dgswaim

I don't think anyone knows what San Diego even means anymore. Scholars hold that the translation was lost millions of years ago.

lol just got a 3am rejection to UCSD.

Damn it... I knew I should have been reasonably bright! 

Damn it... I knew I should have been reasonably bright! 

I turned it down, it said I was "one of four.. out of 75" that stood out, so I imagine the initial acceptances are pretty few. Given our similar AOIs... hopefully you get something! 

My how I would love to be having this problem at the moment...

Have sex.

...Assuming you were lucky enough to be accepted into your bedroom of choice. If you are still on a waitlist, hopefully you will get a decision before April 15th.

If you're in the same boat as me without an acceptance, here's a special haiku just for you:
 
Checking my email
A blank stare through weary eyes
Please bring good tidings

My how I would love to be having this problem at the moment...

My how I would love to be having this problem at the moment...

RE: The GRE, I was told explicitly from one school I was waitlisted at that my lower than (their) average GRE score was what held me back.
 
But as someone earlier intimated, there are few ACTUAL answers. Admission committees are composed by people with a diverse set of preferences. How your SOP, GRE scores, letters, and writing sample will weigh together and be individually judged will depend on the particularities of the persons on the adcom.
 
The best attitude to have is this: everything matters. Give it your best shot. Apply to a wide variety of programs. Don't think you're too good for an MA. Don't think you're not good enough for a PhD. If you get shut out, don't get discouraged. You just had ad luck. Apply again, and keep on working on your application materials.

It seems to me more and more that there's no clear answer as to what makes for a strong application. Some find that a terminal MA strengthens an application, others seem to be skeptical of such claims. There is some evidence that certain programs place a high premium on GRE scores, while this is perhaps not the case in other programs. The weight given to overall GPA (as opposed to philosophy GPA) can vary from department to department. 
 
I suppose, then, that the main lesson I take from this is that given the lack of transparency as to what (exactly) constitutes a strong application given the differential importance of a given variable from department to department is that one, as an applicant, should simply operate under the assumption that every single last little piece of the application is important. Do whatever you can do to come across well in every application element. Leave no room to guess and, I suppose, no one will have to.

It seems to me more and more that there's no clear answer as to what makes for a strong application. Some find that a terminal MA strengthens an application, others seem to be skeptical of such claims. There is some evidence that certain programs place a high premium on GRE scores, while this is perhaps not the case in other programs. The weight given to overall GPA (as opposed to philosophy GPA) can vary from department to department. 
 
I suppose, then, that the main lesson I take from this is that given the lack of transparency as to what (exactly) constitutes a strong application given the differential importance of a given variable from department to department is that one, as an applicant, should simply operate under the assumption that every single last little piece of the application is important. Do whatever you can do to come across well in every application element. Leave no room to guess and, I suppose, no one will have to.

This is absurd.

This is absurd.

Totally agree.

A major problem though is that the GRE imposes a certain standard of objectivity, namely who can do X amount of questions under certain time constraints or who can write X amount of pages in a somewhat coherent and eloquent fashion. This standard of objectivity inherently caters to people who understand and comprehend in a certain way. Although I did well on the GRE, I think it is unfair to juxtapose my scores next to someone equally as capable of me, but who reads a little slower or whatnot, and then to draw the conclusion that I must have better reading comprehension. The way most of us, I imagine, do our work, our research, and our writing doesn't conform to the way one succeeds on the GRE
 
So, while it is objective in the sense that we all take the same (or similar) tests, the problem is with what exactly the underlying norm of objectivity is. . . 

I suppose I can see why some committees would place so much weight on the GRE. It seems plausible that the GRE might be seen as a useful bit of information in comparing applicants that have otherwise comparable stats. There's a certain assumed objectivity in it as well, I suppose, given that everyone who has taken the GRE has taken the same test as everyone else who took it, whereas GPAs from University A might not be as reliable an indicator of philosophical talent GPAs from University B. But then I don't think the GRE necessarily has much to do with philosophical talent at all. I know that my quant score will be a liability, but it seems odd to me that one should think this has any bearing on my ability to do top-notch work in philosophy. I suppose this is all simply to say that I understand the use of the GRE as an evaluative tool, but at the same time I don't think it's telling anyone very much.

From MIT: "I am truly sorry to inform you that we are not able to offer you admission to the MIT philosophy Ph.D. program.  This year, the number of exceptionally talented applicants for admission to our department greatly exceeds the number which can be accommodated and it has been necessary to refuse admission to many fine applicants."
 
Now hold up a second...so MIT thinks I'm exceptionally talented? Oh snap. 

It's all in jest. A way to pass the time. No more, no less.

I voted 'Other.' I guess in some ways I hold to a combination of many, and perhaps in some more significant sense I find them all lacking. If pressed, my view falls under something like Levinas' ethics of encounter... but I don't know.

Do they pull names out of a hat? Maybe they have one of those super windy glass phone booth things and the DGS grabs at pieces of paper with names on them...

I think that people are simply reporting a psychological preference when they talk about moral frameworks and I don't believe that any moral claims correspond with a reality. However, in my actions I think I end up with contractualism. I don't run red lights and rob banks not because I think it's wrong but because I know that we are all better off if we all play by certain rules. If I had a bank, I wouldn't want people to rob it. This is not to be confused with Kantian universal maxims however, because if I'm alone at an intersection late at night and there are no contract enforcers around, I may well break the law.

It's all in jest. A way to pass the time. No more, no less.

I voted 'Other.' I guess in some ways I hold to a combination of many, and perhaps in some more significant sense I find them all lacking. If pressed, my view falls under something like Levinas' ethics of encounter... but I don't know.