Glasperlenspieler

Yes but, and again I find a lot to agree with you, what you're describing is the structure and function of capitalism. The entire economy is based on the exploitation of labor. The entire economy asks you to instrumentalize and commodify yourself and what you love. The entire economy shamelessly asks for uncompensated labor, as the reach of email and the smartphone compels us to work long into the night. What you're describing is what capitalism is.
 
I don't excuse any of the academy's participation in these things, and they're as bad as you say. But they are system-wide, and someone going out and getting a job in the "real world" will not find the conditions any better. I'm increasingly convinced that you're someone who went into the academy with a series of illusions about it that were inevitably dashed. I don't pretend that no on in the academy perpetuates those myths, but I find it blindingly naive to think that what you're describing isn't an inherent function of capitalist society.

Can someone (in this thread of via PM) say more about these 'ideological commitments' that education programs tend to have? I'm curious, especially as someone with an interest in pedagogy and education, but unfamiliar with the current state of the field. 

In my experience, philosophical theology is more often done in religion or theology departments than in philosophy departments, though of course it's common that a professor who specializes in philosophical theology will have a dual appointment in religion and philosophy.
 
Why is that? The truth is that philosophical theology is theology more than it is philosophy, at least on how I view the disciplines. I think the distribution of philosophical theologians among divinity schools and religion departments suggests that others agree with me on this.
 
It's important to understand that most people doing philosophical theology are starting with certain theological assumptions and trying to work those out using philosophical methodology. In my view, the most fundamental questions about the divine are treated as "philosophy of religion." Philosophy of religion is NOT the same as philosophical theology.
 
You don't, for example, see a lot of atheists doing philosophical theology, though you do see a lot of atheists doing philosophy of religion. The easiest way to explain the difference is that philosophical theologians typically start with some basic theological assumptions.
 
For instance, philosophical theologians might try to explain the distinctly Christian (in the historical sense of the word, not in the modern sense!) doctrine of the trinity. Much of what Aquinas and Augustine did is properly called philosophical theology, based on how I see the phrase applied.
 
To be clear, philosophical theologians are doing philosophy. It's just that they're doing philosophy in a different context, and they're not just doing philosophy. Everything I say here ought to be read in light of what I've said in a different thread about how the term "philosopher" is applied within academic philosophy.
 
All this is to say that philosophical theology deserves to be treated not as an area of interest within philosophy but as its own field or perhaps as a subfield of theology or religion. (Theology and religion of course aren't interchangeable terms either.) For this reason, I recommend that someone with an interest in philosophical theology seek a place in a religion or theology program, or perhaps even the graduate school within a divinity school. I would also recommend that this person look for the very few philosophy departments that actually do philosophical theology; find out whether an interest in philosophical theology will be rewarded and encouraged or will be treated as a distraction from the purpose of the degree program.
 
The sort of virtues of a student of philosophy are very similar (if not the same) as those of a student of philosophical theology. There is a similar methodology. There are overlapping questions and debates. There are overlapping thinkers. So it's no surprise that some people think of philosophical theology as a subfield of philosophy. It's a tricky thing, because some legitimate, strong philosophy programs actually do treat philosophical theology as a subfield of philosophy. Saint Louis University and Notre Dame have some philosophers doing philosophical theology. Here's how to explain it: A lot of theologically-minded individuals get excited about philosophy. Sometimes these individuals are attracted (for good reason) to programs where their views -- including their theological views -- will be taken seriously. Some professors are in a similar situation. And the thing is, how a person answers some philosophical questions will affect (or maybe should affect) how that person answers some theological questions. That's part of the reason that philosophical theology is sometimes thought to be a subfield of philosophy.
 
The other sad truth is that some religion and theology departments, in my limited but somewhat informed experience, don't reward the intellectual virtues that are rewarded in philosophy departments. I'm putting this quite mildly. But the effect is this: intellectual theists try to escape these departments by going to philosophy departments, and a department like Saint Louis University's philosophy department gives them the best of both worlds.
 
In summary, I suggest that your friend open herself to the idea of attending a religion or theology program or a graduate program at a divinity school. I recommend against a divinity degree, unless that's her thing, or unless the particular program is a break from the norm. Divinity degree programs, in my experience, too often suffer from what I have very carefully described above. A friend of mine who attended Harvard's divinity program, then an MA in philosophy, tells me that the divinity program was basically terrible (for him, as a person with his interests). That's his view, but based on my experience, it's not surprising.
 
I also suggest that your friend consider the small group of philosophy departments with people doing philosophical theology. The obvious ones are Saint Louis University, Notre Dame, Baylor, Fordham, possibly Boston College, Georgetown, Tulane. I recommend that your friend look at programs that some have labeled "continental" programs. Some people say that these programs are "pluralist." The idea, again, is that students of philosophy who wish to apply philosophical methodology and pursue philosophical questions for the sake of theological answers -- and to be taken seriously while doing these things -- might be better received in these places.
 
Good luck.

Terminal MAs are a recent development. And I do think there is an edge to having purity on your transcript, i.e. straight from Harvard undergrad to Princeton PhD, or whatever. But since most normal people go to schools that are affordable and close to home, and then while in school discover their love and aptitude for philosophy, they are in a bit of a dilemma. Terminal MAs are an excellent way to bridge the gap between little known school to reputable PhD. Their placement record is proof of that. I would recommend a terminal MA in these kinds of situations without hesitation. (Georgia State, Northern Illinois, Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Western Michigan, Ohio, Houston, Virginia Tech, and there are several others)
 
What about other kinds of MAs? 
 
MA from a PhD program: Probably not. You won't get the same attention the PhD students get. Terminal MAs are about the MA students and placing them. PhD programs with MA programs attached are not like this. 
 
