Acceptance Thread

[GrammaticalFiction]

Accepted to Binghamton.

 

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

[kant_get_in]

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

 

Congrats! It sounds like I got the same generic email from the graduate school. 

[RookIV]

Many admissions committees may think that GRE scores become a non-factor after initial cuts, but I doubt that's actually the case. All the research on racial and gender bias in hiring and admissions seems to show that expectations based on initial impressions of a candidate seriously color the way their file is interpreted. Anything that makes someone opening your file think of you as a "smart person" is going to help, because that's just the way human brains work. It seems likely that very high (as opposed to "passing") GRE scores will often do this.

I also have heard that one person who is often on the adcom at my school does take GRE scores very seriously. It seems plausible that some schools do give them significant weight.

Where did you hear that some schools use cut offs? If I remember correctly, everyone in the Leiter thread denied it.

 

For what it's worth, someone on the admissions committee here in Oxford (which does not accept GRE scores) used to be on the admissions committee at Rutgers and he said that Rutgers took GRE scores very seriously and that they were the deciding factor for may applicants. 

 

Edit: Oh yea, and he said that they didn't even bother reading applications whose GRE scores didn't meet their cutoffs. Maybe they do it differently now though, it's hard to say. I doubt it though since admissions have only become more competitive and the number of applications continues to increase every year. 

Edited February 21, 2014 by RookIV

[MattDest]

Waitlisted at Indiana.

 

I've also heard on the rumor mill that some committees take GRE scores very seriously, and it's not simply a threshold type deal. 

[MattDest]

Accepted to Binghamton.

Congrats! You definitely kan get in now. (I grimaced while I wrote that awful joke. I don't even know why I'm keeping it.)

[dgswaim]

I suppose I can see why some committees would place so much weight on the GRE. It seems plausible that the GRE might be seen as a useful bit of information in comparing applicants that have otherwise comparable stats. There's a certain assumed objectivity in it as well, I suppose, given that everyone who has taken the GRE has taken the same test as everyone else who took it, whereas GPAs from University A might not be as reliable an indicator of philosophical talent GPAs from University B. But then I don't think the GRE necessarily has much to do with philosophical talent at all. I know that my quant score will be a liability, but it seems odd to me that one should think this has any bearing on my ability to do top-notch work in philosophy. I suppose this is all simply to say that I understand the use of the GRE as an evaluative tool, but at the same time I don't think it's telling anyone very much.

[Cottagecheeseman]

Man congrats on the acceptances/waitlists! Man some people racked in like 3 or 4 schools in the past couple of days. I wonder if the weekend will prove busy since the last few days have been.

[pro_Tonto]

For what it's worth, someone on the admissions committee here in Oxford (which does not accept GRE scores) used to be on the admissions committee at Rutgers and he said that Rutgers took GRE scores very seriously and that they were the deciding factor for may applicants. 

 

I have to question what Ruth Chang would say about that in light of her Aye and Bea examples...

[Mavngoose1]

I have to question what Ruth Chang would say about that in light of her Aye and Bea examples...

She would probably tell you either that you can will some non-relevant consideration to count as a reason in favor of picking aye or bea or that you can will to one already relevant consideration to count more.

Edited February 21, 2014 by Mavngoose1

[philophilosopher]

I suppose I can see why some committees would place so much weight on the GRE. It seems plausible that the GRE might be seen as a useful bit of information in comparing applicants that have otherwise comparable stats. There's a certain assumed objectivity in it as well, I suppose, given that everyone who has taken the GRE has taken the same test as everyone else who took it, whereas GPAs from University A might not be as reliable an indicator of philosophical talent GPAs from University B. But then I don't think the GRE necessarily has much to do with philosophical talent at all. I know that my quant score will be a liability, but it seems odd to me that one should think this has any bearing on my ability to do top-notch work in philosophy. I suppose this is all simply to say that I understand the use of the GRE as an evaluative tool, but at the same time I don't think it's telling anyone very much.

