dgswaim

I'll go first! I applied back in 2014 and landed at a funded MA spot at LSU. I wasn't exactly shut out of PhD admissions, although I was shut out in effect. I was admitted to two, but not able to secure funding. Anyway, my main areas of interest are in history and philosophy of biology, philosophy of science, and logic (with a special eye toward the metaphysical foundations of such topics). I'm currently working on the history of "economy of nature" concepts in 18th and 19th century biology, analyzing especially the concept's functional role in various naturalist's views concerning the "structure" of the biological world. You can see the places I'm applying to in my signature. I can say that I'd really relish the opportunity to work with Roberta Millstein and Alyssa Ney (UC Davis), Hans Halvorson (Princeton), Rob Skipper (Cinci), Manfred Laubichler (ASU), Margaret Schabas (UBC), and Roger Ariew (Missouri).

I think the best programs for integrating biology and philosophy (of biology) are not necessarily Leiter-ranked philosophy programs in philosophy of biology. Two of the best programs for this kind of thing are at the University of Cincinnati, and Arizona State University's HPS program (which is housed in the life sciences department). ASU's HPS program has Manfred Laubichler, after all, and Cincinnati has Rob Skipper. For straight phil bio, I think the best places to go right now are UC Davis (mainly because Roberta Millstein is a boss), University of Utah (because they have like a million philosophers of biology, including Matt Haber and Melinda Fagan, who rule), and Duke (Alex Rosenberg and Robert Brandon... duh). note: Chicago HCSS may also be a good place to do "integrative" work if Wimsatt is still involved there at all.

David Sosa is certainly a pretty big name in epistemology right now.

I recommend the "cast a wide net" approach. I had a similar resume to yours going into applications last year. I ended up on two wait lists for PhD programs, was accepted to two (but did not get funding), and received several funded offers from MA programs. I applied to about 15 PhD programs and 6 MA programs. I got pretty close on PhD applications and did well with MAs. I'd recommend a similar approach. Maybe you'll get a bit luckier than I did and make it in off of a waitlist, or maybe some element of your app will push you over the top and you won't even be put on the wait list. Who knows? Worst case scenario you spend two years getting an MA in philosophy for free and then try again. I think the MA experience is actually pretty great.

I'm not really comfortable evaluating anyone's "chances." Such things are really quite difficult to estimate. One worry that I'd have, though, is that most of the best places to do history and philosophy of science (Pitt, Indiana, Notre Dame, etc.) would not really know what to do with a writing sample on Heidegger. Kuhn and Feyerabend, sure (although Feyerabend doesn't have much currency in the contemporary literature), but it's going to be a bit more difficult to accommodate your continental interests. Of the really top-notch places to do HPS, the one place I can think of that might be able to really accommodate your interests would be U of Chicago's program in the Historical and Conceptual Studies of Science. As for MA programs, I'd consider applying here at LSU. Charles Pence, Jon Cogburn, Husain Sarkar, and Jeff Roland have all published philosophy of science stuff. Pence's primarily speciality is history and philosophy of biology, but he knows just as much history and philosophy of physics. Sarkar's philosophy of science stuff is more general, and focused primarily on theories of scientific methodology. His book Theory of Method takes on Kuhn and Feyerabend directly, so he knows that stuff quite well (Paul Feyerabend actually wrote one of his tenure recommendation letters). Cogburn and Roland are less directly involved in phil science these days, but they still know the literature. Plus, there are lots of continental people in the department. I don't really know them or their work since my work isn't in that area, but my understanding is that they're good at what they do.

Do you know (or know anyone that specifically works with) Sahotra Sarkar? Just wondering if I can get some partial impression of what he might be like to work with.

I went to the place that suited my interests best and had the people I thought I'd most enjoy working closely with. There aren't that many places at the MA level that have notable strengths in history and philosophy of biology and mathematical logic, but my reasoning was that being at a place that serves my interests and that has people I really enjoy working with means that I'll develop closer relationships with the relevant faculty, which means better letters and the like. Plus, I want to enjoy myself when I do philosophy.

Glad to FB with anyone that would like to! I've found some of my favorite FBers are people I've met here. Just PM me!

The graduate school at WUSTL has a lot of really good people that work on philosophical theology and the like.

I vote thesis. That is all.

It isn't my area, but here at LSU there are two people that have expert knowledge in Heidegger (Greg Schufreider and Francois Raffoul). John Protevi knows him pretty well too. Schufreider and Raffoul both work on Nietzsche pretty extensively, too. Jon Cogburn knows a bit of both, but isn't an expert in either. Protevi does quite a bit of history of modern philosophy, so knows Nietzsche pretty well. I'm on the analytic side of the department doing phil science and logic, so I can't really evaluate their expertise, but I know that they're considered as having one.

I agree with Matt and Ian in that ceteris paribus, you should want your grades to be good and let your efforts reflect that desire. If I could change anything about my academic career thus far it would be the shitty grades I got in my first couple years as an undergrad. Obviously it's possible to overcome these things, but I sure wish I didn't have to. The unfunded PhD offers I had last year might have been funded ones had those grades been better for all I know. I really like my MA program, but still, it would be nice to not have it that I'm working extra hard to maintain a 4.0 in an MA program to compensate for my poor early showing as and undergrad. But then youth is wasted on the young, as they say.

Looks like you have three shots at Cali, and the rest are cold.

Sections of Religion of Reason, but a lot of what I'm getting is also through Cassirir and others writing about Cohen's neo-Kantianism, and looking through their sources. The stuff that's in German I squint at and do my best to glean insight.

My German is pretty touchy. It's something I need to work on more after I finish my MA and start my PhD work. Late 19th and early 20th century philosophy of science in Germany was amazingly fertile. As it stands now I'm mostly at the mercy of translators, but it is a long-term goal to fix that problem.

I jogged over to the library and decided to pick up a copy of the Aufbau. Seems manageable enough thus far.

Does anyone have any suggestions on where to start with respect to Carnap and Carnap scholarship? Lately I've been working through some of the neo-Kantian philosophy of science literature (e.g. Michael Friedman, Hermann Cohen, etc.), and it would be nice to get a better hold on what's going on with Carnap as it relates to this stuff. My intuition is that one doesn't just dive into something like the Aufbau and expect much good to come of it. Any suggestions as to how best to wet one's feet on his stuff would be wonderful.

I read Strange Loop a couple of years ago. I don't know what you thought, but I was disappointed. Way too much analogy and metaphor, not much argument or substance. Don't get me wrong, Hofstadter is a wonderful writer and it's quite the aesthetic pleasure to read as he waxes poetical on any number of issues... but I guess I was expecting something meatier.

I like Chicago (footnoted). I find in-text citations distracting.

But mathematical logic is the best! I especially love debates over proof theory and model theory... Mucho fun.

Or maybe everyone is coming around to the idea that math/logic + philosophy = amazing!

I often find that I'll agree with the conclusions of Quine, but I disagree with the premises that support his conclusion; that is, I agree with a lot of what he argues for, but for a different set of reasons. And yes, that dude was a philosophy machine.

Bas van Fraassen, E.A. Burtt, Pierre Duhem, P.F. Strawson, Kant, Ludwik Fleck, Quine, Hans Halvorson, T.S. Kuhn

I'm pretty sure I'll tell my kids stories about dfindely.