Acceptance Thread

[dgswaim]

Dear 2015 applicants, here is what we have learned from the 2014 season: Write on Hume. GG,

I've written about Hume zero times. Read him in Hist Phil II... appears I'm shit out of luck.

[zblaesi]

From a quick glance, what you submitted doesn't look bad. Sometimes you just have shit luck, regardless of possible qualifications.

 

The thing I'd worry most about is your letters. Are you sure that your letter writers wrote you great letters? Did they reach out to people to help you along with applications? These types of connections are the most important part of an application (in my opinion), and will continue to be important throughout your career.

 

I mean, I've known Sharon for about a year. I got an A in her undergraduate course, and then I completed an independent study with her, in addition to visiting one of her grad courses for a number of sessions. She knew me very well. I prepared a folder to help her with the writing process, which included a "brag sheet" about my accomplishments, past papers (from her course and other courses), my transcripts, my statement of purpose, and so on.

 

Robert Hopkins didn't know me as well, but I got an A in his graduate course, despite his warning that it would be very difficult. I was one of the most active students in class, and he told me that he enjoyed my comments. He told me personally that I was writing on a graduate level, and that he would be surprised if I didn't get into a few programs. I also shared info with him to help him write his letter, and he read my writing sample.

 

My weakest letter is probably Wright's. I took an undergrad course with him and got an A. I was probably one of the top three best students in that course. Unfortunately, he went on sabbatical immediately after, and I was resigned to email correspondence. I continued contacting him with questions related to my research, and he read my writing sample. He didn't request any additional materials to write my letter, claiming that he "had all he needed."

So, I'd be surprised if I didn't have at least two strong letters, and I doubt Wright implicated anything negative.

 

I think my letters could have been better, but I'm a transfer student and was at NYU for only two years. I was also a double major in Tisch for the the Film & TV program, so I was very limited in the courses I could take, and my workload was probably double of the average philosophy student. (Producing a movie while doing an independent study is not fun.)

 

I don't know what you mean about reaching out to people. Can you elaborate?

 

Granted, I was very proactive. I basically contacted every philosopher in metaethics I could think of, looking for feedback. People who have read and commented on my paper: Michael Gill (UArizona), Joshua Knobe (Yale), Richard Joyce (Victoria University of Wellington), Sharon Street (obviously), Robert Hopkins (obviously), Crispin Wright (obviously), Stephen Schiffer (NYU), and Derek Parfit (Oxford). (I'm really surprised I didn't get into UArizona given the relationship I formed with Michael Gill.)

I guess my biggest regret is that I can now see the pitfalls of my paper, and I wish Sharon had been harder on me earlier on. I've been working on this paper in various stages for nearly a year. And what seemed like an interesting question at the start now seems quite uninteresting. I think the biggest lesson I learned is choosing the right sort of advisor in developing a sample. I believe Schiffer would have been better to consult earlier on because he is very critical and doesn't sugar coat things. I just got off to a poor start and didn't realize it until it was too late. My aesthetics paper might have made the better sample, but it was a rough draft within a week of many application deadlines, and I had to make a difficult choice--and I chose metaethics, haha.

 

 

Seriously. I know you won't appreciate this since you're future is hanging on the line here, but from the outside it's incredibly hilarious how fickle/random admissions is.

 

(Not to poopoo on those who got in. You can only get admitted if you're super duper qualified in the first place. It's just that there's so many super duper qualified persons that it does become just a matter of chance at the end.)

 

That's what Sharon told me. She put it like, "It depends on what the adcom ate for breakfast that morning."

Edited March 5, 2014 by zblaesi

[DHumeDominates]

You know, zblaesi, you can submit more than one writing sample. For every application that provided space to upload multiple samples (the majority of the 16 applications I completed), I submitted two.

 

I'm not saying that I'd recommend writing multiple samples, but perhaps it's something to think about.

[PhiPhiPhi]

ZBlaesi - shame to hear that despite those you've gotten no luck. The only time I've met Sharon she was extremely nice, so I imagine she did good by you. I would question Wright's letter though, he is...sometimes sketchy regarding these and other things.

 

An anecdote that may make you feel better: in undergrad I had a very, very smart grad student as my TA; probably the smartest grad I've. He had an MA in philosophy and an MS maths before applying to philosophy PhD programs, and was absurdly clever. Now he has a fancy NSF grant (in a philosophy department no less!) and is exceptional. While I was applying, I asked him about his experience. He apparently only got into two programs, both towards the bottom of the PGR. Later on in his career while he was at professional conferences he asked people about his application at other schools, and they told him that most of the time he got rejected simply because the people on the committee weren't interested in his AOS, or the person who specialises in that on the faculty already had a PhD student. Admissions are in an important sense really just up to chance.

