alopachuca

I actually have little knowledge of the recent hate. I've come across links to the issues in his and other blogs but nowadays I skip most of them because I simply don't care. As someone who is completely indifferent to (and ignorant of) the recent hate badwagon, all I wanted to say is that the guy has always done a good job of coming across as a complete asshole (based on the way he has written about his cyber-battles in the past). Frankly I'm really surprised an academic is so immersed in that kind of drama. 

My personal view on this, by all means be dismissive. The comment by Sigaba is ridiculous, considering that (like you've already said) there's hardly anything private about these letters. If any of them did contain sensitive information (they don't), I trust that everyone here would have the good judgment to omit that information.
 
Some people are so soft.

My personal view on this, by all means be dismissive. The comment by Sigaba is ridiculous, considering that (like you've already said) there's hardly anything private about these letters. If any of them did contain sensitive information (they don't), I trust that everyone here would have the good judgment to omit that information.
 
Some people are so soft.

In regards to the question of whether posting the letters is somehow unprofessional, wrong, or an invasion of privacy: I don't need to share your professional trajectory to answer this question. The letters are fairly standard and generic, tailored only in the sense that they'll have to be sent to a broad audience. In the odd occasion that they do contain sensitive information, people should definitely omit it. I don't doubt that candidates sometimes do things that put their trustworthiness in question but I don't think posting generic letters on gradcafe calls anyone's trustworthiness into question. 
 
In regards to the descriptive claims you make about your experiences, fair enough. In this case I don't think anyone should feel their privacy has been compromised, but perhaps a few people would. 
 
Also, I don't buy that adcoms lurk gradcafe (not that it would matter to me). Professors have admitted they don't even give a consistently close reading to the entire writing sample, which is the most important part of an application. So I'm having trouble believing they'd borrow from that time to browse the forums. 

In regards to the question of whether posting the letters is somehow unprofessional, wrong, or an invasion of privacy: I don't need to share your professional trajectory to answer this question. The letters are fairly standard and generic, tailored only in the sense that they'll have to be sent to a broad audience. In the odd occasion that they do contain sensitive information, people should definitely omit it. I don't doubt that candidates sometimes do things that put their trustworthiness in question but I don't think posting generic letters on gradcafe calls anyone's trustworthiness into question. 
 
In regards to the descriptive claims you make about your experiences, fair enough. In this case I don't think anyone should feel their privacy has been compromised, but perhaps a few people would. 
 
Also, I don't buy that adcoms lurk gradcafe (not that it would matter to me). Professors have admitted they don't even give a consistently close reading to the entire writing sample, which is the most important part of an application. So I'm having trouble believing they'd borrow from that time to browse the forums. 

But just in case: If you're reading this, Ted, that really was a nice rejection letter! 

I think that this thread is ill considered, even self destructive.
 
What kind of statement are each of you making about your trustworthiness and judgement by posting letters with identifying information on the internet? (Did Professors Sider and Zollman give each of you their consent to post their private correspondence on the internet?)
 
Would it be terribly difficult for a member of a graduate admissions committee or a department administrator to use the information in your profiles to figure out who each of you are? (Yes, they do come to the GradCafe and lurk.)

My comment is based upon my experiences in the private sector and in the Ivory Tower. I've had bosses and professors and administrators tell me things in confidence even though in some instances the information was not necessarily unknown. Similarly, I've been briefed on highly qualified people not getting jobs because hiring authorities were not comfortable with candidates' abilities to mind their p's and q's or to otherwise conduct themselves in a professional manner.
 
In the event you still find my POV "ridiculous" or consider yourself "hard"   send the link to this thread to people higher up in the food chain and ask for their thoughts. 

My personal view on this, by all means be dismissive. The comment by Sigaba is ridiculous, considering that (like you've already said) there's hardly anything private about these letters. If any of them did contain sensitive information (they don't), I trust that everyone here would have the good judgment to omit that information.
 
Some people are so soft.

My personal view on this, by all means be dismissive. The comment by Sigaba is ridiculous, considering that (like you've already said) there's hardly anything private about these letters. If any of them did contain sensitive information (they don't), I trust that everyone here would have the good judgment to omit that information.
 
Some people are so soft.

My personal view on this, by all means be dismissive. The comment by Sigaba is ridiculous, considering that (like you've already said) there's hardly anything private about these letters. If any of them did contain sensitive information (they don't), I trust that everyone here would have the good judgment to omit that information.
 
Some people are so soft.

