ianfaircloud

In my experience, philosophical theology is more often done in religion or theology departments than in philosophy departments, though of course it's common that a professor who specializes in philosophical theology will have a dual appointment in religion and philosophy. Why is that? The truth is that philosophical theology is theology more than it is philosophy, at least on how I view the disciplines. I think the distribution of philosophical theologians among divinity schools and religion departments suggests that others agree with me on this. It's important to understand that most people doing philosophical theology are starting with certain theological assumptions and trying to work those out using philosophical methodology. In my view, the most fundamental questions about the divine are treated as "philosophy of religion." Philosophy of religion is NOT the same as philosophical theology. You don't, for example, see a lot of atheists doing philosophical theology, though you do see a lot of atheists doing philosophy of religion. The easiest way to explain the difference is that philosophical theologians typically start with some basic theological assumptions. For instance, philosophical theologians might try to explain the distinctly Christian (in the historical sense of the word, not in the modern sense!) doctrine of the trinity. Much of what Aquinas and Augustine did is properly called philosophical theology, based on how I see the phrase applied. To be clear, philosophical theologians are doing philosophy. It's just that they're doing philosophy in a different context, and they're not just doing philosophy. Everything I say here ought to be read in light of what I've said in a different thread about how the term "philosopher" is applied within academic philosophy. All this is to say that philosophical theology deserves to be treated not as an area of interest within philosophy but as its own field or perhaps as a subfield of theology or religion. (Theology and religion of course aren't interchangeable terms either.) For this reason, I recommend that someone with an interest in philosophical theology seek a place in a religion or theology program, or perhaps even the graduate school within a divinity school. I would also recommend that this person look for the very few philosophy departments that actually do philosophical theology; find out whether an interest in philosophical theology will be rewarded and encouraged or will be treated as a distraction from the purpose of the degree program. The sort of virtues of a student of philosophy are very similar (if not the same) as those of a student of philosophical theology. There is a similar methodology. There are overlapping questions and debates. There are overlapping thinkers. So it's no surprise that some people think of philosophical theology as a subfield of philosophy. It's a tricky thing, because some legitimate, strong philosophy programs actually do treat philosophical theology as a subfield of philosophy. Saint Louis University and Notre Dame have some philosophers doing philosophical theology. Here's how to explain it: A lot of theologically-minded individuals get excited about philosophy. Sometimes these individuals are attracted (for good reason) to programs where their views -- including their theological views -- will be taken seriously. Some professors are in a similar situation. And the thing is, how a person answers some philosophical questions will affect (or maybe should affect) how that person answers some theological questions. That's part of the reason that philosophical theology is sometimes thought to be a subfield of philosophy. The other sad truth is that some religion and theology departments, in my limited but somewhat informed experience, don't reward the intellectual virtues that are rewarded in philosophy departments. I'm putting this quite mildly. But the effect is this: intellectual theists try to escape these departments by going to philosophy departments, and a department like Saint Louis University's philosophy department gives them the best of both worlds. In summary, I suggest that your friend open herself to the idea of attending a religion or theology program or a graduate program at a divinity school. I recommend against a divinity degree, unless that's her thing, or unless the particular program is a break from the norm. Divinity degree programs, in my experience, too often suffer from what I have very carefully described above. A friend of mine who attended Harvard's divinity program, then an MA in philosophy, tells me that the divinity program was basically terrible (for him, as a person with his interests). That's his view, but based on my experience, it's not surprising. I also suggest that your friend consider the small group of philosophy departments with people doing philosophical theology. The obvious ones are Saint Louis University, Notre Dame, Baylor, Fordham, possibly Boston College, Georgetown, Tulane. I recommend that your friend look at programs that some have labeled "continental" programs. Some people say that these programs are "pluralist." The idea, again, is that students of philosophy who wish to apply philosophical methodology and pursue philosophical questions for the sake of theological answers -- and to be taken seriously while doing these things -- might be better received in these places. Good luck.

As someone who attended an MA in philosophy, I believe (assuming that the post is accurate) that this is *huge* news for anyone considering Tufts and other MA programs. To be frank, this absolutely should change some minds about going to Tufts next year. This reply isn't meant to be a knock against Tufts generally. It's a fantastic program, perhaps the best in terms of placement -- but it is a program with some weaknesses, and it's more expensive than some other strong programs. It's also a program with a recent decline (a slight decline) in placement. I've said elsewhere that Tufts is still probably the top in terms of MA placement. But the historical record means little if a great many of the faculty will not be around to advise next year. Someone from Tufts could let us know more about who's there, who's gone, and what that means for grad students. Five is a huge number. Are these five members of faculty who work with grad students, who write a lot of letters, etc.? Are they people who *don't* do those things? Do they ordinarily teach a lot? Are they the only members of faculty covering a certain range of philosophical interests? I'll also say again that Georgia State, UW Milwaukee, and Brandeis have strong placement records. UW Milwaukee had perhaps the strongest record last year, though Brandeis did perhaps as well, depending on how the records are compared. Brandeis has had three fairly strong years in a row. Last year -- though the website isn't clear on this point -- Brandeis had a very strong record. I believe there were five (or more) very strong placements last year. One person each to Michigan, UNC, Cornell, Berkeley, WUSTL, if I'm not mistaken. The website is not clear on this, so people need to do some independent research on this point. In other words, considering the last few years, and considering these leaves at Tufts, I won't be surprised to see UW Milwaukee and Brandeis pull a few people away from Tufts. Georgia State, too. Here's the main take-away: Before you accept an offer to a program, find out whether the faculty with whom you're most likely to work, will be available for the year(s) when you'll be there. Find out whether the program is experiencing any weaknesses, whether those weaknesses are temporary or permanent, and whether those weaknesses are likely to affect you (as opposed to the program generally). Avoid attending a program only because it's "generally" a good program. Find out whether it's strong, right now, in your area of interest. Edit: When I say that Brandeis has had three strong years in a row, I'm *not* including this year. I haven't heard too many details about this year's placement record. I heard about an NYU placement, but I haven't heard about too many other placements.

