the URM thread

[MorganFreemanlives]

i guess, since im technically a URM , I can bring this topic up without  suffering from white man's shame lol. im sure everyone but especially other URM have heard that being a woman or an underrepresented minority is supposed to be an advantage in the admissions process.

 

BUT how this is true, is far less clear. this is a thread to discuss this.

 

1.how significant do you think this advantage, if its an advantage at all, is?

 

2. where in the admissions process is it manifested? for example, will women and minorities be much more likely to survive the infamous cut off, but are treated the same in the final round? or are they treated similarly at first and only in the final round will URM be a tiebreaker? are committee members more lenient on slightly lower gre scores or lower pedigree because you are a URM?

 

3. do you think the advantage ,if any , is fair?

[Nastasya_Filippovna]

you know it's interesting you brought this up- I am a white woman, and I have felt terrible about admitting this, but I am nervous about clicking the voluntary race information on the application- I think on one hand - if I do, could that be, as you put it, an ultimate tie-breaker against me, OR, if I choose to not answer, will they correctly figure I am white and eschewing the answer and therefore get angry at me for doing so and hold it against me because "the white person doesn't want her race to affect her application." Yeah, I have been overthinking every detail to the extreme. I figure that just answering the race question is the best- I feel they really might be upset if I withhold my race- I mean who would really do that but us white folk? lol!

[MorganFreemanlives]

im not hispanic in the least, i just happen to be born in a hispanic country and my parents are hispanic. BIG DIFFERENCE. still, if universities want to still consider me hispanic and bringing diversity, its up to them. then again its just as ridiculous to claim there is no diversity among white folks in the U.S

[MorganFreemanlives]

come on white folks, its not like your thoughts are banned here. im open to anyone's thoughts on the issue.

[Gnothi_Seauton]

I can't speak for any programs other than the one I'm in, but UNC actively recruits even numbers of men and women aiming for a 50/50 split in the incoming class.  My class has 4 men and 4 women.  However, as far as I know, there is no other active affirmative action policy.  That said, my class happens to be pretty diverse.  I'm the only white American male in my cohort.

[The Pedanticist]

come on white folks, its not like your thoughts are banned here. im open to anyone's thoughts on the issue.

 

I think its a bit ironic that this thread is about URM's but that you refer to whites as "white folk".  As if someone could say "black folk" or "red folk" and it not be racist.  It's also worth pointing out that there are plenty of URM's who are white as well.  Indeed, most programs consider me a URM because of the community where I come from even though I'm white.  (Heck, I even know of some schools who consider Midwesterner's a minority in "good" philosophy.)

[Establishment]

I think its a bit ironic that this thread is about URM's but that you refer to whites as "white folk".  As if someone could say "black folk" or "red folk" and it not be racist.

I can already foresee that this comment is going to spark a debate.

[MorganFreemanlives]

I think its a bit ironic that this thread is about URM's but that you refer to whites as "white folk".  As if someone could say "black folk" or "red folk" and it not be racist.  It's also worth pointing out that there are plenty of URM's who are white as well.  Indeed, most programs consider me a URM because of the community where I come from even though I'm white.  (Heck, I even know of some schools who consider Midwesterner's a minority in "good" philosophy.)

 

sigh assuming the anglophile hispanic is using the term white folk in a derogatory  sense lol. calling someone white folk is not racist unless the sense is altered. the reference remains the same even if a few would find it distasteful. if it truly offended you, then i apologize. but i must admit i find white folks guilty of being called white hilarious given the fact, i was using the term affectionately and given the fact that i have given hints through out the forum on my preference and self identification with white culture. heaven forbid i mention my views on the absolute's manifestation of assimilation in certain cultures over others (even if such view is light compare to hegel's) at the risk of starting a civil war here, but i digress.

