Cogitodoncrien

Unfortunately the answer is a cold hard no. If you back out now a call will be put out for your detainment by the Inter-university Police. You will be found and held, forced to finish the terms of your accepted offer. At the conclusion of these terms, you will be placed in a black list among all degree granting institutions barring your employment there on grounds of disrespect to the high authority of the Ivory Tower.
 
You ought to think these things through beforehand...

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.

I think you need to get a better understanding of what phd admissions are like in philosophy

Agreed, hence the question. Thanks. 

not rly

If we're doing music for trying times, you guys might enjoy this bit of existential wobble from the Kit Fine Ensemble, featuring some serious disciplinary shade:
Phi-lo-so-ophy
It's not for me!
I don't have what it takes,
I'm not one of the greats...
So I'll practice law,
Make money galore!
Make money, make money,
And thi-i-ink no more. ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fNWeKL0was
And which ends with the heartwarming message of 'be yourself!'
Which I think is good to keep in mind during application season when everyone's a little worried about how they're presenting themselves. :)

Looking at grad cafe while listening to certain kinds of music makes the experience much more pleasant for me.  Throw on some Funkadelic (or Parliament), for instance.
Infectious cuts to start you on your interstellar journey that will take away your cares include, but are definitely not limited to, the following:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgasGeWuYdE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXZKF4aPFKE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAK2j27fwO0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rASGYZTE2oM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQyaZoSHoeQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PeeYUXjp_ro
Always remember the wise words of the Funkadelic: free your mind and your ass will follow; the kingdom of heaven is within.

Looking at grad cafe while listening to certain kinds of music makes the experience much more pleasant for me.  Throw on some Funkadelic (or Parliament), for instance.
Infectious cuts to start you on your interstellar journey that will take away your cares include, but are definitely not limited to, the following:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgasGeWuYdE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXZKF4aPFKE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAK2j27fwO0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rASGYZTE2oM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQyaZoSHoeQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PeeYUXjp_ro
Always remember the wise words of the Funkadelic: free your mind and your ass will follow; the kingdom of heaven is within.

accepted to UW-Madison! no info on funding yet

I'm skeptical too because I was supposed to get in there, but I haven't heard anything... Even so, phone acceptances usually happen at a slow rate so even if the post is legit it doesn't really tell us much.

Also @ Moose#@1%$, BetweenBars, mithrandir8 
For Ann Arbor it would be their earliest acceptance since, well, actually it might be their earliest acceptance ever if true. I'm skeptical. Here is the previous data from past years (2012-2018):
February 23 R March 9 S February 7 F March 5 R March 7 M February 28 T February 9 F As for WUSTL, it's not as absurd as one might think given past year's release dates even though it would be about a week earlier than their past three releases. But, I've flagged it on the spreadsheet as not reliable/confirmed yet. JK: It's confirmed Here is that info:
February 15 W February 8 F February 7 F January 23 F February 17 W February 15 W February 16 F

Ditto for UM-Ann Arbor.

Can anyone claim the Michigan acceptance?

