What is the Upper Bound for Number of PhD Programs to Apply To?

[Loric]

If they knew the right thing to do wouldn't they be getting in..?

 

Because obviously the applicant who did the right thing is the one who gets in.. which cannot be the same thing as done by the other applicants. They don't throw the names in a hat and pick one at random. It's not a lottery.

[SelfHatingPhilosopher]

If they knew the right thing to do wouldn't they be getting in..?

 

No, not at all, given how competitive it is. There's a saying, I forget if a famous philosopher actually said this or if it's just a common thing now said by professors, but: "If I were an undergraduate looking to get into graduate school now, I wouldn't have even gotten in."

[Loric]

Then what is the difference between the accept and not-accepted?

 

C'mon, not everyone is doing the right thing and there had to be something different between the accept and not-accepted. Like I said, there is no lottery.

[axiomness]

No, not at all, given how competitive it is. There's a saying, I forget if a famous philosopher actually said this or if it's just a common thing now said by professors, but: "If I were an undergraduate looking to get into graduate school now, I wouldn't have even gotten in."

I've had several professors tell me this. Earnestly.

 

One was coming from a prof who began the first lecture in his 400-level (Metaphysics) course with the following:

 

"Seriously, I am being serious now, why the F&%* are you all sitting in here? If you can't give me a good answer I'll fail you right now--you'll thank me later when you grow up."

 

Loric: Read this, and it should clear things up. http://schwitzsplinters.blogspot.com/2007/09/applying-to-philosophy-phd-programs.html

Edited December 30, 2013 by axiomness

[SelfHatingPhilosopher]

Then what is the difference between the accept and not-accepted?

 

C'mon, not everyone is doing the right thing and there had to be something different between the accept and not-accepted. Like I said, there is no lottery.

 

Of course not everyone is doing the right thing, but just because you're doing the right thing doesn't mean you get in. Therefore, it is a lottery.

[jamc8383]

Of course not everyone is doing the right thing, but just because you're doing the right thing doesn't mean you get in. Therefore, it is a lottery.

 

Eeee…this is a wee bit reductionist.  I will readily concede that there are some elements in the admissions process that are subjective and beyond our control (basically everything after we hit "send").  But a lottery implies that everyone that buys a ticket (i.e.: pays the application fee) has an equal chance.  I assure you, that is not the case with grad school applications.

[SelfHatingPhilosopher]

Eeee…this is a wee bit reductionist.  I will readily concede that there are some elements in the admissions process that are subjective and beyond our control (basically everything after we hit "send").  But a lottery implies that everyone that buys a ticket (i.e.: pays the application fee) has an equal chance.  I assure you, that is not the case with grad school applications.

 

I'm not saying it's a lottery for everybody. It's a lottery for all those applicants who are equally qualified to be admitted.

[jamc8383]

I'm not saying it's a lottery for everybody. It's a lottery for all those applicants who are equally qualified to be admitted.

 

Still, there are so many ways to maximize your "chances" that the lottery metaphor is problematic.  IMO, at least.  I know we're all prepared to accept varying degrees of "luck" inherent in the admissions process, but, for me, the idea that it's more-or-less a crap-shoot really demeans the amount of work that I put into my application package. It's erroneous to think that everyone that's "equally qualified" has also been equally successful (or worked equally as long and hard) at communicating those qualifications to adcomms.  

 

I'm not trying to be combative.  Again, just my take.  

Edited December 30, 2013 by jamc8383

[SelfHatingPhilosopher]

Still, there are so many ways to maximize your "chances" that the lottery metaphor is problematic.  IMO, at least.  I know we're all prepared to accept varying degrees of "luck" inherent in the admissions process, but, for me, the idea that it's more-or-less a crap-shoot really demeans the amount of work that I put into my application package. It's erroneous to think that everyone that's "equally qualified" has also been equally successful (or worked equally as long and hard) at communicating those qualifications to adcomms.  

 

I'm not trying to be combative.  Again, just my take.  

 

1) It's only erroneous if I think that if some A's are B's then all A's are all B's, which I'm not. All I'm stating is that there are enough B's out there, and you can spell out what a B is however you want (equally qualified, equally successful at communication their qualifications, equally successful at φ-ing their ψ's...), A's are B's such that there are more B's than there are admission spots, and that the difference is not a trivial amount.

 

2a) What's wrong with demeaning yourself? So many facts about your life are the result of you being the effective winner of some sort of game of chance. You might have been required to put in the effort, but effort can only get you so far at times.

 

Applicants need to realize that it is an empirical fact that the applicant cycle is a crap shoot because (1) they need to realize that getting shut out doesn't necessarily mean they're not a perfectly qualified candidate, and (2) they need to realize that even if they somehow knew they were a perfectly qualified candidate, they might still get shut out, and should therefore plan and act accordingly. They need to realize this for pragmatic reasons, as well as perhaps humbling reasons. Did you make it into graduate school? Congratulations. But don't think for a second that there aren't a line of people waiting outside who are as equally qualified as you and who put in as much effort as you.

 

2b) It's not even demeaning though when you think about it. You put in 110% of the work. You physically couldn't do anything more. Well guess what? So did a number of other applicants. As it turns out though, you have to at a bare minimum put in a 110% of the work in order to get admitted. It's not demeaning about your work to say that it's a crap shoot, because you still had to put in a 110% of the work in the first place.

[jamc8383]

 

Applicants need to realize that it is an empirical fact that the applicant cycle is a crap shoot 

 

Agree to disagree.

[Loric]

There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding.

 

Effort != Quality.

 

My statement was that if the candidates were capable of producing "meaningful" work in the field then there would be more positions in the field and more slots for everyone. A small portion of the candidates are capable of producing meaningful work and the available positions reflect that.

 

The schools do not throw names into a hat and pick out ones at random. They pick people based on whatever reasons they choose. The candidates are not equal in their eyes.

 

Someone giving 110% will not yield the same output as someone else giving 110% due to sheer individualism.. but one of those two people will produce more at 110% than the other. That person is admitted, the other is not.

[SelfHatingPhilosopher]

There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding.

 

Effort != Quality.

 

Speak for yourself.

 

As I've said before, you can hash out the definitions all you want, but it doesn't change anything. I'm not saying effort equals quality, just like I wasn't saying all equally qualified applicants are equally successful in communicating their qualifications.

[Loric]

People don't live identical lives - no one is "equally qualified."

[SelfHatingPhilosopher]

People don't live identical lives - no one is "equally qualified."

 

I'm sure philosophy departments across the world then would be relieved to know how to rank applicants when so, so many of them appear to be on perfectly equal grounds.