ScaredyCat

I'd accept you guys if I had a phd program. Get ready to read a lot of Freud and Irigaray though...

Not proving something unequivocally does not mean people need to remain neutral. Evidence can swing to one side or the other. The research on implicit bias is extensive and I accord my beliefs to evidence. So I do not think it is irresponsible to assert that people have negative implicit biases towards women and minorities and positive biases towards men and white people. Of course I should frame it differently in the future.

I know you said that you are bowing out, but I figured I will try to engage in your argument.
First I will say that this is a topic that affects many of us. It is not something merely abstract but a lived experience for us women and us minorities so it will ignite passion in us. It has clearly ignited passion in you! So while I understand that you were trying to be sensitive I hope you understand that people like me, I am Latina, are suggested all the time that we only have something because of our minority status. We have earned none of what we have.
Anyways, you begin by saying “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.” This has never been the case that the only relevant feature is the application features. One of the most relevant features is something that none of us has any control over: fitness. The department needs people with varying interests that still fit into the department. I could have a better application, at least how you seem to define better, having better GRE scores but maybe I do not fit into the department. And fit is something not as easily determined by a quick online view of the program’s website as people believe. For example, maybe one of the professors who works in your AOI is leaving soon so will not be willing to take more students on, etc. These are things that only an admissions committee would know. Maybe one of these women’s specific topics of interests intersected with several professors. And there is nothing morally reprehensible about reviewing an application against the department's interests 
My second point merely mirrors what other people have pointed out: you cannot know if your application is better because you do not have knowledge of either of your recommendations. Of course you can guess at what your says but unless you read it you do not really know. From what I have read by professors on Leiter’s Report, that aspect is the only one that definitely sinks an application all by itself! Even a relativiely low GPA will not necessarily doom you. So you are missing one of the most important pieces of the puzzle and judging without it. Not to mention, you cannot know if your application is better because you do not know how the adcomm people judge “potential.” That is what they are looking for. Potential is not easily given by numbers though numbers do help. Potential is not merely based on academic merit. Maybe the person on the adcomm read the woman’s sample (the one with only a BA) and saw that while maybe her sample was not as polished, or whatever, that her ideas showed potential as a philosopher. You cannot know.
Lastly, anecdotal evidence is not proof for anything. It takes a small sample size and extrapolates from it. If we trust anecdotal evidence then we would have to trust that merely being outside when it is cold will make you sick, seating too close to the television will damage your eyes. Also, it is fallacious reasoning (hasty generalization fallacy). The scientific research backs up that implicit bias happens. When people look at a resume/cv from someone name Maria Rodriguez and John Smith, and both have the same qualifications, they are more likely to judge the former more harshly. Mind you these are CVs in which they had the same credentials on both. That is only one example in the implicit bias literature. There are many more. These biases are against minorities and women when they apply to jobs, graduate programs, etc. There are some people who may give just a little bump to a woman or minority if they know the literature on implicit bias. However, it would not be used to give someone something they do not deserve. 
However, many people are against affirmative action and those policies are actually not enforced at many universities. Well, that is not completely true, the quota policy of legacies at universities are enforced at the Ivies for undergraduates. The evidence does not support that white men are being discriminated against. It supports that women and minorities are not welcomed in philosophy and are discriminated against. Only 30% of PhD's earned in philosophy are earned by women (http://www.newappsblog.com/2011/05/the-low-percentage-of-women-earning-phds-in-philosophy.html). I cannot find this other source but I remember being shocked by the percentage. Only approximately 2% of PhD's philosophy are given to Hispanics/Latinos. It is the same for Blacks. Thus it is not clear that minorities or women are being favored in the admissions process. There are not that many women or minorities in PhD programs in philosophy to support what you are saying
Also you said that these girls are equal caliber to you (maybe lower). That means that they deserve the shot they have been given.
By the way I am a Hispanic woman who has not been accepted into any programs. I think it is safe to say that it is not always the case that race/ethnicity and gender are major factors in admissions. You are right. The system is corrupt. However, it is not corrupt in the way you think it is.
 
