MA placement records this year

[philosophe]

Ouch.

 

I was told that at least one person really limited themselves location wise (by applying only to schools in the northeast) for family reasons, and the other person who was shut out only applied to T10 programs.

[Hopephily]

Arizona State (MA): Offers (5 of 6 applicants got into one or more of the following places): 1 Indiana-Bloomington, 1 U IL Chicago,1 Northwestern, 1 Kansas University, 1 U of Nebraska-Lincoln and 2 Arizona State. I think only 1 applicant was shut out this year.  

 

Wait lists: 1 U of British Columbia, 1 Iowa and 1 U Michigan. 

[Wait For It...]

I know it's not Ph.D. admissions, but I just saw the schedule for the Berkeley-Stanford-Davis grad conference, and you all cleaned up. I know a good number of people who got rejected from the conference (I honestly had no idea beforehand that grad conferences were competitive at all, but apparently they are--or at least this one is!). Out of twelve slots, three of the speakers are from Talbot/Biola; Berkeley is the only other school with that many speakers presenting (the other slots, for those who were curious, went to students from Stanford, Irvine, Davis, CSU Long Beach (x2) and SF State).

Yes, BSD is a great conference. I know all three of the Biola presenters, one of which is a classmate and close friend of mine. Talbot/Biola has done a good job of taking people (like me) who know nothing about philosophy and, in a few short years, turning them into decent (or, in the case of some, amazing) applicants. The only problem is that it's not funded, which means you either take out loans or work to support yourself. I chose the latter option, which, unfortunately, took 20-30 hours away from my studies. I do, however, have far less debt than some of my friends! They are currently working on a way to fund MA Philosophy students, though I'm not sure when that would happen.  

[stressedout]

Yes, BSD is a great conference. I know all three of the Biola presenters, one of which is a classmate and close friend of mine. Talbot/Biola has done a good job of taking people (like me) who know nothing about philosophy and, in a few short years, turning them into decent (or, in the case of some, amazing) applicants. The only problem is that it's not funded, which means you either take out loans or work to support yourself. I chose the latter option, which, unfortunately, took 20-30 hours away from my studies. I do, however, have far less debt than some of my friends! They are currently working on a way to fund MA Philosophy students, though I'm not sure when that would happen.  

 

Some rich dude or dudette needs to endow them, damnit.

[Wait For It...]

Some rich dude or dudette needs to endow them, damnit.

Unfortunately, someone probably will now that we're both done! 

[MattDest]

Yes, BSD is a great conference. I know all three of the Biola presenters, one of which is a classmate and close friend of mine. Talbot/Biola has done a good job of taking people (like me) who know nothing about philosophy and, in a few short years, turning them into decent (or, in the case of some, amazing) applicants. The only problem is that it's not funded, which means you either take out loans or work to support yourself. I chose the latter option, which, unfortunately, took 20-30 hours away from my studies. I do, however, have far less debt than some of my friends! They are currently working on a way to fund MA Philosophy students, though I'm not sure when that would happen.  

 

 

I just looked at Talbot's MA program curriculum, and I have to say I'm rather astounded. I can't be the only one who thinks this sort of thing is not good for philosophy as a discipline. The course descriptions read like adult education classes at the local church. Here is a description of one of the courses for the MA ("Spiritual Direction"): 

 

"A personal experience is required in Spiritual Direction at the Center for Spiritual Renewal at ISF. Course provides students the opportunity to explore their life of prayer and growth with a trained mentor or spiritual director from the Institute for Spiritual Formation."

 

Uh, OK.

 

Here's another (Phil. Anthropology and Phil Mind): 

 

"A study and defense of the existence and nature of the soul, the reality of disembodied existence, the nature of human action, and issues in personal identity. Various models of human nature will be investigated (dualism, behaviorism, functionalism, the identity thesis, eliminative materialism), as well as their implications or ethics."

 

I can't imagine going to a graduate level seminar that identified its purpose as defending the nature and existence of the soul. This sounds like apologetics 101. I'm roughly familiar with Talbot because William Lane Craig (not a fan), but I didn't expect the MA program to be quite so radical. 

[stressedout]

I just looked at Talbot's MA program curriculum, and I have to say I'm rather astounded. I can't be the only one who thinks this sort of thing is not good for philosophy as a discipline. The course descriptions read like adult education classes at the local church. Here is a description of one of the courses for the MA ("Spiritual Direction"): 

 

"A personal experience is required in Spiritual Direction at the Center for Spiritual Renewal at ISF. Course provides students the opportunity to explore their life of prayer and growth with a trained mentor or spiritual director from the Institute for Spiritual Formation."

