go_humble

accepted at UCONN!!!!!!!!


Ahhhhhhhhh

Oh my goodness. I just got off the waitlist at Pitt. I'm total disbelief, but I'm absolutely thrilled.

I assume a few people are like me and still have not heard anything from UCLA, right?
 
It seems like from past years that they hold onto people down to the wire on an informal waitlist of sorts.

It's not December yet. I'd start studying... If you spent a few hours a day working on each language, I'm sure you could be able to read texts in both languages by December.

I mean it! Research show that people make important decisions best (best in the sense that they are more likely to be happy about years in the future) when they're angry or in need of going to a bathroom... The idea is to shut down decision center of the brain and go with emotional reaction.
 
That said, I do agree that it's hard not to analyze it. What I sometimes do is to flip a coin - not that I'll do what the coin tells me to, but usually as soon as I see what the coin tells me, I'd have a strong aversion/acceptance towards that option.

All other things being equal, choose the one with the best school colors.

Well, received my last rejection today from Boston U. Accepted with funding at 1/11 programs, rejected at all the rest. I'm a good example for the advice a few others have given on here: "Remember, it only takes one acceptance." I'm really happy to have gotten this acceptance, as I'm not sure what I would have done with the next year otherwise. Something far less worthwhile than taking a PhD in Philosophy, I'm sure.

See, personally, I feel that working on one task (school) for more than a certain amount per week (usually around 50 hours or so, depending) has severely diminishing returns. 
 
Keeping other interests in life, relationships and leisure activities gives your brain time to work on different tasks, or have downtime, and you usually end up better for it- your research and studies as well, in my opinion. 
 
That's not to say that there aren't crunch times where you have to work more, but my anecdotal experience is that people working more than 50 or 60 hours a week are usually less efficient than those working less, and tend to spend more time on tasks that could be finished in less. Most European researchers, I've found, are very dedicated at working a short, highly productive week. They get in, take the job seriously, work 8 hours, and then clock out and do something else. It makes their working time more productive, and limits burnout. 
 
You may think that you're the kind of person that avoids burnout, but I have not yet met someone who isn't susceptible to it in some way- you may just be less productive, you may miss connections that you'd otherwise see in your work, or you may just not have as good of a perspective of how your work fits in the broader scheme of things. 
 
There are a lot of discussions on the inter webs about work-life balance, and I have yet to see any convincing data that focussing on your work to the exclusion of all else in your life is ever beneficial, and there are lots of suggestions that it's actually detrimental, both to the quality of your life and the quality of your work. 

That makes it hard for others who might be waitlisted at Y. If you take the spot at Y, then somebody else doesn't get the offer, and so when you turn down Y after the fact for X, Y can't give that to somebody else (for various reasons). Just waiting is the best option.

Yeah, I'm going to side with the professor on this one, for multiple reasons, though I'm pretty much just seconding Dontfly and isostheneia.
 
First, the safest criteria for what counts as philosophy and what counts as being a philosopher is that one works within a certain discourse or historical dialogue. Obviously, this is just a rough standard, and triggers a bunch of false positives and misses a lot — but it's nonetheless extremely relevant. The less someone is responding to philosophers of the present and past, the more justified it is to not consider them as being a part of the practice. This is the reasoning behind academics who distance themselves from "mere critics" and, say, Zizek (who's accordingly more of a philosopher when he's writing about Hegel, less so when he's "philosophizing" about the connections between Batman and the financial crisis). It also, I think, explains what I think is a needed separation of poetry and philosophy. I'm not saying this criteria is the end of the matter, but rather something one simply can't ignore on the grounds that it doesn't gel with an ideal world where everyones a philosopher. 
 
Second, your professor is just doing a good job of looking out for your academic career. Following the point above, even if you are capable of writing an edifying piece on this guy, most other philosophers won't care and might even consider it a joke if they aren't familiar with his work. Hume and Nietzsche are, in this sense, safe (again, if only because there is a certain tradition in place).
 
Third — I don't know how to be less blunt about this — can you really not just accept that he's not a philosopher and incorporate his work in some other way? Like what's really at stake here, is there some actual obstacle to referring to him as a journalist/critic/writer? I really can't imagine a professor a priori dismissing any reference to a non-philosopher, so long as you qualify the source's occupation, and — again, no offense — it just seems like a weak rhetorical mistake on your part to not just bend on this point, choosing instead to cite the author's work under some other name. (That is, simply don't call him a philosopher then but instead cite him as a supporting part of one of your arguments with evidence or as phrasing some thought in a clear and distinct way, or extract your own philosophical argument from his text — say, e.g. his writing seems to represent such-and-such a philosophy...)
 
