2021 Rejection Thread

[PHILOKEV]

1 hour ago, aristotleonchipotle said:

The same fucking people. They are the only ones who are actually worthy of doing philosophy and rest of us are just pieces of shit? I wonder if philosophy will ever be able to get rid of its elitism

Perhaps the prospective applicants who gain admission at the very least have a self-awareness to understand within themselves the onset of cognitive discomfort relevant the injury of rejection.  This self-awareness defines the philosopher.  There is nothing wrong with being the second, third, or fourth to be offered the part in this film, so just chill a bit.  Stymie the cognitive spectacle and stay hopeful. 

[OatMilkLatte]

On 2/11/2021 at 1:54 AM, Outer Heaven said:

First rejection: Emory 

Same. It was my top choice too. Hits hard.

[OatMilkLatte]

Rejected from Boulder. Not a top choice for me but still sucks. 

[OatMilkLatte]

I suspect I will be rejected from UCLA too considering that they seem to have sent acceptances out. Not surprising, thought it was a bit of a reach even when I applied. 

[Outer Heaven]

1 hour ago, PHILOKEV said:

Perhaps the prospective applicants who gain admission at the very least have a self-awareness to understand within themselves the onset of cognitive discomfort relevant the injury of rejection.  This self-awareness defines the philosopher.  There is nothing wrong with being the second, third, or fourth to be offered the part in this film, so just chill a bit.  Stymie the cognitive spectacle and stay hopeful. 

Such a cope lol

[aristotleonchipotle]

1 hour ago, PolPhil said:

How is it elitist to accept the same people? These people have obviously worked hard and have put together superior writing samples and application packages more generally. I get it, you're disappointed. But you can't go around blaming others.

Edit: It's also not like any programs know which applicants the other programs will be accepting. As far as they know, they're accepting the strongest candidates for their department.

My bad. This was written in the heat of the moment.

Let me clarify: it is elitist in that the people who are accepted to the top departments are going to be proceeding in their philosophical career very well and the rest will just be eliminated, never to be seen again in philosophy academia. I've heard from my professors that I should only aim to apply to top 25 departments since it would be very, very difficult to get a job once you get your PhD in the out-of-top 25 departments. That's what I did. If I was told otherwise, e.g. you can just apply to any departments you'd like depending on your interests, then I wouldn't have done so. I've seen the same set of people be admitted to those top departments that I've applied to and it makes me wonder if I am really worthy of pursuing something in philosophy academia since acceptances to those departments seem to indicate that it is likely that their philosophical aptitude is sufficient enough for them to succeed whereas the rejects probably should reconsider their path. (It is also written so here: https://80000hours.org/career-reviews/philosophy-academia/)Perhaps my statement came from my inferiority complex regarding the strength of my application and philosophical aptitude as a whole. If this sent the wrong message (i.e. blaming those who got accepted) then I apologize.

In addition, your claim implies that the rejected people's writing samples are inferior and we have not worked hard enough for our application packages. We have all obviously worked hard and tried our best to put together writing samples and application packages. Let's not go around and accuse others of their 'inferior' application packages and 'inferior' writing samples. 

Edited February 16, 2021 by aristotleonchipotle
spelling error

[aristotleonchipotle]

1 hour ago, PHILOKEV said:

Perhaps the prospective applicants who gain admission at the very least have a self-awareness to understand within themselves the onset of cognitive discomfort relevant the injury of rejection.  This self-awareness defines the philosopher.  There is nothing wrong with being the second, third, or fourth to be offered the part in this film, so just chill a bit.  Stymie the cognitive spectacle and stay hopeful. 

Definitely easier said than done.

[eleatics]

Everyone's frustrations are valid -- I think tensions are running high right now for many people, and this is an overall very crappy season to be applying. At the same time, any anger directed specifically towards the people being accepted into these programs is probably misplaced lol.

On a different note, I saw someone post a CUNY rejection -- has anyone else heard back from them? 

Edited February 16, 2021 by eleatics

[PolPhil]

18 minutes ago, aristotleonchipotle said:

My bad. This was written in the heat of the moment.

Let me clarify: it is elitist in that the people who are accepted to the top departments are going to be proceeding in their philosophical career very well and the rest will just be eliminated, never to be seen again in philosophy academia. I've heard from my professors that I should only aim to apply to top 25 departments since it would be very, very difficult to get a job once you get your PhD in the out-of-top 25 departments. That's what I did. If I was told otherwise, e.g. you can just apply to any departments you'd like depending on your interests, then I wouldn't have done so. I've seen the same set of people be admitted to those top departments that I've applied to and it makes me wonder if I am really worthy of pursuing something in philosophy academia since acceptances to those departments seem to indicate that it is likely that their philosophical aptitude is sufficient enough for them to succeed whereas the rejects probably should reconsider their path. (It is also written so here: https://80000hours.org/career-reviews/philosophy-academia/)Perhaps my statement came from my inferiority complex regarding the strength of my application and philosophical aptitude as a whole. If this sent the wrong message (i.e. blaming those who got accepted) then I apologize.

