Acceptance Thread

[DHumeDominates]

 I see. So you were informed of your exact position on the list? I am just curious, as this relates to the other thread. If I am to get a wait-list offer some place, I'll want to know if it is appropriate to ask about where I am ranked. And I am still unsure of how unranked wait-lists function. Any one know or have a guess?

 

Regarding your first question, I don't know my exact position, no. But I was told that I am "near the top" of the wait list, from which it follows that the wait list is ranked.

[Platonist]

Same here! Any word on funding or did you get the same generic acceptance letter?

 

congrats on your acceptance! Do you think the program is a good fit for your interests? Most of your interests sound a bit unusual (Marxism, critical race theory, heuristics, etc.), does that program have people in these subfields? 

[Platonist]

congrats on your acceptance! Do you think the program is a good fit for your interests? Most of your interests sound a bit unusual (Marxism, critical race theory, heuristics, etc.), does that program have people in these subfields? 

 I am asking this because I am not sure what should be counted as good fit. I noticed that one of your AOI is social and political philosophy. This is a quite common area and should be a good fit for that program that offers you acceptance. But your other interests (Marxism, critical race theory, heuristics) seem unusual, and few philosophy programs here in the US offer training in these areas. But you still get an offer from Binghamton, SUNY (if I am not wrong). So I am confused about it. To what extent a fit should be called good? Any thoughts from anyone are welcome. 

Edited February 22, 2014 by Platonist

[bar_scene_gambler]

My status is still "In Review" on UT Austin's website. What am I to take away from that?

[philosophe]

Hey all, has anyone else still heard nothing from Indiana?

 

I assume that means I made the first cut but didn't make the second, and they just haven't gotten around to emailing me my rejection. I just wanted to see if there was anyone else in the same boat.

[Zukunftsmusik]

Hey all, has anyone else still heard nothing from Indiana?

 

I assume that means I made the first cut but didn't make the second, and they just haven't gotten around to emailing me my rejection. I just wanted to see if there was anyone else in the same boat.

Well, I hope it's not the case that they just haven't gotten around to emailing rejections. I hope they're waiting to see the reception their acceptance and wait list offers receive. I'm likely to forego my spot on the wait list (fwiw). I hope that helps!

[philosophe]

Well, I hope it's not the case that they just haven't gotten around to emailing rejections. I hope they're waiting to see the reception their acceptance and wait list offers receive. I'm likely to forego my spot on the wait list (fwiw). I hope that helps!

 

Thanks! It's just a weird position to be in when accepts, rejects, and waitlists have already gone out. I'm attempting to have patience... but that's not really happening.

[Monadology]

Congrats to the Pitt offers!

[Platonist]

Any word on if and when Rochester release wait-list? Seems that it will have a tiny body of graduate students.  

[philosophe]

Any word on if and when Rochester release wait-list? Seems that it will have a tiny body of graduate students.  

 

Not sure about the WL, but I've confirmed they're only looking to fill two spots this year. Talk about tiny.

 

Does anyone know if Brown will have a waitlist? Apparently they didn't have one last year.

Edited February 22, 2014 by philosophe

[TheVineyard]

Here is my thought on the GRE. Doing well on the GRE shows that you are dedicated to a task. It shows that you care. If you get an epic score on your GREs, you are the kind of person who is willing to dedicate a bunch of time to something in order to succeed. So, the way I view it, answering questions on the GRE really doesn't have anything to do with how genuinely good you are at critically reasoning or writing philosophical prose or communicating ideas. Instead, answering questions correctly shows that you were serious, you dedicated time to learning the tricks, etc. Maybe THAT is the part that correlates with graduate work.

Well, what does this position imply? Reaching Master's League in Starcraft 2 is also a feat that requires serious problem solving and massive time investments, massive amounts of studying, etc...so that probably includes all of the same skills (plus some limited physical ability, but that is such a minor part of it).

TL;DR: All hail our mighty gamer overlords.

[greencoloredpencil]

Here is my thought on the GRE. Doing well on the GRE shows that you are dedicated to a task. It shows that you care. If you get an epic score on your GREs, you are the kind of person who is willing to dedicate a bunch of time to something in order to succeed. So, the way I view it, answering questions on the GRE really doesn't have anything to do with how genuinely good you are at critically reasoning or writing philosophical prose or communicating ideas. Instead, answering questions correctly shows that you were serious, you dedicated time to learning the tricks, etc. Maybe THAT is the part that correlates with graduate work.

Well, what does this position imply? Reaching Master's League in Starcraft 2 is also a feat that requires serious problem solving and massive time investments, massive amounts of studying, etc...so that probably includes all of the same skills (plus some limited physical ability, but that is such a minor part of it).

TL;DR: All hail our mighty gamer overlords.

 

But this fails to account for students who simply have a poor aptitude for standardized tests. Some students just don't read as fast or work as fast and this doesn't mean that they're any less qualified to be graduate students. Other students have disabilities that make taking the GRE very difficult--and are you aware of the "accommodations" they make in such cases? They don't solve much in certain cases. 

 

So even if the idea is to measure how dedicated someone is to a particular task (albeit a pretty expensive and useless task) it still unfairly puts some students at a disadvantage. 