 
 
 
 

I AM ALSO ONE OF THE NOTRE DAME ADMITS!!!! I have been a lil bundle of suffering and anxiety these past few weeks so I cannot even express how relieved/elated I am!!!! This is my first acceptance after 6 rejections, so I really needed this. Best of luck to the rest of you!! Also I am currently getting my undergrad from Notre Dame so if anyone wants to ask me questions about the department, feel free!! There's lots of cool cats here.

So unless Villanova forgot to interview me, Boston College forgot to put enough postage on the envelop, (or something weird's going on with Penn State/Fordham/Stonybrook) I only have one Ph.D. shot left: Duquesne. Thankfully, they are teaching a class on one of my professors and have had students from my school in the past, so it's better chances than the others.

Does anyone know the projected date for Duquesne? 
 

Just got a phone call from Duquesne! Accepted there.

Yes, but they'd be googling you; that's what's important. Also, that's a respectable tweeting subject. If you were tweeting about how cute hitler was, well, you know...that's...different.

Omg.. Someone from the same suburb as McGill checked out my Academia.edu profile. Hoping so hard that they send me something, they're a near perfect school for me. PLEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAASSSSSSSSSSSSSSSEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Yeah, he was really rude about it. Though this is the venting thread, I feel like I'm being excessively negative. So. Uh. Good news! I have some I think... I learned to program yesterday! My friend gave me directions like "This is how while and if and for work... make something that does this thing." Please disregard that 1. My desktop is in my contacts folder. I don't know how that happened. 2. I'm a logic major who has studied recursion theory, but is just learning coding senior year, despite being "a computer person" since I was like eight. 3. I skipped the 'hello world' stuff because my friend was like "You know what sounds fun? MATH." About two hours after I walked out of failing a math exam. YOLO? 

Literally no one is saying this.

In the United States (and other places, sure, but this is the focus of this discussion) the discrimination need result from any conscious view of others as inferior. We have ingrained, unconscious, perspectives of each other, (pernicious stereotypes) which unconsciously color how we are perceived both in terms of moral value and as epistemic agents. The cages which confine certain peoples and prevent them from the same opportunities that privileged persons have are already in place. Doing 'nothing' (ie, pretending racism, sexism, ableism, etc, do not exist), maintains the cage. The barriers are still there and will remain unless forcibly removed. I'd take a look at some of the work of people like Rebecca Kukla, Kristie Dotson, and definitely read some of the work on oppression by Marilyn Frye, and others. 
 

