ianfaircloud

In my experience, admission committees care a great deal about race and other features of a person's background. (Certainly the evaluation goes beyond the writing sample, transcripts, letters of recommendation, etc.) Philosophy departments very much want to increase the number of students from underrepresented groups. Race is one factor among many factors, but generally it's an important consideration.

Comparable in what way?

That's cool. I don't have time to watch it now, but I will watch it before the next admission season. After I watch it, I'll promote it (for what it's worth). I wish I would have come up with this idea years ago. Glad you did it.

For what it's worth, when I met with the graduate chair at Penn, I suggested the possibility of earning the second philosophy master's degree. We didn't discuss it beyond the mere suggestion, but I interpreted his reaction to be favorable to the idea. He didn't say anything to the effect of, "That's not an option." Edit: Note: I'm a law student at Penn. That may be the reason for the openness to the idea. Also, note that the Penn Philosophy website suggests that the MA is reserved for special circumstances.

I'll be brief, and I invite others to offer clarifications or modifications as they see fit. There are some people who describe moral realism as the view that there is at least one first-order moral truth that holds independently of any minds. I'm not sure whether that's the best way to put it, but it's been put that way. Moral anti-realism simply denies this view. That's a crude way of putting it. People pushed back against your murder example, because it's incoherent to speak of murder being morally permissible. Murder is wrongful killing. So you can't wrongfully kill without it being wrongful. It turns out that it's tough to come up with good examples to drive home the point. That makes sense, given that the discussion itself concerns whether there are any truths like these. I'll let someone else chime in now to offer more explanation and to give you the practical example you're looking for, only because I have an appointment in a few minutes...

I see that my peers already addressed this comment, but I have to emphasize just how far off it is. I've studied ethics as an undergrad and at two graduate programs, and I practically never heard the words "moral relativism" uttered. Moral relativism is not the same thing as moral anti-realism. Anti-realism covers a broader range of views. Moral relativism is a very extreme kind of moral subjectivism, as I have heard the term used. If you say "cultural relativism," that changes things. But if you talk to an ordinary speaker who uses the term moral relativism, generally you'll find that it's a kind of extreme subjectivism. Maybe others have encountered different uses of the term. The point is that moral relativism has no currency in philosophy. I saw recently a post titled, "The decline of philosophy," and the writer suggested that moral relativism is one of the reasons for the decline. I laughed pretty hard when I read the article. The guy obviously doesn't know shit about philosophy. By the way, in my limited experience, philosophers who self-identify as moral anti-realists are less likely to be ethicists. I think when philosophers say that they are moral anti-realists, what they often mean is that they have trouble defending moral realism. P.S. I say all of this with all due respect to the moderator, who I think is only trying to help answer questions, etc. If I tried to chime in on the Planetary Sciences forum (or the Physics forum, or any of the hard sciences, or anything medical, psychology, English, etc.), I would be in over my head, too.

It's funny. When I hear "is it permissible . . . ," I first think about whether it's morally permissible. It looks like no one else went that direction. But I'll say that rejections after April 15 are disrespectful to applicants unless the department has wait-listed those applicants or given them some reason to believe that rejections might come later than April 15, or unless some very special circumstances arise. We're not talking about programs that aim to enroll dozens or hundreds of people. These are programs that aim to enroll fewer than ten people. If you're among the few people whom they wait-listed, then out of respect for you, they should contact you before April 15 to let you know that you're in that small group. Many of us have expressed frustration that some departments do not have their stuff together, and the burden falls on anxious applicants. I understand why that's just the way it works for larger programs of study. But in philosophy, again, we're talking about small groups. So I would say that, in general (see the conditions above), with regard to philosophy PhD applications, it's actually not permissible to send you a rejection email after April 15.

I do agree with this. I don't think we should strive for a formula. It's hard to imagine what kind of formula would be workable and would produce desirable outcomes. The formulaic element of law admissions is there by necessity, as you suggest. There are benefits and drawbacks to a formula. The benefit is that people (in my experience) don't feel as cheated: they are told exactly what to do, and they do it. It's predictable. You invest the time, you get a certain GPA, a certain LSAT. You do those things, and you automatically get an offer corresponding to your performance by the numbers. There's something that feels right about that. I guess there's an intuition that fairly equally-situated people (in the broadest sense) who put in the same effort, ought to get the same result. But it just can't be that way with philosophy admissions, in part because the important credentials are evaluated holistically (as they ought to be). The drawback of a formula is that it denies applicants the chance to be evaluated as whole people whose relevant qualities extend beyond tests and grades. Of all fields, philosophy ought to be one that appreciates the whole person. Law schools often pretend to evaluate applicants holistically. They do not, because they can't. Instead they strive to position the class so that they maintain or improve their rankings on US News. In summary: We might complain that philosophy admissions isn't formulaic or predictable, only for two reasons: some of us wish it could be that way for us; and maybe we think it ought to be a little more predictable than it is right now. But we accept that it can't and shouldn't collapse into a formulaic and mechanical process.

