ianfaircloud

Cornell rejections by email.

I didn't expect to see a lot of activity over the weekend. The funding survey on my site has about a dozen entries so far. This is a great start! I think we'll see more this week. People took the weekend off. My site's numbers were way up on Friday -- actually, I had a record page views. But Saturday and Sunday were way down, more than usual. I think people are getting burned out by the forum and admissions in general. I hope we'll see more results on the funding page as the week gets going again. This should be an exciting week (though a difficult one for many of us, too).

Is there a continental philosophy programs ranking? If so, that could be a helpful place for me to start...

After a little research, the answer (at least tentatively) is no. Theoretically it will present problems, because those who edit would need special permission to edit their posts and only their posts. (Otherwise we could have endless editing of the same post by different people, vandalism, etc.) The nature of this page is that we want to keep things fairly anonymous. In order for people to edit previous posts, those people would need at least a user name or something else to identify themselves with certain posts. Then there are practical problems. I'm using Google to power the site, and there's no straightforward way to introduce this function. I could do this: I could add a feature that allows a person, immediately after a submission, to edit that submission only. But I take it you're looking for a little more than this. Let's sort of treat this page as we do the results survey on gradcafe. If you need to fix a previous admission, it's OK to submit a second one with the correction. Also, the comments feature on the page allows anonymous commenting. (In fact, every page on my blog allows anonymous comments without logging in, etc.) There are other ways to do this. People could send me results, and I could post those results manually. Then I could update/modify/correct results as needed. Let's see how this page works for now.

I'll look into this. In the meantime, feel free to enter comments on the bottom of the page or to submit another response to the form with the corrected information. Thanks for the note.

It's really been a pleasure. I appreciate the comment.

http://faircloudblog.wordpress.com/funding/ Let's see if this does what we need it to do. If it doesn't, please let me know. Maybe I can try something else. (Or maybe someone else can try something else, too.)

How to calculate cost of applying: N=number of schools N(transcript fees + $25 + $82) $25=GRE score fee $82=average application fee* Lost income from devoting time to applications I spent ~$2600 for philosophy applications and another ~$1400 for law applications. *Unless you skip Stanford, in which case your average fee goes down like $10.

Gee, DHumeDominates. That was a little harsh!! You should tell people, in every situation, that you are going to "HFU." That's "Harvard Fucking University."

I'm starting to wonder -- and yes, I realize I should have thought about this a long time ago -- whether it's in a department's best interests to be coy about the wait-list rankings, particularly with those people who aren't very high on the list. Because they know that any of these people on the wait-list may end up at the program. And they probably don't want to start the relationship by saying, "Look, you were our absolute last choice among those we admitted" (hyperbole for effect). Nevertheless departments do frequently answer the question to those who ask. This Wisconsin-Madison wait-list is a long one, I think.

Rejected.

Ohhhh. Well, that answers our question. Sorry, Zizeksucks. Hey--Maybe you'll get something from them today or tomorrow.

Well, if you decide to send it, would you please let us know the result? Good luck. Side note: It feels a bit ridiculous to me that Johns Hopkins takes until mid-March to release initial notifications. Actually, several of these programs wait until after March 1. I don't understand that. I guess they figure that they have that right. Or maybe there's something I don't know.

It was a normative should, but actually, you should live wherever you want. I just think that if I were in your shoes, I'd pick a place right in that area. Lots of folks choose to save money by living in Somerville, Watertown, Allston, or Brighton. But this is going to be a special time for you, and I'd spend a little extra to enjoy every minute of it. But you may have very different priorities than I do. And I take it by your acceptance that you're some kind of genius!!! So you should do what you think is best! hah No, but really, congratulations. What a neat thing for you. Edit: Not that there's anything wrong with living in a neighboring town!!! Those places have their advantages, too. Somerville is especially fun. Porter Square is awesome, too.

I agree that this is suspicious. If it's genuine, then it's only the second (perhaps the third) ranked program this year to send a wait-list before anything else. Also, I'm predicting Hopkins to be the last department to send notifications.

Do you want my apartment? No, in seriousness, if you're not familiar with this area, I'd be glad to show you around. You should live within a short walking distance of the philosophy department. I'm sure you know this, but Harvard's philosophy department gets its own building-- huge, nice (on the outside), and right next to the best of the Harvard libraries. I'm so jealous.

