2015 Acceptance Thread

[Nastasya_Filippovna]

Someone got into Northwestern and said "Woohoo", so I know it has to be one of you folks!

haha I saw that! But as a disclaimer, it was sadly not me- I got the email on the site- it was painful for them to tell me that i was rejected- as painful as a pre-written letter sent to every other rejected candidate can be

[alopachuca]

Should we also make an official "rejection thread"? Perhaps we should try to keep all of the depressing news compartmentalized from the good.

Doing this will also enable us to print out a copy of the thread after admissions season is over and have a public burning of it.

 

I think a rejection thread and a "What's your Plan B" thread would be useful. This might be blunt but I'm sure at least some of the people who post here are in a position where they'll likely move on from philosophy barring a satisfactory offer. I'm really curious to hear what everyone has to say on the topic (although I understand it's an uncomfortable one at this stage). 

Edited January 30, 2015 by alopachuca

[kosmo]

First rejection

I feel your pain! Got my first rejection today too, from Northwestern  

 

Let's keep our hopes up though...a lot more to come...(hopefully)...

[kosmo]

I think a rejection thread and a "What's your Plan B" thread would be useful. This might be blunt but I'm sure at least some of the people who post here are in a position where they'll likely move on from philosophy barring a satisfactory offer. I'm really curious to hear what everyone has to say on the topic (although I understand it's an uncomfortable one at this stage). 

No I think it's a great idea! Having thoughts about plan B is what's keeping me sane these days - at least the rejections won't feel like the end of every single vision of my life I've had so far!

[kant_get_in]

Should we also make an official "rejection thread"? Perhaps we should try to keep all of the depressing news compartmentalized from the good.

Doing this will also enable us to print out a copy of the thread after admissions season is over and have a public burning of it.

 

Agreed.

 

By the way, you've done a great job with your signature. 

[alethicethic]

Me too, really frustrated.

 

Just remember, because I'm seeing in some signatures "presumed rejected" and so on: you cannot infer that from a few acceptance reports. Duke's notifications went out over several days last year. The same was true of several other schools. Sometimes I heard earlier than others, sometimes later. It's going to vary from school to school. Sometimes you get an automated letter from the graduate school before the philosophy department even has a chance to call you. Other times, it's reversed--you get the call first, and then they tell you to expect the formal offer from the graduate school.

 

Many schools also send out rounds of admissions. I know it's a difficult waiting game, but just wait for the school to notify you--don't assume.

 

Good luck!

[LennyBound]

Just remember, because I'm seeing in some signatures "presumed rejected" and so on: you cannot infer that from a few acceptance reports. Duke's notifications went out over several days last year. The same was true of several other schools. Sometimes I heard earlier than others, sometimes later. It's going to vary from school to school. Sometimes you get an automated letter from the graduate school before the philosophy department even has a chance to call you. Other times, it's reversed--you get the call first, and then they tell you to expect the formal offer from the graduate school.

 

Many schools also send out rounds of admissions. I know it's a difficult waiting game, but just wait for the school to notify you--don't assume.

 

Good luck!

The Oxford Dictionary defines "presume" as "suppose that something is the case on the basis of probability." While it is true that all probabilistic inferences can be false, the fact that a particular program has sent out acceptances/wait-lists and one has yet to be contacted is still evidence against the hypothesis that one is going to be admitted.

Is there another word that you think would better capture this fact? Perhaps likely, probable, or anticipated? 

[riverstyx]

Hi, I'm applying for the third year to philospohy programs, and I could really use some help figuring out what someone said. I got rejected from NW last week, and I emailed to ask why. I thought if something was "wrong" with my application I could address it to the other schools since NW got back to me 4-6 weeks before the other schools likely will. I should note, only two of my recomemndations made it to NW, and one was late. Here is what this person said. The context is an email discussion of the reason(s) I was rejected:

 

"In your situation, however, I think I can say that it was a problem that we received only one letter from your professors prior to our admissions meeting (a second one arrived the next day). Most applicants have three, and all the best applications will have three extremely enthusiastic letters. Thus, you want to be sure that you have three letter writers who have definitely gotten their letters in on time to be considered by the admissions committee."

