mithrandir8
-
Posts
43 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Reputation Activity
-
mithrandir8 got a reaction from HootyHoo in Dear 2020 applicants...
I actually think that we should have a very low view of how much we know about the admissions process. Moreover, we have reason to be very skeptical about the value of this kind of forum advice as to how to improve application chances. While certain baseline information, such as the information in Eric Schwitzgebel's guide, is valuable, I doubt that all that much more can reliably be said about how to do well in the process.
To begin with, our ability to infer from application results is very limited. For example, if I understand the posts above, @Marcus_Aurelius and @crunderdunder took roughly contrasting approaches to the preparation of their writing samples. Marcus spent a long time writing and rewriting a paper on a single topic that they chose based on how they wanted to fit into the current literature (to be accessible, current, etc.). This was also my approach. Crunder spent the majority of their time exploring a topic area, with much less time dedicated to drafting. Both completely crushed the process, making mockeries of us mere mortals, for whom rejections blotted out the sun and withered plants in their shade. Do I have any reason to think that I would have performed more like Crunder if I had adopted their method? I can't see that I do. It's just as possible that I would have been making things worse by working in a way less natural to me.
More generally, the few things we can say with confidence—that, ceteris paribus, it is better to have higher grades, higher GREs, a better writing sample, a more prestigious undergrad, etc.—do not produce helpful advice. When I struck out the first time I applied, it wasn't because I wasn't trying to get the best grades, the most prominent letter writers etc. Even considering the question of how these different factors relate to each other, we don't know much. It seems pretty likely that the writing sample is the most important feature, as @brookspn argued. But was their strategy of spending very little time on the personal statements the way to go? I strongly suspect personal statements were important to my application (though I don't really know!). And are there always tradeoffs? I worked on my writing sample until it was basically as good as I thought I could make it and then set to work on my personal statements. If people do find themselves facing hard tradeoffs, I certainly can't see any basis for advising them when the marginal unit of work on one factor stops being as valuable as the marginal unit of work on another.
If you're looking for practically salient advice, you want information that affects one of your choices. But beyond various platitudes, I don't think there's very much that qualifies. For instance, the first time I applied, I think my writing sample held me back. But the way I selected my writing sample was by picking the paper that I had spent the most time on, had the most feedback on, and that was the most skillful work I had done so far. I can't say with any confidence that those are bad ways to choose a paper, even if I know now that paper was bad. I'm not sure I've actually learned anything about the application process itself since, even if I've gotten better at assessing philosophy papers. This time, I wrote a better paper, and I did try to pick a topic that I thought was more likely to appeal to more people. But basically my strategy for picking papers didn't change that much; I was just better at writing them because of the intervening years of work.
Lastly, I think the results themselves speak to a great degree of idiosyncrasy. Before hearing back, I had all kinds of reasonable theories about how my application would be received.
I thought that maybe I would do better with programs which had people I had cited in the sample and who were working on the exact topic I wrote on --- Not the case. I thought that maybe I would do better with programs to which I had the most obvious appeal --- Even though I really really really like Pitt, I had no way of knowing that Pitt would like me. I thought that maybe I would do better with programs which were lower on the PGR and worse with programs higher on the PGR --- Not close. I can't see anything unique about that the three places I wasn't rejected from share. My best guess is basically randomness.
In terms of getting in, all I can recommend for 2020 applicants is to work really hard on doing good philosophy that shows your philosophical skills and to get lots of advice from professors who can help guide your judgment on that. Beyond that, even if the process isn't a "lottery," it might as well be, because we simply don't have that much concrete practical information about how to really get ahead. What I think you can do to help yourself with the application process is prepare yourself emotionally. Hopefully that's something this thread can explore a bit, even if folks disagree with me about the rest.
-
mithrandir8 reacted to brookspn in Dear 2020 applicants...