 

actually pedanticist, i would be particularly interested in your views in how much your status as a URM you think would benefit you. this is because, i think someone say like myself, who was born in central america, would count as clearly URM while your case seems more controversial to some admissions folks who may unfairly categorize you as "merely" white.

 

once again, i apologize if i  have offended anyone, but being this politically correct to me is more a sign of regress than of progress.

[NathanKellen]

(Heck, I even know of some schools who consider Midwesterner's a minority in "good" philosophy.)

Well damn, that could've helped me in the past!

 

But seriously, there really aren't that many Bestwesterners around, is there..

 

Anyways to the serious stuff:

 

The school I attend (UConn) has a pretty diverse group of students, but I don't think it's due to AA. That being said, there's no harm in using whatever advantage you're given, so I would never feel bad about marking yourself down as an URM.

[The Pedanticist]

sigh assuming the anglophile hispanic is using the term white folk in a derogatory  sense lol. calling someone white folk is not racist unless the sense is altered. the reference remains the same even if a few would find it distasteful. if it truly offended you, then i apologize. but i must admit i find white folks guilty of being called white hilarious given the fact, i was using the term affectionately and given the fact that i have given hints through out the forum on my preference and self identification with white culture. heaven forbid i mention my views on the absolute's manifestation of assimilation in certain cultures over others (even if such view is light compare to hegel's) at the risk of starting a civil war here, but i digress.

 

actually pedanticist, i would be particularly interested in your views in how much your status as a URM you think would benefit you. this is because, i think someone say like myself, who was born in central america, would count as clearly URM while your case seems more controversial to some admissions folks who may unfairly categorize you as "merely" white.

 

once again, i apologize if i  have offended anyone, but being this politically correct to me is more a sign of regress than of progress.

 

I was just saying that it was a bit ironic to refer to white people as "white folk" in a thread related to diversity in philosophy.  I highly doubt that you were attempting to denigrate another set of races/cultures/gender. I just think it is worth pointing out that the term if applied to any other race/culture/gender would be derogatory in some parts of the country.  I personally am opposed to using any term about a culture/race /gender that couldn't be used for another race/culture/gender or isn't specifically used widely by that group for itself.  In addition, the idea that there are URM's and "white folk" leaves out a lot of minorities such as women, LGBT's and other white cultures.

 

I apologize if you felt personally attacked that was certainly not my goal.  I'm just passionate about the issue of diversity in philosophy.

 

I'm considered a URM by many schools because of my socio-economic status and because of the culture that my parents were/are a part of.  I have no idea whether it will help me with my application or not.  But since I am actively involved in promoting diversity (by starting a scholarship and hosting panels on the subject) I hope that will be a positive not only on my application but in promoting diversity in philosophy in general.  

 

Well damn, that could've helped me in the past!

 

But seriously, there really aren't that many Bestwesterners around, is there..

 

Anyways to the serious stuff:

 

The school I attend (UConn) has a pretty diverse group of students, but I don't think it's due to AA. That being said, there's no harm in using whatever advantage you're given, so I would never feel bad about marking yourself down as an URM.

 

I know a guy who got into Georgetown and someone on the adcomm told him that the reason he stood out from the others with similar stats was that he was from the Midwest.  

Edited September 30, 2014 by The Pedanticist

[overoverover]

The Midwest thing is odd. I've met tons of people from the Midwest who are in philosophy PhD programs (myself included)! 

[The Pedanticist]

The Midwest thing is odd. I've met tons of people from the Midwest who are in philosophy PhD programs (myself included)! 

 

Yeah I thought it was odd when my friend told me about it.  It might have been that they had a great deal of applicants from the East and West Coasts and not many from the Midwest and were wanting a bit of diversity in that specific recruiting class.  I'm not very confidant that it happens very often.

[Nastasya_Filippovna]

I wish you were considered a minority if you were whiter than normal- I'm like, ridiculously pale, and I can't tan. I think being GHOSTLY white should count as a minority lol!

