Kierkegaardashian

I hope that's the case. I guess I took the email from BC to mean all of the responses would be sent out together around mid-March. It probably just meant they will all be sent out by mid-March.

Didn't somebody already receive an acceptance about a month ago, though?

Thanks! I "appropriated" it from a popular Twitter account, which, if you've never looked at before, you definitely should!

I think that the poster was from somewhere in Asia (under "status" the poster listed I for international), rather than gradcafe's default time zone being in Europe.

I think the issue is that the probabilities don't "stack" in this way. If you have a 6% chance of admission at each of the ten schools you apply to, you have a 6% chance of being admitted, not a 60% chance.

It's actually higher than that, as 88% of tenure-track hires are from Leiter-ranked programs, and a whopping 37% of tt-hires are from the top five: http://www.newappsblog.com/2015/02/some-figures-on-prestige-bias-in-academia.html This is certainly true, and is reflected in the 37% figure above. However, while getting a degree from a ranked program outside of the top ten certainly comes with less prestige, it still opens you up to the possibility of getting hired at other ranked programs, whereas getting a phd from an unranked program makes it far less likely that you can land a job at a ranked program. So, even though a lower-ranked school like Georgetown may not place as many graduates in ranked programs, it does so at a much greater rate than unranked programs. For instance, Oregon and the University of South Florida have excellent placement records, but they have never (according to their placement data) placed a graduate into a job at a ranked school. It's true that some unranked places have a better history of tt-hires than some ranked programs, but, again, they are far more likely to be a tt-track job at a small school in the middle of nowhere rather than a job at a ranked program. This means a lot more teaching undergrads and intro level classes and less researching and teaching classes to grad students. Which is fine (I pray that I'm lucky enough to land such a job), but my point is that there are many ways a school can place well. Again, though, even these unranked-but-placing-well schools are outliers. The PGR is indeed a reputational survey, but, unfortunately, reputation is strongly correlated with hirability. The prestige factor in hiring in philosophy is a proven phenomenon. The only reason I harp upon this is because people need to be aware of their job prospects when they decide to enter a program. I applied to a lot of schools that, while great fits, would do me no favors in getting a job afterwards. I did this largely because I was told (by people in several unranked, "SPEP-y" programs) that prestige doesn't matter in hiring, but this is clearly not the case, though the picture is far more fuzzy than Brian Leiter would suggest.

Sam Anscombe, thanks a bunch for doing this; I know a lot of people will find this useful. However, as a person who is in his third round of applications, perhaps I can offer a small piece of advice to the other applicants that might preserve their sanity: don't check the gradcafe results or the timetables for responses and speculate about whether or not you were accepted to a school. In the past two rounds I spent a lot of time doing this, and it changed absolutely nothing. All it did was waste time and give me angst by second-guessing and waiting for emails that were "supposed to come out today." This time around, I think I'll just try to forget about my apps, focus on my classes, and let the emails come when they will. Also, I should mention I realize that there are often other (perhaps more productive) reasons for checking timetables and results, such as when one has been waitlisted, is trying to make an acceptance decision, etc.

While I certainly agree that just because a program is ranked doesn't mean it's worth attending for a certain person because of his or her particular interests, there is definitely a (very) strong correlation between ranked programs and hirability. In that sense, they are very worth attending. I could find the reference for you, but something like 75% percent of tenure-track jobs are given to people with phd's from the top ten schools (part of this has to do with department size of course). So, I think it's pretty verifiably incorrect to say that rank and being worth attending don't even overlap that much. Even if you mean "worth attending" in the sense of "doing good philosophy" or something like that, I think that would be a hard argument to make. For me (and I'm guessing for most people on here), I want to attend a program that does the kind of philosophy I'm interested in, but I also want to get a decent job when I graduate, so ranking (unfortunately) definitely plays a factor in whether a school is worth attending or not. Also, could you elaborate on your point that programs have chosen not to be Leiter-ranked? I've heard something vague along these lines once about Emory, but I wasn't aware that this was something that actually happened.