 

Uh, OK.

 

Here's another (Phil. Anthropology and Phil Mind): 

 

"A study and defense of the existence and nature of the soul, the reality of disembodied existence, the nature of human action, and issues in personal identity. Various models of human nature will be investigated (dualism, behaviorism, functionalism, the identity thesis, eliminative materialism), as well as their implications or ethics."

 

I can't imagine going to a graduate level seminar that identified its purpose as defending the nature and existence of the soul. This sounds like apologetics 101. I'm roughly familiar with Talbot because William Lane Craig (not a fan), but I didn't expect the MA program to be quite so radical. 

 

It's an MA program called "Philosophy of Religion and Ethics" at a seminary.  How is that radical?

 

It looks like they changed the title to "Philosophy."  At any rate, it's at a seminary where the dean requires that all students take certain core classes, including theology, biblical studies, spiritual formation, etc. regardless of their major.

Edited April 8, 2014 by stressedout

[MattDest]

It's an MA program called "Philosophy of Religion and Ethics" at a seminary.  How is that radical?

 

It looks like they changed the title to "Philosophy."  At any rate, it's at a seminary where the dean requires that all students take certain core classes, including theology, biblical studies, spiritual formation, etc. regardless of their major.

 

Even if it was titled "Philosophy of Religion and Ethics", it would still be pretty radical. If it was "Christian perspectives on Philosophy of Religion and Ethics", then I could understand. But most of these courses barely qualify as philosophy. Talbot is fairly conservative as far as seminaries go (Biblical inerrancy is one of their commitments), so that's why I say radical. 

[stressedout]

Even if it was titled "Philosophy of Religion and Ethics", it would still be pretty radical. If it was "Christian perspectives on Philosophy of Religion and Ethics", then I could understand. But most of these courses barely qualify as philosophy. Talbot is fairly conservative as far as seminaries go (Biblical inerrancy is one of their commitments), so that's why I say radical. 

 

All of the philosophy courses qualify as philosophy.  Of course the others don't, because, well, they're not philosophy...

[objectivityofcontradiction]

'inerrancy' is just a great effin' word, rolls right off the tongue. 

[Wait For It...]

I just looked at Talbot's MA program curriculum, and I have to say I'm rather astounded. I can't be the only one who thinks this sort of thing is not good for philosophy as a discipline. The course descriptions read like adult education classes at the local church. Here is a description of one of the courses for the MA ("Spiritual Direction"): 

 

"A personal experience is required in Spiritual Direction at the Center for Spiritual Renewal at ISF. Course provides students the opportunity to explore their life of prayer and growth with a trained mentor or spiritual director from the Institute for Spiritual Formation."

 

Uh, OK.

 

Here's another (Phil. Anthropology and Phil Mind): 

 

"A study and defense of the existence and nature of the soul, the reality of disembodied existence, the nature of human action, and issues in personal identity. Various models of human nature will be investigated (dualism, behaviorism, functionalism, the identity thesis, eliminative materialism), as well as their implications or ethics."

 

I can't imagine going to a graduate level seminar that identified its purpose as defending the nature and existence of the soul. This sounds like apologetics 101. I'm roughly familiar with Talbot because William Lane Craig (not a fan), but I didn't expect the MA program to be quite so radical. 

 

You raise some good concerns, Matt, but you can't judge the program by its course descriptions. (Not that you were doing that, of course). It isn't radical at all. Let me briefly explain some things.

 

You have to keep in mind that the MA philosophy program is a part of a Seminary at an private, evangelical university. That explains why they have courses in Spiritual Formation. For those who are non-Christians, those classes won't make any sense---nor should they. For those of us who don't much care for the non-philosophy parts of the curriculum, you have to either "play the game" (so to speak) and take the required classes to graduate, or else take only the philosophy classes and apply out without graduating.

 

Regarding class descriptions, I don't know for sure why the Phil Mind description is what it is (more on that below), but I took the class and that's not how it was. It sure as hell isn't "apologetics 101." No one tried to convince the students of dualism. Plenty of former Biola/Talbot student's are non-dualists, and JP Moreland (who taught my phil mind class), though a dualist, was extremely fair and allowed students to disagree with him. Students (like me) had the space to wrestle with all the questions. There was no dualist bent, even though the professor was a dualist. We read the philosophers who show up on any phil mind syllabus: Chalmers, Jackson, Fodor, Churchland, Kim, Lowe, etc. We were tested (and assigned papers) on the content of current theories and problems.

