though; it's not just a means to an end, right? I'm 3/4 through an M.A. in Church History, applying to Ph.D.s in Ancient (and hopefully getting into something that'll let me study Medieval's appropriation of Ancient). I only know Koine Greek, but well enough to be able to check out Plato and see if something screwy is going on; I'm learning Hebrew, and I can consult articles in French slowly. I am absolutely embarrassed that I don't know Latin, however, or German for that matter (especially given my interest in Nietzsche). I'm pretty good at learning languages though, and I have no doubt that when I'm done with my Ph.D. (assuming I get in somewhere) I'll be competent in German, French, and Hebrew, and pretty good at Greek and Latin. Thus, for someone with my interests, I think Greek, Latin, Hebrew, French and German are almost necessary to contribute to scholarship in my field. (So much Church History stuff is in French and German that these are necessary if one is to be original, for without them one cannot even see what French and German scholars are saying, thus precluding originality. And I say people with focuses in Medieval should learn Hebrew because, at some point or another, you're going to be reading someone's commentary on something in the Old Testament, and if you can't consult the Hebrew it might look bad. ) I still don't think these things should be required though; rather, people should be shamed into learning them. I think it's absurd that someone working on Hume and Berkley should need to know some fancy language. Let people learn of their own accord; it will make the whole language learning experience more pleasurable for all involved.