Unfunded MA: No. Never. Unless you are independently very wealthy, I cannot recommend an unfunded MA in any circumstance. 
 
Good luck!

I have decided to accept the USTA instead of the Germany ETA. Do I need to notify Fulbright? I am confused...

kjgw06, if I may ask, how much scholarship is NSSR giving you? If what you say is true, and both schools are giving you near equal amounts of aid, then to be honest I would recommend you decline both and try again next year. While it is true that the admissions process is almost entirely unpredictable and you may get no offers next year, in retrospect I think no acceptances is better than going into deep debt for an MA in philosophy, which coming from either of those schools will by no means guarantee you a spot in an elite PhD program, and will not prepare you to do anything else. I know it's hard to hear, but I really wish I had taken an extra year to reevaluate and strengthen my application than jumping at NSSR's offer with 33% tuition assistance. If you really can't stomach the notion of declining both offers, then I would urge you to take the option that minimizes your financial risk, which is certainly Temple. 

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."

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 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 wouldn't want to start Greek and Latin at the same time.  But since I think you mentioned elsewhere that your Latin is further along than your Greek, I agree with the otheres that you should be fine.  

Honestly, my decision feels even better knowing that I helped someone get into a department (who thought he/she was shut out).
 
However, we should all email UW-Madison (along with a number of other programs) and demand that they accept Ian as an additional student.

If I were one for Bayes theoretic approaches to the theodicy problem in philosophy of religion, I'd be inclined to say that ianfaircloud's having been shut out of philosophy admissions qualifies as evidence against the existence of God. I just find it totally unbelievable. That just sucks. 

Turned down CUNY for UWashington, and it feels so good. 

I just got into UVA. Literally in shock. Can't move. Must drink. So happy. Will most likely accept. This means that UVA might not make any more offers.

THANKS FOR ROOTING FOR ME GUYS!

THANK YOU BASED GOD!!!!!

This is my lucky day! I was also informed I'm next in line at Wisconsin. I still think UT is the right choice, but honestly... having both options on the table, it's tough!

There's little sense in speaking on whether or not one can "prove" the existence of God. So far as I can tell, philosophers have great difficulty in "proving" the existence of the external world, the objective existence of abstract mathematical objects, the broad coherence of various sentences in scientific theories insofar as they are understood to accurately track reality, and so on. So insofar as demonstrable "proofs" are concerned, it seems the existence of God is on equal footing with these various concepts. The question, then, isn't one of "proving" the existence of God (or whatever), but rather a question of evaluating all of the available evidence (whatever one might count as evidence) in support of or against God's existence (or whatever). I, along with many others, feel that the evidence better supports the existence of God than it's denial. This represents a pattern of inductive inference, not a proof.

Anyone have any info re: the blog post above? (Feel free to PM me if you'd rather keep it discreet.)
 
Also, UCR told me that I was at the top of their wait list, and I removed myself. I hope it helps someone else!

You're right that if it were never allowed to question the presuppositions or certain facts were always kept off the table, then that would be a bad thing.
 
But I don't think that's the issue here.  Rather, the point is that there are certain times or places, where it doesn't make sense to be always questioning certain presuppositions.  Even if you are convinced that there is no afterlife, you're probably not going to argue that point to someone whose best friend has just died.  Likewise, sometimes it's important, even in philosophical discussions, to take certain presuppositions as given.  It would be completely pointless to have a discussion with a moral nihilist about applied ethics, if she was continually pointing out that there are no moral truths.  Instead one of two things happen.  Either you learn to avoid such discussion with that person (because they come to no good) or that other person learns to set aside her metaethical views temporarily for that sake of the conversation (this happens all the time in philosophy when critiquing others views, and indeed moral anti-realists are often more than happy to argue for or against particular moral claims).
 
So just because a group deems that it may be necessary to take certain assumptions as given does not mean that they are being unphilosophical, just that they deem it to be beneficial for the sake of the discussion, either for certain interpersonal reason or for the sake of being able to have a fruitful discussion.

You're right that if it were never allowed to question the presuppositions or certain facts were always kept off the table, then that would be a bad thing.
 
But I don't think that's the issue here.  Rather, the point is that there are certain times or places, where it doesn't make sense to be always questioning certain presuppositions.  Even if you are convinced that there is no afterlife, you're probably not going to argue that point to someone whose best friend has just died.  Likewise, sometimes it's important, even in philosophical discussions, to take certain presuppositions as given.  It would be completely pointless to have a discussion with a moral nihilist about applied ethics, if she was continually pointing out that there are no moral truths.  Instead one of two things happen.  Either you learn to avoid such discussion with that person (because they come to no good) or that other person learns to set aside her metaethical views temporarily for that sake of the conversation (this happens all the time in philosophy when critiquing others views, and indeed moral anti-realists are often more than happy to argue for or against particular moral claims).
 
So just because a group deems that it may be necessary to take certain assumptions as given does not mean that they are being unphilosophical, just that they deem it to be beneficial for the sake of the discussion, either for certain interpersonal reason or for the sake of being able to have a fruitful discussion.

Got of GSU's waitlist! Fuck yeah!

And why is it our Lord and Savior Immanuel Kant?

Ahh, geez. I see that this thread was hijacked...
 
Please take the Talbot discussion to another thread, not only because it will improve that discussion (which could be a good one), but also because it will help us stay on topic on this thread.

I think your funding survey is an underrated, useful tool. Perhaps we should propagate that too! The last submission (besides mine) was late March. 

Just got off the Purdue wait-list for funding. I should be making my decision in the next day or two. 

COME BACK! PLEASE! I'M BORED! I WANT TO ARGUE WITH STUPID PEOPLE!