Glasperlenspieler

You might be interested in some of Joshua Landy's work. He talks a little bit about Plato in this vein in his essay "Formative Fictions", which I think is a reworking of the introduction to his "How To Do Things With Fictions" which has a whole chapter on Plato. And LOVE Borges.

I'm a current USTA and will be doing a second year. It's been a great experience and I can't speak highly enough about it, although I can definitely see why you've got a difficult decision ahead of you. In my experience, the amount of autonomy depends heavily on the indiviudal teacher. In some cases you're running the show in others you're more there to help out. However teachers are typically pretty responsive if you have specific ideas about what you want to do or how to operate things. How much German you need will heavily depend on where you are placed. In Vienna, Salzburg, Innsbruck, etc., you could easily get by with hardly speaking any German if that's what you wanted. In a smaller town that will be much more difficult especially if you are looking for a social life beyond other TAs. Living in a small town and trying to speak German as much as possible, my German skills have improved significantly since I got here. I could probably pass a C1 exam with some practice, although my reading/writing/listening far outstrips my speaking ability. For what it's worth, I do get the sense that my German proficiency is probably in the top half of assistants. Good luck with the decision and if you have any other questions, don't hesitate to PM me!

If you apply to the Germany ETA (or even if you apply to India), you should think about applying here too: https://www.usta-austria.at It's not technically Fulbright, which means you can apply to both, but it offers essentially the same sort of opportunity.

js17981 you mention regretting that you ever got a PhD. Out of curiosity, do you regret it more than you would have regretted not getting one if you had chosen to go another path? I think this is a hard question to answer (counterfactuals are always hard), but I think I know myself well enough to recognize that if were to chose to not even attempt to pursue a PhD, I would very likely spend the rest of my life wondering what if. I recognize the odds of ever attaining a tenure track academic position are low, but I also think that I have the skill set to have at least as good of a shot as anyone else and I recognize that there are few careers that are as attractive to me. Given these facts I would much rather give it my best shot than always wonder if I could have made it. There's of course a point when this line of thought stops being tenable, and one should start surveying other options (and it's good to be cognizant of these goong in), but I'm not there yet and am reasonably confident that I can recognize it when/it I am.

The most prestigious program is of course the Fulbright ETA, but it's also the most competitive. I believe that for countries where Spanish, French, German, Russian, or Chinese is the primary language at least an intermediate degree of proficiency is required, and possibly for a couple other as well. That being said, I think because it is so competitive, that may not always be enough (I was rejected for the Germany ETA twice, although I made it as a finalist the second time around). For other countries, no language proficiency is required, although it would definitely help your application. There are two programs that I am aware of that are very similar, although not quite as prestigious. A friend of mine is doing TAPIF in France and there's also the USTA Program in Austria, which is what I'm doing right now. I think the TAPIF asks for B1 proficiency and the USTA program asks for an Intermediate-Mid (which is probably slightly higher that a B1 but on a different scale.) As far as I can tell, the main reason for this requirement is that it's quite likely that you will end up in a small town where not much English is spoken. So they want to know that you'll be OK getting around and dealing with administrative stuff. I minored in German and would say that my German proficiency is probably in the top half of my cohort (although I had a very strong program and did lots of extracurricular reading). If you were to start an intensive course right away I'd say it would be plausible to reach B1 by the time you had to apply assuming you work at it and are good with languages. If you were to do this and demonstrate a commitment to continuing your language studies and the rest of your application was strong, then I'd say you'd have a decent chance. There are probably other programs like these two, but I'm not aware of them. I also know someone starting a program in the Czech Republic, and as far as I know, she didn't speak any Czech before starting. So it's worth looking for programs like that. I know a lot of people also go to the far East to teach English (Japan, South Korea, China, Taiwan). I think these jobs tend to pay better than in Europe but many also require a TESOL certificate or the equivalent. I didn't look into this option though. I'd just say that while I was very disappointed and frustrated after being shut out, especially after two very attractive wait-lists failed to materialize, in hindsight, I'm sort of glad it happened. I think what I've gained being here far outweighs any benefit there is in going straight from undergrad to a graduate program. I also think I'll come back as a much more focused and well qualified applicant. Finally, you seem to be leaning towards French. I don't know your reasons for that, but I'd argue that German is more useful for philosophical study (and depending on your interests literature as well). The only possible exception is 20th century continental philosophy, but even then it's probably a coin toss. But learning a language is tough, so in truth you should really pick the one your most interested in. You'll be more motivated this way and that makes a huge difference. If you have any more questions, especially on specifics, feel free to PM me.