[zblaesi]

I've written about Hume zero times. Read him in Hist Phil II... appears I'm shit out of luck.

I think I was falling asleep in History of Modern Philosophy, or just irritated by the lecturer. Shit.

 

What the hell are Forms, anyway?

[zblaesi]

You know, zblaesi, you can submit more than one writing sample. For every application that provided space to upload multiple samples (the majority of the 16 applications I completed), I submitted two.

 

I'm not saying that I'd recommend writing multiple samples, but perhaps it's something to think about.

 

I should have done that. I wonder if it is worth while to contact the remaining programs and request uploading another sample. I highly doubt that's even an option, but... maybe worth a shot?

[PhiPhiPhi]

I should have done that. I wonder if it is worth while to contact the remaining programs and request uploading another sample. I highly doubt that's even an option, but... maybe worth a shot?

I think that would seem desperate. There have been reports of other people getting contacted and requested to upload another sample. I'd say that if the department wants another sample, they'll request one.

Edited March 5, 2014 by PhiPhiPhi

[zblaesi]

I think that would seem desparate. There have been reports of other people getting contacted and requested to upload another sample. I'd say that if the department wants another sample, they'll request one.

 

Ha, I am pretty desperate.

[v_e_r000]

In case people want to see, here's my writing sample. I spent a pretty long time polishing it. (Except the last two paragraphs of the intro, which were just added last week.) Hope you dig.

 

https://www.academia.edu/6287019/Reason_Passion_and_Conflict_Non-Naturalism_and_Humes_Arguments_in_T_2.3.3

Hey congratulations!!! And thanks for sharing your writing sample.

[Establishment]

That'd make for a great reality TV show. "How desperate are you for a funded PhD spot at NYU?" Bring together a haphazard group of prospective philosophy graduate students and have them commit acts of increasing desperation and depravity on national television. NYU would recuperate the cost of that funded position just from the show's proceeds. It'd be a win-win.

[philosopheme]

You know, zblaesi, you can submit more than one writing sample. For every application that provided space to upload multiple samples (the majority of the 16 applications I completed), I submitted two.

 

I'm not saying that I'd recommend writing multiple samples, but perhaps it's something to think about.

 

The most important piece of advice from my advisers that I ignored was to make a simple personal website, upload a digital copy of my writing sample, and at least two other papers I was proud of (maybe with some polishing), and link to it in my personal statement. Then when you talk about your experience in some field other than the one you wrote your sample in, you can hyperlink to it. As an added bonus, you can see when that page gets visitors and maybe be able to figure out what schools are peeping. This would have been great advice for me to follow because my thesis-turned-writing-sample was a somewhat technical logic paper, but I didn't have the time/energy to polish two more pseudo-samples. And then one school contacted me anyways asking if I had something less technical to share. So I ended up basically having to do this anyways, just in two days instead of six months

 

EDIT: not saying that I think everybody else does this or should do this. but it can't hurt and might be uniform than uploading a second sample. having three pieces of work in different areas that you want to share with grad schools, though, that's not something we're all going to have (i definitely didn't) but if you're worried about your topic and/or you have several solid papers, it can't hurt!

Edited March 5, 2014 by philosopheme

[Hilbert's timequake]

The most important piece of advice from my advisers that I ignored was to make a simple personal website, upload a digital copy of my writing sample, and at least two other papers I was proud of (maybe with some polishing), and link to it in my personal statement. Then when you talk about your experience in some field other than the one you wrote your sample in, you can hyperlink to it. As an added bonus, you can see when that page gets visitors and maybe be able to figure out what schools are peeping. This would have been great advice for me to follow because my thesis-turned-writing-sample was a somewhat technical logic paper, but I didn't have the time/energy to polish two more pseudo-samples. And then one school contacted me anyways asking if I had something less technical to share. So I ended up basically having to do this anyways, just in two days instead of six months

 

EDIT: not saying that I think everybody else does this or should do this. but it can't hurt and might be uniform than uploading a second sample. having three pieces of work in different areas that you want to share with grad schools, though, that's not something we're all going to have (i definitely didn't) but if you're worried about your topic and/or you have several solid papers, it can't hurt!

 

This may be a silly question: but if I want to make a personal website, what is the usual way to do so?