Well said @mithrandir8 (great name, btw). You know, maybe it's wrong to call this whole thing a lottery. Indeed, one doesn't buy just one ticket and cross one's fingers. Perhaps a better metaphor is a raffle: one does as much as one can to increase one's chances, e.g., writing sample, letters, GRE, GPA, etc., but, at the end of the day, a fair amount is left up to chance and/or factors beyond one's control. There's nothing mystical about this, but it is esoteric in the sense that only a very few people (i.e., admissions committees) really know the extent to which such factors will weigh on one's chances of admission. Of course, this shouldn't come as a shock to anyone, right?
-
mithrandir8 got a reaction from The OA in Dear 2020 applicants...
I actually think that we should have a very low view of how much we know about the admissions process. Moreover, we have reason to be very skeptical about the value of this kind of forum advice as to how to improve application chances. While certain baseline information, such as the information in Eric Schwitzgebel's guide, is valuable, I doubt that all that much more can reliably be said about how to do well in the process.
To begin with, our ability to infer from application results is very limited. For example, if I understand the posts above, @Marcus_Aurelius and @crunderdunder took roughly contrasting approaches to the preparation of their writing samples. Marcus spent a long time writing and rewriting a paper on a single topic that they chose based on how they wanted to fit into the current literature (to be accessible, current, etc.). This was also my approach. Crunder spent the majority of their time exploring a topic area, with much less time dedicated to drafting. Both completely crushed the process, making mockeries of us mere mortals, for whom rejections blotted out the sun and withered plants in their shade. Do I have any reason to think that I would have performed more like Crunder if I had adopted their method? I can't see that I do. It's just as possible that I would have been making things worse by working in a way less natural to me.
More generally, the few things we can say with confidence—that, ceteris paribus, it is better to have higher grades, higher GREs, a better writing sample, a more prestigious undergrad, etc.—do not produce helpful advice. When I struck out the first time I applied, it wasn't because I wasn't trying to get the best grades, the most prominent letter writers etc. Even considering the question of how these different factors relate to each other, we don't know much. It seems pretty likely that the writing sample is the most important feature, as @brookspn argued. But was their strategy of spending very little time on the personal statements the way to go? I strongly suspect personal statements were important to my application (though I don't really know!). And are there always tradeoffs? I worked on my writing sample until it was basically as good as I thought I could make it and then set to work on my personal statements. If people do find themselves facing hard tradeoffs, I certainly can't see any basis for advising them when the marginal unit of work on one factor stops being as valuable as the marginal unit of work on another.
If you're looking for practically salient advice, you want information that affects one of your choices. But beyond various platitudes, I don't think there's very much that qualifies. For instance, the first time I applied, I think my writing sample held me back. But the way I selected my writing sample was by picking the paper that I had spent the most time on, had the most feedback on, and that was the most skillful work I had done so far. I can't say with any confidence that those are bad ways to choose a paper, even if I know now that paper was bad. I'm not sure I've actually learned anything about the application process itself since, even if I've gotten better at assessing philosophy papers. This time, I wrote a better paper, and I did try to pick a topic that I thought was more likely to appeal to more people. But basically my strategy for picking papers didn't change that much; I was just better at writing them because of the intervening years of work.
Lastly, I think the results themselves speak to a great degree of idiosyncrasy. Before hearing back, I had all kinds of reasonable theories about how my application would be received.
I thought that maybe I would do better with programs which had people I had cited in the sample and who were working on the exact topic I wrote on --- Not the case. I thought that maybe I would do better with programs to which I had the most obvious appeal --- Even though I really really really like Pitt, I had no way of knowing that Pitt would like me. I thought that maybe I would do better with programs which were lower on the PGR and worse with programs higher on the PGR --- Not close. I can't see anything unique about that the three places I wasn't rejected from share. My best guess is basically randomness.
