riverstyx

I saw that a few University of Virginia acceptances went out today. I am really so disappointed I didn't hear anything. I was on their wait list last year, and this year, my application is even better, with three great letters of recommendation. I emailed the graduate admissions person, Elizabeth Barnes, to make sure that one of my recommendations made it there (the recommender broke her arm and couldn't fill out the online form, and so she emailed it to Barnes directly), but she never got back to me. I mean, how do I get rejected (presumably) after I was on their wait list last year with two crappy letters, but three great letters this year? My only hope for UVA is that they send out their acceptance notifications over a period of several days, like they did last year. But that's hardly a lot to be encouraged about.

Although I just looked at UVA and they send out acceptances over a 3-4 day period last year. Then a week later, they send out wait list notifications.

Generally how long does it take to send out the batch of acceptance emails from a department to the accepted students, assuming they are doing it all in one day? So let's say Virginia was releasing all its acceptances today. Would they email people over a several hour time period, or all at once, assuming individual, personal emails?

I think it's safe to say that the Princeton post was a joke, and that the Virginia post was international, meaning Virginia--and also Princeton--has yet to release its acceptances.

There is a rejection posted from Princeton. Why would Princeton release a rejection before it released acceptances? This is certainly not their usual practice, historically speaking.

I see someone posted a University of Virginia acceptance. Why does the date come up as "11 February" when it is still 10 February in the States? Are they international acceptances? Also, does UVA usually post all of its acceptances at once (on one day), or over a period of several days?

OK, so someone posted an acceptance to the master's program at Western Ontario. Should we take that as an indication that Ph.D. acceptances will follow shortly, maybe even today?

What happened with the gradcafe philosophy admission results page? Is anybody else having trouble accessing it?

Thanks!

Does anybody have Ian's acceptance/waitlist/rejection dates and timetable from the last several years? Can you post it? When do people anticipate hearing from University of Wisconsin, Madison?

I think that's the best we can piece together for now, but I'm not so sure about the fellowship funding being over with. It is certainly possible, but I don't think we should assume that because in the past years the first acceptance without a fellowship mention got posted in early February that that thereby means that person did not get a fellowship. I think that would be premature. Some people just don't want to post more than the minimum. It's too difficult to read into what the people on the boards are trying to say and what they are deliberately leaving out, and for what reason(s).

Well, I foolishly put in my personal statement that I was interested in the philosophy of science and wanted to specialize in it. Foolish, because I have absolutely no background in science outside of philosophy. My undergrad major was at a continental school, and my master's, which I'm finished with as of last semester, was in Analytic. But I didn't have an undergrad or grad science major, so I'm sure that hurt me a little. Fortunately at other schools I put a different interest-ethics-and those schools are strong in that area. We'll see what happens!

This strongly suggests to me that there will not be any more posted Minnesota acceptances. It also suggests that Minnesota only offers a few acceptances, at least initially. I think that if a greater number of people got in, we would likely see a few more posts. But that's not the case here. The best to hope for now is the waitlist. Alas, if I cannot get on the waitlist or get into Minnesota, it will be a difficult year for me, because most of the schools I applied to are somewhat more highly ranked than Minnesota.

It seems for Minnesota that at least 2 acceptances should post out of, say, 10. While I think it is important to judge each school by how it releases acceptances and waitlists in past years, it also seems that several schools are sending out acceptances over a period of several days, like Arizona. So while I agree that Berkeley is probably finished with its acceptance and wait lists, Minnesota is probably still sending out acceptances, like you said.

Ok, so does anybody know what is going on with the one University of Minnesota acceptance? Should I take that to mean they have released all of their acceptances now, or that they are releasing them a few at a time? Same for Berkeley...two acceptances only.

Did Duke release all of their acceptances over the past two weeks, or only a handful?

Congratulations to everyone who has received an acceptance so far.

