Mavngoose1

I'm happy to talk to people in confidence via private messaging, but I'd prefer not to make much info public.

V: 160, Q: 155 Offers from 3 Leiter Top 10s, Wait-listed at 3 Leiter Top 10s, 3 Leiter top 20s

Just heard back from Rutgers. The best half hour of my life.

Into Princeton. I don't believe it. I might throw up.

It's just speculation based on a few bits of info and Ian Faircloud's blog. I don't have any big insider info or anything like that. Plus I'd like to avoid revealing my identity.

I would guess tomorrow evening or Friday will be.

I have found that attempting to emulate others' styles is very helpful. On the structural level of the essay, I most often attempt to emulate people like Derek Parfit and Shelly Kagan. I struggle more on the sentence level, but I aim to emulate David Lewis, Mark Schroeder, and Jonathan Schaffer as much as possible there. Another bit of advice I've been given: write as if you are attempting to convince an actual person you know. This might be someone you know who is an especially harsh critic or a particular professor you have worked with. If you can write it in such a way that you think it would convince someone like this of your view, your paper tends to come out with a extra clarity. In other words, perhaps think about the paper as if you are addressing someone and not just writing an essay. I often also find it helpful (at least in the writing process) to actually write the entire dialectic of the argument out in first-order logic or do it natural language in excruciating (seemingly pedantic) detail. Sometimes I will put this as a numbered, deductive argument in the paper and then comment on it. Other times, I just use it to organize my thoughts as I'm writing. It helps to see exactly where the crux of the argument lies. It is funny how often you can do this and realize that some philosopher has made an invalid argument or has a hidden premise that you can attack. In case it's helpful, here's an example of what I meant by putting the argument in natural language: (1) If some set of value bearers are comparable, then some value relation holds between them. (Definition) (2) 'Imprecise' means not precise. (Definition) (3) Some value bearers are not comparable by a precise value relation. (The Small Improvements Argument) (4) Some such value bearers are still comparable. (The Unidimensional Chaining Argument) (5) A value relation holds between such value bearers. (1 & 4) (6) The value relation that holds between such value bearers is not precise. (3 & 5) (7) There are imprecise value relations. (2 & 6) I put this in the first section of a paper (not my writing sample) and then went on to first discuss the two definitions (section 2), then offer the two crucial arguments for 3 (section 3) and 4 (section 4), and the rest follows deductively (or so I hope). It is seemingly valid and offers a nice, clear way to refer to the steps of your argument through out the body of the paper and a natural way of organizing the paper into sections. Most of the more creative philosophical work can then take place in defense of 3 and 4 and consider objections, etc. I often find that if I can't put an argument in a form even like this, then I probably don't really have an argument. Anyways, that's my two cents.

Congrats!

Hey all - I declined my acceptance from Arizona today, so hopefully this helps someone here out.

Who accused you of oppression?

The Daily Mail is not really a reputable news source to begin with, but more importantly there is no study cited here at all. One professor asserting this does not make it true. I'd like to see the actual study. Until then, I don't think this link warrants any discussion.

I'm a bit skeptical over whether those were legitimate. There were very few, no details on the acceptances, no one here has claimed them and the wait-list by phone from a professor on leave is pretty suspicious. I at least think this is suspicious enough to assume we haven't heard the final word from Harvard.

Two Harvard acceptances on the board, can anyone claim one?

She would probably tell you either that you can will some non-relevant consideration to count as a reason in favor of picking aye or bea or that you can will to one already relevant consideration to count more.

I'm surprised by the number of virtue ethicists.