ianfaircloud

Arghh, I wasn't thinking clearly. Yes, Hcarp's suggestion is probably right. The Grad Admissions Office is probably not familiar with when the department will release results. In fact, the office may give everyone the same, generic response: "We will release decisions in a few weeks." That's very standard. The philosophy admissions committee knows when the decisions will be released. I'll be shocked if we don't hear from the philosophy department sooner than two weeks from now. We really should have already heard. If I were forced to pick a date, I would pick tomorrow. Note that every well-known philosophy department released results by March 10 last year. That's roughly a week from this coming Monday.

Thanks for letting us know! That's *so* late. That would be a month later than we predicted and a month later than any of the last three years of admissions.

Moving this to top. It takes only a few minutes!!! Please fill out this year's funding survey. Last year we had 53 responses! This year we have just about 17.

You've brought up a different criticism than the one offered by the poster above. Some people do post quotes from letters or whole letters in order to self-promote. Many of us are pretty anonymous on this site, so our reputations don't extend at all beyond this forum. There are only a few people on this forum who know my real name. It sounds like your real worry is that some people may be brought down by reading another person's admission letter (hence your mention of a posting on a public help-wanted board next to an ad for the position offered). You know, it's true that much of what we say and do on Grad Cafe may bring down someone in a vulnerable position. A lot of people avoid Grad Cafe altogether because they're worried about the psychological effects (perhaps including the effect of watching others do well). I'm not sure what that means for those of us who do participate in the forum. Maybe it means that we should be sensitive and understanding. I aim to be sensitive. I hope that people don't post letters in order to self-promote. I also hope that people who might be hurt by seeing others' letters would not visit this thread. (I'll point out that people post quotes and letters of admission on various threads of this forum all of the time. The responses are overwhelmingly positive. This is largely a group of people who aren't first and foremost self-promoting; the people on this forum are other-promoting. When we see one among us do well, we congratulate the person and try to share the joy. I'm not saying that there's a "right" way that one should feel after seeing someone else do well. When I see someone do well, I'm sure deep inside there's a part of me that feels some regret that I didn't get admitted to a program last year. That's a completely normal reaction. When I see someone do well, I extend my congratulations-- unless the person is a jerk or something. I don't think of those people as doing anything analogous to what you offered above, regarding the post on the help-wanted board next to an advertisement for the position. I'm speaking in generalities; of course, some people are here to self-promote. But by and large, the people on here genuinely want to see others do well. I don't want to call your analogy ridiculous or out of touch with the culture of this forum. I can see why you have the worry that you do. From my perspective, it's not a real serious worry in this context. The people who are pretty worried about how they may feel about someone's admission offer-- those people are avoiding this place. I totally get that and respect it.)

I completely "get" the frustration. It's hard to react in a way that honors your feelings without alienating the people who are shut-out altogether. Two years of applications and not a single admission-- I get that. But look, you still have time (assuming you applied to some of the programs that haven't yet released). And, as an encouragement: you must be a good applicant to have been wait-listed by UVA last year and by Miami this year. You know how many people apply; even a wait-list is a high honor. I hope Miami comes through for you. I concur with the other posts that suggest you should be optimistic. It *is* very common for programs to go through the wait-list. Programs do *not* like to give false hopes, in my experience. I'm very optimistic for you, and I hope you'll keep us informed. Good luck, my friend.

Wow, I'm very surprised at this reaction. Self-destructive? Professors lurking on GradCafe? The correspondence is hardly personal or private; these are letters written often to hundreds of people (quite literally). Not one of these emails is personal; indeed, if one were personal, I would *not* recommend posting it! (Unless you think that a letter with your name is "personal." But that's not "personal" in any ordinary sense of the word.) Please, readers of this post: don't post anything that you think of as "personal." I think of none of the above letters as the least bit personal. They are carefully crafted with the knowledge that many others will read them. I forwarded them along to faculty and friends, and I feel no shame in that. Others feel the same way. In fact, many others have posted their letters on Grad Cafe in the past. This is merely an effort to put them in one place. Sigaba, I see that you're uncomfortable with this. I respect that, but I disagree that I'm not trustworthy on account of posting a rejection letter that hundreds, literally hundreds of people have seen. You know how many people have posted pieces of letters on Grad Cafe, either on this forum or in the "results" survey page? I must have read literally hundreds of quotes from such letters. Edit: I don't want to sound too dismissive of Sigaba. Reasonable minds may differ on this. I just really resent the suggestion that people who post letters are not trustworthy on account of that! I thought this thread might be interesting to people. Many of us have received interesting letters in response to our applications. Many of us are curious about those.

