Results of grad applicant survey published

[ianfaircloud]

The results of the comprehensive survey of applicants to philosophy graduate programs have been published at faircloudblog.wordpress.com/philosophy-admissions-survey. Please read the brief notes in bullet points on the survey page before reading the results or offering comments.

Edited July 25, 2014 by ianfaircloud

[perpetuavix]

Thanks, Ian!!! 

I started looking through it, trying to see some patterns. I ended up making a blog to post about what I've seen so far: http://perpetuavix.wordpress.com/2014/07/25/philosophy-admissions-survey-traditions/

and I think there's a lot of other interesting stuff in here. I'm planning to do a couple more posts over the next few days. 

[ianfaircloud]

Thanks, Ian!!! 

I started looking through it, trying to see some patterns. I ended up making a blog to post about what I've seen so far: http://perpetuavix.wordpress.com/2014/07/25/philosophy-admissions-survey-traditions/

and I think there's a lot of other interesting stuff in here. I'm planning to do a couple more posts over the next few days. 

 

I'm so glad to see the first reaction! Thanks so much for the post. And regarding the suggestion that there may be some difference in performance between continental and analytic applicants: intriguing!

 

Don't be surprised if we don't hear much from people in the coming weeks. It's midsummer, and I would venture a guess that many folks are away from the site.

[brettmullga]

Hi Ian, I wanted to thank you for all that you've done! I'm going to take a good look at it over the weekend and think about what possible statistical models one could apply. I'm thinking it would be useful to use a probit regression with the dependent variable being either a specific uni with a several observations (Pitt, Cornell, etc.) or PGR top 20. This would shed some light on the analytic/continental question. If anyone's interested in this type of thing, then let me know and I'll work on cleaning the dataset and creating a dictionary. 

[MorganFreemanlives]

im glad this is finally up but the format the information is presented in is pretty bad.

 

here are some things im hoping to extract from the info

1.how significant is URM status

2. how many folks from unknown schools got into top places

3.did publishing show any pattern of helping an application

[ianfaircloud]

im glad this is finally up but the format the information is presented in is pretty bad.

 

Hence my forewarning on the page: "No doubt this is not the most organized way to gather and present the data." Yes, it's not great. Please contribute by reorganizing the data for us!

[brettmullga]

Can someone provide a list of the Continental Graduate programs that will be reflected in the admissions data?

[perpetuavix]

im glad this is finally up but the format the information is presented in is pretty bad.

 

here are some things im hoping to extract from the info

1.how significant is URM status

2. how many folks from unknown schools got into top places

3.did publishing show any pattern of helping an application

I'm working on 1, and I just posted about the people who were especially successful (and touch on 2 and 3). 

[The Pedanticist]

The results of the comprehensive survey of applicants to philosophy graduate programs have been published at faircloudblog.wordpress.com/philosophy-admissions-survey. Please read the brief notes in bullet points on the survey page before reading the results or offering comments.

 

Thanks so much!  I really do appreciate this!  

 

Thanks, Ian!!! 

I started looking through it, trying to see some patterns. I ended up making a blog to post about what I've seen so far: http://perpetuavix.wordpress.com/2014/07/25/philosophy-admissions-survey-traditions/

and I think there's a lot of other interesting stuff in here. I'm planning to do a couple more posts over the next few days. 

 

Thanks for this as well.  What software did you use for this?  

Edited July 27, 2014 by The Pedanticist

[brettmullga]

Here are some significant results from an ols regression with a PGR Top 20 Acceptance as the dependent variable. There's not enough data for the interesting things to work like SOP and writing sample topics. 

 

Variable           DF Parameter Estimate Standard Error t Value Pr > |t|

e_sel_sel          1               -0.42592    0.20732    -2.05    0.0459

urep_t50           1               -0.46770     0.26485   -1.77    0.0843 

mino                  1                0.33844      0.16598    2.04     0.0475

exp_rel              1                0.49385      0.19707     2.51    0.0160 

gr_gpa_80to89 1                 -0.57997    0.23284     -2.49   0.0166 

 

Here's the interpretation:

1. Relative to a very selective undergraduate uni, by attending a selective school one is ~40% less likely to get a T20 PGR acceptance.
2. Relative to attending a Top 20 undergrad uni, by attending a school ranked 35-50 one is ~45% less likely to get in.
3. Relative to not being a minority, by being a minority one is ~30% more likely to get in.
4. Relative to have no relevant experience, by having relevant experience one is ~50% more likely to get in.
5. Relative to a grad GPA between 4.0 and 3.9, one is ~55% less likely to get in with a grad GPA between 3.8 and 3.89.