In addition, your claim implies that the rejected people's writing samples are inferior and we have not worked hard enough for our application packages. We have all obviously worked hard and tried our best to put together writing samples and application packages. Let's not go around and accuse others of their 'inferior' application packages and 'inferior' writing samples. 

I said that "These people have obviously worked hard and have put together superior writing samples and application packages more generally." It doesn't at all follow from that (remember your philosophy 101!) that others have not worked hard enough on your application packages. Nothing that I said implies anything about anyone other than those who are getting accepted to many programs except that other people's writing samples are inferior. That is probably, by and large, true. That doesn't mean that you cannot be as good or better a philosopher in the future. Technically, it doesn't even mean that you're a worse philosopher now. It just means that you haven't done enough to show your aptitude. The only way to fix that is to improve your sample and try again.

 

Edit: and yes, as much as you may not want to admit it, the fact that someone is getting accepted to multiple top programs is objective evidence (to the extent that there can be such evidence) that their writing sample and application package is better than other people's (and better than mine, for that matter)

Edited February 16, 2021 by PolPhil

[aristotleonchipotle]

1 minute ago, PolPhil said:

I said that "These people have obviously worked hard and have put together superior writing samples and application packages more generally." It doesn't at all follow from that (remember your philosophy 101!) that others have not worked hard enough on your application packages. Nothing that I said implies anything about anyone other than those who are getting accepted to many programs except that other people's writing samples are inferior. That is probably, by and large, true. That doesn't mean that you cannot be as good or better a philosopher in the future. Technically, it doesn't even mean that you're a worse philosopher now. It just means that you haven't done enough to show your aptitude. The only way to fix that is to improve your sample and try again.

You say that nothing you say implies anything about anyone other than those who are getting into many programs and at the same time you say I haven't done enough to show my aptitude, considering the fact that I have been only receiving rejections. Also, I wasn't saying anything about the logical implications of your claim, rather I was saying it makes it sound like you are making claims about those who are rejected, and I see that it is wrong to hinge my post on whatever 'sounds' like it so that is my bad. 

Perhaps this is why I cannot gain admissions to any graduate schools. I do not know my philosophy 101. Fml.

[aristotleonchipotle]

7 minutes ago, PolPhil said:

 

 

Edit: and yes, as much as you may not want to admit it, the fact that someone is getting accepted to multiple top programs is objective evidence (to the extent that there can be such evidence) that their writing sample and application package is better than other people's (and better than mine, for that matter)

Really? Not considering the fact that many more applicants applied this year and there's less spots than usual? You're really going to say that theirs is 'objectively' better? So your writing sample is 'objectively' better than mine since you gained admission to Toronto? 

Edit: Alright, I should stop here for the sake of my mental health (it is making me have panic attacks and anxiety attacks). I concede that your writing sample is probably way better than mine. How else would you have gained admission to a top program? Congratulations. Best of luck for your future endeavors and worst of luck for my future endeavors. 

Edited February 16, 2021 by aristotleonchipotle

[PolPhil]

Just now, aristotleonchipotle said:

You say that nothing you say implies anything about anyone other than those who are getting into many programs and at the same time you say I haven't done enough to show my aptitude, considering the fact that I have been only receiving rejections. Also, I wasn't saying anything about the logical implications of your claim, rather I was saying it makes it sound like you are making claims about those who are rejected, and I see that it is wrong to hinge my post on whatever 'sounds' like it so that is my bad. 

Perhaps this is why I cannot gain admissions to any graduate schools. I do not know my philosophy 101. Fml.

Well I am making claims about those who are rejected; namely, that their writing samples are likely inferior to those who are getting many acceptances. That's a pretty safe inference. It's not an insult. It's up to you how you take it. Are you going to let it get you down, or are you going to let it motivate you. Have you considered asking a successful applicant for their sample, to see what a successful sample looks like? That's what I did last year, and so far it has worked for me.

[PolPhil]

4 minutes ago, aristotleonchipotle said:

Really? Not considering the fact that many more applicants applied this year and there's less spots than usual? You're really going to say that theirs is 'objectively' better? So your writing sample is 'objectively' better than mine since you gained admission to Toronto? 

Edit: Alright, I should stop here for the sake of my mental health (it is making me have panic attacks and anxiety attacks). I concede that your writing sample is probably way better than mine. How else would you have gained admission to a top program? Congratulations. Best of luck for your future endeavors and worst of luck for my future endeavors. 

Again, did you read my comment? Read it to the end and tell me that I'm claiming that my sample was better than yours. Jesus.

And so, if you're getting rejected and other people are getting multiple acceptances, what do you think is the reason? How could you possibly think that your application package is just as good? The fact that admissions are more competitive this year is completely irrelevant. The claim is relational. Their application packages are better.

Edited February 16, 2021 by PolPhil

[MtnDuck]

A gentle reminder that this is the rejection thread.

Admissions are, and always have been, a chaotic shot in the dark for everyone applying with a ton of variables including arbitrary ones like who read the sample, who remembered to show up to the faculty meeting, who is on the admissions committee, etc. in addition to the application itself.