On the contrary, it seems to me that such a group is more needed in philosophy than in any other discipline. A small addition, if I may: those who identify as members of underrepresented groups (women included) should check out the UPDirectory, if they haven't already done so.
 
http://www.theupdirectory.com/
 
Many of the philosophers in the directory have volunteered their contact information, and so presumably won't mind sharing information regarding the overall climate in the institutions with which they are affiliated. I imagine this will be a good resource for those trying to decide between schools.

It might be different in grad courses, but at least in undergrad it was pretty clear to me that the philosophy department had the greatest number of aggressive and non-approachable students. I took upper-division classes in several departments and something I always noticed was how stress-free I felt in classes and discussions in other departments. I can think of a couple of philosophy classes that were somewhat ruined by aggressive students. The very few grad students I knew personally said the trend was worse in the graduate seminars. 
 
I used to argue often in non-philosophy discussions and I was never classified as an aggressive student. I think you're right that part of the issue is that some students who aren't used to argumentation might take things personally, but it's not the whole story. 

Thanks for the information! 
 
 
 
 
It actually seems believable to me that this happens sometimes. My intuition is that it doesn't happen very much. I can't imagine any applicants from MA programs not taking their work seriously, which includes being honest about one's work and ability. In any case, these professors should also express worry about students coming from lower faculty-student ratio undergraduate programs having more thoroughly "coached" samples than other undergrads. Just seems to be one of the imperfections of the admissions process. 

I share your feelings about being away completely from philosophy. I felt great just because a friend asked me for help with a paper a couple of months ago. It's hard to find ways to emulate that.
 
I don't think I ever introduced myself to the board but I'm sitting out for 2 years. And all I can do is wish you all a safe, low-stress end to your application process. Good luck everyone. 

So I can only write from personal experience here, but the advice I got (and followed with some success) was that it's more important to make it clear why your topic is of 'general philosophical interest/significance' than to be writing about a 'hot topic.' Of course, the two options aren't exclusive, and hopefully hot topics are hot topics because they're of general philosophical interest and significance!
 
But for me, I stuck with a paper I was proud of from a class on paradoxen and the logic of truth, even though it was about a type of logic (dialetheism) that is considered kind of 'crackpot' in some (most?) circles. I thought it made a novel claim about the topic as it currently is, and had interesting-to-me implications for the future of the topic. So I wanted to stick with it, and the two things I tried to do were (i) make it very clear why I thought this paper was going to do and say interesting and new things about the topic in a way that people coming in with no background or with total skepticism should still be able to appreciate as significant, and (ii) try to make explicit (and immediate) connections between this kind of crazy logic and more mainstream topics in other areas of philosophy that I think are of 'general philosophical significance.' This was hard (but also fun) to fit into the paper as it was currently set up, but the result was that I got to keep the core of the paper I had already written with the argument/proof I had already labored over, but got to spin it in a way such that I didn't think it was going to be offputtingly niche to admissions committees.
 
*I also made sure to focus on other interests of mine in my personal statement, doing everything I could to avoid being labeled 'the dialetheist guy' in admissions circles. Maybe if you're into some hot topics, it's especially important to bring up your interest/background in those issues in your personal statement, since they're relevant and popular. Maybe. *

I did mean whether your department took up blind grading as a rule, but regardless I was curious to hear what others' experience has been with blind grading. So blind grading as a custom would work also. Like I said, I'm not sure if my department established blind grading but every graduate student (the people who grade my papers) started doing it a few semesters ago. 
 
Also, I don't think I completely understand why you're against blind grading. I think what you're saying is that it becomes more difficult for your grader to give you feedback that is exclusive to you (for example, comments that are sensitive to your past papers). If that's what you mean, I do understand that worry. But I think the grading is generally more fair if blind. Yes, you lose out a little on the feedback that you get but there's a difference between the feedback and the grade, the grades being the issue in this case. I don't see it as a great disadvantage of blind grading that your evaluator can no longer grade comparatively to your past work. (And in fact, I'm not sure that this type of comparative grading is the best way to go anyway.)
 
Ironically, I rarely followed the prompts for my paper topics so my topics had to be approved by my TA. That, coupled with revisions during office hours, meant they usually always knew which paper was mine anyway. 

Did either of you study in departments that implemented blind grading? I would have thought it should be universal at this point but my own department didn't implement it until about 4 semesters ago. I actually don't know it it was implemented or if the graduate students took matters into their own hands.
 
Fun fact, my grades actually did go up after blind grading. I don't blame that specifically though, since I did get a lot better at writing during that time. 
 
