verificationist

I know nothing about the places you've been admitted to except that NIU is a very good MA programme that can lead you to a top PhD. However, I'd just like to say the following: If I were in your situation I'd find out what happens in the Boston MA, because my worry is that since Boston has a PhD they won't take you seriously as an MA student. If they won't take you seriously then I'd say it's a no-brainer: you only real choice is NIU, since in the end you probably wouldn't even benefit from what is attracting you to Boston.

Hey, it would be totally awesome to get in touch with anyone going to UT Austin. Please PM me if you want to do so!

So no one knows anything. Great!

I think you should have Ave forward it to him, Nikolay. I'm sure he either knows Chalmers or someone else who knows him.

Look at the MA's placement record. If they have at least a 50% placement in top-40 schools I'd say go for it. You already know you're good enough at least to get into a funded PhD!

Work on your writing sample. That's all I can say with the extremely meagre experience I have. It is always going to be worse than you think it really is. So if there's anything wrong with your application it's probably your writing sample. I've seen people with worse GREs and pedigree get into far better places. It's the always the sample.

[Edited due to previous total stupidity on my part.]

Well, that certainly seems like a very opportunistic and money-grabbing move on NYU's part. They should be ashamed of it. If you're willing to pay for a Master's programme you're much better off doing it at a British university, where Master's students are actually taken seriously and where you're actually working towards a degree that can get you into a PhD.

Yes, around the middle in a waiting list of about 30. They said they usually make it to half of the list and that they had only 4 places for 120 applicants.

OK, people, it's decided. After having been rejected by Columbia and having gotten a first-round acceptance into UT-Austin, it is Texas for me next year. Ah, that certainly is a big 'take that' to Northwestern, Maryland and Brown for having spurned my writing sample! Haven't hear from Ohio nor U Conn at all. Presumed rejection from Mass.-Amherst, but I still love them because I sent them a weaker writing sample, since unfortunately my main sample was too long for them. Will decline the following offers: Missouri U of Miami Colorado (waitlist) Indiana (waitlist) My stats were these: GRE: 170 V, 162 Q, 5.5 A BA Philosophy. British degree. Very low 2:1, borderline 2:2 I am doing an MA in the UK, but I didn't send any graduate grades because I didn't have any yet. I think it's a miracle I got a good outcome given how low my BA grades were, but one caveat is that it's from a place with very, very good pedigree. All recommendations are from well-known people. I think I got into UT-Austin because I wrote on a very traditional phil of language topic, and perhaps it resonated with some of the faculty there. That's it, I guess!

Funny thing is: at this point, by pure first-batch offer statistics, Colorado is as competitive as Rutgers. Which means that, ironically, none of the 4 people who were good enough to get in are remotely likely to take the offer. Anyway, I'm getting myself off the waitlist, even though I'm curious as to whether I'd make the cut...

I'm attending UT Austin next year and incredibly happy about it. It was just a joke about how I'd find it so 'horrendous' to be in a place with non-analytic philosophy requirements that it's good I'll be living very far from it. But then I added a remark to acknowledge that it does seem like a pretty good place for someone who likes non-analytic philosophy.

Got the offer letter from UT-Austin. 14,500 a year if you have an MA (which is the case with me). Whoa, you know, even if it's for 6 years that's a pittance (they give you two summers of $5000 and it increases when you're ABD, though). Time to call my parents and remind them how much I love them...

Feminism, Native American philosophy, continental stuff... it's a good thing Oregon is a looooong way from Texas! But yes, I guess that explains why the programme should be attractive to some people. You also have very good placement. I wonder, is it the case that good SPEP programmes usually have better placing than good PGR programmes?

Honest question: why is Oregon so competitive? Are they particularly good at Continental philosophy?

Hey people, just got an offer from UT, Austin. I'm waiting to hear on funding, but if it's funded this changes things massively for me. I currently have an offer from Missouri, U of Miami and I'm waitlisted at Indiana. If the offer comes with standard funding I'll reject those three offers. Just waiting on Columbia and Rutgers now...

He's an absolute master troll. And if you ask me, this is the kind of thing that contributes to giving a good name to the discipline rather than a bad one (I'm not being sarcastic here). And non-philosopher moderators trying to weigh in on THIS. Get ready for something...

Nikolay, you win. I'm using you as an example in my next epistemology essay. You know, this is the kind of reason I only talk to philosophers. I love it.

Just got an informal email telling me I'm getting an offer from UT, Austin. Don't know about funding though, it better come with a TA or else it's U of Miami!

