gughok

I suspect whoever did get the interview might be reading this and shaking their fist indignantly at their screen.

Anyone here who have turned down, or will be turning down, all their PhD offers?  
I've been lucky enough to receive a fully-funded offer from a program whose Leiter ranking is between #20 and #25 (and a couple of fully-funded MA offers from strong MA programs). However, I can't help but to think that if I were to be a little bit more patient and apply again to PhD programs in two years' time, I would have another shot at programs whose placement records are much stronger. One thing to note, though, is that the program in question is one of the top 3 programs in the area of my intended specialization. This last fact is what makes my turning down their offer especially difficult. Any advice? 
Edit: FWIW, the MA program that I'm considering almost always places its applying students into the T25 programs (and their equivalent).

Hello everyone, my name's Colin and I was a 2016 applicant. Now, my M.A. is almost done, and it's time to reapply for Ph.D.

 I've been through this process once, made some mistakes, hopefully learned from them, and am happy to offer you any help, advice, or assistance you need!

But first of all, who all is applying in 2018? How far along in the process are you? 

This could also happen at UNC. After all, the first picture that comes up for Ram Neta on google is this:

Perhaps a reasonable margin, but that would mitigate worries only if I had not known they stayed at a hotel...
Even so, current grad students are without the excuse and, percentage-wise, the more frequent offender.

What I don't understand is why philosophy students don't keep up on hygiene. At the two schools I've been to and at my program, prospective students (and some grad students)* have clearly not showered in that day or in perhaps days. Their negligence indicates something I would consider inappropriate and unprofessional; as an administrator, I would consider this an orange flag regarding the worthiness of investment (will they not work well with coworkers? will they be malodorous in front of students? will they not make a good impression on the market, and thus not place well?)
* not talking about current grad students at my program. But more than one prospective student thus far.

On a related note. An inordinate number of philosophers I've come into contact with are *very* loud eaters. That is, they eat with their mouths open with every chew. It's very annoying, and it's hard to believe that many people can be so socially unaware. But, it persists. 

I made my decision between three largely equivalent programs mostly on the basis of yearly average temperature, and secondarily on a desire not to move back to the city I grew up in. You might be able to guess something like the first criterion. But weird individual things like the second? Good luck. Get to the Winchester, have a pint, and wait for everything to blow over.

Oftentimes personal reasons can factor into the decision in ways that an onlooker would have no way of predicting. At the end of the line my decision was between Harvard and UCLA, and I can tell you that a lot of people saw the former as the obvious choice. For reasons of fit, though, and perhaps more importantly for a host of personal reasons with no academic import whatsoever, I chose the latter.
Unfortunately I don't know that there is a reliable method of predicting the choices admits will make beyond very holistic references to perceptions of quality and fit.

Oftentimes personal reasons can factor into the decision in ways that an onlooker would have no way of predicting. At the end of the line my decision was between Harvard and UCLA, and I can tell you that a lot of people saw the former as the obvious choice. For reasons of fit, though, and perhaps more importantly for a host of personal reasons with no academic import whatsoever, I chose the latter.
Unfortunately I don't know that there is a reliable method of predicting the choices admits will make beyond very holistic references to perceptions of quality and fit.

Oftentimes personal reasons can factor into the decision in ways that an onlooker would have no way of predicting. At the end of the line my decision was between Harvard and UCLA, and I can tell you that a lot of people saw the former as the obvious choice. For reasons of fit, though, and perhaps more importantly for a host of personal reasons with no academic import whatsoever, I chose the latter.
Unfortunately I don't know that there is a reliable method of predicting the choices admits will make beyond very holistic references to perceptions of quality and fit.

I've got a question about epistemic positions in the decision-making process.
Let's suppose there's a candidate who was admitted to several excellent programs. Near the end, their decision has come down to NYU, MIT, or Rutgers. For some of us, this would be an obvious choice. For others, this would be an excruciatingly difficult choice to make. 
In cases like these, is there a way that an onlooker could reasonably predict which choice the person makes? Certainly there are big/obvious factors, like interest fit, faculty they'd like to work with, location preference, and so on. However, it seems that there has got to be a sizable gap of information that onlookers can't really gauge. This is basically the position of any very curious waitlistee.
If you were in a position akin to that of the admitted candidate, do you have certain dealbreakers that would sway you one way or another? Or do any of you have anecdotes regarding either having made this decision, or being in the process of making a decision like this?