I think you're right that your pop's advice is outdated. One needs only to check placement records to see that some people do quite well when applying out of an MA program. Your questions are too broad for me to give very meaningful answers. Do MA programs help? Well, they help some people, sometimes. They are a waste of time sometimes. The last question is more easily answered: generally, people don't get admitted to an MA at a good school, only to be later admitted to the PhD at that same school. As a rule, when a department offers both terminal MA and PhD, that department isn't looking to groom MA students for PhD admissions. Some departments are quite clear about this on their admission pages. MA programs "pad" an academic resume. They show seriousness in philosophy. They give applicants an opportunity to find better letter-writers. They give applicants an opportunity to produce a better writing sample. They give people the chance to see whether philosophy is a good path for them. They improve an academic pedigree in some cases. They surround an applicant with like-minded and like-directed people who ideally support the applicant in her pursuit of the PhD in philosophy. This is now the "conventional wisdom" about MA programs. Philstudent1991 suggests that unfunded MA programs aren't worth it. For most people, that's correct. As he acknowledges, someone with wealth may look at things differently. By "unfunded," I believe he's referring to programs that neither give tuition remission nor scholarship/fellowship/assistantship. Those are indeed a bad deal, financially speaking. In this context, it's always funny to evaluate things in terms of finances. Philosophy is just not a good deal financially. It's financially unwise to pursue philosophy. But there are financially more-responsible and less-responsible ways to pursue philosophy, and in most cases, an unfunded MA is a less-responsible way to do this. Also, Philstudent1991 is right to point out that the terminal MA is a recent development (or maybe "recent trend") in philosophy. As Establishment mentions, it's becoming a "required step" for many applicants. There's been a very silly debate over whether this is a good direction for philosophy. That debate is analogous to law students debating whether it's good that the legal job market sucks and that, consequently, young lawyers need a degree from a high-ranking law school to secure the best legal jobs. All this was discussed in a terrific post a year or two ago at Brian Leiter's blog. Maybe someone can drop the link below. I can't seem to find it. Asacollier, if you'll give us more information about your background and interests, perhaps we can tailor our answers to your situation. It sounds like you're wondering whether to pursue the MA.

I don't know too much about philosophy of education. I do know that it's rare to hear someone in a philosophy department speak of "philosophy of education." I recommend that you find someone from a good education department who calls herself a philosopher of education. Find out whether she thinks there are philosophy courses or philosophers who are doing what she thinks of as "philosophy of education." I think you have the right idea heading to an education department rather than a philosophy department. I would think that education departments devote a lot of time to discussing the philosophy of education. I would think that would be pretty crucial at any education department. To be clear, there are some rare people with doctoral degrees in philosophy who call themselves philosophers of education. Whether they're doing what you think of as "philosophy of education" is another matter to be investigated. The problem is that the phrase can mean a lot of things, and only some of those things would have a lot of overlap with what "academic philosophers" do otherwise. Good luck to you!

I just want to offer a minor point of clarification, though I'm not sure the point will make a difference in your final conclusion. I get the sense that not too many applicants have devoted an impressive amount of time toward the languages. My sense is that the few who have, have an advantage over the many who don't. My sense is that some people are admitted without impressive knowledge in this area. I think some applicants are able to demonstrate their seriousness by dropping some time and money into a few courses in the area. At the very least, some applicants may at least be able to say that they've engaged in some private, personal study of the languages. (I only offer this because I don't want to scare anyone away from ancient Greek philosophy. There are advantages to pursuing it as an AOI. One, it's interesting and interdisciplinary. Two, the job market is generally a bit friendlier to those who specialize in ancient. Three, there generally isn't quite as much competition for these spots in the PhD programs.) edited for grammar