Just from memory, it felt like most programs in one way or another discouraged applicants from doing this (either by saying something on the website or by saying something in an email notification). Usually it's under "FAQ" on the admissions portion of the philosophy site. NYU, for instance, says: "As stated above, we get many excellent applications and can only extend offers to a small handful of them. Many strong applications are unsuccessful. As a matter of policy, we are not permitted to discuss details regarding individual decisions." So if you're going to contact a program about this, make sure that the department hasn't already told you not to ask! In summary, I guess I see no problem asking some departments why you were not admitted. The cost is minimal. Perhaps some people benefit from this, too. And even though some departments don't want you to ask, you could actually get some information, somewhere, from someone, in response to a request. However... I admit I'm somewhat skeptical that you will get much of anything valuable (notwithstanding the above suggestions that it has worked for some people). Here's why. What are the chances that you will connect with the people who actually reviewed your application, the people who actually decided against you? If you do, what are the chances that even they will know why they didn't admit you? Did they, for instance, keep detailed notes about each applicant whom they denied admission? I've been told by members of admission committees things to this effect: It's really, really tough to distinguish some of these applications. Unless your application did have a weakness that was apparent to them but not apparent to you, the members of admissions committees may be no better positioned to help you than you are. There's another problem with asking: The problem is that the reason you were denied admission to one place probably isn't the reason you were denied admission to some other place. In fact, it's possible that the reasons could be conflicting! Maybe you'll hear back: "Yeah, we thought you focused too much on feature X of your background." Suppose the other school denied you admission for this reason: "We thought you focused too little on feature X of your background." All this is to say that I think you could drive yourself crazy with this. What might be more helpful is to connect with someone at a good philosophy department who has worked on an admissions committee. Ask that person to look at your application to spot weaknesses. The obvious drawback of this solution: How many people out here have access to someone like this who would be willing to do this? Another thing: You could talk with your advisor about your application. Most of us have done that. You could also ask people on the forum whether they might look over your materials. The advisor option is probably best. The problem there is that not everyone has a great advisor. Finally: This is one of the many reasons that philosophy admissions can be like a black box. We've tried our best -- really, we have -- to shed some light on the black box that is philosophy admissions. There are now several good blogs that help with this. My survey last year generated data on something like 80+ applicants, and that information is available to everyone. But probably the most troubling thing about philosophy admissions -- next to how difficult it is to be admitted anywhere -- is that we don't know enough to predict how any particular applicant will do. (In fact, much of it wouldn't be predictable, even with all the information.) You can't do it "right" and expect to be admitted. That's so damn frustrating for people. Trust me, I get it. It's not like law admissions, where there's really a formula to determine the outcome. That doesn't mean we (in philosophy admissions) won't keep trying.

Well, congratulations. That's the best you can do (for someone with your interests) outside of Harvard and Yale. Talk to you soon.

Mithrandir8, please email me after May 9, the last day of finals, at ian dot faircloud at g mail. I'm a JD candidate at Penn. I have an MA in philosophy. I was shut-out last year. Our situations are quite similar. In the meantime, it really could matter what you mean by very good law school. Are you going to be at Harvard or Yale? Do you mind letting us know the school?

Strangely enough, I'll be in Oklahoma this summer. I assume you mean University of Oklahoma? Anyway, send me a message if you want to meet up. Are you from Oklahoma or living there now?

I'm so glad to hear of your success. This is great news. Best of luck to you.

Have that phone handy on April 15. I got a call three years ago on April 15, from SLU's chair, offering a fully-funded PhD. If I felt at that time as you do now, I would have taken the offer. I agree with the view expressed above, that if you're admitted to a PhD program which you like, it's often best just to take the position. If you have doubts about the program, I think the calculation changes. I can't help you too much on the UK versus US master's-level programs, except that I can say that either Georgia State or Brandeis would probably help you do well in PhD admissions. If the goal is something like a SLU, and if you're already wait-listed at SLU this time around, I just have to believe that you'll very likely do just fine after Brandeis or Georgia State. A lot of people who go to Brandeis or Georgia State don't apply very widely. I'm an extreme example of someone who attended a strong MA, didn't apply widely, and ended up without an offer. The candidates who do apply widely are typically admitted somewhere. I know of no candidates who applied widely and were not admitted somewhere. Just a note to everyone, generally: If you are still on a wait-list and sort of don't have any idea where you stand as of right now, I wouldn't be afraid to contact departments early this week to see whether you're still well-positioned (or positioned at all) on the wait-lists. Also, it probably goes without saying that, when you are admitted to more than one place, at this stage (April 12!), it's time to narrow the list to that one. The rule of etiquette is: "Hold onto as few offers as necessary, and by early April (or the absolute earliest point at which a reasonably prudent person could have learned all the relevant information to make an informed decision), hold only just your favorite offer, until either (a) April 15, or ( b ) you remain on no wait-lists, at which point you should make a final and irrevocable decision." This rule permits full investigations of all offers and maximizes the speed at which departments are permitted to work through long wait-lists.

