Glasperlenspieler

Declined Riverside. Sorry it took so long, but it was a difficult decision to make. The program seems really great, especially if you're into German philosophy and/or agency, free will, moral psychology. PM if you have questions. Hope that helps someone! Maybe it'll be you @Dialectica but I think we have different AOIs.

To echo the point made by @silenus_thescribe I think the second part of this remark is reversing the nature of the correlation. It's not so much that hiring committees make decisions based on rankings, it's that the rankings attempt to make apparent the implicit hierarchical structures that are already embedded within academia and that hiring committees use whether there are ranking to make them explicit or not. Do they do a perfect job of this? Hell no! Especially, as you note, when it comes to specific sub-fields. But whether we like it or not, a handful of departments account for a majority of academic hiring (and not just as R1s and elite SLACs). While I certainly understand frustration with rankings, I think getting rid of them would actually makes the problem worse. Without rankings, only those students who have advisors who are aware of the fault lines of these embedded structures (and hence, are probably already in the upper echelons of them), would have a chance at making an informed decision about the comparative quality of different programs. The rankings, in a sense, attempt to democratize the information, even if they don't democratize the process. There is certainly room for improvement when it comes to rankings and for that reason, they should certainly be taken with a grain of salt and an eye towards how the programs actually fit your interests. This should go without saying though. It seems as if they only people who think that ranking should be taken as the word of God are the people arguing against them as means of a strawman. What they do is to provide a useful starting point for researching programs that roughly maps onto (perceived) quality of the programs in question, keeping in mind that there is likely a sizable margin of error and a great deal of variation based on specialty and approach.

I think there are two ways of reading this question. On one interpretation the answer is "no" and on the other the answer is "maybe". If you mean, "does the fact that the department is expecting you to carry part of the cost means that they're not that interested in you?", then I think you have no reason to worry. There are often institutional limits on the amount of money that can be spent on prospective students and the department may very well have no say in the matter. So in this sense, I don't think it's a reason for concern. Another reading of the question, however, is: "does the fact that the department is making you carry part of the cost indicate something about the financial state of the department/university?" The answer to this question, I think, is "maybe". If the department/university is stingy on funding for prospective student visits, then I would certainly want to ask for specifics on availability of 6th year funding and beyond, travel funding for conference, dissertation completion fellowships, retirements and new hires, etc. It's a good idea to ask about this anyways but I think it's especially pertinent in a situation like this. Perhaps the money comes from different pools and thus has no bearing on the sort of financial opportunities available/affecting grad students. My suspicion, however, is that these things are all closely connected.

I think this is a really important distinction and that both forms of "fit" are very important. I'd almost be tempted to say that fit of approach may be even more important that fit of content but I'm not entirely confident about that.

While I could understand picking a lower ranked program over a higher ranked program, I'd take a very close, hard look at these two lists before you do: WUSTL: https://philosophy.artsci.wustl.edu/graduate/placement/academic-placement-record Rutgers: http://philosophy.rutgers.edu/placement

While there's certainly a sense in which graduate admissions is a lottery and thus the "buy more tickets" approach makes sense, I think it's important not to underestimate the importance of "fit". Simply applying to more schools isn't going to help you if those schools don't match with your interests, SOP, writing sample, background, etc. Now determining fit as an applicant isn't always easy. The more I learn about the programs I've been accepted to, the more amazed I am at how they each (in different ways) line up with what I'm interested in and the materials I submitted, even in ways that I hadn't realized or couldn't have know when I applied. I'm realizing these things now because 1) I can research the schools more thoroughly since I have fewer schools to look at and 2) I now have an open line of communication with the departments that I didn't have before. As an applicant, you're often in the dark about these things (I know I was) but that doesn't mean they're not at play. This is not to downplay the randomness inherent in the process. It's certainly there. Yet, unless you're interests are extremely undefined (which is a problem in itself) or so mainstream that the're covered in almost any major department (which is probably a double-edged sword), I find it highly unlikely that there are 20 programs that would be a strong fit. So you're efforts might be better spent in thoroughly researching the departments you are considering and closely tailoring your applications to the (perhaps large) handful that really do coincide with your areas of interest.

To be honest, I'm not sure the idea of a safe school holds much water when it comes to PhD admissions because of how competitive the process has become.

I applied to two different programs and the same university this year (I did this at two different universities actually). Now, it's looking like I didn't get into any of those programs, but I have no reason to think that was because I double applied. Depending on the departmental structure of these programs, it's quite possible that there is absolutely no overlap between the admissions committees at the two different programs. One thing to watch out for though, is that some universities only allow you to apply to one program per academic year, in which case what you are proposing is simply not an option due to institutional regulations. Other universities have no such restrictions. So, this is definitely something you should look into. One thing that I would suggest is that if there are faculty who are active in both programs that you are interested in, email them and explain your interests and see if there is any input on which program would be a better fit. Perhaps they can give some more specific advice about whether it's wise to apply to both programs or, if not, which program you should apply to.