 

No others were significant, unfortunately. Are there any other dependent variables anyone would like me to look at?

 

Edit: resolving formatting problems

Edited July 27, 2014 by brettmullga

[MorganFreemanlives]

Here are some significant results from an ols regression with a PGR Top 20 Acceptance as the dependent variable. There's not enough data for the interesting things to work like SOP and writing sample topics. 

 

Variable           DF Parameter Estimate Standard Error t Value Pr > |t|

e_sel_sel          1               -0.42592    0.20732    -2.05    0.0459

urep_t50           1               -0.46770     0.26485   -1.77    0.0843 

mino                  1                0.33844      0.16598    2.04     0.0475

exp_rel              1                0.49385      0.19707     2.51    0.0160 

gr_gpa_80to89 1                 -0.57997    0.23284     -2.49   0.0166 

 

Here's the interpretation:

1. Relative to a very selective undergraduate uni, by attending a selective school one is ~40% less likely to get a T20 PGR acceptance.
2. Relative to attending a Top 20 undergrad uni, by attending a school ranked 35-50 one is ~45% less likely to get in.
3. Relative to not being a minority, by being a minority one is ~30% more likely to get in.
4. Relative to have no relevant experience, by having relevant experience one is ~50% more likely to get in.
5. Relative to a grad GPA between 4.0 and 3.9, one is ~55% less likely to get in with a grad GPA between 3.8 and 3.89.

 

No others were significant, unfortunately. Are there any other dependent variables anyone would like me to look at?

 

Edit: resolving formatting problems

Very juicy information indeed

for 4 i wonder what constitutes  relevant experience. my department has begun offering the top majors a chance to have tutoring sessions for students in  intro to philosophy/intro to ethics. im delighted to have this privilege for its own sake, but if it can further aid my applications then im truly in joy.

 

as for 5, i wonder if this supports the theory that many grad schools usually  have a bias agaisnt ma students (as in they require much more of you to be equally impressive).  maybe its just me but if you try to translate the 3.8-3.9 vs 3.9-4.0 comparison for undergrad applicants, a 55 percent advantage sounds off even accounting the difficulty of philosophy admissions. i guess the moral of the lesson is to try to get to the best place you can directly from undergrad if possible to be safe.

[ianfaircloud]

I'm working on 1, and I just posted about the people who were especially successful (and touch on 2 and 3). 

 

I'm excited to hear more from you, Perpetuavix, and others about the survey.

 

I especially appreciate your post (http://perpetuavix.wordpress.com/2014/07/27/some-notes-about-the-data-set/) regarding the limits of the survey. My own take is that the survey results are helpful, though the conclusions we draw from the results have a large margin of error. At the least, I believe the survey results offer us much more about philosophy admissions than the advice and personal experiences reported to us from professors and peers. For example, from professors I hear multiple, conflicting reports about the helpfulness of various pieces of an application file. From peers, I hear a lot of speculation about, e.g., the importance of GRE. We now can look at the profiles of 80+ applicants and see roughly how they fared. No one can rightly deny that this is very helpful and a big step in the direction of cracking philosophy admissions (if the thing can be cracked!).

 

It sounds like you've begun to draw conclusions of some value. Again, I'm so glad to see that someone competent to interpret the data is offering us some (even tentative) conclusions.

 

In the meantime, you rightly suggest that the next person to conduct a survey should try to avoid the problems with my survey. I completely agree. I also think that it would be helpful if the next person is *qualified* to write the survey. I have no relevant formal training; I have just a sense of what we all want to know about philosophy admissions. Perhaps the next survey could be a team effort, with at least one highly qualified person participating in the development of the questions, design, and administration.

