Venting Thread

[genesis]

Given the sensitivity of this topic, you might consider referring to your female classmates as "women" instead of "girls" (yuck).....

[continental_theorist]

21 minutes ago, TheChosenOne said:

I'm here to vent about the severe racism and sexism among admissions committees. In an application to any sort of university, the only relevant features of the applicant should be those over which he has some control. (And back off, determinists.) Being a female or black or Latino or whatever should mean absolutely nothing. But this is not the case.

And it's no small matter. My white male friend and I have received only rejections and anticipate many more. I applied to a ton of schools and anticipate maybe one or two acceptances (but only after sitting for many weeks on a waitlist). But we know two gals at our program, of equal caliber with ourselves (perhaps lower), who each got into nearly every program they applied to, some within the top 10, with full funding. In fact, when one of these gals was flown out to a top university, they practically begged her to come.

Obviously, I don't think that every person on admissions committee is a racist bigot. They are pressured by the university, yadda yadda. But I think there are some spineless cowards out there for letting this crap get this out of hand. Some disparity will always exist -- whatever, not much anyone can do about that. But when it becomes pretty much the ticket for securing acceptance, it's obvious the system is corrupt.

I just made this account to say, please be careful of what you write here as there are people you are insulting with what is essentially your reverse racism/sexism vent.  Has it occurred to you how much harder it might be for those women not having the white privilege or male privilege that so many others have?  You do not understand the struggles women and minorities face, and it could just be that their applications were stronger than yours or had more potential (you said they were of equal caliber).  The fact that you actually think the only factor of your rejections is your race or gender suggests your understanding of institutional bias/discrimination is shallow itself, as there is frequently unconscious bias toward minorities and women that you won't ever have to face.  Your frustration is also very entitled because you make it sound as though they received acceptances that *belong* to you or that you are worthier of.  Has it occurred to you that maybe women and minorities get as many if not more rejections (plus getting shut out all the time) than you?  Another unconscious bias: infantilizing grown women by calling them "gals".  Even though this is a venting thread, it shouldn't unfairly discriminate against anyone.

[AgentScully]

But knowing what we know about implicit bias, it is more than likely that you are underestimating the abilities your female peers, while overestimating the abilities of your male peers.

 

Also, philosophy ladies and minorities: you are badass, and you deserve every spot you're offered. Don't listen to any sore jerk who says otherwise!

Edited February 17, 2016 by AgentScully
failed to quote

[SamStone]

7 minutes ago, AgentScully said:

 

Also, philosophy ladies and minorities: you are badass, and you deserve every spot you're offered. Don't listen to any sore jerk who says otherwise!

I wish I could upvote this many more times (and that upvoting meant something much more significant)

[TheChosenOne]

First, I would like to apologize to anyone I may have offended by anything I may have said. I apologize especially for calling women "girls" and "gals". That is not something I take care to be sensitive about (I do refer to men as "guys" if that means anything to you), so I am sorry if it offended you.

Second, I would like to point out that I took deliberate care in my original post (and my subsequent posts) to make no claims about the intrinsic qualities of females or minorities. I did cast evaluations on the two women I know personally, for the purpose of illustrating my point, by I did not mean to use them to represent all female philosophers.

Finally, I acknowledge whole-heartedly that women and minorities face many grave challenges, and I am sorry if I did not acknowledge those challenges outright. Nevertheless, my focus is on the racism and sexism of this particular situation. I think it is obvious that considerations of gender and race are weighty factors in the application process, and I do not think that should be the case.

I do stand by everything I said, but I apologize if it was offensive.

[philosophe]

27 minutes ago, genesis said:

Given the sensitivity of this topic, you might consider referring to your female classmates as "women" instead of "girls" (yuck).....

This bothered me as well. Thank you for mentioning it explicitly. 