I know you said that you are bowing out, but I figured I will try to engage in your argument.
First I will say that this is a topic that affects many of us. It is not something merely abstract but a lived experience for us women and us minorities so it will ignite passion in us. It has clearly ignited passion in you! So while I understand that you were trying to be sensitive I hope you understand that people like me, I am Latina, are suggested all the time that we only have something because of our minority status. We have earned none of what we have.
Anyways, you begin by saying “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.” This has never been the case that the only relevant feature is the application features. One of the most relevant features is something that none of us has any control over: fitness. The department needs people with varying interests that still fit into the department. I could have a better application, at least how you seem to define better, having better GRE scores but maybe I do not fit into the department. And fit is something not as easily determined by a quick online view of the program’s website as people believe. For example, maybe one of the professors who works in your AOI is leaving soon so will not be willing to take more students on, etc. These are things that only an admissions committee would know. Maybe one of these women’s specific topics of interests intersected with several professors. And there is nothing morally reprehensible about reviewing an application against the department's interests 
My second point merely mirrors what other people have pointed out: you cannot know if your application is better because you do not have knowledge of either of your recommendations. Of course you can guess at what your says but unless you read it you do not really know. From what I have read by professors on Leiter’s Report, that aspect is the only one that definitely sinks an application all by itself! Even a relativiely low GPA will not necessarily doom you. So you are missing one of the most important pieces of the puzzle and judging without it. Not to mention, you cannot know if your application is better because you do not know how the adcomm people judge “potential.” That is what they are looking for. Potential is not easily given by numbers though numbers do help. Potential is not merely based on academic merit. Maybe the person on the adcomm read the woman’s sample (the one with only a BA) and saw that while maybe her sample was not as polished, or whatever, that her ideas showed potential as a philosopher. You cannot know.
Lastly, anecdotal evidence is not proof for anything. It takes a small sample size and extrapolates from it. If we trust anecdotal evidence then we would have to trust that merely being outside when it is cold will make you sick, seating too close to the television will damage your eyes. Also, it is fallacious reasoning (hasty generalization fallacy). The scientific research backs up that implicit bias happens. When people look at a resume/cv from someone name Maria Rodriguez and John Smith, and both have the same qualifications, they are more likely to judge the former more harshly. Mind you these are CVs in which they had the same credentials on both. That is only one example in the implicit bias literature. There are many more. These biases are against minorities and women when they apply to jobs, graduate programs, etc. There are some people who may give just a little bump to a woman or minority if they know the literature on implicit bias. However, it would not be used to give someone something they do not deserve. 
However, many people are against affirmative action and those policies are actually not enforced at many universities. Well, that is not completely true, the quota policy of legacies at universities are enforced at the Ivies for undergraduates. The evidence does not support that white men are being discriminated against. It supports that women and minorities are not welcomed in philosophy and are discriminated against. Only 30% of PhD's earned in philosophy are earned by women (http://www.newappsblog.com/2011/05/the-low-percentage-of-women-earning-phds-in-philosophy.html). I cannot find this other source but I remember being shocked by the percentage. Only approximately 2% of PhD's philosophy are given to Hispanics/Latinos. It is the same for Blacks. Thus it is not clear that minorities or women are being favored in the admissions process. There are not that many women or minorities in PhD programs in philosophy to support what you are saying
Also you said that these girls are equal caliber to you (maybe lower). That means that they deserve the shot they have been given.
By the way I am a Hispanic woman who has not been accepted into any programs. I think it is safe to say that it is not always the case that race/ethnicity and gender are major factors in admissions. You are right. The system is corrupt. However, it is not corrupt in the way you think it is.
 
 
 
 
 

Not proving something unequivocally does not mean people need to remain neutral. Evidence can swing to one side or the other. The research on implicit bias is extensive and I accord my beliefs to evidence. So I do not think it is irresponsible to assert that people have negative implicit biases towards women and minorities and positive biases towards men and white people. Of course I should frame it differently in the future.