 

A major problem though is that the GRE imposes a certain standard of objectivity, namely who can do X amount of questions under certain time constraints or who can write X amount of pages in a somewhat coherent and eloquent fashion. This standard of objectivity inherently caters to people who understand and comprehend in a certain way. Although I did well on the GRE, I think it is unfair to juxtapose my scores next to someone equally as capable of me, but who reads a little slower or whatnot, and then to draw the conclusion that I must have better reading comprehension. The way most of us, I imagine, do our work, our research, and our writing doesn't conform to the way one succeeds on the GRE

 

So, while it is objective in the sense that we all take the same (or similar) tests, the problem is with what exactly the underlying norm of objectivity is. . . 

[ianfaircloud]

I've been offline a lot more this last few days. This is a quick note to congratulate all those who have been successful so far. And to those who haven't, you're in very good company.

[dgswaim]

A major problem though is that the GRE imposes a certain standard of objectivity, namely who can do X amount of questions under certain time constraints or who can write X amount of pages in a somewhat coherent and eloquent fashion. This standard of objectivity inherently caters to people who understand and comprehend in a certain way. Although I did well on the GRE, I think it is unfair to juxtapose my scores next to someone equally as capable of me, but who reads a little slower or whatnot, and then to draw the conclusion that I must have better reading comprehension. The way most of us, I imagine, do our work, our research, and our writing doesn't conform to the way one succeeds on the GRE

 

So, while it is objective in the sense that we all take the same (or similar) tests, the problem is with what exactly the underlying norm of objectivity is. . . 

Totally agree.

[dgswaim]

I have a growing suspicion that as acceptances to UT start rolling in, it will turn out that none of them is in my e-mail inbox. I'm not fond of this suspicion. 

[greencoloredpencil]

I suppose I can see why some committees would place so much weight on the GRE. It seems plausible that the GRE might be seen as a useful bit of information in comparing applicants that have otherwise comparable stats. There's a certain assumed objectivity in it as well, I suppose, given that everyone who has taken the GRE has taken the same test as everyone else who took it, whereas GPAs from University A might not be as reliable an indicator of philosophical talent GPAs from University B. But then I don't think the GRE necessarily has much to do with philosophical talent at all. I know that my quant score will be a liability, but it seems odd to me that one should think this has any bearing on my ability to do top-notch work in philosophy. I suppose this is all simply to say that I understand the use of the GRE as an evaluative tool, but at the same time I don't think it's telling anyone very much.

 

 

A major problem though is that the GRE imposes a certain standard of objectivity, namely who can do X amount of questions under certain time constraints or who can write X amount of pages in a somewhat coherent and eloquent fashion. This standard of objectivity inherently caters to people who understand and comprehend in a certain way. Although I did well on the GRE, I think it is unfair to juxtapose my scores next to someone equally as capable of me, but who reads a little slower or whatnot, and then to draw the conclusion that I must have better reading comprehension. The way most of us, I imagine, do our work, our research, and our writing doesn't conform to the way one succeeds on the GRE

 

So, while it is objective in the sense that we all take the same (or similar) tests, the problem is with what exactly the underlying norm of objectivity is. . . 

 

I completely agree. It's frustrating to see the GRE taken into account at all. I understand that committees are looking for some way to distinguish applicants, however, GRE scores are a horrible factor to use for this task. Once you analyze what a GRE score really tells you (eg how fast one reads, how fast one come up with mathematical tricks, how much an applicant prepared and studied for a standardized test, etc) it obviously shouldn't be used in admissions decisions. GRE score indicates absolutely nothing relevant to a student's potential for a graduate program in philosophy. I'm also skeptical that it indicates anything relevant to a student's potential to succeed in a graduate program in any subject...unless professional test taking graduate programs exist these days of course! 

[ianfaircloud]

Many admissions committees may think that GRE scores become a non-factor after initial cuts, but I doubt that's actually the case. All the research on racial and gender bias in hiring and admissions seems to show that expectations based on initial impressions of a candidate seriously color the way their file is interpreted. Anything that makes someone opening your file think of you as a "smart person" is going to help, because that's just the way human brains work. It seems likely that very high (as opposed to "passing") GRE scores will often do this.

