flybottle

An anecdote that's not precisely on point, but hopefully helpful: There was a point in time at which I was considering studying art history and specializing in Byzantine & Early Christian art. I had no background in Greek, and was greatly concerned that this would sink my application from the get-go-- I went to a professor who specializes in Byzantine art to express this concern. Her response: 'They'll be so excited you want to study Byzantine art they won't give a damn if you have any Greek to start. That's how I got here.' You can go into graduate programs that will eventually require knowledge of ancient Greek without having it to start. There are probably a great proportion of people who want to do ancient philosophy than people who want to do Byzantine art who have background in Greek, but I don't think it's unreasonable to present yourself as an applicant without any Greek-- as long as you can tell some story about how you developed a strong interest in ancient Greek philosophy. Not everybody has the opportunity to study ancient Greek in college at this point. (The Latin might be a bit stickier-- I'd suggest, for someone looking into a summer course in a similar situation, to do a course in Latin so you've got *something* going in.) But you've got a perfectly coherent reason for not having any Latin or Greek. Not an ideal situation, but a decent admissions committee shouldn't penalize you for it.

Having been on a couple of visits this season so far, I'd suggest just talking some philosophy with prospective advisors. You can lead in with a discussion of your research interests, or ask a question about their research or an article of theirs (assuming you've read it!). There are plenty of opportunities to talk with folks about climate, funding, cost of living, etc (and many of these things are better to talk to grad students about anyway). Really, I just started doing this because I was sick of asking everybody the questions we're supposed to be asking, so I'm not the greatest example of responsible visit-strategy. But I found it way more enjoyable to just talk shop with the folks I'd want to work with, and they seemed pleased as well (and sometimes even pleasantly surprised!). The most important thing, I think, in an advising relationship, is to find the conversation comfortable enough that you can trot out half-formed ideas, and challenging enough that those ideas will get pushback where they need it. And the best way to get a sense for who you 'clicks' with you here is just to talk philosophy. Plus, I've found it softens them up to answer questions about availability (both how often they're around campus, and whether they're planning to stick around/not retire soon) and other matters. This is a rare chance for some of us to travel around to a bunch of really great schools and meet some really interesting people who are totally into philosophy. Don't forget to take advantage of that! (And if you do, much of the other information you want will be more readily accessible anyway, I think.)

Yes.

Is the rhetorical ploy really that obscure to you, or are yours just that heavy-handed?

Just received an offer from CUNY. So they are still sending them out, keep hope folks!

Sometimes, I think, it is because the school operates with an internal wait list (eg UCLA). For schools that don't have an internal wait list, I think it's really just that sending out rejections isn't a priority. Sad truth is, there's a finite amount of time for departments to spend on admissions, in conjunction with all their other administrative tasks, and informing the people they're not trying to convince to come to their program probably gets bumped down the list quite often. Which sucks, but I guess it is what it is. And it means the programs that are very efficient about this-- eg, MIT-- look particularly professional.

Did you solicit your decision? I'm a bit surprised that they're (apparently) sending out rejections before offers.

At least one round of UCLA admissions was released a few weeks ago. It's still possible that you'll hear in the coming weeks (as I understand it, they have an internal wait list). Good luck!!

I'm not a Western Ontario student, but I will just flag the "no details until you accept" aspect. If that's right-- and, frankly, I would be shocked if they really meant that-- it's a huge red flag. Bluntly, call them on that shit: it is absolutely unacceptable to prevent prospective students from making a well-informed decision, including based on financial considerations. I've received an offer from a different Canadian school (Toronto) in a different discipline, and they also have a very tight funding package; relative to the US, this seems to be somewhat normal. However, Toronto suggested to me that they initial offer isn't the final offer. I don't know what your negotiating position is, but finances are a very important aspect of deciding where to go, and if the program really wants to you, they should try to make the strongest offer to you that they can.

One thing to flag about Toronto is that their basic funding packages are, well, kind of tight. Unless the department has put you forward for a scholarship or said that they will find ways to top up your basic stipend, my understanding is that it is really, really hard to live on what they give you. (It just plainly costs more than 15k/year to live in Toronto.) Shouldn't be the only factor in your decision making, but personally (I'm considering an offer from a different Toronto department), when funding is low enough that I worry that financial issues could interfere with my studies, I see that as a red flag.

Is that a record for fastest second offer? Congrats!!

Given the adjucting situation, I'd take $15/hour. Go go Living Wage Movement.

Some schools have flexibility in terms of the reimbursement situation. I had one DGS tell me that while reimbursement was the norm, they can figure something out if there are cash-flow issues. I would definitely expect programs to be receptive and helpful when dealing with international flights. (Also, not sure how to handle this, but sometimes programs will split the cost of an international flight if you're visiting several. This isn't your problem to bring up, but don't be shocked if somebody mentions it to you.)

