zblaesi

My first instinct is to advise against it. Don't get me wrong. It definitely can be a good thing for a professor to know you. So, for example, I sent a draft of my writing sample to Josh Knobe at Yale. He sent me comments, and we had an email exchange about them. But this is because (1) I had met him when he visited NYU and asked him if he could read it and (2) my paper was related to some of his work. By contrast, I hadn't emailed anyone at UT, since I wasn't familiar with the faculty. If I had emailed someone at UT in a similar fashion, I imagine it might have seemed disingenuous. So, my advice would be to not email a professor just to try to get brownie points for admission. I would email a faculty member under conditions such as... The professor is a frequent citation in a paper you're working on, and you're looking for advice/comments You have a legitimate question (about his/her work, the department, or whatever) You've met this professor and he/she has encouraged you to engage him/her through email. (This has happened to me with a number of professors--Josh Knobe, Elizabeth Camp, Galen Strawson.) You do so far enough in advance for the conversation to be a real conversation I bold the last point because the whole advantage here is for the professor to get a sense of your philosophical ability and personality over time and long before he/she (potentially) sees your application. If you email a professor a month before submission deadlines, this probably won't happen. The best case scenario is that the professor feels he/she knows you (and knows you to be a good student). In fact, there's one student at UT who had virtually no philosophical background or training. Two highly preeminent philosophers wrote him letters of recommendation, despite the fact that he had not taken a single course with either of them. Why? Because he had been emailing with them for years, interacted with them at talks, sent them papers for feedback, and so on. They knew he was talented, despite his lack of the educational background. This is a rare example of the power of being social and proactive. There is one thing I did do, which seemed risky at the time. When I was wait-listed, I had two professors follow up with UT on my behalf. I believe they emphasized that I had much less time than other students to work on my writing sample and that I was capable of much better, or something to that effect. I did get off the wait-list, so who's to say if that helped. (The grad coordinator made a comment to me that "a lot of people were saying good things about me" or something to that effect -- she may have been referring to this.)

I don't do much epistemology these days. But my impression is that UT is a great place for epistemology. David Sosa is indeed awesome. He's super energetic and inspiring. You get the sense that he's trying to build a systematic worldview or something--i.e., for him, the issues are all connected: agency/activity, epistemology, mind. However, since he's the department chair, he can be hard to get ahold of. He also sometimes takes research leave. (He's currently on leave for a year.) I know he has been on a number of students' committees though. I hear Sinan is really good, but I haven't taken a course with him. This previous semester, he co-taught a course on Bayesian epistemology. He also sat in on Dancy's course, and his contributions were very interesting and helpful. He also happens to be friendly and has an offbeat sense of humor that is refreshing in an academic setting. Miriam Schoenfield also does epistemology, but she's at NYU for research right now. I think she'll be returning, but I forget when. And Dancy started out doing epistemology, apparently, and he has some things to say about the relationship between practical reasons and epistemic reasons. I think he'd be helpful in ways, though he isn't up to date with contemporary epistemology literature.

I'm not sure I understand your question.

Not as far as I know. I haven't interacted with him at all really. He doesn't tend to come to colloquia or conferences often, and I haven't taken a course with him yet. You might check the grad student page and see who is working on philosophy of science and send him/her an email. Sorry I can't be more helpful.

I just thought to mention two more considerations related to (meta)ethics: 1) There seems to be a shared feeling at UT that the department is lacking in ethics. As a result of this, the department tends to focus on ethics in other ways. For instance, a number of our conferences are dedicated to ethics: we have the Royal Ethics Conference, plus last year some students organized the first annual AGENT conference. There are also a number of talented students working in ethics. So, even if there aren't many experts on the faculty, I think the environment is a good one for ethics. I'm also of the opinion that metaethics is heavily dependent upon considerations in other fields (language, epistemology, metaphysics), so I think some students will become better at metaethics at a place like UT as opposed to some departments that excel in ethics but are lacking in other areas. 2) Adam Pautz is leaving for Brown, so we're going to need to replace him eventually. I wouldn't be surprised if we end up hiring someone working in ethics, for the reason mentioned above. I asked another grad student about the "snake pit" label. He's heard the label applied to colloquia Q&A. I think our department tends to put speakers through the ringer, at least some of the time. (Consider the legendary Deverstater: a crushing objection-in-the-form-of-a-question delivered by Josh Dever on certain occasions.) I personally love this aspect of the department; it makes me feel like a member of some formidable team. I could imagine an outsider worrying that such an environment might produce a feeling of competition among students. But in my experience, that's not the case. We're sometimes hard on speakers, but very supportive of each other. I've never felt in competition with any other students, and I've received valuable feedback from a number of students. As for the climate for women, I think UT is actually more concerned about the climate for women in philosophy than other departments. I also like that my incoming class is a 50/50 split of men and women. If anyone else is interested to hear a more detailed assessment of climate, please PM me.

