Acceptance Thread

[wandajune]

Ranking isn't the only consideration, y'all, especially for women applicants. There are top schools that are totally inhospitable for gender, racial, or sexual minorities, and sometimes you're only in a position to discover that by visiting them.

 

I am not trying to say that these are carolinebk's considerations. What I am saying is that the way in which this doesn't even occur to some of you is pretty telling, and indicative of your privilege.  

 

For transparency's sake, I'm a woman and a sexual minority who has offers from both a top-15 and a lower-ranked school, and both are live options for me as I carefully assess climate and fit. 

 

Just want to echo this point. I'm probably going to automatically rule out one or two of my acceptances based on fit, but I still intend on visiting several programs before making a decision. While ranking is important, in my mind it's more important to be sure that you'll be happy in a particular environment for the next 5-8 years. There's no point in attending a top-20 or even top-10 program if you're just going to burn out quickly due to climate issues.

[Table]

Probably an inappropriate time-waster for this particular thread, but here's some unsettling news that might interest female Northwestern applicants: http://dailynorthwestern.com/2014/02/10/campus/report-student-sues-northwestern-claiming-sexual-harassment-complaints-ignored/

 

And Rutgers applicants, since that's where Ludlow is apparently moving.

 

(I really think all applicants, not just women, should be concerned about departments' climate for women and minorities. A hostile climate is bad for everyone.)

[Aspasia100]

And Rutgers applicants, since that's where Ludlow is apparently moving.

 

(I really think all applicants, not just women, should be concerned about departments' climate for women and minorities. A hostile climate is bad for everyone.)

 

This. So far I've been accepted to Vanderbilt, Sheffield, and Northwestern. I applied to Rutgers (and it's the highest PGR ranked school I applied to), but now, even if I were accepted there, given a $1M per year fellowship and 100% course reduction, I wouldn't accept an offer of admission from them unless they rescinded his offer of employment in no uncertain terms. 

 

(Created an account just to weigh in on this--this is exactly why you should not turn down offers of admission from lower ranked schools when you get into higher ranked ones. Talk to students. Visit. Try to learn as much as you can about a place. Getting into a prestigious program is no good at all if the environment is miserable enough to interfere with your productivity or your happiness no matter how career-driven you are; ultimately, these things mess with your career, among other things.)

[greencoloredpencil]

Ranking isn't the only consideration, y'all, especially for women applicants. There are top schools that are totally inhospitable for gender, racial, or sexual minorities, and sometimes you're only in a position to discover that by visiting them.

 

I am not trying to say that these are carolinebk's considerations. What I am saying is that the way in which this doesn't even occur to some of you is pretty telling, and indicative of your privilege.  

 

For transparency's sake, I'm a woman and a sexual minority who has offers from both a top-15 and a lower-ranked school, and both are live options for me as I carefully assess climate and fit. 

 

Thank you as well as everyone else who has made similar points. 

[philstudent1991]

what is fairclouds prediction on Georgia state?? cuz if I don't at least get in there....I am done.

[Vardan_Mkhitaryan]

what is fairclouds prediction on Georgia state?? cuz if I don't at least get in there....I am done.

 

Georgia State is not PGR-ranked, so fairclouds didn't include it in his list. But we can extrapolate from the TGC data. The (scarce) data from 2006-2009 indicates anytime between March 8 to April 7. But the (statistically) more reliable data from 2010-2013 indicates that George State will release its initial round of acceptances in three days (Feb 13).

 

Of course, all such guesswork has to be taken with a grain of salt. I personally don't take them seriously, but I nevertheless engage in such things just to kill time and have some date, however illusory it may be, to look forward to.

[PerpetualApplicant No More]

I'm really sorry to hear that you have gotten this vibe.

 

For the record, although I am personally a bit jealous of some of your offers (I'm not sure I'd take them over the one I have--but I would love to be able to visit and make the choice myself!), I think you're doing exactly the right thing. As long as each program you're visiting has faculty in your field who are well-known enough to tell others how great your work is (if it ends up being great), you should really focus on where you feel like *you* can do the best work.

 

 

I'm not really concerned who's believing what I say. I'm sincerely interested in fit whether anyone else is or not.

This forum has the potential to be an actual space for mutual support and a place where people can voice their thoughts to a sympathetic audience. So far the vibe I've gotten since my first post has mostly been critical and scathing. I think that's a shame and although I know we're all under an immeasurable amount of stress, making each other feel shitty isn't helping anyone. I hope this changes.