In terms of getting in, all I can recommend for 2020 applicants is to work really hard on doing good philosophy that shows your philosophical skills and to get lots of advice from professors who can help guide your judgment on that. Beyond that, even if the process isn't a "lottery," it might as well be, because we simply don't have that much concrete practical information about how to really get ahead. What I think you can do to help yourself with the application process is prepare yourself emotionally. Hopefully that's something this thread can explore a bit, even if folks disagree with me about the rest.
-
mithrandir8 got a reaction from kretschmar in Dear 2020 applicants...
I actually think that we should have a very low view of how much we know about the admissions process. Moreover, we have reason to be very skeptical about the value of this kind of forum advice as to how to improve application chances. While certain baseline information, such as the information in Eric Schwitzgebel's guide, is valuable, I doubt that all that much more can reliably be said about how to do well in the process.
To begin with, our ability to infer from application results is very limited. For example, if I understand the posts above, @Marcus_Aurelius and @crunderdunder took roughly contrasting approaches to the preparation of their writing samples. Marcus spent a long time writing and rewriting a paper on a single topic that they chose based on how they wanted to fit into the current literature (to be accessible, current, etc.). This was also my approach. Crunder spent the majority of their time exploring a topic area, with much less time dedicated to drafting. Both completely crushed the process, making mockeries of us mere mortals, for whom rejections blotted out the sun and withered plants in their shade. Do I have any reason to think that I would have performed more like Crunder if I had adopted their method? I can't see that I do. It's just as possible that I would have been making things worse by working in a way less natural to me.
More generally, the few things we can say with confidence—that, ceteris paribus, it is better to have higher grades, higher GREs, a better writing sample, a more prestigious undergrad, etc.—do not produce helpful advice. When I struck out the first time I applied, it wasn't because I wasn't trying to get the best grades, the most prominent letter writers etc. Even considering the question of how these different factors relate to each other, we don't know much. It seems pretty likely that the writing sample is the most important feature, as @brookspn argued. But was their strategy of spending very little time on the personal statements the way to go? I strongly suspect personal statements were important to my application (though I don't really know!). And are there always tradeoffs? I worked on my writing sample until it was basically as good as I thought I could make it and then set to work on my personal statements. If people do find themselves facing hard tradeoffs, I certainly can't see any basis for advising them when the marginal unit of work on one factor stops being as valuable as the marginal unit of work on another.
If you're looking for practically salient advice, you want information that affects one of your choices. But beyond various platitudes, I don't think there's very much that qualifies. For instance, the first time I applied, I think my writing sample held me back. But the way I selected my writing sample was by picking the paper that I had spent the most time on, had the most feedback on, and that was the most skillful work I had done so far. I can't say with any confidence that those are bad ways to choose a paper, even if I know now that paper was bad. I'm not sure I've actually learned anything about the application process itself since, even if I've gotten better at assessing philosophy papers. This time, I wrote a better paper, and I did try to pick a topic that I thought was more likely to appeal to more people. But basically my strategy for picking papers didn't change that much; I was just better at writing them because of the intervening years of work.
Lastly, I think the results themselves speak to a great degree of idiosyncrasy. Before hearing back, I had all kinds of reasonable theories about how my application would be received.
I thought that maybe I would do better with programs which had people I had cited in the sample and who were working on the exact topic I wrote on --- Not the case. I thought that maybe I would do better with programs to which I had the most obvious appeal --- Even though I really really really like Pitt, I had no way of knowing that Pitt would like me. I thought that maybe I would do better with programs which were lower on the PGR and worse with programs higher on the PGR --- Not close. I can't see anything unique about that the three places I wasn't rejected from share. My best guess is basically randomness.
In terms of getting in, all I can recommend for 2020 applicants is to work really hard on doing good philosophy that shows your philosophical skills and to get lots of advice from professors who can help guide your judgment on that. Beyond that, even if the process isn't a "lottery," it might as well be, because we simply don't have that much concrete practical information about how to really get ahead. What I think you can do to help yourself with the application process is prepare yourself emotionally. Hopefully that's something this thread can explore a bit, even if folks disagree with me about the rest.