1) As far as I can tell, Dancy and John Deigh are the only ones who actually do work in metaethics. Nicole Smith, who is a lecturer, does ethics, but I haven't interacted with her much. But I get the impression that there are a number of professors who don't work in metaethics but who would still be very helpful, such as David Sosa. I should mention that I'm less interested in metaethics these days. I'm actually much more interested in the philosophy of mind. I chose UT mainly because I wanted room to explore my options as a graduate student. That turned out to be the right choice: for one, Shafer-Landau left UW-Madison, and he was the only reason I was considering UW over UT. So, that's something to consider. Are you certain that your AOI's will remain the same? Or do you anticipate broadening your interests? The thing I love about UT is that the department is well-rounded, and I feel like I can get amazing support in almost all of the areas I find interesting. I heard stories about graduate students changing interests over time, and I'm one of them. Even Stephen Schiffer once told me that he started out wanting to do metaethics as a grad student before shifting to language. Another PhD student also told me that sometimes advisers will promise to take their students with them if they switch departments. I never heard of this before, but it's worth looking into. Regardless, I'd recommend trying to get a feel for the professors you plan to work with. This never occurred to me: I talked on the phone with Shafer-Landau, but I never considered asking him if he might move departments. I should have done that; maybe the decision would have been easier. 2) "Snake pit"? You're going to have to elaborate. Are you referring to the department, or Texas as a state?

Well, you're right: 161v isn't bad. But I've gotten the impression that most people who land offers from top-10 institutions have amazing scores across the board. And my math score is pretty bad, and while my verbal score isn't bad, it's not ideal. For what it's worth, a friend of mine got into a number of top institutions and ultimately settled at Rutgers, and his GRE scores were similar. I think my advice to future applicants would be to prepare for the GRE as early as possible. You don't want to give committees an excuse to fault you if you can avoid it. I took the GRE my final semester while I was applying to schools, and that was a big mistake.

I imagine ianfaircloud has information about funding somewhere. As for GRE scores, you'll notice that mine are pretty bad, and that didn't stop UT from putting me at the top of their wait-list. Then again, my institution and letters likely played a big role in that.

Hi thatsjustsemantics (great username, btw), Your first question is difficult for me to answer, since I don't do any work in modality, and I'm not close with any students who do. My impression is that Josh Dever, Daniel Bonevac, and maybe Cory Juhl would offer support in this area. But my answer is pretty speculative, and you could get a better answer by emailing them directly. For non-cognitivism, you might find support with Jonathan Dancy and John Deigh. Dancy, who is our main ethics guy, is here during the spring. As far as I know, he hasn't written much on non-cognitivism, but I'm sure he'd be helpful to discuss it. Deigh taught my History of Analytic Ethics course, and we spent a fair amount of time on non-cognitivism. But Deigh has a unique (historically-minded) approach to ethics. I think between the two you'd have some great resources, but again, as far as I know, there aren't any experts on that topic. Deflationary theories of truth--no one in particular comes to mind. Again, Dever and Bonevac might be helpful. Mark Sainsbury seems like he might know about that stuff as well. I don't do any ancient, so it's likewise hard for me to make a judgement on Platonic dialogues. But I do know there are two students here who are almost exclusively interested in ancient philosophy, and Matt Evans (an associate professor) is supposed to be really good. As for French philosophy, no one comes to mind. I don't have any specific advice for applying to UT. In fact, my application wasn't tailored to UT at all, because I decided to apply at the last minute. And no one has spoken to me about my application since being admitted. For what it's worth, I think I was almost shut out because my writing sample was an awful choice. (You can find it in my signature.) I imagine my letter-writers played a huge role in UT accepting me. Actually, when I was wait-listed, I had two professors send a follow up email to some people at UT on my behalf. The grad coordinator mentioned this in an email (something to the effect that a few were speaking highly of me), so maybe that played a role. Let me know if you have any other questions.