I'm currently doing this after having been shut out, and I can't recommend it highly enough. I'm actually planning on doing a second year if all goes well and hopefully I can get in somewhere next time around. The only downfall is that for programs in most countries that speak a major language (French, Spanish, German, etc.), you will already need an intermediate level knowledge of the language to be accepted.

The Committee on Social Thought in an independent PhD granting program at the University of Chicago. So to be admitted, you need to apply directly to the program, and unfortunately the deadline was December 15th (admissions details here) That being said, there is also a philosophy and social thought joint program. So, for example, if you were admitted to the philosophy program, you could then apply to the joint program during your second year (see here).

I was thinking more: ask a question in the session, follow that up with a conversation afterwards, and then (if all goes well) continue the conversation focusing on what you've been working on and other related topics, followed by continued interaction after the conference. Clearly this isn't a silver bullet for getting a job (although I have heard that this sometimes can result in being asked to contribute to a volume of collected essays, or more commonly the offer to take a look at your current work). But given the state of the contemporary academic job market, I think it's probably hard to overestimate the importance of who you know in the philosophical community. Obviously long-standing,close working relationships are ideal, but I think there's probably something to be said about breadth as well. Because of conference participation, I know philosophers of a variety of ranks working across the country. These are perhaps not the closest of relationships, although it always surprises me how close you can get over just a few days at a conference. I have no idea if these relationships will ever come in handy in terms of a job, although I suspect they can only work in my favor. Now does this mean it's worth it to fly across the Atlantic to attend a conference? I don't know. You'd have to weigh the costs and benefits for each conference (it's probably more likely to be worth it if presenting), but I don't think you should underestimate the benefits. Sorry for the detour away from the main question! I don't have too much to add there, but hope someone can give you some useful advice.

Attendance by itself probably doesn't mean too much but if you go to a session and ask a killer question that forces the presenter to rethink the argument, then he or she will likely remember you. Or even just asking lots of insightful (and respectful) questions (especially at a smaller conference) tends to leave a good impression, and if you can follow that up with email/facebook contacts, then it's a good way to broaden your network. That's of course not enough to land you a position, but it certainly won't hurt and could potentially pay off down the road.

I was a little reluctant to post this, because I tend to think the last thing you all need is another post talking about the job market, especially as many of you are already stressed out with completing the application season and I assume you are all already well informed on the topic (if this is you feel, free to stop reading now). That being said, some of you have noticed that a discussion has erupted in the philosophy blogosphere over the last few days in response to the recent data concerning the number or Philosophy PhDs being produced every year (here, here, here, and here, and probably elsewhere). As someone who hopes to pursue a PhD in philosophy and hopefully and academic career, these statistics are of course concerning, but I also find the question about the value of a PhD and what an ideal (or at least superior) graduate education system would look like to be interesting and important. So what are your thoughts? I'm especially curious whether you all would still consider pursuing a PhD, even if you knew you had no chance of a TT job prospect. I'm torn, but tend to think my answer would be no (although an MA might be worth it for me for personal reasons). Some in this discussion (debate?) seem to think that the intrinsic value of graduate study in philosophy is worth pursuing for its own sake, while others think the financial costs and time spent given the current system make this view unrealistic. Yet seeing as the people engaging in this conversation seem to be mostly the lucky ones who have "made it", I thought it might be worthwhile to hear your voices from this side of things. Likewise, as an applicant, would you be in favor of fewer PhD granting programs?

