PrimeMumble

I just made this account to say, please be careful of what you write here as there are people you are insulting with what is essentially your reverse racism/sexism vent.  Has it occurred to you how much harder it might be for those women not having the white privilege or male privilege that so many others have?  You do not understand the struggles women and minorities face, and it could just be that their applications were stronger than yours or had more potential (you said they were of equal caliber).  The fact that you actually think the only factor of your rejections is your race or gender suggests your understanding of institutional bias/discrimination is shallow itself, as there is frequently unconscious bias toward minorities and women that you won't ever have to face.  Your frustration is also very entitled because you make it sound as though they received acceptances that *belong* to you or that you are worthier of.  Has it occurred to you that maybe women and minorities get as many if not more rejections (plus getting shut out all the time) than you?  Another unconscious bias: infantilizing grown women by calling them "gals".  Even though this is a venting thread, it shouldn't unfairly discriminate against anyone.

The students themselves don't know what their letters say, let alone someone else's letters... not to mention grades, etc. So I find it hard to believe that someone else would be able to judge which application is "better," especially without having access to all the information, or knowing what kind of student the adcomm is looking for (which is notoriously difficult to know). Hell, I know plenty of info on other students in my program, but there's no way for me to objectively judge myself as superior or inferior. The whole thing is a crapshoot. 
And by 90% I was referring to the entire philosophical profession, not just current phd candidates. Although top programs might hit a target ratio of 50/50 many schools fail to enroll women in their cohort. I can think of programs without women in all of their years (Rochester) though they may have yielded one in the last year, I don't know. UCSB had no women in their entering cohort of 7 last year. The gender imbalance is real and nothing to laugh about. To say that adcomms actively discriminate against men is ignoring the larger issue. 

I'm here to vent about the severe racism and sexism among admissions committees. In an application to any sort of university, the only relevant features of the applicant should be those over which he has some control. (And back off, determinists.) Being a female or black or Latino or whatever should mean absolutely nothing. But this is not the case.
And it's no small matter. My white male friend and I have received only rejections and anticipate many more. I applied to a ton of schools and anticipate maybe one or two acceptances (but only after sitting for many weeks on a waitlist). But we know two gals at our program, of equal caliber with ourselves (perhaps lower), who each got into nearly every program they applied to, some within the top 10, with full funding. In fact, when one of these gals was flown out to a top university, they practically begged her to come.
Obviously, I don't think that every person on admissions committee is a racist bigot. They are pressured by the university, yadda yadda. But I think there are some spineless cowards out there for letting this crap get this out of hand. Some disparity will always exist -- whatever, not much anyone can do about that. But when it becomes pretty much the ticket for securing acceptance, it's obvious the system is corrupt.

Can one of you greatly perturbed philosophers kindly tell me whether rejections are sent all at once or in waves?

Me too. Love em.

Well, maybe one that was made out of really exquisite cheese. But this one was like a shot of cheese whiz

It's elitist to have preferences?

Okay everyone. I know you are all tender and have been seeking a target upon whom to channel all your rage. Hit me with everything you got. I'll bear the cross for the sake of giving you some release.
Hit me with the cheese whiz.

Do we have to kill anyone? Don't get me wrong; I'm not objecting to instrumental killing. Just trying to square away the details.

WHERE IS BROWN. *flips table*

So how many days are there in 24 hours?

I decided to make a rule: I am permitted to check my email once a day. It's not working out very well. 

I'd think the opposite. It would confirm their decision that you are a good person to admit, since it would show other committees reached the same decision about your file as they did. So if anything it would just make them more confident. But that's just my two cents. 

Pot, you are desperately needing a group hug. I know this are hard times, I really know. Hopefully, some schools like Stanford are accepting persons with really low IQ, like me. God bless them!
And yes, you're blocked, little coward guy. End of story.
 
To the rest of this wonderful forum: please let me know if you find any of my posts offensive or rude. I really think that the "Haters gonna hate!" posts in the results page are disgusting, and I would hate to give that impression.

Are we allowed to use mild swearing? I want to call him something.

Also the most pointless thing to spend one's time on, I imagine. Quibbling over a few percentile points is meaningless (90th versus, what, 96th??). The exam is a poor indicator of one's potential for creative scholarly work anyway. How odd that you would get so bent out of shape about it.

Literally have no idea what you're attempting to cite or prove. We don't need any negativity on this thread, thanks.

Well, Melian I disagree with you. But at least you engaged me somewhat.

Much better than cartoons and memes and the old "hater/troll" chestnut.

So somebody has apparently owned up to that upburst. As if I would have known based on the GRE alone!

A confession: Unlike every other human ever, I am jealous when someone has failed to achieve a goal.

Perhaps instead of pyschoanalysis, a better idea would be to consider whether or not 160 is minimally acceptable for entrance to a Classics PhD. I would say not. Perhaps you disagree, but given the relatively modest study investment that can improve one's score, I think this not unreasonable. Given this consideration, there are perhaps non-meritorious factors at work.

I could care less for either their GRE Or rejection. However I do care about the dismissive cry from one whose limited information offered, i.e. the GRE, gives a plausible reason to understand the rejection. In such a case the rejection should be accepted with a stiff upper lip.

Sigh, check the results page if you think I am making something out if thin air. Accusations of trolling are often the refuge of someone without a legitimate counterpoint. And yet if I am throwing punches at a "strawman" (not how the term is to be employed, btw) then no one should get upset at "punches" thrown at a non-existent person. I'll leave you all alone now.

Yes. Block me. Academia is a friendly place of encouragement and cooperation, where all agree. I am sure you will find this to be the case.

I wonder if you think Bs should be As, on the grounds that this is "quibbling" over a few points Somehow it does not surprise me you "have no idea." The person addressed knows exactly who it addressed to. No claim was ever made that GRE= scholarly potential, only that it is the easiest area to improve one's application and a quite desirable objective measure to add to the mix, to counter the subjective aspects like LORs and SOPs (which I have no objection to.)

"Numerous factors" : chief among them, linguistic and verbal comprrehension. But this is probably too much to ask for. "Arguably" it is the easiest (and most objective) of the elements in an application to improve oneself in.