MorganFreemanlives

yes, im not disagreeing with you but non TT is not just adjuncts, lecturers can actually have their own advantages as letter writers. lecturers usually teaching 4-5 classes a semester and often have lots of office hours, so this can easily translate to a letter writer whom you have taken for 5+ classes and possibly countless hours of conversation and them knowing your work and abilities. that can be equal if not superior to a TT faculty who is rarely around and were only able to take 2 classes with since he has such light course load. yes, its the content of the letter thats most relevant.

i think distribution is more important regarding the reputation of TT vs non TT. 2 letters from TT and 1 non TT faculty who knows you well vs 3 TT prob woudnt make a difference but 1 TT vs 1 non TT might make a bigger difference. a good ratio will prob liquify the disadvantage, if any that was initially present, assuming a respectable amount of classes and familiarity remain equal.

sigh assuming the anglophile hispanic is using the term white folk in a derogatory sense lol. calling someone white folk is not racist unless the sense is altered. the reference remains the same even if a few would find it distasteful. if it truly offended you, then i apologize. but i must admit i find white folks guilty of being called white hilarious given the fact, i was using the term affectionately and given the fact that i have given hints through out the forum on my preference and self identification with white culture. heaven forbid i mention my views on the absolute's manifestation of assimilation in certain cultures over others (even if such view is light compare to hegel's) at the risk of starting a civil war here, but i digress. actually pedanticist, i would be particularly interested in your views in how much your status as a URM you think would benefit you. this is because, i think someone say like myself, who was born in central america, would count as clearly URM while your case seems more controversial to some admissions folks who may unfairly categorize you as "merely" white. once again, i apologize if i have offended anyone, but being this politically correct to me is more a sign of regress than of progress.

come on white folks, its not like your thoughts are banned here. im open to anyone's thoughts on the issue.

im not hispanic in the least, i just happen to be born in a hispanic country and my parents are hispanic. BIG DIFFERENCE. still, if universities want to still consider me hispanic and bringing diversity, its up to them. then again its just as ridiculous to claim there is no diversity among white folks in the U.S

i guess, since im technically a URM , I can bring this topic up without suffering from white man's shame lol. im sure everyone but especially other URM have heard that being a woman or an underrepresented minority is supposed to be an advantage in the admissions process. BUT how this is true, is far less clear. this is a thread to discuss this. 1.how significant do you think this advantage, if its an advantage at all, is? 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? 3. do you think the advantage ,if any , is fair?

hey guys, im curious about something. what your general approach as far citations for writing samples go? do you already have in mind or by your desk, or on a document most of the works you know will cite before tackling your first draft? or do you first sketch something and cite hunt along the way? do you have in mind some approx ratio of number of pages to amount of references? in my institution, while most professors required citations, they were more of a formality, so it was never my focus, but now i must be more weary of their use. i was looking at undergrag's sample paper on hume which got him to all the T10 and i noticed extensive use of citations, and his use of them is no doubt superb but i must confess slightly intimidating. also many works which i consider not so great are overly bloated with references that sometimes border on bragging about the size of reference page, and often feel like they are lacking substance (im NOT referencing underdrag in any way here ). this will of course also depend on prior literature on the topic and whether the work is historical or not. so what is the consensus of the best approach?

if this is all there is to it, they are MUCH better ways to demonstrate this if you are willing to spend on a service, i STRONGLY recommend magoosh. its 80 dollars but has enough questions and reviews and not only does it explain everything, but it will actually keep track and train you on your weaknesses.

while im not sure to what degree i agree with this thesis, i will say that the variance of acceptance is very surprising. compare oxford's b.phil program which in the past despite being a masters has alone like in the case of Mcginn been sufficient for a tenured academic career , with cornell university. ranking wise a school ranked 2 in gourmet vs ranked 14th oxford's b.phil has on average 27 spots and 196 applicants cornell's ph.d program has 6 spots for 300 applicants, very competitive even for T20 while this is clearly one of many comparisons, this is one of those specific cases where the numbers are very surprising

I second Mcgill. If you are going to canada, mcgill and toronto are your best bet.

my take on the gre as far as it not hurting your chances go is this to guarantee a lack of punishment from almost anyone in admissions, aim for 700 in both, its very good but not spectacular for a solid non helpful score, a 700/600 mix , in either of the 2 sections will probably immunize you completely. to at least not curse yourself that your denied admissions was due to GRE scores alone, get a 600/600. while i do believe a few departments use cutoff. i think a true cutoff is to weed out very weak applicants, and not as a true demarcation to those that actually stood a chance to begin with,or so they would think, so i doubt a cutoff above a 1200 is applied.

i will be very grateful if you can find out.

hey underdrag, since you have insider information from MIT, do you have any information on why MIT changed back to requiring GRE by any chance? i will be curious to know their reasoning.

plenty of canadian and UK programs especially at the master's level have a rolling admissions of sorts, but financial compensation quickly begins to drop to close to zero as you pass certain dates.

here it is. please dont abuse the anonymity. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Y4gSAHp68oPDVvux5piIe_bVkwPEnJtjjjM-0L3Qibk/edit?usp=sharing

