Duns Eith

[Insert comment on how you need to take a break from editing.]

Woohoo! Go go go!

Acceptable: Yes. Would it be a good idea: Yes, provided you know enough about his work and have a legitimate question (and if the question 'would he potentially supervise my work' is a natural thing to ask given the flow of the conversation). No, provided you are super awkward or are literally just trying to influence the admissions process.

I can think of some calculating and resentful peers and superiors. Backstabbing? Opportunistic? Not so much. I can think of some individuals who, if you don't get on board with their program, they will socially oust you or ignore you. Basically, if you aren't on their "side" on some departmental politic, or some party idea, or some national political issue, then you're dead to them. But for these individuals I wouldn't exactly call them people who are trying to succeed at your expense. They just aren't professional enough, and their insecurity manifests itself in petty things. Oh man, grudges are so stupidly common I don't know what to say. I usually think of these individuals who hold grudges to be incompetent (or insufficiently competent), such that they think your criticism is a personal evaluation. Stealing ideas? Haven't seen or heard.

Given that there have been only 2-3 applications seasons since they were both hired (Fall 2015) I don't know what this would indicate.

If you have a 160 or higher, you'll meet some effective cut-offs. Even if there is no score cutoff, there is nothing that prevents a department from dropping the lowest 30 or 50 percentile of applicants. (so what score becomes the cut-off would change each year) I would read the Admissions FAQ for any school that you're applying to, if they have one available. Some say "the average score is 162 for those offered admission", or say "the top applicants typically score above 162". Some departments stay silent for a reason. Some departments treat it like a guesstimate, and care more about your combined score, with below 310 hurting you, and above 325 helping you, but 310-325 neither hurting nor helping. Some departments really don't care about the GRE, but their grad college might impose limitations on funding packages or acceptance rates -- as if the adcoms need to justify why they are accepting an applicant who scored below avg for the pool. Because administrators only care about quant metrics?

Given that you've resurrected a 2 year old thread, they may have since changed their signature. The signature is a profile setting that displays information you want people to have available at the bottom of your post. E.g. my current one: AOI: Early Modern (metaphysics, some ethics) esp. British Empiricists, (Neo)Scholastic and Thomistic metaphysics, contemporary applied ethics. Side interests: meta-metaphysics, meta-philosophy, medieval history of philosophy, philosophy of religion.

Connect four! (four posts in a row) Don't let the Continental/Analytic divide force your hand. Many good departments have flexibility in both, even if they are not reputed in both. Consequently, you can do a PhD in continental at a high ranked Analytic program if you see faculty who are exceptional in your particular interests (even if not Continental broadly)

You have some good options. IMO: Order of preference: B A C D F E So, I guess go with D for your 4th. [edit] Wait, how famous is E? Like, the odds of an adcomm recognizing the name is pretty high? Or to those in the specialty?

P.S. have you considered applying straight into a PhD program? I highly recommend it. It can save you time and energy and money.

Sounds like you are an above-average applicant. I think you're over-worried about your prospects as an applicant. (though perhaps under-worried about your prospects in a career in philosophy, simply indicated by the fact that you are applying to grad school. haha) I am obliged to mention, though: never accept an unfunded offer for an MA, even if the program says it is possible to get funding in the 2nd year. Just gotta get that out.

Oh, and for those who see right through these questions and realize the psychological/emotional life behind this, some encouragement would be sincerely appreciated. I have been considering leaving the academic/teaching path for a year now (but finish the PhD), but I got to teach students face-to-face last night for the first time in 6+ months and it was a deep reminder this is why I am in this program. But all this is lost if merit and perseverance find the enduring reward only after a favorable coin-flip.

Hey all, I am looking long and hard at the academic situation we're facing. I've known for years that it is hard to get a job in the humanities, especially philosophy. I don't need to spell out the dire situation of the job market, but the worry that each year PhD-holding applicants with publications are passed over is perennial and staggering. There were only 228 tenure-track jobs last year. And prestige matters: the top 20 PGR accounts for 60% of all hires, and even then schools like University of Michigan (PGR #4 in US) can only place 20% of their grads. (UC Berkeley is another story: they place about 60% of theirs, even though they have a lower PGR rank, five-way tied for #9) So, it makes it difficult to stomach. It's ridiculously hard to get a job unless you jump through all the hoops, at the right places, at the right time, in the right way. I admit, I'm kind of griping because I am at a little-known, mediocre-funding PhD program. But here's the deal, I have teaching experience, I am likely to be published soon, I am doing well in my courses, I am fairly confident in what I want to write my prospectus on (a year or so ahead of when it is expected), and I'm very invested. I want to teach. I'm not even aiming for the elusive tenure-track research position. I don't even want it. I just want to be well-paid and teach excellently in college(s) for the rest of my life. My worry is that I could do everything right, and strike out. (original link broken, I needed to use web-archive) ... It isn't just about how hard you work, and how badly you want it. You may have teaching experience, publications in various tiered journals, and teach as an adjunct at different schools (dancing on the precipice above adjunct hell), but you might get NEVER get a tenure track job, provide for your family, buy a house, settle down. ... How do you face the grim prospects? How do you process this? is there a way to justify this decision-theoretically, or is every grad student merely gambling 6-8 years of their lives with odds about as good as craps? (of course, your success is conditional on many variables, and thus more like blackjack; I have heretofore been aggressively pursuing each) If you aren't worried, can you identify your school or school's PGR ranking? How are you reasoning through this as a good decision?

Meanwhile, here's a few programs that don't require the GRE: University of Wisconsin, Madison University of Michigan, Ann Arbor Cornell University