ianfaircloud

I think you're right on the money. I was out of state and didn't have access to a good computer. Now I take it people are simply moving on. I mean, most of the excitement regarding notifications is behind us. How many people have access to that? I'm curious whether others do. I've not even heard of such a thing! Maybe that's a strike against including it? I wish we could take into account every single thing -- including things like junior-senior GPA -- but I think the survey could become too long. One thing that has contributed to the success of the law school surveys is that they are pretty simple. I can easily read that the median GPA for those admitted to Department X is Y and that the median LSAT for that department is Z, etc. I guess we could have a comments area or something. Is that what you're suggesting? But when we figure the median score of someone admitted to X, of course we won't be able to use the comments for that part of it. I think not every relevant detail can be included in the survey. Some details that are sort of glossed over (and this is the nature of surveys like these) include things like, "Did the person's GPA improve over time?" "Was it just one class that ruined someone's GPA, or was it a pattern of poor performance?" Etc. I guess I hope my comment here comes off as, Yes, I think you're absolutely right that this stuff is relevant. But I don't want to make this so complicated and lengthy that people don't fill out the survey. And I want data that can be manipulated, compared, etc. I'm not sure what to do about the comments piece. Every applicant is more than a number, right? But I think we want to analyze the raw quantifiable data, too...

Thanks for all this. If I have time, I'll put more into the survey tomorrow. I'd like to launch it by next week. I know that traffic to this site and my site is wayyyy down, so my fear is that people are just dropping off at this point! I'd like to catch everyone before they're gone. I know it's particularly tough talking about admissions at this point: fatigue, frustrating, disappointment, or just a feeling of moving-on. But, wow, I think this could be the best thing to happen to philosophy admissions in decades (if it works like I hope it will). Continued discussion/thoughts appreciated!!!

All good points, above. I'll respond briefly right now: Some variables are easier to "quantify" (that's not exactly the right term) than others. So when we add things like publications, it's more difficult (though possible!) to account for these. I think the undergraduate minors, undergrad. honors, and languages are pretty easy to include (and could be useful). I guess I'm trying to strike a balance here between asking too much and asking too little. We do need quite a few pieces of data in order to really figure out why certain applicants are doing better than others. So I'm really happy to hear all of the ideas so far. How would I ask the publication question? And the work question? One question I'm not asking: "How good was your writing sample?" It's pretty difficult to make use of that kind of 'data', as I'm sure you all would agree. So I want to avoid too many questions like that. Could a 'publications' question be written in such a way that it wouldn't become useless? Or maybe we just let the readers decide how useful is all the data. I mean, the whole point of my publishing the data is that everyone can decide for themselves what to make of publications, etc. Thoughts?

Also add the questions list: Number of years outside philosophy Number of years since earning bachelor's Undergraduate major Hold any degrees not in philosophy?

