jamc8383

I don't really understand the conflict here.  Why could you not do both?
 
My process is as follows: Complete paper, present paper at a conference, get feedback, make revisions according to said feedback, submit paper for publication.  Moreover, you can add another step in there: after completing revisions, workshop the paper at another conference and then submit to journals.  Presenting and publishing are not mutually exclusive; they can (and, I believe, should) reinforce one another.

I got it too.  Sad, but predictable.
 
 
Well, this doesn't bode well for me.  Thanks for sharing.  Looks like I will likely be headed to Madison.  

I can say this: one of the adcomm members at OSU informed my advisor that they wouldn't be doing a waitlist, so--for better or for worse--those of us who still have applications "pending" should know the deal by the end of next week.  

Beyond what's been posted, I haven't heard anything one way or the other; but it's likely.  I mean, last year people were posting acceptances for OSU through Weds of next week.  It looks like what we might call "the second round" came on the 28th last year.

I can say this: one of the adcomm members at OSU informed my advisor that they wouldn't be doing a waitlist, so--for better or for worse--those of us who still have applications "pending" should know the deal by the end of next week.  

I am going to politely disagree.  Recognizing the problem, acknowledging the problem is the first step to overcoming the problem.  
 
When someone wonders aloud if women steer clear of a discipline because they are "intimidated" or bemoans the fact that someone in a dress will be taken "less seriously" than someone in pants, that's (unacknowledged) internalized misogyny.  In a blink of an eye, one is following a chain of signification that goes: dress signifies woman signifies emotional (read: not serious) that stands in contrast to an oppositional chain that goes: pant signifies man signifies rational (read: serious).  One has to recognize and deconstruct these misogynistic associations for him/herself if we're ever to see an end (god, wouldn't it be amazing) of misogyny.

Good idea.  I'll start a "Results" sub-forum. 

Thought I'd start a separate thread (on zephyr's advice) for us to post/question admission results.  

I got to read one.  It was very complimentary and "urged" the adcomm to admit me.  
 
Some insight into my application mania: The recommender wrote that there was "no other current student more suited for study in a phD program" and I was like, current?  Don't you mean, in all of history, ever?
 
This process does insane things to the mind. 

I am going to politely disagree.  Recognizing the problem, acknowledging the problem is the first step to overcoming the problem.  
 
When someone wonders aloud if women steer clear of a discipline because they are "intimidated" or bemoans the fact that someone in a dress will be taken "less seriously" than someone in pants, that's (unacknowledged) internalized misogyny.  In a blink of an eye, one is following a chain of signification that goes: dress signifies woman signifies emotional (read: not serious) that stands in contrast to an oppositional chain that goes: pant signifies man signifies rational (read: serious).  One has to recognize and deconstruct these misogynistic associations for him/herself if we're ever to see an end (god, wouldn't it be amazing) of misogyny.

I'd email the POI with something to the effect of, "Professor X spoke to me and encouraged me to contact you about my interest..."
 
And than give two or three paragraphs about your interest in that specific program.

Oh, man.  Here we go...

I got to read one.  It was very complimentary and "urged" the adcomm to admit me.  
 
Some insight into my application mania: The recommender wrote that there was "no other current student more suited for study in a phD program" and I was like, current?  Don't you mean, in all of history, ever?
 
This process does insane things to the mind. 

I don't really understand the conflict here.  Why could you not do both?
 
My process is as follows: Complete paper, present paper at a conference, get feedback, make revisions according to said feedback, submit paper for publication.  Moreover, you can add another step in there: after completing revisions, workshop the paper at another conference and then submit to journals.  Presenting and publishing are not mutually exclusive; they can (and, I believe, should) reinforce one another.

Submit.  Recommenders' will be forgiven their tardiness; you won't.  

Yale admissions opened the earliest (of the programs to which I applied), on August 15th.  Princeton, UMich and UChicago admissions opened in September and I believe that the other state schools followed in late September/early October.  Beginning in the summer, schools will start to post dates for online application availability (some will be very vague and unhelpful, like "fall 2014"), but having a (sometimes rough) idea of when your programs open, will help you with planning; you can work on applications here-and-there, rather than trying to do several at once.  
 
Since you can save your progress on the online applications, I started them as soon as they were available, then I uploaded transcripts, WS and SOP over the course of the fall semester.  Then I just reviewed the application (adding in any recent/updated information) and hit send.  I did a lot of work on the front end of the application process and it paid off.  I got all of mine submitted three to four weeks prior to the deadlines, which was super helpful because there was plenty of time for my scores, transcripts and LORs to get matched up and there was no "Oh-my-god-my-application-is-still-marked-as-incomplete-and-the-deadline's-in-two-days" stress.  
 
I would say that in doing the actual online application, it probably took me about an hour and a half per app (followed by a final review prior to submission).  
Hope that helps 

I kind of can't believe this conversation is still happening.

I kind of can't believe this conversation is still happening.

