qualiafreak

Sorry for all the long posts. I've been out of school for a year and have grown antsy, jumping on any chance I have to get back into the swing of things. 

I know at least three people who went through the MA program at GSU and all speak incredibly highly of it. If you get the Brains and Behavior fellowship, even better, because the teaching load is alleviated. All three taught, wrote their theses, and applied and were accepted to several PhD programs. They're also some of the most on-point philosophers I've ever met, and they credit that to GSU.

Yep, I agree entirely -- both on now being too early anyway and on courtesy shouldn't stop people from exploring options.
 
To be honest, if OP says "yes I would accept X if they call me on the last day", I couldn't think of a better alternative than to hold off until last day. I guess that's where all the last day phone calls coming from. 

I admit that I didn't read all the posts in the thread, but since this thread has life, I'll chime in.
 
In the context of academic philosophy, when people speak of philosophers, they're generally using a term that they mean to construe narrowly. That's my experience, and it makes sense to me, given the point that DontFly makes. The point is that it's hard to give a very broad meaning to philosopher without including anyone who speaks to deep questions or who thinks in the abstract or engages in reasoning from the a priori. In our context as people studying academic philosophy, it would be pretty odd for us to be referring to something as broad as this.
 
In other contexts, the broader meaning may be implied. For instance, I have heard some people refer to Martin Luther King, Jr., as a philosopher. The people who label King a philosopher do not mean the same thing that we students of philosophy mean when we call someone a philosopher. Their context is different, and the word takes on a different meaning in that context. Theirs isn't a misuse of the term, unless the term's meaning can't change with context. Plainly it can, because it does.
 
In law school (a different context), when I speak of philosophers, I use the term "academic philosophers" to refer to the narrow group. Otherwise I don't use the term, because I think it's not useful for my purposes.
 
Edit: By the way, what difference does it make whether, in the context of academic philosophy, we label someone a philosopher? No serious student of philosophy would deny that philosophical insights can be discovered in the works of a nonphilosopher, however the term is used. I don't see why this Pollan character is any different. Maybe the concern is that Pollan isn't engaged in the debates that concern most academic philosophers today. If a student approached me with serious, long-term interests in academic philosophy, and she wanted to write an undergraduate thesis on the work of someone who isn't engaging the debates that concern most academic philosophers today, I might discourage the thesis only because it may not be a good entry-point into academic philosophy. Frankly, I was told not to write a paper in the philosophy of religion for the same reason! Or maybe the concern is that Pollan isn't engaged in the methodology that most academic philosophers use today, or maybe the concern is that Pollan isn't adopting the style of most "analytic" philosophers. I can see an advisor on purely practical grounds telling a student (who wants to pursue a career in academic philosophy) that it's wise to stay fairly "mainstream" when writing a thesis. So on further thought, I wonder if the advisor who called Pollan a non-philosopher just meant to encourage the student to do something a little more mainstream for an undergraduate thesis. That makes sense to me.

I'm sorry for having to voice disagreement again. It seems to me that your professor is being very responsible in teaching the class what they need to know. I agree with what Dumbnamechange said, which was that everyone is a philosopher just means no one is a philosopher. I don't think everyone is a philosopher. I also don't think that the best way to learn philosophy is to have the freedom to do it the way mature philosophers do.
Science students high school and below don't do experiments the way scientists do, but someone who has never gone through that process is unlikely going to become a scientist. There're ways of teaching tools that necessarily involve guidance (or even restrictions) that don't exist in the real field.

Ian: great illustration.

OP: I made this spreadsheet for the programs I am accepted at, and maybe it can be a helpful template for you

The second tab has the placement records
https://itmb.co/7nnmi

I use this "philosophy is communal" line to justify going to bars with my cohort after class.

Just accepted to the MPhil in Philosophical Theology at Oxford =) 

(Again, I'm not sure whether this belongs in the Religion section of here - but given that this debate has been raging for over a thousand years, and a resolution is nowhere in sight, I figured I might as well post it here!)

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.

Only wait lists in terms of PhD so far, so hard to plan and rank and decide based on 'maybe,' I'm losing my mind over here!

On bringing parents: I remember that an admitted student brought her parent to visit our MA program, and it struck me as odd. I can't explain why I had the reaction I did, but there was something uncomfortable about it. On bringing significant others: This does not strike me as odd. From my own experience, my significant other has invested a lot in my education. I feel like I owe it to her to be a part of the selection process. I did go to lengths to include my significant other in my decisions for and against programs. For me, my parents have next to nothing invested my education at this point. They aren't stakeholders the same way that my significant other is a stakeholder. I guess that's the most sense I can make of my intuitions on these questions. Probably I could be more open-minded on bringing parents.

I don't think there is anything weird about bringing your SO. There might be a few occasions where they have to stand awkwardly in the corner while you do something, but that is going to be true of any work function you bring them to.
 
You definitely should bring them.

