perpetuavix

I'd be very interested to know what this comment was about: University Of Oregon Philosophy, PhD (F15) Rejected via E-mail on 3 Mar 2015 A 3 Mar 2015 One of the profs closest to my AOI signed an open petition to protest another prof approving a comment on his own moderated blog. I wish I was kidding. Would have declined anyway. Is it about this? http://www.newappsblog.com/2015/02/brian-leiter-behaving-badly-part-the-umpteenth.html#more

I agree that this isn't a particular sensitive question to ask of another professor; you won't be the first student to ask if a potential advisor will be available to work with them. If you're nervous about asking another professor, you can probably ask a grad student, ideally someone who's worked with your POI. They will generally know if professors are planning to retire. You can also look at the course listings to see if the professor is teaching or has taught in the last year.

Programs are used to having people decline (even really good ones with amazing funding packages). Just tell them that you appreciate their offer, but you won't be accepting it. You can give more details about why, but you shouldn't feel obligated to do so. A polite, short email is fine.

As someone who did an alternative teaching program, please don't do TFA unless you really want to become a teacher for the rest of your life. TFA in particular has a lot of problems and essentially no longer serves the role it was created to fill. It also grossly underprepares you to do an immensely difficult job. Feel free to PM me about it.

Most PhD programs in most disciplines fund students. In political science, students are mostly funded through teaching and maybe some research fellowships. Generally, your tuition is covered (although some fees might not be) and you're paid a stipend (the amount varies a lot; the highest I've seen for humanities is $32,000 and the lowest is $11,000). If you have a teaching assistantship, you'll probably work as a TA for some large lectures and eventually teach your own classes. You also might do research with a professor or do department service to 'earn' your stipend. In political science, there are probably some external sources of funding you could apply for, but most non-science disciplines don't require that you have any external funding. Usually, if you're strong enough to admitted to a program, they will fund you. If the schools you apply to have university-wide fellowships, having high GREs and GPA helps with those, since someone outside your discipline will make those decisions. But putting yourself in a good position for funding basically is the same as putting yourself in a good position to be admitted.

Generally, waitlisted applicants are on par with admitted applicants. If a school waitlisted you, it's still an indication that they want you to attend. They just had a few people who they want slightly more and have some practical/budgetary limitations of the number of students they can admit. This is less true if the school maintains a very large waitlist or a ranked waitlist where you're near the bottom. But a waitlist is still an indication that you are a strong candidate.

Here's a PGR from 1995-1996: https://msa4.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/brianleiterphilosophicalgourmetreport1995-1996.pdf(Originally found that link here: http://upnight.com/2014/12/30/brian-leiters-continuing-influence-on-the-philosophical-gourmet-report-the-past-as-future/)

If you follow the link that he uses to cite that number, there's discussion in the comments about where that number came from. It's from the first 100 reported jobs compiled by one of the New Apps bloggers, not sure the source (ie it could be the jobs wiki or it could be the LR job thread). The update also seems to indicate that both of those percentages, 37% from top 5 and 88% from ranked programs aren't wholly accurate, since CDJ's data says 31% of TT jobs go to candidates from top-10 programs. Also, there's no claim as to whether those are people who got jobs directly from their PhD programs, or after a few years on the market. I'm not saying that the PGR doesn't affect placement; I'm sure it does. But I think there's more here than just the title indicates.

The APA has over 9,000 members (and certainly doesn't have every member of the discipline). 300 could be a good sample size to represent the discipline, but not if the sample taken is unrepresentative of the discipline. Even if you think the sample should be "distinguished" members of the discipline, you're still relying on Brian Leiter and the Board to pick those people (which brings me back to the point about implicit bias...). Problems with sampling: http://choiceandinference.com/2012/04/17/manufactured-assent-the-philosophical-gourmet-reports-sampling-problem/ http://choiceandinference.com/2012/04/19/more-on-the-educational-imbalance-within-the-pgr-evaluator-pool/ Implicit bias in rankings: https://feministphilosophers.wordpress.com/2014/09/26/rankings-and-implicit-bias/ Also, some of Dicey Jennings' placement data that flybottle was talking about: http://www.newappsblog.com/2014/07/job-placement-2011-2014-comparing-placement-rank-to-pgr-rank.html