 

Now obviously this lady is saying it's a problem that only one letter arrived prior to the deadline. But she also mentions that "all the best applications will have three extremely enthusiastic letters." Is she subtly trying to tell me that my letters didn't measure up, and weren't positive enough? If so, I have two other professors I can ask to write letters quickly for me, but I would need to know first whether the lady at NW was hinting that my two letters weren't enthusiastic enough.

Edited February 1, 2015 by riverstyx

[ianfaircloud]

 

Hi, I'm applying for the third year to philospohy programs, and I could really use some help figuring out what someone said. I got rejected from NW last week, and I emailed to ask why. I thought if something was "wrong" with my application I could address it to the other schools since NW got back to me 4-6 weeks before the other schools likely will. I should note, only two of my recomemndations made it to NW, and one was late. Here is what this person said. The context is an email discussion of the reason(s) I was rejected:

 

"In your situation, however, I think I can say that it was a problem that we received only one letter from your professors prior to our admissions meeting (a second one arrived the next day). Most applicants have three, and all the best applications will have three extremely enthusiastic letters. Thus, you want to be sure that you have three letter writers who have definitely gotten their letters in on time to be considered by the admissions committee."

 

Now obviously this lady is saying it's a problem that only one letter arrived prior to the deadline. But she also mentions that "all the best applications will have three extremely enthusiastic letters." Is she subtly trying to tell me that my letters didn't measure up, and weren't positive enough? If so, I have two other professors I can ask to write letters quickly for me, but I would need to know first whether the lady at NW was hinting that my two letters weren't enthusiastic enough.

 

 

My guess (and others, please chime in to disagree) is that the person who helped you took a very quick glance at your materials and offered the conclusion without much additional thought.  My guess, based on work with department administrators and philosophers, is that the person who helped you does not have much time to give an analysis of your application.  To be perfectly honest, I'm shocked that you received such a helpful reply.  Typically departments have a strict policy against giving reasons for a failed application.  Perhaps a department is willing to overlook the policy when the application is simply incomplete.  Your application was incomplete, if I understand you correctly. 

 

This, to me, is a no-brainer.  Your application was incomplete.  The person who helped you is simply highlighting the fact that completeness is the absolute bare minimum even for consideration.  Applications that do well are not only complete, but also really, really good.

 

The bad news is that you weren't taken seriously.  The good news is that this says nothing of the merits of your application.

[psm1580b]

"In your situation, however, I think I can say that it was a problem that we received only one letter from your professors prior to our admissions meeting (a second one arrived the next day). Most applicants have three, and all the best applications will have three extremely enthusiastic letters. Thus, you want to be sure that you have three letter writers who have definitely gotten their letters in on time to be considered by the admissions committee."

 

 

Now obviously this lady is saying it's a problem that only one letter arrived prior to the deadline. But she also mentions that "all the best applications will have three extremely enthusiastic letters." Is she subtly trying to tell me that my letters didn't measure up, and weren't positive enough? If so, I have two other professors I can ask to write letters quickly for me, but I would need to know first whether the lady at NW was hinting that my two letters weren't enthusiastic enough.

 

 

That's a hard thing to hear. I would probably read that at least one of your letters (of the two they received) was less than enthusiastic. Also, be really aggressive with your professors about getting letters out on-time. I would email them a few days before each date if they hadn't sent them yet and reminded them. They're extremely busy and often need the prodding to remember what to send where.

Edited February 1, 2015 by psm1580b

[overoverover]

I don't actually get the implicature that the letters weren't enthusiastic. Odds are the person with whom riverstyx corresponded was mainly conveying information about the incomplete app (as ianfaircloud noted), and then added on the part about letters needing to be really good too just because that's the standard line. I mean, Northwestern read hundreds of applications (300 seems not implausible), all (or just about all) with 3 letters of recommendation. That means they read 900 letters! I doubt the correspondent remembered riverstyx's letters in detail.