-
mithrandir8 got a reaction from quineonthevine in Dear 2020 applicants...
I actually think that we should have a very low view of how much we know about the admissions process. Moreover, we have reason to be very skeptical about the value of this kind of forum advice as to how to improve application chances. While certain baseline information, such as the information in Eric Schwitzgebel's guide, is valuable, I doubt that all that much more can reliably be said about how to do well in the process.
To begin with, our ability to infer from application results is very limited. For example, if I understand the posts above, @Marcus_Aurelius and @crunderdunder took roughly contrasting approaches to the preparation of their writing samples. Marcus spent a long time writing and rewriting a paper on a single topic that they chose based on how they wanted to fit into the current literature (to be accessible, current, etc.). This was also my approach. Crunder spent the majority of their time exploring a topic area, with much less time dedicated to drafting. Both completely crushed the process, making mockeries of us mere mortals, for whom rejections blotted out the sun and withered plants in their shade. Do I have any reason to think that I would have performed more like Crunder if I had adopted their method? I can't see that I do. It's just as possible that I would have been making things worse by working in a way less natural to me.
More generally, the few things we can say with confidence—that, ceteris paribus, it is better to have higher grades, higher GREs, a better writing sample, a more prestigious undergrad, etc.—do not produce helpful advice. When I struck out the first time I applied, it wasn't because I wasn't trying to get the best grades, the most prominent letter writers etc. Even considering the question of how these different factors relate to each other, we don't know much. It seems pretty likely that the writing sample is the most important feature, as @brookspn argued. But was their strategy of spending very little time on the personal statements the way to go? I strongly suspect personal statements were important to my application (though I don't really know!). And are there always tradeoffs? I worked on my writing sample until it was basically as good as I thought I could make it and then set to work on my personal statements. If people do find themselves facing hard tradeoffs, I certainly can't see any basis for advising them when the marginal unit of work on one factor stops being as valuable as the marginal unit of work on another.
If you're looking for practically salient advice, you want information that affects one of your choices. But beyond various platitudes, I don't think there's very much that qualifies. For instance, the first time I applied, I think my writing sample held me back. But the way I selected my writing sample was by picking the paper that I had spent the most time on, had the most feedback on, and that was the most skillful work I had done so far. I can't say with any confidence that those are bad ways to choose a paper, even if I know now that paper was bad. I'm not sure I've actually learned anything about the application process itself since, even if I've gotten better at assessing philosophy papers. This time, I wrote a better paper, and I did try to pick a topic that I thought was more likely to appeal to more people. But basically my strategy for picking papers didn't change that much; I was just better at writing them because of the intervening years of work.
Lastly, I think the results themselves speak to a great degree of idiosyncrasy. Before hearing back, I had all kinds of reasonable theories about how my application would be received.
I thought that maybe I would do better with programs which had people I had cited in the sample and who were working on the exact topic I wrote on --- Not the case. I thought that maybe I would do better with programs to which I had the most obvious appeal --- Even though I really really really like Pitt, I had no way of knowing that Pitt would like me. I thought that maybe I would do better with programs which were lower on the PGR and worse with programs higher on the PGR --- Not close. I can't see anything unique about that the three places I wasn't rejected from share. My best guess is basically randomness.
In terms of getting in, all I can recommend for 2020 applicants is to work really hard on doing good philosophy that shows your philosophical skills and to get lots of advice from professors who can help guide your judgment on that. Beyond that, even if the process isn't a "lottery," it might as well be, because we simply don't have that much concrete practical information about how to really get ahead. What I think you can do to help yourself with the application process is prepare yourself emotionally. Hopefully that's something this thread can explore a bit, even if folks disagree with me about the rest.
-
mithrandir8 reacted to DoodleBob in Dear 2020 applicants...
I really hope a moderator pins this thread; I've benefited greatly from the inside scoop of all those who have posted here: spanning contemporary writing samples to the evident contentiousness of GPA/GRE numbers. This thread synthesises the gradual change and near mystical nature of philosophy graduate admissions. As a novice applicant, much appreciation for next years' cycle.