[philosophe]

28 minutes ago, continental_theorist said:

I just made this account to say, please be careful of what you write here as there are people you are insulting with what is essentially your reverse racism/sexism vent.  Has it occurred to you how much harder it might be for those women not having the white privilege or male privilege that so many others have?  You do not understand the struggles women and minorities face, and it could just be that their applications were stronger than yours or had more potential (you said they were of equal caliber).  The fact that you actually think the only factor of your rejections is your race or gender suggests your understanding of institutional bias/discrimination is shallow itself, as there is frequently unconscious bias toward minorities and women that you won't ever have to face.  Your frustration is also very entitled because you make it sound as though they received acceptances that *belong* to you or that you are worthier of.  Has it occurred to you that maybe women and minorities get as many if not more rejections (plus getting shut out all the time) than you?  Another unconscious bias: infantilizing grown women by calling them "gals".  Even though this is a venting thread, it shouldn't unfairly discriminate against anyone.

100% agree, thank you. 

[TheChosenOne]

Can we just drop it? I would hope as philosophers that you wouldn't be throwing around these irrelevant ad hominems (which I really ought to systematically ignore) and that you would focus on the actual points I'm making. Maybe I'm a moral monster for calling my 20-year-old female peers "girls", but that doesn't impact the soundness of my argument at all.

Edited February 17, 2016 by TheChosenOne

[philosophe]

Just now, TheChosenOne said:

Can we just drop it? I would hope as philosophers that you wouldn't be throwing these irrelevant ad hominems (which I really ought to systematically ignore) and that you would focus on the actual points I'm making. Maybe I'm a moral monster for calling my 20-year-old female peers "girls", but that doesn't impact my argument at all.

Calling full-grown women "girls" is a reduction in status, and therefore perpetuates the notion that they are some how less worthy of authority, etc. It is relevant to the conversation. 

[bechkafish]

11 minutes ago, TheChosenOne said:

Can we just drop it? I would hope as philosophers that you wouldn't be throwing these irrelevant ad hominems (which I really ought to systematically ignore) and that you would focus on the actual points I'm making. Maybe I'm a moral monster for calling my 20-year-old female peers "girls", but that doesn't impact the soundness of my argument at all.

I do want to say that I genuinely respect the courtesy and care with which you've made your argument. You're obviously not trying to ruffle any feathers, and I appreciate that this is something you feel frustrated about. I hope your season improves!

 

Edit: Yes, the reduction from "women " to "girls" is offensive, and yes, he realized this and apologized for the terminology; to fixate on this is really to undermine the value of this thread as a safe place to, well, vent.

Edited February 17, 2016 by bechkafish

[abisch]

1 hour ago, TheChosenOne said:

I'm here to vent about the severe racism and sexism among admissions committees. In an application to any sort of university, the only relevant features of the applicant should be those over which he has some control. (And back off, determinists.) 

I'm a determinist, and this offends me. 

[dgswaim]

What's happened to my beautiful thread?

[genesis]

yeah I didn't mean to claim you were a terrible person for typing girls and gals, just genuinely warning you that that can come off really badly or condescendingly in sensitive conversations like this. We can't hear tone over the Internet, after all.

[philosophe]

1 minute ago, dgswaim said:

What's happened to my beautiful thread?

It's not beyond repair. Quick, vent about something we can all get behind.... uhhh... rejections are the worst! x school was really shitty in the process y. 

 

phew, close one

[dgswaim]

On the positive side, I emailed Penn and found out that the waiting list there is pretty short and unranked. So that's good news, I guess. Still... I wish that, like, people would just be all like, "Meh. I don't wanna go to Penn," and then I could go to Penn.

[philosophe]

Just now, dgswaim said:

On the positive side, I emailed Penn and found out that the waiting list there is pretty short and unranked. So that's good news, I guess. Still... I wish that, like, people would just be all like, "Meh. I don't wanna go to Penn," and then I could go to Penn.

