zblaesi

I don't know if that is true, but I've talked with Rasmussen in the past, and he was struggling in the job market. Having said that, his focus was on philosophy of religion - so it might work differently for someone who is specializing in, say, metaphysics or something. However, I know a grad student at Rutgers who is very into philosophy of religion, and his reasoning was to focus on a non-religious specialization to increase the probability of getting hired out of college. Presumably, he can shift gears into philosophy of religion later once he has secured a position. This guy has expressed major pessimism over the education quality of Notre Dame, I think mostly because some of its biggest names recently retired. He also suggested that Notre Dame has this reputation of producing "philosophers for Christ," which migh play a role in the hiring process. Incidentally, I attended the Plantinga retirement ceremony as a freshman in community college, and I considered referencing it in my statement of purpose or to my letter writers. You know, to paint this impression of extracarricular passion for philosophy. Eric Schwitzgebel advised me against it for the reason that philosophy of religion is looked down upon. I personally don't know what the climate is like at Notre Dame, and I'm just going by hearsay. But it's probably worth taking into consideration. It couldn't hut to look into the placement record and/or contact some recent graduates from the program. Again, I could be 100% wrong - just throwing it out there.

(Maybe a Notre Dame adcom will see this. Other wait-listers: better step up your game!)

I've been told by a Christian philosopher to avoid Notre Dame like the plague. Look into Josh Rasmussen. The guy was quite talented and had all these publications and yet couldn't get a job anywhere (last I spoke with him a year ago). Philosophers and their hatred of philosophy of religion, you know...

Lol, that's hilarious. Good thing I love all my letter writers!

Now I'm checking my mailbox... EDIT And sure enough! Hello Arizona.

Probably wait-listed. I emailed the department and was told I was wait-listed. They are apparently releasing info about the wait-lists through email sometime tomorrow.

I contacted Wisconsin via email and was told I was waitlisted. They are supposed to release information tomorrow.

I'm waitlisted at UTexas and would also appreciate knowing if/when anyone with an offer from Texas turns it down.

I applied to 15 different programs. All of them are top 30, except BU. But I'm not sure if I'd want to go to BU as opposed to waiting a year and applying again. Ironically, Schiffer was adament that I apply to University of Texas, which I wasn't conidering, and I just got a waitlist notification from them today. I still have this delusional hope that someone at NYU who knows my ability personally will fight for my application. It's possible. I just hope Schiffer isn't on the committee!

Same here. But I'm assuming we're both "quite high" on the list

Oh yeah. Knobe read my paper too and was stunned. I'm guessing he wasn't on the committee this year...

I have a 3.95 GPA from NYU. I have letters from Sharon Street, Robert Hopkins, and Crispin Wright. I studied under Sharon Street for nearly a year, including via an independent study. She knew me very well and was always encouraging of my work. I became acquainted with Robert Hopkins through a grad seminar I took for credit. He warned me that the class would be difficult, but I finished with an A. He told me personally that he liked my contributions in class, that I was writing on a graduate level, and that it'd be surprising if I didn't get into more than one program. Presumably they both wrote me good letters. I only took one course with Crispin Wright, but I don't believe he would agree to write me a letter if he had nothing good to say. I'll admit it: my GRE scores are crap. But I was hoping that wouldn't play a huge role. I applied to 15 programs, and I have 0 acceptances so far. I have to believe that my writing sample is the reason for that. I developed my sample under Sharon Street for my independent study. My paper is basically a critique of Richard Joyce's linguistic step of moral error theory. I sketch his linguistic step as a hypothesis about the meanings of moral terms, and then I develop and defend a hypothesis according to which the meanings of moral terms are variable across speech communties and contexts. The result is that Joyce can't drive his hyperbolic claims about the widespread falsity of moral claims. I next draw a distinction between a "weak" and "hard" moral error theory, and argue that moral error theory should proceed along the former lines and target very specific concepts (or speech communities). I've been told by an NYU grad student that my paper "defends an interesting, and not too ambitious, claim well. I’ve seen quite a few writing samples of successful applicants to NYU and many of them are obviously worse than yours." Richard Joyce has read it and told me it makes a good writing sample, and Michael Gill from UArizona read it and said it was excellent. (I got rejected from Arizona. Go figure.) It wasn't until Stephen Schiffer read my paper that I got largely negative reactions, and by that point, it was too late to make any major changes. My concern is that my paper defends a conclusion that is - at the end of the day - not too interesting. But I was encouraged to write the paper because the result seems overlooked by most contemporary defenders of moral error theory. Derek Parfit also worried the paper isn't "distinctively philosophical," and I know there is a great deal of hate for experimental philosophy, which a portion of my paper relies on. Ironically, I was developing a paper for Hopkins' seminar that was much more traditional and more philosophical. The paper was largely a critique of Nelson Goodman, but I spent some time sketching a unique theory by the end. I showed Hopkins both papers and he thought they were evenly matched. Parfit felt the same and encouraged me to use the metaethics paper. So, now I'm just a little lost. Is it possible that philosophers can be poor judges of what will ultimately make a good writing sample? Because I've gotten largely positive feedback, and now I wish I had consulted with Schiffer sooner. I'm also trying to figure out which mistakes to avoid making the next time around. If any of you would like to check out my paper and give me your impression, it would be extremely helpful for the next season - if I decide to apply again.