I know you said that you are bowing out, but I figured I will try to engage in your argument.
First I will say that this is a topic that affects many of us. It is not something merely abstract but a lived experience for us women and us minorities so it will ignite passion in us. It has clearly ignited passion in you! So while I understand that you were trying to be sensitive I hope you understand that people like me, I am Latina, are suggested all the time that we only have something because of our minority status. We have earned none of what we have.
Anyways, you begin by saying “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.” This has never been the case that the only relevant feature is the application features. One of the most relevant features is something that none of us has any control over: fitness. The department needs people with varying interests that still fit into the department. I could have a better application, at least how you seem to define better, having better GRE scores but maybe I do not fit into the department. And fit is something not as easily determined by a quick online view of the program’s website as people believe. For example, maybe one of the professors who works in your AOI is leaving soon so will not be willing to take more students on, etc. These are things that only an admissions committee would know. Maybe one of these women’s specific topics of interests intersected with several professors. And there is nothing morally reprehensible about reviewing an application against the department's interests 
My second point merely mirrors what other people have pointed out: you cannot know if your application is better because you do not have knowledge of either of your recommendations. Of course you can guess at what your says but unless you read it you do not really know. From what I have read by professors on Leiter’s Report, that aspect is the only one that definitely sinks an application all by itself! Even a relativiely low GPA will not necessarily doom you. So you are missing one of the most important pieces of the puzzle and judging without it. Not to mention, you cannot know if your application is better because you do not know how the adcomm people judge “potential.” That is what they are looking for. Potential is not easily given by numbers though numbers do help. Potential is not merely based on academic merit. Maybe the person on the adcomm read the woman’s sample (the one with only a BA) and saw that while maybe her sample was not as polished, or whatever, that her ideas showed potential as a philosopher. You cannot know.
Lastly, anecdotal evidence is not proof for anything. It takes a small sample size and extrapolates from it. If we trust anecdotal evidence then we would have to trust that merely being outside when it is cold will make you sick, seating too close to the television will damage your eyes. Also, it is fallacious reasoning (hasty generalization fallacy). The scientific research backs up that implicit bias happens. When people look at a resume/cv from someone name Maria Rodriguez and John Smith, and both have the same qualifications, they are more likely to judge the former more harshly. Mind you these are CVs in which they had the same credentials on both. That is only one example in the implicit bias literature. There are many more. These biases are against minorities and women when they apply to jobs, graduate programs, etc. There are some people who may give just a little bump to a woman or minority if they know the literature on implicit bias. However, it would not be used to give someone something they do not deserve. 
However, many people are against affirmative action and those policies are actually not enforced at many universities. Well, that is not completely true, the quota policy of legacies at universities are enforced at the Ivies for undergraduates. The evidence does not support that white men are being discriminated against. It supports that women and minorities are not welcomed in philosophy and are discriminated against. Only 30% of PhD's earned in philosophy are earned by women (http://www.newappsblog.com/2011/05/the-low-percentage-of-women-earning-phds-in-philosophy.html). I cannot find this other source but I remember being shocked by the percentage. Only approximately 2% of PhD's philosophy are given to Hispanics/Latinos. It is the same for Blacks. Thus it is not clear that minorities or women are being favored in the admissions process. There are not that many women or minorities in PhD programs in philosophy to support what you are saying
Also you said that these girls are equal caliber to you (maybe lower). That means that they deserve the shot they have been given.
By the way I am a Hispanic woman who has not been accepted into any programs. I think it is safe to say that it is not always the case that race/ethnicity and gender are major factors in admissions. You are right. The system is corrupt. However, it is not corrupt in the way you think it is.
 
 
 
 
 