Folks are invited and encouraged to take a look at the conversations from years past on this matter and to take the conversation either to DMs or the venting thread. This isn't the place for it.

L

[HomoLudens]

56 minutes ago, PolPhil said:

Again, did you read my comment? Read it to the end and tell me that I'm claiming that my sample was better than yours. Jesus.

And so, if you're getting rejected and other people are getting multiple acceptances, what do you think is the reason? How could you possibly think that your application package is just as good? The fact that admissions are more competitive this year is completely irrelevant. The claim is relational. Their application packages are better.

I think you are largely right, there are good application portfolios and there are bad ones. The problem I think is that there is no real way to determine objectively just what it means to have a good one or a bad one. Surely having a LOR from a big name is going to help you get ahead in the running. Studying at an Ivy already gives you an advantage in terms of resources, background, and support that can't be found at a small LAC.

Still, there are people (I will include myself) who have worked really hard to produce a quality sample, having it be read by major people in the field, getting feedback, refining it, presenting it at conferences, have it be pending acceptance to a journal, etc. etc. etc.  and to see all of that work be pointless. Admittedly, my interests are fairly niche (Sample on Kant exegesis that a non-scholar probably won't find interesting). It could very well be that the reason I didn't get accepted is because I went too narrow. Who the hell knows.

Am I bad philosopher? Maybe. However, those of you have done a MA at a school with a PhD program probably know quite well that many PhDs are quite poor philosophers. This is my subjective judgement, but in so far as it is anecdotal it illustrates that putting an emphasis on the quality of the individual and their work is hardly the full story. Not everyone who gets into Harvard Yale and Princeton in one cycle are going to be the next Wittgenstein (though they are probably much closer to him than me). 

Sorry for the ramble.

[PolPhil]

Just now, HomoLudens said:

I think you are largely right, there are good application portfolios and there are bad ones. The problem I think is that there is no real way to determine objectively just what it means to have a good one or a bad one. Surely having a LOR from a big name is going to help you get ahead in the running. Studying at an Ivy already gives you an advantage in terms of resources, background, and support that can't be found at a small LAC.

Still, there are people (I will include myself) who have worked really hard to produce a quality sample, having it be read by major people in the field, getting feedback, refining it, presenting it at conferences, have it be pending acceptance to a journal, etc. etc. etc.  and to see all of that work be pointless. Admittedly, my interests are fairly niche (Sample on Kant exegesis that a non-scholar probably won't find interesting). It could very well be that the reason I didn't get accepted is because I went too narrow. Who the hell knows.

Am I bad philosopher? Maybe. However, those of you have done a MA at a school with a PhD program probably know quite well that many PhDs are quite poor philosophers. This is my subjective judgement, but in so far as it is anecdotal it illustrates that putting an emphasis on the quality of the individual and their work is hardly the full story. Not everyone who gets into Harvard Yale and Princeton in one cycle are going to be the next Wittgenstein (though they are probably much closer to him than me). 

Sorry for the ramble.

I agree with you for the most part, but that's a far cry from people getting accepted to top programs + they went to top schools (which, btw, is not true of many of these students) = rampant elitism and the reason why you're not getting acceptances (which I know that you're not saying, but other people on this forum seem to have an unjustified sense of entitlement)

[AkraticAgent]

5 hours ago, Outer Heaven said:

Rejected: UCLA, the same fucking people keep on getting accepted school after school. 

sorry to hear that was it through email or portal? or is it an implied rejection? 

[StringOfSymbols]

Those who reported rejection from CUNY, is the portal spoken about the same place where you made the application and it says when your letter writers submitted the letters?

 

Thanks

[eleatics]

3 minutes ago, StringOfSymbols said:

Those who reported rejection from CUNY, is the portal spoken about the same place where you made the application and it says when your letter writers submitted the letters?

 

Thanks

Yes I believe so! At least this is what people in the fb group are reporting. 

[HomoLudens]

1 hour ago, PolPhil said:

I agree with you for the most part, but that's a far cry from people getting accepted to top programs + they went to top schools (which, btw, is not true of many of these students) = rampant elitism and the reason why you're not getting acceptances (which I know that you're not saying, but other people on this forum seem to have an unjustified sense of entitlement)

I think these people are being very imprecise with the term. If elitism is anything that benefits other people than me viz. circumstances outside of our individual control, then maybe they are right. I personally don't play this game of calling people I don't know "elite", "privileged", etc. It makes things too toxic. 

I opt for depression and self-immolation approach rather than resentment of others' success. 

[somethingwitty]

Rejected from CUNY via portal. Wasn't emailed or nothin'. Shoot dang. 

[somethingwitty]

Oh yeah, and I was rejected from Penn State via email. Rats!

[PhilBlast]

Rejection from Memphis.

I noticed on here someone just got accepted from Oregon in the results page, so I expect that to be my next rejection. I heard on here only one is being taken this year. 

Sorry to bring the bad news for you all.

[Outer Heaven]

Rejected: University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana

At this point I have given up.

[HomoLudens]

Still no word from Stony Brook! Ohh baby I hope this is a good sign.