Please, for the sake of future applicants, take the time to read this and consider carefully my proposal. I really would like your help! Philosophy admissions are among the most competitive and most difficult at the graduate level. As this forum (especially recently) indicates, one thing that makes philosophy admissions so difficult is that it's not completely clear what (if anything) makes the difference for success or failure. No amount of information will make philosophy admissions predictable. But I do think that more information would make it more predictable than it is now. Many of you are putting philosophy admissions behind you. I'm among you, in the sense that I don't plan to reapply. Others will be back for a second (or third, . . .) round. For the sake of everyone involved, I think we (as a community) could take a step in the direction of law admissions by organizing the information we have and publishing it for all to see. Law admissions are very predictable for several reasons. One, it's largely based on a few numbers and formulas, not on subjective interpretations, personal connections, and subject judgments of the quality of a candidate's academic pedigree (though these are to some degree a factor even in law admissions). Also, there is so much information available to applicants. See, e.g., lawschoolnumbers.com, hourumd.com, and lawschoolpredictor.com. We can't do what the community of people in law admissions has done. But we can take a step in that direction by gathering the data. So I propose the following: Let's put together a survey of applicants. The survey will be honor-based, just as law admissions surveys are honor-based (and therefore not flawless). To be successful, we will need a lot of people to take the surveys. But so far, the community has been responsive to surveys. (See my funding survey, for example, where we now have 30+ programs represented!) What do you think: 1. What questions should be included in the survey? 2. Do you have any thoughts or suggestions about the survey? I will put together something, one way or another. Assuming we get a lot of replies, I will then publish the unfiltered results so that anyone can interpret the results as s/he pleases. I will also put together a "guide" for each of the top-50 departments, based on the results. And of course people will be able to critique my guide, because people will have access to the unfiltered information from the survey. The survey will be program-specific, meaning that those who take the survey will fill out a survey for each program. This is time-consuming, but it's exactly what people in law admissions have done for a decade now. Here are some questions that I believe could be included: Program name to which you applied Description of your undergraduate institution (USNews top 50? top 20? national university? regional? liberal arts?) UGPA? Prior graduate education in philosophy? From a Leiter top-six? Areas of philosophical interest, as expressed (if at all) in the statement of purpose? Writing sample information: in which subfield in philosophy? appx number of pages? Letters of recommendation: how many from endowed chairs? from senior faculty? from junior faculty? from non-philosophers? GRE scores: verbal (90%+, 75-89%, 50-74%, . . . ) , quant, AW? Underrepresented minority? Other identity questions: sex, gender, nationality, ethnicity? Admitted, wait-listed, or denied? If admitted, were you admitted from the wait-list? Method of notification: phone, email, email-to-website, website-only, personal contact? Date of notification? The questions would be mostly optional, I think. Also, I think the key is to keep things general enough so that the information isn't personally-identifiable. Though again, law surveys get similarly specific. Now, we may discover that there aren't enough patterns in the data to draw any conclusions about what matters. But what if we discover that there are things that make an enormous difference? For instance, there was a rumor going around a few years ago that Cornell heavily weights academic pedigree.

Send me a message privately, and I'll drop a few tips on the AW. I'll say this: If you're a non-native speaker, then I hear that admission committees typically overlook the AW score. They *should* overlook that score, in my view, for non-native speakers. Having said that, we all know that life isn't fair. Members of admission committees may still hold you to some standard. I suggest that non-native speakers shoot for a 4.0 on the AW. If you can "pass" the TOEFL, then you can probably hit 4.0 with proper studying. I also suggest that non-native speakers who earn <=4.0 on AW flag this in the statement of purpose (or some suitable place in the application). Say something to the effect of, "I'm not a native speaker, and the AW score reflects this." Typically non-native speakers should also be given an upward "adjustment" from admission committees on the verbal score, as well. Really, the GRE is designed for native speakers. So (for what it's worth) it's extremely unfair for an admission committee to judge a non-native-speaker candidate's qualifications on the basis of GRE scores.

This person is exactly right about the ETS essay, in my experience. Actually, I'm more impressed with what I've done with my verbal. I started at 49th percentile and raised it to 99th percentile -- without the help of a test-prep company! I did this before I was hired by the company. I never took a test-prep class. I think the prep classes aren't as magical as some people think they are, though they do offer a structured setting, materials, etc. I'm pretty passionate about standardized tests. I've taken all of the major standardized tests for admissions in the United States, except MCAT, and scored at least 95th percentile in all of these. But I'm convinced that it's not from natural intelligence. I simply learned how to take these tests. I teach ACT, SAT, and GRE. I'm trained on GMAT. I've scored 174 on LSAT (which is 99%+), but on the real deal I scored a 169 (97%). I didn't retake the LSAT, for some personal reasons. I may go for it this summer. With enough practice, most people can do this, I think. But my advice is not to do this, because (see above) I think it doesn't make enough difference. Diminishing returns after a few months of (very serious) studying. (At least this holds true concerning philosophy admissions. But if you are considering law, I advise you to WORK YOUR ASS OFF to boost that LSAT score. Law admissions are fairly predictable.) I can't offer free advice, because I've signed a contract with this company. Basically you have to pay like $190 an hour to get my advice. Which is bullshit, because I make a tiny fraction of that. But send me a message, and I'll see what I can do...