I'm only really familiar with three of the programs on your list (Chicago, Columbia, and UC Riverside), since those are ones I applied to. My one concern would be that those three programs seem to skew much more heavily toward German philosophy and particular areas of analytic philosophy than French philosophy. Sure, there are some faculty interests in French philosophy. Chicago is probably the strongest of the three for that with Raoul Moati and Arnold Davidson. Taylor Carman (Columbia) and Mark Wrathall (Riverside) both have an interest in Merleau-Ponty (although they're more Heidegger scholars), but it doesn't really look like there are any faculty or grad students at these programs with a serious interest in Deleuze. It really depends on what your other interests are and the sort of approach you take to these topics, but from the information you've provided, it's not clear to me that these three programs would be a great fit. I don't really know much about the other programs and French philosophy isn't an area of focus for me though, so I unfortunately can't provide you with much more insight than that.

Haha, sorry. Dear Applicant, I regret to inform you that after evaluating a very strong admission cohort, the Faculty Committee on Admissions is unable to offer you admission to the Ph.D. program in Philosophy. I know that this is unpleasant news. Unfortunately, we must necessarily base our decisions on materials that reduce unique and complex individuals to the components of their dossier. Nevertheless, I can assure you that your application received the most careful consideration, and that the committee made this decision after much deliberation. I wish you success in your future career, and thank you for having given us the opportunity to consider you for admission to Columbia. Sincerely yours, Carlos J. Alonso Dean

Columbia wins points for best rejection letter this year although it's still not quite up to the standard of the rejection letter Ted Sider wrote when he was at Cornell.

While I certainly think that "Ivies or bust" is oversimplified, I think there's (unfortunately) a grain of truth in it. Consider this post by telkanuru and the study cited in it: This study is for history (as well as computer science and business), but it shows that in history, over 85% of ALL TT placements come from 25% of PhD granting institutions. I don't know of any similar studies for other fields in the humanities, but I'd wager to guess the results wouldn't be too far off. Now, it's important to note that the institutions that dominate the job market are NOT simply the Ivies (many non-Ivies actually perform as well or better and some Ivies may actually be on the borderline of this group in some fields) and that the institutions that do well don't necessarily map onto the top ranked programs according to USNews or NRC or whomever. Nonetheless, there does appear to be a fairly clear tier system in terms of placement and if you are outside of this top tier, your odds of obtaining a tenure track job are severely reduced (likely allowing for some variation according to specialty). I'm not trying to defend this system, but I think we ignore it at our own peril and not only if you're gunning for an R1 job. For what it's worth, this is pretty much the same advice I've heard from a number of professors (who are very happy with their non-R1 positions).

Brown rejection

Here are two lists of visit questions to ask (for philosophy and literature programs respectively, but a lot here is probably pretty universal). Many of these are probably useful things to ask current students.

Wait, does that mean you got accepted with only one language in addition to English? Or am I misreading this?

I've just been asking very general questions because I don't want to preempt potentially useful information because I didn't think to ask about it. So I'll just ask them to tell me about their experience there, strengths and weaknesses of the programs, why they chose the program and if they're happy with their decision, things they wish they knew before deciding to attend, etc. I think every student I've emailed has said that they'd be happy to answer new questions as they arise, so I usually ask a few follow up questions based on the information they give. Obviously, if you have more specific questions, ask them. In particular, when I know that a student is in the dissertation phase, I ask about placement/job market, and if you know a student is working with an advisor you're interested in, I think it's perfectly fair to ask what working with this professor is like. Thus far, I've received a number of detailed and very gracious responses, many of which have turned into an extended back-and-forth. So definitely don't hesitate to just ask about the program even if you don't have a lot of specific questions. Remember, they were in your position not long ago. I think there are also a few good lists of questions to ask on visits somewhere on these boards. Many of these would be good to ask students.

So much for Canadian politeness!

There's a great discussion going on in the literature forum right now that you might appreciate:

Yeah, I think NYU is a long shot for pretty much everyone. But hey, someone's got to get in!

I'm getting ready for my implied rejection lol

Small but important point: If you take a look at NYU's philosophy department, I think you'll see that they don't have much to offer someone interested in "Theory". In fact, I suspect that much of the work done in that department is rather hostile to "Theory". NYU is certainly a strong place for people with the theoretical interests that the OP has, but I don't think you'll be finding it in the philosophy department.

It's unclear to me from your post whether you have already applied and are deciding where to attend or if you are looking to apply in the future. I think it's the latter but I'm not sure.

Somebody posted this article in the history forum, which I found interesting: http://www.forbes.com/sites/drsarahbond/2017/01/23/dear-scholars-delete-your-account-at-academia-edu/#26fedab62ee0 Not sure whether the costs outweigh the benefits, but certainly something to consider.

Well, the Princeton rejection is official.

Why? There's a second one up now and the timing is right. So unfortunately I think it's probably the real deal. If the last few years are any indication, rejections and waitlists should come out in the next week or so.