Hello everyone, I was an applicant during the 2013 season (nearly shut out!), and thegradcafe community was very helpful throughout the whole process. So, I figured I'd try to give back. This may not be the best time to start a thread like this, since the 2014 season just ended. However, since I tend to be fairly swamped during the semester, this seemed like the best time for me to actively participate. First, some background. I was a transfer to NYU, where I completed a double major in film production and philosophy. I imagine this is sort of rare, as philosophy applicants tend to major primarily in philosophy or in some other related major (like mathematics or science). So, my undergraduate experience was somewhat atypical: I only had two years to take philosophy courses, and my film degree bogged me down with a bunch of extra work. I was ultimately admitted from wait-lists to UT-Austin and UW-Madison. At the time, my main AOI was metaethics. So, UW-Madison was very appealing. However, I sided with UT for a few reasons. First, UT was a more well-rounded program for my interests (which also included mind, language, and epistemology). Second, UT seemed to have a reputation for being an underrated department that was gaining momentum. Third, Austin seemed like a better place to live. And finally, I was really impressed by a phone conversation with David Sosa, as well as emails I exchanged with UT graduate students. Nowadays, I believe I made the right decision, especially since Russ Shafer-Landau announced his leaving UW. At UT, I just completed my first year. I have taken courses with Adam Pautz/Katherine Dunlop, David Sosa, John Deigh, Josh Dever, Jonathan Dancy, and Mark Sainsbury/Michael Tye. So, at this point, if you guys have any questions about the program or my experiences thereat, I'd be happy (to try my best) to tackle them!

Sorry to be so shameless, but bumping this thread!

I wonder if I've met him.

I think late-July/early-August is safe. I'd prefer to move sooner, but I have things to finish up in NYC.