[Cecinestpasunphilosophe]

I don't actually get the implicature that the letters weren't enthusiastic. Odds are the person with whom riverstyx corresponded was mainly conveying information about the incomplete app (as ianfaircloud noted), and then added on the part about letters needing to be really good too just because that's the standard line. I mean, Northwestern read hundreds of applications (300 seems not implausible), all (or just about all) with 3 letters of recommendation. That means they read 900 letters! I doubt the correspondent remembered riverstyx's letters in detail.

 

I'm always terrified when I'm reminded of those statistics. 300 applicants for 6, maybe 9 positions. 900 letters of reference. 4,500 pages of writing samples. And I expect the committees to notice me? It feels incredibly arrogant on my part to think that I somehow might be better than 97% of the other people who applied. 

Oh well. Guess I just have to keep that out of my mind. Think UNC will release tomorrow?

[riverstyx]

Hi guys. I actually emailed the professor again to ask for clarification of what she said. I asked her whether I should read her comment about "extremely enthusiastic" letters to mean I should seek more enthusiastic letters than the ones I submitted?

 

 

She told me in a clear, brief email that she did not mean to imply that I should seek different letters, only that, for an application to be considered, *three* letters are required; not two; and not one, with another arriving after all of the admissions decisions have been made. So that was a relief for me, and I think it implies that my letters are fine at least as far as their content is concerned.

 

Thanks guys for all of your help. It is a very stressful time. Let's all hope for the best.

[Nastasya_Filippovna]

 

That's a hard thing to hear. I would probably read that at least one of your letters (of the two they received) was less than enthusiastic. Also, be really aggressive with your professors about getting letters out on-time. I would email them a few days before each date if they hadn't sent them yet and reminded them. They're extremely busy and often need the prodding to remember what to send where.

This is so true- i had a real range with my letter writers, one who got his out weeks ahead of deadlines, and two others that had to be reminded constantly and I felt incredibly pushy, but I knew it had to be done. Thank God they all were dependable and got them in on time, but as far as getting the application completed, it's the worst part! I would just try and be as pleasant and profusely grateful in each little reminder I sent. This is where I was thankful I had a good rapport with them prior to the requests - i don't believe they felt as "put out" as if they barely knew me and then received my "demands"

[Edit_Undo]

So that was a relief for me, and I think it implies that my letters are fine at least as far as their content is concerned.

I do not think that that implies that your letters are fine ( I am not suggesting that they are not fine). I think you reading too much into it. They probably do not want to say anything about the content of the letters, and that is if they have read the letters themselves (not sure who you're contacting). If I was in their position, I would probably just talk about objective application requirements (e.g., number of letters required) without discussing anything about the content.

In short, I do not think that her emails suggest that the content of the letters are fine nor do they suggest that they are not fine. After all, I think letters of recommendation should be handled with confidentiality.

[tuv0k]

I figured it's about time to make a separate acceptance thread.

 

Also, looks like somebody just put up a Duke wait list result. I didn't apply to Duke, but others who did may have new info now!

 

That was me who put up the Duke wait list result. They haven't sent out rejections as far as I know, which is weird given that they've sent out at least one acceptance and some wait lists. Wonder what they're up to... *suspicious face* Is this typical? (I'm very new to all this analyzing)

Edited February 2, 2015 by tuv0k

[ianfaircloud]

I do not think that that implies that your letters are fine ( I am not suggesting that they are not fine). I think you reading too much into it. They probably do not want to say anything about the content of the letters, and that is if they have read the letters themselves (not sure who you're contacting). If I was in their position, I would probably just talk about objective application requirements (e.g., number of letters required) without discussing anything about the content.

In short, I do not think that her emails suggest that the content of the letters are fine nor do they suggest that they are not fine. After all, I think letters of recommendation should be handled with confidentiality.

 

Yes. To be very clear, Riverstyx, there's another reason that the department almost certainly didn't mean to imply anything about the content of your letters. I assume that you waived the right to review the content of your letters. For a department to reveal anything about the content of those letters would be a scandal of the highest order, because letter-writers (almost always) submit letters on condition that the person about whom they write will never know the content of the letters.* Under these conditions, departments are not free to give you even a general impression of the quality of the letters they received. For a department to reveal this information would be morally outrageous, not only because it's a violation of trust, but also because it serves to undermine the entire process.