Hello, everyone! I'm a bit new to the whole application process for grad school in philosophy and could use some help. I'm finishing up my junior year and I will be graduating in the spring of 2018 so I figured I should get a head start on the application process. I was wondering for people who are in my current position or have experience with the application process if you guys have any recommendations on what I should be focusing on in this timeframe. In other words, are there certain things I should be doing right now to better my application? Any info on the process would help as well. 
A little more info about me: I attend a small liberal arts school in Southern California and I am double majoring in Philosophy and Psychology. I have a 3.7 accumulative GPA (3.9 philosophy; 3.7 in psychology) and I know all my professors in the philosophy department fairly well so I can count on them for letters of rec's. My main interests in philosophy are metaphysical topics such as philosophy of the mind, personal identity, and free will. I started my philosophy degree later than usual because I took an intro class my sophomore year and fell in love with the field. 
 
Thank's again for any help!

Philosophers are probably the most socially awkward sub-group, so I'd say you're in good company .

Mathematicians are worse. 

When Ong, who is Asian-American, brought up the topic of American imperialism, Searle responded “American imperialism? Oh boy, that sounds great, honey! Let’s go to bed and do that right now!” the complaint states.
 
This is TRULY DISGUSTING. But apparently, Searle has a sexual assault history and Berkeley has a history tolerating his misconduct. 

I feel it's my duty to share this article with anyone who has been admitted to UC-Berkeley (or might be admitted off the waitlist). Not gonna comment beyond that since this article is my only familiarity with the situation:

https://www.buzzfeed.com/katiejmbaker/famous-philosophy-professor-accused-sexual-harassment?utm_term=.lj4Y5eXnk#.sfWdE3b15

For what it's worth, a plurality of the people in my cohort at UCLA (i.e. us current first-years) were on invisible waitlists. Moreover, the state funding situation means the department can only afford one international student per year. I was #2 and waitlisted without notice until the first person they gave the offer to turned it down... the Tuesday before decisions were due. It might end up being a long wait for some of you but it does happen, and not infrequently.

I did not explode. I wasn't even the person to point it out. I just wanted to talk about your response, because I'm disappointed and interested in collective vs. individual responsibility. I am not saying that as a philosopher you should be forced to do anything. I am saying that as a philosopher that you should know better. 
 
The language we use reflects, perpertuates, and performs social injustices. It's also a clear and public way to draw attention to and change linguistic (social) structures. Look at the way that drawing attention to the word "retard" has changed mindsets or what the reclaiming of queer has done. Finally, I would expect a philosopher to actually indulge the idea and read the literature we are talking about before blindly rejecting the position that we have. 

Obstinacy under the guise of philosophical caution is a really frustrating thing to observe.
First, nobody "exploded" at you. One person said she agreed with you, save your use of the masculine generic. You asked why, we explained in moderated terms, and you resisted with complete denial.
Second, we're not here to reinvent the wheel, so I'm not going to type up an essay. Here you go:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_neutrality_in_English#Rationale
https://www.academia.edu/1597246/The_extinction_of_masculine_generics
https://www.pomona.edu/sites/default/files/elliechestnutthesis.pdf
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0148068580921132
http://web.stanford.edu/class/linguist156/Gastil_1990.pdf
http://www.bustle.com/articles/96831-supposedly-generic-uses-of-man-are-not-actually-generic-says-survey-so-here-are-6-words
This is what I could find in ten minutes. That's all it took: ten minutes and google. I don't think this is at all an exhaustive list.
 

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.

@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.

WAITLISTED AT RUTGERS!!!!! My top choice. Shaking in disbelief. 

I'm from the previous season, but I'm Iranian-Canadian and LGBT. The visa ban has me functionally trapped in the US for now - while dual nationals are ostensibly fine, the situation is too unstable for me to risk leaving the country. If conditions for me continue to deteriorate, though (there are rumours of a massive anti-LGBT executive order in the works, for example), I think it's genuinely possible I'll be forced to drop out for my own safety and go back to Toronto.

I'm not superstitious, but my horoscope uncannily captured the experience of waiting to hear back from grad schools:

"You must wait for authorities to make a decision about your future, before your real work can begin."