Sorry, that was very stupid. What happened here is that I was running together two categories (the British system is a mess). Apologies, last year I knew all this stuff quite well, but I'm having to make myself remember gradually. Here is how it is: i. Pure taught degrees: these are 'conversion diplomas' and really are worthless for philosophers, but good if you want to do a taught/research Master's. St Andrews and Birkbeck offer this. ii. Mixed degrees in places which have a two-year MPhil as their standard graduate entry programme. These include Birkbeck, UCL and King's. These may be indeed quite useful for someone who wants to apply to the US. However, they're not advisable if you want to do a PhD in the place where it's offered. You can in theory apply to the place for a three-year PhD and do other weird things, like request to go into the dissertation stage of the MPhil. But none of this will be encouraged unless you're really really good, since the standard route is two-year MPhil and two-year PhD, and the idea is that the best students would have got into the MPhil since the beginning. Also, I know of cases where people with this sort of MA haven't been admitted to three-year PhDs. Spefically, someone who had an offer to do a PhD in Cambridge but then when the admissions committee realised they only had the King's MA they were told they had to do an extra year at King's and get the MPhil! (or something like that, the point is that they admitted them under the condition that they finish the MPhil). Also, I've heard that people doing these courses don't get as much attention as the people doing the MPhil. In my opinion, therefore, it's much better to get an MA from places like Leeds or Sheffield even if they're not as prestigious as UCL, Birkbeck and King's because in that case you'll be taking the standard course for PhD entry, since those places have three-year PhDs. Still, I'm not sure if an MA from those places would be enough for Cambridge. The only case I know of someone without a Cambridge Master's who got into their PhD only with a one-year Master's was someone from St. Andrews. Another remark: St Andrews has a two-year MPhil (and a one-year MLitt -- whereas Cambrige has a two-year MLitt and a one-year MPhil. It's a mess!!). But this is different from the UCL, King's and Birkbeck ones. This is because in the case of St Andrews their graduate programme has a one-three year structure, and the MLitt is the standard entry. The two-year MPhil is only for people who've finished the MLitt and want a research Master's but don't necessarily want to go into a PhD. So there are no MPhil students who aren't MLitt students.

I just wanted to say the following: consider British Master's programmes. Every well-respected British department has a terminal master's programme or its equivalent. And they are massively different from American ones. The thing is, master's programmes are typically considered by British departments as their entry point for graduate students, since no British department will admit you to their PhD if you don't have a Master's (sometimes even a 2-year Master's, or a one-year research oriented one). The obvious upside of this is that you'll be able to get recommendations from the faculty members. I'll post most info about this later, but there are roughly three major types of UK Master's: One year research/taught combination with summer dissertation. The best one here is undoubtedly Cambridge's, which I'd say is probably the best one-year philosophy Master's in the world. This is followed by St Andrews. Then Leeds, Sheffield and Birmingham. One year pure taught master's. This is rubbish if you already have a philosophy degree. Not meant for people who want to pursue a PhD in Britain. BUT it might be a good entry point to philosophy if you come from another area, since people sometimes use it as a springboard for serious master's programmes. This includes UCL, Birkbeck and King's MA. There's also a similar programme in Manchester and Birmingham. Two-year research master's. This is the real shit. They're highly competitive and are the entry points for departments that have a two-year PhD. So they're meant to give you the necessary training for you to go straight into writing a disseratation. They are so competitive because they expect you to be able to work independently right from your first year, and they'll expect you to have a research proposal before applying. It's only meant for the very top of undergrads from British universities. I only know two people who've got into those. They include Oxford's BPhil, followed by UCL, Birkbeck's and King's MPhil. The Oxford BPhil will get you into anywhere if you're assigned the right adviser. Will post more later!

Exactly. And no, the fact that a letter contains a job offer with a stipend doesn't suffice to make it confidential. Especially not since many departments make that information public on their websites, including the details of different funding packages they give. And even if this wasn't the case, they would need you to sign a confidentiality agreement. Since that doesn't happen either, the only reservation I'd have about posting letters would be that leaving your name on it would be unwise. Of course, I think departments would rather you posted less rather than more information about admissions in general. But at the end of the day I doubt anyone really will care about letters in particular since we already talk about everything anyway. Also, the offer letters that I've received are pretty standard. If they have something personal to say they'll usually do so in the email body. I'll post my letters on April 15. But I'll wait until then because I'm too lazy and also I don't want to talk just yet about the places I'm applying to. Finally, it's all about context. It's ridiculous to think you can make general statements like that about whether to post or not certain kinds of letters. It's better simply to leave it to the personal judgement of each person to decide on individual cases. Just be professional. This thread contains a lot of pointless discussion. As they say: If it ain't broke don't fix it.

Well, I think there might be other factors. GREs aren't that important, and your Q and R scores are stellar for philosophy. But your W score is pretty low. (This is probably nothing, though. I know a guy with an offer at NYU who got a 4.5). Nobody will care about your non-phil GPA if your phil and grad GPAs are that good. Especially not if you have good letters of recommendation, which I assume you have, since few teachers would agree to give you a letter unless they can say good things about you. If I may say so, I think the problem might be with your writing sample. Perhaps it's not bad, just on an outdated topic, or not suited to the faculty interests of the places you applied to. I also think you might have overreached. Having 1/3 of your applications on T20 and 2 more of them in places as reputable as Duke or Brown is a huge risk. But don't let any of this discourage you. Just reapply next year with a better sample and be more strategic about your choices. Focus on keeping good relationships with your recommenders or other potential recommenders, and in showing them that you want to improve for the next season.

It means: "No, Nikolay, we're NOT going to read your Descartes paper."

Now that I think of it, it would be MADNESS for the faculties to tell you even where you are on the waiting list, let alone publish the names. Even if they only told the person at the top it would have so much potential to wreak havoc.