 

What makes an enthusiastic letter so powerful is, in part, the simple fact that the applicant will never see this enthusiasm. Ideally there is no untoward motive on the part of a letter-writer, because the letter-writer means only to address the relevant few on the admissions committee. Would not letters generally be more enthusiastic if the letter-writers believed that those about whom they write will see the content of the letters? When a busy philosopher takes the time to go on and on about the virtues of an applicant, it sends a powerful message -- one that would be diluted were the integrity of the process undermined.

 

*This condition is sometimes waived by the letter-writer herself; if the letter-writer is particularly fond of the applicant, she may even allow the applicant to view the letter before submitting it. This practice is not widely accepted, and it's ethically suspect. But in absolutely no case, when the applicant has waived the right, may anyone at the school reveal the content of the letter to the applicant. Obviously this includes hints and intimations about the content, e.g. "your letters need to be enthusiastic, wink, wink."

[IWokeUpLikeThis]

Hello all,

Have been reading posts for a few weeks and decided to join since everyone I know in real life is sick of hearing me talk about this. I will have my MA in Philosophy this Spring. This is my first time applying to PhD programs. I've applied to 20 programs (yes, I know, that's a shit ton).

Anyway. I have been accepted to Northwestern and University of Miami so far. No other news (good or bad) yet.

Best of luck to everyone!

[mano]

Hello all,

Have been reading posts for a few weeks and decided to join since everyone I know in real life is sick of hearing me talk about this. I will have my MA in Philosophy this Spring. This is my first time applying to PhD programs. I've applied to 20 programs (yes, I know, that's a shit ton).

Anyway. I have been accepted to Northwestern and University of Miami so far. No other news (good or bad) yet.

Best of luck to everyone!

congrats! and wow, really good news for you so far  

[riverstyx]

I do not think that that implies that your letters are fine ( I am not suggesting that they are not fine). I think you reading too much into it. They probably do not want to say anything about the content of the letters, and that is if they have read the letters themselves (not sure who you're contacting). If I was in their position, I would probably just talk about objective application requirements (e.g., number of letters required) without discussing anything about the content.

In short, I do not think that her emails suggest that the content of the letters are fine nor do they suggest that they are not fine. After all, I think letters of recommendation should be handled with confidentiality.

I'm not sure what it implies, to be honest. But it is clear that she was saying that the fact that three letters were not in in time for the admissions committee to review my application was the reason I got rejected. All well and good, I accept that, frustrating as it is. The reason I thought that she was implying that my letters were fine was that that was the impression I immediately got when I first quickly read the email. I had specifically asked her whether I should interpret her comment about the best applicants requiring "extremely enthusiastic" letters to mean that I should seek *more enthusiastic* letter writers, and she said no, I did not mean to suggest you need to find more enthusiastic letter writers. Now, you may very well be right, that that doesn't mean that she is saying my letters are ok. But considered holistically within the context of my discussion with her and the concern I expressed to her about my letters not being enthusiastic, I think the "plain" meaning, i.e. the meaning upon first reading the email, without delving into it any further or reading too much into it, is that the letters are good. Now of course, I certainly want to believe that, so maybe I'm not the best judge of this situation because I'm prejudiced. I leave it to you and others to comment. Given the specificity with which she commented on other parts of my application, I think this is a not unreasonable view, IMHO. I also think that if she wanted to be very cautious about not implying anything good or bad about the content of my letters, she could have said in her second email that her remarks should not be construed as implying either that my letters or good or bad. But she didn't say that. So maybe that is revealing too.

Edited February 2, 2015 by riverstyx

[reixis]

Looks like Miami released at least one acceptance. I applied there and received no notification yet.

[overoverover]

Looks like Miami released at least one acceptance. I applied there and received no notification yet.

Acceptances often get spread out. Don't get discouraged!

[LennyBound]

I have word from a reliable source that given the large incoming class last year, Northwestern decided to admit around ten fewer students this cycle than usual. Just thought I'd pass that piece of information along for anyone interested. 