First, I'll reply to the main topic of the thread. Second, I'll reply to the tangential discussion about writing sample subject matter. To the main topic, I'll say that I was shut-out last year. Applied to 23 PhD programs and was wait-listed only by UW Madison. It was my second time to apply to PhD programs in philosophy. The first time, I picked a strong MA program over an unranked PhD offer (fully funded). Elsewhere I've said that I think this was the right choice. Here are some of the things I take to be "lessons learned" from my shut-out and from others' shut-outs. I've seen brilliant people do poorly or even get shut-out of philosophy PhD admissions, particularly when those applicants have applied only to very high-ranked programs. I encourage people to accept the fact that you have only so much control over the outcome of your admission season. I see comments above to the effect of, "Well, I did this wrong," or "If only I would have done such and such . . . ." It's always a good idea to learn from mistakes and improve, but do realize that you may have made no substantial mistakes in the application process. You may have been unlucky. Philosophy admissions are hardly predictable even on the macro level; they are much less predictable on the individual level. I think this point is helpful for so many reasons. For one thing, those who have been shut-out needn't conclude that they're poor students of philosophy. Of course you could be a poor student of philosophy, but you can't conclude from a shut-out that you're a poor student of philosophy (or a "born loser," as the thread title jests). Also, you needn't beat yourself up over the details of what you did or didn't do in your application. There's a real chance that these details made absolutely no difference, or if they did make a difference, that no person could have predicted the difference they would make. When you apply to philosophy PhD programs, to some extent you have control over the process. But the rest is out of your hands. It's similar to (though not the same as) a lottery, in the sense that both involve risks and somewhat unpredictable outcomes. It's also similar to a lottery in the sense that admission feels much like winning the lottery. I've spoken to brilliant and successful applicants who acknowledge both that they are supremely qualified and that others (who weren't successful) are supremely qualified. One very generous person told me this last semester, and to be honest, I feel better about my shut-out, knowing that she's going to be an amazing philosopher. So what you're doing when you decide to pursue a career in philosophy is you decide to play against tough odds. That happens at the admission level, and it happens on the job market. So many of us pour our hearts into this because of the hope of success and the belief (usually) that it would be the coolest career in the world. The great thing about philosophy is that, as we discussed in another thread, one needn't be a philosopher (in the very narrow sense of the word) to be a philosopher (in the broader sense). You may get shut out of philosophy programs. But no one can shut you out of philosophy. Sounds corny, but if we all appreciate the sentiment of this a bit better, we may look at all this a bit differently (in a good and healthy way). Now to the tangential discussion on writing sample topics. I believe pretty strongly that writing samples should be offered in one's area of interest. Applications are often read by a small group of people in that area of interest. That group of people wants to admit applicants with whom they will get to work. Suppose you submit a writing sample outside your area of interest. Your statement of purpose says that you want to work with Prof. X, but Prof. Y is left to decide whether you will work with Prof. X, because Prof. Y works in the area of interest in which your writing sample falls. The other reason that a writing sample should come from your area of interest is that your best writing should come from your area of interest. You claim to be a great epistemologist, but we have no way to know whether you're a great epistemologist, because your writing sample concerns Aristotle's ethics. You're a great writer, analyst, thinker. But departments want to see fit. They want to see strengths in your area of interest. This is only a "rule of thumb," because we're dealing with empirical matters. Some successful applicants reject the rule. My point is that generally those applicants are successful despite their rejection of the rule of thumb. Now, if you're in the crazy position that by far your best piece of writing is one outside your area of interest, then I think that's an odd and tough position. I suppose I would submit the better piece of writing. I would be tempted to expand my areas of interest to encompass the writing. If you're pretty good in that area, maybe it's worth pursuing it at the graduate level. Just a thought!

As someone who majored in ancient languages including Greek and Latin, I think this is more than optimistic, provided that the student is a fairly typical human being. (No sarcasm intended at all. If you're a very special human, perhaps you could be able to read texts in both by December.) For the rest of us, it's extremely difficult to learn these languages. For one thing, these languages changed over time. Are you interested in reading the earliest or the latest Greek philosophy? There is a ton of vocabulary, and the grammar rules change substantially according to context. It's absolutely nothing like learning a modern, spoken language. You could plausibly read two modern, spoken languages by December -- though even that would perhaps require some superpowers. You're talking about reading philosophy, too, so keep that in mind. To be frank, if I tried to learn these two languages and put together an application, not just to graduate school, but to graduate programs in philosophy -- in the same year -- I would probably die of exhaustion. More realistically, you could do as Petros suggests: take up some formal study of the languages to signal your seriousness in the subjects. I spoke with a Harvard philosopher of Plato -- that narrows it down! -- and he tells me that not everyone comes to ancient philosophy PhD programs having already learned the languages. For what it's worth, he did tell me that knowledge of the languages sets an applicant apart from the rest of the pool. (Presumably the rest of the pool generally hasn't learned the languages.) I say all of the above with all due respect to InfiniteZest. Perhaps InfiniteZest is a very quick study or has only experience in modern, spoken languages. [Edit: The thought just occurred to me that InfiniteZest could have been trolling all of us, in which case I say, well played!]

Bright-line rule: After March 15 in an ordinary admission season, it's permissible to contact a department to learn the status of one's application. Why the rule? Because by March 15, virtually every American department has released initial notifications. Usually they release by March 10. In my view, departments that fail to release initial notifications by March 15 are inviting anxious applicants to contact them about their applications. Though rejections aren't always released by March 10, the worst that an applicant's contact will do is prompt an administrator to reply with a quick note of the rejection. I also think the March 15 rule is good, because it gives applicants a month to consider their options.