[MattDest]

The most important piece of advice from my advisers that I ignored was to make a simple personal website, upload a digital copy of my writing sample, and at least two other papers I was proud of (maybe with some polishing), and link to it in my personal statement. Then when you talk about your experience in some field other than the one you wrote your sample in, you can hyperlink to it. As an added bonus, you can see when that page gets visitors and maybe be able to figure out what schools are peeping. This would have been great advice for me to follow because my thesis-turned-writing-sample was a somewhat technical logic paper, but I didn't have the time/energy to polish two more pseudo-samples. And then one school contacted me anyways asking if I had something less technical to share. So I ended up basically having to do this anyways, just in two days instead of six months

 

EDIT: not saying that I think everybody else does this or should do this. but it can't hurt and might be uniform than uploading a second sample. having three pieces of work in different areas that you want to share with grad schools, though, that's not something we're all going to have (i definitely didn't) but if you're worried about your topic and/or you have several solid papers, it can't hurt!

 

I didn't get this advice, but I made a personal website and pretty much just put everything that I thought was relevant on it. It was neat to see where people were looking at it from. 

 

This may be a silly question: but if I want to make a personal website, what is the usual way to do so?

 

Google Sites is a pretty easy format to use (and free), Wordpress, Weebly... etc. You could even just use something like Academia.edu. 

[Monadology]

Wow! Big day today. Congrats to all the offers (and waitlists)!

[PhD applicant]

I really appreciate you guys who are willing to share your websites, good and especially the "bad" writing samples with us. It helps us think about all the things we could have done better. And I think we can all use this, even if we get in to where we want. It's still good to know. And you're brave for doing this.

[Platonist]

In case people want to see, here's my writing sample. I spent a pretty long time polishing it. (Except the last two paragraphs of the intro, which were just added last week.) Hope you dig.

 

https://www.academia.edu/6287019/Reason_Passion_and_Conflict_Non-Naturalism_and_Humes_Arguments_in_T_2.3.3

 

It is a really awesome paper, and this explains why it should not be surprised you got in everywhere. 

 

It would be a very difficult choice between NYU and Harvard. NYU is the top philosophy program, but Harvard is much stronger (arguably the strongest) in prestige. Most of people do not have this blessing of trouble

[bar_scene_gambler]

If we're all in the sharing mood, I suppose I could share my writing sample which is apparently pretty awful.

[MattDest]

If we're all in the sharing mood, I suppose I could share my writing sample which is apparently pretty awful.

 

Do it!

[bar_scene_gambler]

Do it!

Oh alright. I'll do it first thing tomorrow morning. Fair warning, it's going to be fairly unorthodox, and after this application season, I'm fairly ashamed of it. 

[Monadology]

Oh alright. I'll do it first thing tomorrow morning. Fair warning, it's going to be fairly unorthodox, and after this application season, I'm fairly ashamed of it. 

 

My first ever writing sample (5 years ago) was a paper on John Stuart Mill 's qualitative hierarchy of pleasures, primarily drawing on Eric Schwitzgebel's work on introspection and an unpublished/incomplete work by Kierkegaard. I say this so you'll know that at least one person isn't going to be judging you, especially regarding how orthodox your writing sample is. 

[MattDest]

I'll put my sample up too, although it's a bit intimidating after reading that Hume paper. 

 

Here's mine. Sorry about the the annoying exclamation points, I can't find the other version that somehow doesn't have those. 

[bar_scene_gambler]

Wow. All of these writing samples are very organized. I just write and don't bother with the subheadings. 

[humean_skeptic]

I'll put my sample up too, although it's a bit intimidating after reading that Hume paper. 

 

Here's mine. Sorry about the the annoying exclamation points, I can't find the other version that somehow doesn't have those. 

 

Thanks for posting your sample. Now I'm feeling left out. Might have to post mine. 

[dgswaim]

Maybe I'll post mine later. I'm afraid few would be sympathetic to my argument, though. The argument is essentially that all naturalistic conceptions of mind collapse into eliminative materialism, and that eliminative materialism doesn't have the necessary resources to maintain a realist construal of science more broadly. So the argument lands upon a disjunctive: reject naturalism and maintain scientific realism, or maintain naturalism and adopt some anti-realist outlook on science.

Edited March 5, 2014 by dgswaim

[TheVineyard]

Maybe I'll post mine later. I'm afraid few would be sympathetic to my argument, though. The argument is essentially that all naturalistic conceptions of mind collapse into eliminative materialism, and that eliminative materialism doesn't have the necessary resources to maintain a realist construal of science more broadly. So the argument lands upon a disjunctive: reject naturalism and maintain scientific realism, or maintain naturalism and adopt some anti-realist outlook on science.

 

eek.

Edited March 5, 2014 by TheVineyard