 

Let's also start a list of all the drawbacks of my survey and the challenges that we face with future surveys. Here's a start:

• First, I couldn't get enough participants. If we had another 50 or 100 participants, I assume the results would be way more helpful.
• Second, I could only reach people through the Gradcafe forum. In my experience, the people on this forum are generally better applicants than those not on the forum.
• Third, I changed the survey after receiving a lot of responses, on account of the fact that many of the respondents were getting survey fatigue and exiting the survey before entering data on all of the schools to which they applied. I also suspect that some people were worried about privacy and decided not to provide the details concerning programs to which they applied. (To address this, I suggest the next survey exclude the school-specific questions and simply jump to a results page in which respondents are asked to give the number of schools to which they were admitted, wait-listed, and denied in the categories of T20, T35, T50, and unranked.)
• Fourth, some respondents skipped quite a few questions. I chose to make almost every question optional in order to encourage participation. We need to think about whether this was the best approach. The problem is this: philosophy-types are opinionated, and it's very difficult to write a long survey which contains only questions that every participant is willing and able to answer.

More to say . . . !

Edited July 28, 2014 by ianfaircloud

[perpetuavix]

I'm excited to hear more from you, Perpetuavix, and others about the survey.

 

I especially appreciate your post (http://perpetuavix.wordpress.com/2014/07/27/some-notes-about-the-data-set/) regarding the limits of the survey. My own take is that the survey results are helpful, though the conclusions we draw from the results have a large margin of error. At the least, I believe the survey results offer us much more about philosophy admissions than the advice and personal experiences reported to us from professors and peers. For example, from professors I hear multiple, conflicting reports about the helpfulness of various pieces of an application file. From peers, I hear a lot of speculation about, e.g., the importance of GRE. We now can look at the profiles of 80+ applicants and see roughly how they fared. No one can rightly deny that this is very helpful and a big step in the direction of cracking philosophy admissions (if the thing can be cracked!).

 

It sounds like you've begun to draw conclusions of some value. Again, I'm so glad to see that someone competent to interpret the data is offering us some (even tentative) conclusions.

 

In the meantime, you rightly suggest that the next person to conduct a survey should try to avoid the problems with my survey. I completely agree. I also think that it would be helpful if the next person is *qualified* to write the survey. I have no relevant formal training; I have just a sense of what we all want to know about philosophy admissions. Perhaps the next survey could be a team effort, with at least one highly qualified person participating in the development of the questions, design, and administration.

 

Let's also start a list of all the drawbacks of my survey and the challenges that we face with future surveys. Here's a start:

• First, I couldn't get enough participants. If we had another 50 or 100 participants, I assume the results would be way more helpful.
• Second, I could only reach people through the Gradcafe forum. In my experience, the people on this forum are generally better applicants than those not on the forum.
• Third, I changed the survey after receiving a lot of responses, on account of the fact that many of the respondents were getting survey fatigue and exiting the survey before entering data on all of the schools to which they applied. I also suspect that some people were worried about privacy and decided not to provide the details concerning programs to which they applied. (To address this, I suggest the next survey exclude the school-specific questions and simply jump to a results page in which respondents are asked to give the number of schools to which they were admitted, wait-listed, and denied in the categories of T20, T35, T50, and unranked.)
• Fourth, some respondents skipped quite a few questions. I chose to make almost every question optional in order to encourage participation. We need to think about whether this was the best approach. The problem is this: philosophy-types are opinionated, and it's very difficult to write a long survey which contains only questions that every participant is willing and able to answer.

More to say . . . !

Yeah, I think the biggest problems were the sample size and that the summary questions weren't there to start with. Most people answered most of the more demographic questions, but when it came to posting their results, it was way more hit or miss. But I think the questions themselves covered all our bases, and I don't know that someone 'qualified' could've added much to it, really. For increasing the exposure, it would've been helpful, but I don't know how it could've happened. I don't know how widely prospectives read any of the philosophy blogs, although some of them might've been willing to publicize the survey. 

 

I think it will be valuable to future admissions cycles, because people can find someone with a very similar profile to themselves and see how it turned out for them.  

 

Thanks for this as well.  What software did you use for this?  

Excel, and I used graphpad for the t-tests (which was almost certainly the wrong test choice, but oh well). The newer stuff about gender and minority status was done in Minitab. 

