2015 Applicants Assemble!

[mano]

I have still one application to submit   (deadline is the end of this month). And I just can't stop myself from making some changes on my SOP.  You are at least finished with your applications (what's done is done)... so look at the bright side   

I wish everyone good luck.

[ianfaircloud]

Ah, thanks so much for this detailed response. It's extremely helpful. And I just discovered your philosophy admissions blog! Ahhhh.

 

I'm strongly disinclined (for now) to attempt what you mention in the last paragraph, although it's tempting and very possible. Beyond the possibility of it backfiring, I am also just uncomfortable with the idea.

 

Somewhat relatedly, here's another idea that cropped up but I rejected due to queasiness. Professor A, one of my letter writers who knows my work well, is a relatively junior professor at my current workplace. Professor B, who is not one of my letter writers and is almost entirely unfamiliar with my work, is a senior professor, and the superior of both A and me at work. Before submitting the letters, Professor A asked me if I wanted them to forward their letter to Professor B to submit under B's name, since B was more senior and better connected to faculty members at the places I was applying to. Professor A ostensibly thought this was fine since B is pretty much my boss at work. It's not like B and I are unacquainted - B is simply unfamiliar with my philosophical work such that they wouldn't be able to write anything meaningful for me unaided, as I work mostly with A. I thanked Professor A, but declined their suggestion.

 

I've been called an idiot for saying no, but have no regrets. I dunno though, can't help but wonder... what do others think? Would you have accepted the offer? Is it a common thing to do?

 

Anyway, Ian, I will keep your suggestion in mind - who knows, I may find myself needing to do it! Blah. Thanks once again.

 

Addendum: what do people think about emailing the admissions committee yourself if waitlisted, to let them know you're very serious about the department? I'm much more inclined to do this over asking one of my recommenders to do it.

 

Tuv0k, I happen not to share your worry about the ethics of having a letter submitted under another person's name, but I respect you for following your intuition. My own view is that the person whose name appears on the letter has endorsed its content. Maybe the moral question is whether the person should endorse the content. Perhaps B has good reason to believe that whatever A says about you is just as reliable as anything B would learn directly. If B is mistaken, that's B's problem, right? Hmm. I do see why someone would hesitate to accept the deal.

 

Is this common practice? Well, maybe not as much in Philosophy. But in the world out there, in the legal world and the business world, it's super common. It's so common that it's now expected. This could change the moral evaluation of your situation involving A and B. If admissions committees understand that this is quite normal practice, they will not be misled by letters, because they will view all letters with this in mind. That's the theory at least. I should say that I know a senior professor in philosophy who has a junior professor write letters on his or her behalf.

 

Now two more points. With regard to your decision not to ask letter-writers to contact the department, that's understandable. You may want to consult your letter-writers, too. Maybe tell them what's happening with your applications. I think the norm varies by department, but some departments really want to do this sort of networking on your behalf. (Edit: After all, your letter-writers have invested a lot in you. They simply want to help, and their spoken word on your behalf may allow the admissions committee to make a better-informed decision. So the motive needn't be shady, even if we decide that, all things considered, the practice is shady.) That may not be relevant to you.

 

Finally, to your question about emailing the committee. In both law and philosophy admissions, applicants often attempt to move themselves from wait-list to admittance. Law applicants are very aggressive about this-- they often send three or four "letters of continuing interest" in the hope of being admitted. Philosophy applicants, true to form, are less assertive. However, it is widely accepted practice to contact the department (perhaps the graduate admissions chair or whomever notified you of the wait-list) to let the relevant people know that you're very glad to be considered, that you're very serious about the program, that there are specific things (naming those things) that draw you to the program, and -- if and only if it's true -- that you would immediately accept an offer of admission. It's normal to feel uncomfortable with this, but it's widely accepted.

