Glasperlenspieler

Just declined at the following schools: Davis, Riverside, Duke, WUSTL, Utah. Hope that helps!

I'm currently a Northwestern student (in religious studies) and I'd definitely suggest taking a look at the philosophy, RS, German departments and the comp lit program at NU. Peter Fenves (German), Sam Weber (German), Mark Alznauer (philosophy), Rachel Zuckert (philosophy), Christine Helmer (religious studies) might all be people of interest for you. I do work on Weber and the theologian Ernst Troeltsch. The thing to remember is that you can (and will) still study philosophy without being in a philosophy department, especially with what you're interested in. The hardcore analytics on this board might absolutely hate that, but people in the German department do work on Hölderlin and philosophy (e.g. Schelling or Nietzsche, etc.), or Kafka and philosophy, etc. Schleiermacher obviously requires a very strong background in Kant and responses to Kant as well as Spinoza and Leibniz. A couple of my colleagues in religious studies study Schleiermacher, and have done a lot of work with faculty in the philosophy and German departments. As for myself, I've been doing a lot of work recently in neo-Kantian philosophy of history. I'm doing a directed reading this quarter on Dilthey, Windelband, and Rickert--all really important background for Weber and Troeltsch. I'm also going to present a paper in November at the national AAR (American Academy of Religion) conference on Weber and the Frankfurt School. I don't consider myself a philosopher, but philosophy is indispensable for my work. Even though my focus is on Weber and Troeltsch, I can connect those interests to other things I'm interested in even if they don't become a part of my dissertation in the end.
 
Still, what you suggest in your last paragraph isn't just more pragmatic--it really is what you have to do. That is, you have to have areas of competence, and they really can't be all that broad. And for your dissertation, you have to "officially" focus on not just a period, not just one person (maybe two) in that period, but a very narrow idea/concept/contention/etc. But, as I've said, you can still have interdisciplinary interests. Those interests can become areas of competence (i.e. you can take an exam in one of those areas.) You just need to find schools that really value interdisciplinary work. Northwestern, for example, has a program called "The Interdisciplinary Cluster Initiative" in which Ph.D students have the option to join a "cluster" with students from other departments that are centered around an interdisciplinary subject (critical theory, gender studies, Jewish studies, medieval studies, African American studies, etc.) Most clusters have a certificate option in which you take certain courses to earn a certificate in the subject which then goes on your transcript. I'm part of the critical theory cluster. My department and adviser love that I'm involved in the cluster and that I work very closely with faculty from the philosophy and German departments. Finding a school and program that value interdisciplinary work will allow you to go in the directions you're thinking about now.

First of all, I think that your interests are really cool. I was interested in intellectual history myself (back when I was a history major in college) but then I realized that the history of ideas is not even that well-regarded in history departments. I think that philosophy departments would be supportive of those interests to some extent, but probably only those with historical and/or continental leanings. If you are primarily interested in the philosophy, I would advise you to apply to philosophy departments and try to take advantage of interdisciplinary opportunities in the university (like the ones suggested by Marxian in Northwestern). The sad true is that some philosophy departments will be more open to interdisciplinary work than others. I think you should talk to grad students who are already in the programs you are looking at to make sure they are the right place for you.
 
Regarding Columbia, I can tell you that it is a very pluralistic department (more than I expected) and they are open to letting students take classes outside the department (which would be useful for you). Based on your interests, I think Lydia Goehr (aesthetics, politics, and Frankfurt School) and Wolfgang Mann (German idealism and romanticism) could be of interest to you. Also, Bilgrami seems to be very influenced by the work of Jonahtan Israel on the Radical Enlightenment.     

Based on what you just described, I might recommend looking into places like Georgetown and Boston College as well. Georgetown, for instance, is a pretty diverse philosophical environment that includes people doing largely continental work, largely analytic work, as well as people doing work that is more difficult to classify in this way. Terry Pinkard, in particular, comes to mind. He does work on Hegel that reads like analytic philosophy in terms of the style of prose, but he's always reading Hegel through the lens of historicism and the like. BC seems compositionally similar to Georgetown, in my opinion.

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.

Animal husbandry.  And bog snorkeling.

Have to commit on whether or not to renew my lease by tomorrow.  Won't know on waitlists until the 15th...
 
Screw this waitlist hell!