[The Pedanticist]

Excel, and I used graphpad for the t-tests (which was almost certainly the wrong test choice, but oh well). The newer stuff about gender and minority status was done in Minitab. 

 

Cool.  I was just wondering because if you used SPSS I would have also been able to run some other tests.  I'm pretty new to using the quantitative software and just learned how to use the SPSS so far.  Thanks again for your work.

[Guillaume]

I'm excited to hear more from you, Perpetuavix, and others about the survey.

 

I especially appreciate your post (http://perpetuavix.wordpress.com/2014/07/27/some-notes-about-the-data-set/) regarding the limits of the survey. My own take is that the survey results are helpful, though the conclusions we draw from the results have a large margin of error. At the least, I believe the survey results offer us much more about philosophy admissions than the advice and personal experiences reported to us from professors and peers. For example, from professors I hear multiple, conflicting reports about the helpfulness of various pieces of an application file. From peers, I hear a lot of speculation about, e.g., the importance of GRE. We now can look at the profiles of 80+ applicants and see roughly how they fared. No one can rightly deny that this is very helpful and a big step in the direction of cracking philosophy admissions (if the thing can be cracked!).

 

It sounds like you've begun to draw conclusions of some value. Again, I'm so glad to see that someone competent to interpret the data is offering us some (even tentative) conclusions.

 

In the meantime, you rightly suggest that the next person to conduct a survey should try to avoid the problems with my survey. I completely agree. I also think that it would be helpful if the next person is *qualified* to write the survey. I have no relevant formal training; I have just a sense of what we all want to know about philosophy admissions. Perhaps the next survey could be a team effort, with at least one highly qualified person participating in the development of the questions, design, and administration.

 

Let's also start a list of all the drawbacks of my survey and the challenges that we face with future surveys. Here's a start:

• First, I couldn't get enough participants. If we had another 50 or 100 participants, I assume the results would be way more helpful.
• Second, I could only reach people through the Gradcafe forum. In my experience, the people on this forum are generally better applicants than those not on the forum.
• Third, I changed the survey after receiving a lot of responses, on account of the fact that many of the respondents were getting survey fatigue and exiting the survey before entering data on all of the schools to which they applied. I also suspect that some people were worried about privacy and decided not to provide the details concerning programs to which they applied. (To address this, I suggest the next survey exclude the school-specific questions and simply jump to a results page in which respondents are asked to give the number of schools to which they were admitted, wait-listed, and denied in the categories of T20, T35, T50, and unranked.)
• Fourth, some respondents skipped quite a few questions. I chose to make almost every question optional in order to encourage participation. We need to think about whether this was the best approach. The problem is this: philosophy-types are opinionated, and it's very difficult to write a long survey which contains only questions that every participant is willing and able to answer.

More to say . . . !

 

I think this might also be the case, particularly for women or URM applicants who might be a bit easier to distinguish in a pool of applicants.

[ianfaircloud]

Has anyone analyzed the data concerning correlation of attending a Top-20 National University or Top-20 Liberal Arts college and being admitted or wait-listed to a T20 PGR department? I'm very curious to see whether applicants who attended stronger undergraduate institutions are far more likely to be admitted to a T20 PGR.

 

I'm also interested in speculating about whether attending a top college *alone* makes a difference in success -- that is, if two qualitatively otherwise-identical files that differ in this way will be generally be treated much differently by admissions committees. Conventional wisdom is that two such files ought not to be treated differently but that those files would be treated differently (perhaps much so).

 

To the first question: My quick look through the data suggests that there is a correlation. The people who attended these elite colleges were admitted or wait-listed to something like 29% of the T20 PGR departments to which they applied. The people who did not attend these elite colleges were admitted or wait-listed to something like 18%. But I'm not particularly well-qualified to read (or interpret) this data.

[alethicethic]

Here are some significant results from an ols regression with a PGR Top 20 Acceptance as the dependent variable. There's not enough data for the interesting things to work like SOP and writing sample topics. 

