ianfaircloud

I appreciate the humor here. Just want to say this, particularly to the person who down-voted my reply in agreement with Vineyard: There is a such thing as yield-protecting in admissions. And there are other reasons not to accept "overqualified" applicants. It's pretty silly, but some institutions have odd and counter-intuitive rules related to how grants are distributed. At my university, for example, it's in the interests of the department not to extend fully-funded offers to overqualified applicants. I won't explain the process here, but it's a real thing. Departments also want to recruit good fits. I could imagine sitting on an admissions committee and thinking of an applicant, "This person is literally overqualified for our program." So just in defense of Vineyard's thought, I wanted to throw out these possibilities. In reality, maybe Memphis just didn't like this applicant or didn't think this applicant was qualified, despite the profile that we see. It's so, so difficult to evaluate an applicant out of context, without reading the applicant's sample, without looking at the applicant's competition, etc. Sorry to make something serious out of something funny. Just wanted to mention this stuff.

MattDest, the usual weaknesses of 'overall rankings' apply to my analysis of overall quality of faculty. 'Overall quality' rankings by nature leave out important details.

I have heard from two people that this list is correct or very close to correct. I have one other piece of information about UW Milwaukee: of the 14 people who applied, just three haven't received offers. That's very good! Few departments have such a large share of applicants doing so well. That's 79% of its applicants placed into T50s. 29% of applicants into T20s. Tufts typically has a pretty nice share doing well. I'll post when I have more complete info. Brandeis has around 57% of its total applicants into top-50s, 71% into at least one PhD program. Brandeis has between 14 and 43% into T20s, depending on what happens with wait-lists. I actually think it's better to think in terms of T20 than T10 and T11-20. Because who's going to say that, e.g., Cornell isn't an amazing place to study philosophy. Really it would be helpful to think in terms of how many were placed at the T4, i.e. NYU, Rutgers, Princeton, and Michigan, since these are an order of magnitude better, in my view, than Harvard, Pitt, Yale, etc. (Not saying I wouldn't give my right arm for Yale.) So if you think in terms of this, then programs like Brandeis and Tufts look a *little* better in terms of this. It might be elitist (in a bad way) to think like this. But I studied with someone who may end up at a T4, and I benefited from it. Sorry to ramble, but look again at UW Milwaukee's placement: 4 of 14 students admitted to a T20. 6 of 14 to a T21-35. 1 of 14 to a T36-50. 3 of 14 admitted nowhere. This puts UW Milwaukee and Brandeis in a race for second or first place, in terms of placement records, depending on what happens with Tufts. (Waiting on NIU, Tufts, Virginia Tech) The race between UWM and Brandeis this year will be decided by wait-lists. If Brandeis gets movement on the wait-lists, then its 43% into T20s possibly 'wins'.*** ***Of course, there's way more to this than the numbers...

I'm hearing from three sources that UW Milwaukee has an outstanding placement record this year. We're talking unprecedented, perhaps, for UW Milwaukee. I want to verify some of this, but here's what I'm hearing. Each line represents a separate student's best admission offer to-date. These are all MA placements. I'm shocked and very happy for those at UW Milwaukee. T11-20 T10 T21-25 T10 T21-35 T36-50 T21-35 T11-20 T21-35 T21-35 T21-25

I wish I could upvote this like eight times. But in seriousness, these are some impressive stats from some non-Leiter MA programs! (Not that I'm too surprised.)

Hello, everyone. I am slowly hearing about placement records from MA programs this year. Here's what I know now: Georgia State's program has seven students admitted to PhD programs so far. These offers are Indiana University (#24), UC Irvine (#29), University of Pennsylvania (#29), Boston University (#44), Florida State University (#44), University of Missouri (#50), and University of Western Ontario. I don't have complete information on Georgia State's wait-lists. If the wait-lists come through, Brandeis University looks like this: Yale (#7), Michigan (#4), Cornell (#14), Wisconsin (#22), Washington University in St. Louis (#31), and UC Riverside (#31). Another person was admitted to London School of Economics to study government. If wait-lists don't come through, the record looks much weaker (but is "better" than Georgia State's record). I will share my data on Tufts, NIU, and Milwaukee when I have more complete information. I have no data for Virginia Tech. For what it's worth, Tufts's placement last year is still much better than Brandeis's any year, including this year. It's important to note why people do well in these programs and whether the good placement is tied closely with the area of interest. Does anyone have more news to share? If so, please post it!

My thoughts, too.