[philstudent1991]

I think the Midwest thing is odd too. Maybe there are more philosophers originally hailing from the Northeast, say, than the Midwest. But I really don't think admission committees weigh region of origin in their decisions, and if they do it is far below other factors, most of which you can control (sample, GPA, GRE, letters, statement). In any case, armchair speculations about such things are not the best way you can spend your time. I know admissions season is agonizing, and you want to consider every possible factor. And it's October; people are really getting serious on their grad school dossiers by now (working on sample, asking for letters, and hopefully recalling taking the GRE months ago). But believe me, when you've gotten to the point of speculating about the influence of geography in your application, it's time to do something else. Enjoy college, read, study, pursue your hobbies. And of course, best of luck this round.

[alopachuca]

I've read differing accounts (not necessarily contradictory but they do seem to imply different things) on how significant an advantage is for underrepresented groups in academic philosophy generally. 

 

To kind of vaguely address questions 1 & 2... What I've read by Schwitzgebel and Leiter is that the advantage is pretty insignificant when it comes to hiring decisions. I can't really get into specifics without making mistakes because it's been a while since I last read up on the topic. However, it seems generally true that promoting underrepresented groups to apply or department-level objectives to diversify the department get URMs as far as interviews, and anything beyond that is not decided with a special focus on diversity. As far as grad admissions, the Colorado philosopher who wrote the "Should I Go to Graduate School in Philosophy?" says that there's a lot of affirmative action pressure around departments. I don't know how old that FAQ is but it doesn't seem to have too much of an effect on most of the graduate student pools I've looked at. Perhaps the most success for diversity has been in admitting or hiring women. 

 

To address question 3... I honestly still haven't made up my mind. It would be helpful to know how philosophy departments deal with the promotion of diversity, and we don't know a lot about that. Generally, I will say that I'm skeptical of the benefits gained from the type of diversity that is promoted in other graduate or professional programs. For example, law admissions are pretty transparent: If you're a Black, Mexican, Native, or Puerto Rican, you get a big boost. Percentages don't matter, so you can imagine that anyone whose great uncle was 25% black will be checking the box (those who think I exaggerate, I urge you to go to Top Law Schools and look at the topics in the underrepresented forum). Giving boosts to that kind of diversity is useless. For the record, I highly doubt this is how it works in philosophy. I'm just giving an example of something I believe doesn't benefit anyone.

Edited October 16, 2014 by esunsalmista

[MorganFreemanlives]

I've read differing accounts (not necessarily contradictory but they do seem to imply different things) on how significant an advantage is for underrepresented groups in academic philosophy generally. 

 

To kind of vaguely address questions 1 & 2... What I've read by Schwitzgebel and Leiter is that the advantage is pretty insignificant when it comes to hiring decisions. I can't really get into specifics without making mistakes because it's been a while since I last read up on the topic. However, it seems generally true that promoting underrepresented groups to apply or department-level objectives to diversify the department get URMs as far as interviews, and anything beyond that is not decided with a special focus on diversity. As far as grad admissions, the Colorado philosopher who wrote the "Should I Go to Graduate School in Philosophy?" says that there's a lot of affirmative action pressure around departments. I don't know how old that FAQ is but it doesn't seem to have too much of an effect on most of the graduate student pools I've looked at. Perhaps the most success for diversity has been in admitting or hiring women. 

 

To address question 3... I honestly still haven't made up my mind. It would be helpful to know how philosophy departments deal with the promotion of diversity, and we don't know a lot about that. Generally, I will say that I'm skeptical of the benefits gained from the type of diversity that is promoted in other graduate or professional programs. For example, law admissions are pretty transparent: If you're a Black, Mexican, Native, or Puerto Rican, you get a big boost. Percentages don't matter, so you can imagine that anyone whose great uncle was 25% black will be checking the box (those who think I exaggerate, I urge you to go to Top Law Schools and look at the topics in the underrepresented forum). Giving boosts to that kind of diversity is useless. For the record, I highly doubt this is how it works in philosophy. I'm just giving an example of something I believe doesn't benefit anyone.

