RequiredDisplayName

Also waitlisted at UVA.

Rejected from Western Ontario. This one makes me wonder. I was waitlisted at Western last cycle. My thought this time around was that I would at least get waitlisted again considering my application was much improved (specifically the writing sample. Also, more conference experience). Of course, there are other factors such as the number of applicants this year compared to last, the quality of the applicants, the admissions committee, and perhaps others. Still, this makes me think there is much more that is out of one's control in the process than I previously imagined. That I could improve in the ways that I did and get a worse result...?

Accepted to UWaterloo yesterday. Might end up being my only acceptance, but I'm ok with that.

Rejected from Rice. Tension in rising...?

NOOOOOOOOOOOO! Officially rejected from Chicago. ?

Hello. I too am a applying to PhD programs with the long-term goal of working in academia. What I've been doing is trying to figure out what the profile of a successful tenure-track hire is. What are the strategic rules of the academic job market game? In my field (philosophy), there are a few things which seem to correlate with ones chances of finding a job after graduation. The things that seem to most influence a candidates competitiveness on the market seem to be; 1) the prestige of the institution from which they received their PhD 2) the candidates publication record, including quantity of publications and prestige of the venues/journals published in 3) teaching experience, including quantity and range of courses taught, but not including TA experience A most competitive candidate then will have graduate from top ranked school with a few top ranked publications and a substantial teaching portfolio. A grad student in philosophy will have to think about publishing with the aim of getting at least 1 publication in a ranked journal prior to graduating, and develop a strong teaching portfolio to maximize their competitiveness on the market. None of this a a guarantee of a job, but it these things can maximize ones chances. So, my advice is to figure out what makes a candidate competitive in your field. One way to do this is to look at the CV's of recent hires in your field. Also, ask your profs what they would look for in a new hire. If, for example, publications are important, then perhaps have publications on your radar early in your grad studies. You may not have to get something publish first year, but you can have it in your mind, and move towards it as you progress. The same for teaching opportunities , or presentations, or whatever.

An anecdote: I have a terminal MA, and I would not be in a position to even think about doing a PhD if it were not for my cohort. My peers were exceedingly supportive of my work, and I of theirs. Our co-operation made us all better students and better philosophers, and therefore better applicants for PhD programs than we otherwise would have been.

The claim that the GRE measures 'general intelligence' is one I've encountered before, but not one that anyone has ever been able to substantiate. What sort of background theory of intelligence must one accept to believe that a standardized test on which writers perform a very narrow set of skills in a set period of time is a good measure of it? It must be an extremely narrow view of what intelligence is if we are to take seriously the GRE, or any other standardized test, is a measure of it. That the concept of intelligence is complex and one which can manifest itself is many ways coupled with the narrowness of the GRE should show why it is not a good indicator of 'general intelligence'. If the GRE was in fact a measure of intelligence, then it would follow that those who score low on it are not as intelligent as those who score highly. However, that there are many very intelligent people that do not do well in standardized test situations, and many who do well but ultimately cannot handle graduate school, shows that even if the GRE really did measure 'general intelligence' it does not do so consistently. It fails to predict who will actually succeed in graduate school, and is therefore is not a useful data point when evaluating an applicant for a graduate program.

I fail to see how a test which only measures a person's ability to take said test is a useful data point for anything at all. Considering the most popular GRE study guides out there come with flashcard components is clear indication that memorizing GRE vocabulary is one of the most common ways to study for the verbal section. I know this from experience. I wrote the test twice and scored 3 points higher on the verbal section the second time around. The only thing I did differently was memorize more terms. And some of the questions I got wrong I did so for no other reason than I did not know the definition of one word. Why is my ability to do research in Philosophy being judged based on whether or not I know what 'Panegyric' means? Could you please tell me what knowing the definition of 'Sequestration' has to do with being a good Philosopher? That academics would be or should be familiar with common GRE terms is irrelevant. 99% of the terms I encountered on the test I did so for the first time, so I had to start using flash cards to build up my vocabulary. In the end, I simply feel that what the GRE measures is not something which is reflective of one's potential to be a good graduate student in Philosophy. For this reason, it should not be looked at when evaluating applicants.

Lots of things correlate with intelligence. It does not follow that each of those things is a good data point to consider when trying to determining who has the potential to succeed in grad school. There are many students who get excellent GRE scores, but can't handle grad school. And there are many who get less than excellent scores and do fine in grad school. That the GRE is not a good predictor of success in grad school is reason enough to jettison it as a component of grad applications. Look, I'm sure a person has to be some sort of smart to be able to memorize a bunch of words and answer multiple choice questions in a timed test setting. But what the heck does this have to do with doing Philosophy? That top departments like UPenn, UWMadison, Cornell and Michgan recognize the uselessness of the test, and its about time other departments caught up.

I'd say my primary AOI is meta-ethics and moral psychology.

Aight yo, time to bring this thread back to life. It's me, ya boi! I'm back from the dead for a second attempt at this PhD shit. Last cycle was a disaster. I'll post my stats later. This time around I've been much more strategic and calculated. Here is a list of schools I'm planning on applying to: University of Southern California, Princeton University, University of Chicago, University of Notre Dame, University of California-San Diego, University of Virginia, Georgetown University, Syracuse University, Vanderbilt University, Johns Hopkins University, Rice University, McGill University, Dalhousie University Last year, I approached applications all wrong. I decided to only apply to top PGR ranked programs. If you look at past results, usually those who receive offers form places like NYU and Rutgers also receive offers from Princeton, Harvard, Yale, Michigan, Pitt, etc. My application obviously was not in that top %. So, this time around I've decided to apply to places that might be closer to my level i.e. places I think I have a better (even if only slightly) chance of getting into (I'll admit I feel weird saying this because every school is difficult to get into. According the the Yale Grad school admissions statistics, the acceptance rate for the Phil PhD is about 4%. According to Notre Dame's Grad School stats, the acceptance for their Phil PhD is about 10%. I doubt any program worth attending has acceptance rates substantially greater that this. So, even schools that are easier to get into are not easy to get into). I'm still applying to a number of top places because I've improved my application (writing sample, letters, CV) quite a bit, so I think its worth another shot.

Looks like I'm wait-listed at Virginia, which means ya boi is still alive!

Got my rejection from Arizona this afternoon as well. Just UNC and Virginia left to hear back from for me.

Stanford rejection came in this morning. At this point, I've already begun planning for things not involving graduate school (in Philosophy). Still 3 places to hear back from for me and only a waitlist to my name.