ianfaircloud

On bringing parents: I remember that an admitted student brought her parent to visit our MA program, and it struck me as odd. I can't explain why I had the reaction I did, but there was something uncomfortable about it. On bringing significant others: This does not strike me as odd. From my own experience, my significant other has invested a lot in my education. I feel like I owe it to her to be a part of the selection process. I did go to lengths to include my significant other in my decisions for and against programs. For me, my parents have next to nothing invested my education at this point. They aren't stakeholders the same way that my significant other is a stakeholder. I guess that's the most sense I can make of my intuitions on these questions. Probably I could be more open-minded on bringing parents.

This is such a good thread -- and an encouraging one to people who attended less than the best colleges! I think all of these replies line up with my expectations. It's become clear that pedigree generally gives a boost but that people can "make it" from a variety of backgrounds. If I have children, I'll encourage them to attend strong colleges. Sounds obvious, but my own parents didn't push me in any direction. At age 18, I don't think I realized that the college choice could make much of a difference. (At that time, I hadn't even dreamed of pursuing a PhD in philosophy.)

Yes! Thanks!

Would you elaborate on what you mean by "pretty good PhD programs" and "great terminal MA"? Also are you able to give us more information concerning what you mean by "small university"? Do you mean that it's not a very good college? You're a very interesting and unusual case. The survey we ran last year suggests that your situation is extremely rare. In my experience, a lot of people think they went to "lesser known" colleges when in fact they went to respectable colleges. I'll never forget when a very intelligent friend of mine claimed that he's a success story because he landed a top spot after having attended a "small college." The small college was actually a really good school in the US News top-20 liberal arts colleges. That's why I put together the rank-reputation key for last year's philosophy admission survey. One way to know whether you really attended a not-good college is to think about whether enrollment was more or less open. In other words, were there admission standards at all? Did you need a 2.0 high school GPA? Did you need a 900 on the SAT? There are many colleges that literally admit every applicant who has a high school diploma and no disciplinary/legal history. There are other colleges that literally don't have philosophy departments. All the more reason that I want to know more about your story!!! Maybe you really beat the odds. It sounds like you did, just given the 2.75 GPA. That's quite shocking, actually. Did you have a letter from a well-known philosopher? Can you think of any reasons that we haven't mentioned here that might have helped your application stand out? What made your application different from the others? Do you have an interesting background? Most people (according to our survey data) say that they wrote a great writing sample, so that won't help much. But maybe there's something else unique about you or your application that could help us make sense of this result.

Here's my attempt to push you very hard in one direction. You should consult someone who disagrees with me, too. But it's generally very risky to turn down an MA for a PhD from a fairly strong program. Each of the programs you have mentioned is very strong for one reason or another. I simply can't imagine turning down one of those for any MA. MA programs take time and cost money (because at the very least, time devoted to an MA is almost certainly lost time in the profession). MA programs don't always make a big difference. As a matter of fact, MA programs don't in the majority of cases result in an amazing, top-PhD offer. I've not met a single person who turned down a T30 PhD for an MA. I do know one person who turned down a PhD program in the PGR 30s for a fully-funded MA at a very strong program, and that person ended up at a T10. I know another who turned down a similarly-ranked program for a top MA and ended up shut-out of philosophy. And I know another person who turned down a very low-ranked PGR PhD for a top MA and ended up shut-out, too. Remember that PhD admissions are unpredictable. You are lucky (there's no question about that) to be admitted to a T25. Luck did play a role. Next time you may be unlucky.

Some do get full waivers, and everybody else gets the package described by Dialectica. See last year's funding survey for information.

UT Austin is great. Congrats to you.

Brandeis will extend offers any day now (perhaps tomorrow). Offers will go by email. There will be probably 15-20 initial offers, and the department will aim to enroll roughly 10. (Perhaps fewer-- perhaps 8 or 9.) Like every top MA program, Brandeis's wait-list is long. Many strong PhD applicants apply to Brandeis and others as a back-up plan. They get snatched up, so these MA programs have to work through a list of wait-listed applicants. Hence some people aren't admitted until very late in the game.