 

Variable           DF Parameter Estimate Standard Error t Value Pr > |t|

e_sel_sel          1               -0.42592    0.20732    -2.05    0.0459

urep_t50           1               -0.46770     0.26485   -1.77    0.0843 

mino                  1                0.33844      0.16598    2.04     0.0475

exp_rel              1                0.49385      0.19707     2.51    0.0160 

gr_gpa_80to89 1                 -0.57997    0.23284     -2.49   0.0166 

 

Here's the interpretation:

1. Relative to a very selective undergraduate uni, by attending a selective school one is ~40% less likely to get a T20 PGR acceptance.
2. Relative to attending a Top 20 undergrad uni, by attending a school ranked 35-50 one is ~45% less likely to get in.
3. Relative to not being a minority, by being a minority one is ~30% more likely to get in.
4. Relative to have no relevant experience, by having relevant experience one is ~50% more likely to get in.
5. Relative to a grad GPA between 4.0 and 3.9, one is ~55% less likely to get in with a grad GPA between 3.8 and 3.89.

 

No others were significant, unfortunately. Are there any other dependent variables anyone would like me to look at?

 

Edit: resolving formatting problems

 

I think that you should strike #3. Many people wrongly assume that if you're a member of an underrepresented group, such as a woman or an ethnic minority, you have a higher chance of getting in. But this ignores the many factors that are working against such groups. Such students are also likely to get lower grades, and are not seen by professors as equally competent candidates, which comes out in letters of recommendation. They are less likely to get the mentoring necessary to write a good sample or choose the appropriate programs. The students who are members of underrepresented groups have to overcome tremendous barriers to success. 

 

Also, saying that underrepresented groups are more likely to get in leads to the view that the only reason visible minorities have been accepted is because of their underrepresented status. It downplays their accomplishment and marginalizes them. In actuality, they are far less likely to major in philosophy--and of those that do, they are far less likely to apply to graduate school. Of those that do apply, they have to overcome all the barriers listed in the previous paragraph (and many more besides.) 

[alethicethic]

I am more skeptical about the conclusions we can appropriately draw given such limited information.

 

I started the survey last year, but stopped because I was uncomfortable with some of the questions. I sincerely hope that my answers were not submitted. I also have some concerns with the methodology and presentation.

 

I think that empirical data is helpful, and I do appreciate Ian's efforts in that regard--but we need to be very careful about appropriately qualifying the kinds of claims that we make from it.

[MorganFreemanlives]

I think that you should strike #3. Many people wrongly assume that if you're a member of an underrepresented group, such as a woman or an ethnic minority, you have a higher chance of getting in. But this ignores the many factors that are working against such groups. Such students are also likely to get lower grades, and are not seen by professors as equally competent candidates, which comes out in letters of recommendation. They are less likely to get the mentoring necessary to write a good sample or choose the appropriate programs. The students who are members of underrepresented groups have to overcome tremendous barriers to success. 

 

Also, saying that underrepresented groups are more likely to get in leads to the view that the only reason visible minorities have been accepted is because of their underrepresented status. It downplays their accomplishment and marginalizes them. In actuality, they are far less likely to major in philosophy--and of those that do, they are far less likely to apply to graduate school. Of those that do apply, they have to overcome all the barriers listed in the previous paragraph (and many more besides.) 

this is slightly misleading. lower grades has nothing to do with your minority status (at least not in particular). resource wise, it is also misleading because the information for this kind of stuff is widely available now in 2014 cyberspace for this with the diligence to look for it. if there is a link to resources, it is a secondary one in so far being a minority means you are less likely to go to a highly prestigious place which in turn  might mean you get less preparation but i woudnt call any of this a tremendous barrier to success.

 

a big reason why a lot of misrepresented don't get into philosophy involves culture. jewish culture and a lot of asian cultures hold a tremendous importance for education while other cultures in general are anti-intellectualist. in my case for example, my hispanic parents scoff at the idea of philosophy as a profession for a simple reason. it doesn't heal people, build bridges, or have any tangible benefit to society so they think it must be done by those that coudn't make it anywhere else. Alas if  i wasnt the contrarian that i was , and fallen for this stereotypical yet highly misleading picture!

 

im not saying minorities (and women too, i think they probably have it worse) dont suffer from prejudice in philosophy, but i think the case is highly exaggerated. unless you have professor who really is out to get you, it is not something that an iron-will and talent can't overcome.