They will, just give them time. #WaitListBlues

[Disgruntledlurker]

Relevant (to the somewhat irrelevant conversation about being jealous of purportedly equal female colleagues): https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/16/the-remarkably-different-answers-men-and-women-give-when-asked-whos-the-smartest-in-the-class/

Edited February 17, 2016 by Disgruntledlurker

[philosophe]

2 minutes ago, Disgruntledlurker said:

Relevant: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/16/the-remarkably-different-answers-men-and-women-give-when-asked-whos-the-smartest-in-the-class/

This one really resonated with me the most: http://www.columbia.edu/cu/tat/pdfs/gender.pdf 

[TheChosenOne]

Thanks to the understanding few. I'll bow out now; I think I've said all I need to.

[ScaredyCat]

 

 

 

3 hours ago, TheChosenOne said:

And philosophe - your concerns about diversity are legitimate, and I appreciate the cordial tone of your posts. I will still say, however, it is still not clear to me that abandoning the principle of evaluating applicants based on academic merit alone is morally justified. Far from it.

I know you said that you are bowing out, but I figured I will try to engage in your argument.

First I will say that this is a topic that affects many of us. It is not something merely abstract but a lived experience for us women and us minorities so it will ignite passion in us. It has clearly ignited passion in you! So while I understand that you were trying to be sensitive I hope you understand that people like me, I am Latina, are suggested all the time that we only have something because of our minority status. We have earned none of what we have.

Anyways, you begin by saying “In an application to any sort of university, the only relevant features of the applicant should be those over which he has some control. (And back off, determinists.) Being a female or black or Latino or whatever should mean absolutely nothing. But this is not the case.” This has never been the case that the only relevant feature is the application features. One of the most relevant features is something that none of us has any control over: fitness. The department needs people with varying interests that still fit into the department. I could have a better application, at least how you seem to define better, having better GRE scores but maybe I do not fit into the department. And fit is something not as easily determined by a quick online view of the program’s website as people believe. For example, maybe one of the professors who works in your AOI is leaving soon so will not be willing to take more students on, etc. These are things that only an admissions committee would know. Maybe one of these women’s specific topics of interests intersected with several professors. And there is nothing morally reprehensible about reviewing an application against the department's interests 

My second point merely mirrors what other people have pointed out: you cannot know if your application is better because you do not have knowledge of either of your recommendations. Of course you can guess at what your says but unless you read it you do not really know. From what I have read by professors on Leiter’s Report, that aspect is the only one that definitely sinks an application all by itself! Even a relativiely low GPA will not necessarily doom you. So you are missing one of the most important pieces of the puzzle and judging without it. Not to mention, you cannot know if your application is better because you do not know how the adcomm people judge “potential.” That is what they are looking for. Potential is not easily given by numbers though numbers do help. Potential is not merely based on academic merit. Maybe the person on the adcomm read the woman’s sample (the one with only a BA) and saw that while maybe her sample was not as polished, or whatever, that her ideas showed potential as a philosopher. You cannot know.

Lastly, anecdotal evidence is not proof for anything. It takes a small sample size and extrapolates from it. If we trust anecdotal evidence then we would have to trust that merely being outside when it is cold will make you sick, seating too close to the television will damage your eyes. Also, it is fallacious reasoning (hasty generalization fallacy). The scientific research backs up that implicit bias happens. When people look at a resume/cv from someone name Maria Rodriguez and John Smith, and both have the same qualifications, they are more likely to judge the former more harshly. Mind you these are CVs in which they had the same credentials on both. That is only one example in the implicit bias literature. There are many more. These biases are against minorities and women when they apply to jobs, graduate programs, etc. There are some people who may give just a little bump to a woman or minority if they know the literature on implicit bias. However, it would not be used to give someone something they do not deserve. 