 

In every case, no matter your feelings about any of the above, you ought to offer at least a brief reply to a wait-list offer to let the person know that you received the offer and are glad to be considered. That's just a matter of old-fashioned propriety.

Edited February 2, 2015 by ianfaircloud

[tuv0k]

Tuv0k, I happen not to share your worry about the ethics of having a letter submitted under another person's name, but I respect you for following your intuition. My own view is that the person whose name appears on the letter has endorsed its content. Maybe the moral question is whether the person should endorse the content. Perhaps B has good reason to believe that whatever A says about you is just as reliable as anything B would learn directly. If B is mistaken, that's B's problem, right? Hmm. I do see why someone would hesitate to accept the deal.

 

Is this common practice? Well, maybe not as much in Philosophy. But in the world out there, in the legal world and the business world, it's super common. It's so common that it's now expected. This could change the moral evaluation of your situation involving A and B. If admissions committees understand that this is quite normal practice, they will not be misled by letters, because they will view all letters with this in mind. That's the theory at least. I should say that I know a senior professor in philosophy who has a junior professor write letters on his or her behalf.

 

Now two more points. With regard to your decision not to ask letter-writers to contact the department, that's understandable. You may want to consult your letter-writers, too. Maybe tell them what's happening with your applications. I think the norm varies by department, but some departments really want to do this sort of networking on your behalf. (Edit: After all, your letter-writers have invested a lot in you. They simply want to help, and their spoken word on your behalf may allow the admissions committee to make a better-informed decision. So the motive needn't be shady, even if we decide that, all things considered, the practice is shady.) That may not be relevant to you.

 

Finally, to your question about emailing the committee. In both law and philosophy admissions, applicants often attempt to move themselves from wait-list to admittance. Law applicants are very aggressive about this-- they often send three or four "letters of continuing interest" in the hope of being admitted. Philosophy applicants, true to form, are less assertive. However, it is widely accepted practice to contact the department (perhaps the graduate admissions chair or whomever notified you of the wait-list) to let the relevant people know that you're very glad to be considered, that you're very serious about the program, that there are specific things (naming those things) that draw you to the program, and -- if and only if it's true -- that you would immediately accept an offer of admission. It's normal to feel uncomfortable with this, but it's widely accepted.

 

In every case, no matter your feelings about any of the above, you ought to offer at least a brief reply to a wait-list offer to let the person know that you received the offer and are glad to be considered. That's just a matter of old-fashioned propriety.

 

 

Thank you Ian! I think the reason I declined Professor A's offer was more a matter of me being caught off guard and then following my intuition without thinking too much, than any real, well-thought-out evaluation (moral or otherwise). On another day, perhaps I'd have accepted.

 

As for responding to Duke, I definitely want to do so personally. But I'll wait for more results before doing so, since my results will certainly affect what I wish to communicate to Duke. Otherwise I'd just be saying something to the effect of, 'Hi Professor(s) X, just wanted to tell you I'm happy to know I'm on the wait list and like everyone else I'd love to move up the ranks, although I don't know anything about my plans yet. Yeah... *sound of crickets*'. Personally I don't feel the need to say this.

 

I also feel less pressure to respond immediately, because the wait list decision came in the form of an impersonal template letter from the graduate school, and not the philosophy department.

 

Just to clarify, I don't think anyone's motive must be shady to engage in the practice you mentioned, or that anyone who does so necessarily makes a questionable decision. It's just that at this early point in the game, my own motives for doing so would definitely be questionable (by me, at least). This may, of course, change.

 

Thanks for your advice and the information. Good to know all this

Edited February 3, 2015 by tuv0k

[reixis]

Just been notified that I am in the wait-list for Miami. I was expecting a rejection by this time since the first acceptances were sent a week ago, so this is pretty good news!

 

EDIT: Ops, posted in the wrong thread. Haha

Edited February 10, 2015 by reixis

[ineedwine]

Rejected from Michigan. Expected as the app I sent them was really unfinished due to their due date being December 5th.