Anyway, my apologies to those who aren't interested in this issue.

The issue of URM acceptances is so complex, I wouldn't know where to begin. I think one point to take from the conversation about minorities is that there are a number of things that puts them at a disadvantage (generally), some more burdensome than others + some not exhaustive. An American 3rd generation URM with college-educated parents might deal with issues of how s/he is perceived. It's not a controversial statement to make. On the other hand, an American 1st generation URM who went to a high school with a high dropout rate and low college placement and pretty much played catchup for 4-5 years in university (some of them going through community college in the process) deals with disadvantages far more serious (in addition to issues of perception). Most of the people in the latter category will never be interested in philosophy. Seriously, how does anyone from South Central decide to go major in philosophy? (If they make it to college in the first place.)
 
I congratulate any URM who had a chance to suffer prejudice in college. Many others never even made it that far. 

The issue of URM acceptances is so complex, I wouldn't know where to begin. I think one point to take from the conversation about minorities is that there are a number of things that puts them at a disadvantage (generally), some more burdensome than others + some not exhaustive. An American 3rd generation URM with college-educated parents might deal with issues of how s/he is perceived. It's not a controversial statement to make. On the other hand, an American 1st generation URM who went to a high school with a high dropout rate and low college placement and pretty much played catchup for 4-5 years in university (some of them going through community college in the process) deals with disadvantages far more serious (in addition to issues of perception). Most of the people in the latter category will never be interested in philosophy. Seriously, how does anyone from South Central decide to go major in philosophy? (If they make it to college in the first place.)
 
I congratulate any URM who had a chance to suffer prejudice in college. Many others never even made it that far. 

I hacked away at my paper with an axe to get down to 19 awful pages for U Penn. My arguments. My darlings. It's so depressing.

I think that speculating in those matters is a bit paranoid. I suspect those schools will want you to come up with the money regardless of where you're coming from. I remember when I was looking into LSE, I came across a couple of paragraphs in their section for international student that basically said (not verbatim obviously), 'If you don't have the funds, please consider whether you should even apply'. That was one of the most honest and straightforward things I'd ever read on a university page.

Just wanted to say this is amazing! That must be nearly every single undergraduate course right? Wish I'd had the time to take even half the undergrad classes while I was still a student. 

If you have done nothing but go to class for the last four years, then yeah. But anyone in that boat probably has more problems than which major they chose.

1.how significant do you think this advantage, if its an advantage at all, is?
Not very. I say this just by looking at the demographics of current faculty and and students in various programs. Philosophy is one of the least diverse fields, and I'm not sure why that is, but I suspect there are many URM applicants who don't advance through the process for other reasons and diversity doesn't save them. However, I do suspect hispanic students might have an edge up because of how it's phrased on the application. It's usually a question by itself. But, again, most departments still have very little diversity, so I can't be sure.
 
2. where in the admissions process is it manifested? for example, will women and minorities be much more likely to survive the infamous cut off, but are treated the same in the final round? or are they treated similarly at first and only in the final round will URM be a tiebreaker? are committee members more lenient on slightly lower gre scores or lower pedigree because you are a URM? 
I highly doubt URMs make it past the second round because they are URMs. I'm included to think departments aren't really looking for diversity. You can find a lot of information about women leaving programs after not being taken seriously by people in the program, hostility, even harassment. This, combined with the obvious dearth of URMs, leaves me inclined to think that academic philosophy is still a (mostly) white, boys club that isn't interested in understanding and exploring the experiences and theories of URMs. That said, I think that's also a "fit" issue. Not all departments feel that way. I think programs heavy in continental philosophy/social thought/intersectional are more interesting in a range of perspectives and where URMs could be at an advantage. 
 
3. do you think the advantage ,if any , is fair?
Yes, because gender and racial bias still, clearly, affect the way people chose. Remember in 2008 when *gasp* a women and a black man were running for president, and it was a legitimate question to ask Americans if they were "ready" for a women or black president. As if people would have needed time to brace themselves. I'm a journalist and I've had men straight up tell me, "the newsroom isn't for women." I don't even know what that means. Like...? Okay? At a different time, he would have been the person deciding my future at my publication. And he wasn't the first or last. I don't think this is always a conscious or malicious bias, but I definitely think it's there. 

I have no idea about the applicant demographics, but if women are half the people, we should account for half of the program. Even if less than 50% of the applicants are women, I don't think it's as low as the admitted student demographic suggests.