Jump to content

Xia1

Members
  • Posts

    24
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Xia1

  1. 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.
  2. Took myself off the waitlist for UVA. I believe I was pretty high on it as well, so hopefully that helps someone!
  3. Removed myself from OSU's waitlist
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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!
  8. 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
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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!
  12. Waitlisted at OSU today, they are apparently aiming to admit 5 students total.
  13. 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).
  14. 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.
  15. They do a lot of staggering with releasing decisions, the timeframe is highly variable, it's apparently very hard to get in touch with the department and get a straight answer. Many students find themselves in "limbo", not hearing one way or another if they are accepted or rejected after many others report their own decisions; they sometimes release these decisions after April 15th and some are still yet accepted. So perhaps this means they have a "hidden" waitlist so to speak? In any case, I wouldn't worry about any schools until I got information directly from them informing me of my rejection.
  16. I didn't apply there, but UCLA is notorious for having an entirely inscrutable admissions process, so I wouldn't rule anything out, nor would I take it as worrisome if it is genuine. On the topic of genuine, it seems every year on GC there are debates about whether certain acceptances are authentic. Why is this the case? And if there are false reports (which it seems there have been previously), why do these people go to the trouble of posting these things just to cause some applicants anxiety? Or did I answer my own question...
  17. I'll offer any insight I can that may not have been mentioned previously; and take it with a grain of salt, as I'm still in the application process myself! Much of this advice is either personal or gathered from individuals who have been through the process or are involved in the actual admissions themselves. 2) Since you will graduate next winter, I'd say if you start working on your applications now for next season, there's no real reason to take an extra year. If you treat your academics like a full time job, there's no reason you won't have enough time for prep by next winter. I started my writing sample during the summer before my senior year, took two semesters of independent study my senior year to work on it, submitted it as a thesis for some honors requirements, and then took a year off and worked on it more along with prepping for the GRE. During my time off school, I worked/am working 35+ hours a week and had plenty of time to make large revisions to my thesis. If you start now there's no reason you can't have a strong sample by 2019, especially since you'll stay in close contact with professors who can offer advice for revisions. Make no mistake about it, the writing sample is priority number 1 for applications. It's why 170/170 GREs don't guarantee admission to anywhere. A middling sample can't be made up for like middling letters or scores/grades. 3) Grad seminars with good grades always look nice on a transcript. As far as your worries about grades go, just follow this advice: get good grades in all seriousness though, if you think they will lower your GPA below 3.8, don't take them. Otherwise, I'd take them, and try as hard as you can to get an A- or A. 4) My independent studies appeared on my CV, with when they occurred, who they were under, and what they produced. 5) I'd say only apply to places you are willing to go. If that includes only top 20 schools, so be it. An acceptance to an unranked school means nothing to you if you wouldn't actually like to attend. No shame in that at all. On top of that, I'm convinced anyone with a strong enough sample can make it just about anywhere as long they meet certain very general (but high) benchmarks, which you seem to do. The only advice I could give is prioritize schools strong in your AOI. So if you want to study phil of language, prefer CUNY to Princeton. Maybe. As far as your chances, I think you've definitely got a great start, with good GREs (~90th percentile?) great letters and an amazing sample, you'll definitely make for an above average applicant, though you'll find many above average applicants shut out from year to year. 6) It's not clear. As long as that person can strongly, individualistically attest to your abilities, their relative fame can only help you. I personally would say that strong letters that single you out as brilliant from relatively unknown professors are vastly preferable to moderate letters from famous professors, U Chicago makes this clear on their page on their admissions process. 7) Most places seem to counteract grade inflation by checking against GRE scores to detect any warning signs, but perceived university difficulty definitely matters. 8) It can only help you, all else being perfect. However, my impression is that university pedigree can't save an application with a humdrum sample and letters. 9) I certainly would include it, but I have no idea if it matters. 10) I included a few non philosophy things on my CV, like volunteer work and where I've been when I'm not at school. Don't see how this really helps or hinders anyone though. Best of luck!