[ianfaircloud]

Rejected from Michigan. Expected as the app I sent them was really unfinished due to their due date being December 5th.

 

To be clear, you mean that you were rejected by Michigan State University for the MA?

[B. Blumenstrauss]

 

 

Princeton Philosophy, PhD (F15) Other via Other on 11 Feb 2015   11 Feb 2015

• The Princeton post below must be a joke. Look up 'yield protection'. It's a law school thing. Lighten up, folks.

Princeton Philosophy, PhD (F15) Other via Other on 11 Feb 2015 O 11 Feb 2015

• Poster below: was your rejection solicited?

Princeton Philosophy, PhD (F15) Rejected via E-mail on 11 Feb 2015   11 Feb 2015

• "Yield and protect," I guess.

 

What about Princeton (and these posts)? We just have to wait until March 6th?

[Cecinestpasunphilosophe]

What about Princeton (and these posts)? We just have to wait until March 6th?

 

Yeah, there's no way Princeton released that early. 

[ineedwine]

To be clear, you mean that you were rejected by Michigan State University for the MA?

Yeah, I thought that was obvious.

[jailbreak]

Most of my anecdotal evidence comes from a professor coworker of my fiancee's who taught at U. Oregon for a bit and whose wife had a really hard time finding work. What he said was that while the university is one of the largest employers in Eugene (one of the other largest employers being Walmart), jobs there are really hard to come by, don't pay as well as they should (even when accounting for the lower cost of living in Eugene), and if she does get a job my fiancee may have to settle for a position lower than what she has been working hard for many years to achieve at her current institution. Needless to say, this makes her very resistant to move across the country away from her family for a very little and risky opportunity. Unless I am able to secure some confidence that she would be able to attain an administrative job at the university close to her current level and with decent pay, then it is extremely unlikely that I would be able to convince her to move out there. And this is a fair deal I think.

 

For what it's worth, I've heard some bad things about dysfunctionality in the Oregon department. It may be better to research other schools in the NY area -- my impression is that there are a lot that could be good fits for you. (I know I'm commenting on this late, though -- sorry!)

[jjb919]

For what it's worth, I've heard some bad things about dysfunctionality in the Oregon department. It may be better to research other schools in the NY area -- my impression is that there are a lot that could be good fits for you. (I know I'm commenting on this late, though -- sorry!)

Hey thanks, better late than never! If I may ask, what kind of things have you heard? You can PM me if you don't feel comfortable giving details publicly.

[Billy Goehring]

For what it's worth, I've heard some bad things about dysfunctionality in the Oregon department. It may be better to research other schools in the NY area -- my impression is that there are a lot that could be good fits for you. (I know I'm commenting on this late, though -- sorry!)

 

As a current student at Oregon, this really surprises me. For what it's worth!

[pearclick]

As a current student at Oregon, this really surprises me. For what it's worth!

 

I'm also a student at Oregon, and I would certainly not describe our department as dysfunctional. Please message me if you have any questions! I'd be happy to answer them. 

[Duns Eith]

Another person interested in phil of religion! Fantastic. Any particular areas/thinkers you're hoping to focus on in grad school?

So, it's been almost a month for this reply. Sorry! (I have no excuse; I have simply been looking at results, not really spending much time on the forum -- the opposite of what my preoccupation should be, right?)

 

I am interested in early modern guys. I am hoping to study more on Berkeley than anyone else, which will mean interacting with the major philosophers related to him, e.g. Augustine, Ockham, Locke, Malebranche, Reid, Hume, etc. (Btw, did you notice that the people reviewing the PGR rankings for 17th cent were almost exclusively faculty who were interested in Leibniz and Spinoza? I can't remember a single reviewer who didn't have an explicit interest or expertise/publications in one or the other, or both)

 

I got an MA at a seminary, and, when I had opportunity, I wrote some of my major term papers on Bishop Berkeley (examining his life/context, his apologetic method, his epistemic model in comparison and contrast with an important figure in the seminary's founding). In my spare time, I spent a lot of time in reading groups where we discussed Scholastic metaphysics (particularly, Thomistic) -- Aquinas, Scotus, Etienne Gilson, John Owens, and John Wippel (CUA). We interacted a little with Rudi Te Velde. I loved those discussions; I'm co-leading the group now even after I've graduated.