Firstly, this smacks of a problem requiring empirical research being dealt with by purely a priori speculation (this goes for my reasoning below, too).  So, what's your evidence that this happens?.  Secondly, I don't have the intuition that this sort of situation is realistic; what seems realistic is that confirmation bias can affect applicants who applied to high-ranked and low-ranked programs and were accepted by the former but rejected by the latter, and then talk to others about their experience ("I was just too good for Mizzou, bro, and they knew it!  Duke was always the place for me!").  Thirdly, the problem that bluwe points out is the crux of your argument, viz. that the admissions committees somehow know that some applicants will "almost certainly" accept a different (possible?) offer.  So, it doesn't address the problem bluwe points out and instead just assumes it to be true.  Lastly, how are admissions committees supposed to "reach for some students who will likely go elsewhere but might go to that school" while simultaneously passing "over some students who will almost certainly go elsewhere"?  Do admissions committees ask tentatively admitted applicants to which schools they've been admitted before giving the OK to officially send the acceptances?  Are "almost certainly" and "likely" different?  Are they different simply by degree?  If so, by how much?  If they are different by degree but not by much, then how are admissions committees supposed to distinguish (i) those students who have a high chance of going elsewhere and won't accept their offer from (ii) those students who have a high chance of going elsewhere but won't definitely not accept their offer?  One way I can see to distinguish between (i) and (ii) is to say that (ii) are those students who are a good fit for the department and (i) are those students who are not a good fit for the department.  But, if this were the case, we'd have our answer to the question whether yield protection affects philosophy admissions committees' decisions.
I just can't see admissions committees not admitting or waitlisting applicants who pass the first cuts and who are impressive to the committees in all the other ways they can be besides passing the first cuts.  Of course, this debate could be put to bed if we had some real evidence that admissions committees from some schools (which schools?) engaged in this practice.

Agreed, this entire process is just a giant mess. There are just too many moving parts and perpetually changing variables. I tried my best to only apply to schools where I believe I was the best fit, instead of trying to "break the admission code," it's just too much and I wanted to stay sane and keep my head full of hair haha. Truth be told I did just stay away from Top schools.. Like Yale, Harvard, MIT etc., but primarily because my GRE scores weren't that great and I was warned by a few people that schools like that are likely to have cut off points. Mainly because of the number of applicants they receive. but good luck to you, hoepefully you get in where you want.

I suppose it makes sense if yield really matters in the long run. To me, it seems that the only thing that this strategy protects against is having to send more acceptances and field more declined offers, but so what? Everyone knows about the April 15th deadline, so it's not like a student that hasn't heard back from their (remaining) first choice school X is going to accept some other school Y's offer, before X can put an offer in front of them. Unless there's some administrative reason that ad coms are encouraged to filter applications like that, then it seems you can still get this student to go to X so long as that offer is in front of them by the 15th of April, with, seemingly, no long term loss (i.e., the students that are most qualified and fit the best at the program enroll there). I'm not sure what is lost in adopting this strategy, but I do know what is gained: more anxiety for applicants as some of us infer rejection from school(s) we thought we had a relatively good chance at getting into--all the while looking down the road to programs where prospects of admission are much lower. 

So, I think you have really good points and I've always wondered about the truth to such speculations. However, I have heard directly from selection comittee at my MA that they do such calculations. Now, how reliable or what methodology they use, I have no idea. But, when asked by me and couple of other Grad students the exact words were (more or less), "it's hard to really know. We had some excellent applicants some from top schools (I think that year we had applicants from Oxford, Washington, UCLA etc.),  sample paper, and great recommendations but you know.. its hard to decide whether we should offer them admission. Because the fact that they're application is this good made us wonder whether they would end up choosing somewhere else and we'd end up using up a spot when we could have offered to someone else. But then again you don't want to pass them up because you think they might choose somewhere else. On the other hand we also want to offer admissions to people who we think might be more likely to choose us." and more of the same back and forth for about 10 mins..
So, I agree with you but I also think there is definitely truth to this theory or speculation. 
Overall, I really don't think there are any "safe schools." It is all about your fit. You might get rejected from a "safe" school because of bad fit and get accepted at a top school because of a good fit. Now, ofcourse some of these top schools are charged for having cut off measures (Idk how true that is) but I think your fit is the most important.

Search committee members often admit to doing this in hiring decisions, where the stakes are much higher. Check out just about any thread on the subject on one of the blogs--Leiter, DN, Cocoon, Philosophy Smoker.
I have, in the past, seen admissions committee members say the same thing, although it was years ago, and I couldn't point you to it now. It's more common for programs to have long waitlists (or large admissions pools) instead, on the assumption that most of the students they admit outright will turn them down. But it does sometimes happen the other way, too.
 