  18. I suppose I meant having analytic (in the strictest sense) characteristics rather than the "school of thought" distinction. That is to say, successful samples emphasize clear definitions, carefully constructed premises, and deal in rigorous argumentation; rather than being arcane, imprecise, and needlessly wordy. That these respectively appear to characterize "analytic" and "continental" philosophy is my own interpretation and opinion, I'll gladly admit, and certainly not a necessary set of features for either. Like I said, a paper on mental supervenience that looks like it was written by Heidegger would be less preferable than a paper on phenomenology that looks like it was written by Peter van Inwagen. And I'm certainly not trying to provide any hard and fast rules myself, just reporting trends from what I've noticed in successful samples. In that case my sentiment is more appropriately expressed by "shown to be objectively sound or unsound." Not to imply that anyone does in fact do this in their samples, but it should at least be within the realm of possibility, which, again, as a general trend, isn't particularly endemic to many samples. Thanks for your input! I appreciate it
  19. I've been researching/gathering data from this forum and elsewhere on what exactly makes for a successful writing sample, since most agree that if there is a single most important part of the application, it is the writing sample. I'd like to give my thoughts and see what others think, especially from people who have been through the process, and especially especially from those who have had success. They are in no particular order and are far from exhaustive. First observation, it seems to me many of the "successful samples" interact in some way with a unique, modern philosophical issue. Many of the less successful examples do not have this quality. That isn't to say that one can't write on Hume or Aristotle and be successful (quite the contrary), but it seems that those who do also relate their work to something with contemporary relevance. Secondly, successful samples are by and large decidedly analytic. Many unsuccessful samples are musing, setting up vague (but maybe still plausible) premises and meandering their way through different possibilities to a conclusion. None of it is exactly clearly the case. That is to say, its hard to make any pronouncements one way or another about the validity of the arguments within, since they are perhaps plausibly true but not clearly true. Sorry continental friends, but to be fair, I am not continental myself and am not looking at many samples from schools with continental specialties. Though I don't think this is simply related to the analytic-continental distinction; many papers, even from the "analytic tradition," suffer from vague ruminations about esoteric topics. Thirdly, and related to the last point, successful samples are by and large negative. That is to say, they argue against rather than for. I think this is simply due to how much easier it is to prove something is false than prove it is true. Lastly, and this is definitely subjective, but successful samples are interesting. And by interesting, I do not mean novel, unorthodox, or about popular topics. I mean they grip the reader by making them invested in the arguments success, which presupposes that the reader thinks the argument even can be successful (or that there is an argument at all, don't take this for granted). So I suppose my main take away is that common denominators of successful papers are that they clearly set out realistic goals, are hyper focused, and make arguments that can easily be shown to be objectively (not empirically, obviously) true or false given their validity. If true, it seems helpful, because it gives us good advice that, without the preceding background information, is not immediately obvious. For example, it seems one would be more likely to succeed with a paper (and don't read too much into these examples, I certainly haven't put enough thought into them to be worth it) critiquing reductionism with Kripke than a paper trying to synthesize Aristotle's and Leibniz's ideas about a First Cause. The main exception to this would be departmental fit/specialty, but I'm simply trying to be as general as possible. Thoughts?
  20. Notre Dame, Duke, Rutgers, Yale, UVA, MIT, Cornell, Syracuse, OSU, U. Miami, and three MAs: Georgia State, U. Wisconson Milwaukee, and Northern Illinois. Listed roughly in order I'd like to attend. Lofty lofty lofty
  21. Hi all, just introducing myself. First time applicant, and anxious as to how this will go. I am applying across the top 50, and am most hopeful about Notre Dame. My greatest weakness is my relative no name undergrad (though a large university), but I was the top (phil) student in my graduating class. I'm sure a certain someone will appear to reinforce how important pedigree is, but alas, I can do nothing to change it now. So I suppose we'll see! Here's hoping, best of luck to all!
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. See our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use