[Weltgeist]

Here is my thought on the GRE. Doing well on the GRE shows that you are dedicated to a task. It shows that you care. If you get an epic score on your GREs, you are the kind of person who is willing to dedicate a bunch of time to something in order to succeed. So, the way I view it, answering questions on the GRE really doesn't have anything to do with how genuinely good you are at critically reasoning or writing philosophical prose or communicating ideas. Instead, answering questions correctly shows that you were serious, you dedicated time to learning the tricks, etc. Maybe THAT is the part that correlates with graduate work.

Well, what does this position imply? Reaching Master's League in Starcraft 2 is also a feat that requires serious problem solving and massive time investments, massive amounts of studying, etc...so that probably includes all of the same skills (plus some limited physical ability, but that is such a minor part of it).

TL;DR: All hail our mighty gamer overlords.

if what they want to measure is the ability to commit oneself and be serious, I think there are other measures thereof that are far more accessible and accurate, namely, the entirety of one's undergraduate career, or really, the entirety of one's application is meant to speak to that.  And that sort of commitment that THAT evinces is not a blind and instrumental commitment but one driven by earnest intellectual interest and passion. So this justification fails.

[dgswaim]

My status is still "In Review" on UT Austin's website. What am I to take away from that?

My status is identical to yours. I take it to mean nothing, really, except that probably no offer is forthcoming.

[ungerdrag]

Here is my thought on the GRE. Doing well on the GRE shows that you are dedicated to a task. It shows that you care. If you get an epic score on your GREs, you are the kind of person who is willing to dedicate a bunch of time to something in order to succeed. So, the way I view it, answering questions on the GRE really doesn't have anything to do with how genuinely good you are at critically reasoning or writing philosophical prose or communicating ideas. Instead, answering questions correctly shows that you were serious, you dedicated time to learning the tricks, etc. Maybe THAT is the part that correlates with graduate work.

Well, what does this position imply? Reaching Master's League in Starcraft 2 is also a feat that requires serious problem solving and massive time investments, massive amounts of studying, etc...so that probably includes all of the same skills (plus some limited physical ability, but that is such a minor part of it).

TL;DR: All hail our mighty gamer overlords.

 

I've talked to a former department chair of a top 20 program about this. He found that high GREs correlated with grad school success and believed that this was the reason.

 

Now, if you didn't do as well as you'd have liked on the GRE, but are pretty sure that you're able to motivate yourself to study, then you can rest easy knowing that your score doesn't really reflect your strength as a student. But suppose you didn't do well on the GRE, and you didn't even study for it. That's maybe a sign that academia isn't for you—at least not until you improve your study habits!

 

If you neither studied for nor aced the GRE, you may want to read some psychology articles and try out some productivity techniques. (Example: make a vow that you'll write a paragraph a day, or else you'll donate $50 to an organization you loathe.)

[ungerdrag]

I should add: the former chair I talked to didn't have an enormous sample, so take what I said with a grain of salt. 

Edited February 22, 2014 by ungerdrag

[Ryura]

So, is it safe to assume that Fordham hasn't sent out Ph.D. acceptances yet? Looks like they're probably my last hope.

[Sophist]

What the heck does that recent Harvard post mean? Is that the Harvard adcom telling us to disregard all of the recent posts from Harvard?

[Ryura]

What the heck does that recent Harvard post mean? Is that the Harvard adcom telling us to disregard all of the recent posts from Harvard?

But there aren't any recent posts from Harvard.

[v_e_r000]

But there aren't any recent posts from Harvard.

 

I'm confused

[TheVineyard]

But there aren't any recent posts from Harvard.

 

The guy got accepted to Harvard. Obviously he is qualified to tell us that most recent posts in general from all schools are fraudulent. The waitlists to Fordham, the rejections to Virginia, acceptances to Western Ontario....they're all fraudulent. Harvard told him so in his acceptance letter, and who are we to doubt someone who got accepted to Harvard?

Edited February 22, 2014 by TheVineyard

[Sophist]

I'm confused

Me too. Why would Harvard send acceptances via postal service? That doesn't sound very efficient.

[Circle of Fourths]

The guy got accepted to Harvard. Obviously he is qualified to tell us that most recent posts in general from all schools are fraudulent. The waitlists to Fordham, the rejections to Virginia, acceptances to Western Ontario....they're all fraudulent. Harvard told him so in his acceptance letter, and who are we to doubt someone who got accepted to Harvard?

 

This guy gets it. 

[humean_skeptic]

The guy got accepted to Harvard. Obviously he is qualified to tell us that most recent posts in general from all schools are fraudulent. The waitlists to Fordham, the rejections to Virginia, acceptances to Western Ontario....they're all fraudulent. Harvard told him so in his acceptance letter, and who are we to doubt someone who got accepted to Harvard?

 

I laughed out loud. 

[AcademicX]

So, is it safe to assume that Fordham hasn't sent out Ph.D. acceptances yet? Looks like they're probably my last hope.

I think we can assume that. 6 waitlists and 0 acceptances in the Results page seems to imply that they've only gone through the waitlist. However, I think it's weird that they would release the waitlist before their acceptances. Shouldn't they already know who they are accepting if they have already determine the waitlist?