[tuv0k]

Hello all,

Have been reading posts for a few weeks and decided to join since everyone I know in real life is sick of hearing me talk about this. I will have my MA in Philosophy this Spring. This is my first time applying to PhD programs. I've applied to 20 programs (yes, I know, that's a shit ton).

Anyway. I have been accepted to Northwestern and University of Miami so far. No other news (good or bad) yet.

Best of luck to everyone!

 

I applied for 18, which isn't too far away! Was originally going to go for 20 as well, but dropped 2 at the last minute for various reasons. I believe my recommenders still submitted all 20 letters though

 

Congrats on the great news so far Best of luck ahead.

[riverstyx]

Yes. To be very clear, Riverstyx, there's another reason that the department almost certainly didn't mean to imply anything about the content of your letters. I assume that you waived the right to review the content of your letters. For a department to reveal anything about the content of those letters would be a scandal of the highest order, because letter-writers (almost always) submit letters on condition that the person about whom they write will never know the content of the letters.* Under these conditions, departments are not free to give you even a general impression of the quality of the letters they received. For a department to reveal this information would be morally outrageous, not only because it's a violation of trust, but also because it serves to undermine the entire process.

 

What makes an enthusiastic letter so powerful is, in part, the simple fact that the applicant will never see this enthusiasm. Ideally there is no untoward motive on the part of a letter-writer, because the letter-writer means only to address the relevant few on the admissions committee. Would not letters generally be more enthusiastic if the letter-writers believed that those about whom they write will see the content of the letters? When a busy philosopher takes the time to go on and on about the virtues of an applicant, it sends a powerful message -- one that would be diluted were the integrity of the process undermined.

 

*This condition is sometimes waived by the letter-writer herself; if the letter-writer is particularly fond of the applicant, she may even allow the applicant to view the letter before submitting it. This practice is not widely accepted, and it's ethically suspect. But in absolutely no case, when the applicant has waived the right, may anyone at the school reveal the content of the letter to the applicant. Obviously this includes hints and intimations about the content, e.g. "your letters need to be enthusiastic, wink, wink."

A compelling case, ianfaircloud, and one I'm frankly hard-pressed to counter.

 

Yes, I waived access to all of my letters, as is necessary (or at least highly advised). I have not seen my letters, and I would never ask any of my recommenders to provide them to me. I agree that admissions committee members should definitely not provide information about an application, even in a general or implied manner. Yet like others here, I was quite surprised when this person gave me a detailed and thorough account of the state of my application vis-a-vis the admissions committee. She wrote about the fact that my letters was not in, and she even responsed to what I wrote in my personal statement by encouraging me to apply to a specific school because a philosopher there was working in the exact same area I am interested in. So that gave me the impression that she was more willing perhaps than most to divulge a little more information to me. At least, her seeming opennes, whether right or wrong, gave me the impression I could ask directly about whether she meant to imply that I should seek more enthusiastic letters for my other applications. I now regret that, because I believe it was inappropriate to ask her that. But I was surprised that she answered me and said that no, she did not mean to imply I need different letters. I think she would know that I would interpret that to mean that my letters are "fine," because that is a straightforward interpretation of the statement. From what I know of this person based on her faculty webpage, she is quite intelligent and discerning enough to know that a person who reads that "I did not mean to imply you needed different letters" will interpret that to mean "your letters are fine." I think two possibilities are at work here: either she meant to imply that, or she didn't, in which case she was careless in the wording of her response, because that's the implication that suggests itself, at least prima facie. Now I definitely will not ask any other admissions people to give me answers on future anticipated rejections, not only because it is not appropriate, but because it can easily lead to misinterpretations and misconstruals of what they said. I do not want to put myself through that. I think that, were this individual so concerned about not giving out information on my recommendations, she should've clearly written that she did not intend in any way to imply my letters were "good" in her second email. But she didn't say that. Now, that doesn't lead me to believe that she thinks they are good. Not anymore. It leads me to believe she wrote in a way that more easily suggested certain interpretation without clearly thinking about what she was writing and without thinking that I would mistakenly think that to mean she was implying my letters were "good." Alas, only time will tell.