gughok

It's very apropros that there's someone watching with stifled laughter, making no attempt to help their fallen fellows: enter the admissions committees.

It's very apropros that there's someone watching with stifled laughter, making no attempt to help their fallen fellows: enter the admissions committees.

Hi, all,

I am a 2017 phd applicant. I am wondering if previous phd applicants, successful or unsuccessful, have advice for those of us applying next year.  I am especially wondering things, such as:

(1) Did you submit the same writing sample with all your applications, or do you think it's generally bad advice to submit different writing samples?

(2) Do you have any strategies for helping earn strong GRE scores? 

(3) Is it bad that at least 3 students from my department are applying to the same school?

(4) Anyone have experience placing in a phd with a no-name undergrad but a known MA program? 

(5) How much detail did you go into regarding your research interests on your SOP? Is it good to be specific or vague? That is to say, for those of us who know our main area of interest, is it detrimental you think to be specific?

(6) Did anyone contact professors in their AOI before the application season? Did you feel this is bad or good?

Feel free to answer any or none of these questions. Any advice or general encouragement is good. I'm already freaking out over all the rejections (securing a funded MA was stressful enough!) 

2016 Philosophy Admissions Season: A Short Documentary

THANK YOU @Nat_Foot
MIT PLS
I WOULD MAKE SO MANY COOKIES
who am i kidding I would symmetrically make cookies in grief

THANK YOU @Nat_Foot
MIT PLS
I WOULD MAKE SO MANY COOKIES
who am i kidding I would symmetrically make cookies in grief

I've said this before as a personal commitment; now I will make it a request: if you get a call offering admission, I humbly ask that you find a moment to enquire of the person on the line whether acceptances are still going out. This information would, I hope, not be difficult to get, but it would be incredibly appreciated by those of us who are waiting anxiously.
Congratulations @Incregible!

I've said this before as a personal commitment; now I will make it a request: if you get a call offering admission, I humbly ask that you find a moment to enquire of the person on the line whether acceptances are still going out. This information would, I hope, not be difficult to get, but it would be incredibly appreciated by those of us who are waiting anxiously.
Congratulations @Incregible!

I've said this before as a personal commitment; now I will make it a request: if you get a call offering admission, I humbly ask that you find a moment to enquire of the person on the line whether acceptances are still going out. This information would, I hope, not be difficult to get, but it would be incredibly appreciated by those of us who are waiting anxiously.
Congratulations @Incregible!

Still nothing from UCLA? 

Some ideas don't warrant defending.

Sure, explore the idea. Consider both sides. Give it a fair treatment. And if one side falls apart as dreadfully damaging and discriminatory to half the population, make no further attempt to defend it. An idea which has been demonstrated a failure robustly deserves no defense.

Sure, explore the idea. Consider both sides. Give it a fair treatment. And if one side falls apart as dreadfully damaging and discriminatory to half the population, make no further attempt to defend it. An idea which has been demonstrated a failure robustly deserves no defense.

@philosophe's observation is sort of a case in point for the term's obsolescence: by using exclusively male pronouns, you've alienated female readers and implicitly (or, some would argue, pretty explicitly) denied them membership among "outstanding applicants". This can be demeaning, insulting, and even offensive. You may reply that the female pronoun is no better, but the fact is that there is an asymmetry in that women have historically experienced discrimination, derogation, and disadvantage by the will of men, while the opposite is not (generally) the case. As a result, women are conditioned be cognizant to the prejudice they face, while men are usually oblivious to it unless they're educated to see it. In a different context, many women I've spoken to have expressed that reading or listening to recitations of the bible is a very ostracizing experience, since the devout are often referred to in translations with the male pronoun. It can be disheartening to hear the ideal worshipper described exclusively as male, even if this isn't an explicit statement. Similarly, one might write of the post of President and describe presidential duties using the only he/him/his, and this would be discouraging, either subconsciously or quite overtly, to women who read the description. And so on, in every situation imaginable. Thus it's best to refrain from using the male pronoun indiscriminately.
And it would not come off as contrived to use "they". The claim that it is an unnatural term to use is propagated by prescriptivist grammarians who don't adhere to the principles of descriptive linguistics. Historically that pronoun has long been employed precisely as a generic referent, and it would be fighting an uphill battle to remove it from use. So either they/them/their or she/her/hers, but not he/him/his. I prefer the female pronouns in extended prose because I think it reads better, but that's just me.
Note: I am not a woman. If you are a woman and I've misrepresented things, please do correct me. Likewise if you're a man/other who knows better than I.