I think the sampling method is more accurately called "Brian Leiter asks some friends to ask some friends". If it's a snowball sample, it's the smallest possible kind. Snowball samples are already considered to be a method with a lot of bias, so only having two rounds of snowballing is going to result in substantial bias. While it's hard to completely remove bias from a snowball sample, having multiple rounds of recruitment can help reduce it; no such effort is made in the PGR. Basically, everyone who completes the PGR has one degree of separation from Brian Leiter; that seems like a potentially quite large source of bias. Also, there are criticisms that some reviewers are unqualified (in some specialty rankings) and that some people were snubbed. There are also complaints that the pool of reviewers is far too homogeneous (many reviewers came from a relatively small number of schools). "Complaining" about implicit bias is the first step to combating it; although I'd really rather say I'm recognizing its potential effects. There's good research that reflecting on a time you were biased is one of the best ways to limits it effects (whereas thinking about a time when you were successful can actually increase implicit bias). Reputational data might be interesting or worthwhile to someone, but the PGR reports reputational data of Brian Leiter and his friends, reflecting a limited view of the discipline. The PGR reflects Leiter's/the Board's ideas about what kinds of areas are worth studying, even within analytic philosophy. M&E has the biggest effect on the ranking, where philosophy of race, feminism, chinese philosophy, etc have substantially less influence. The pool of evaluators is quite small when compared to the size of the discipline (and the pool is not a representative sample). The PGR might capture reputational data about what the evaluators think of grad programs, but I highly doubt that their judgement represent "the philosophical community" at large.

It's interesting, because last year, it seemed like there was more debate about the quality and usefulness of the PGR. This year, it seems like it's a fairly accepted standard. I personally don't think the PGR is methodologically sound, generally, but I think this year's PGR is especially suspect. After the September statement (which jailbreak linked to), the PGR saw some substantial drops in participation. In some specialty categories, the numbers of evaluators decreased by 30-50%, with even fewer women than normal. The feminist philosophy rankings had so few evaluators this year that the results from 2011 and 2014 were combined in order to generate that specialty ranking. Mitchell Aboulsfia has detailed the drop in evaluators: http://upnight.com/category/philosophical-gourmet-report/(I find some of his other posts a little.... hyperbolic, but the numbers are easily verifiable). The sampling method is called "snowballing sampling"; when I described the method of the PGR to my social scientists partner and asked if it was snowball sampling, he started laughing. (In the PGR, Brian Leiter picks the advisory Board and the advisory Board pick the evaluators. In a true snowball sample, there would be more rounds of recruiting to ensure a larger sample size and attempt to eliminate bias). Also, schools with high percentages of tenured female faculty are generally ranked lower: http://www.csulb.edu/~jvancamp/doctoral_2004.html. There are many possible explanations for this; I think some of these departments ask to not be included in the PGR. But, implicit bias also might have something to do with it. Reading the methodology page of the PGR is well worthwhile. I think the specialty rankings have some value, since they are the opinions of the people with knowledge about the subfield, but the overall rankings are dubious (to me). Evalutors can't evaluate their current school or where they got a PhD, but otherwise, they can evaluate every other department. They look at a faculty list and give a number between 0 and 5 to convey faculty quality. There aren't guidelines about how they should do this. Perhaps you think that 'reputation' can be captured by this method, but I really doubt it. There is a lot of discussion on blogs (that aren't LR) about the value of rankings in general. It seems that the philosophical community (that frequent blogs that aren't LR) is divided about the issue. See: http://philosopherscocoon.typepad.com/blog/2014/10/there-are-good-rankings-and-bad-rankings.html http://dailynous.com/2014/10/08/broader-effects-of-the-pgr/ http://www.newappsblog.com/2014/09/the-pgr-board-letter-and-a-different-perspective.html http://www.newappsblog.com/2014/10/a-rankings-vacuum-is-unsustainable-in-the-internet-era.html#more http://proteviblog.typepad.com/protevi/2014/10/the-october-statement-no-rankings-not-now-not-ever.html If you're interested in a timeline of the events that lead to (?) Leiter stepping down from PGR: http://www.readmorewritemorethinkmorebemore.com/2014/09/archive-of-meltdown.html The rankings, whether they are good, bad, methodologically sound, whatever, definitely have an effect on the discipline. It is used as a rough proxy for quality. It probably affects job placement. The world might've been worse without it. But, it has some issues, and I think people can make better decisions if they are aware of those issues.

