Xia1

I'm just doing an MA right now, but it certainly helps me to just affirm--every day--that there is no guarantee of employment post education, and being OK with that. I've simply given up on the idea that I am 100% in control of the results of my education and job search. That's life. And frankly, I think that outlook is healthier than the alternative. First, it's more in line with reality; and second, it takes a lot of the pressure off in a way. It's a gamble we have to take in pursuing a job in higher ed. And so, Besides the TT job, your other worries are bunk. Philosophers, for all their faults, are smart (as a general trend). You were talented enough to gain admission to a doctoral program in philosophy, you are more than capable of providing for your family and all those other things. I was in the corporate world for a minute, and the need for people who can think is dire. Most successful higher-ups are very aware of this, and you can easily become qualified for work that pays well and gives you security. You will be talented enough to work your way up, and you have the work ethic to do so. There is much greater demand for intelligent people than what is confined to academic philosophy. So what's the worst case scenario? You've lost 6-8 years in opportunity cost. That's a lot. But you're now Dr. Duns Eith. Most people your age are likely still in middling corporate positions. They've likely spent the majority of their free time at work, and probably indifferent about what they do. So they've made a little more money than you would have. So what? Time isn't what makes all the difference. I can't promise you'll love what you do after philosophy, but there's no guarantee you'll love whatever you'd do in philosophy. And plus, you'll almost certainly make more money. The TT phil professors at my top 3 MA program make about $60k. What I'm trying to say basically is, academic philosophy isn't everything. Even if the absolute worst case scenario comes true for you, life goes on. And it can be great, and in many ways, better. So how is this a good decision? You get to do what you love for 6-8 years, with more free time than the average working American, and have at least some funding to do so. Maybe a few doors are closed, but more are certainly open. Seems like a great decision to me, but to each their own.

Took myself off the waitlist for UVA. I believe I was pretty high on it as well, so hopefully that helps someone!

Removed myself from OSU's waitlist

Declined Syracuse

I took myself off the waitlist for UWM and declined GSU. There's a good chance I will decline Syracuse and take myself off of OSU's waitlist before the 15th as well.

For the record, I'm very much leaning toward declining my GSU offer, but I have to hear about funding from another program, which may not happen until right upon the week of April 15th.

One of my advisers told me fit is the most important factor behind not going in to debt. In one sense, I wish I was in your position lol. Fit is pulling me to NIU, but funding is not yet clear and may not be until right up at the deadline, whereas GSU funds everyone but I definitely have a poor fit there.

On the website it says that box may get added "if applicable" and you should receive an email about it. I'm not sure what it is but sounds like good news to me!

I'm in a similar boat, I have on offer from a ranked program and waitlist at top 25. I personally think it's worth the opportunity cost. An MA never hurt anyone, a PhD you aren't happy with, that's another story. Sure, you may apply after the MA and strike out, but you can always apply again, and an MA will let you teach a few courses at least. You stand to gain more than you do to lose from the MA in my opinion, but if you feel you fit better at Memphis, that's a harder decision... Best of luck! Maybe we'll run into each other at GSU, though if I have my choice I'll end up at NIU if I do an MA

I definitely expected the opposite advice! Thanks all, I am also leaning toward the MA, it is indeed funded. I will probably consult my profs as well, but I haven't the faintest idea what they will say.

Just admitted to Syracuse. First and likely only PhD acceptance. Also the very last place I'd want to go off of my apps. It's nice to not be shut out, but I'm going to need to get advice about whether to do a high ranked MA and try again or just go to a place I don't think is a great fit.

My status still hasn't changed nor have I received an email from Notre Dame after all the rejects, waitlists, and accepts. Why are they torturing me. Also, all their accepts (at least here on GC) have perfect 170V GRE scores. I wonder if that's coincidence, I know they highly value GRE scores but dang!

Waitlisted at OSU today, they are apparently aiming to admit 5 students total.

Here's another fun fact. We may complain now that admissions is more competitive and less relevant to being a good philosopher than ever before, and our professors never had to go to the lengths we do to even be considered for admission. But forget not that there was once a GRE Philosophy subject test. The details of this test are sparse, but it seems that it was largely a glorified philosophy trivia questionnaire, and that to prepare for it, many applicants would work through the ENTIRETY of Frederick Copleston’s nine-volume A History of Philosophy. The only thing less likely to be relevant to being a good philosopher than the Pythagorean theorem is knowing that the Kalam cosmological argument started with al-Ghazali rather than Averroes, or that Lycan is not strictly a functionalist (and yes, I definitely didn't just know those two things off the top of my head).

I think the GRE is simply one more way to eliminate candidates from an ever increasing pool for a limited number of spots. As far as your ideological opposition goes because of the quantitative score's questionable (at best) relevance to being a good philosopher, I think many adcoms would be happy to admit that it has little relevance to philosophical skills at all. They simply would just prefer the candidate who is likely to be a good philosopher, and also good at math. Why not? They have to find some way of eliminating candidates, and when you have about 25+ equally qualified, superb candidates for 10 spots, any criteria to make those cuts easier are likely to be appreciated. That being said, I suspect that a decision between two equally qualified candidates rarely (if ever) comes down to a difference in their GRE Q score. Also fun to keep in mind is that high GREs mean more funding, so the department also has a monetary interest in admissions (yay). Though, so do we, so let's not be hypocrites. I suppose my big cynical point is that the GRE Q score probably isn't very relevant at all to being a good philosopher, and admissions knows that/doesn't care that much, and is still justified in using it for reasons other than determining a candidate's potential in philosophy. I just think the fact of the matter is that there's more to admissions than simply being a good philosopher, and (at least at this point in our journey) we have to try to become not merely just good philosophers, but good applicants as well.