[TheVineyard]

This. So far I've been accepted to Vanderbilt, Sheffield, and Northwestern. I applied to Rutgers (and it's the highest PGR ranked school I applied to), but now, even if I were accepted there, given a $1M per year fellowship and 100% course reduction, I wouldn't accept an offer of admission from them unless they rescinded his offer of employment in no uncertain terms. 

 

(Created an account just to weigh in on this--this is exactly why you should not turn down offers of admission from lower ranked schools when you get into higher ranked ones. Talk to students. Visit. Try to learn as much as you can about a place. Getting into a prestigious program is no good at all if the environment is miserable enough to interfere with your productivity or your happiness no matter how career-driven you are; ultimately, these things mess with your career, among other things.)

 

Was Ludlow ever proven in the court of law to have done something wrong? I can't believe that a program like Rutgers would take him in if he had. I know Ludlow was accused, but surely it takes more than a single accusation to make you turn down a $1 million dollar stipend from one of the best schools in the world...

Edited February 12, 2014 by TheVineyard

[purpleperson]

What do you all think of Michigan State University's philosophy program?  Does it have a good reputation?  Would you apply there (even if you didn't)?

 

Just curious because I got into Michigan State (in a different field, not philosophy) and I'm hearing mixed reviews about it.  Just wondering how it stands when it comes to philosophy....

[SelfHatingPhilosopher]

Was Ludlow ever proven in the court of law to have done something wrong? I can't believe that a program like Rutgers would take him in if he had. I know Ludlow was accused, but surely it takes more than a single accusation to make you turn down a $1 million dollar stipend from one of the best schools in the world...

 

Court of law hasn't been involved, but an investigation that was conducted during the university's investigation did find that he had done wrong and said to fire him.

Edited February 12, 2014 by SelfHatingPhilosopher

[Monadology]

Was Ludlow ever proven in the court of law to have done something wrong?

 

If you're asking because you're genuinely curious: No.

 

If you're asking because you're trying to imply something about the evidentiary standard Aspasia100 or anyone else should be using before they make judgments about Ludlow, let's not go down that road. 

[Table]

Was Ludlow ever proven in the court of law to have done something wrong? I can't believe that a program like Rutgers would take him in if he had. I know Ludlow was accused, but surely it takes more than a single accusation to make you turn down a $1 million dollar stipend from one of the best schools in the world...

 

That he wasn't found guilty in a criminal case means almost nothing. It's extremely difficult to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that someone was sexually assaulted or raped when they were unconscious or too intoxicated to consent. That's just the nature of the crime. You can successfully prosecute these things if someone walks in, maybe if you have video footage. Otherwise, good luck. 

 

If Rutgers knowingly hired someone that was accused of sexually assaulting a student (and that the university found the claim credible), yeah, I think that would definitely be a reason not to go there. 

[Aspasia100]

Was Ludlow ever proven in the court of law to have done something wrong? I can't believe that a program like Rutgers would take him in if he had. I know Ludlow was accused, but surely it takes more than a single accusation to make you turn down a $1 million dollar stipend from one of the best schools in the world...

 

The case was never taken to court (have you read the articles about this?), as is extremely common with sexual assault cases in general but especially ones involving alcohol. That Northwestern University found the allegation to be credible is enough for me to turn down really any financial offer from any school if accepting would mean being in the same department as him. Particularly since sustaining doubt until we can have certainty is what has allowed folks like McGinn to continue for years in the profession under suspicion and rumors, and perpetuated environments like that at Colorado.  I'm surprised that you find this surprising. 

[Silly_Socrates]

What do you all think of Michigan State University's philosophy program?  Does it have a good reputation?  Would you apply there (even if you didn't)?

 

Just curious because I got into Michigan State (in a different field, not philosophy) and I'm hearing mixed reviews about it.  Just wondering how it stands when it comes to philosophy....

-----------

I applied to MSU and this is actually one of the schools I'm most interested in. They have a track in health care ethics which i would love to do, and some faculty I have read a lot of and think I would enjoy working with. What I have researched and been told of MSU, it is one of my top choices.

[TheVineyard]

Thanks for the downvotes for asking for clarification on the issue.

I guess we have to be so hyper-PC that I can't even ask about it without getting shit on so whatever. You are somehow certain of what happened and I will be downvoted by even raising the question. I honestly just don't know about the situation.