Wait-list Hell right now:

Doesn't "taking over the world" qualify as industry? 

Colin McGinn.

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.

Yeah... I dunno how I feel about that.

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.

I was hoping that the waitlist thread would be sufficient, but I do know that it was cluttered with off-topic stuff I didn't want to wade through. For that reason, I feared a well-intentioned new thread might similarly become cluttered with off-topic stuff. So, I suggested against this thread because it would mean wading through more off-topic discussion, redundancy, etc. With that said, I do like the idea if people can stay on topic here.
 
As for me:
Declined Boston U acceptance on 3/21.
Declined UC Riverside waitlist (don't know position) on 3/21.
Declined Indiana waitlist (top) on 2/24.
FWIW, my interests are in German philosophy (Kant through Nietzsche) and ethics.

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.

In addition to what zizeksucks said, I think there are valid reasons for making the group private:
 
1) Independent of whether anyone posting is actually a misogynist or not, there's a value in having people who all agree on a basic set of issues communicating in private, so that the discussion doesn't get derailed into, e.g. a theoretical debate over what and what does not count as misogyny (a totally random example ).
 
2) Even if it were desirable (which I doubt it is, see point 3) it doesn't seem possible to make the group "female applicants plus a certain subset of male applicants who 'get it'" (i.e. won't derail the discussion, question the presuppositions, etc.) so a female only group it is: how would someone determine which male applicants are not going to violate confidence, make the space feel unsafe, etc.?
 
3) Hell, even as someone who considers himself a staunch ally, I'd feel uncomfortable joining the group: what if I act on some implicit bias of which I am not yet aware (and thus haven't yet de-biased myself from) and end up making someone uncomfortable? That'd defeat the whole purpose.
 
So, my two cents as a male applicant are similar to Zizeksucks'--I support the group. But, of course, I also support anyone's decision not to join it for whatever reason, as PhDApp has chosen to do.

I think the point is to provide a safe space to talk. We saw what happened with the other female philosophers thread, and how a few misogynistic males pretty much took over the thread. I'm not female, so this is just my two cents on the issue. But I think sometimes having a discussion only among those of a minority group that has frequently been disparaged in a way that doesn't attract attention and allows themselves to express themselves without having to worry about reprisal.

I have a lot to say about this. I've not read the thread, but I'd like to chime in anyway.
 
If you're asking yourself whether to turn down a PhD offer for the MA, then my guess is that many of you have already decided and are looking for permission. I give you my permission to turn down the PhD offer for the MA offer. 
 
Two years ago, I turned down a $100,000 offer from a decent PhD program in order to attend a T-7 Master's program. Though I ultimately failed in admissions, I really, truly don't regret the decision to try the master's program. Years from now, I'll know that I gave this my best shot. Also, for me, I aimed very high and was only willing to attend programs with really good placement records. That's because I hope to have a family fairly soon, and I can't afford not to have a reasonable amount of security. (I realize there's some contradiction here. Philosophy is never secure. But what I mean is that "better" schools often bring more security.)
 
I think the answer to the question really depends on who's asking the question. If you're someone who will be disappointed by a Rochester or a Syracuse or a Florida State, then I'm not here to judge you. I'll say this: very, very good people attend these programs and have great careers, which is why so many people on this forum, who I have come to respect, are excited about their offers to these schools. But I, too, was disappointed by a fully-funded offer to a decent program.
 
Here are some things to consider:
Do you have the time and money to devote to more years in school? Unless the MA is like a Georgia State (where you get $15k + tuition waiver), then the MA will be an investment of both time and money. If you're 28 years old and want to have a family in the next five years, then the MA may be too risky. Will you be disappointed by not giving it a shot? And if you give it a shot and don't do any better, will you think you made a mistake? Or will you think, as I do, that you are glad that you at least gave it the very best shot possible? Do you have another career in mind, in case you don't end up in philosophy? This is relevant. For me, I think knowing that law would be a backup actually made my failure this season a lot more bearable. Have you visited the PhD program to which you were admitted? How good did you feel about it? What's your ultimate goal? Is the T-20 really important to you, as it seems to be to a lot of people? Do you want a research job someday? Is that your dream? Are you giving up that dream by attending this PhD program? I have a lot of trouble making big decisions. My significant other sent the email to my T-7 master's program to accept the offer of admission, because I couldn't do it. I felt so bad turning down other good offers. 
 