Thanks for the responses! I'm glad to see there's enough interest in aesthetics/philosophy of art on these boards to spark a disagreement. You're certainly right in suggesting that these figures are probably not representative of mainstream contemporary philosophical aesthetics (whether that says more about contemporary aesthetics or these figures, I'm not sure!). In truth the list I provided probably betrays more my peculiar interests than any impartial evaluation. As someone very interested in the intersection of German philosophy and philosophy of art, these are the sorts of programs I'm planning on applying to next season after (hopefully) another year teaching abroad. In particular, I'm drawn to approaches that blur the line between literary/art/film criticism and philosphy, something these individuals do rather adeptly in my view. So while these programs may not be in mainstream (not that anything in philosophy of art is), given the OP's stated preference for continental/historical perspectives, they are probably worth considering if the OP has a similar interests to me.

Sorry to resurrect the dead, I've been away from Gradcafe for awhile. But I have to point out that this is simply wrong. Brown has Paul Gyuer; Princeton has Alexander Nehamas; Robert Pippin and Martha Nussbaum at Chicago have substantial side interests in philosophy of literature in particular; and Notre Dame has both Fred Rush and Stephen Watson. Given that all of these individuals as well as other faculty at these institutions also have substantial interests in German philosophy, these four schools along with Columbia strike as possibly the best places to study a combination of aesthetics and 19th C German philosophy. Texas may also be strong due to Higgins, although I get the sense that the rest of the program is pretty narrowly focused on issues in contemporary analytic philosophy.

You bring up a number of important issues, and I'm conflicted in many ways about what the right response is. I think you're probably right that calculus or Latin is unnecessary for the majority of students. I also think that it ought to be available to those students for whom it would be beneficial, and ideally this would be done is some sort of equitable way, so that not only wealthy students have access to it. How do you do this? I don't know. I tend to be fairly sympathetic to a multi-track educational system such as Germany has. As someone else on this thread mentioned, many students are pushed toward a university education when that probably isn't the best option for them, so finding a way to provide an education that is suitable to variety of different individuals is paramount. But I also have concerns about this approach (how does one adequately determine the appropriate track for a given student? What about students who are late bloomers or poor testers? To what extent should the course of someone's life be determined by an evaluation of their aptitudes?) There's of course a further problem of implementing such a system and selling it to the American public. I'm not too hopeful about that... That being said, I do think there are some important disanalogies between learning languages and calculus. For one, there is a marked advantage to learning languages at a younger age and I do not think there is a corresponding advantage when it come to calculus (although I very well could be wrong on this!). Also, it makes sense to learn languages in a certain order. If you eventually want to know both French and Latin, you are probably better off learning Latin first. And research indicates that the more languages one knows, the easier it is to learn a new one. Perhaps that's a bad thing.... If I'd been educated in almost any country in western Europe, I would have been studying at least two foreign languages by primary school. Now part of that is a course a geographic necessity, but I also think their's a real (intrinsic?) value to this. Indeed, if education is successful shouldn't one of the results be that one's learning centered life becomes an integral part of one's everyday life? I tend to think that knowing languages and exposure to the classics (and music, and art, etc.) is central to being a well-rounded cultured individual. I guess in general I'm resistant to the idea that the primary goal of education is/ought to be to prepare students for their future careers. Then again, I'm kind of an old fuddy-duddy when it comes to this kind of stuff.

I don't know. Knowing what I know now and given my interests, I sort of wish I'd had a truly classical education and been forced to learn Latin and Greek and a young age. I mean JS Mill started learning Greek at three and Latin at eight. I believe Hegel started Latin at five. Obviously these were exceptional cases, but that sort of thing was at least not uncommon at one point. Clearly this shouldn't be part of a universal education system, but man I can only imagine where I'd be if I has that sort of opportunity. Then again Mill did have a nervous breakdown, and had I been pushed in that direction, who know if I my interests would have developed in the same way. So it's probably best to proceed with caution, but I still can't help but think that more languages earlier (including classical ones) isn't a bad idea.