The size of your liberal arts college is less important than its reputation generally. Check your college's Wikipedia page to see whether it's ranked by any of the major surveys. It's not a perfect tool, but if your college appears in the top-50 or so of these rankings (e.g. US News Liberal Arts), that could be helpful. In my conversations with professors, most of them tell me that the institutional reputation helps them to know how to read the GPA. You should apply both to PhDs and to MAs. I recommend that you apply to all of the top MA programs, including Tufts. I would put off thinking about the financial side of it for now. Cross that bridge when it becomes necessary. It sounds like your interests lie in ancient, modern, metaethics, and language. Given those interests, there are certainly more than just a few good departments for you. Few people apply only to three or so programs. If you want the best chance of getting admitted somewhere, you really need to apply broadly. If you're unsure where to begin in the search, the lazy but effective place to begin is with Brian Leiter's Philosophical Gourmet Report. It's an imperfect way to start thinking about the whole range of programs with strengths in your areas of interest. You mention that you are a member of an underrepresented group. If you are a member of an underrepresented group, you may want to mention this in your applications. Most American departments encourage applications from members of underrepresented groups, and the data suggests that (all other things held equal) members of underrepresented groups are more likely to be admitted to strong programs than non-members. Best of luck to you!

Monadology, thanks for the reply again. I've used the words academic philosophy to refer to the community of people who are working in contemporary anglophone philosophy departments (let's just call this the "narrow context" for clarity's sake). (That's as far as my own experience goes, hence the over-narrow use of the term.) My empirical claim is that ordinary speakers in that narrow context, when they speak of "philosopher" without further qualification, typically are referring to a narrow group of living or dead people (often academicians) who share some common projects, or maybe a common methodology, or a similar writing style, etc. They are typically referring to something fairly narrow. That narrow use is probably not the commonest use of the term among English speakers generally. So it would be pretty outrageous for me, in the context of legal academia, for instance, to use "philosopher" without qualification to mean something this narrow. Though in academia generally, I think the term is still fairly narrow. Outside of academia, the term takes an even broader meaning. Among the general public (the "wider context"), the term has a very broad meaning that, at least in my experience, certainly includes people like Martin Luther King, Jr. It may even include people like Bob Dylan. Most of these are empirical claims. These are my experiences of how the word philosopher is used in different contexts. My view is that the meaning of philosopher varies according to context. It's correct to say in the wider context that Bob Dylan is a philosopher. It's incorrect in the narrow context. I think it makes sense that people in the narrow context have a term that refers only to this narrow group. Perhaps that term should be "academic philosopher" for some of the reasons we have discussed. However, in my experience in the narrow context, the term is simply, "philosopher." Of course, when those same speakers leave the narrow context -- say, in writing an editorial for the New York Times -- they can't take for granted that their readers use the word "philosopher" to mean that same narrow group. Indeed, the word doesn't mean that, in the wider context. You'll never hear me use the word "philosopher" in a wider context to refer to the narrow group. In this thread, the context is unclear, particularly because we're actually having a discussion about what the word philosopher means. So to be more clear, I've used the words "academic philosophy" to make it more clear that I am referring to the narrow context. I've treated this thread as the wider context. Monadology, this has been a fun thread for me. I want to express some mild disagreement with what you have said above. I say mild, because I'm really not sure whether I have this right. But my thought is that I disagree with your points (2) and (3). I think one answer to the problem in point (2), i.e. that people working in the narrow context are "out of touch" with people in the wider context, is that people from the narrow context need to understand that meaning changes from context to context. This is the problem of jargon. People from the narrow context need to do a much better job avoiding use of jargon outside of the narrow context. The term philosopher is a term of jargon: it has a special, technical meaning in an academic field (the narrow context). The way to alienate those outside of the field is to use a term of jargon without recognizing that it's a term of jargon. This is why I say what I do above: that you will never catch me using the word "philosopher" in a wider context to mean the narrow group. To do so is to foster an unhealthy and unwarranted kind of intellectual exclusivity, because it implies that the only philosophers (as the term is used in the wider context) are philosophers (as the term is used in the narrow context). Imagine how incredible it would be to claim that the only Bob Dylans are Bernard Williamses! But it would not be incredible to say that Bernard Williams is a kind of Bob Dylan. The former expresses truths in a way that's clearer to some of us than the latter. Or maybe it's the reverse: the latter expresses truths in a way that's more clearer to some of us than the former. The problem of (3) is real, but I don't think that the problem is mostly about people in the narrow context using the word philosopher as a term of jargon. I think the problem is mostly that, speaking in the narrow context, people have an attitude like this one: "Don't study or appreciate the work of nonphilosophers." That's a very unhealthy attitude that does alienate people, and it's probably responsible in part for the "increasing irrelevance of philosophy to public/culture at large," which was voted in a recent poll on Brian Leiter's blog to be the third most important issue in the profession.

I would contact the department at this point. I would tell them that you're very interested in the program and have been holding off some decisions in the hope that you will be admitted to USC. If you're certain that you would go to USC were you extended an offer, you could even put it in these terms: "I have been holding off some decisions in the hope of being admitted to USC, because USC is my top choice." I would reach out directly to the graduate admissions chair in the department. The reason for all this is that there is a slight chance that you've been wait-listed and that somehow you weren't informed. If you are wait-listed, departments do like to extend offers to people who are enthusiastic about the program. If you were supposed to receive a rejection notification and haven't, then there's nothing lost by reaching out the way I have described. Edit: I suppose I should say that I think all of the departments have extended the initial admission offers at this point. If this was March 1, I would be encouraging you to hold off.