 

I don't think that a single accusation is sufficient to condemn a human being to the level of academic discredit and full avoidance. It seems odd to me that liberal-minded people like those here are at once okay with condemning this person because of a single accusation, and also presumably for principles of innocence until proven guilty for those accused....(or at least innocence until accused multiple times?)

There probably isn't any profit to be had in this conversation because I'm just supposed to agree that he is a terrible person because there are other terrible people out there. Can I agree that there are climate issues at many schools while also not accepting that every accusation is NECESSARILY true?

Edited February 12, 2014 by TheVineyard

[Hypatience]

Excepting the poster above, I'm really pleased to see that these forums are full of people who care about climate and take testimony seriously. Frankly, it's a lot more heartening than some of the discussion elsewhere (The Philosophy Smoker, the UCB Newapps thread, etc), and makes me feel optimistic about the future of the profession. 

[dgswaim]

Who's Ludlow?

[MattDest]

Who's Ludlow?

 

Here, lmgtfy. 

[Monadology]

Thanks for the downvotes for asking for clarification on the issue.

I guess we have to be so hyper-PC that I can't even ask about it without getting shit on so whatever. You are somehow certain of what happened and I will be downvoted by even raising the question. I honestly just don't know about the situation.

 

I don't think that a single accusation is sufficient to condemn a human being to the level of academic discredit and full avoidance. It seems odd to me that liberal-minded people like those here are at once okay with condemning this person because of a single accusation, and also presumably for principles of innocence until proven guilty for those accused....(or at least innocence until accused multiple times?)

There probably isn't any profit to be had in this conversation because I'm just supposed to agree that he is a terrible person because there are other terrible people out there. Can I agree that there are climate issues at many schools while also not accepting that every accusation is NECESSARILY true?

 

No, TheVineyard, you're not supposed to agree or comply. No one is trying to convince you of anything. The downvotes were in response to a derailing the thread which involved criticizing the epistemic standards by which others choose to make decisions regarding which programs they attend. Your post, once edited, was clearly a challenge to another poster for not holding the same standards of evidence as a court of law. That is provocative and unnecessary, especially in a thread that isn't about Ludlow's guilt or innocence.

 

EDIT: If you were genuinely looking for clarification, I apologize. The sort of question you were raising is one that is often raised in a much less innocent manner in these sorts of cases.

Edited February 12, 2014 by Monadology

[Platonist]

I found that many people applied more than one time. But my concern is: how much chance would one be accepted by a school this year if she was rejected in a previous year by the same school? When I applied, I saw that most of schools request you to answer if this is the first time that you have applied to them. Why this question? The assumption is that if you applied before but did not get in, they would not "waste too much time" on evaluating your application and likely issue a rejection again. If this were assumption were wrong, what sense would it make for them to request such an information? And if this were the case, I would be really worried about the prospects of reapplying and being admitted by the these schools to which I applied this year for the first time. I would have to reapply to the schools to which I did not apply for the first time. That is really disappointing. Experience or thoughts? 

Edited February 12, 2014 by Platonist

[Monadology]

I found that many people applied more than one time. But my concern is: how much chance would one be accepted by a school this year if she was rejected in a previous year by the same school? When I applied, I saw that most of schools request you to answer if this is the first time that you have applied to them. Why this question? The assumption is that if you applied before but did not get in, they would not "waste too much time" on evaluating your application and likely issue a rejection again. If this were assumption were wrong, what sense would it make for them to request such an information? And if this were the case, I would be really worried about the prospects of reapplying and being admitted by the these schools to which I applied this year for the first time. I would have to reapply to the schools to which I did not apply for the first time. That is really disappointing. Experience or thoughts? 

 

I think some schools have limits for the number of times you can apply. Other than that, I don't know. The only time I ever inquired to a program whether prior rejections would hurt my chances, they told me that they wouldn't have any bearing. You might be best off asking one of the programs that requires you to state if you applied previously.

[Aspasia100]

Thanks for the downvotes for asking for clarification on the issue.

I guess we have to be so hyper-PC that I can't even ask about it without getting shit on so whatever. You are somehow certain of what happened and I will be downvoted by even raising the question. I honestly just don't know about the situation.

 

I don't think that a single accusation is sufficient to condemn a human being to the level of academic discredit and full avoidance. It seems odd to me that liberal-minded people like those here are at once okay with condemning this person because of a single accusation, and also presumably for principles of innocence until proven guilty for those accused....(or at least innocence until accused multiple times?)