If you get an admission notification (admit, wait-list, deny/reject) letter written by a member of a philosophy department (so not by the dean of admissions or arts and sciences or other administrator), please remove your personal identifying information (e.g. your name) and post the letter here. Include the date on which you received the letter. I'll go first (with the only wait-list that I received last year): February 25, 2014 Dear [name], We are writing with an update on your application status. Recently, we informed a small group of applicants that they were being admitted to our graduate program for fall 2014; we also informed a very large group of applicants that we will not be accepting them. We are writing now to tell you that your application is still under serious consideration and thus you are on our wait-list. We do not expect to be able to admit anyone from the wait list soon, particularly since we are required by the Council of Graduate Schools to give our accepted students until April 15th to decide. Eventually, we'll be able to give you a more definite sense of where you stand on the wait list, but that will probably happen in April, nearer to the deadline. It may be helpful to know our support package at this time. Here is the funding you will receive if you are admitted to UW-Madison Philosophy: First and Second Years: TA salary of at least $10,454 plus $1,000 department scholarship each semester ($2,000 total per year). The $10,454 salary is based on an assignment of teaching 3 discussion sections per week, but in almost every case grad students have taught 4 sections a week--the total annual funding for a 4 section TA (including the scholarship) is $14,288. TAs are exempted from paying tuition but they do pay segregated fees. They also pay a standard fee for an excellent health insurance plan (currently $44.00 per month for a single person, $109.50 for a family plan.) Third-Fifth Years: Funding during these 3 years is also guaranteed. Typically the 3rd year students are supported as a TA, and the 4th and 5th years, as either a Lecturer or TA. TAs can anticipate a raise in pay once they are promoted to dissertator, typically at the end of the 3rd year. We hope that you are still interested in joining our graduate program. If you have questions about our program or the admissions process, please let us know. And of course if you do accept another offer, we would appreciate it (and I'm sure the others on the wait list would, too) if you'd inform us. Admissions Committee Philosophy Department University of Wisconsin-Madison And here's the famous Ted Sider email: March 3, 2014 Dear [name], I'm afraid I have some bad news: we are unable to offer you admission to Cornell. The application pool this year was extremely competitive: 315 applications for only 6 slots. Reading through all these files, I was struck by how many smart and dedicated philosophers there are. I enjoyed reading the insightful and creative writing samples and the often inspiring personal statements, and I was saddened that we could not admit more. I know this doesn't really help, but I will mention it nevertheless. Thank you for applying to our program. Best wishes, Ted Sider PS: Sorry for the impersonal note. I wish I could email each person individually, but this just isn't practical given the number of applicants.

This year, many could benefit from the funding data we gathered last year. Last year's survey was a real success; I think there were 25+ programs represented (and 53 responses). Now and in the future, many could benefit from the funding data we gather this year. One idea behind the funding survey project is that over time the philosophical community will have a lot of data on funding over many years. This is all to say that I hope you'll contribute to this year's funding survey. It takes only a moment. It's anonymous. And it's a small way to contribute to a worthy project. Please contribute! We don't yet have data on a lot of programs. If you see that a program's data is missing and know someone who has access to the data, please encourage that person to contribute, too. Also, redundant responses (more than one response concerning the same program) are helpful, too.

UC Santa Barbara is sending notifications now (again), after sending some six days ago.