Hyperbole, but I take it the point is that it's a very, very tough job market, even for people who take a PhD from the best programs. I think that's right, and I think the professor's point is well-taken. I think LennyBound's point is also well-taken, that there are some 20+, 30+, and even some non-PGR programs (on the 30+ side, University of Pennsylvania comes to mind) that have placed well. And I think there are a few T20s that don't place quite as well. That makes sense, because typically PhD candidates attach themselves only to a few people in the program (not to the program at large) and only to one or two areas of interest (and not philosophy generally). It's not like you go to Penn and work with the entire department. You work with Samuel Freeman. And it's not like you work in the area of "philosophy generally." You work in "political philosophy/Rawls." There are at least three other reasons that the PGR rankings don't line up exactly with placement. (1) Maybe PhD candidates simply aren't thriving in the culture of a particular program, because the culture (or the climate) isn't great. I won't name programs, but I know of at least one T20 that has a very bad reputation for culture and climate. (2) PGR rankings display faculty quality, not student quality. Some programs aren't very good at selecting the best students possible. Finally, (3) institutional reputation and regional reputation are important factors in getting hired. From what I can tell, California schools, for example, tend to favor California-trained candidates. Another thing to keep in mind is that PGR isn't supposed to rank programs in terms of placement records. It's supposed to rank programs by faculty quality. Hence the older PGR actually included Tufts in the ranking, despite its having only an MA program.

I don't know the answer to this, but I know that Saint Louis University was inserted by the board on the Medieval and Religion lists in the 2011 PGR. Now it's Top-50 on the PGR generally. I've heard vague things about Baylor investing more into its program. (Things like, it's "on the rise.") I vaguely remember that Baylor launched some kind of initiative a few years ago, and philosophy was supposed to be a core part of that initiative. Maybe someone from Baylor (or with more familiarity with Baylor) can clear this up for us. Baylor is an historically religious institution, and a quick glance at the faculty page reveals that the department is focused on philosophy of religion. More than half of the full-time faculty list philosophy of religion as an AOI. C. Stephen Evans and Jonathan Kvanvig are particularly strong, just from my vague memories of reading their work -- but these are philosophers who may not have especially broad appeal. Evans, in particular, is a bit more narrowly-focused, if I recall correctly. Edit: University of Oklahoma again gets on the philosophy of religion list because of Linda Zagzebski, who is influential at Oklahoma and very strong in philosophy of religion. I don't see Oklahoma moving into the PGR 50 without some additional hires, and I have no reason in particular to believe that it's a "rising" program. Still, for those with an interest in religion, I would imagine that Zagzebski would be a great person to work with.

Let me say that in my limited experience of philosophy programs, one sign that a program is healthy is that its students are enthusiastically willing to promote the program. I'll also say, just to further support the previous two posters, that I think Madison, Wisconsin, is a fine place. It's an interesting city with culture and history, and UW Madison is one of the best of the larger state schools. I'll also take an opportunity to give a wider defense of the Midwest more generally. People from the East Coast, at least in my experience, often have a lot of misconceptions about the Midwest. That's because they often hear only the worst things about it. (It's similar to how I heard bad things about Philly. Turns out that Philly is a great place.) I, myself, am from the middle of the country, and I'm proud of my background.

http://www.philosophicalgourmet.com/breakdown.asp This was already published in pieces, but the page wasn't completely published until sometime in the last week (if I'm not mistaken).

I have no graduate-level connections to Rutgers, but in case anyone has any question about it, I do know that Rutgers has begun to admit people (i.e. that the posts are legit). I learned this through my one and only real connection (outside of undergrads) to the department. I know at least one person on this forum has access to more information. Hopefully that person will find out more and post it here! (I take it you don't doubt that the posts are legit but that you just want more information, e.g. will there be more phone calls of acceptance, etc.).

I'm glad you posted this link! I hope those of us who have lived over here can be helpful to you. I seem to remember that people paid $700-900 per person in the Cambridge-Somerville area of Boston. This was for a decent place. I'm sure others on the forum can relate their own experiences, too. I seem to remember that people paid $350-500 per person in Wisconsin for a similar place. I shopped two bedroom apartments in and around University City in St. Louis, near the WUSTL campus. Those were about $700-900 total, or $350-450 per person. My own experience may not reflect others' experiences. It's always risky to post this kind of stuff, because I'm sure there are people out there who spend $600 per person in Madison and others who spend $550 per person in the Boston area. But I'm pretty confident that I have the numbers right. I highly recommend that you look at http://www.padmapper.com/. This site is perfect for finding the real rent in a very particular area. I also highly recommend that you contact current students to find out exactly what they're paying per person for rent. Their word on the matter counts far more than what you find on the Internet. There's no substitute for hearing from people who have actually searched for apartments. I should say that prices vary greatly by precise area. The cost of living in Boston proper is not the same as the cost in Cambridge, Waltham, Brookline, and other "suburbs" (?) of Boston. E.g. Waltham apartments are much cheaper.

