MattDest

Great to hear about your success. I don't know that this would separate you from others on this forum. I think we all love what we're studying (at least, most of the time), otherwise we'd be doing something else. We're not in it for the job prospects, at least. 

Agreed - and UMSL which also has a pretty good placement record the last couple of years. 

You're excluding the CSUs. SFSU in particular has had very strong placement in the last few years that compares quite favorably with the programs you're discussing. 

Since people interested in MA programs might be looking at this thread, I wanted to update the Georgia State information for this year. Several people recently got off of waitlists, and--barring last-minute acceptances I haven't yet heard of--here is what I think is GSU's 2014 placement record:
 
Stanford,  Indiana University, Columbia, University of Pennsylvania, Boston University, University of Miami, University of Missouri, and Western Ontario

You've posted 360 times--you can hardly expect us to have read all of them. There are a lot of threads and posts here. You seemed especially anxious to hear from UCLA, but it was odd given the context of your T-5 offer and your negative attitude toward the department. We asked sensible questions--no reason to get defensive. Your position (now) makes sense--thanks for clarifying. Would you accept at UCLA if you received an offer?

I've answered this multiple times in multiple threads. I am in a 2 body problem and one body didn't get in there, but got in at other great schools in the same cities that I received offers from lower ranked programs. LA would be one of those cities. Also, funding is relevant.
 
 
Can I not be frustrated at the bureaucracy and decision speed of these applications but still see it is a good option for myself and my fiancee to study for the next 5+ years?

If that's your attitude toward UCLA, why not just accept the other offer? 

Finally, this process is over. As of this morning, I'm going to Northwestern. 

After much deliberation, I've accepted Missouri's offer, declined UC Santa Barbara's, and will be declining Loyola's soon. It was an agonizing process because I loved so many things about both UCSB and MIzzou. But, in the end, I believe the latter program is the best fit for me. Best of luck to those who are wait listed at the former, and congrats to everyone on their decisions! I sure as hell am glad for this process to be over.

If you plan on transferring out of USF, then just go with GSU. If you want to get an MA and then go to another PhD, you might as well go with the one that will give you best odds.
 
One thing you have to weigh into this is how competitive you care to be in the job market. Is doing philosophy worth it to you if you end up adjuncting (not that adjuncting is inevitable, but it's not an unlikely worst case scenario)? If not*, it's best to take the route that offers the most likely best case scenario (even if that scenario isn't likely) especially because you only suffer two years of opportunity cost at GSU. If you don't care to be competitive on the job market, but want to be sure you get a PhD then USF is definitely the option you want to go with. 
 
*- And assuming you're not ok with spending 5-7 years on a PhD only to find work outside of philosophy.

It's official--going to Penn!! (I gave up on waiting for UCLA any longer...)

Thanks dude. It's great that you get the opportunity to go to a place like Arizona, especially considering the proximity to your family and all. Most of us did pretty well, all things considered.

UCLA.   Sorry to all of you who are still waiting, but I accepted my offer today.

While the highly subjective aspect of polls like this is a problem, I think the bigger problem is that most of us don't know very much about these departments. One of the good things about the PGR is that these faculty have tons of experience in the field, and know about the reputation of various departments. New and prospective graduate students aren't the best people to poll about the quality of graduate programs. 
 
Polls are useful when the target population is well-informed. 

I think you'll be doing yourself and your department a great disservice if you go into the program making these sorts of calculations. You should take the courses that you're most interested in and in which you think you'll produce the best work. You're not going to get into a good PhD program just because you took classes with well-known professors. 

On another note, that makes so much sense about my situation. I was probably viewed as overqualified at every school I applied to. I am pretty sure they viewed my application and said that this person should already apply to a tenure-track position. I am not sh*t after all . 

While the highly subjective aspect of polls like this is a problem, I think the bigger problem is that most of us don't know very much about these departments. One of the good things about the PGR is that these faculty have tons of experience in the field, and know about the reputation of various departments. New and prospective graduate students aren't the best people to poll about the quality of graduate programs. 
 
Polls are useful when the target population is well-informed. 

I don't think it is the case that we have full access to the placement records of MA programs. At least, not all such placement records are equally transparent. Take for instance, the placement records of UWM and GSU. Whereas UWM indicates the school at which each student enrolled, GSU indicates the school(s) at which each student was accepted as well as the one at which he or she ultimately enrolled. Sure, UWM also lists all the schools at which any student in the program was accepted. But, for any given year, it is possible, as far as one can tell by looking just at the placement record, that those additional acceptances were received by just one student. Yet, it seems, to me at least, that how widely distributed students' acceptances are for a given year makes a significant difference when it comes to evaluating these sorts of programs. And, just taking a quick peek, it looks as though at least Tufts and Brandeis provide just the same sort of info as UWM.
 
Even after having graduated from one of the programs listed and spoken with some students from most of the others, I still don't feel confident that I know enough to rank the programs in any helpful way.

Introduce yourself in an email and ask to schedule a meeting with them. 

I just turned down funded offers from Arizona State and Iowa. Hope that helps somebody!

I just turned down funded offers from Arizona State and Iowa. Hope that helps somebody!

I just turned down funded offers from Arizona State and Iowa. Hope that helps somebody!

I'd like to toot UMSL's horn a bit as far as funding goes. The funding situation is decent - a full tuition waiver, and I think it's now up to ~$9k a year for most students. We didn't have an extensive placement record this year (only 2 applied to PhD programs, more applied to and all were accepted into law programs), but I had a pretty good showing and the other person got accepted into Marquette. 

The Ultimate Warrior, obviously.

I just looked at Talbot's MA program curriculum, and I have to say I'm rather astounded. I can't be the only one who thinks this sort of thing is not good for philosophy as a discipline. The course descriptions read like adult education classes at the local church. Here is a description of one of the courses for the MA ("Spiritual Direction"): 
 
"A personal experience is required in Spiritual Direction at the Center for Spiritual Renewal at ISF. Course provides students the opportunity to explore their life of prayer and growth with a trained mentor or spiritual director from the Institute for Spiritual Formation."
 
Uh, OK.
 
Here's another (Phil. Anthropology and Phil Mind): 
 
"A study and defense of the existence and nature of the soul, the reality of disembodied existence, the nature of human action, and issues in personal identity. Various models of human nature will be investigated (dualism, behaviorism, functionalism, the identity thesis, eliminative materialism), as well as their implications or ethics."
 
I can't imagine going to a graduate level seminar that identified its purpose as defending the nature and existence of the soul. This sounds like apologetics 101. I'm roughly familiar with Talbot because William Lane Craig (not a fan), but I didn't expect the MA program to be quite so radical.