For what it's worth, a recent survey (http://philpapers.org/archive/BOUWDP.pdf) reports that 56.4% of professional philosophers surveyed accept or lean towards moral realism (roughly: there are facts of the matter about what one ought (not) to do in certain situations) as opposed to 27.7% who accept of lean towards moral anti-realism. Relatedly, 65.7% accept of lean towards cognitivism about moral judgements (roughly: moral statements express beliefs and are apt for truth or falsity) as opposed to 17.0% who accept or lean towards non-cognitivism. Not sure what we actually ought to make of that, but it's intriguing. Of course, where relativism fits in all this is a little hard to say since basic forms of relativism are typically varieties of congnitivist realism. The view that an action is permissible only if and because one's society/community/culture approves of it, is a type of cognitivist realism because the claim that any action is (im)permissible is true or false and is grounded in facts about one's community. Then again, I think that the handful of philosophers who actually argue moral relativism (Harman, Velleman, etc.) tend to have substantially more complex views that may not fit as easily in to the realism/anti-realism and cognitivist/non-cognitivist distinctions.

I'm interested.

Yeah, Derek Bowman's comment was for me perhaps the most striking: "This highlights the way that many of the responses to this question have been at cross purposes. Is the main point of terminal MAs to help people prepare for PhD admission? Then it seems clear that the thesis isn't an essential (or often even effective) way of doing that. But of course there are many potential educational and philosophical values that the thesis requirement might help to promote. And of course these same conflicting purposes just reappear for those students who do move on to PhD programs. Many things are good for one's philosophical education which can distract from advancing one's philosophical career."

Congrats to you as well! I got placed in Bregenz.

I know it's not technically Fulbright, but did anyone else hear back from USTA today? Looks like I'll be in Austria next year!

I had a professor (who was in the habit of dissuading people from going to grad school), who actually made the opposite point. According to him, once you have a BA in philosophy (and especially an MA), you have all the basic skills to be able to work through philosophical texts, arguments, and ideas on your own and still think critically about them and even contribute to the field. (this probably assumes you went to very strong programs). What a PhD allows for is to continue to practice these things and do so in a community devoted to it (there are obviously other benefits too, but this seems like the crux of it). Indeed, even if you're not in school, nothing stops you from being involved in philosophy. Most journals worth publishing in are blind review. You can still attend and even present at conferences. And if you are in the area of a major philosophy program, you can attend public lectures and maybe even get permission to audit a class or two. This obviously isn't easy while working a full time job and raising children, but it is possible. There's nothing stopping you from asking your professors to write you letters of recommendations now while your skills and accomplishments are fresh in their mind and having them hold onto them until you are ready to apply. I suppose some professors might not agree to this, but it seems a lot preferable from their point of view as opposed to getting asked five years down the line and having to try and remember specifics. Likewise, if you have an opportunity to continue working on a writing sample over the course of a few years and get as much input as possible, it seems like this could only be an asset. There may be some programs that look down upon someone being out of school for that long, but if you can show continuous involvement with philosophy I would hope it wouldn't make that much difference. All in all, I would hold off for now given your debt and desire for a child, but then again I may be somewhat faint-hearted in that regard. But if you do hold off, don't let it keep you from philosophy and take the steps so that if you do decide to go to grad school at a later date, you'll be ready.

Kvanvig will apparently be leaving Baylor in the near future and going to WUSTL: http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2015/02/kvanvig-from-baylor-to-wash-ust-louis.html

Good to know. I'm not actually all that familiar with his work. I just knew that he'd done some work in the field and that he regularly teaches (undergrad) courses in aesthetics.

Alva Noe at Berkeley is another, especially if you are interested in intersections between cognitive science and aesthetics. Oklahoma now has a funded terminal masters program I believe, which with Sherri Irvin, might make that a top choice for you.

It could also be Chicago or Notre Dame...

Sill waiting on two wait lists, but at this point it's looking very likely that I'll be shut out as well.