However, many people are against affirmative action and those policies are actually not enforced at many universities. Well, that is not completely true, the quota policy of legacies at universities are enforced at the Ivies for undergraduates. The evidence does not support that white men are being discriminated against. It supports that women and minorities are not welcomed in philosophy and are discriminated against. Only 30% of PhD's earned in philosophy are earned by women (http://www.newappsblog.com/2011/05/the-low-percentage-of-women-earning-phds-in-philosophy.html). I cannot find this other source but I remember being shocked by the percentage. Only approximately 2% of PhD's philosophy are given to Hispanics/Latinos. It is the same for Blacks. Thus it is not clear that minorities or women are being favored in the admissions process. There are not that many women or minorities in PhD programs in philosophy to support what you are saying

Also you said that these girls are equal caliber to you (maybe lower). That means that they deserve the shot they have been given.

By the way I am a Hispanic woman who has not been accepted into any programs. I think it is safe to say that it is not always the case that race/ethnicity and gender are major factors in admissions. You are right. The system is corrupt. However, it is not corrupt in the way you think it is.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 17, 2016 by Hermione27

[dgswaim]

My thread. My beautiful thread...

[psm1580b]

6 minutes ago, dgswaim said:

My thread. My beautiful thread...

I was thinking the same thing,

whilst sipping on the tears of privilege lost.

[ScaredyCat]

16 minutes ago, dgswaim said:

My thread. My beautiful thread...

Sorry. I won't say anymore on the subject matter. 

[TheChosenOne]

50 minutes ago, Hermione27 said:

"I know you said that you are bowing out, but I figured I will try to engage in your argument.

First I will say that this is a topic that affects many of us. It is not something merely abstract but a lived experience for us women and us minorities so it will ignite passion in us. It has clearly ignited passion in you! So while I understand that you were trying to be sensitive I hope you understand that people like me, I am Latina, are suggested all the time that we only have something because of our minority status. We have earned none of what we have.

Anyways, you begin by saying “In an application to any sort of university, the only relevant features of the applicant should be those over which he has some control. (And back off, determinists.) Being a female or black or Latino or whatever should mean absolutely nothing. But this is not the case.” This has never been the case that the only relevant feature is the application features. One of the most relevant features is something that none of us has any control over: fitness. The department needs people with varying interests that still fit into the department. I could have a better application, at least how you seem to define better, having better GRE scores but maybe I do not fit into the department. And fit is something not as easily determined by a quick online view of the program’s website as people believe. For example, maybe one of the professors who works in your AOI is leaving soon so will not be willing to take more students on, etc. These are things that only an admissions committee would know. Maybe one of these women’s specific topics of interests intersected with several professors. And there is nothing morally reprehensible about reviewing an application against the department's interests 

My second point merely mirrors what other people have pointed out: you cannot know if your application is better because you do not have knowledge of either of your recommendations. Of course you can guess at what your says but unless you read it you do not really know. From what I have read by professors on Leiter’s Report, that aspect is the only one that definitely sinks an application all by itself! Even a relativiely low GPA will not necessarily doom you. So you are missing one of the most important pieces of the puzzle and judging without it. Not to mention, you cannot know if your application is better because you do not know how the adcomm people judge “potential.” That is what they are looking for. Potential is not easily given by numbers though numbers do help. Potential is not merely based on academic merit. Maybe the person on the adcomm read the woman’s sample (the one with only a BA) and saw that while maybe her sample was not as polished, or whatever, that her ideas showed potential as a philosopher. You cannot know.

Lastly, anecdotal evidence is not proof for anything. It takes a small sample size and extrapolates from it. If we trust anecdotal evidence then we would have to trust that merely being outside when it is cold will make you sick, seating too close to the television will damage your eyes. Also, it is fallacious reasoning (hasty generalization fallacy). The scientific research backs up that implicit bias happens. When people look at a resume/cv from someone name Maria Rodriguez and John Smith, and both have the same qualifications, they are more likely to judge the former more harshly. Mind you these are CVs in which they had the same credentials on both. That is only one example in the implicit bias literature. There are many more. These biases are against minorities and women when they apply to jobs, graduate programs, etc. There are some people who may give just a little bump to a woman or minority if they know the literature on implicit bias. However, it would not be used to give someone something they do not deserve. 