I hate to tell you this, but I happen to know that the top-six MA programs have recently kept very, very long wait-lists. Here's why: LOTS of very, very good applicants are applying to GSU, Brandeis, Tufts, etc., as backup plans. These schools are having to wait-list like two or three times the number of people admitted outright. In GSU's case, that's like 40 people. Here's the good news: These programs keep long wait-lists for a very good reason. They need them. So I think being on a wait-list at one of these schools is usually a great thing (unless you are told that you aren't near the top of the list). I'm sure someone will disagree with me, but I think if you're on the wait-list at GSU right now, you (conservatively) have a better than fifty percent chance of being admitted. This program knows how many people it needs to wait-list. The department chair at GSU is keen on admissions and very organized, more than most chairs.

Yes, that's possible. I think most schools offer the same funding to most or all of the students in the same cohort. But 'most' isn't 'all'. So your point is well-taken. I think we're back to what we suggested earlier, which is that I simply compile a list and give an idea of the source's reliability. I hope to have something up by the end of the week.

OKAY, folks, here's one idea: Rather than allow people to submit anonymous funding information, I could simply go to people who I know personally to ask them information about funding. I personally know people admitted (this season) to about five of the top-20s, two or three 21-30 range, and a few in the 31-40 range. From this data, suppose I hear information on schools A, B, C, D . . . through G. Then what I could do is accept, via the messenger feature in this forum, information from sources in this forum. Suppose a person on this forum tells me funding information on schools H, I, and J, and also school A. If this person's information on school A matches what I have already received from one-to-one communication with a person who I know, then I could trust that their information on schools H, I, and J is accurate. (Or at least that would be my assumption.) So basically the rule would be this: I'll accept as authoritative any data from a person whose data includes data that I've already verified independently of that person. Now the problem, if there is one, with this approach is simple: Once the funding data is public, I wouldn't be able to gather new data, except by some other method. Does that make sense? The other problem is that no one could contribute anything without having data on at least two programs. If any of this is unclear, please say so. Also, am I forgetting anything? A special thanks to an anonymous person who offered me this idea. ALTERNATIVELY, I could simply accept data from any source and publish the data with information about the source. E.g. Program P offers $X funding under conditions Y (source: a frequent contributor to TGC forums who has a reputation of 160 points)

Thanks! You people are so nice. Good luck to you! University of Arizona is a *great* place.

Thanks! It was really, really great to hear something positive today. As many of us know, it's so hard to go through a dozen rejections with almost nothing to show for it.

I'm on the University of Wisconsin-Madison wait-list. I think this is a relatively long wait-list. But keep in mind that departments have long wait-lists because they need them! I bet that most people on wait-lists in 21-30 range programs are eventually accepted to those programs.

Sorry, folks. I had to take the day off. I'm updating the blog now. I'm holding off on declaring the Harvard posts legitimate, though I'm pretty certain that the wait-list is legitimate. It's very odd that the first legitimate Harvard post will likely be a wait-list notification! The timing is right for Harvard, so I'm expecting some confirmation within days. The Madison wait-lists are legitimate. (I got one, actually.) The CUNY could be legitimate, but I'm holding off on that one, too. One post. Nothing to confirm it on the forums.

Agree with Vineyard. Don't go. They assume the risk when they pay for you to visit. Don't feel bad. Tell them that there's honestly no way you will take their offer, given the others on the table.

Thinking more about the Wisconsin rejections: If you didn't get a Wisconsin rejection yesterday, you will probably get one today, provided that: you don't live a great distance from Madison, Wisconsin. you haven't been accepted or wait-listed The letters were dated February 21. (Thanks to Silly Socrates, above.) Now Silly Socrates received the letter on February 24. I lived in Wisconsin, and I remember mail usually arrived one or two days later, if sent between places in Wisconsin. So I think the letters were actually mailed on February 21, too. (Silly Socrates, does the envelope have a date stamped on it from the USPS?) Now for the rest of us, typically mail takes three days. (At least that's been my experience after living in five different zip codes, starting with 7, 6, 5, 2, and 0.) So my thought is this: If you haven't received a rejection from UW Madison, and if you don't receive one today, and if you don't live a great distance from Madison, then there's reason to be hopeful about being wait-listed. The other side of this: Someone said yesterday that s/he was told that wait-list notifications would be sent today. So maybe we'll hear from UW Madison today, in which case none of this speculation matters.