lisamadura

I know what you mean. Vanderbilt is a well reputed school in a great location and has two specific faculty that I really want to work with (Lisa Guenther and Kelly Oliver) but Emory and Penn State offer a wider range of people that work in my areas of interests. I think campus visits will be a large determining factor (or so I hope).

No but I've heard nothing but amazing things. And I've been in touch with a UO Grad student who made the program out to seem like an absolute dream. Also, Colin Koopman is there and he's rad. But Vanderbilt! and Emory! and Penn State! Can't I go to all of them? (I realize i'm probably not making many friends by complaining about having to choose between my favorite programs )

Seriously. It pains me, but I might have to cut the cord on a couple--including Oregon

Thank you! I'm such a bad gauge of these things--I thought I came off as a dilettante. My sophistry worked again!

Penn State is mine.

For anyone in need of a pick-me-up, here ya go. I have decided to forgo the Ph.D. My new 5-year plan involves finding this man and dating him #priorities

To answer your question: maybe. But more importantly, I would like to acknowledge your very clever Bon Jovi reference in lieu of "Applied 2016."

The voice of reason calls us on our confirmation bias. Touché.

I understand your concern. If there is anything in your second paper that concerns you, edit it (unless you've already sent it to them?). I don't think reusing your own work is an issue. I'm sure people do it all the time. If you are dealing with overlapping topics and you've already articulated an idea, why not re-use it? Have you spoken with your own faculty advisors about this?

My intuition is the same as @philstudent1991. If your application was unworthy, would they bother reading more of your work? Hell no.

Understanding why it's pronounced that way makes me feel less weird about it. Thanks!

Cool! I don't know if I'm even capable of saying it correctly. If "ought" implies "can" then I'm fated to pronounce it wrong.

Did you just site Woody Allen to me? You win all the up-votes. I also belong to the "Sart" camp, though I don't see "Sart-ra" vs. Sart" as the same as "Van-G(phlemy sound)" vs. "Van-go". The Sartre pronunciation is just preference, one is not more correct than the other, both are equally Anglicized. But I'm inclined to agree that saying "Kierkegor" is like saying "Van-G(phlemy sound)". I'm all about Sart, Van-go, Kierkeguard.

Ooooh! Let that be so.

Speaking of Kierkegaard, I have a crowd-source question. Do you all pronounce his name Kierke-GUARD or Kierke-GOR? I come from the po-dunk west and I've been trained to pronounce it "Guard," but I've heard others say, "Gor" and I'm doubting my own pronunciation.

Happy V-Day philosopher friends.

Crossing all of my fingers and toes for you

Done! I flooded the feed with dated material, but it's all there and accurate.

I haven't been submitting my acceptances or rejections to the results page. Is that information compiled and used in the future? Would I be helping TGC out if I went back and reported all of my results? If not, I won't bother.

I suspect it is a pretty long process. Both calls I got lasted 10 or 15 minutes. They gave me the rundown of the offer package, details about campus visit, and allowed me to ask any questions I had. The day is young. Keep your phone close by.

Congrats! Now look who's starting to clean up. Everything's coming up @oldhatnewtricks, eh.

So much for a dull weekend. Congratulations! A professor that I am very close with in my department completed his Ph.D. at Pitt in the early '90s. And his one of the most brilliant people I've had the pleasure to work with. Here's a dancing psychopath to celebrate your success...

AMAZING!

I'm revising my attitude re: the Penn State interview. I didn't blow any minds and I showed a lot of my weaknesses but it was an honest representation of my abilities. I'm glad they saw my weaknesses. If they do decide to admit me then I will know they believe I am qualified to study with them (flaws and all)--not just the manicured version of me that they see on paper.

I interviewed with Len Lawlor and John Christman. Being probed about my research made me see my weaknesses. It's a naked-in-public sort of vulnerability. They asked me the ONE question I didn't want to be asked, "The word 'singularity' gets thrown around a lot and it is unclear what people mean by it. What do you understand singularity to be?"---Ooof. This question has absolutely plagued me since I started working on Levinas and I still don't have a clear understanding of what it is supposed to mean, although I rely very heavily on the notion of singularity in my work. I know that it's an issue I need to work out, I just didn't want them to know that. The interview was intimidating, not so much because I'm afraid of how I did--I didn't get nervous or forget important points. I did my best and they will judge me accordingly. I can sleep well knowing that. It was intimidating because it gave me a sense for how difficult a doctoral program is going to be. These people mean business. Getting a Ph.D. is no f-ing joke.