However, many people are against affirmative action and those policies are actually not enforced at many universities. Well, that is not completely true, the quota policy of legacies at universities are enforced at the Ivies for undergraduates. The evidence does not support that white men are being discriminated against. It supports that women and minorities are not welcomed in philosophy and are discriminated against. Only 30% of PhD's earned in philosophy are earned by women (http://www.newappsblog.com/2011/05/the-low-percentage-of-women-earning-phds-in-philosophy.html). I cannot find this other source but I remember being shocked by the percentage. Only approximately 2% of PhD's philosophy are given to Hispanics/Latinos. It is the same for Blacks. Thus it is not clear that minorities or women are being favored in the admissions process. There are not that many women or minorities in PhD programs in philosophy to support what you are saying

Also you said that these girls are equal caliber to you (maybe lower). That means that they deserve the shot they have been given.

By the way I am a Hispanic woman who has not been accepted into any programs. I think it is safe to say that it is not always the case that race/ethnicity and gender are not major factors in admissions. You are right. The system is corrupt. However, it is not corrupt in the way you think it is."

I can't resist responding, given that you must have put a lot of effort in that post! I'll respond systematically to each of your points, in order.

First, of course I do not mean to suggest that persons who are women or a minority or both do not earn what get, inside or outside academia. (I don't think you took me to be saying that in the first place, but I'd like to make it clear.)

Second, regarding your point about fitness, you are absolutely right. I concede your point. Nevertheless, there is a sense in which a person's fitness is determined by her areas of interest, and a person does have control over her areas of interest. Perhaps you may cavil over whether such things as "interests" are really under one's control, but it is certainly unlike judging a candidate according to really uncontrollable and irrelevant contingencies to a candidate's aptitude, like race and gender and sex.

Third, it is true that I do not know what is said in our professors' letters. And I am going off of (many) personal anecdotes and (much) testimony from authority (professors). Nevertheless, I think my opinion is somewhat justified. If we're getting technical, I take my epistemic probability that there is racism and sexism in this process to be greater than 50%. Of course, I don't have straight-up proof...but to fair, I don't think you do either. Which leads me to...

Fourth, your cited statistic does not show that "women are not welcomed in philosophy and are discriminated against." There are too many factors that could plausibly undercut this inference from the fact that 30% of philosophy-PhD-earners are women. For instance, there are less women that apply in the first place! That could serve as a good explanation for the data. (Maybe it is a problem in itself, but that is a different discussion.) Or perhaps, due to chance and circumstance, it turns out that women don't complete programs as often as men do. I have heard that many women have to delay completing their degree or even drop out because they get pregnant. That's a circumstantial barrier men don't face.

 

EDIT: Also, I notice I'm getting a lot of downvotes, which I don't think is really fair...

Edited February 17, 2016 by TheChosenOne

[philstudent1992]

1 hour ago, Hermione27 said:

 

 

 

I know you said that you are bowing out, but I figured I will try to engage in your argument.

First I will say that this is a topic that affects many of us. It is not something merely abstract but a lived experience for us women and us minorities so it will ignite passion in us. It has clearly ignited passion in you! So while I understand that you were trying to be sensitive I hope you understand that people like me, I am Latina, are suggested all the time that we only have something because of our minority status. We have earned none of what we have.