I also have heard that one person who is often on the adcom at my school does take GRE scores very seriously. It seems plausible that some schools do give them significant weight.

Where did you hear that some schools use cut offs? If I remember correctly, everyone in the Leiter thread denied it.

 

I can sense an argument coming on here, Table. I don't want to pollute the thread. People can read what I wrote and take it or leave it. What I wrote is based on anecdotal evidence, conversations with philosophers who sit on admissions committees, as well as my experience as a GRE instructor for a test-prep company. It sounds like your experience says otherwise, so maybe there's no final answer here.

[bar_scene_gambler]

Sooo what? Did UT Austin's servers crash?

[dgswaim]

Sooo what? Did UT Austin's servers crash?

Seems like it.

[greencoloredpencil]

Sooo what? Did UT Austin's servers crash?

 

If you're talking about the application status website, I haven't been able to access it for at least an hour now. 

[FlyT]

So...did anyone else here apply to Pittsburgh HPS? I still haven't received any word after 1 acceptance and 4-5 rejections have been posted...

I'm in the same situation as you. :/ 

[Weltgeist]

man I hope Georgetown isn't done sending out notifications (and if they're all by phone that seems likely, right?)

[kant_get_in]

man I hope Georgetown isn't done sending out notifications (and if they're all by phone that seems likely, right?)

 

That's how they did it last year, and that seems to be the way they're doing it this year. I hope they're not done either! 

[ta_pros_to_telos]

It looks like most of the notifications for Georgetown are wait lists, and they're all by phone, so can we expect them to keep trickling slowly over the weekend/Monday? Is it fair to think that people who are making such calls would take into account the time zone applicants are in? Also, has anyone's online status changed? 

 

Congrats to everyone who got good news today, and to those who are still anxiously waiting for acceptances, hang in there!

[turambar85]

I completely agree. It's frustrating to see the GRE taken into account at all. I understand that committees are looking for some way to distinguish applicants, however, GRE scores are a horrible factor to use for this task. Once you analyze what a GRE score really tells you (eg how fast one reads, how fast one come up with mathematical tricks, how much an applicant prepared and studied for a standardized test, etc) it obviously shouldn't be used in admissions decisions. GRE score indicates absolutely nothing relevant to a student's potential for a graduate program in philosophy. I'm also skeptical that it indicates anything relevant to a student's potential to succeed in a graduate program in any subject...unless professional test taking graduate programs exist these days of course! 

Personally, I'd rather see departments shift over to the LSAT.  It's an accessible standardized test that can provide the same measure of objectivity that they get from the GRE.  But, instead of high school math and vocabulary, you would have logical reasoning and logic games.  And, instead of an easily learnable test that somebody can study for one month on (or get Kaplan tutors for), and increase their score by 20-30 percentile points, you have a test where one's scores are much more firmly rooted to a particular skill.

[pro_Tonto]

It looks like most of the notifications for Georgetown are wait lists, and they're all by phone, so can we expect them to keep trickling slowly over the weekend/Monday?

 

I can't say whether that's so or not, but I can report that I had a voicemail and then an email at least an hour later, suggesting the phone list was gone through and emails were sent out at the end.

[philophilosopher]

Personally, I'd rather see departments shift over to the LSAT.  It's an accessible standardized test that can provide the same measure of objectivity that they get from the GRE.  But, instead of high school math and vocabulary, you would have logical reasoning and logic games.  And, instead of an easily learnable test that somebody can study for one month on (or get Kaplan tutors for), and increase their score by 20-30 percentile points, you have a test where one's scores are much more firmly rooted to a particular skill.

Yeah, but don't you still run into the problem of forcing all participants to perform a certain way (a way that most likely doesn't account for how a significant portion of people actually think and work)? If so, then the LSAT will certainly not be any more objective than the GRE. I am not offering a better alternative obviously, but there are major problems underlying the general notion of standardized exams: the fact that they assume they can standardize the process by which people think and reason. . .