I know you said that you are bowing out, but I figured I will try to engage in your argument.
First I will say that this is a topic that affects many of us. It is not something merely abstract but a lived experience for us women and us minorities so it will ignite passion in us. It has clearly ignited passion in you! So while I understand that you were trying to be sensitive I hope you understand that people like me, I am Latina, are suggested all the time that we only have something because of our minority status. We have earned none of what we have.
Anyways, you begin by saying “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.” This has never been the case that the only relevant feature is the application features. One of the most relevant features is something that none of us has any control over: fitness. The department needs people with varying interests that still fit into the department. I could have a better application, at least how you seem to define better, having better GRE scores but maybe I do not fit into the department. And fit is something not as easily determined by a quick online view of the program’s website as people believe. For example, maybe one of the professors who works in your AOI is leaving soon so will not be willing to take more students on, etc. These are things that only an admissions committee would know. Maybe one of these women’s specific topics of interests intersected with several professors. And there is nothing morally reprehensible about reviewing an application against the department's interests 
My second point merely mirrors what other people have pointed out: you cannot know if your application is better because you do not have knowledge of either of your recommendations. Of course you can guess at what your says but unless you read it you do not really know. From what I have read by professors on Leiter’s Report, that aspect is the only one that definitely sinks an application all by itself! Even a relativiely low GPA will not necessarily doom you. So you are missing one of the most important pieces of the puzzle and judging without it. Not to mention, you cannot know if your application is better because you do not know how the adcomm people judge “potential.” That is what they are looking for. Potential is not easily given by numbers though numbers do help. Potential is not merely based on academic merit. Maybe the person on the adcomm read the woman’s sample (the one with only a BA) and saw that while maybe her sample was not as polished, or whatever, that her ideas showed potential as a philosopher. You cannot know.
Lastly, anecdotal evidence is not proof for anything. It takes a small sample size and extrapolates from it. If we trust anecdotal evidence then we would have to trust that merely being outside when it is cold will make you sick, seating too close to the television will damage your eyes. Also, it is fallacious reasoning (hasty generalization fallacy). The scientific research backs up that implicit bias happens. When people look at a resume/cv from someone name Maria Rodriguez and John Smith, and both have the same qualifications, they are more likely to judge the former more harshly. Mind you these are CVs in which they had the same credentials on both. That is only one example in the implicit bias literature. There are many more. These biases are against minorities and women when they apply to jobs, graduate programs, etc. There are some people who may give just a little bump to a woman or minority if they know the literature on implicit bias. However, it would not be used to give someone something they do not deserve. 
However, many people are against affirmative action and those policies are actually not enforced at many universities. Well, that is not completely true, the quota policy of legacies at universities are enforced at the Ivies for undergraduates. The evidence does not support that white men are being discriminated against. It supports that women and minorities are not welcomed in philosophy and are discriminated against. Only 30% of PhD's earned in philosophy are earned by women (http://www.newappsblog.com/2011/05/the-low-percentage-of-women-earning-phds-in-philosophy.html). I cannot find this other source but I remember being shocked by the percentage. Only approximately 2% of PhD's philosophy are given to Hispanics/Latinos. It is the same for Blacks. Thus it is not clear that minorities or women are being favored in the admissions process. There are not that many women or minorities in PhD programs in philosophy to support what you are saying
Also you said that these girls are equal caliber to you (maybe lower). That means that they deserve the shot they have been given.
By the way I am a Hispanic woman who has not been accepted into any programs. I think it is safe to say that it is not always the case that race/ethnicity and gender are major factors in admissions. You are right. The system is corrupt. However, it is not corrupt in the way you think it is.
 
 
 
 
 