One more thing on this, since I've hijacked this thread now: Someone may read you as saying the following: "If you have a stellar application, and you have really high GRE scores, you will almost certainly be admitted to more than one top-20 department." I have really high GRE scores. I didn't get admitted to more than one top-20. So I must not have had a stellar application. But I did have a stellar application (so I think). So I reject the view that, if you have a stellar application and really high scores, you will be very successful. I think people look for reasons that they didn't do as well as they hoped. And when those people have less than perfect GRE scores, they think, "Gee, must have been my scores!" I don't think it's that simple. I think it's THIS simple: a certain amount of luck is involved. And for that reason, the greatest applicants sometimes don't do as well as we think they could (should). So there's an element of the process that is not unlike playing the lottery.

Thanks!

I don't want to be obnoxious here, but this is exactly what I'm talking about. You beat the invisible "cut-off," which is actually quite low, and GRE becomes closer to irrelevant. The optics of a 1-6-X verbal and 1-5-X quant are enough.

Philstudent22, I mean this with all due respect (truly, I do): When I read your description, I can't help but wonder whether your scores really did hurt you at all. You had a stellar app, and you were admitted to a top-20 department, despite your relatively low scores. Right? What more could you expect? Do you think that with better scores, you would have done better than this? I mean, frankly, you did very, very well. I know this is a sensitive subject, because not everyone has the same idea about what it means to "do well." But I think you did very well, and I think you did it with fairly low scores. This lends some credibility to my view that the optics of a 160-ish plus score is typically enough. You had to have a stellar app to be admitted to a top-20 school. Now listen, I think I had a stellar application. I think it's a damn good application. People in my high-ranked MA program thought so (or pretended to think so, perhaps out of sympathy for me). A good friend of mine was admitted to like seven top-30 departments or something crazy, including a few top-10s (if I recall correctly). She said that my application wasn't much different from hers, in terms of overall quality. My verbal is 169 (99%), my quant is 157 (69%), and my writing is 6.0 (99%). These scores are from a test I took prior to my working for a major test prep company. My quant is now around 167 (my last diagnostic test). We can't really conclude anything from this, except that there appear to be examples of weak scores among successful applicants (you) and strong scores among failed applicants (me). I'm sure your application is stellar. But I don't think that the difference between you and the person who is admitted to NYU and Rutgers is the GRE score. (I don't think you mean to say this, either.) More likely, the person admitted to Rutgers and NYU is lucky and ridiculously talented and connected to the right people. After this application season, I am convinced that philosophy admissions is less predictable (in terms of who will be successful) than what many would like to believe. We can shape a lot of what happens, and then some of it is like playing the lottery. Hence great applicants often fail. Frankly, I'm warming up to law admissions. You plug in your numbers, and out comes your result!

This is a great discussion, and I do respect the view that GRE is important. I think there's a lot of truth to what PHILSTUDENT22 says, above. I want to add something interesting to this: From personal experience, I know that master's programs treat these components a bit differently than PhD programs do. Master's programs care about how successful a person will be in PhD admissions, and so some master's programs may give more weight to the factors that they believe will influence success in PhD admissions. I know from personal experience that some members of an admission committee at a high-ranked master's program do give some serious weight to the GRE, only because these people believe that the GRE is important in PhD admissions. So ironically, the GRE becomes more important perhaps in admission to certain master's programs! PhD programs, on the other hand, know that the GRE score won't play a roll in placement... Anyway, the nature of our discussion is that much of it is speculative. But I totally respect the view of PHILSTUDENT22 that a low GRE score can only hurt an applicant. So a balanced approach: If you're already scoring 165 or so on verbal, don't spend much more time on the GRE. Otherwise, put in a solid two months on GRE. Get to the mid-160s on verbal. I wouldn't do much beyond that. On the quant side, I say shoot for 160. But don't be too disappointed with an upper-150s quant score. Again, with the ignorance among members of admission committees, the optics of two scores in the 160s is probably enough. Though I'm willing to admit that there are exceptions to these rules...