Guys, I looked over Loric's posting history, and went through old threads. First, Loric is probably a pathological liar, as well as fairly obvious troll. For example, I can't decide if Loric is a she or a he, as the information seems to be contradictory, also there are many accounts of stories that could only be true in some fantasy world, as well as obvious troll threads, like my personal favorite, one about 'grad bang buddies'. As is the best way to treat trolls, we should just leave her/him and their my little pony loving self alone. We have seen already that she/he does not act with reason, nor is susceptible to it, so it's best to leave it alone.

Don't footnote it; include it in the actual body. Pointing out specific articles and books that are highly relevant to your studies and have proven useful in the writing of your thesis (for example) helps them understand what sort of scholarship you're looking to do with the department.

I don't think it has to do with the economy. The reason I say that is because, were it just the economy, I don't think we would see much of a rise in philosophy admissions. When people lose their jobs due to a poor economy, what do they do? They go back to college to make themselves more employable. Philosophy, as a general rule, is not a program of study employers look for. My guess is that dramatic rises in applications due to the economy occur in fields like computer science, engineering, and other STEM fields, not philosophy. Sure, there may be some who find their calling and give up on employability, but I doubt very much that the dramatic rise in applications is to people finding their passion.

I think the rise in applications is due to a shrinking environment in philosophy. Many smaller departments, especially small state-funding departments, are closing shop or being merged with other departments like Religion Studies (a travesty if there ever was one). The big-names and well respected departments are generally safe, but even then that's not universally true. So, what you're left with is the same, or maybe even a smaller, number of applicants applying for a gradually shrinking number of positions. Year after year, those denied will apply to a greater number of departments, or perhaps they will apply to other departments, or perhaps better departments looking for placement. Thus, it will show a rise in applications, even with a growing economy.

This is all purely speculative of course, but I think it accounts for the general trend in applications, despite the improving economy. 

Full disclosure: I am in my last semester at a terminal MA, so what I say here is likely to be colored by that fact. 
 
I'm wary of the claim that the popularization of an MA disenfranchises poor students (especially given many other MA students that I have met) Many of the people that are served by MA institutions are (1) people who came to philosophy rather late, or from another discipline and (2) people who went to relatively unknown or smaller schools. Many of the people in group (2) come from disenfranchised backgrounds (which is why they didn't end up at a notable program to begin with), and the MA serves as a sort of equalizer. 
 
I don't think that MA programs are burdensome in some way that undergraduate tuition isn't. Most MA programs will give people tuition remission, insurance, and a small stipend (many offers are around $10k a year). Unless you were offered an incredibly generous undergraduate stipend - you probably didn't make money taking undergraduate classes. So, why are MA programs being singled out as disenfranchising the poor when it seems that the undergraduate level is - usually - much worse? 
 
There are a few things an MA does well that shouldn't be overlooked. The first is that it gives you a sense of what a PhD program might be like, but without the long-term commitment. It gives potential philosophers a chance to "test the waters" at graduate school, and decide if they really want to devote the next 5-7 years of their life to this sort of study. Second, it provides you with graduate-level preparation that might be lacking at smaller, unheard of philosophy departments. If you went to Small City Community College and then transferred to Small City State University - you might not have had a background sufficient for beginning graduate school. A terminal MA at a respectable institution can provide that. 
 
I find these claims that getting an MA before getting a PhD is "demeaning" and that MA programs are just "training programs" to be absolutely mistaken. There is nothing demeaning about getting an MA from a respectable program. It doesn't mean that you weren't "ready" to go to a PhD program right off the bat - just that the dice didn't roll your way. Also, while MA programs do spend non-class time helping people with the professional aspects of the profession (the importances of things like journals/conferences, pedagogy, etc. - which are really important, by the way), it has not been even remotely close to the focus of my program. I see no reason that this would become a trend if MA institutions were to become more popular. 
 

The "results search" function of TGC is very helpful in this respect.  Sort for your discipline and you can see the date ranges in which people were getting admissions decisions for each of your programs last year.  I would presume universities will hold to roughly the same schedule for this admissions cycle.  Why not, right?
 
For instance, for the universities to which I'm applying (History Phd programs), all acceptances went out between January 24th and February 21st.  Ohio State sent out acceptances between January 24th and January 29th, Princeton, between February 7th and February 8th, and so on.  I don't know that this range would necessarily be consistent for Philosophy programs (or for the schools to which you've applied, in particular), but the methodology should hold.  Might as well take a look at the data from last year, at least you can plan when to panic, instead of existing in a heightened state of anxiety for the next month and a half 
 
Hope that helps.

The "results search" function of TGC is very helpful in this respect.  Sort for your discipline and you can see the date ranges in which people were getting admissions decisions for each of your programs last year.  I would presume universities will hold to roughly the same schedule for this admissions cycle.  Why not, right?
 
For instance, for the universities to which I'm applying (History Phd programs), all acceptances went out between January 24th and February 21st.  Ohio State sent out acceptances between January 24th and January 29th, Princeton, between February 7th and February 8th, and so on.  I don't know that this range would necessarily be consistent for Philosophy programs (or for the schools to which you've applied, in particular), but the methodology should hold.  Might as well take a look at the data from last year, at least you can plan when to panic, instead of existing in a heightened state of anxiety for the next month and a half 
 
Hope that helps.