See the funding survey. My view is that it's fairly on target for schools of its kind (state schools) in regions of similar cost of living. See, e.g., Missouri at Columbia. Speaking only from my experience (as someone who lived in Wisconsin for four years, who has friends in Madison, and who has lived in Milwaukee, Boston, Philly, St. Louis, D.C., etc.), I think it's very inexpensive to live in Madison. It's not quite as cheap as Dallas, but it's close. I think it just feels like a low offer when I compare it to what I would get at a private school in major city on the East Coast. But the cost of living is so much higher here. Groceries are higher. Insurance is higher. Rent is higher. For what it's worth, my grocery bill went up 50% when I moved from the Midwest to Boston. Now in general, $15k is not a lot. $15k wouldn't pay my bills -- even in Madison. Maybe I spend too much money. I probably do. If I went to Madison, I would have to take on additional debt. So in that sense, it's not a lot of money.

It's huge, and it's a real shame for those who looked forward to working with him in Madison. Thing is, he's such a key figure there. Just to offer some encouragement: When departments lose someone big, often they try to compensate with new hires. Of course I have no information to indicate whether UW Madison will do this. I know that if I were dean of the school of arts and sciences at Madison, I would be thinking very seriously about how to maintain the strength of the philosophy department. For one thing, Madison has drawn in a respectable crowd for an annual conference on metaethics, which I have to believe would be affected after this departure. Edit: Also, not to neglect the UNC aspect of the story. UNC just lost Bob Adams to retirement not long ago. Adams of course is (among other things) a strong metaethicist. UNC's hire of Shafer-Landau is an effort to compensate. See how that works? So those at UNC are really fortunate.

http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2015/03/shafer-landau-from-wisconsin-to-north-carolina.html In case anyone missed it: This is very big news for some people who are considering UNC Chapel Hill or UW Madison. It's a real loss to UW Madison and gain to Chapel Hill. Also, if you applied to UW Madison and mentioned an AOI of metaethics or ethics generally, I wonder whether this move changed anything in evaluation of your application. (E.g. for those who mentioned they want to work with Russ Shafer-Laundau.)

I answer under the assumption that you want a PhD in philosophy. I concur with the view that it's important to learn what percent of students go on to PhD programs. Don't be distracted by one solid placement; instead, think of the quantity (or maybe the share) of good placements. This may seem obvious, but I highly recommend that you consider whether a department's placement record reflects a serious weakness in some broader subfield of philosophy (e.g. ethics). From what I can tell, MA programs often have one or two (or maybe three) professors who clearly stand out as the strongest in the program. This is all about fit: make sure that the program's strengths line up with your interests. I don't believe that there's a huge quality difference among the top MA programs, so if the choice is between two such programs, don't be afraid to choose mostly according to fit (or even according to practical considerations, like finances). I think there was another thread on questions to ask. But I take it that you want questions that are particularly important for MA programs. Ask students why they picked the program over other offers (if applicable). Ask students about climate. Ask students about the social atmosphere, because the answer can be revealing. Ask students about the "real" costs of attendance: rent in the area, fees that you may not have heard about, etc. Ask students how much the profs help during admission season. Ask students whether there's one prof who tends to "produce" the most successful applicants to PhD programs. Consider cohort size. Consider how much work you will have to do in order to get the funding. Consider whether that work will distract too much from your application effort. Ask whether you will take classes with undergrads, and ask whether the undergrads are strong academically.

I would be willing to (try to) help, though I don't claim to be the most qualified to help. I think philstudent's question is important. Along these lines, there are a few MA programs that take applications after March 1 (or at least there used to be such programs). So it may not be too late to drop another $75 to apply to one of those. Maybe someone who applied this year would have more information for you than I.

Eigen, no one suggested "conspiracies in the fact that [you're] a moderator." You did question our ethics, and you did that in a forum on philosophy admissions. I'm surprised that you would criticize the response as too "analytical," given that you questioned the ethics of a bunch of philosophy grad students. I've said enough on this. I'm not going to post any more replies on the subject.

Of course not, Eigen. I guess I've seen (in other forums) people refer to the "moderator". You're the only moderator with whom I've interacted on this site, and I've posted 500+ times. I mean absolutely nothing personal by my reaction to your comments. But as I said above, you dropped in on the discussion -- and it's the only time I've seen you here, and you happen to be a moderator -- and then suggested that we have acted unethically. (This is implied by your suggestion that the information is "considered confidential." What else could it mean to violate confidentiality? That's why several have taken issue with the suggestion that someone has been untrustworthy.) Do you see how, in this context, your post could come off the wrong way to those you have suggested acted unethically? It's not like you're on here interacting with us all of the time, offering your views here and there. It feels like you implicitly used your status as moderator to warrant a claim about our ethics. We had 53 responses last year to our survey about funding, and we have over 20 so far this year. Maybe you just felt particularly compelled in this situation, in which case it was all unintended on your part. I mean nothing personal. I just mean to point out how your post feels to me in this context. After all, you have called into question my ethics.

