Acceptance Thread

[DHumeDominates]

Wait listed at Indiana! Fantastic. I really, really like this department. According to Charles McCarty's email, I'm "near the top" of the wait list.

 

Also, ianfaircloud, this is a wait list from the philosophy program, not the history of philosophy and science one.

Edited February 22, 2014 by DHumeDominates

[humean_skeptic]

Wait listed at Indiana! Fantastic. I really, really like this department. According to Charles McCarty's email, I'm "near the top" of the wait list.

 

Also, ianfaircloud, this is a wait list from the philosophy program, not the history of philosophy and science one.

 

Congrats!

[Philhopeful]

I can also claim a Pitt. 

Edited February 22, 2014 by Philhopeful

[Platonist]

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! 

 

Entirely agree. GRE measures NOT the abilities to be used for success in graduate programs, but the skills of test taking and the quality and quantity of preparation for it. It is ridiculous for us to devote so much time and money on it merely to get a good score, without any improvement on our analytic or philosophical abilities. Fortunately, many truly great and wise admissions committee do not give GRE much weight, but many frustratingly use it as a tool of cut-off. Besides Rutgers mentioned above, WUSTL might possibly make GRE cutoffs too. 

Edited February 22, 2014 by Platonist

[MattDest]

I can also claim a Pitt. 

Congrats!

[ianfaircloud]

Wait listed at Indiana! Fantastic. I really, really like this department. According to Charles McCarty's email, I'm "near the top" of the wait list.

 

Also, ianfaircloud, this is a wait list from the philosophy program, not the history of philosophy and science one.

 

Thanks, and congratulations! You're doing very well.

[greencoloredpencil]

Entirely agree. GRE measures NOT the abilities to be used for success in graduate programs, but the skills of test taking and the quality and quantity of preparation for it. It is ridiculous for us to devote so much time and money on it merely to get a good score, without any improvement on our analytic or philosophical abilities. Fortunately, many truly great and wise admissions committee do not give GRE much weight, but many frustratingly use it as a tool of cut-off. Besides Rutgers mentioned above, WUSTL might possibly make GRE cutoffs too. 

 

It's as though the admissions committees that do take the GRE seriously are reducing their work in distinguishing among applicants at the expense of putting us, the applicants, through a useless, time-consuming, and expensive process. This process helps them differentiate among applicants, but their basis for differentiating has absolutely nothing to do with what makes a great philosophy graduate student. Though, of course, I'm sure the committee members don't see it this way. I've heard many genuine arguments that the GRE is meaningful and worthwhile, though I haven't heard a convincing one to date. 

 

EDIT: I want to stress that I don't mean to say that committee members who take the GRE seriously do it to put us through a useless process. Of course they are well meaning. I'm simply saying that in reality the GRE is a useless process. 

Edited February 22, 2014 by greencoloredpencil

[ianfaircloud]

It's as though the admissions committees that do take the GRE seriously are reducing their work in distinguishing among applicants at the expense of putting us, the applicants, through a useless, time-consuming, and expensive process. This process helps them differentiate among applicants, but their basis for differentiating has absolutely nothing to do with what makes a great philosophy graduate student. Though, of course, I'm sure the committee members don't see it this way. I've heard many genuine arguments that the GRE is meaningful and worthwhile, though I haven't heard a convincing one to date. 

 

Agreed.

 

I'm very sympathetic to the well-intentioned goal behind standardized tests, but I think there are many problems with the way they are administered and (particularly) the way their results could be interpreted by admissions committees.

[stressedout]

It's as though the admissions committees that do take the GRE seriously are reducing their work in distinguishing among applicants at the expense of putting us, the applicants, through a useless, time-consuming, and expensive process. This process helps them differentiate among applicants, but their basis for differentiating has absolutely nothing to do with what makes a great philosophy graduate student. Though, of course, I'm sure the committee members don't see it this way. I've heard many genuine arguments that the GRE is meaningful and worthwhile, though I haven't heard a convincing one to date.

EDIT: I want to stress that I don't mean to say that committee members who take the GRE seriously do it to put us through a useless process. Of course they are well meaning. I'm simply saying that in reality the GRE is a useless process.

Here here!

[MattDest]

I think Eric Schwitzgebel's post on the verbal portion of the GRE being highly predictive of graduate success is interesting here. Granted, this is a really small sample size and the explanations he give are likely to explain why this may be the case, it is striking how predictive it is for that sample size. 

[Hypatience]

Any details about the Pittsburgh acceptances?

[Philhopeful]

Any details about the Pittsburgh acceptances?

 

Its an email from the graduate admissions director. No details on funding. 

[Hypatience]

Congratulations, Philhopeful!

[AquinasDuo]

I look away for a day and a half, and two of the schools I was eagerly waiting for have come and gone with no news for me. Can't complain, I'm really happy with Virginia, but .. still would have nice, I suppose. 

[ungerdrag]

A pattern I've noticed: the people who think the GRE is a good indicator of success seem to be exactly those people who did well on the GRE.

 

FWIW, I can at least say that a high GRE score can improve you chances of getting extra money after you've gotten in, since the grad schools themselves do care a lot about stats, and they're the ones with their hands on the faucets.

[greencoloredpencil]

Agreed.

 

I'm very sympathetic to the well-intentioned goal behind standardized tests, but I think there are many problems with the way they are administered and (particularly) the way their results could be interpreted by admissions committees.

 

I understand the desire to want an objective measure of an applicant's potential. However, I think standardized tests will never be able to produce a meaningful objective measure for success here (I also think this is true for high school students applying to enter a university as an undergraduate, though I suppose that's somewhat of a different topic).