UPDATE at someone' s brilliant suggestion and my stupidity of not realizing that i cant edit the first spot lol. i made a public google doc were we can all post to the list anonymously (pfft chickens). this way, cons can be expressed without suspecting the philosophy NSA will track down your ip adresses and write you a bad letter for critiquing their faculty lounge and lack of aethetics courses. link will be posted shortly.

http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2011/03/are-some-schools-using-undisclosed-gre-cut-offs-in-admissions-decisions.html my gut reaction to the whole situation was actually identical to yours, but this link is truly disheartening. its only 3 years old, so its like it was a decade ago.

this is a pretty good start, i will prob wait till friday to pu all the info we have up but i will try to put up something at the moment. i love the info we have gotten but for all subsequent posters, please put a very short 2-4 sentence long concise summary of all you had to say at the end of your post so i can just copy and paste to the list. that way i dont have to nitpick what gets to go in the pragmatically limited space for each school and what doesnt. it also would save me lots of time and effort.

this is interesting and i have heard this quite often. its not that i dont believe the claim but what follows from it is a bit puzzling. presumably 1. gre cutoffs exists 2. top departments dont use them therefore, non top departments do presumably use gre cutoffs, top being a bit undefined here why is that though? do mid tier or top 40-50 schools feel pressured by admins to show more concrete promise in quantifiable term? do they feel lees capable of sniffing out the stars by writing sample alone? or do they simply accept the fact a lot of people they would like by other factors will get poached by the top schools, presumably because most also applied to a higher ranked places? in some of the grad program sites, when they do post average gre scores, they seem pretty high and only schools like MIT and princenton are considerably higher, so outside the very top, schools from 10 or 15 to 50 seem to have comparable gre scores. of the 3 possibilities i mentioned above, i think the last is the most reasonable but here is the rub. if top schools get almost all the saying in their preferred spots without caring too much about gre, woudnt the gre scores NOT be substantially higher than the gap i mentioned in the last paragraph? i have no idea

the point of this post is to make this information accessible for everyone to make judgements accordingly. i understand the need to not look like you are thrash talking your department, so only mentioning the positives you recognize is totally acceptable too. the other reason i think this is important i because unlike information shared privately, other members can concur, offer an alternative opinion and we get a more comprehensive take on each place

Alright, it seems my idea of listing all the top departments and listing qualities like 1.atmosphere 2. particular niches 3. informal info not otherwise available and so on seems desired by a few of you so im starting this post i will list the top 50 programs and you guys add commentary on whichever universities you are acquainted with. i will add the information to the list myself but if you can try to make it copy/paste friendly for me that will make my life easier. i will start with just top 50 in the gourmet but will expand to canada, and UK/australia as times passes by please keep information either factual or if anecdotal make sure its true direct or close to direct acquaintance and up-to-date. some pro and cos would also be welcome but nothing too overly harsh in name of fairness. 1 New York University 2 Rutgers University , New Brunswick 3 Princeton University 4 University of Michigan, Ann Arbor 5 Harvard University University of Pittsburgh 7 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Yale University 9 Stanford University University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill 11 Columbia University (incl. Barnard) University of California, Los Angeles University of Southern California 14 City University of New York Graduate Center Cornell University University of Arizona University of California, Berkeley 18 University of Notre Dame 19 Brown University 20 University of Chicago University of Texas, Austin 22 University of California, San Diego University of Wisconsin, Madison 24 Duke University Indiana University, Bloomington Ohio State University University of Colorado, Boulder University of Massachussetts, Amherst 29 University of California, Irvine University of Pennsylvania 31 Northwestern University University of California, Riverside University of Maryland, College Park University of Miami Washington University in St. Louis 36 Georgetown University 37 Johns Hopkins University Syracuse University University of Virginia 40 Carnegie-Mellon University University of California, Santa Barbara University of Illinois, Chicago 43 University of Washington, Seattle 44 Boston University Florida State University Rice University University of California, Davis University of Minnesota, Minneapolis-St. Paul University of Rochester 50 University of Connecticut, Storrs University of Missouri, Columbia

very well , i will try to assemble such post.

idk if people would be interested in this idea, but i will put out there. woudnt it be cool to have the list of the top 50 programs and people can put somewhat factual information about 1.interests 2.atmosphere 3. size 4.useful informal information (prefers applicants of this type, doesnt look much at gre, diverse or homogenous ect) now i know not everyting will be agreed upon unanimously but it will certainty lead to discussion and im sure many of us can benefit from such inside information for the places that we decide to apply. its not information that is likely to be put on a brochure or at least not easily.

I recently found out that the University of Birmingham offers the philosophy Ph.D online, so if you would be interested in that, thats an opportunity to inquire further about. http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/postgraduate/courses/research/phil/philosophy.aspx

this attitude has never made sense to me. analytic philosophy should try to either 1. attempt to break down and clearly rework arguments of the historical greats in their historical context, to improve their understanding while doing justice to what they have to and wanted to say or 2. remain proudly anti-historical and march along, but unapologetically making chimeras of important figures for our contemporary concern just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. my primary concern though is, how far astray are we leading future scholars when their primary translations of important thinkers are "benign" misinterpretations ? or down the road,these abridged commentaries become treated as official canon for pedagogical purposes? i think i will leave the topic be at that. too much hegel apologetic in one day for a "hegelhatinghegelian" lol. on a totally unrelated sidenote, it seems the forum is now getting lively with more people. im looking forward to the coming months.