-
mithrandir8 reacted to Nothingtown in Dear 2020 applicants...
Future applicants, if you read this early enough to reconsider which schools you're applying to, I hope you may consider my advice.
Your credentials and achievements are no guarantee of admission. That's been my big takeaway from this cycle. If I could do it all over again, I'd have applied to more MA programs (ones with a good record of placement in a PhD program and with high likelihood of good funding). A lot of people go into a PhD program from MA--there's nothing wrong with that! Just try to avoid paying too much for it.
I thought (naively now, I know) that I was good enough to get into PhD programs. I assessed my financial situation, got a partial scholarship to cover application fees, and got a waiver for 1 and paid around $550 - $600 for 10 schools after the scholarship. (Side note--You'll see a lot of people here do more than 10, but please don't go broke doing this. Instead, be honest with yourself and apply to schools that are a good fit for you. Not schools that have a great reputation--don't apply solely on the reputation. If your AOI fits and they have a good reputation, awesome! But focus on fit above all else.) In my case, I decided to apply to 9 PhDs and 1 MA because I thought that is where my application money would be the most effective, and I thought my chances of getting into a PhD program were quite good.
I'd been told by several professors at different schools that my Fulbright would be a major boost to getting me into grad school. Not quite a golden ticket, but almost. I had a 4.0, I was valedictorian of my graduating class, had a few published papers and presentations, spoke a second language. I'm waitlisted at two schools, waiting on an interview/preview weekend for a third, and accepted in an MA program. That's it. My point is not to brag about my accomplishments (they didn't get me much of anywhere, did they?) but rather to advise future applicants that nothing is guaranteed, no matter what anyone told you. This process is going to suck. There will be people who get into 5 top schools, but most of us don't have that kind of choice. And it's not your fault. It's not a judgment on your capacity as a philosopher or scholar at all. This is a highly competitive process, and sometimes things just don't work out--your POI is going to be leaving or is on sabbatical, last year's cohort had too many people with your AOI, etc. So many things are outside your control, and the chances you'd know about them in advance are slim, depending on the circumstance.
But if you read this early enough, add those MA programs to your list! Assuming you are coming straight from undergrad, that is. They'll give you a leg up and a chance to come back with a stronger application next time. They're a nice fallback plan if the PhD apps don't work out.
Best of luck to everyone!
-
mithrandir8 got a reaction from Dysexlia in Waitlists
Just withdrew from Berkeley's waitlist. It's an amazing program, but I felt like I had to just weigh all the considerations I could and make a decision rather than dragging things out any further. Hope it helps someone.
Edit: Sorry, I realized this is in the wrong thread!
-
mithrandir8 reacted to DoodleBob in Dear 2020 applicants...
I think you're wrong. There are clear precursors of a good applicant, but those precursors are not indicative of a successful applicant. And this is precisely due to the nature of the crapshoot* of philosophy admissions.
Edit: *Typo
-
mithrandir8 reacted to hector549 in MA CUNY
I know you said you weren't going to take this offer, but it sounds like (maybe?) you're considering it anyway, so here's my advice:
Don't ever pay for an MA. There are plenty of excellent, funded MAs out there.
Many of the top schools have "cash cow" MA programs. It's a way to generate revenue, and as others have said, keep their enrollments up. Chicago has such a program (MAPH), so does NYU, so does Columbia, and CUNY is in this boat as well. It's unconscionable, but they're using their name recognition as top schools to flatter people into paying out a lot of money for a degree that won't do anything for them.
Their website doesn't say what tuition is, but even if it's basically free, you'll be borrowing a lot of $$ to live in NYC. You'll also be competing for time and attention with the PhD programs, and they will get first priority. This is why if you want to get an MA, you should do so at a terminal MA program, where you'll be the star of the show.