In both cases, it strikes me as a bad decision (though it's especially out of touch with the realities of the job market, where anybody is lucky to get even a single offer). But there it is.

Hi. I can tell you from experience on multiple different admissions committees that schools definitely engage in this practice. And, in my case, admissions committees in the same department, but made up of different faculty, make different decisions about whether to engage in this practice. (So, at least in my department, there is no policy about it, the admissions committee is made up of a rotating cast of 3-5 people, and whether we use the strategy "admit the best people and hope for the best" or "try to guess at who we have a decent chance of actually getting and admit them" is basically dependent on what those 3-5 people think.) As a practical matter, this is part of where good fit with the research interests of the faculty can help you if your file is strong (perhaps weirdly, it is also why being a less good fit can help you if your file is weaker). If you have a fantastic file and aren't a great fit for the department, you're likely going to get rejected because we don't want to take the chance on you given that you are going to get into places that are better fits for you. If you have a fantastic file and are a great fit, you're more likely to get accepted even with the worry that you'll go elsewhere, because we have more to offer you and there is more of a chance you will come (if, say, you got into our program and a higher ranked one that was a worse fit for you).

Firstly, this smacks of a problem requiring empirical research being dealt with by purely a priori speculation (this goes for my reasoning below, too).  So, what's your evidence that this happens?.  Secondly, I don't have the intuition that this sort of situation is realistic; what seems realistic is that confirmation bias can affect applicants who applied to high-ranked and low-ranked programs and were accepted by the former but rejected by the latter, and then talk to others about their experience ("I was just too good for Mizzou, bro, and they knew it!  Duke was always the place for me!").  Thirdly, the problem that bluwe points out is the crux of your argument, viz. that the admissions committees somehow know that some applicants will "almost certainly" accept a different (possible?) offer.  So, it doesn't address the problem bluwe points out and instead just assumes it to be true.  Lastly, how are admissions committees supposed to "reach for some students who will likely go elsewhere but might go to that school" while simultaneously passing "over some students who will almost certainly go elsewhere"?  Do admissions committees ask tentatively admitted applicants to which schools they've been admitted before giving the OK to officially send the acceptances?  Are "almost certainly" and "likely" different?  Are they different simply by degree?  If so, by how much?  If they are different by degree but not by much, then how are admissions committees supposed to distinguish (i) those students who have a high chance of going elsewhere and won't accept their offer from (ii) those students who have a high chance of going elsewhere but won't definitely not accept their offer?  One way I can see to distinguish between (i) and (ii) is to say that (ii) are those students who are a good fit for the department and (i) are those students who are not a good fit for the department.  But, if this were the case, we'd have our answer to the question whether yield protection affects philosophy admissions committees' decisions.
I just can't see admissions committees not admitting or waitlisting applicants who pass the first cuts and who are impressive to the committees in all the other ways they can be besides passing the first cuts.  Of course, this debate could be put to bed if we had some real evidence that admissions committees from some schools (which schools?) engaged in this practice.

maybe

You can see some spotty reporting of stipends for various programs from various years on this site: http://www.phdstipends.com/results
The results are self-reported and most lack information about whether the stipend is the normal package given to all admitted students or whether it includes fellowships.

You can see some spotty reporting of stipends for various programs from various years on this site: http://www.phdstipends.com/results
The results are self-reported and most lack information about whether the stipend is the normal package given to all admitted students or whether it includes fellowships.

I think that's a good way to look at it.  From the FAQ page, the living wage ratio is determined by dividing the stipend amount by the living wage amount (which they get from the MIT published "Poverty In America Living Wage Calculator").  So, any LWR that is 1 is equal to the living wage for that city, any LWR that is above 1 is above the living wage for that city, etc.

You can see some spotty reporting of stipends for various programs from various years on this site: http://www.phdstipends.com/results
The results are self-reported and most lack information about whether the stipend is the normal package given to all admitted students or whether it includes fellowships.