[alopachuca]

The issue of URM acceptances is so complex, I wouldn't know where to begin. I think one point to take from the conversation about minorities is that there are a number of things that puts them at a disadvantage (generally), some more burdensome than others + some not exhaustive. An American 3rd generation URM with college-educated parents might deal with issues of how s/he is perceived. It's not a controversial statement to make. On the other hand, an American 1st generation URM who went to a high school with a high dropout rate and low college placement and pretty much played catchup for 4-5 years in university (some of them going through community college in the process) deals with disadvantages far more serious (in addition to issues of perception). Most of the people in the latter category will never be interested in philosophy. Seriously, how does anyone from South Central decide to go major in philosophy? (If they make it to college in the first place.)

 

I congratulate any URM who had a chance to suffer prejudice in college. Many others never even made it that far. 

[alethicethic]

this is slightly misleading. lower grades has nothing to do with your minority status (at least not in particular). resource wise, it is also misleading because the information for this kind of stuff is widely available now in 2014 cyberspace for this with the diligence to look for it. if there is a link to resources, it is a secondary one in so far being a minority means you are less likely to go to a highly prestigious place which in turn  might mean you get less preparation but i woudnt call any of this a tremendous barrier to success.

 

a big reason why a lot of misrepresented don't get into philosophy involves culture. jewish culture and a lot of asian cultures hold a tremendous importance for education while other cultures in general are anti-intellectualist. in my case for example, my hispanic parents scoff at the idea of philosophy as a profession for a simple reason. it doesn't heal people, build bridges, or have any tangible benefit to society so they think it must be done by those that coudn't make it anywhere else. Alas if  i wasnt the contrarian that i was , and fallen for this stereotypical yet highly misleading picture!

 

im not saying minorities (and women too, i think they probably have it worse) dont suffer from prejudice in philosophy, but i think the case is highly exaggerated. unless you have professor who really is out to get you, it is not something that an iron-will and talent can't overcome.

 

I meant what I said. Underrepresented students, including visible minorities from high SES backgrounds, still get lower grades on average, unless blind grading is implemented. This starts as early as primary school and continues through graduate school. Check out this post on New APPS for a quick primer. They are also less likely to be called on in class, less likely to be mentored, etc. Everything that I said is backed up by extensive empirical research. Don't believe me? Maybe you'll believe Rutgers' philosophy department web site.

 

If you're interested in learning more, you can start by checking out some of the literature on implicit bias--perhaps start with Banaji and Greenwald's work. Blindspot is a great introduction.

 

Let's do avoid lumping Asian cultures together. But--to take your caricature at face value--then why aren't there MORE Asians in philosophy? Check out this link.

[MorganFreemanlives]

I meant what I said. Underrepresented students, including visible minorities from high SES backgrounds, still get lower grades on average, unless blind grading is implemented. This starts as early as primary school and continues through graduate school. Check out this post on New APPS for a quick primer. They are also less likely to be called on in class, less likely to be mentored, etc. Everything that I said is backed up by extensive empirical research. Don't believe me? Maybe you'll believe Rutgers' philosophy department web site.

 

If you're interested in learning more, you can start by checking out some of the literature on implicit bias--perhaps start with Banaji and Greenwald's work. Blindspot is a great introduction.

 

Let's do avoid lumping Asian cultures together. But--to take your caricature at face value--then why aren't there MORE Asians in philosophy? Check out this link.

all im saying is cultures that put more emphasis on education are, all else being equal , more prone to have members pursue academic careers.

 

empirical data will obviously show implicit biases, i haver never doubted that. what i do in fact actively doubt, is to make URM a category to begin with, which is constantly assaulted by waves of static prejudices which cannot be remedied and significantly counteracted by a lot personal decisions. This and treating us as a group is no better, than saying "they coudnt do any better as individuals , so they need an extra push", and ironically that attitude itself is a benign form of objectification even well-intentioned.

 

but i will stop here. im gonna lose more of those rep points if i challenge the status quo and i cannot live losing those.

[alopachuca]

Did either of you study in departments that implemented blind grading? I would have thought it should be universal at this point but my own department didn't implement it until about 4 semesters ago. I actually don't know it it was implemented or if the graduate students took matters into their own hands.

 

Fun fact, my grades actually did go up after blind grading. I don't blame that specifically though, since I did get a lot better at writing during that time. 