I know you said that you are bowing out, but I figured I will try to engage in your argument.
First I will say that this is a topic that affects many of us. It is not something merely abstract but a lived experience for us women and us minorities so it will ignite passion in us. It has clearly ignited passion in you! So while I understand that you were trying to be sensitive I hope you understand that people like me, I am Latina, are suggested all the time that we only have something because of our minority status. We have earned none of what we have.
Anyways, you begin by saying “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.” This has never been the case that the only relevant feature is the application features. One of the most relevant features is something that none of us has any control over: fitness. The department needs people with varying interests that still fit into the department. I could have a better application, at least how you seem to define better, having better GRE scores but maybe I do not fit into the department. And fit is something not as easily determined by a quick online view of the program’s website as people believe. For example, maybe one of the professors who works in your AOI is leaving soon so will not be willing to take more students on, etc. These are things that only an admissions committee would know. Maybe one of these women’s specific topics of interests intersected with several professors. And there is nothing morally reprehensible about reviewing an application against the department's interests 
My second point merely mirrors what other people have pointed out: you cannot know if your application is better because you do not have knowledge of either of your recommendations. Of course you can guess at what your says but unless you read it you do not really know. From what I have read by professors on Leiter’s Report, that aspect is the only one that definitely sinks an application all by itself! Even a relativiely low GPA will not necessarily doom you. So you are missing one of the most important pieces of the puzzle and judging without it. Not to mention, you cannot know if your application is better because you do not know how the adcomm people judge “potential.” That is what they are looking for. Potential is not easily given by numbers though numbers do help. Potential is not merely based on academic merit. Maybe the person on the adcomm read the woman’s sample (the one with only a BA) and saw that while maybe her sample was not as polished, or whatever, that her ideas showed potential as a philosopher. You cannot know.
Lastly, anecdotal evidence is not proof for anything. It takes a small sample size and extrapolates from it. If we trust anecdotal evidence then we would have to trust that merely being outside when it is cold will make you sick, seating too close to the television will damage your eyes. Also, it is fallacious reasoning (hasty generalization fallacy). The scientific research backs up that implicit bias happens. When people look at a resume/cv from someone name Maria Rodriguez and John Smith, and both have the same qualifications, they are more likely to judge the former more harshly. Mind you these are CVs in which they had the same credentials on both. That is only one example in the implicit bias literature. There are many more. These biases are against minorities and women when they apply to jobs, graduate programs, etc. There are some people who may give just a little bump to a woman or minority if they know the literature on implicit bias. However, it would not be used to give someone something they do not deserve. 
However, many people are against affirmative action and those policies are actually not enforced at many universities. Well, that is not completely true, the quota policy of legacies at universities are enforced at the Ivies for undergraduates. The evidence does not support that white men are being discriminated against. It supports that women and minorities are not welcomed in philosophy and are discriminated against. Only 30% of PhD's earned in philosophy are earned by women (http://www.newappsblog.com/2011/05/the-low-percentage-of-women-earning-phds-in-philosophy.html). I cannot find this other source but I remember being shocked by the percentage. Only approximately 2% of PhD's philosophy are given to Hispanics/Latinos. It is the same for Blacks. Thus it is not clear that minorities or women are being favored in the admissions process. There are not that many women or minorities in PhD programs in philosophy to support what you are saying
Also you said that these girls are equal caliber to you (maybe lower). That means that they deserve the shot they have been given.
By the way I am a Hispanic woman who has not been accepted into any programs. I think it is safe to say that it is not always the case that race/ethnicity and gender are major factors in admissions. You are right. The system is corrupt. However, it is not corrupt in the way you think it is.
 
 
 
 
 

I know you said that you are bowing out, but I figured I will try to engage in your argument.
First I will say that this is a topic that affects many of us. It is not something merely abstract but a lived experience for us women and us minorities so it will ignite passion in us. It has clearly ignited passion in you! So while I understand that you were trying to be sensitive I hope you understand that people like me, I am Latina, are suggested all the time that we only have something because of our minority status. We have earned none of what we have.
Anyways, you begin by saying “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.” This has never been the case that the only relevant feature is the application features. One of the most relevant features is something that none of us has any control over: fitness. The department needs people with varying interests that still fit into the department. I could have a better application, at least how you seem to define better, having better GRE scores but maybe I do not fit into the department. And fit is something not as easily determined by a quick online view of the program’s website as people believe. For example, maybe one of the professors who works in your AOI is leaving soon so will not be willing to take more students on, etc. These are things that only an admissions committee would know. Maybe one of these women’s specific topics of interests intersected with several professors. And there is nothing morally reprehensible about reviewing an application against the department's interests 
My second point merely mirrors what other people have pointed out: you cannot know if your application is better because you do not have knowledge of either of your recommendations. Of course you can guess at what your says but unless you read it you do not really know. From what I have read by professors on Leiter’s Report, that aspect is the only one that definitely sinks an application all by itself! Even a relativiely low GPA will not necessarily doom you. So you are missing one of the most important pieces of the puzzle and judging without it. Not to mention, you cannot know if your application is better because you do not know how the adcomm people judge “potential.” That is what they are looking for. Potential is not easily given by numbers though numbers do help. Potential is not merely based on academic merit. Maybe the person on the adcomm read the woman’s sample (the one with only a BA) and saw that while maybe her sample was not as polished, or whatever, that her ideas showed potential as a philosopher. You cannot know.
Lastly, anecdotal evidence is not proof for anything. It takes a small sample size and extrapolates from it. If we trust anecdotal evidence then we would have to trust that merely being outside when it is cold will make you sick, seating too close to the television will damage your eyes. Also, it is fallacious reasoning (hasty generalization fallacy). The scientific research backs up that implicit bias happens. When people look at a resume/cv from someone name Maria Rodriguez and John Smith, and both have the same qualifications, they are more likely to judge the former more harshly. Mind you these are CVs in which they had the same credentials on both. That is only one example in the implicit bias literature. There are many more. These biases are against minorities and women when they apply to jobs, graduate programs, etc. There are some people who may give just a little bump to a woman or minority if they know the literature on implicit bias. However, it would not be used to give someone something they do not deserve. 
However, many people are against affirmative action and those policies are actually not enforced at many universities. Well, that is not completely true, the quota policy of legacies at universities are enforced at the Ivies for undergraduates. The evidence does not support that white men are being discriminated against. It supports that women and minorities are not welcomed in philosophy and are discriminated against. Only 30% of PhD's earned in philosophy are earned by women (http://www.newappsblog.com/2011/05/the-low-percentage-of-women-earning-phds-in-philosophy.html). I cannot find this other source but I remember being shocked by the percentage. Only approximately 2% of PhD's philosophy are given to Hispanics/Latinos. It is the same for Blacks. Thus it is not clear that minorities or women are being favored in the admissions process. There are not that many women or minorities in PhD programs in philosophy to support what you are saying
Also you said that these girls are equal caliber to you (maybe lower). That means that they deserve the shot they have been given.
By the way I am a Hispanic woman who has not been accepted into any programs. I think it is safe to say that it is not always the case that race/ethnicity and gender are major factors in admissions. You are right. The system is corrupt. However, it is not corrupt in the way you think it is.
 