You imply that the "bulk" nature of some letters is relevant. I assume by "bulk" you mean "form letter." We've said in this thread that we're speaking about form letters. See, e.g., my second post, above. If you're speaking about something other than a form letter, then you're not speaking to the issue. Regarding form letters, you write that you "have yet to experience a school that writes bulk acceptance letters." I have experienced several departments that offer such letters, if by "bulk" you mean "form letter." Form letters are quite common in admission offers! Sometimes grad admission chairs (at least in philosophy) don't have time to pen a personal admission letter. When I applied and was admitted to MA programs, I received several (five?) such form letters from faculty members of a philosophy department. You write regarding funding information that "it's considered confidential" by "admissions committees and other university officials." Thankfully, that's simply not true of philosophy admissions. We need openness about funding so that we can make informed decisions about whether to accept an offer. Openness about offers decreases the chance that an uninformed person is exploited. Openness also encourages departments to give fair compensation. Funding is not a gift. It's a contract. In the case of a job offer, I would think openness is particularly important! I've received a lot of positive feedback for the funding information that we have posted in the funding survey. In two years of posting this information, no one has offered on this forum or via email a worry that the information is private or confidential. You're the first to offer that particular worry, Moderator. So, in sum, two things you say above strike me as incredible: One is that you've never seen form letters in admission letters. I personally have received several of these, and I know many others who have. Two is that you think funding information is supposed to be kept in strict confidence (though you admit in your first post that "You can show people," just don't "broadcast" the information).

Moderator, are you offering this in an official capacity or as just another person on Grad Cafe? Your position as "moderator" suggests the former. I wonder what others think about you offering your view as a moderator on this topic. Moderator, you say that it's "bad form," "considered confidential" (by whom? aren't you begging the question here?), and can "seem unprofessional" (by whom? why?). I find the post frustrating. It comes off to me as condescending, because you offered it with the words "Moderator" and "Staff" next to your name, and because you offered a merely-conclusory opinion. I've already offered a fairly comprehensive defense of my view, and others have chimed in (most of them for, but a few against, my view). I'll add the following: It's fairly standard practice (the social norm) in law admissions to post letters and other communication. Is there a relevant difference in law admissions, or do you think that all of those people (the thousands of them) are in the wrong for doing it? If there's a relevant difference, what difference could that be? The letters are written by people at the law school. They are form letters, not personalized beyond the salutation. To be clear, no one has suggested that we should post letters that are not form letters. (See the posts above.) Law and philosophy letters alike are often (though not always) emailed. So what's the crucial difference? Is it that a professor's communication is more private than communication from another officer of the school? If so, what's the relevant difference between a professor's letter and one from an admissions officer? Is it that one letter is viewed by more people? Is there some point at which the letter becomes private?

Verificationist, allow me to offer another view. I agree that the GRE isn't that important. In my experience, it serves to filter out some people, and that's about it. But if it were important, Ziggy did fine on that measure. The writing score generally isn't important, and a 4.0 on writing isn't horrible. The GPA -- even the non-philosophy GPA -- makes a difference. A quick glance at last year's comprehensive philosophy admissions survey at least suggests that GPA is important. I would not be surprised if the GPA did hurt Ziggy. You say that the letters were probably good. I still think the letters can be a negative factor, even when they're good. It matters who wrote the letters and how strong they were. I have no idea how Ziggy fared on this measure, so I'm not ready to dismiss the possibility that the letters weren't a factor. The writing sample may have been a factor, too. But really, even with an amazing sample, a low GPA may prevent readers from taking a serious look at the sample. Maybe some professor who would have loved the sample never got to read it, because that professor placed Ziggy's application in the "low numbers" pile. Performing the post-admission autopsy in philosophy admissions is not always a totally hopeless exercise. Sometimes it is. Even fantastic applicants can fail. In the end, Ziggy may simply have been unlucky. For this reason (and other reasons), applying to philosophy programs can be terribly frustrating.

The CUNY situation is a mystery. CUNY typically admits people beginning around Feb 20 to Mar 1. There's a pattern of admitting people over the course of many days. I can't find precedent for the rejections coming first. This year is an odd year, though. For some reason, people aren't using Grad Cafe as much as previous years. This forum, e.g., is not as busy as the last few years. One friend of mind speculated that there's a culture change in graduate philosophy admissions, one of avoidance of Grad Cafe. Why does any of this matter? Well, I wonder whether a few people were admitted to CUNY and didn't post. CUNY does occasionally admit quite a few people weeks after the initial offers. (See, e.g., 2010.) CUNY has sent wait-lists very late. (See, e.g., 2014.) Near as I can tell, CUNY's approach is heterodox among grad programs. I have a friend at CUNY, but it's been a year or more since I last spoke with her. Does anyone have a CUNY connection? If you applied and have not been rejected, there's reason to be optimistic. CUNY does typically send a bunch of rejections at once. From what I can see, CUNY admits or wait-lists most of the others.