Nice response, Monadology. My position is that people can change the meaning of a word by changing how the word is used. The empirical claim is that, most of the time, a change in usage is an organic process-- people just start using the term in a different way. But people can also change the way the word is used by advocating the change, bringing about a change in how the word is used. Along these lines, if we could reprogram everyone to use a word in a different way, the word's meaning would change. I think your example from the word "queer" is related but is tangentially related. (I think you see it that way, too. If I understand it correctly, your point is that there can be good reasons to do the reprogramming that I discuss above.) In my experience, people in academic philosophy normally don't call Martin Luther King, Jr., a "philosopher." I'll operate under the assumption that my experience lines up with the reality of how the word is used in academic philosophy. On this assumption, my view is that, were we were to encourage people in academic philosophy to speak of Martin Luther King, Jr., as a philosopher, we would be requesting either one of these two things: (1) Change the way you view Martin Luther King, Jr., so that he fits your view of "philosopher" as you use the word in academic philosophy; or (2) Change the way you use the word "philosopher" so that it is broad enough to include Martin Luther King, Jr. The reason for academic philosophers to push back on (2) is that it seems to them that the narrow use of the word philosopher is useful in academic philosophy. It helps distinguish people by the methods they use, the topics they discuss, etc. The reason for academic philosophers to push back on (1) is that they may simply not agree that Martin Luther King, Jr., fits the description. My guess is that this thread has elicited such lengthy discussion for another reason: There are some people (perhaps in this thread) who use the term philosopher to mean more than the descriptions I have given it above. They mean the word to demand a certain kind of respect and intellectual authority. Some words are not value-neutral -- the words themselves invite praise, blame, approval, disapproval, honor, disgust, etc. Is philosopher one of those words that is not value-neutral? Do we (in academic philosophy) use philosopher to mean not only all the descriptions I have given above, but also something to the effect of, "Someone worthy of special attention in academic philosophy" (or something to that effect)? "Someone whose work is worthy of our serious attention, whose work is properly the subject of a philosophy student's undergraduate thesis, etc."? "Someone whose work is good"? If so, then I have missed something in my definition of "philosopher" as the term is used in academic philosophy. That's possible. Edit: Removed emoticons that were placed automatically by my use of parenthesis next to the letter b.

I think this line is revealing: "First, dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive: they record what people do say, not what they should say." This line is exactly what's up for debate. You see a separation between how ordinary speakers use words to successfully communicate their ideas, and how they ought to use words. For example, you think that regular folks shouldn't say "begs the question" to mean "elicits a question," even if all the speakers in a particular community use those words to mean that. You think an entire community could be ignorantly using a phrase to mean something that it shouldn't mean to them, even though it does mean that to them. Does that capture your view correctly? I take that to be your view. Some of us will disagree with that view, but I'm interested to hear more from you. I hope you'll reply.

This is such an interesting reply and deserves its own analysis. The point seems to be this: Ian says that Martin Luther King, Jr., isn't a philosopher in the sense that the term is used in academic philosophy. But the example is a wash, because Martin Luther King, Jr., is "in fact very well versed in what students of analytic philosophy consider philosophy," and his work suggests a deep understanding (or perhaps, his work contains elements of) legal positivism and Natural Law. Therefore when people speak of Martin Luther King, Jr., as philosopher, it's "not plainly clear" that they use the term in a different way than the way the term is used in academic philosophy. As I said above, there is no doubt that great people who are well-versed in philosophy, whose work reveals deep philosophical insight, may nevertheless not fit the description of what we (in academic philosophy) call "philosopher," because the word is used very narrowly in these circles of academic philosophy. I think our use has to do with the common projects among academic philosophers, the methodologies, the writing style, etc. Again, it's very narrow. This is an irony of academic philosophy, because (as Dumbnamechange points out) the work of people like Martin Luther King, Jr., does reveal deep philosophical insight and understanding. A professor of mine once said, "The true philosophers are not people like us working in academic philosophy." What he meant is not only that nonphilosophers produce work of philosophical value, but also that nonphilosophers have produced perhaps most of the best work of philosophical value. And don't they deserve the title, "philosopher," more than we do? But words aren't assigned meaning that way; they are assigned meaning by their shared meaning across a community of speakers. It's also very interesting to me that Dumbnamechange says that "being a theologian" is "arguably philosophy." In my own experience in theological and philosophical circles, people don't say that theologians are philosophers or even arguably philosophers. The people who do say that theologians are arguably philosophers are not in these circles. Their use of the term is the folk usage that I described in an earlier post above (philosopher in a very broad sense). It looks like maybe Dumbnamechange uses the word in this folk sense, too. Then there's Dumbnamechange's point that "people can systematically misuse terms." This, too, is interesting. Misuse suggests that there's a correct way to use a word. Isn't the correct way to use a word just the way that (among a group of implied hearers, to borrow a phrase) ordinarily gets the point across to those hearers? I'm with the editors of dictionaries when they list among the definitions of "begs the question," "to elicit a question logically as a reaction or a response." In certain circles, this is now a perfectly correct (though irritating to us) way of using the phrase. Dumbnamechange suggests that Martin Luther King, Jr., is better called a visionary and a great political leader (among many other things). Maybe those terms apply, but why doesn't the term philosopher apply? I don't use the word like that, because I find myself speaking in a context of academic philosophy. I also don't use "beg the question" the way quoted above, for the same reason: in my context, it means something different. But that says nothing of the context of ordinary, competent speakers of English. They do use the word philosopher to mean basically anyone who thinks and speaks about deep issues, who has an inspiring moral vision, who has an influential Weltanschauung. This is all to say that Dumbnamechange's reply is interesting and elicits a lot of questions (some would say, "begs" a lot of questions) to which I have attempted answers.