 

The seminary I went to emphasized a particular version of analogia entis that fits with Presbyterian/Reformed circles (rejecting that the divine can be subsumed under esse commune, contra Scotus). A major topic on our campus has been regarding the popular analytic revision of divine simplicity, where possible world semantics is supposed to help resolve issues of transcendence/immanence. A lot of my time has been spent on these topics, which has shifted some of my original interests of philosophical study, but I haven't sorted out what that would look like.

Edited February 17, 2015 by Turretin

[Establishment]

So, it's been almost a month for this reply. Sorry! (I have no excuse; I have simply been looking at results, not really spending much time on the forum -- the opposite of what my preoccupation should be, right?)

 

I am interested in early modern guys. I am hoping to study more on Berkeley than anyone else, which will mean interacting with the major philosophers related to him, e.g. Augustine, Ockham, Locke, Malebranche, Reid, Hume, etc. (Btw, did you notice that the people reviewing the PGR rankings for 17th cent were almost exclusively faculty who were interested in Leibniz and Spinoza? I can't remember a single reviewer who didn't have an explicit interest or expertise/publications in one or the other, or both)

 

I got an MA at a seminary, and, when I had opportunity, I wrote some of my major term papers on Bishop Berkeley (examining his life/context, his apologetic method, his epistemic model in comparison and contrast with an important figure in the seminary's founding). In my spare time, I spent a lot of time in reading groups where we discussed Scholastic metaphysics (particularly, Thomistic) -- Aquinas, Scotus, Etienne Gilson, John Owens, and John Wippel (CUA). We interacted a little with Rudi Te Velde. I loved those discussions; I'm co-leading the group now even after I've graduated.

 

The seminary I went to emphasized a particular version of analogia entis that fits with Presbyterian/Reformed circles (rejecting that the divine can be subsumed under esse commune, contra Scotus). A major topic on our campus has been regarding the popular analytic revision of divine simplicity, where possible world semantics is supposed to help resolve issues of transcendence/immanence. A lot of my time has been spent on these topics, which has shifted some of my original interests of philosophical study, but I haven't sorted out what that would look like.

 

Just chiming in to say you've got some rad interests.

[Cecinestpasunphilosophe]

So, it's been almost a month for this reply. Sorry! (I have no excuse; I have simply been looking at results, not really spending much time on the forum -- the opposite of what my preoccupation should be, right?)

 

I am interested in early modern guys. I am hoping to study more on Berkeley than anyone else, which will mean interacting with the major philosophers related to him, e.g. Augustine, Ockham, Locke, Malebranche, Reid, Hume, etc. (Btw, did you notice that the people reviewing the PGR rankings for 17th cent were almost exclusively faculty who were interested in Leibniz and Spinoza? I can't remember a single reviewer who didn't have an explicit interest or expertise/publications in one or the other, or both)

 

I got an MA at a seminary, and, when I had opportunity, I wrote some of my major term papers on Bishop Berkeley (examining his life/context, his apologetic method, his epistemic model in comparison and contrast with an important figure in the seminary's founding). In my spare time, I spent a lot of time in reading groups where we discussed Scholastic metaphysics (particularly, Thomistic) -- Aquinas, Scotus, Etienne Gilson, John Owens, and John Wippel (CUA). We interacted a little with Rudi Te Velde. I loved those discussions; I'm co-leading the group now even after I've graduated.

