TheVineyard

Sorry, but that sounds like a bunch of unsubstantiated, intentionally made up bullshit. If you read about the methodology you would know that this isn't even possible. Leiter isn't asked to "reconsider programs" because Leiter isn't the one ranking...he isn't himself making any decisions other than setting up the machine to begin with. The 300ish philosophy professors are the ones that do the rankings. They each score every faculty list, and they also score faculty lists in their area of specialty. Leiter himself isn't just sitting behind a computer thinking up where he personally thinks schools should go. Getting rid of that mentality was the whole point of the rankings....

Pretty sure Michigan is a dream department for everyone who applied there

UCLA waitlists aren't out, so you have hope regardless.

Chillax man. Last year they gave out acceptances until March 7th and waitlists until March 22. You're bringing down the mood for no reason...(and this is coming from someone who regularly brings down the mood!)

Makes it pretty clear that its an international applicant thing.

Good catch on the international thing. International funding is harder to come by, and in some states it is much more expensive to take on an international student. Of the 4 CUNY posts, 3 are international and one declined to answer. Perhaps CUNY has some fellowship money set aside for a couple international students, and they decided to answer those first. Fingers crossed!

Damn, that's really unfortunate. Lets hope you have some success with the upcoming schools.

Can I ask why I was downvoted for saying that I was advised I shouldn't publish? I know a story of a student (now a professor) who was going to get accepted to his school of choice, but got rejected because a publication in an undergrad journal from when he was a freshman tainted his record. I'm not saying I like it, but it's true. Publications can hurt you, and they are totally unnecessary.

I was stuck on the last page, didn't see your answer on this page. I get it now. Logos I think it's funny your name is logos. You come off as a major pathos guy. I thought I was a big worrier....

Can I ask what made you only apply to top 10 programs and 1 mid ranked? Seems awful risky.

I was told not to publish as an undergrad. I'm glad I didn't.

What does Arizona have to do with anything?

That's what I would expect. MOST schools offer a couple fellowships and the rest teaching/research assistantships. CUNY might be different, idk. But my expectation is that people will get accepted with assistantships.

My feeling is that the CUNY acceptances posted today were only the applicants that were nominated for the fellowship (they both mentioned that they were "waitlisted for fellowship"). Fellowships in philosophy are typically a "special" funding package that involves not teaching for one or more years. Surely not every person they accept will be "waitlisted for fellowship" so I'm guessing there are more acceptances to come. At least, that's what I hope. EDIT: Eh maybe they're all out. IDK.

You said you were waitlisted for fellowship...but fellowship isn't "funding," at least not typically. Fellowship typically means "you get paid money and don't have to teach." It's usually an "extra" that schools will offer to a couple students each year to get them to come. I don't have the full context of your email, but I would assume that you are currently accepted and guaranteed an assistantship, but you are on a waitlist for their special fellowship. You ought to ask them!

So just to be clear, no waitlist news from CUNY, appears that only first round acceptances were sent?

I want to strongly, strongly disagree with this advice. Every single professor I have talked to both in my leiter-ranked department or at other programs has strongly insisted that I spend a good deal of time on the statement of purpose and sell why I am a good fit at a school. Here's why: Every program has other programs that are considered its equal competitors, and almost every school has schools that are considered slightly or significantly better in a certain field. If you don't tailor your statement or don't give some indication as to why you would be a good fit there, they will just see you as the applicant that "actually just wants to get into Michigan" but is applying to this school as a backup. You don't want them to get that impression of you. You want them to see you as someone genuinely excited about their school in particular. They want to see that they are more than "the #28 ranked school that you sent an application to merely because it was on the list." Now, I'm not saying that you can't get in if you don't personalize. Maybe personalization helps your acceptance rate a percent or two at each school, but every bit of information I have received from every person I have talked to has been 100% positive towards the idea of customizing a statement of purpose to at least demonstrate that you have done some research on the department and that there is a place and people for you there. Multiple schools that have accepted/waitlisted me have mentioned my interests and my explanation of fit/POIs as a positive factor on my app. That said, there are ways to screw it up....like....you say you are attracted to one of the program's strengths that isn't really a strength...but all of those kinds of mistakes can be avoided by actually doing your homework.

Waitlisted at U Penn. Impersonal email from Weisberg.

A guy got crucified for saying that women are less likely than men to be in the top 2% in intelligence tests. I just cited the study that he had hinted at. Like I said several times, this is basic knowledge of anyone who took a psychology class in college. It's nothing revolutionary. I didn't "come into this thread" and bring it up, I just provided the citation that others were looking for.

And how ironic it is that you are trying to bully, exclude, and make unwelcome others who wish to participate in a discussion. Also, I did not challenge anyone's personal experiences. Again, reading comprehension. I am challenging the attitude that is taken when discussing this, in particular the fact that we are not allowed to even hold anything that resembles an alternate viewpoint.

You think these responses are a fair example of people "simply questioning a source?" Is this how philosophy PhDs question sources? Also, I provided the source for him just moments after he posted. I don't see anyone actually interested in apologizing to Roll or acting like his position is batshit crazy anymore (because really, it isn't crazy, its common knowledge in freshman psychology class).

Welcome to the world of questioning the popular opinion. I thought that philosophers were more willing to actually engage in arguments and reason instead of level direct personal insults and attacks, but I am learning that some of the "best and brightest" are not able to do so. You were right about your facts, and the way you were treated was more akin to an angry mob than a collection of soon-to-be PhD students. Men are far more likely to score in the highest couple percentile than women on intelligence tests. In psychology it really isn't a contestable claim. Now, the reason for why this is the case is under dispute. It largely boils down to the typical nature vs nurture explanations. I really have no opinion on it, but one possible explanation is that it is nature, and if it is nature then that would be a possible explanation for why there are more men than women teaching at top schools. I do not wish to defend this interpretation of the data, but I'm sure I will be lambasted for merely bringing it up. I'll link one such study again in case anyone didn't catch it in my first post: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289606001115 Wow. Very high emotion, very poor reading comprehension. I never said it is "ridiculous to suggest" the power-hungry white man explanation. Instead, I said it is ridiculous that nobody is allowed to suggest ANY OTHER explanation. I don't think that the powerful white man hypothesis is stupid, I have no problem with someone raising it. My problem is that you can't even challenge it without being intentionally misread and attacked by people like you.

Rollontheground your post, as with any statement or question, was actually worth considering. It's unfortunate that you can't ask the question because of social desirability reasons. As you can see, the people in this thread beat you down, ate you up, spit you out, and acted like their mind was blown that you would have the GALL to bring up a fact that is common knowledge to every Psychology 101 student as a freshman. I'll summarize your question, "Aren't men more likely to have the highest IQs, and if the best professors have the highest IQs, shoudln't we expect more of the best professors to be men?" It is a well-established fact that men and women have equivalent average IQs (in fact, women currently score a tiny bit higher) but it is also well-established that the top 2% and bottom 2% are made up of primarily males. In other words, men have a more variable IQ range. Here is one of the peer-reviewed journal studies of this phenomenon published by top researchers: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289606001115 Personally, I don't know if IQ or any of these "intelligence tests" are relevant. I haven't seen any scientific connection between being a philosophy professor and having a high IQ. I guess it isn't the most insane assumption to make, but you'd have to be very careful before drawing any conclusions about it.

http://faircloudblog.wordpress.com/notifications/

I think there was an implied argument, but it doesn't matter. A much better name for it would have been an unprovoked personal attack.