Ask about what the undergrads are like. Advanced undergrads might be in your classes, and you'll be teaching the rest of them. Ask about formalized mentoring, especially if you're not sure exactly who you want to work with. Will you have a faculty mentor? Will that person be assigned or do you choose someone? Are there formalized graduate student mentors? Find out about the Masters process. Does it involve papers, exams, orals, etc? Do most people succeed at it (the first time around)? What happens if you don't? What's the support like in preparing for it? Ask (probably grad student, not faculty) if they know of any upcoming faculty movement. They know if professors are currently on the job market or are close to retiring, and might be able to tell you about positions that are currently being hired for, and planned future hires, as well. Visit whatever kind of graduate student spaces there are. Do they have a lounge? Offices? A kitchen? Do people hang out in any of those spaces? Do people mostly work at home? Ask about how social the grads are with each other and what the general social vibe is. Are grads competitive? Do they support each other? Also, if you're a member of an underrepresented minority group, try and talk with someone who can tell you about that experience. If there's no one who can, think about what that says about the department. If you're going somewhere you've never been, spend some time looking around; try and get an afternoon or evening free in your visit schedule. You should know a little about the place you might end up living, and get a feel for whether or not you could be happy there. Also, remember that departments are generally on their best behavior for visits. This isn't to say that anyone will lie to you about how things are. But some people might minimize problems in the department in an effort to look appealing. (I've both heard of this happening, and felt it happened at a school I visited) Enjoy the visits! Remember, if a department admitted you (or even waitlisted you) it's because they want you to come there.

You didn't say your philosophy GPA, only your overall GPA, but I think that coming from Williams means a lot more than those above me have accounted for. Adcomms will be much more impressed with a 3.57 from Williams than they would be with the same GPA from the vast majority of schools. GPA is a good predictor for success in graduate admissions, but it's certainly not the only one. If you look at the survey data from last year (), you can sort by school type. Out of the eight applicants who applied from Top 20 Liberal Arts schools (pretty sure Ian used World News and Report, which ranks Williams as the best liberal arts school in the country), all of them got at least one offer. A few did have a graduate degree, and only two were applying to continental programs. Several of the students had similar overall GPAs to yours--although they basically all had philosophy GPAs of 3.8 and up. Of course, last year's results can't predict your personal success. But there are students similar to you who have been successful in getting into PhD programs, and the fact that you went to a prestigious school will likely help you out. It does sound like you have some work to do in strengthening your application, though. Take the GRE and aim high, especially in verbal. You do need to find a third letter writer, but the two professors you plan to ask sound like good choices. I would definitely ask the young professor; I really don't put any stock in the idea that your letter writers need to be only eminent philosophers. I got a letter from an adjunct professor working in a nonphilosophy department at a not-great school; he wrote me a glowing letter, because I had taken three classes with him and had put effort into getting to know him. I'm sure you can find at least one other letter writer, and don't feel restricted to just the philosophy department; it's better to get a strong letter from someone who knows you (but isn't a philosopher, isn't famous, isn't tenured, isn't whatever) than from a famous, tenured philosopher who can only write you a vague letter. You're not that far out from undergrad, and professors know that writing letters for former students is expected of them. Stay in touch with those you plan to ask for letters; they can also help you refine your list of schools, edit your writing sample, and polish your statement of purpose. Your writing sample should occupy a lot of your time; do you have a paper from undergrad you can adapt? You might need to lengthen (or shorten it, depending on where it came from) to meet the requirements for schools. There is no one, however stellar their application materials look, who is guaranteed admissions to a PhD program; there's just too much randomness in the system. But you don't sound like an obviously hopeless applicant. You also don't sound as weak as you think you are. While I appreciate some humility on the internet, you need a little confidence, too.

A lot of schools don't use the writing score, especially if you're sending in a writing sample. Some of them explicitly say this, but another way to check is to see if the department reports the AWA scores for accepted/incoming students. If they don't, it probably doesn't really matter. If you really want to take the GRE again, you can probably bring up your AWA score, but make sure you take the test AT LEAST 4 weeks before your applications are due. I don't trust the ETS to send out score reports in a timely manner, but maybe you do.

It probably depends on what happens between pages 16 and 20... If they're asking for a 35 page writing sample, it seems like you should give them something on a continuous topic. Presumably, they want to see how you handle writing a longer paper with one main focus. If the two sections are like that, or can be edited so they seem like that's true, you can probably submit it.

A content degree isn't always enough to teach high school. It varies a lot by state, but most (possibly all?) states require a teaching certification. There are generally multiple ways to get this; it might only require passing a test in some places, but in others, you get your certification through a teacher preparation program (either a Bachelors or a Masters in education). Some also require student teaching in order to qualify (I have no idea if graduate teaching experience would satisfy this requirement. It seems like it should, but that doesn't mean that's actually how schools work). A lot of states have relaxed their certification requirements (often because of TFA) and made it easier for people without formal education backgrounds to enter the classroom. There are some places where you can be hired for a position and get an emergency certificate, which gives you time to meet whatever certification requirements that state has. This is especially true in high need areas, which history is generally not. There are also many alternative teaching programs (I taught high school math for three years through NYCTF; the Teaching Fellows has programs in 10ish cities and they're not the only ones in the game). Certification generally only applies in public schools, though. Charters can generally get around them and private schools pretty frequently hire uncertified teachers. Getting a K-12 job, even in history, is almost certainly easier than getting a higher education job, though. Even if you don't have a certification, if you're willing to go where the jobs are (like I assume you would for a higher education job), you can find a K-12 teaching position.