When I visited UNC, one of our prospective students brought his SO.  She didn't go to any of the info sessions or anything like that, but she was certainly invited to all the social events, and in our down time, they were able to explore the area a bit.  I don't think there's anything problematic about bringing an SO.

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. 

Have you read Eric Schwitzgebel's advice for applying to PhD programs? He mentions this in part VII, saying:
 
"Don't expect too much wiggle room in negotiations about funding. But if a comparable department is offering you a better package than the school that would otherwise be your first choice, it can't hurt to politely mention that fact to the chair of the admissions committee."
 
I wouldn't be worried about them revoking the offer. You could just mention that it's a difficult decision because another school offered you more, and if they have the funding and really really want you, they may increase their offer. If not, they would probably say to just let them know when you've decided.

Have you read Eric Schwitzgebel's advice for applying to PhD programs? He mentions this in part VII, saying:
 
"Don't expect too much wiggle room in negotiations about funding. But if a comparable department is offering you a better package than the school that would otherwise be your first choice, it can't hurt to politely mention that fact to the chair of the admissions committee."
 
I wouldn't be worried about them revoking the offer. You could just mention that it's a difficult decision because another school offered you more, and if they have the funding and really really want you, they may increase their offer. If not, they would probably say to just let them know when you've decided.

Have you read Eric Schwitzgebel's advice for applying to PhD programs? He mentions this in part VII, saying:
 
"Don't expect too much wiggle room in negotiations about funding. But if a comparable department is offering you a better package than the school that would otherwise be your first choice, it can't hurt to politely mention that fact to the chair of the admissions committee."
 
I wouldn't be worried about them revoking the offer. You could just mention that it's a difficult decision because another school offered you more, and if they have the funding and really really want you, they may increase their offer. If not, they would probably say to just let them know when you've decided.

I know this thread is very old, sorry, I just thought I'd respond in case anyone is reading this and losing all hope because of a low GPA. I have a 2.75 undergrad GPA from a small university with an even smaller Philosophy department, and my major is not Philosophy. So far I've been waitlisted with funding to two pretty good PhD programs and accepted with full funding into a great terminal MA, which I think will give me a springboard to get into a better PhD than I can get into now. So, all hope is not lost if even I can get waitlisted to PhDs

Well it's Pittsburgh for me! Just accepted their offer.

I'd like to retain some anonymity, so if you're curious about the specifics feel free to PM me.

By small university, I did not mean it wasn't respectable or was unselective; I should have been more clear. I think we admit ~30% of applicants. I transferred from a school that was larger in size so it was a change coming here. The first school I only went 2 quarters but it has a top 50 PGR Philosophy program. The school I'm graduating from has no Philosophy PhD or MA at all. It's a really small department, but I think part of that was good because it made me stand out to my professors. It was them who encouraged me to apply. I think it's likely my letters were strong, but they are not from well known philosophers. However, I think a couple of them may have had friends at a couple of the schools I applied to, so that always helps.

The MA I got into is Georgia State. So not the best in the country or anything but I think it's a good fit for what I want to do. The PhDs I'm wait listed for (now 3) are all top 50 PGR, one is in the top 25.

I'm not sure what made me stand out. It's probably a combination of little things. At some PhD programs I e-mailed the admissions coordinator during the application process and told him my name and situation to see if he thought I should apply. All the schools that responded said things like "we evaluate applications holistically," "a low GPA doesn't automatically exclude you," etc. I still thought it was possible my application would be discarded before my materials had the chance to be read, so I feel lucky in that regard. I think it's important to note that my 2.75 is from a STEM major, and I attributed it in my personal statement to Organic Chemistry and other upper level courses. I noted that my ability to memorize structures of molecules is in no way indicative of my philosophical ability. I suppose that the other components of my application were enough to prove that to them.


Edit: on the link you sent, my university is ranked 51-100 National.

lol, I decided to contact DGS yesterday after posting about speculation!! She basically said the same thing, she said it is a "roll of the dice"! Just so frustrating bec I would love to start beginning my solid plans- as we all would at this point. Are waitlists how the concept of purgatory was created?

I haven't been through this, but I agree that it might be weird to ask for recommendations a couple months after entering a program. You could always apply out after two years instead, giving you more time to get to know the faculty, maybe teach some courses and build your experience to increase the likelihood of getting into the better school. Also would give you more time to develop the best possible writing sample and get a lot of feedback.

Hang in there! From what you said earlier, your prospects are really good at UConn. I don't know for sure, but my sense is that if you are well-ranked on the waitlist at a less-known program, your chances of getting in are good since some of their acceptances might end up accepting offers from better ranked places.
 
Also, I suspect that many schools will be holding visitations in the next two weeks. You might expect people to start declining offers (if they are so inclined) by that time.

Only wait lists in terms of PhD so far, so hard to plan and rank and decide based on 'maybe,' I'm losing my mind over here!

Congrats, good luck! Keep us posted if he responds, I'm also curious how many are on the list.