Tailored reaction: Get feedback on the writing sample from someone who *really* knows the *particular* topic of your writing sample. Your GREs aren't so bad. It may not be worth retaking. (Costs may outweigh benefits.) University of South Carolina isn't so bad. It's at least known-- it's not an unknown institution. But I understand the worry about pedigree. Your GPA is outstanding and may reduce or eliminate from consideration the milder GRE.

Agreed. I know that some people on this forum have basically not lived beyond one or two cities, and those people may not have experienced this. But it's quite true, in my experience, that rent varies widely by neighborhood. For this reason, I highly recommend PadMapper.com. Even if you aren't able to find the right place, you can get a true sense of the cost of rent by neighborhood. I've used this tool in three apartment searches (in three cities).

This is such an important consideration. I've lived in six cities with zip codes beginning with 0, 1, 2, 5, 6, and 7. In my experience, people from urban centers on the coasts don't usually appreciate the difference in cost of living in the middle of the country (or really outside of these urban centers). We're talking very serious differences. I could get a beautiful place, highly desirable, two-bedrooms in St. Louis for $1000 -- easily. When I lived there, I saw great, two-bedroom places for $800. These are usually larger places, too, because -- generally speaking -- Midwesterners demand more space. (They're used to it.) You mentioned Baltimore. It's one of the less expensive urban centers on the East Coast. Just to address Johns Hopkins in particular: $28.5k is very good, in my view. That's one of the best offers of any department, all things considered. Notice that public institutions typically offer less. Don't expect a public institution to compete with an elite, private school. Some of the better offers I've seen are Pittsburgh's, Penn's, and Princeton's. Cost of living in these three areas is not too high (regionally), and each of these schools offers a very nice financial package, all things considered. Princeton's is very impressive. Compare this to Stanford's. $31k for Stanford is really not a very good deal, in my view. Look-- nobody's gonna complain about getting a fully-funded offer to study at Stanford. But it's worth mentioning that Stanford's financial offer is kinda mediocre, given the cost of living in the area. I also think that there are some very low offers that are perhaps even too low for the area. Just for example: University of Arizona, University of Wisconsin Madison, and CUNY offers are too low, in my view. I'd put them on par, all things considered, with Stanford's. (Too low for what? Well, maybe they're too low for most people to sustain an average graduate-student lifestyle without incurring some debt. E.g. Arizona's $15k is going to be a little over $1000 a month to cover all expenses. Also, it's contingent on a lot of TAing-- three classes a semester, if I understand correctly. On the other hand, Arizona covers health insurance.) Actually, the more you look at these offers, the more you can't help but feel that most of them are not-great offers. Everybody who gets a funded offer is lucky to get a funded offer. You make the most of the situation. I would have been thrilled to get any of these. Someone offered us this link. Just beware that I'm not sure whether this calculator is completely fair and accurate. There's no substitute for reaching out to current students to see what they think about cost of living. My own way of approaching funding is not to take "small" differences too seriously. That's probably not everyone's approach. I just figure that most of us can adjust our spending habits and living habits to fit (roughly) the fully-funded offers of most of these schools. There will be differences, and those differences may be the difference between additional debt and no additional debt. My own view is that things get tougher when you're talking about "big" differences. E.g. attending someplace that either doesn't fully fund, doesn't remit tuition, or gives a package valued at less than (the equivalent of) what's offered at UW Madison, all things considered. I think Madison is roughly the low cut-off; below that level, I, personally, have more serious concerns. For the heck of it, use the cost of living calculator to which I linked above. E.g. What $15k does in Norman, Oklahoma (University of Oklahoma), $25k does in Boston, MA (MIT, BU, BC, Harvard, Tufts, Brandeis-- though there are some cheaper places near Brandeis, because Brandeis is located in Waltham, MA.). Frankly, I think this $15/25 difference is conservative. Boston is easily double Norman, based on my experience. I've spent a lot of time in both places. All of this is very personal. No doubt there are people who would think I'm pretty crazy to worry about an offer less than Madison's.

A final bump of this thread. The site is fully updated, but there are quite a few schools not represented. If you haven't filled out the funding survey, please do. Also, if you're comparing your offer to other offers, this site may be helpful to you.