Anyways, you begin by saying “In an application to any sort of university, the only relevant features of the applicant should be those over which he has some control. (And back off, determinists.) Being a female or black or Latino or whatever should mean absolutely nothing. But this is not the case.” This has never been the case that the only relevant feature is the application features. One of the most relevant features is something that none of us has any control over: fitness. The department needs people with varying interests that still fit into the department. I could have a better application, at least how you seem to define better, having better GRE scores but maybe I do not fit into the department. And fit is something not as easily determined by a quick online view of the program’s website as people believe. For example, maybe one of the professors who works in your AOI is leaving soon so will not be willing to take more students on, etc. These are things that only an admissions committee would know. Maybe one of these women’s specific topics of interests intersected with several professors. And there is nothing morally reprehensible about reviewing an application against the department's interests 

My second point merely mirrors what other people have pointed out: you cannot know if your application is better because you do not have knowledge of either of your recommendations. Of course you can guess at what your says but unless you read it you do not really know. From what I have read by professors on Leiter’s Report, that aspect is the only one that definitely sinks an application all by itself! Even a relativiely low GPA will not necessarily doom you. So you are missing one of the most important pieces of the puzzle and judging without it. Not to mention, you cannot know if your application is better because you do not know how the adcomm people judge “potential.” That is what they are looking for. Potential is not easily given by numbers though numbers do help. Potential is not merely based on academic merit. Maybe the person on the adcomm read the woman’s sample (the one with only a BA) and saw that while maybe her sample was not as polished, or whatever, that her ideas showed potential as a philosopher. You cannot know.

Lastly, anecdotal evidence is not proof for anything. It takes a small sample size and extrapolates from it. If we trust anecdotal evidence then we would have to trust that merely being outside when it is cold will make you sick, seating too close to the television will damage your eyes. Also, it is fallacious reasoning (hasty generalization fallacy). The scientific research backs up that implicit bias happens. When people look at a resume/cv from someone name Maria Rodriguez and John Smith, and both have the same qualifications, they are more likely to judge the former more harshly. Mind you these are CVs in which they had the same credentials on both. That is only one example in the implicit bias literature. There are many more. These biases are against minorities and women when they apply to jobs, graduate programs, etc. There are some people who may give just a little bump to a woman or minority if they know the literature on implicit bias. However, it would not be used to give someone something they do not deserve. 

However, many people are against affirmative action and those policies are actually not enforced at many universities. Well, that is not completely true, the quota policy of legacies at universities are enforced at the Ivies for undergraduates. The evidence does not support that white men are being discriminated against. It supports that women and minorities are not welcomed in philosophy and are discriminated against. Only 30% of PhD's earned in philosophy are earned by women (http://www.newappsblog.com/2011/05/the-low-percentage-of-women-earning-phds-in-philosophy.html). I cannot find this other source but I remember being shocked by the percentage. Only approximately 2% of PhD's philosophy are given to Hispanics/Latinos. It is the same for Blacks. Thus it is not clear that minorities or women are being favored in the admissions process. There are not that many women or minorities in PhD programs in philosophy to support what you are saying

Also you said that these girls are equal caliber to you (maybe lower). That means that they deserve the shot they have been given.

By the way I am a Hispanic woman who has not been accepted into any programs. I think it is safe to say that it is not always the case that race/ethnicity and gender are major factors in admissions. You are right. The system is corrupt. However, it is not corrupt in the way you think it is.

You make a lot of good points. However, I'd like to point out that it's irresponsible to quote studies that claim things like "When people look at a resume/cv from someone name Maria Rodriguez and John Smith, and both have the same qualifications, they are more likely to judge the former more harshly" as if they're indisputable fact. These social psych results are notoriously hard to replicate, and there are plenty of studies that claim that the opposite is true (e.g. Williams and Ceci 2014 made a big ole stink a while ago). So, while it's definitely not the case that women and minorities who get PhD spots don't deserve those spots, and it's hard to really know how adcoms are judging people, I think it's unfair to assert right out that women and minorities are automatically viewed as inferior even when they have the same credentials -- while it would explain some things, and it would probably fit some people's prior beliefs, things just aren't unequivocally proven one way or another.

Edited February 17, 2016 by philstudent1992