A compelling case, ianfaircloud, and one I'm frankly hard-pressed to counter. Yes, I waived access to all of my letters, as is necessary (or at least highly advised). I have not seen my letters, and I would never ask any of my recommenders to provide them to me. I agree that admissions committee members should definitely not provide information about an application, even in a general or implied manner. Yet like others here, I was quite surprised when this person gave me a detailed and thorough account of the state of my application vis-a-vis the admissions committee. She wrote about the fact that my letters was not in, and she even responsed to what I wrote in my personal statement by encouraging me to apply to a specific school because a philosopher there was working in the exact same area I am interested in. So that gave me the impression that she was more willing perhaps than most to divulge a little more information to me. At least, her seeming opennes, whether right or wrong, gave me the impression I could ask directly about whether she meant to imply that I should seek more enthusiastic letters for my other applications. I now regret that, because I believe it was inappropriate to ask her that. But I was surprised that she answered me and said that no, she did not mean to imply I need different letters. I think she would know that I would interpret that to mean that my letters are "fine," because that is a straightforward interpretation of the statement. From what I know of this person based on her faculty webpage, she is quite intelligent and discerning enough to know that a person who reads that "I did not mean to imply you needed different letters" will interpret that to mean "your letters are fine." I think two possibilities are at work here: either she meant to imply that, or she didn't, in which case she was careless in the wording of her response, because that's the implication that suggests itself, at least prima facie. Now I definitely will not ask any other admissions people to give me answers on future anticipated rejections, not only because it is not appropriate, but because it can easily lead to misinterpretations and misconstruals of what they said. I do not want to put myself through that. I think that, were this individual so concerned about not giving out information on my recommendations, she should've clearly written that she did not intend in any way to imply my letters were "good" in her second email. But she didn't say that. Now, that doesn't lead me to believe that she thinks they are good. Not anymore. It leads me to believe she wrote in a way that more easily suggested certain interpretation without clearly thinking about what she was writing and without thinking that I would mistakenly think that to mean she was implying my letters were "good." Alas, only time will tell.

I'm not sure what it implies, to be honest. But it is clear that she was saying that the fact that three letters were not in in time for the admissions committee to review my application was the reason I got rejected. All well and good, I accept that, frustrating as it is. The reason I thought that she was implying that my letters were fine was that that was the impression I immediately got when I first quickly read the email. I had specifically asked her whether I should interpret her comment about the best applicants requiring "extremely enthusiastic" letters to mean that I should seek *more enthusiastic* letter writers, and she said no, I did not mean to suggest you need to find more enthusiastic letter writers. Now, you may very well be right, that that doesn't mean that she is saying my letters are ok. But considered holistically within the context of my discussion with her and the concern I expressed to her about my letters not being enthusiastic, I think the "plain" meaning, i.e. the meaning upon first reading the email, without delving into it any further or reading too much into it, is that the letters are good. Now of course, I certainly want to believe that, so maybe I'm not the best judge of this situation because I'm prejudiced. I leave it to you and others to comment. Given the specificity with which she commented on other parts of my application, I think this is a not unreasonable view, IMHO. I also think that if she wanted to be very cautious about not implying anything good or bad about the content of my letters, she could have said in her second email that her remarks should not be construed as implying either that my letters or good or bad. But she didn't say that. So maybe that is revealing too.

Hi guys. I actually emailed the professor again to ask for clarification of what she said. I asked her whether I should read her comment about "extremely enthusiastic" letters to mean I should seek more enthusiastic letters than the ones I submitted? She told me in a clear, brief email that she did not mean to imply that I should seek different letters, only that, for an application to be considered, *three* letters are required; not two; and not one, with another arriving after all of the admissions decisions have been made. So that was a relief for me, and I think it implies that my letters are fine at least as far as their content is concerned. Thanks guys for all of your help. It is a very stressful time. Let's all hope for the best.

Hi, I'm applying for the third year to philospohy programs, and I could really use some help figuring out what someone said. I got rejected from NW last week, and I emailed to ask why. I thought if something was "wrong" with my application I could address it to the other schools since NW got back to me 4-6 weeks before the other schools likely will. I should note, only two of my recomemndations made it to NW, and one was late. Here is what this person said. The context is an email discussion of the reason(s) I was rejected: "In your situation, however, I think I can say that it was a problem that we received only one letter from your professors prior to our admissions meeting (a second one arrived the next day). Most applicants have three, and all the best applications will have three extremely enthusiastic letters. Thus, you want to be sure that you have three letter writers who have definitely gotten their letters in on time to be considered by the admissions committee." Now obviously this lady is saying it's a problem that only one letter arrived prior to the deadline. But she also mentions that "all the best applications will have three extremely enthusiastic letters." Is she subtly trying to tell me that my letters didn't measure up, and weren't positive enough? If so, I have two other professors I can ask to write letters quickly for me, but I would need to know first whether the lady at NW was hinting that my two letters weren't enthusiastic enough.

Ok, so I am interested in philosophy of science and especially epistemology. Here is the problem. I majored in philosophy straight thru from undergraduate to my master's program. I didn't double major in a scientific field, like physics, although I definitely intend to get a degree in physics at some point to complement my specialization in the philosophy of science . I like epistemology as well, and I'm working on a new article in the area. Thing is, the only epistemology course I took 2 years ago in my master's program I got a B+ in. My questions are: will my lack of a degree in a science field put me at a competitive disadvantage when applying? Will my B+ in epistemology hurt me if I state on my personal statement that I am interested in epistemology? All of my other credentials are very strong. 3.9 GPA, in the 1400s on my GRE, three letters from very well-known professors in the field....