Different subject. Just saw this on the results survey: Memphis. Philosophy, PhD. Stats: 169-165-6.0. "MA GPA: 4.0, with several high profile conference presentations, and a publication pending. Not sure what Memphis is looking for." This post gave me a good chuckle. This process is crazy.

Thanks for this! It's helpful. I think the problem in the case of UCLA philosophy is that the department hasn't sent any rejections. Now surely there were at least a few applicants who could be turned down after a quick glance at their applications! At first glance, it seems at least insensitive to let those people wait extra weeks, perhaps in agony, for a decision.

I'd love to hear why UCLA does this. Is it pure laziness? or a way to protect the department's interests? or just total bullshit? (or some good reason that escapes my imagination?) No other T-25 department does this. See my notifications page. I could imagine a department doing it in this case: Suppose a department simply can't predict how many people it will need from the wait-list. Suppose every applicant has a real chance of being admitted up to April 15. Perhaps an unranked department or a department that receives few applications would need to do this. Is there such a department? Even the unranked departments attract a lot of applications. Programs with niches of excellence (University of Oklahoma, with Linda Zagzebski; Saint Louis University, with Eleanor Stump) attract many serious applicants. I gotta admit, I'm one of those people who favors the approaches of philstudent1991 and Monadology, i.e. complaints en masse. Maybe that's old fashioned. And maybe sometimes it's unnecessary or counter-productive. But at some point, frustration boils over. The department should expect frequent complaints with this sort of policy, even if the policy is sound. Note, by the way, that UCLA's director of admissions in philosophy is a vacant position (last I checked).

When people talk with me about whether to pursue a philosophy degree, I give very different advice based on the person asking. I try to get a read of the person's personality, the depth of interest, and a number of other things. Same probably should go with advice on pursing a law degree. You take a look at a person, gauge the interests, gauge the talent (frequently not possible to do this), etc. But this isn't easily done in the context of a forum. I recall a discussion among members of this forum regarding whether a particular member of this forum should give up pursuit of an advanced degree in philosophy, and there was some controversy whether some of us should give the blunt advice not to pursue this further. After a lot of discussion, it turns out that this person absolutely can't imagine doing anything but philosophy! Good discussion. Good luck to the original poster, too! If you end up at Duke, I'd love to hear what you think. Please send me a message in private.

Yeah, OK. I agree with the last statement. But I don't see why the first statement follows from the last statement. Here's what I say: For people who would prefer academic philosophy to law, but who have some interest in law (either legal academia or law practice), law is a good back-up plan. I think the problem you have with my comments above has more to do with my statement to the effect of, law is a good back-up for someone who "could imagine being an lawyer." Anyway, I think this thread has been informative and addresses the issues surrounding the original poster's questions about the Duke JD-MA path. EDIT: I should state clearly that I agree with Guillaume's sentiment that too many people in general are going to law school as a back-up plan. That's certainly true. I've been hearing that for years. And if my comments above suggest that law school is a good back-up plan for everyone/anyone/people in general, then my comments are mistaken. That's not what I hoped to communicate!!

No, I didn't look into it, only because I have two master's degrees (one in philosophy). But wow, if I knew then what I know now, I would have pursued the JD/MA! I have always had interests in both law and philosophy.

I appreciate this very reasonable response. Yes, you did say that the programs allow overlap. I meant to add the following: Because they allow overlap, presumably this isn't like stacking two discrete programs on one another in a matter of three years. It's a blend. I understand your point regarding Big Law. I think what I want to say is that law is an excellent back-up plan for people interested in philosophy (who could dream of being lawyers). It's an excellent back-up plan because there is some financial security, there's some job security (if the person attends a very good law school), and there's still opportunity to do philosophy. The hours are flexible -- more flexible than people often realize. But when I go back and read your original post with a little more charity, I think I get the sentiment here. The sentiment is that a lot of us aren't at all interested in being lawyers. The life of a lawyer is quite different from the life of the average college professor. And law school is challenging. Certainly any program involving earning a JD is going to be very challenging, more challenging than just about any master's program in philosophy. So I agree with that. Point well-taken. EDIT: Oh, and for what's it's worth, I should say that I'm biased in favor of law as a backup plan. See my signature.