Having spent an inappropriate amount of time looking at the philosophy job market blogs, I can say that there isn't a straightforward answer here, because there isn't a straightforward rating. Some folks are gunning for research positions; some folks want to teach at a small liberal arts college (=SALC, hopefully to save someone a little confusion in the future); for some folks location is a priority; for some folks prestige. But what's true for all of us is (and surely will be) that the job market is rough, and that a school that places only a small portion of their students, but into really good schools, is probably something to see as a red flag (this isn't quite Berkeley's situation, I think). So, personally, I'd lean towards prioritizing overall placement in TT positions to the 'quality' of the placement, and then use quality as a comparison for similarly situated placement records. Another thought: 5 years-- and let's be real, 6-8 years, if not more-- down the road, we will probably be saddled with a lot of personal commitments that don't have right now: partners, kids, elderly family members, debt, disease, whatever. That dream job at NYU might not, in fact, be our future-selves' (pace Parfit) best option. If that's the type of job you're gunning for, it's definitely worth taking placement 'quality' into account. But just getting a damn job that is congruent with the other commitments in our lives is a huge task in itself.

On the flip side, this implies, I take it, that a school with many TT placements for 2013-15 is a very good sign.

Indeed! But, let's be clear: West Philly is the Best Philly.

Confirming UCLA (I was not the first poster). Unofficial email from John Carriero. Woo!

Excellent point. Those dastardly SPEP folks are surely doing a great deal of metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics. The particular tied to the general rankings is much more particular than 'questions of being' or 'questions of knowledge.' Which, again, could be a plausible link, but is a very substantive (and thus contentious) position.

Thanks. At least for me, there weren't any interviews. More info sent PM.

(As an aside, I was really shocked to see Leiter come out so vehemently against Dicey Jenning's work on placement data, since he played a significant role in getting philosophy programs to make this data accessible to applicants in the first place. Given the venom of his original posts against Dicey Jenning's report-- which was subsequently edited-- it's hard for me to see this as anything but the head of the PGR trying to keep it as the only game in town. (Not necessarily suggesting conscious motive to Leiter, just that it seems like the most plausible structural analysis.))

Fine, but folks have suggested, and you've acknowledged, that the convergence could be explained-- to some degree-- by other factors like feedback loops. I don't really see that we've got reason to think that most people grade one way. And while I buy into your last suggestion, that there is strong correlation between high 'general' scores and high scores based on strong particular fields, that's precisely a criticism that some folks marshal against the PGR-- that it is overly weighted towards analytic M&E departments. Many of the folks pushing against the PGR are doing so precisely because they want to push against a conception of philosophy that closely ties 'general strength' (importance) to those particular subfields. And even if we bracket all that, and say, as you seem to have above, that the PGR really tracks the opinions of some central members of the discipline* (although we should recognize, I think, that the central status of some board members is determined, in part, by the PGR rankings themselves), all that suggests is that the PGR should be seen as one metric among many. But-- and here's where the September Statement comes in without dealing with Leiter's 'moral character'-- the head of the PGR has a history of viciously ostracizing other proposed metrics (eg, Dicey Jenning's placement data analysis). If the PGR is really just a reflection of opinions on departmental reputation, it should be treated as a single metric among many. But Leiter definitely doesn't behave that way. So either you've got to reject his rosy-eyed view of the PGR and get behind Dicey Jennings (at least in the spirit of producing alternative metrics), or say that the PGR tracks something more substantive than (PGR-influenced) impressions of department reputation. *I'd be shocked to see Leiter himself concede this. We can go back and look if you'd like, but I definitely have the impression that he's made claims that the PGR tracks some fact of the matter (to a significant degree of accuracy).

Isn't that an issue in itself?

Naive question, but what 'variety of reasons' do you have in mind?

Having spoken with several UChicago professors about their admissions process over the years, I think it would be overstating things to say that they don't look at letters and writing samples in the first cut. They certainly don't read every page of every writing sample, much less read them especially closely. But it is not unusual for a member of the adcom to quickly read the first and last few pages of each sample, and make a judgment in part based on their impressions. While there are surely implicit bias issues about whose samples get read more seriously in the first cut (ie, if we submitted the same writing sample with two different sets of numbers, the one with the better set of numbers would probably get read more closely/charitably/whatever), I think it's rare for the first stage to rely solely upon GRE and GPA. (At least in terms of what adcom members are supposed/intend to do-- that doesn't say anything about compliance when someone is crunched for time.)

Most important bit first: the letter said that they finalized their acceptance list yesterday. I was emailed initially by the DGS, so I expect that he's sending the acceptances out in a batch together, but I dunno how efficiently he's working through them. What I can definitely tell you is that the list of offers and wait list have been set. I'm a medievalist by training, and pitched myself as such-- so I'm mostly looking at working with Adam Cohen and Jill Caskey. And, with the centre for medieval studies, UoT is basically a medievalist's paradise. But I've also got interests in gender/queer theory, visual theory, historiography, and method (I also studied philosophy as an undergrad, so I'm inevitably drawn to methodological/theoretical questions)-- I'm hoping eventually to see what kind of trouble I can make by putting gender & visual theory that comes out of contact with contemporary art in conversation with gender & visual theory that comes out of contact with medieval. (Oh, and I'm American.)