RequiredDisplayName

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.     

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.

This was an excellent explication, 10/10.

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.

The PGR has been pretty useful for me as a starting point for research when applying, so I'm grateful for that. At the same time, I also find the arguments that in the long run, having a prestige-based ranking system as a point of departure like this harms the development of the discipline fairly convincing. So... I dunno, I suppose I don't have a settled opinion on it!
Leiter himself, I don't think I would like as a person (though I've been meaning to read some of his academic work for a while). I've for the most part given up reading the philosophy bits of his blog (some of the other links he posts I still find useful). Though I've also given up reading Daily Nous, so it might just be the current shambolic state of online academic philosophy (apart from the group at TheGradCafe <3).

Accepted to Vanderbilt! Ecstatic and elated!!!

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.     

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.     

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.     

I get the sense that many academic philosophers are well-meaning, but there are many reasons (many of them institutional) that can make philosophy an inaccessible and/or hostile environment for people of color and women. One reason has to do with demographics: something like 75% of practicing academic philosophers are white men, and 10% or so are white women. That lack of representation among faculty often dissuades people of color and women from participating in academic philosophy. Another reason is lack of diversity in what is taught at major universities (both with respect to content, such as restricting material to major topics in analytic philosophy, as well as the philosophers discussed in classes, who by and large tend to be white men). Moreover, academic philosophers tend to continue teaching throughout most of their lives. So there are many prominent philosophers who are just from a different time period, and tend to be less cognizant of the need to be inclusive than the younger generation. Also, I think the rigor of academic philosophy allows for an environment where it is permissible to be dismissive of unorthodox views/dissenting voices. This is something that's sure to vary from place to place, but I think this a problem in the culture of academic philosophy. I've seen undergraduates talking over other voices in the classroom, especially undergraduates who are women and people of color. I've seen undergraduates talk over graduate students, or even professors, who are women or people of color. I've also heard of philosophers from diverse backgrounds getting hate mail because they are minorities (even explicitly). It's hard not to notice these things, and it's very clear what impact it has on people from these groups, even if actions like these are unintentional. And I know plenty people of color and women in philosophy (from various departments) who have felt unwelcome in academic philosophy for various reasons.

Those are some reasons why I don't think it's plausible to say that philosophy is very inclusive as things stand. For if it were, we should be seeing much more participation from people of color and women. Organizations like MAP are fighting the good fight, but there's a lot of work to be done to make philosophy more inclusive. 
With all of that said, I don't get the sense that philosophy is generally vicious in the way OP was asking about. I just think it can be vicious in different respects. I hope this clarifies what I meant @Rose-Colored Beetle & @loffire.

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.     

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.     

I respect your view. In my view though it’s useful as one data point among many. An otherwise stellar applicant could still get in despite a lower score. 
Also I don’t think many people sit and memorize a bunch of words for the GRE. This is not an effective tactic anyways. Rather, people who score higher in this area tend to be those who read a lot over many long years. Moreover, these are words that an academic should be familiar with. 
Lastly, what’s wrong with a multiple choice exam? Seems pretty objective to me. I think there should be at least one purely objective metric with which to compare 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. 

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. 

A few days ago I was accepted to Memorial University of Newfoundland's PhD program off the wait-list. IMMENSELY relieved, since I did the unwise thing and put all my eggs in one basket.  Guess that makes my applied:acceptance ratio pretty good!  But joking aside, pretty stoked. Full funding ($20k/year), plus paid GAships to start.  I can't wait.  As far as Canadian schools go, MUN is one of the best for continental philosophy.

Accepted to Johns Hopkins off the waitlist.

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. 

I'm not completely sure at this juncture, but I'm leaning toward not reapplying next year and instead fully committing to exploring non-academic employment for a year or two, and then reevaluating whether or not I want to apply again. There are other career paths open to me that I think I could be happy pursuing, and they would have much better pay and better long-term job prospects than graduate school in philosophy. When I was an undergraduate, I had a hard time imagining being satisfied with anything other than a pure life of the mind. Now that I have been out of college for six months, and have participated in multiple internships and become familiar with my various career options, I can imagine myself being satisfied doing other things. Perhaps as I gain experience I'll realize that I won't actually be satisfied over the long-term in non-academic employment, but I don't have much evidence of that at this point.
In addition, I think the application process has made me much more viscerally aware of just how competitive academic philosophy is in 2018. It seems you need a near-publishable writing sample to just to be accepted into a graduate program, and from what I've read the expectations only get higher from there in graduate school and on the job market. While going into this process I understood that level of competitiveness intellectually, I don't think I really had internalized it at a gut level. Now I have. I love philosophy,  and I think I have the potential to be successful in academic philosophy, but I really wonder if I love it enough to actually do what it would take to succeed in graduate school and the academic job market. 
I do intend to keep reading philosophy, and perhaps doing some amateur philosophical writing myself, regardless of what I do.