I can tell you that NYU has at least admitted one person. I know that last year there were false reports about NYU. I know that, last year, NYU posted something on the website about offers in March. But yeah, at least one offer has been extended, because my good friend called me late Friday night to tell me the good news. I had a long conversation with him, and there were witnesses. Also he's a very honest person and has no reason to mislead us. BUT, maybe NYU will send out more this week. Admittedly the offer to my friend is very early!

I agree with the sentiment expressed in this statement: the option you suggest just wouldn't work out. I don't know your priorities or the details of your situation, but if I were in a similar situation, I would not pursue the option that you suggest. If it helps, I'll say that I have faced (and will soon face) a very similar dilemma in my own situation. It really sucks. I hope you can figure it out. I don't know enough to say what path I would take, but my guess is that I would reapply next year exclusively to UK programs. Do you know how likely it is that you would succeed in UK admissions next year? It's pretty hard to guess at these things, but maybe you have some idea. Here's what I wouldn't do. I wouldn't go to the US unless you are very confident that you will want to finish the degree in the US. I would not tell your partner that there's some chance you would go to the US and come back to the UK only a year or so later. If I may say so, I think that's a very bad idea. It's a way for you to delay a tough decision. Right now is the time for you two to decide whether living in the US (for several years, at least) is the best thing for the two of you. My feeling is that your option is a way to delay the difficult tasks of having that conversation and setting these priorities. This is a tough situation. You're obviously concerned about your partner's priorities, and I think that's a good sign. I wish you the best.

Hey, sidebysondheim: Don't be greedy! You're doing QUITE well, from this angle.

OK, I'm now privileged to say: NYU is calling people. David Chalmers called my good friend this afternoon to extend an offer of admission. My guess, based on the timing of my friend's notification (later in the day), is that NYU is not done calling people. Copied from my update on philosophyadmissions.wordpress: "A good friend of mine called me tonight to say that he was admitted to NYU in the later part of the day on Friday. The call came straight from David Chalmers. Based on the timing, I think NYU will continue to extend offers over the weekend. It’s also possible that all offers were extended today. If Chalmers calls you, it will likely be a New York City area code (as it was for my friend). Chalmers did not leave a voice message on his first attempt. (Ian Faircloud)" I can give you more information about my friend. My friend's AOIs are metaphysics and epistemology. He's quite good and has been invited to present his writing sample at a few respectable conferences. His academic pedigree is impressive. He's also a very good person with an interesting personal background. He's not from an especially privileged background but sort of worked his way to the top. Anyway, I'm thrilled for him. He deserves it.

Big news is on its way late tonight. Stay tuned....

My view (not necessarily the right view), operating under the assumption that this is an interview (interviews do happen in philosophy admissions, though they're rare): 1. Look professional, but don't feel like you have to put on a suit. Philosophers don't usually wear those. 2. Know your interests and the people with whom you would want to work. Know something very basic about each of these people, in case it comes up. 3. Know your writing sample. 4. Have a few interesting topics in mind from your statement of purpose. Be ready to speak intelligently about those. The easy way to do this is to draw from whatever work you have produced for classes. 5. Don't otherwise do any further philosophical research. My view: Numbers 1 and 3 are most important here. Number 2 is maybe as important. There's no need to say more in reply to the email. Just offer your Skype details and use professional courtesy in the email (e.g. "Dear Prof. so-and-so, I'm so pleased to meet you on Skype. My Skype details are such and such. Sincerely yours, Mindreading."). Keep it short. Remember that the department isn't going to interview people in whom it doesn't already have interest. Just be sure to come off as serious and purposeful, not as someone with casual or fleeting interests. In my view, it's better to sound hyper-interested in an area than to sound open to many areas, despite the many people who would say otherwise (and despite what I've read on blogs, etc., about how departments like students who haven't settled yet). Before the interview, ask yourself why this department is already interested in you. Last year, I immediately realized after being wait-listed at UW Madison that I was a really, really good fit there and for obvious reasons. I didn't quite appreciate it until I was wait-listed, but my writing sample lined up perfectly with the department's strengths. Maybe you can see that in your own situation, I hope. Another thing: At this stage, it's about "fit" more than "competence." You probably don't need to prove competence at this point. Fit, fit fit. For this reason, you probably should emphasize how well you think you will fit in and how excited you are about it. I wouldn't emphasize that you have competing offers. Don't try to have a "poker face" about how badly you want to be admitted. In this context, people are quite responsive (in a good way) to eagerness. Don't be coy about what you want.