 

The seminary I went to emphasized a particular version of analogia entis that fits with Presbyterian/Reformed circles (rejecting that the divine can be subsumed under esse commune, contra Scotus). A major topic on our campus has been regarding the popular analytic revision of divine simplicity, where possible world semantics is supposed to help resolve issues of transcendence/immanence. A lot of my time has been spent on these topics, which has shifted some of my original interests of philosophical study, but I haven't sorted out what that would look like.

 

Fantastic stuff! I'm fascinated by Malebranche myself, and feel like his work has received far too little attention in modern Anglo-American scholarship... Along with Arnauld, and Pascal, and a whole bunch of other writers from the era. But I guess such favoritism is more or less unavoidable in historical scholarship at a certain point, unfortunately. I hadn't noticed just how slanted the PGR review respondents were, though! 

I've been learning about the analogia entis with the same anti-Scotus approach, though grounded in Lonergan rather than Presbyterian/Reformed circles (I've been studying Thomistic metaphysics through a Jesuit college at my university). Have you ever read Przywara's Analogia Entis? It's on my reading list for later in the semester, and I'm quite excited to dive into it.

[Monadology]

So, it's been almost a month for this reply. Sorry! (I have no excuse; I have simply been looking at results, not really spending much time on the forum -- the opposite of what my preoccupation should be, right?)

 

I am interested in early modern guys. I am hoping to study more on Berkeley than anyone else, which will mean interacting with the major philosophers related to him, e.g. Augustine, Ockham, Locke, Malebranche, Reid, Hume, etc. (Btw, did you notice that the people reviewing the PGR rankings for 17th cent were almost exclusively faculty who were interested in Leibniz and Spinoza? I can't remember a single reviewer who didn't have an explicit interest or expertise/publications in one or the other, or both)

 

Berkeley is awesome! How come you didn't apply to the MA at UW Milwaukee? Margaret Atherton is fantastic if you want to do Berkeley (and early modern in general). 

[Duns Eith]

Just chiming in to say you've got some rad interests.

Thanks for chiming in!

 

Fantastic stuff! I'm fascinated by Malebranche myself, and feel like his work has received far too little attention in modern Anglo-American scholarship... Along with Arnauld, and Pascal, and a whole bunch of other writers from the era. But I guess such favoritism is more or less unavoidable in historical scholarship at a certain point, unfortunately. I hadn't noticed just how slanted the PGR review respondents were, though!

 

Sweet! Malebranche is fun for a host of reasons. I honestly haven't gotten into Arnauld much, except in the context of Descartes (and it has been very brief). What has drawn you to Malebranche, personally? Or, better yet -- what are your interests? They are more the Medieval period, no?

 

I've been learning about the analogia entis with the same anti-Scotus approach, though grounded in Lonergan rather than Presbyterian/Reformed circles (I've been studying Thomistic metaphysics through a Jesuit college at my university). Have you ever read Przywara's Analogia Entis? It's on my reading list for later in the semester, and I'm quite excited to dive into it.

Prompted by your post, I have just gone to my seminary's library and picked up some books by Lonergan and a book which has Przywara's analogia entis. Thanks for pointing me in this direction; I'm interested

 

Berkeley is awesome! How come you didn't apply to the MA at UW Milwaukee? Margaret Atherton is fantastic if you want to do Berkeley (and early modern in general).

Great question! Unfortunately, I don't have a good answer. I really have no idea why I didn't investigate UW-Milwaukee. I checked out so many programs, I don't know why it never jumped out to me. About a week before the deadline for the MA, one of my references emailed me and said that UW-M was a good program (specifically for Atherton) as well... But by then I knew I couldn't get the app with the letters of recommendation in on time.

 

That said, I regret I did not apply there. She is fantastic and I would love to study under her. If there is a round-two of applications, UW-M will definitely be in the mix and a priority.