I don't want to be mean to this person, but much of what this person has said either I disagree with or is simply incorrect. First, the JD-MA at Duke is a three year program. Second, the JD-MA allows for overlap in the course selection. EDIT: So because they allow overlap, presumably this isn't like stacking two discrete programs on one another in a matter of three years. It's a blend. It's not rushed. Duke allows students to complete some coursework over the first summer. Apparently you have time even to do summer legal work! So "rushed" isn't the correct way to describe the program. Also, I will acknowledge that if you (wilson) could never dream of being a practicing attorney, then as philosophynerd23 says, that may be a strike against the JD. But presumably you (wilson) could dream of being a practicing attorney. And not all practicing attorneys work 80 hours per week! I have a good friend who is an assistant DA, and he usually works a 9-to-5, with occasional exceptions. So I just think that philosophynerd23 has dispensed some bad advice based on some unfounded assumptions. A little, tiny bit of research will support my claims, above.

Bumping up this thread. PLEASE TAKE THE SURVEY!!!!! Again, the survey is here: http://faircloudblog...issions-survey/ .

Whoooa that's crazy!! Glad you shared this information. Thanks!

I wish I had more time to reply to this. Sorry for this off-the-cuff, half-ass reply... I think the JD-MA is a really, really good option, even for someone who isn't interested too much in practicing law. Just a few thoughts: A JD-MA from a fantastic place like Duke would be an entry to PhD programs that are serious about legal philosophy. I feel really confident about this, but I suppose you should do independent research to verify my claim. Still, I would put money on it that an MA from Tufts would be far less powerful than the JD-MA from Duke (with regard to placement to a top PhD with an AOI of legal philosophy). You mention minimal interest in law. What will you do if philosophy doesn't work out for you? Law is an EXCELLENT back-up for people with interests in it. The top law schools have amazing employment stats -- 90%+, median incomes around $120-160k (starting). Again: What will you do if philosophy doesn't work out for you? Because philosophy frequently doesn't work out for people! True, you won't get as much support on the writing sample. But in my experience, the best support came from peers. The MA gave me the time to devote to producing a better sample. So it wasn't as much the coaching of professors as it was the time + peer support (at least in my case) that helped deliver the strong writing sample. Again: Duke = excellent. Almost full funding = excellent. Were you admitted to better law schools? I assume so, based on your funding offer from Duke!

Sorry for the belated reply. Nope, I haven't heard from UCLA. I misspoke. Regarding UCLA, I should have said, "Why has it taken so long for UCLA . . . ?" I spoke with someone today about the situation at UCLA. Apparently UCLA de facto wait-lists everyone until April 15, at least according to this person. If that's true, then I think people should encourage UCLA to adopt a new policy. The point of a wait-list is to let people know whether they are serious contenders, so that they don't spend an entire spring term speculating on their futures!

As you can see, this particular incident really set me off. We gotta be careful in this forum to speak carefully and get the facts straight. A few false reports can quickly damage the reputation of a person or department, and that's just not fair to the people who work so hard to do things right. Brandeis has an odd approach, but it's completely reasonable and in line with the spirit of APA's official policy on the matter (which, incidentally, covers only PhD admissions, to my knowledge). What's most important is that people know that Brandeis is not demanding a decision before April 15. If Brandeis did that, Brian Leiter would be all over that shit. (And so would I!)

I have heard from Kate Moran, the director of graduate studies at the philosophy department at Brandeis. The department mentions (similar to the GIF I posted above) that students are asked to reply in two weeks. But she tells me that officially the policy is to ask students to reply by April 15 or after all other PhD/MA offers are on the table, whichever is earlier. She tells me, "we have always been flexible about that deadline," and "Anyone who's emailed me with concerns about the 2-week thing has received precisely that reassurance from me." She writes, "I asked them to let me know within two weeks of receiving their _official letter_, which is still being processed by the grad school. Most of them will receive that letter in the mail early next week, so 2 weeks would be...April 15." So even if the letter were misread, as mightymike11 has misread it, the letter would still indicate that the "deadline" is roughly April 15. This is not the first correspondence I've had with graduate directors at Brandeis. I'll say that I've always received very reasonable replies to my emails in a timely fashion. I urge anyone with doubts to send an email to the director of graduate studies at Brandeis.

See above. I have to go to bed now.

I have taken the extraordinary step of contacting the current director of graduate studies at Brandeis.

I was so disturbed by the comments of mightymike11 that I have decided to post a GIF of a Brandeis acceptance letter. Everyone on this site may view it and see that mightymike11 is mistaken. http://faircloudblog.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/brandeis-acceptance.gif The letter is legitimate. Berislav Marusic was the co-director of graduate studies that year.