I agree that the Brown situation is odd. Last year, Brown had like nine posts or something in only a day or two. I've noticed that people aren't as active on the Grad Cafe this year as in past years, which may account for the decline.

For everyone's sake, would you tell us which big name school has already released results? If you're not privileged to say, that's OK, too. In my experience, it's very rare for someone to be admitted to any of the roughly T35 PGR departments without there being some notification soon thereafter on the Grad Cafe survey -- except in the very rare case that a professor tells someone privately that she's been admitted. (When this happens, it's typically a prof telling one of her own current or former students.) It's also fairly rare for someone to post a false report, though it does happen. I agree that a lot of people don't post, but it doesn't follow that there aren't a lot of posts when a department releases notifications.

At this point, I think it was a false report. I don't have data to prove it, but it seems to me that we have had more false reports this year than last. Sid Evans was right not to call it until we saw more. Also, it's mysterious that we haven't heard from Pitt, given both the prediction and the report from a contact over there. Maybe all this is to say that, as a rule, the "presumption of truth" shouldn't apply to any early posts for Harvard, NYU, Pitt, and perhaps a few others of other "big name" institutions near the top of PGR -- particularly when the early posts fall on an unusual day (e.g. Saturday) or include dubious / no notes.

Up-vote. ("You have reached your quota of positive votes for the day.")

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/19/education/were-sorry-applicants-we-accepted-you-in-error.html

That's incredible. I've never seen that! Aside from these few people, who does that?!

This form email is the same used for four consecutive admission seasons (2012-2015). It may go back further than that. Note that the body of the email abruptly ends with "future, I am". That, too, has not changed from year to year. (Excluding, obviously, the "P.S. . . ." section. Thanks, a_for_apriora.)

UCSB is up.