@o m g Is Rayo a POI, or is he the DGS? (Sorry, I can't find who the DGS is from MIT's website.) Just wondering because I saw that a few years ago, POI's called accepted students. And it does seem like max 2 people from grad cafe got calls (or, they just haven't posted them yet). Just trying to keep hope for everyone waiting on MIT. 

hi friends, i just got notice about the villanova theology/philosophy assistantship. accepted!!!! i'm going to take some time out later to cry. but now, i have to call my mom. 

Sure, explore the idea. Consider both sides. Give it a fair treatment. And if one side falls apart as dreadfully damaging and discriminatory to half the population, make no further attempt to defend it. An idea which has been demonstrated a failure robustly deserves no defense.

Claiming CUNY grad. Fml I can't even. 

ACCEPTED TO MIT

You can't know whether an idea is worth defending or not without actually exploring a defense of it.
Generally, you should always explore both sides of an argument; and in fact, you should pay particular attention to the opposing side to help overcome biases you may have.
That some philosophical positions shouldn't even be explored is totally in opposition to the spirit of philosophy.

@philosophe's observation is sort of a case in point for the term's obsolescence: by using exclusively male pronouns, you've alienated female readers and implicitly (or, some would argue, pretty explicitly) denied them membership among "outstanding applicants". This can be demeaning, insulting, and even offensive. You may reply that the female pronoun is no better, but the fact is that there is an asymmetry in that women have historically experienced discrimination, derogation, and disadvantage by the will of men, while the opposite is not (generally) the case. As a result, women are conditioned be cognizant to the prejudice they face, while men are usually oblivious to it unless they're educated to see it. In a different context, many women I've spoken to have expressed that reading or listening to recitations of the bible is a very ostracizing experience, since the devout are often referred to in translations with the male pronoun. It can be disheartening to hear the ideal worshipper described exclusively as male, even if this isn't an explicit statement. Similarly, one might write of the post of President and describe presidential duties using the only he/him/his, and this would be discouraging, either subconsciously or quite overtly, to women who read the description. And so on, in every situation imaginable. Thus it's best to refrain from using the male pronoun indiscriminately.
And it would not come off as contrived to use "they". The claim that it is an unnatural term to use is propagated by prescriptivist grammarians who don't adhere to the principles of descriptive linguistics. Historically that pronoun has long been employed precisely as a generic referent, and it would be fighting an uphill battle to remove it from use. So either they/them/their or she/her/hers, but not he/him/his. I prefer the female pronouns in extended prose because I think it reads better, but that's just me.
Note: I am not a woman. If you are a woman and I've misrepresented things, please do correct me. Likewise if you're a man/other who knows better than I.

Out of upvotes, +1. My reaction to every "surprise" of this sort: suck it, prescriptivist grammarians. You should never have left the 18th century. As a linguist, your existence vexes me.

Some ideas don't warrant defending.

@philosophe's observation is sort of a case in point for the term's obsolescence: by using exclusively male pronouns, you've alienated female readers and implicitly (or, some would argue, pretty explicitly) denied them membership among "outstanding applicants". This can be demeaning, insulting, and even offensive. You may reply that the female pronoun is no better, but the fact is that there is an asymmetry in that women have historically experienced discrimination, derogation, and disadvantage by the will of men, while the opposite is not (generally) the case. As a result, women are conditioned be cognizant to the prejudice they face, while men are usually oblivious to it unless they're educated to see it. In a different context, many women I've spoken to have expressed that reading or listening to recitations of the bible is a very ostracizing experience, since the devout are often referred to in translations with the male pronoun. It can be disheartening to hear the ideal worshipper described exclusively as male, even if this isn't an explicit statement. Similarly, one might write of the post of President and describe presidential duties using the only he/him/his, and this would be discouraging, either subconsciously or quite overtly, to women who read the description. And so on, in every situation imaginable. Thus it's best to refrain from using the male pronoun indiscriminately.
And it would not come off as contrived to use "they". The claim that it is an unnatural term to use is propagated by prescriptivist grammarians who don't adhere to the principles of descriptive linguistics. Historically that pronoun has long been employed precisely as a generic referent, and it would be fighting an uphill battle to remove it from use. So either they/them/their or she/her/hers, but not he/him/his. I prefer the female pronouns in extended prose because I think it reads better, but that's just me.
Note: I am not a woman. If you are a woman and I've misrepresented things, please do correct me. Likewise if you're a man/other who knows better than I.

In fact, this whole discussion implies a prescriptivist outlook on language. Otherwise all you can say is: "Hey. Some people use "he". Some people think that's sexist and use 'they'. But I make no judgments either way."