TheVineyard

To cheer ya'll up: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSHNyppwS5w#t=30

He's saying that he thinks it was a typo in the email...I'm not sure I think so, considering how important of a number that was. However, the fact that they said it was an unordered waitlist is completely incompatible with them saying to some that they are top 5 and some they are top 15. Here's a way to eliminate the possibility of a typo. What time did we each get our emails? If the 5s came before the 15s, then we know it wasn't a typo. If the 15s came before the 5s, then perhaps they made a typo and fixed it?

We got a mixed bag of top 15 and top 5 waitlists. I dont think they have narrowed it down to 5 because 5 have posted the email here.

Huh. So there actually is an order and they thought we wouldn't talk.....

Agreed.

Yeah I've heard about this...what happened there, and do you have any more info about the situation now?

For PhD programs, it is expected that students will be notified about whether they are accepted/rejected/waitlisted by March 15th. If you haven't received word by March 15th, it is appropriate to ask. As far as MA programs, they do things differently and aren't bound by the informal (or is it actually formal?) March 15th rule.

How does that help us? It only gives false hope and utterly incomplete information. I guess I'll be downvoted for this, but that thread is no help.

I mean...maybe...but it clearly has no impact on being accepted, and if being accepted is his goal, then he ought to use that time towards efforts that will benefit his application.

They didn't send us a rejection letter either. We had to check through the UM Friend Account.

Solicited a generic email rejection from UC Davis (Cody Gilmore): "I'm sorry to have to report that it is very unlikely that you will be offered admission this year. We were impressed by your application, but we received over 70 applications for only 5 spots, and the result was that there were many highly qualified applicants who we are unable to admit. Officially, we have not yet rejected the bulk of our applicants. We have been in touch with a small group of candidates to let them know that they have been accepted, and with another small group to let them know that they are on our waitlist. For the rest, there is almost no chance that they will be accepted, and I will eventually be in touch with our official decision." I suspect the same goes for anyone else who has applied there but not heard back. Honestly it's kindof a kick in the gut to hear that they only had 70 applications, probably waitlisted or accepted 10-12 of them, and I wasn't one of them even though I fit their strengths. Meanwhile, I've been accepted or waitlisted to 6 unquestionably better (and much more competitive) programs. This really is the crappiest of crapshoots in some cases, and I've learned no backup school is safe.

Has anyone received a rejection from UC Davis, UC Riverside, or UCLA?

They might not get the best impression of you. At my school for example, they never move people up the list after visits as a rule, but sometimes people get moved down. This probably won't happen, but just know that there are risks, and with someplace like Michigan you will be evaluated vs the best students in the world. If people get the wrong impression of you, it is POSSIBLE that it hurts you.

Yes, but be careful. Visiting as a waitlisted student carries risks.

I can't really speak about the situation of someone coming from a small religious school...I'm sure others can help...but I will say that working on languages shouldn't be a top priority. Almost no graduate schools require it, and it is something that most graduate programs offer/encourage so you can do it there.

Eek...then I won't be able to participate unfortunately. I could make a fake account and post some limited information, I guess.

I sympathize with that, and a couple of my advisors are the same way...started in philosophy but find themselves doing more science. Sometimes I feel like I want to do science more than I want to do philosophy...I have so little interest in so much of philosophy (no interest in ethics/morality, continental, early modern, ancient, medieval, or language) but I have intense focus on history of science, and the philosophy of all sciences, as well as metaphilosophy (how should we practice?) So much of it just boils down to wanting to study science and use it to answer the questions of philosophy. Sometimes I feel out of place in a room of more traditional philosophers. Thanks, I'll check this out!

Well, I've already explained my point about the definition of terms. If you are equating bioethics with modern ethics of human biomedicine then we have no disagreement. I just see bioethics as extending further, and many others do as well. If I'm extending bioethics farther than you want to, that's fine, it's really just an issue of definition and I'm happy to concede the point. Now, as far as the ethics thing, it was an exaggeration to say that they aren't really interested. Of course some are, many are. That was stupid of me to say. But looking through your list of names, a few of them interest me...Rosenberg for example has stated explicitly that he thinks that evolutionary biology implies ethical error theory or "nice nihilism" etc (its hard to tell exactly what position Rosenberg is taking sometimes). I guess you can call that being interested in ethics...he has an ethical viewpoint, but he doesn't spend the kind of time working on ethics like some of the others you named. I would point to him as a phil biologist who really isn't interested in ethics...there are probably 10 other philosophical/scientific subfields that he does more work on (and publishes much more in...how many publications on ethics has Rosenberg made outside of a couple chapters of his book?)

Yes. The excitement after tomorrow will just be scattered instances of ppl being pulled off of waitlists, followed by the April 15 train wreck.

He/she was just trying to throw a quick downvote to me, it seems.

Although you probably think your view is the only view, there is quite a bit of debate regarding what the scope of bioethics is. Some (like yourself) think that bioethics is essentially the ethics of modern human medicine. Many others (including the bioethicist I've studied under) see bioethics as extending to practical animal ethics (and therefore animal consciousness) which, of course, is in the wheelhouse of evolutionary studies. Also, there is metaethical bioethics, which seeks to understand the nature of ethics from a biological perspective. Bioethics even extends to something like social ethics (as your links point out!) and some make the case that human social interactions are best understood as evolutionary dispositions...so a deep understanding of evolved human interaction can be seen as necessary to doing good social bioethics. Again, it seems as though you've been taught that bioethics is only a very narrow field. There is significant discussion that you must not have been exposed to regarding the scope of bioethics, and it isn't your fault that you weren't exposed, but please do understand that it exists. Don't just tell people that they have "no idea what they are talking about" when they don't agree with you about the scope of a problem/field. In the future, you might want to avoid the ambiguity and just call your view of the discipline "practical medical ethics" or "biomedical ethics," in which case I agree evolutionary theory won't enter the story too much, but I would still argue that it must be deeply understood.

How well-reasoned. Did that make you feel better about yourself? It is amazing that they call me the negative one. Bioethics covers a range of topics...one such is how the science of biology (and evolution) relates to or impacts practical ethics and metaethics, as I said.

Short story is that there are special circumstances that could (and probably will) lead me to turn it down.

This is still an eyebrow raiser to me. I don't think that finding out "how the study of evolution can impact philosophy and especially ethics" is separate from bioethics. Sounds like a classic case...maybe you mean something like naturalistic philosophy. Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "a scientific analysis of evolution." Evolution is a scientific theory, I'm not sure how you scientifically analyze a scientific theory...if what you mean is continue the evolutionary research project by conducting empirical science, that would just be biology. Maybe you meant philosophical analysis of evolution?

Sent PM of situation.