 

Anyway, my apologies to those who aren't interested in this issue.

[MorganFreemanlives]

Did either of you study in departments that implemented blind grading? I would have thought it should be universal at this point but my own department didn't implement it until about 4 semesters ago. I actually don't know it it was implemented or if the graduate students took matters into their own hands.

 

Fun fact, my grades actually did go up after blind grading. I don't blame that specifically though, since I did get a lot better at writing during that time. 

 

Anyway, my apologies to those who aren't interested in this issue.

by this do you mean as a department rule or professors doing this themselves?

 

one of my professors, makes us write a first draft and only putting your ID as a name, and and then he will re-distribute papers so that other students can provide feedback. the problem with this method however is that its success is proportional to the quality of the student body of the class. in an intro class this would prove disastrous.

 

as for blind grading, one or two professors do it in my department. i personally oppose it, as it often gets in the way of student-professor relations. for example, if a professor can't associate a name with a particular style of writing and argumentation.  although the professor can provide paper specific feedback, suggestions on patterns found in multiple papers becomes more tedious for the prof if you use a blind grading system.

 

the best blind grading i think happens when the prof simply doesnt bother to learn anyone's grade lol.

[alethicethic]

all im saying is cultures that put more emphasis on education are, all else being equal , more prone to have members pursue academic careers.

 

empirical data will obviously show implicit biases, i haver never doubted that. what i do in fact actively doubt, is to make URM a category to begin with, which is constantly assaulted by waves of static prejudices which cannot be remedied and significantly counteracted by a lot personal decisions. This and treating us as a group is no better, than saying "they coudnt do any better as individuals , so they need an extra push", and ironically that attitude itself is a benign form of objectification even well-intentioned.

 

but i will stop here. im gonna lose more of those rep points if i challenge the status quo and i cannot live losing those.

 

That's not what you said in your last post. You explicitly denied that underrepresented students face tremendous barriers to success and that the problems are, as you put it, "highly exaggerated". 17% of TT phil profs are women, and 84% of the discipline identifies only as "white". Suggesting that these numbers are somehow reflective of the failure of nonwhites and women to have "iron will and talent" is, quite frankly, as offensive as it is ridiculous. I'm beginning to wonder whether you are a troll.

 

I strongly object to your caricature of my position as well-intentioned objectification. My position is based on facts, not on some ignorant stereotype vaguely lumping together all underrepresented groups. You are the one who is conflating race, ethnicity, culture, values, and gender in your remarks. Of course different people have different experiences, and not all members of similar groups will have similar experiences, not least because of intersectionality. Who counts as a visible minority also changes depending on context--women are visible minorities in philosophy, but not in other fields. That doesn't make systematic bias any less real.

 

Failure to recognize the barriers faced by underrepresented groups helps keep those barriers in place. For example, "ignoring race/being race-blind" just has the effect of perpetuating racist social structures. "I don't see race" is itself a privileged position--check out unpacking the knapsack. This problem affects most of us, regardless of identity--there is also intragroup bias, like black cops perpetuating systematic racism against blacks, or female professors calling more frequently on male students. 

 

I do not think of policies that are designed to reduce bias in academia as "an extra push", because that's completely backwards. It's the difference between helping someone climb out of a pool vs. stopping holding their head underwater. Recognizing the differences in treatment is a way of rectifying the injustice of the current system. Hence my example of blind grading. After symphony orchestras started blind auditions, the ratio of women symphony musicians rose to match the proportion of women in the supply. Yet before that, conductors would say things like, "women just aren't as good musicians" and other such nonsense. 

 

You're not losing points because you challenge the status quo. I downvoted you because:

 

1) your writing is nearly incoherent

2) you responded to my empirically-supported position with your own musings which belie (most charitably) your own lack of knowledge

3) you insulted me by saying that "anyone with the diligence to look for it" could find research that supports your own view (back it up with links, then)

4) I found your comments about Jews and Asians to be offensive.

5) you dismissively refer to my objections as defending the status quo--presumably, you meant to imply that I and the others who downvoted you suffer from some kind of unreflective status quo bias, and that you are some kind of independent-thinking hero for defending the...status quo. As for that, I invite you to look in the mirror. Try taking the IAT.