-
mithrandir8 reacted to Kelvindison in Final Outcomes
I've decided to go to Pitt. The only problem is that Pitt rejected me.
-
mithrandir8 got a reaction from ContractMonsterSlayer in 2019 Graduate Entrants
Checking the old inbox for acceptances after another week:
-
mithrandir8 got a reaction from hector549 in Final Outcomes
Thought it might be nice to have a thread for people to say how their seasons have summed up and if they've decided to go anywhere now that the season is in the home stretch.
-
mithrandir8 got a reaction from Dysexlia in Final Outcomes
Thought it might be nice to have a thread for people to say how their seasons have summed up and if they've decided to go anywhere now that the season is in the home stretch.
-
mithrandir8 got a reaction from Duns Eith in Final Outcomes
Thought it might be nice to have a thread for people to say how their seasons have summed up and if they've decided to go anywhere now that the season is in the home stretch.
-
mithrandir8 got a reaction from fromthearmchair in Waitlists
Waitlisted at NYU. Email says "I will let you know as soon as I can if I have any indication of how likely it is that we will be able to offer you a place. It is only fair to admit that the chances are not very high, but in recent years we have several times been able to take a student off the waitlist."
I was not at all expecting this and it seems extravagant to hope to get off the waitlist. Nevertheless, if anyone gets a wild hair and decides to decline, you have a chance to make me very happy. I will understand if this does not affect your decision greatly.
-
mithrandir8 got a reaction from akraticfanatic in Waitlists
Waitlisted at NYU. Email says "I will let you know as soon as I can if I have any indication of how likely it is that we will be able to offer you a place. It is only fair to admit that the chances are not very high, but in recent years we have several times been able to take a student off the waitlist."
I was not at all expecting this and it seems extravagant to hope to get off the waitlist. Nevertheless, if anyone gets a wild hair and decides to decline, you have a chance to make me very happy. I will understand if this does not affect your decision greatly.
-
mithrandir8 got a reaction from brookspn in Waitlists
Waitlisted at NYU. Email says "I will let you know as soon as I can if I have any indication of how likely it is that we will be able to offer you a place. It is only fair to admit that the chances are not very high, but in recent years we have several times been able to take a student off the waitlist."
I was not at all expecting this and it seems extravagant to hope to get off the waitlist. Nevertheless, if anyone gets a wild hair and decides to decline, you have a chance to make me very happy. I will understand if this does not affect your decision greatly.
-
-
mithrandir8 got a reaction from Stencil in Acceptances
Same, absolutely over the moon. Cannot believe it.
-
mithrandir8 reacted to practically_mi in Anxiety and performance
I've struggled a lot to get work done over the past month. My ability to concentrate, my sleep etc. have been absolutely terrrible. I'm sure this is true for a lot of people going through this process. It feels like there's so much at stake. Basically, I think it's normal but seeing a professional and talk about it might still be helpful.
-
mithrandir8 got a reaction from Duns Eith in Is it true that Harvard only has space for 2 spots in the 2019 cycle?
If true, I think it's something they probably should have told people before they paid their $105 and filled out their applications. That's an unusually small class, right?
I guess I don't really know that much, but what would constrain their space this year so much more than previous years? Availability of supervision? Money? I know it doesn't really work this way, but their endowment is $39 billion, it's hard for me to imagine they really care how whether they disburse two $30+k stipends or five.
-
mithrandir8 got a reaction from TCH867 in Is it true that Harvard only has space for 2 spots in the 2019 cycle?
If true, I think it's something they probably should have told people before they paid their $105 and filled out their applications. That's an unusually small class, right?
I guess I don't really know that much, but what would constrain their space this year so much more than previous years? Availability of supervision? Money? I know it doesn't really work this way, but their endowment is $39 billion, it's hard for me to imagine they really care how whether they disburse two $30+k stipends or five.
-
mithrandir8 reacted to Stable_disposition in Acceptances
I’ll join in on the Pitt acceptance party-really exciting!
-