I've seen one post for Florida State University. Can anyone confirm that Florida State admitted students? Does anyone know when these notifications were delivered?

Thanks so much! Thank you, too!

Thanks for this. Can you do anything to verify this? I've seen no posts, etc. Or I guess a better way to put this: How certain are you about this? (If certain, then that's helpful!)

I just want to offer an alternative view, for what it's worth. And before I do, I'll just put this out there: I work for a major national test-prep company -- in fact, I teach GRE -- and I score quite well on these and other standardized tests. My opinion isn't jaundiced by frustration over poor scores. (Of course that's not to say that anyone else's opinion is jaundiced.) There's no doubt in my mind that departments use cut-offs. But I think 90+ verbal and 75+ quantitative is much higher than what's necessary. I also think that faculty on admission committees tend to know very little about how to interpret GRE scores. If the score looks even decent "on paper" -- say, 155+ quant and 160+ verbal -- then that's probably enough for most members of admission committees. Some philosophers don't care at all about the scores and will literally ignore them. Some departments don't require scores. The GRE is becoming less relevant, based on my experience as a teacher of GRE-prep, particularly after the revisions on August 1, 2011. I think I wasted a tremendous amount of time prepping for the GRE several years ago. I went from the 49th percentile to the 99th in verbal. That was overkill. Get yourself into the 160s -- a 165 is a fantastic score, in my view -- and move on. I'm convinced that no one has been admitted to a dream program in philosophy because of a perfect or near-perfect GRE score. There are components of the application that are tremendously important. The writing sample, the letters, the transcripts. And then much of what matters is beyond your control. In life, many of us believe that much more is within our power than is the case. We believe this because we have to believe it. But in truth, much of what happens to us is the product of chance and circumstance. This is particularly true in philosophy admissions, because of the ridiculous level of competition, the subjectivity of the review process, and the mathematical improbability of success. So give it your best, without doing harm in the process. Then afterward, if you fail (as I may have), then you move on knowing that you gave it a good shot.

Thanks! I received mine just minutes ago! Whew! I was worried for a minute...

I received the rejection at 5:10 p.m. Eastern time today.

Thanks, and agreed! I really appreciate this. How did I overlook this? Did you post your results in the survey? Hmmm... Good luck to us!! (But let's also be real, here. It's probably a clerical error.)

Thanks for the reply! I don't want to be naive, but I think it's actually possible that I'm wait-listed at Princeton. I'm going to contact them today.

I'm back from vacation, and I updated my blog. We're still waiting to hear from Univ of Michigan and UCLA. These departments admitted a few, but we've heard nothing since. Has anyone heard something and perhaps forgot to post about it? Also: Carnegie-Mellon. Rejections were sent weeks ago. Has anyone been admitted? Also, has anyone not received an expected rejection letter from NYU or from Princeton? These departments promptly rejected a lot of people last week, but I heard from neither of them. I suspect many of you are in the same situation. If not, then I really need to contact these departments.

NYU rejections: Did you receive an email to check a website? Email from Dean? Tell me about your rejection. Some of us (or at least I) haven't receive rejections.

I think these aren't legitimate. It's possible that someone at Columbia learned first-hand that s/he will be denied admission. I think those of us who applied to Columbia shouldn't read the rejection posts as legitimate. Also, the Cornell post is a joke. In fact, it's been removed.

Are these Columbia rejections legitimate??

Congratulations, and thanks for the prompt notice on the forum. Also, was the email sent to a list of undisclosed recipients? Or was the email direct to you? Do you believe that there any particular reason (in your case) that the email came from John Collins?