I've been wanting to add to this thread for a while now. I was lucky enough to not be completely shut out this application season, but I definitely didn't do as well as I hoped. These are my random thoughts on the application process. A. Being awesome I notice that many philosophy students are fairly timid. But I believe it is ultimately advantageous to stand out in a philosophy department socially as well as academically. I would hang out in the lounge of the philosophy building as often as possible. I became a familiar presence among the graduate students. I would attend department events and colloquia. I would sit in on grad courses. I would strive to speak up in class, even when I believed what I had to say is dumb. I attended office hours occasionally, but doing so frequently is preferable. In any case, the goal is to start a reputation for yourself and to get the faculty to realize how excited you are about the department. Making a presence at nearby departments is also a wise idea, especially if you plan to apply to those departments. (For example: I attended a talk at CUNY. One of my letter-writers saw me there. I imagine that helped him write a better letter for me.) Looking back, I wish I had been more involved. I know an applicant who did very well this season. He held an officer position in his school's philosophy club and was a member of the committee for his school's undergraduate journal. He also co-founded a very successful undergraduate conference. This was more difficult in my case because NYU has fewer opportunities for undergraduate in the philosophy department. However, NYU's philosophy club was elusive for a couple semesters, and I wish I was more instrumental in reviving it. I also think applicants who challenge themselves to take graduate courses and complete independent studies are at a bigger advantage. If I could go back and do it over, I would have taken as many graduate courses as possible. In my case, I took two graduate courses and completed an independent study. But I could have managed at least one more graduate course - I just didn't realize undergraduates were even eligible to take graduate courses until my third semester. I also think it is a good idea to consistently audit classes, especially when your letter-writers are teaching those courses. I sat in on a few sessions of a graduate course taught by Street, but I stopped going as my semester heated up. This definitely didn't help my letter. When it comes to interacting with professors during office hours, I think can sometimes be important to be aggressive. For example, Stephen Schiffer is sometimes difficult to talk with. He uses very specific terminology, and if you don't share that terminology, communication can be difficult. There were times when I thought I was pushing an interesting point, but he had no idea what I was saying, so I just shrugged my shoulders and moved on to a new topic. I should have pushed my ideas with different words until we were on the same page. The point is, you want to show that you are a good philosophical thinker, and sometimes this means keeping a conversation alive until your interlocutor fully understands what you're saying. That, in turn, requires some confidence on your part. B. Letters of recommendation I had the major disadvantage of transferring into NYU - meaning I only had two years to find letter-writers. This hurt me, I think, because my letter-writers had much less time to get to know me. Robert Hopkins, for example, only knew me for a semester. His letter was based on my performance in his grad course. Since your letters are such an important part of your application, within your first two semesters, I think it is important to get an idea of which professors you would like to work with and start considering them for letters. I asked my letter-writers how I could help them write the best possible letters. Different professors have different preferences. I provided Sharon Street with a ton of materials: my best work from her undergraduate course; my final paper for a course I took with Stephen Schiffer; a paper I wrote for a graduate course; a "brag sheet" with relevant information about my academic background; and transcripts from my previous college and NYU. Crispin Wright, on the other hand, said he "had all [he] needed" to write his letter, which consisted of experience with me inside and outside of class, as well as my writing sample. C. Writing sample I think one of the most important aspects of developing a good writing sample is finding the right adviser for you. My main adviser was amazing, but I feel (s)he encouraged me to move in the wrong directions. Stephen Schiffer, on the other hand, is much different to work with. He is very critical and will inform you if he thinks you're headed toward a dead end. In retrospect, I might have produced a better writing sample if I had spent more time working with Schiffer than my main adviser. This again illustrates the importance of interacting with faculty members as early as possible. I believe that it is also important to ask which sorts of papers committees are looking for. Many gradcafe users (including myself) have offered to share their writing samples, so maybe something can be learned from this. In my case, I think I pursued a strategy that is not ideal for a writing sample. My writing sample involves a style of argumentation that is subtle in its execution and modest in its aims. I lay out evidence used to support a particular hypothesis, and then propose a new hypothesis for handling this evidence. The goal is to shift the burden of proof in a particular debate, to undermine a particular conclusion. I get the feeling that many successful writing samples attempt something stronger and more noticeably philosophical. The strategy, which I'm sure is familiar to most of you, goes like this. Spend some time laying out a view, pointing out when some aspect of the argument is invalid, or when some premise is dubious, and boosting the argument into its strongest form. Next, attack one (and preferably more than one) of the argument's premises. Maybe find one last route for the argument, and object to that reformulation. Consider counter-objections. And then perhaps speculate on future work in the area before wrapping things up. That's pretty vague, but I think my aesthetics paper fits the second mold more than the first, which is why I may have made a mistake in using my metaethics paper as my writing sample. I was also given the following piece of advice from a graduate student at BU. As an undergraduate, it is very easy to target a specific philosopher. However, much of your work in graduate school is the product of locating a particular view or assumption across a body of literature. This information must be synthesized before you attack it or boost it. My writing sample focused on Richard Joyce specifically, but my paper may have looked stronger if I focused on error theorists across the board. The takeaway point should be this: put time into considering what committees are even looking for before you decide what to research or what to write. D. GRE Assume it matters. My GRE scores are pretty bad. I think this probably hurt me. A lot. I was told mixed things about the GRE. Sharon Street told me no one cared that much about the GRE. A professor at CUNY told me committees expect high scores in at least one of the GRE sections. Who knows how much GRE scores factor into the process. But why take the risk? In my case, I underestimated how hard the GRE would be for me. If I was smart, I would have started studying for the GRE back in community college and got it out of the way. You don't want to be worrying about high school level math while you're polishing your writing sample, mobilizing letters of recommendation, and tediously filling out your applications. If I could go back in time, I would also consider getting tested for a learning disability. I missed a ton of class as a kid due to health issues, so I have issues with even basic arithmetic. This undoubtedly slows me down on standardized tests and puts me at a major disadvantage. If you think you are entitled to more time on a test, why not try to find a way to claim it? E. Statements of purpose It is very easy to leave your statements of purpose for the last minute. It is also easy to wonder what a statement of purpose is even supposed to do. However, I think it is easy to underestimate how important your statement of purpose can be. I was rejected from BU, my safety school, and I can't help but wonder if this is because I didn't seem like a prime candidate for BU specifically. I also think I got lucky and my statement of purpose made me seem like a good fit for UT-Austin, even though I decided to apply to UT last minute. As a result, I believe it is a good idea to start working on your statements of purpose early and customize them to each school. This doesn't necessarily mean mentioning specific faculty, but rather highlighting certain aspects of your application and interests that appeal most to the specific department. This might mean emphasizing your interest in experimental philosophy for some schools and not others. I wrote a generic statement of purpose, but I customized my final paragraph to certain schools. I don't know if this helped me or hurt me. UT received my generic statement of purpose, whereas UW-Madison received a statement of purpose with a custom paragraph at the end. I mentioned faculty at UW and how my research interests aligned me with those faculty. My policy was this: if I knew at least one faculty member really well, I would customize my final paragraph to that school. (Note: for those interested, you can view my generic statement of purpose in my signature.) F. Departments I think it is a good idea to have a clear idea as to which departments are your top choice. Once you know this, you are in a position to start building relationships with faculty at those departments. In my case, I emailed professors specializing in metaethics and asked for feedback on my writing sample. You'd be surprised how willing professors are to help you out. Unfortunately, most of the faculty I targeted weren't even professors at my top choices. However, if you can get feedback while building a relationship at a department to which you're applying, that's preferable. So, for example, Michael Gill at Arizona read my writing sample, and we went back-and-forth through email on issues related to his work. I was ultimately rejected from Arizona, but if Michael Gill was on the committee, I know my email exchanges with him only helped my chances. Finally, to reiterate what others have already mentioned: don't underestimate how tedious the actual application process can be. Make sure you start filling the applications out preemptively. You don't want to be rushing at the last minute. Okay, that's all I got for now, but I might add more content as thoughts come to me.

Our AOIs are quite different. Almost all of my courses focused on contemporary analytic philosophy, except for History of Modern Philosophy. Regardless, my courses all focused on academic articles or excerpts from books, rather than entire books, with the exception of Kripke's Naming and Necessity and Goodman's Languages of Art.