There probably isn't any profit to be had in this conversation because I'm just supposed to agree that he is a terrible person because there are other terrible people out there. Can I agree that there are climate issues at many schools while also not accepting that every accusation is NECESSARILY true?

 

I will engage with you one more time under the presumption that you just genuinely haven't thought through this fully and are still thinking through the relevant consequences, effects, etc., but I don't want to have an argument about this (particularly since my point was about not turning down programs simply because they are lower ranked than others) and so this will be my last reply. 

 

I never said the accusations were *necessarily* true nor that Ludlow is a terrible person. I said that the university found the accusations to be credible is reason enough for me to stay away from a department that he is in irrespective of any other factor. The overwhelming majority of sexual assaults are never reported to anyone--university officials nor legal officials.  When they are, given the nature of the crime, there is usually not enough evidence to substantiate even a Title IX violation which uses the weaker standard of 'preponderance of the evidence' rather than the criminal standard of 'beyond a reasonable doubt.' That the complaint was both brought forward, found to be credible, and partially constitutes a legal complaint against the university post-hoc to the university's determination lends a significant amount of justification in my view to belief that the allegations are in fact true.

 

However, *whether or not they are true* no one at Rutgers is in the position to be certain of their falsity. If the department is willing to place its students at risk in light of this news by hiring him on the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, that indifference for equity and justice for its students is not characteristic of a department I would or could tolerate. 

 

University departments are not legal systems. They are not condemning a philosopher to jail when they refuse to hire them. Being hired is a privilege and not a right. Departments are justified in refusing to hire philosophers when doing so poses a risk to the standards of the department and the community members therein. If they don't take those risks seriously enough to avoid hiring someone who has been credibly accused of sexual assault, I don't want to be a member of that community. 

[TheVineyard]

Excepting the poster above, I'm really pleased to see that these forums are full of people who care about climate and take testimony seriously. Frankly, it's a lot more heartening than some of the discussion elsewhere (The Philosophy Smoker, the UCB Newapps thread, etc), and makes me feel optimistic about the future of the profession. 

 

Okay, so I don't take climate seriously because I don't agree that every testimony is true by default? Wow. You also realize that both sides made a testimony, right? And that they differed?

 

It is very bad philosophy to assume that someone who disagrees with you because they don't care about the issue at hand. Example: I may think that evolution is true, but not accept by default every single piece of proposed evidence for the position just because it supports my position...

If you will never attend a school at which a negative testimony has been filed, substantiated or not, then you won't be attending graduate school at all.

I understand the problems, I take them very seriously, but the mere fact that an accusation has been made does not a bad person make.

Edited February 12, 2014 by TheVineyard

[Table]

I found that many people applied more than one time. But my concern is: how much chance would one be accepted by a school this year if she was rejected in a previous year by the same school? When I applied, I saw that most of schools request you to answer if this is the first time that you have applied to them. Why this question? The assumption is that if you applied before but did not get in, they would not "waste too much time" on evaluating your application and likely issue a rejection again. If this were assumption were wrong, what sense would it make for them to request such an information? And if this were the case, I would be really worried about the prospects of reapplying and being admitted by the these schools to which I applied this year for the first time. I would have to reapply to the schools to which I did not apply for the first time. That is really disappointing. Experience or thoughts? 

 

I think they would ask this even if departments didn't care at all. I suspect it's largely just something the graduate admissions people use to keep files straight, especially since the previously applied question was often next to questions about whether you had ever attended the school before. You don't want to have duplicate files/records/identifiers for the same person, because if your filing system goes by name, date of birth, social, etc. something could accidentally end up in the old file. From googling, it looks like for some schools you don't have to re-submit transcripts, GRE scores, etc. if you're reapplying. 

[Platonist]

I think some schools have limits for the number of times you can apply. Other than that, I don't know. The only time I ever inquired to a program whether prior rejections would hurt my chances, they told me that they wouldn't have any bearing. You might be best off asking one of the programs that requires you to state if you applied previously.

Thanks for the info, Monadology (You must like Leibnizian metaphysics very much, by the way, as your username reveals). But if prior rejections have no any bearing on your chances of getting in this time, why did they bother to request such information anyway? They can simply read all applications without knowing who are the first-time applicants and who are not. So it is not entirely unreasonable to assume that previous rejections tend to have negative effects on your chances of admission. If this were true, it would be really frustrating and we would have to get in somewhere for the first time we applied. 

Edited February 12, 2014 by Platonist