Tough choice! I don't know all the other factors for you, how you weight them, etc., so I'll just proceed on some assumptions. If the money is the same, I would lean toward UMSL in this case, provided that I have the correct reading of your relationship with the WUSTL professor. Assuming that you have a good and close relationship with that professor, I would take the UMSL position. GSU is perfect for your interests, but if you can work closely with someone at WUSTL who has actually told you that s/he hopes you'll take the UMSL offer, that changes things. It permits you the chance to do high level work and to get a letter from someone who already wants you to succeed. (Edit: I have also assumed that working closely with this professor could be an easy way to be admitted to WUSTL, which is a solid place to study cognitive science, since not only are there several strong professors working in the area, but also the medical school is possibly the best place in the world to study neuroscience. Of course, given recent stats out of GSU, going to GSU might be an easy way to be admitted to WUSTL.) The GSU workload is real. I know this from speaking with others at the program, and I'm sure they'll say the same. (I could quote from some of these people, but the sense I get is that the workload is somewhat heavy, that some people complain more than others, and that it's manageable. Obviously it's manageable, because people have managed to do quite well out of GSU.) If GSU comes through on the financial side, then depending on how you weigh finances, you may want to choose GSU. If you choose GSU, I would speak with the WUSTL professor about this. Let him or her know that the money made a difference in your decision but that you hope you'll have the chance to work with him or her in the future (and that you'll be sure to apply in two years).

I admit that I didn't read all the posts in the thread, but since this thread has life, I'll chime in. In the context of academic philosophy, when people speak of philosophers, they're generally using a term that they mean to construe narrowly. That's my experience, and it makes sense to me, given the point that DontFly makes. The point is that it's hard to give a very broad meaning to philosopher without including anyone who speaks to deep questions or who thinks in the abstract or engages in reasoning from the a priori. In our context as people studying academic philosophy, it would be pretty odd for us to be referring to something as broad as this. In other contexts, the broader meaning may be implied. For instance, I have heard some people refer to Martin Luther King, Jr., as a philosopher. The people who label King a philosopher do not mean the same thing that we students of philosophy mean when we call someone a philosopher. Their context is different, and the word takes on a different meaning in that context. Theirs isn't a misuse of the term, unless the term's meaning can't change with context. Plainly it can, because it does. In law school (a different context), when I speak of philosophers, I use the term "academic philosophers" to refer to the narrow group. Otherwise I don't use the term, because I think it's not useful for my purposes. Edit: By the way, what difference does it make whether, in the context of academic philosophy, we label someone a philosopher? No serious student of philosophy would deny that philosophical insights can be discovered in the works of a nonphilosopher, however the term is used. I don't see why this Pollan character is any different. Maybe the concern is that Pollan isn't engaged in the debates that concern most academic philosophers today. If a student approached me with serious, long-term interests in academic philosophy, and she wanted to write an undergraduate thesis on the work of someone who isn't engaging the debates that concern most academic philosophers today, I might discourage the thesis only because it may not be a good entry-point into academic philosophy. Frankly, I was told not to write a paper in the philosophy of religion for the same reason! Or maybe the concern is that Pollan isn't engaged in the methodology that most academic philosophers use today, or maybe the concern is that Pollan isn't adopting the style of most "analytic" philosophers. I can see an advisor on purely practical grounds telling a student (who wants to pursue a career in academic philosophy) that it's wise to stay fairly "mainstream" when writing a thesis. So on further thought, I wonder if the advisor who called Pollan a non-philosopher just meant to encourage the student to do something a little more mainstream for an undergraduate thesis. That makes sense to me.

It's worth noting that any good placement in ethics is impressive. The fact that GSU has a few of these sets GSU apart from the other top MA programs. There just aren't a lot of people in normative ethics at top MA programs who are getting placed in normative ethics at strong PhD programs. For what it's worth, I can't recall any T20 PhD placement in normative ethics in the last few years at Brandeis. At UW Milwaukee, there were some impressive normative ethics placements in the last few years; none is a T20 placement (for what it's worth). Tufts doesn't reveal anything about this on the placement page, but I don't see that Tufts strengths lie in normative ethics. Someone could do a lot more research on this, and maybe we could then say with even more confidence that top MA programs aren't placing too many candidates with normative ethics as a central AOI into top PhD programs. How to explain this. Well, strong PhD placements are rare generally, so we shouldn't expect that any AOI is placed often. I suspect also that there are a lot of very strong undergrads with AOIs in ethics who are admitted straight to PhD programs. It's also odd, in my opinion at least, that so many MA students include normative ethics as an AOI. In my limited experience, there's an interest in normative ethics today that is particularly disproportionate to the number of available positions in PhD programs (and on the job market). Here's one crazy thought: maybe people who are especially interested in normative ethics tend also to be those who land a position outside of philosophy (e.g. law, as I did, or psychology, or public policy, etc.). I hope someone will research the placement records a bit more to discover whether there's an MA program that stands out as particularly strong in ethics. Having not done the research myself, I'm of the same mind as philstudent1991, that GSU is one of the better MA programs for students of normative ethics.