So those are the practical arguments. As I've probably betrayed my own theoretical position on this by now, I might as well say that — as a metaphilosophical matter quite apart from the above — I disagree with the tenderhearted sentiments that seem to be on offer here.
 
If everyone's a philosopher, then it becomes a vacuous term, and no one's a philosopher. I also would be wary of b.s. etymological arguments. They're pretty much always a wash because of some inevitable untranslatability. (Also, I would generally just run a fast as I can from anyone obsessing, "Love of wisdom, love of wisdom. Are you a lover of wisdom? Is he a lover of wisdom?") It's a kind of cheap rhetoric. (I remember in primary school, teachers saying to my class, "You're all teachers! You're all scientists!")
 
But—and this is my biggest point—I think this is all stemming from an unduly value-laden conception of the term, i.e. seeing "philosopher" as a compliment or an insult. The term is no doubt used this way often but I would say it's used invariably mistakenly, or at least inconsistently. For instance, "philosophical" tends to be a compliment for a film, art-piece, novel, etc., but people always just mean "poetic" (which we avoid saying because it tends to sound too sentimental but is nonetheless felicitous). Really when's the last time you saw a film or read a novel that was remotely anything like Critique of Pure Reason, First Meditations, Republic, etc. — in style or substance? Conversely, "philosopher," usually is an insult, as in a crank or a charlatan (because a philosopher who's actually doing their job well is just speaking "common sense" or the "plain truth" — i.e. has no need to philosophize).
 
My recommendation is to just deflate whatever value you are for some reason attaching to these terms (i.e. don't use them as a compliment or insult — we don't even often use "philosopher" to mean "wise"), instead see it as a name for a certain kind of professional/practitioner, and the cases in which the terms are appropriate will become less controversial/interesting. My bet is that this guy probably won't be one of them; even if he's a tricky case, who cares if there's some other way you can just get around it.

You don't mention your discipline, so this may be off base. 
 
But in the sciences, you are largely being paid to forward the goals of the PI and the lab, and being asked to help with another students project is absolutely par for the course. 
 
It would not at all be considered blackmail to get the sort of email you cite in any lab I'm familiar with, it would be considered a reprimand to a graduate student who's not living up to the expectations of the PI and department. 
 
The latter part, the request that you spend at least a few hours in lab every afternoon is also worrying to me, as most PIs would expect (in a discipline with labs) that you're in at least a normal 40 hours a week, either working on your projects or helping with general lab upkeep and maintenance/training junior graduate students/helping with other projects. 
 
Is it perhaps possible that there's a rift in understanding between you and your professor about exactly what is expected of a PhD student?

I want to risk disapproval and voice a different view. I think your professor has a point. There are several issues conflicted here. First of all, just because someone isn't a philosopher doesn't mean their view cannot be of philosophical interest - and conversely, just because someone's view has the potential of eliciting philosophical interest, doesn't mean they're a philosopher.
Moreover, the exercise of "doing philosophy" is, of course, valued in proposing original views and investigating philosophical matters in discourses not previously investigated. But the purpose of an undergraduate education in philosophy is, in my opinion, to familiarize students with the way philosophy as an academic discipline functions, and in doing so equipping students with tools with which the student can then go on and make original contributions. As such, there is great value associated in restricting the course of study to a focused and well defined group of people, namely, academic philosophers.

The relevant question seems to me not whether Pollan is a philosopher, but whether he's the best person to use as a primary source in an undergraduate thesis. You could certainly engage with many of the topics he discusses by investigating arguments made by people specifically within the discipline. Here's a page on the philosophy of food which might help. Discussing people who are in published conversation with other philosophers will probably make your project much easier in the long run, I would think, regardless of the question of whether Pollan is a philosopher. You could always cite him in passing or in footnotes, while engaging other people's arguments as well.

It seems like you're using a very wide definition of 'philosopher' where your professor is using a narrower one such as, those formally trained in the discipline of academic philosophy and publish as such.

Sometimes I think it is best to avoid outside sources for some application help. For basics things such as sending tests scores and deadlines you can look it up but when it comes to the fuzzy part of the application process I think you should do it your own way. When I was writing my personal statement I had looked at some writing samples from online sources and for the most part, I thought they were horrendous. I decided to write my personal statement exactly how I think a personal statement should look and added my own touches. I know many  of us think that people in the application process do not read or read in-depth personal statements but as soon as I got to the campus of the university I was admitted to the program coordinator told me how impressive part of my essay was and remembered almost exactly what I wrote. I think it helped me a lot to get in. Being that I am a social sciences field, I think it helped to think outside the box and be different. It helped leave an impression. 