One thing that helps is to ask myself whether I just need permission to do what I want to do. Unless there are high stakes -- a spouse, children, livelihood -- then doing what you truly want to do may be worth it. But if you're putting other people or yourself at risk, say by taking on an immense amount of debt, then that may change things for you. Of course, if you're pursuing philosophy, you've already taken on a risk.
 
Another thing that helps: Make a decision, and tell someone important to you. Start planning as if the decision is made. How do you feel, now that you made your decision? 
 
So my answer is heavily psychological, but I think it has to be. I don't think there's a formula to answer this question.

I just got accepted into University of Florida's MA program, fully funded by TAship.

HOLY %$#&@#!#*#*@*#$ @*#*# @*# #*$&@*!@ *@$#&# *# @&@*# &@*#$&#@*@ &#*@#&@*@ #&@#* @*@#&#@*@.
 

To cheer up.

Why does it have to be books? 

Things NOT to read - this thread after page 4.

Please, for the sake of future applicants, take the time to read this and consider carefully my proposal. I really would like your help!
 
Philosophy admissions are among the most competitive and most difficult at the graduate level. As this forum (especially recently) indicates, one thing that makes philosophy admissions so difficult is that it's not completely clear what (if anything) makes the difference for success or failure. No amount of information will make philosophy admissions predictable. But I do think that more information would make it more predictable than it is now.
 
Many of you are putting philosophy admissions behind you. I'm among you, in the sense that I don't plan to reapply. Others will be back for a second (or third, . . .) round. For the sake of everyone involved, I think we (as a community) could take a step in the direction of law admissions by organizing the information we have and publishing it for all to see.
 
Law admissions are very predictable for several reasons. 
One, it's largely based on a few numbers and formulas, not on subjective interpretations, personal connections, and subject judgments of the quality of a candidate's academic pedigree (though these are to some degree a factor even in law admissions). Also, there is so much information available to applicants. See, e.g., lawschoolnumbers.com, hourumd.com, and lawschoolpredictor.com. We can't do what the community of people in law admissions has done. But we can take a step in that direction by gathering the data.
 
So I propose the following: Let's put together a survey of applicants. The survey will be honor-based, just as law admissions surveys are honor-based (and therefore not flawless).
 
To be successful, we will need a lot of people to take the surveys. But so far, the community has been responsive to surveys. (See my funding survey, for example, where we now have 30+ programs represented!)
 
What do you think:
 
1. What questions should be included in the survey?
 
2. Do you have any thoughts or suggestions about the survey?
 
I will put together something, one way or another. Assuming we get a lot of replies, I will then publish the unfiltered results so that anyone can interpret the results as s/he pleases.
 
I will also put together a "guide" for each of the top-50 departments, based on the results. And of course people will be able to critique my guide, because people will have access to the unfiltered information from the survey.
 
The survey will be program-specific, meaning that those who take the survey will fill out a survey for each program. This is time-consuming, but it's exactly what people in law admissions have done for a decade now.
 
Here are some questions that I believe could be included:
Program name to which you applied Description of your undergraduate institution (USNews top 50? top 20? national university? regional? liberal arts?) UGPA? Prior graduate education in philosophy? From a Leiter top-six?  Areas of philosophical interest, as expressed (if at all) in the statement of purpose? Writing sample information: in which subfield in philosophy? appx number of pages?  Letters of recommendation: how many from endowed chairs? from senior faculty? from junior faculty? from non-philosophers? GRE scores: verbal (90%+, 75-89%, 50-74%,  . . . ) , quant, AW? Underrepresented minority? Other identity questions: sex, gender, nationality, ethnicity? Admitted, wait-listed, or denied? If admitted, were you admitted from the wait-list? Method of notification: phone, email, email-to-website, website-only, personal contact? Date of notification? The questions would be mostly optional, I think. Also, I think the key is to keep things general enough so that the information isn't personally-identifiable. Though again, law surveys get similarly specific.
 
Now, we may discover that there aren't enough patterns in the data to draw any conclusions about what matters. But what if we discover that there are things that make an enormous difference? For instance, there was a rumor going around a few years ago that Cornell heavily weights academic pedigree.

New School: The Kafka of acceptance notifications.