Average ranking isn't a great idea. Consider some hypotheticals (intentionally made extreme in order to illustrate a point). I'll preface all this with the huge caveat that there's something crude about evaluating placement by reducing records to a list of numbers, where each number represents PGR ranking. I won't give the long list of obvious drawbacks to such a crude way of looking at placement. I will say, though, that many of us fall back on something like this method of evaluating records, because it's fairly easy to reduce records to numbers like this, and because many of us believe that the PGR rankings mean something even if they don't mean everything. It's an imperfect philosophy world in which we live, and we're doing the best with the tools that we have. HYPO 1 Where "5, 19, 33, NR" indicates that four people were placed at programs ranked 5, 19, 33, and not ranked, respectively. . . . Program A: 20 people per cohort. Admission results: 1, 2, 5, and the remaining applicants/students aren't accounted for. (I.e. three people were admitted anywhere, and they were admitted to programs ranked 1st, 2nd, and 5th.) Program B: 20 people per cohort. Admission results: 12, 12, 12, 13, 13, 13, 14, 14, 14, 15, 15, 15, 16, 16, and the remaining applicants/students aren't accounted for. (I.e. 14 people were admitted, all to programs ranked 12th to 16th) In my view, Program B has the better placement record. The average method doesn't reveal that B has the better placement record. HYPO 2: It's even better to have information about how many applied and were not admitted, and how many didn't apply. Take the following hypothetical, where DA means "didn't apply," "NR" means not ranked, and "NA" means not admitted: Program C: 10 people per cohort Admission results: 5, 10, 15, 20, NA, NA, NA, NA, NA, DA (I.e. nine people applied, four of whom were admitted to places ranked 5th, 10th, 15th, and 20th, respectively.) Program D: 10 people per cohort Admission results: 5, 10, 15, 20, DA, DA, DA, DA, DA, DA Program D has probably the better placement record. HYPO 3: Here's another reason that straight-up averaging isn't that helpful. See the following hypothetical: Program E: 10 people per cohort Admission results: 10, 11, 35, 37, 39, 41, 43, DA, DA, DA Program F: 10 people per cohort Admission results: 10, 11, 19, NR, NR, NR, NR, DA, DA, DA How do you calculate the NR admissions? Do they count as ranked 50th for the sake of the exercise? HYPO 4: Program G: 20 people per cohort Admission results: 4, 9, 13, 18, 25, and the rest are ?, NA, or DA. Program H: 10 people per cohort Admission results: 4, 9, 13, 18, 25, and the rest are ?, NA, or DA. This hypo just illustrates that the program with the better placement record is the one with the greater share of its students doing well. Again, a straight-up averaging doesn't distinguish properly between G and H. Edit: Obviously there's another weakness in the "average ranking" method, and that's the weakness that I point out in the caveat at the top of this post: PGR ranking just doesn't reveal everything that's important in a placement. But if you're doing this very crude analysis of placement, at least do something more than average the list of numbers. I recommend considering the cohort size. Consider how many people applied out. Consider whether a lot of people are doing well or only a few. Consider what share of the students is landing somewhere decent and what share ends up dropping out of philosophy altogether. That's a more holistic approach than an averaging. For these reasons I said last year that UW Milwaukee or perhaps Brandeis had the best placement records. For for the first time in years, Tufts wasn't at the top in terms of placement. These are my views, and others have good reasons not to adopt my views. Directly to the issue of which program has better placement -- NIU or Georgia State -- I would need to look again to defend my view, but I recall in previous years concluding that Georgia State's record is a bit stronger than NIU's in terms of placement. These are all very good programs in terms of placement. Also, most people don't choose a program purely on placement evaluated objectively. For instance, if your dream is to study at University of Southern California, NIU has a few recent placements to USC. Several years ago, UW Milwaukee placed at Harvard a few times. Georgia State places at WUSTL almost every year. Brandeis places someone at UNC every other year. University of Missouri St. Louis (UMSL) has placed at Rutgers once before. People might want to consider these "pathway" programs (i.e. programs that are pathways to particular graduate programs in philosophy) and choose accordingly. If you want to go to WUSTL for philosophy and neuroscience, then Georgia State is the obvious best choice (best among MA programs).

Two very different choices for MA progs. Who did you contact at BC? Recommend that you try the grad chair-- tell that person that you reached out to a few people and didn't hear replies. Gotta say that it looks VERY bad on an MA program when the program (or its students) isn't responsive to attempts at communication. That looks very, very bad. It's a red flag. Maybe there are good reasons that you didn't hear replies. Maybe you contacted the only non-responsive people, or maybe they weren't responsive for good reasons (e.g. wrong email address, thrown into Spam folder, out of the country and away from email, etc.). But there's a prima facie case against going to an MA program whose faculty and students aren't responsive.

I think that's a smart move. Also I think it's great that you're honoring your parents in your openness to having them on campus. Parents often want to be supportive, and it's good that you can find a way to make that happen. It seems like you strike a good balance in your approach.

True! I'm going to edit my list. I'm assuming that smaller is better, and that's not really a fair assumption.