It makes sense if there are fewer posts and new discussions every year (though not less foot-traffic), since there is progressively less and less need to discuss topics that have already been covered in previous years. In other words, if I have a question about something, there's a good chance that it's already been discussed, probably several times, in years past, so there's no need to start a new thread about it.

Spot on. I've heard a lot of people of all types of persuasions dismiss Kierkegaard. However, it's helpful to remember that great atheistic philosophers like Heidegger and Sartre (not to mention the theistic existentialists) were very heavily influenced by Kierkegaard, despite his "uber-Christian context." If the philosophical greats find a predecessor worth reading and understanding, I'm hesitant to pronounce quick judgment on said predecessor; chances are, there is something to be appreciated in the philosopher that I am too philosophically immature to understand. My ancient philosophy professor said something in class along the same lines that I find helpful: "there is a reason why [X philosopher] has been studied for thousands of years and we are still studying him or her today." Which isn't to say that Kierkegaard can't be crap; all it means is that a lot of very good philosophers would have to be wrong about him and you would have to be right... Also, Kierkegaard is a very difficult philosopher to truly grasp, for one because of his method of "indirect communication." Most of the people I hear dismissing Kierkegaard have read Fear and Trembling and think they understand what he's about. To really understand Kierkegaard (and thus be able to dismiss him or accept him) requires a lot of time and hard work.

Me too. I emailed them a month ago, but no response. Incredibly rude to ignore people you're not interested in accepting.

Oh, put that way, your experience wasn't all that different from mine. It seems like the difference has more to do with taking independent studies and with a few more focused classes being offered (such as Kant's Ethics). I don't think doing the anthology thing necessarily or even usually entails less rigor (not that anyone here said that; it just seems to be somewhat implied by some). We did the anthology thing in my undergrad, but we only read primary texts, and the amount of reading was substantial. In some ways, I find it more difficult, since every week I had to switch gears and get inside the thought of a new thinker, rather than sticking with one or two thinkers and becoming familiar with their turns of phrase, terminology, ideas, etc. In general, I think the "anthology-method" is better for undergrads, who need a firm understanding of how x idea they will encounter is interacting with the tradition. That being said, I can definitely see the value of focusing intensely on the complete texts of certain authors, especially someone like Kant or Aristotle, who were so incredibly influential in the history of philosophy.

How did that work? It seems like if one were to read a complete text of any substantial length for an undergrad class, there would be little time for anything else, and the class would end up focusing on one or two works and their authors. Take, for instance, my Philo of Religion class. Even if you only covered a few of the major thinkers in the philosophy of religion from the middle ages to the present, you would need to at least introduce the thought of Aquinas, Anselm, Maimonides, Pascal, Kierkegaard, Kant, Hume, John Hick, Alvin Plantinga, etc. The best way to do that seems to me to be an anthology of selections from their works. Most of these authors didn't write short works, so to read one of their complete works would entail focusing on one or two guys and passing over so many other major thinkers. Am I misunderstanding what you mean by "complete texts?"

I'd recommend a history of philosophy book, like Will Durrant's The Story of Philosophy. Durrant draws the reader into philosophical thought by starting with the social and historical context and bio of each philosopher. It is very readable, accessible, and entertaining, reading more like a "history of ideas" style book.

In my philo undergrad, 99% of the time we read selections in anthologies. The rare exception (reading a piece in its entirety) would be something short and relatively accessible, like Fear and Trembling or Twilight of the Idols. With undergrad classes being so broadly focused, its almost impossible to spend the time to read a whole work by one author.

Thanks for the tip. Anybody else have recommendations for philosophy journals for an undergrad to try to review in?

I assume you mean besides dfindley, so I'll go with the distant second of Aristotle, if for nothing else than sheer influence across time and traditions.

Texas Tech has a program which is funded and strong in continental and history of philosophy.

Dirt-cheap coffee all day til about eight thirty, when I bust out the scotch or bourbon to "help me relax."

Any of the logical positivists.