 

Now, here's some speculation about why the descriptions read as they do. It's a seminary where the idea of a philosophy program can seem "scary" to many conservative Christians. So, if you can tie some "religious" talk into the program title and the course descriptions, you might have fewer battles to fight with the dean and the on-campus theologians (who haven't always been on board with "big, scary" philosophy and the theories that might come up in a course on phil mind). It's difficult to sell good philosophy---which Biola gives---to conservative Christians. That's pure conjecture, but I suspect something like that explains the descriptions. 

 

Lastly, just because William Lane Caig is "research" professor doesn't mean he's very connected with the department. You can graduate here and never meet the guy. He teaches one two-week cuorse every interterm. The rest of the year he's in Atlanta.  

 

All I can say is that you can receive a hell of a philosophy education at Talbot.  

 

I would advise judging the program on the quality of philosophers it produces, and NOT on its course descriptions. I would love to speak with anyone who wants to PM me about the program. I know it quite well, warts (there are many) and all.   

Edited April 8, 2014 by Wait For It...

[MattDest]

Thanks for the thoughtful response, Wait For It. I'm glad to hear that the courses aren't as they are described, although that seems pretty troubling by itself. The idea that philosophy courses need to be infused with religious commitments to appear less scary is not my ideal version of a philosophical education, but I think that's probably less worrying than the courses being as described. 

 

I don't doubt that Talbot can produce good philosophers, but I'm just not a fan of philosophy that's guided primarily by religious commitments. 

Edited April 8, 2014 by MattDest

[stressedout]

Thanks for the thoughtful response, Wait For It. I'm glad to hear that the courses aren't as they are described, although that seems pretty troubling by itself. The idea that philosophy courses need to be infused with religious commitments to appear less scary is not my ideal version of a philosophical education, but I think that's probably less worrying than the courses being as described. 

 

I don't doubt that Talbot can produce good philosophers, but I'm just not a fan of philosophy that's guided primarily by religious commitments. 

 

You can't possibly be this naive.  All philosophy is guided by religious commitments.

[Cottagecheeseman]

You can't possibly be this naive.  All philosophy is guided by religious commitments.

Can't tell if joking or serious. If the second:

 

[stressedout]

Can't tell if joking or serious. If the second:

 

 

Show me how I'm wrong, then.  Pick any set of metaphilosophical axioms, and show me how those axioms aren't themselves religious or don't imply or entail religious consequences.

[Establishment]

Show me how I'm wrong, then.  Pick any set of metaphilosophical axioms, and show me how those axioms aren't themselves religious or don't imply or entail religious consequences.

 

My religious assumptions are not to be guided by religious assumptions.

 

And as we all know, if A then ~A, therefore ~A. Q.E.D.

[Establishment]

Show me how I'm wrong, then.  Pick any set of metaphilosophical axioms, and show me how those axioms aren't themselves religious or don't imply or entail religious consequences.

 

Also, I hope you're a troll. "You can't possibly be this naive."

Edited April 9, 2014 by Establishment

[stressedout]

My religious assumptions are not to be guided by religious assumptions.

 

And as we all know, if A then ~A, therefore ~A. Q.E.D.

 

Cute.

[stressedout]

Also, I hope you're a troll. "You can't possibly be this naive."

 

If you think I'm a troll, then don't engage. Isn't that the first rule of troll-management 101?

[Establishment]

If you think I'm a troll, then don't engage. Isn't that the first rule of troll-management 101?

 

Yeah. That's the rule 101 students are taught. But I'm a graduate student, and we play by a different set of rules.

[stressedout]

Yeah. That's the rule 101 students are taught. But I'm a graduate student, and we play by a different set of rules.

 

Again, cute.  Well, if you won't seriously engage, and you won't castigate me as a troll, then I'm going to disengage with you.  

 

Good day.

[Establishment]

Again, cute.  Well, if you won't seriously engage, and you won't castigate me as a troll, then I'm going to disengage with you.  

 

Good day.

 

There's no point in seriously engaging with crazy or troll.

[Cottagecheeseman]

COME BACK! PLEASE! I'M BORED! I WANT TO ARGUE WITH STUPID PEOPLE! 

[Ulixes]

I think I missed the argument. This is what stressedout said:

 

Show me how I'm wrong, then.  Pick any set of metaphilosophical axioms, and show me how those axioms aren't themselves religious or don't imply or entail religious consequences.

 

 

You can't possibly be this naive.  All philosophy is guided by religious commitments.

 

 

The former is the real question. The latter is a sloganized version of the former, despite coming first in the argument. I'm not seeing any response to the actual question coming from Establishment or Zizeksucks; though, I'm not sure they should be expected to reply given how the argument started.

[Ulixes]

...

 

 

There was a firreeeffiiigghhhttt!!