1) I wouldn't be too worried about revealing the details. I would reveal only the information that would probably be helpful to your contact. I do think I would mention the name of the other school. I think you don't want to come off like someone who's playing (manipulating) the system to seek disproportionate advantage. Presumably if you're asking for extra, you're doing it because you do have some real concerns about taking a weaker offer. I guess I would not reveal details in the case in which the alternative offer isn't much better than the one you hope to improve. If the alternative offer is merely an extra $1k, then you might come off as miserly. (To be clear, I'm not suggesting that $1k isn't a lot of money. But I think it could look bad to suggest turning down a "better fit" for $1k. I assume you're not talking about a difference of $1k. If you are, then I would advise against revealing the details of the alternative offer. I might change the approach altogether, in that case.) 2) I wouldn't be worried about revealing your obligations, provided those are obligations that are fairly ordinary and understandable ones. (You're not addicted to illegal drugs or something, right? I wouldn't mention that.) In my experience of the philosophy world (and the world of humanities, at least), people are pretty responsive to real needs and real people. You have a child or a dog, and you need a larger apartment. You have a spouse, or you take care of your father. This isn't law school or business school. When I aggressively pursued extra aid from Penn Law, I did use tactics of manipulation, etc., to secure a better offer. But that's the game they played with me, too. I don't like that game, but I've entered that world and have to play by those rules. But philosophy isn't like that, in my view. Philosophy departments want to secure the best funding they can for their students, and they would like to distribute it partly according to need (though can't always do this). When they worry that a student will turn down an offer for financial reasons, they might try to see whether extra money is available for that student.

If you're offered something better elsewhere, contact the department with the lower offer. Simply tell them that you have a financially-better offer from school X. Give them details, so that they know the competition. The details also suggest that you're not being dishonest about offers. I would write something to this effect: "Dear [contact], I want to drop a note about the funding/workload offer that came with my admission offer. I love the department, and I think it's [a very strong fit / the best fit] for me, in terms of my philosophical interests and ambitions. However, I also have financial obligations and [insert any particular reason that you especially need assistance: e.g. other grad debt, children or spouse, etc.]. [Other school's name] has also extended an offer to me, and their offer is better on the financial/workload side of things. Their offer is [insert specifics of offer]. This factor has made my decision difficult. For this reason, I wonder whether there is flexibility in the funding/working offer that your department has extended to me. Thanks for your consideration. I hope we are able to work something out. Yours truly, [Your name here]"

You didn't derail! I think all this is relevant to someone seriously thinking about where to study philosophical theology! Thanks for the reply. (Edit Also, yes, it was quite lawyerly... Which is code for: You came off like an ass in that post! haha! Fair enough!! This is what first year of law school does to some people!)

That's fair enough. I didn't intend a debate. I figured that you could shed some light on this for us, though, since I bet I'm not the only one who is surprised at the idea. Thanks for the suggestion!

Thanks for keeping us informed! I'll assume that all this is inadvertent on Tufts's part. Still, as you suggest, it's pretty irresponsible not to immediately correct an error in the placement page when that error is seriously misleading, particularly in the midst of admission season, and particularly when placement is the main draw to the program. Maybe there's a good explanation for that, too. In the end, if Tufts has negligently misled prospective students who accepted offers of admission under the reasonably-mistaken belief that the placement record is correct, those prospective students may have a claim (or at the very least a complaint on moral grounds).

Jailbreak, this does come as a surprise to me. Your claim, just to be clear, is that a divinity school "could be a good place for someone whose interests are . . . not theological or religious." (I've underlined the relevant text, above.) You really could be right about this, and it does sound like you know far more about University of Chicago's divinity school than I do. It's undoubtedly true that many divinity schools are attractive to people with wide interests. What's new to me is that idea that they could be attractive to people whose interests include neither theology nor religion! Just take a quick glance at this page. For what it's worth, the divinity school certainly advertises itself as a place to study anything attached to religion, i.e. religion and X. But this is NOT to say that I think that you're mistaken in your assessment of the divinity school at University of Chicago. It may be that the divinity school primarily attracts students with interest in religion but regularly admits students without the interest. Maybe those students make the most of it, because they figure that they get access to some great professors, a great university, etc. Of course, I do agree that people can "engage fully," as you put it, in philosophy at some religion departments or divinity schools. I think the question is who would do that and in what circumstances. Kosmo's friend, whose interests include philosophical theology, would probably be a good candidate.

To clarify: Do you think, based on your experience / contact with an advisor, that the divinity school at U Chicago is a good place for someone whose primary interest is philosophy? Or are you suggesting that there are some good philosophers there who might be helpful to someone whose primary interest is philosophical theology? I take it that you're not suggesting that the divinity school is a good place for someone whose interests are philosophical but neither theological nor religious. Is that correct?