i concur with your statement about hiring decision. i have heard stories from some of my professors where a school will be forced to interview an applicant because they a minority by outside pressure but the whole thing is rigged so that unledd you happen to be the new kripke discovered in the interview,  you were never  candidate to get hired to begin with

 

sadly, i think this situation is proof that you cant radically change the zeitgest by mechanical means, or agenda ridden movements where they dont even deny their goals. you must change the mentality of a generation internally by being living proof that minorities can be equally great in philosophy or any other field.

[BeatBackBones]

1.how significant do you think this advantage, if its an advantage at all, is?
Not very. I say this just by looking at the demographics of current faculty and and students in various programs. Philosophy is one of the least diverse fields, and I'm not sure why that is, but I suspect there are many URM applicants who don't advance through the process for other reasons and diversity doesn't save them. However, I do suspect hispanic students might have an edge up because of how it's phrased on the application. It's usually a question by itself. But, again, most departments still have very little diversity, so I can't be sure.

 

2. where in the admissions process is it manifested? for example, will women and minorities be much more likely to survive the infamous cut off, but are treated the same in the final round? or are they treated similarly at first and only in the final round will URM be a tiebreaker? are committee members more lenient on slightly lower gre scores or lower pedigree because you are a URM? 

I highly doubt URMs make it past the second round because they are URMs. I'm included to think departments aren't really looking for diversity. You can find a lot of information about women leaving programs after not being taken seriously by people in the program, hostility, even harassment. This, combined with the obvious dearth of URMs, leaves me inclined to think that academic philosophy is still a (mostly) white, boys club that isn't interested in understanding and exploring the experiences and theories of URMs. That said, I think that's also a "fit" issue. Not all departments feel that way. I think programs heavy in continental philosophy/social thought/intersectional are more interesting in a range of perspectives and where URMs could be at an advantage. 

 

3. do you think the advantage ,if any , is fair?
Yes, because gender and racial bias still, clearly, affect the way people chose. Remember in 2008 when *gasp* a women and a black man were running for president, and it was a legitimate question to ask Americans if they were "ready" for a women or black president. As if people would have needed time to brace themselves. I'm a journalist and I've had men straight up tell me, "the newsroom isn't for women." I don't even know what that means. Like...? Okay? At a different time, he would have been the person deciding my future at my publication. And he wasn't the first or last. I don't think this is always a conscious or malicious bias, but I definitely think it's there. 

I have no idea about the applicant demographics, but if women are half the people, we should account for half of the program. Even if less than 50% of the applicants are women, I don't think it's as low as the admitted student demographic suggests. 

[alopachuca]

 

 I'm a journalist and I've had men straight up tell me, "the newsroom isn't for women." I don't even know what that means. Like...? Okay? At a different time, he would have been the person deciding my future at my publication. And he wasn't the first or last. I don't think this is always a conscious or malicious bias, but I definitely think it's there. 

I have no idea about the applicant demographics, but if women are half the people, we should account for half of the program. Even if less than 50% of the applicants are women, I don't think it's as low as the admitted student demographic suggests. 

 

 

You know something, back when I had first started my upper-division courses and I naively treated philosophy (and anyone involved in it) as the holy grail, I wouldn't have thought that the sort of crap you dealt with in the newsroom existed anywhere in academic philosophy. I mean, I was learning from some of the brightest people around and some of them were ethicists, so it felt safe. 

 

But I also made a ton of female friends in the department, and once they confided in me, I learned that sometimes the older male professors say some really stupid things to females. Not all of it was malicious, and I'd say most of it isn't. I'm Latin American (and I look like it, as incorrect as that phrase may be), and I've never been told anything stupid of the sort my female philosophy friends were told. 

Edited November 19, 2014 by esunsalmista