TheVineyard
-
Posts
361 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by TheVineyard
-
-
I had to email Columbia to receive my official rejection letter. It's a shame that their system didn't work. Nobody should have to go to extra double to get denied admission...! While I'm complaining, I think a few programs were way too late in sending admission decisions. Some that come to mind immediately: University of Michigan, UCLA, Brandeis, UMass Amherst, Florida State, Carnegie Mellon, and Ohio State. Why did it take so long for these programs either (in some cases) to send initial acceptances or (in other cases) to send rejections? UCLA is one the worst of these, in terms of timing.
This implies that you have heard back from UCLA?
-
Did they really say "extra choosy"? Haha, that's something an adorable four year old would say.
Believe it or not, "choosiness" is a term used in biology. The question, "which sex is the choosiest" is a real biological question.
-
Sorry, but I am wondering how one could pursue a 5-year PhD without financial support? It is going to be a lot of money that one cannot earn by working part-time like a dog. I cannot get it.
The only explanation I can imagine is pure stubbornness.
-
Yes on both counts. This professor is probably the most influential one in the department. And yes, my school makes unfunded offers.
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.
-
Giving you a number would be wild speculation on my part--sorry. But I agree with Establishment and WandaJune's earlier posts that they are nonzero if you ask, and zero if you don't.
Shouldn't this mean that we ought to ask every school that rejected us for a second chance?
-
OK, so as you may know I am in the Master's program in philosophy at CUNY. I applied to the Phd program at the same school--and was rejected. I was talking to one of my recommenders, call him John, and he said that one of my other recommenders, call him Peter, was very powerful and influential in the department. John said that basically what Peter wants, Peter gets. He said I should talk to Peter and tell him my situation, and that despite already being in the program and getting all A grades, and despite having recommendations all from professors in the department, I got rejected, and that nobody will even talk to me to tell my why I was rejected. He said to ask Peter point-blank if he would be willing to talk to the chairman of the department, who makes the final admissions decisions, and tell him to reconsider my application. John said that if Peter agrees to do this, I will be admitted. John said Peter may agree to do it, or may not, even though it wouldn't cost him anything to do it, and given he knows me and likes me well enough to have written a recommendation for me. What do you think the chances are that Peter will agree to talk to the chairman for me and get me admitted?
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?
-
See also:
"In order of the average weighted English world faculty rank of a PhD program since 2002 that the MA programs place their students into:"
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.
- Guillaume and Establishment
-
1
-
1
-
Also bumping up this thread today. Please submit your funding data to the funding page!
There's a very valuable resource available at http://faircloudblog...ss.com/funding/. Already we have data on 30+ programs. Not surprisingly, the best funding situations are generally at the top programs, particularly those programs associated with top-ranked institutions (like Harvard).
Some disappointing places for funding: UT Austin and UW Madison. Even when you figure the lower cost of living, these numbers are too low.
A better-than-I-expected place for funding: Vanderbilt! Who would have thought?
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"
-
McGinn was a surprisingly relevant and good philosopher in the 80s.
As for my vote: Worst philosopher ever? No idea. Most overrated ever: definitely Quine.
Why "surprisingly" relevant?
Does being accused of sexual harassment mean that nothing you ever did in your whole life was ever good?
-
Booooooo!!!
Oh, and my vote is for pretty much any analytic philosopher. I can do that right?
Don't be analytical about it. Just mumble some nonsense that sounds cool and then conclude.
-
Heidegger
- greencoloredpencil, frege-bombs, tpop and 2 others
-
3
-
2
-
Received an offer from the MA program at LSU this morning. Pretty decent stipend with an out-of-state tuition waiver. I might have to consider this one...
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. -
In addition to what zizeksucks said, I think there are valid reasons for making the group private:
1) Independent of whether anyone posting is actually a misogynist or not, there's a value in having people who all agree on a basic set of issues communicating in private, so that the discussion doesn't get derailed into, e.g. a theoretical debate over what and what does not count as misogyny (a totally random example
).2) Even if it were desirable (which I doubt it is, see point 3) it doesn't seem possible to make the group "female applicants plus a certain subset of male applicants who 'get it'" (i.e. won't derail the discussion, question the presuppositions, etc.) so a female only group it is: how would someone determine which male applicants are not going to violate confidence, make the space feel unsafe, etc.?
3) Hell, even as someone who considers himself a staunch ally, I'd feel uncomfortable joining the group: what if I act on some implicit bias of which I am not yet aware (and thus haven't yet de-biased myself from) and end up making someone uncomfortable? That'd defeat the whole purpose.
So, my two cents as a male applicant are similar to Zizeksucks'--I support the group. But, of course, I also support anyone's decision not to join it for whatever reason, as PhDApp has chosen to do.
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.
Vineyard, don't ever agree with me again. And now I need to go bash myself in the head with something.
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?
- solon, Monadology, ta_pros_to_telos and 6 others
-
2
-
7
-
I might get downvoted for this, but since I am frequently the only person willing to say it I'm going to:
I'm female...
I find 'female only' groups or forums just as prejudiced as 'male only' groups or forums and refuse to join them. I don't believe in an equal and opposite evil being the appropriate response to prejudice. So, I'm not joining and I think this might explain why others who are not comfortable saying this will not join either. I find this type of thing annoying. Discussing your issues in view of everyone, if you think they are worth talking about, will probably do much more to further your 'cause' than hiding in a closet.
This is probably more expressive of my general distaste for minority OR majority exclusive groups than for anyone or group of people on this forum.
This is right.
I think the point is to provide a safe space to talk. We saw what happened with the other female philosophers thread, and how a few misogynistic males pretty much took over the thread. I'm not female, so this is just my two cents on the issue. But I think sometimes having a discussion only among those of a minority group that has frequently been disparaged in a way that doesn't attract attention and allows themselves to express themselves without having to worry about reprisal.
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.
- solon, Cottagecheeseman, TheVineyard and 5 others
-
2
-
6
-
at Duke, including the importance of the writing sample there, which is surprisingly their #1 concern.
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.
-
This might be useful for those of you confused about class size and the number of admits to UW-Madison: http://www.grad.wisc.edu/education/academicprograms/profiles/765.pdf
So the idea is that only the top 5 waitlists will get in, because they already accepted 10?
-
First of all, thanks for letting us know. I received a message in private about this, but because it's now public, I will congratulate those who survived the cut.
Unless there's been some mistake, I'm probably now eliminated from consideration in philosophy -- shut out, as it were. The irony! I'd be glad to share my writing sample with people, now that I'm out of philosophy. (I'll do this only privately-- please email me at ianfaircloud at gmail dot com. I don't expect that many will want to see it, but perhaps a few will.) I'm curious what others would think of the sample. If it's a good sample, and I think it is, then let my experience be an example of someone who seemed to check off all the boxes and yet utterly failed in admissions.
Of course, people should keep in mind that I applied only to the top-20, plus a few strong programs in the 21-30. Hardly anyone does that, and rightfully so -- if philosophy is your only path, then you should entertain offers from lower-ranked programs. (In fact, even if philosophy isn't your only path, you may want to do so! There are plenty of great programs not high in the rankings!)
I'm not quite as disappointed as I expected I would be. I just have to look at this as a difficult decision between law school and graduate programs in philosophy that I now needn't make. I'll be happy studying law and perhaps teaching law or practicing law. If I apply to philosophy programs a third time, it will be as a candidate for JD-PhD (and only at the school at which I study law).
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?
Rejection thread
in Philosophy
Posted · Edited by TheVineyard
Thanks for the info.
Guys, I have just learned that I've been waitlisted to UCLA! Here to report the good news! Wehewww!