 
 
 
 

Not proving something unequivocally does not mean people need to remain neutral. Evidence can swing to one side or the other. The research on implicit bias is extensive and I accord my beliefs to evidence. So I do not think it is irresponsible to assert that people have negative implicit biases towards women and minorities and positive biases towards men and white people. Of course I should frame it differently in the future.

But knowing what we know about implicit bias, it is more than likely that you are underestimating the abilities your female peers, while overestimating the abilities of your male peers.
 
Also, philosophy ladies and minorities: you are badass, and you deserve every spot you're offered. Don't listen to any sore jerk who says otherwise!

Hey buddy, you're likely to get some backlash for making these claims, so I figured I'd say that I'm sympathetic to what you're saying. But I don't think that anecdotal experience (even though mine lines up with yours!) is enough to make broad statements about the impact of race/gender in admissions. Nothing makes any sense at all, and it's much easier to detect patterns that would explain why inferior people do better than you than to come to believe that something is lacking in your own application. 

I know many a lady not doing well this cycle, in my program and beyond. To say it's "the ticket" is unfair. I don't mean to be rude, but have you considered that these women simply had better applications (writing samples, gres, letters)? I don't think it's a kind assumption to say that they were admitted just because they're women. We really can't know what happens behind closed doors. This is the venting thread and I don't want to step on your toes. I see how this can be frustrating. But I also see how diversity is a real issue in the profession, and 90% of philosophy is still white and male.
Just some thoughts 
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 
 

I have better friends in the department, but gosh I didn't realize how ridiculous some of the people were. Thank you @dgswaim for making me laugh with your "How boring." XD I liken my field (logic) to being to humanities what math is to science. Worth studying in its own right, but also for making the arguments of other fields more convincing and rigorous. 
Also, a squirrel I named Tree gave me a hug today. So now I guess I'm a Tree-hugger. http://m.imgur.com/H8zbZb4

Just got an e-mail from UNC!

I would continue to hope, if I were you... Only two acceptances from Vanderbilt for this season so far!

WUSTL: No information. The secretary seemed to be in the dark. She said that she would assume "soon," but that doesn't really say much. It does seem though that no offers have gone out yet, if that's helpful to know. 

Stony Brook: All acceptances have been sent out. If you haven't gotten one, assume you're on the WL or rejected. 

And yes, @Abendstern and @she-evelyn.