TheVineyard

Thanks for the info. Guys, I have just learned that I've been waitlisted to UCLA! Here to report the good news! Wehewww!

This implies that you have heard back from UCLA?

Believe it or not, "choosiness" is a term used in biology. The question, "which sex is the choosiest" is a real biological question.

The only explanation I can imagine is pure stubbornness.

You want an unfunded offer? Jesus. If I had so much money that I could throw away an extra 300,000ish dollars, I wouldn't be throwing it at a philosophy department.

Shouldn't this mean that we ought to ask every school that rejected us for a second chance?

The adcom knew who you were, saw who you were recommended by, and rejected you. That's not the kind of environment that I would beg to get into. You would only be setting yourself up for second-class citizenship.

Everyone's still waiting to hear rejections/waitlists from UCLA right?

Yes. Tufts is far and away without question the best philosophy MA-only program. Nobody else comes close. Tufts is probably good enough to consider going to over quite a few top-50 PhD programs, whereas I don't think any other MA programs are worth turning down a top-50 PhD.

I would never go to an unfunded philosophy program. In fact, this is the first thing that was hammered into my head as an undergrad. Life is tough enough even when funded...going to an unfunded program is not only suicide for your wallet, it means that you didn't get into a well-recognized program (all of which offer at least some funding for at least some students) so you probably won't have too much success in your applications for PhDs.

Madison ALSO requires students to pay the student fees, and this means 600+ dollars of that already pitiful stipend is thrown out the window.

There are a shitload of people I don't know in every bracket except "old dead people"

Why "surprisingly" relevant? Does being accused of sexual harassment mean that nothing you ever did in your whole life was ever good?

Don't be analytical about it. Just mumble some nonsense that sounds cool and then conclude.

Heidegger

I hope that stipend covers your new LSU-themed ride:

The problem with not sending rejections out all at once is that typically, not getting rejected is good news. Two of my waitlists/acceptances came a couple days after all rejections had been sent out, so my optimism was rewarded. In the case of Riverside, it's just annoying. But again...isn't there some rule that they are breaking by waiting until freaking April to even let us know if we are accepted/wled/rejected?

I don't really know where to put this, but CUNY just sent me an email inviting me to their M.A. program in Liberal Studies. Somewhat personalized email, surprisingly. Very strange, and I have no interest in it (in at great PhDs), but I'm wondering if they are just sending this out to all of their rejected applicants.

Someone posted a Riverside rejection... Has anyone else gotten one?

This is a very helpful thread/info thingy, thank you. I believe it is most helpful to those of us who are waitlisted, and may, without any funding information before the day of, be asked to make a decision on April 15th. If we know approximately how much money we can expect to be given, we can calculate cost of living and weigh our options in the meantime so that we can be ready to answer when the phone call (hopefully) comes on that fateful day.

I don't mean to be provocative here, but I do genuinely want to know if what you are describing is what you really want as a philosopher... You want a place where nobody "questions the presuppositions?" An area where you are primarily concerned with making sure that nothing you say makes anyone uncomfortable? I would expect that to be a concern of some fundamentalist religious folks maybe, but is this really what you want as a philosopher? I would absolutely be unable to function in a place where certain facts are off the table because they might offend, or where questioning the very fundamentals is not on the table..."DUH, you might say, no shit TheVineyard wouldn't get along in that place!" Well, being around people that might disagree with me (people that in fact I HOPE disagree with me about at least some things), valuing the truth or at least the unhindered pursuit of it even when people (including myself) might be offended/made uncomfortable along the way...well that's what makes me want to do philosophy! If one of my chief concerns was making sure that everything that came out of my mouth didn't bother anyone, I would be doing public relations, not philosophy. I am a physicalist, but the last thing I want is to be among a group of people who already agree with me. I feel uncomfortable around religious people, and much of what they say offends me, but I would never exclude them from my inquiries...I would invite them to talk about what they think, have a conversation, and hopefully make a convincing argument. What I'm saying is that the last thing I would want, as a philosopher, is an echo chamber where only those who want to echo what I have to say are let in. However, I feel like that is exactly what is being prescribed here...and it's being done baldly and seemingly with others in agreement. I think this goes beyond my personal preference...it seems to me that the echo chamber mindset is contrary to the very essence of philosophy (if there is such a thing). This article makes a ton of sense to me. "If the truth offends, it is our job to offend.": http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200802/if-the-truth-offends-it-s-our-job-offend I understand that there are obviously huge fundamental differences in how I view philosophy and how others do...but I guess I'm wondering if what you are describing is a backslide or if you actually want to be a thinker surrounded by those who agree with you about all of the presuppositions, will never question them, and do everything they can to make you feel comfortable over challenging those presuppositions, even when it might not be easy. An idea is right or wrong on it's own. It doesn't matter who says it. Someone can be wrong about 99 things in a row, and the 100th might be correct. I would never assume that an idea you wrote down is wrong just because it was you who wrote it (hence, why I agreed with you even though I've disagreed with you in the past), and I would appreciate if you would do the same. Also, I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with YOU as a person, but agreeing that an idea is a good one...so don't take my agreement personally?

This is right. Someone who disagrees with the idea that we should throw someone under the bus without trial or evidence is not automatically a misogynist. There were absolutely 0 woman-hating posts in that thread. One could rather easily argue that you are treating women as feeble, delicate creatures that cannot discuss and argue like men can, rather than strong-willed, able, and equal.

This shouldn't be surprising. This is the stated #1 concern of every program. However, everything else about your application gives context for that writing sample.

So the idea is that only the top 5 waitlists will get in, because they already accepted 10?

The part about Wisconsin confuses me, can you elaborate? Also, I sure wouldn't be too upset about your application season...you're in at an Ivy and UCLA for JD...that's awesome, you're well set-up. Do you think that your situation serves as confirming evidence for the idea that philosophy admissions are harder than law school admissions?