Yeah, I'm really not enjoying the quarter system. I have way too many papers to write in the next three weeks, and I feel like the quarter just started...

If they clearly set a minimum standard and you submit an application anyway, why should they look at your application? Just like you don't want to waste your time and money, the school doesn't either. I would recommend you raise your scores or look elsewhere.

How many schools are you planning to apply to? The GRE website says it takes 10-15 days to return your scores and send them to institutions, but you can only send four on test day. So those four schools will ideally get your score reports in about three weeks, but again, that's in an ideal situation (do you trust the ETS that much?). If you know you need to send more than four reports, the sooner you take the test, the better. You need 10-15 days for the GRE to send you your scores, then request ETS to send the additional score reports. There's nothing specific about how long that might take, but I can't imagine ETS has especially quick turn around. If all of your deadlines are 12/15, you might consider taking the test by the first week in November. That gives you roughly 6 weeks to get your scores, send additional reports, and check with the schools to make sure they received them. Some schools might be okay if your scores arrive a few days after the deadline, but I would want to make sure I did everything I could to get the scores there in time. That said, you probably need to register immediately. It might depend where you live, but my husband had a choice of 2 dates in October when he made reservations the last week of September. Testing centers can and do fill up.

I will definitely second the recommendation for Pentels RSVP pens; the ones with the caps are better than the clicky ones, but both are awesome.

I usually make a few extra servings of whatever I make for dinner and freeze them in tupperware. That way, I'm not eating leftovers of the same thing for a few days. If I make extra servings for about a week, I have weekday lunches for most of the next month. I've found most things I make freeze just fine, as long as it's not crispy/crunchy/fried. The things I mostly make: stir fry, curry,, enchiladas, soup, chili, stew, lasagna, stuffed shells, and mac and cheese. You can find recipes for any of these by just googling "easy [food name]". In the morning, I grab a container out of the freezer and stick it in my lunch box, and it keeps whatever else I bring cool and is thawed out enough to microwave by the afternoon. For snacks, I used to have trail mix and packets of instant oatmeal in my desk. Trail mix requires no prep, and oatmeal can be made in the microwave easily in a mug. I buy Quaker's, and the packet doubles as a measuring cup, so it's really simple.

I think it's likely that higher GRE scores tend to track with other criteria that adcomms care about, which was essentially the message I got from the discussion on Leiter. I also think schools are being honest when they say they don't use cutoffs, but if you have a low GRE score and it's within your ability to improve it, it seems like it would be worthwhile.

Based on the survey data, only 3 people reported GRE verbal scores below the 80th percentile, and all of their 32 applications were rejected. Out of the 9 applicants who reported verbal scores between the 80th and 89th, 6 were shut out. Out of the 80 applications submitted by this group, only 8 resulted in an offer of admissions or a waitlist. Compare to those who scored above the 95th percentile: out of 528 applications across 53 applicants, there were 190 offers (and 10 applicants were shut out).

Philosophy students have the highest average verbal scores, but don't generally have especially high quant scores (in fact, most programs don't seem to care too much about quant scores, as long as it's not awful). I think you used the wrong table to convert the quant score from the old to new. The average old quant score at UChicago was 740, which is equivalent to a 158 on the new test. The quant table is the second one in this document: https://www.ets.org/s/gre/pdf/concordance_information.pdf The actual text from the UChicago website has a nice reminder about what averages really mean: "For what it's worth, the average grade average in philosophy for our recent admitted students has been about 3.9 (out of 4). The average verbal score on the GRE was around 710, the quantitative was 740 and the analytic writing was just under 5.5. The qualification "for what it's worth" is important: quite a few applicants who were not admitted had significantly better numbers than these (especially GREs). And, at the same time, since these are averages, roughly half of our admittees were at or below them. The reason, needless to say, is that other factors—especially, the writing sample—are making a big difference." (taken from http://philosophy.uchicago.edu/prospective/admissions.html)

Some schools will tell you their policy on the application page. They might specifically say that all application materials must be received before the deadline to be considered. Some schools only expect you to complete your parts of the application by the deadline, and will accept materials after the deadline. I had at least one school email me the day applications were due to inform me that a recommendation was missing. I think it was submitted the next day, and I ended up being accepted there. Most applications have some kind of automated system for getting LORs and notifying you when they're complete, and it's generally your responsibility to stay on top of your recommenders. As long as you give them adequate time and send a few reminder emails, you won't bump up against the deadlines anyway.