To reply directly: I think this is about right, but I urge you to speak with people who actually went to these programs. The financial services office is not best-positioned to give you the real numbers. They can't tell you things like, "Well, half of us got a sweet deal working at Harvard's summer school as TAs. So that offset the costs. Also the school guarantees one TA position, but in fact all of us received more than one position." Etc. To be brief, Brandeis and Tufts generally cost a lot more than NIU, Georgia State, and UW Milwaukee. (A friend of mine ended up with $50k more debt after one of these schools. He didn't work, though, and he lived well. He also wasn't under a parent's health insurance. Out of Georgia State he figures that he would have added some debt, only because the stipend would not probably have been quite enough to cover living expenses.) Brandeis doesn't in the end give you 50% remission. Only when you factor in the TA positions that you'll very likely get (between two or three total as a student at Brandeis), you'll end up with roughly 50% of your tuition "paid for" by Brandeis. You gotta talk to people who went to these schools to get the real scoop. These Massachusetts schools do offer pretty nice health insurance, for what it's worth. Possible benefits of going to Brandeis or Tufts: 1) Particular person with whom you want to work. 2) Financial and other benefit of possibly placing into a better PhD program. 3) Financial and other benefit of possibly getting a better job after placing into the better PhD program. 4) Improving an academic pedigree, which could help a person inside and outside of academic philosophy. E.g. the appearance of Tufts University vs. UW Milwuakee in the pedigree. 5) Living in the Boston area, one of the best places to study philosophy. 6) Stronger undergraduate population. Costs of attending: 1) Certainty of short term financial costs. 2) Risk of losing on a large financial investment. Note that for the few people who get full tuition remission at Brandeis, there's a stronger argument in favor of Brandeis.

Just a quick note: Some programs say that they require a "thesis" when what they mean is that they require a short paper (like 20-30pp). I think all that matters (in terms of research) in the MA is that you produce a strong paper that serves as your writing sample for PhD admissions. That strong paper may be around 20-30pp (before it's trimmed for purposes of applications). If PhD admission is the goal, I would not devote time in the MA program to a paper longer than the 20-30pp. MA is all about getting that application together. I've heard that profs on admission committees do not have time to look beyond the elements of your application. A very long thesis will have limited effect on these elements. Rule of thumb: "Do only those things that will improve the elements of your application." I assume that some of the previous posters in this thread are thinking along these lines (thesis = short paper of 20-30pp).

UW Milwaukee will probably release today, tomorrow, or Friday. For some reason, a few of these MA programs release really late. I wonder if it has to do with the fact that so many people who received PhD offers will decline MA offers. Maybe the thought is that, if the MA programs wait until most/all PhD offers are out, the whole process of working through the wait-lists will work much faster. It's possible that an MA program will initially admit 10 people, eight of whom already received decent PhD offers (and who will turn down the MA offer on the same day it's received). An unrelated point: If you're on a wait-list at a well-known MA program (certainly any of those first seven programs mentioned in Brian Leiter's old post about MA programs) and you're anywhere near the top of that list (even the top half of the list, probably), you'll almost certainly be admitted. Northern Illinois, e.g., tells people near the top of the wait-list that they will almost certainly be admitted but can't formally be admitted until enough offers have been turned down.

I'll say more privately (message me, please). I can't give you an informed opinion tailored to your situation, because I don't know how you weight the different factors of the decision. I can say that I think there are clear cases in which Brandeis is the better choice (over NIU), and I can say that I think there are clear cases in which NIU is the better choice. Brandeis is more expensive than NIU (except in the case in which Brandeis gives the full tuition break, something that it does every year for at least one person). But Brandeis has the better placement record. We've discussed elsewhere that it's not clear exactly how much Brandeis or Tufts "boosts" a person's placement (over attending some other MA program). It's possible that people admitted to Brandeis would do just as well at any other MA program but that they pick Brandeis because it's the "best" program to which they are admitted. (Interestingly, if you ask people who did very well out of these programs, they often will tell you that it made a difference.) My own view is that people often overlook a few factors when deciding for or against Brandeis/Tufts (since these two programs have a lot in common: similar funding, similar institutional reputation, roughly the same geographical location, similar standards, similar placement records): 1. Like it or not, institutional reputation is a part of the academic pedigree. A lot of us suspect that pedigree makes a difference not only in PhD admissions, but in all sorts of other selection processes (jobs, etc.). A lot of people don't make it in philosophy. Right or wrong, the appearance of Brandeis/Tufts on your academic resume may look better to those outside of philosophy than the appearance of NIU. It's silly, but it's a reality. 2. In my own experience, I think it's more difficult to do well in school when I'm not thriving in my personal life. If you suspect that you will struggle in a certain city or region, that's a professional/academic consideration, not just a personal one. Some people will not do well in Boston and may want to choose a program elsewhere for that reason. Others won't do well in DeKalb, Illinois, or Atlanta, Georgia, and may want to choose a place like Boston. 3. Consider very seriously whether people who share your main area(s) of interest do well out of the program(s) you're considering. If it's fairly clear that your main area of interest is X and that one of these MA programs tends to place very well from X because it has a professor who's very well known in X, you may want to pick that program, even when other factors tend to weigh against picking that program. Examples: Georgia State and cognitive science or ancient philosophy. Brandeis and metaontology. Etc. Unfortunately, in my experience, many of us don't know exactly what we want to study until spending some time in a graduate program. Still, I didn't meet a lot of people whose interests changed dramatically over the course of their studies.