You are hilarious.

I saw some people were getting their rejections today so I went and checked- yup, I was one of them! Oh well- to be honest, the schools I've been accepted at and the ones I'm waitlisted at right now are better program fits because they are a nice hybrid of both analytic and continental. I'd never see Nietzsche again at UMD- they would be like Nietzsche WHO?

I think you should def bring him to see the campus and the area and what not, but most of the info will be specific to you and your program and not relevant to him. And in my experience I don't recall seeing any SOs at past prospective weekends, although occasionally younger folks bring parents. But even then, the parents don't attend most of the events. But that's just my experience, maybe others will have a different perspective. 

I know it's for theology and not philosophy, but I have to share my excitement! I checked my admission status at Cambridge, and it now says: "Awaiting decision by the Board of Graduate Studies - Status: The degree committee is satisfied with your application. However, your offer has not yet been approved."  

I know I still need to wait for the rubber-stamp of the BGS, and have no idea if they're going to offer me funding - but it was a wonderful surprise after all the rejections I've received recently!

Of course not, Eigen. I guess I've seen (in other forums) people refer to the "moderator". You're the only moderator with whom I've interacted on this site, and I've posted 500+ times. I mean absolutely nothing personal by my reaction to your comments.
 
But as I said above, you dropped in on the discussion -- and it's the only time I've seen you here, and you happen to be a moderator -- and then suggested that we have acted unethically. (This is implied by your suggestion that the information is "considered confidential." What else could it mean to violate confidentiality? That's why several have taken issue with the suggestion that someone has been untrustworthy.)

Do you see how, in this context, your post could come off the wrong way to those you have suggested acted unethically? It's not like you're on here interacting with us all of the time, offering your views here and there. It feels like you implicitly used your status as moderator to warrant a claim about our ethics. We had 53 responses last year to our survey about funding, and we have over 20 so far this year. Maybe you just felt particularly compelled in this situation, in which case it was all unintended on your part. I mean nothing personal. I just mean to point out how your post feels to me in this context. After all, you have called into question my ethics.

Eigen, your first two posts on this page received the downvotes they did because you evidently missed the reason people were reacting negatively to Nikolay's posts. I suggest that you take the time to read through his posts on this thread, starting from page 19. Nikolay claims to have gotten into UNC's top-ranked program, despite not having heard anything from their department; claims to have refuted intelligent design in his six-paragraph blog post; makes fun of other people's news of acceptances; and encourages another applicant to personally write to a professor at UChicago to inquire about the status of their UC Davis application. All of these things point to a pretty clear intent of provoking reactions and derailing the conversation: this is why most people on this forum are downvoting, rather than directly responding to, his posts. No one here is downvoting him because he is from a "non-US cultural background."
 
Your last two posts received the downvotes they did because, frankly, they are infantile. I agree that there's some irony in the fact that your post about down-voting received plenty of downvotes itself, but this is nowhere as hilariously ironic as the fact that you are lecturing us on "being mature" all the while engaging in what's probably most passive-aggressive display of shit-throwing I have ever seen on this forum. 
 

That post deserved more downvotes than it got, and now you keep chastising people in the forum...what sort of moderating would you call this? Do you want people to use this site?

Perhaps that's a better idea moving forward. Because frankly, the way you're choosing to handle the situation seems (to me at least) rather immature, and even churlish. And, it's detracting from the purpose of this forum.

Posting something you don't like =/= a troll. Posting in a fashion you don't like =/= a troll. 
 
On a forum with a number of people with a number of different, non-US cultural backgrounds, including a number of whom do not speak english as a primary language, asking questions that might seem obvious is not being a troll.
 
Constantly following someone around calling them a troll? I'd say that's pretty much being a troll. But that's just my personal definition. 
 
I'd hope that among the educated, mature prospective graduate students on the forum, they'd be able to either politely respond or individually ignore someone who's posting style or frequency they don't like, rather than further sidetracking the thread with non-productive incriminations of said individual. 
 
For those people who truly bother you for some reason, there's even a forum-wide ignore option you can use. 
 
I would hope that most of us have a more productive use of our time than tracking someone through their posting history to down-vote them. 

There may need to be a conceptual analysis of what it is to be a troll. Often times being overtly non-offensive, presenting good, correct information but done so in a pedantic manner is extremely successful trolling behavior.