 

Answering multiple choice questions under time pressure is simply not the kind of activity that is relevant to how one will do in a graduate program. Alternately, if the idea is to objectively measure the quality of a student's overall education at her or his undergraduate institution, then I think there are three points to consider. First, this is a very hard goal to accomplish. It is very difficult, and it even seems unclear to me, how one would go about deciding upon questions that measure the overall quality of an undergraduate education. Secondly, even if we had a test that somehow perfectly accomplished this task, it still wouldn't account for a student's aptitude to take a standardized test. Some students fold under time pressure, other students have disabilities that make taking a 4 hour standardized test extremely difficult. Though, we need not consider cases even as extreme as these. Some students think, write, read, do math, etc at different speeds. Thirdly, and perhaps this point is just a restatement of my very first statement, I'm not sure how useful evaluating the quality of a student's overall education is in the first place. A graduate program in philosophy should perhaps care to a certain extent about this, however, the main goal in discerning between applicants is finding out who has the best philosophical ability, not who had the best quality education. 

Edited February 22, 2014 by greencoloredpencil

[DHumeDominates]

A pattern I've noticed: the people who think the GRE is a good indicator of success seem to be exactly those people who did well on the GRE.

 

FWIW, I can at least say that a high GRE score can improve you chances of getting extra money after you've gotten in, since the grad schools themselves do care a lot about stats, and they're the ones with their hands on the faucets.

 

True and unsurprising. Let's hope they're not being disingenuous. For what it's worth, I think the GRE is a terrible indicator of graduate school success, just as I think the SAT is a terrible indicator of undergraduate success. ... Granted, I don't have the best quantitative score, so maybe I'm not an exception to the "pattern."

Edited February 22, 2014 by DHumeDominates

[objectivityofcontradiction]

Judging by submitted results, it is almost as if Indiana Bloomington has offered more wait-lists spots than actual offers.... given how many people have posted a wait-list on here, seems to me like it is going to be an awfully daunting task getting off the WL and into the acceptance pool there, even if loads of first rounders decline offers. How do those Wait-Listed feel about this? 

[MattDest]

A pattern I've noticed: the people who think the GRE is a good indicator of success seem to be exactly those people who did well on the GRE.

 

FWIW, I can at least say that a high GRE score can improve you chances of getting extra money after you've gotten in, since the grad schools themselves do care a lot about stats, and they're the ones with their hands on the faucets.

 

Damn, that's a sweeping claim. I should note that I don't think the GRE is a good indicator of success, but I think the results that Schwitzgebel got were pretty interesting. At the very least, it makes it more difficult to maintain the claim that admissions committees should completely abandon them. 

[DHumeDominates]

Judging by submitted results, it is almost as if Indiana Bloomington has offered more wait-lists spots than actual offers.... given how many people have posted a wait-list on here, seems to me like it is going to be an awfully daunting task getting off the WL and into the acceptance pool there, even if loads of first rounders decline offers. How do those Wait-Listed feel about this? 

 

Well, the wait list is ranked, so there's less uncertainty than there would otherwise be.

[greencoloredpencil]

Damn, that's a sweeping claim. I should note that I don't think the GRE is a good indicator of success, but I think the results that Schwitzgebel got were pretty interesting. At the very least, it makes it more difficult to maintain the claim that admissions committees should completely abandon them. 

 

Perhaps, though I think at very least they ought not to give consideration to the quantitative portion nor the writing portion. The quantitative is entirely irrelevant and the writing is not a good measure of one's writing or argumentative ability. Besides, we have the writing sample for that. 

[philstudent1991]

I got a 169 V and don't have anything but rejections so far lol just sayin. I don't think GRE can help you much if you went to a lesser known school.

[objectivityofcontradiction]

Well, the wait list is ranked, so there's less uncertainty than there would otherwise be.

 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?

Edited February 22, 2014 by objectivityofcontradiction

[humean_skeptic]

Damn, that's a sweeping claim. I should note that I don't think the GRE is a good indicator of success, but I think the results that Schwitzgebel got were pretty interesting. At the very least, it makes it more difficult to maintain the claim that admissions committees should completely abandon them. 

 

Agreed. Also, here's what I take to be a pretty reasonable way around all the GRE scores-related confusion: Departments could just all have sharply defined GRE cutoff scores, and make their cutoff scores public (posted on their web site). Example: To have your application to the PhD program at NYU even considered, you need a Verbal score in the 95th percentile or higher, and a Quant score in the 75th percentile or higher. Example 2: To have your application considered at Northwestern, you need a Verbal score in the 90th percentile or higher, and a Quant score in the 60th percentile or higher. 

 

Further, if an applicant makes that cutoff score, then the GRE scores are no longer figured into the evaluation of the quality of the application. That evaluation will come down to the writing sample, grades in major/MA, letters, and fit. 

 

Wouldn't this eliminate virtually all of the confusion to do with GRE scores? 

[dgswaim]

Damn, that's a sweeping claim. I should note that I don't think the GRE is a good indicator of success, but I think the results that Schwitzgebel got were pretty interesting. At the very least, it makes it more difficult to maintain the claim that admissions committees should completely abandon them. 

Interestingly enough, the author refers to the quant scores as "non-predictive" of success... but adcomms sure as shit look at em. Sucks for me because I suck shit at algebra, and the 3 courses I took in advanced symbolic logic will never make up for that fact.

 

 

EDIT: I'm well convinced the main reason for the programatic use of GRE scores is that they affect departmental funding. They shouldn't, but they do.

Edited February 22, 2014 by dgswaim