Edited February 17, 2015 by Turretin

[Cecinestpasunphilosophe]

Sweet! Malebranche is fun for a host of reasons. I honestly haven't gotten into Arnauld much, except in the context of Descartes (and it has been very brief). What has drawn you to Malebranche, personally? Or, better yet -- what are your interests? They are more the Medieval period, no?

 

Prompted by your post, I have just gone to my seminary's library and picked up some books by Lonergan and a book which has Przywara's analogia entis. Thanks for pointing me in this direction; I'm interested

 

Lonergan's one of the foremost Catholic theologians/philosophers of the 20th century - and rather difficult, but incredibly rewarding. I haven't yet had a chance to spend too much time reading his stuff, but he's near the top of my summer reading list. Hope you enjoy him!

 

I have two principal reasons to be interested in Malebranche - one negative, one positive. I think his work brings to its culmination a trend in Christian philosophy and theology that grows out of Augustine and finds itself most fully expressed in the Jansenist and Calvinist movements of the 16th and 17th centuries and that, out of a fear of compromising God's omnipotence, seeks to remove agency (whether natural or human) from world. I think Malebranche represents the culmination of this weltanshauung, and inadvertently performs a reductio ad absurdum in regards to such beliefs through his philosophical system. So I'm interested in exploring his occasionalism, its historical antecedents, and its subsequent reception within the Western philosophical canon, because I see Malebranche's rejection as a rejection of many of the intellectual tendencies that originate with Augustine. On a more positive note, I'm fascinated by Malebranche's notion of Vision en Dieu - I also see it as the re-articulation of a chain of discourse in the Western canon that originates with Plato, is carried through the ancient world by Epictetus and Plotinus, and then finds its Christian articulation in the works of Augustine and Aquinas (among many others). I'm really interested in that entire chain of thought, and Malebranche functions as a relatively prominent link in that chain, so I'm interested in his work! 

I'm also interested in the understanding of human freedom that seems to bind together many of the rationalists (from Descartes and Malebranche to Leibniz and Arnauld)... But that's probably more than you ever really wanted to hear when you asked that question, so I'll stop myself from going on further!

[Monadology]

Great question! Unfortunately, I don't have a good answer. I really have no idea why I didn't investigate UW-Milwaukee. I checked out so many programs, I don't know why it never jumped out to me. About a week before the deadline for the MA, one of my references emailed me and said that UW-M was a good program (specifically for Atherton) as well... But by then I knew I couldn't get the app with the letters of recommendation in on time.

 

That said, I regret I did not apply there. She is fantastic and I would love to study under her. If there is a round-two of applications, UW-M will definitely be in the mix and a priority.

 

I had a similar experience! The first time I applied out of my MA program (UW Milwaukee, in fact, where I gained my love of Berkeley - so I'll admit my recommendation is a bit biased), I looked at UC Riverside and for some reason decided it wasn't a good enough fit to make my list. Then two people in my cohort were admitted there and visited. Neither of them ended up at UCR, but both came back from the visit and basically said 'It's perfect for you! Why didn't you apply there?' I checked again and realized it was, in fact, an excellent fit.

Edited February 17, 2015 by Monadology

[jailbreak]

I'm also a student at Oregon, and I would certainly not describe our department as dysfunctional. Please message me if you have any questions! I'd be happy to answer them. 

 

Sorry to you and Billy Goehring -- I have no personal experience with the department, so your perspective on things is much more likely to be accurate than whatever I heard through the grapevine!

[Billy Goehring]

Sorry to you and Billy Goehring -- I have no personal experience with the department, so your perspective on things is much more likely to be accurate than whatever I heard through the grapevine!

 

No, not at all!  It's only alarming because it means someone's talking trash. Btw looks like you're having a good season! Excited to see where you go. 

[jailbreak]

No, not at all!  It's only alarming because it means someone's talking trash. Btw looks like you're having a good season! Excited to see where you go. 

 

Thanks! I'm pretty happy these days, haha. I'm excited too -- it will definitely be a hard choice.