I haven't published this (yet), but maybe this is a good time to run it by a few people on this forum. Law school after philosophy: Ten things I would say to a student of philosophy who is considering law school. By Ian Faircloud Philosophy is the perfect pre-law discipline. Simply put, the good student of law applies abstract rules and principles – i.e. the law – to facts. Because facts are messy, the good student of law is able to distinguish between relevant and irrelevant information. These two skills – the ability to draw out the relevant information and the ability to apply the law to facts – are indispensable to students of law. These skills are uncommonly crucial to the student of philosophy, as well. This is a simplification of the larger point that students of philosophy are particularly well-suited to the study of law. I think the broader point is that students of philosophy think abstractly, critically, and deeply, habits that are deeply rewarding in the study of law. Succeeding in law admissions is not particularly difficult for philosophy students. You’ll probably crush the LSAT, because students of philosophy – as with other standards tests – do particularly well on it. Half of the LSAT is composed of sections in which the test-taker analyzes the logic of arguments. Frankly, this portion of the test may come so naturally that you needn’t bother studying for it. After the LSAT, the remainder of the application is less important. Law schools admit people almost strictly according to LSAT and GPA. Your letters of recommendation can be generalized for all schools to which you apply. Your personal statement hardly matters. And the LSAC’s application service allows you to submit applications very quickly through standardized, auto-filled forms – forms that do not require you to send transcripts to the law schools. Finally, by philosophy standards, law admission is quite easy. Top philosophy programs admit probably four percent of applicants, while top law schools admit roughly fifteen percent. Graduates from strong law schools typically do well financially. Though the legal job market is not strong, graduates from the best law schools are still doing quite well. And in general, lawyers do well financially. Of course, people who want to teach philosophy often end up jobless. Sadly, academic philosophy has an uncertain future, because -- frankly -- ignorant people do not understand its value. Ignorant parents, for instance, steer their children away from philosophy. I fear also that, more and more, people value the sciences (particularly the hard sciences) over the arts. This is all to say that, provided you graduate from a strong law school, your law future is more certain. It’s an easier path to legal academia than to philosophy academia. If your hope is to teach and research philosophy, you have a very, very challenging course ahead of you. You will likely spend five to seven years pursuing the PhD and, for many of you, only after earning a master’s degree. You will then be challenged to find a tenure-track position. Getting tenure is no walk in the park, either. Legal academia is comparatively much easier. Shockingly, most legal academics have only the JD, a three-year degree. Legal academics make far more money than philosophers, and it’s easier to get tenure. Law school is not as brainy. All other things being equal, your peers will not be as strong intellectually as those alongside whom you studied philosophy. The fact of the matter is that philosophy attracts a special level of intellectual talent (or so published data and personal experience suggest). Though many great minds are to be found among law schools, they do not take up the same share of the student or faculty population as they do in philosophy. Practical skills and personality are far more valuable in law school. You probably could guess this, but law school peers and professors will value your practical skills and your personality far more than anyone in your philosophy department. Many typical duties of lawyers – negotiations, oral argument, etc. – require practical skills. Also, many lawyers work with people in business, government, or non-profit organizations. Philosophers primarily think and write, though their teaching is occasionally valued (some sarcasm intended). Some law school classes are utterly boring, while others are thrilling. I never took a philosophy course that I didn’t like. Law courses, unfortunately, can be boring. Civil procedure, for instance, is a required course for all first-year law students, and essentially it’s a class on everything boring related to the court system. Good students of philosophy will struggle to keep their eyes open when covering such a dull subject. On the other hand, students of philosophy typically love most of the first-year law student curriculum, particularly contract law, criminal law, and tort law, and are much better prepared than people who did not study philosophy (or at least do not think about the world the way that philosophy-types typically do). You may feel out of place in law school. If you’re a student of philosophy, you are used to having your head in the books. Your peers and professors are, too. Frankly, philosophy students aren’t generally as sociable or extroverted as students of law. Philosophy students are more serious about what they’re studying than what they’re going to do with it. Law students are exactly the opposite. Law students, in my experience, are goal-oriented, outcomes-sensitive, and utilitarian. Law school is not about the journey; it’s about the destination. You have a quick answer to the annoying question of what you plan to do with that degree. For what it’s worth, people will understand your pursuit of a job in law far better than your pursuit of something in philosophy. When you take up the study of law, you will rarely hear that tired and miserable question, “What are you going to do with that?”. But if you’re like me, this is one of the things you most enjoyed about your study of philosophy: it is special in that way. You may feel like a sell-out, but you don’t have to feel like one. Leaving philosophy for law may feel akin to leaving the fine arts for business school. Particularly if you plan to work at a big law firm, leaving philosophy is like dumping your $55k non-profit job for a $160k job in the private sector. A philosopher whose brothers are practicing attorneys recently told me that his brothers live good lives, where the good life is defined roughly as one of material prosperity. Even if you plan to practice law in the public’s interest, you may feel confined; after all, when you die, so will much of your work (though not in every case). My own idea of the good life has a lot to do with searching for answers and contributing to something timeless, beyond the limits of me and my life. If you choose to take up law, you may need to figure out what in the legal profession will allow you to maintain pursuit of the good life as you define it. If you’re a philosophy student (and feel at home in philosophy), then I would guess that your picture of the good life is markedly different from that of most law students. Still, one thing to keep in mind about law is that, unlike investigations of the a priori, law can’t be done from the couch. Law is worldly, in the sense that what you do as a legal professional will have a real impact on others in the world. What’s great about law is that it is inescapably grounded in practical concerns. The legal profession needs people who think as philosophers do. It requires people who think not only descriptively but also normatively about the world. Our society depends on the work of lawyers who fit this description, because lawyers are powerful, influential people. They shape policy and its interpretation. They assign priorities to values and goals, and by the authority of law and the power of government, these priorities are actualized.