Philosophy is actually really odd with how many places you have to apply to; I think that is mostly due to the fact that objective standards (GPA, GRE, institution of BA) are the least important factors in the entire process. The writing sample and your letters of rec. typically play far more of a role in admissions, and the applicant is never sure how good they look in those respects. So, you have to apply to a very wide range of schools because the uncertainty of where you fit in the scheme of things is not clear.

And right now many community colleges even expect a teacher to have a PhD…so an MA is pretty much useless.

Then again when I was looking at gradschool I only apped to 4 and I probably should have applied to more places.

You’re also correct that location makes a difference. Given that a PhD takes 6 years to finish if you’re stuck somewhere you hate that will just make it all the more likely that you’ll drop out. Sadly unlike some other areas ending up with an MA in Philosophy as your terminal degree doesn’t help too much.

1)Yeah I know…. You should have one too!

2)The picture is what happens when you try to scan a 35mm slide on a flat bed scanner….and when you stop shaving….

3)I know it is pretentious, though at least it doesn’t quote a philosopher or explain my life as devoted to a single over-arching goal of some sort. I hate those…..

4)Yeah, you should study! And the sample isn’t that great. It is decent in that it is careful, but it probably also deals with a view that you probably consider rather obvious. Unfortunately, philosophers don’t always find such things to be so obvious.

5) I’m most concerned about what architects would consider ‘minor’ buildings. In my opinion, they spend way too much time and resources designing grand buildings that have great artistic merit; however, people spend most of their time utilizing minor buildings (like homes) yet it seems like very little attention is paid to these. I’m also interested in what sort of properties (including aesthetic ones) make these sorts of buildings psychologically pleasing and otherwise useful. So, aesthetics are important, but only in so far as they have positive psychological effects; often times it seems that architects make buildings that are aesthetically interesting but that don’t actually benefit the people who use them. And for the most part, city design and architecture are not very scientific beyond considerations like traffic flow. It makes sense to take an equally scientific approach to determine what sort of designs are efficient at using resources and making people happy.

6) I admit that the entire process is pretty subjective. I’m starting to think that cappuccinos are sort of like pornography; it is really hard to define an ideal one, but you sure know it when you see it (or…taste…in this instance). And the place that you really did miss out on is Mother Fool’s; you trade the hipsters of bradbury’s for hippies, with some good results. Though I know you hate hippies…

7)The sort of person that does this should just hang themselves now. It will come eventually anyway.

8)Well, at least I know someone read it…

5. You have a very functionalist/utilitarian approach to architecture. To deny an aesthetic element exists seems overly simplistic, but you seem to want to quantify it more than anything. I assume architects also want some quantifiable understanding of their field, but I don’t know how they go about things.

Only looking at it prima facie, it seems like people dislike blocky 50’s architechture, but like the look of glassy, rounded, non-square buildings. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/30_St_Mary_Axe I would think the benefits of an artistic building (nicer skyline, novelty) don’t outweigh the cost of building something like that. But it still seems worth it to have that novel aspect outside of financial/psychological considerations (although I guess the artistic appreciation I’m describing is psych).

I personally enjoy the buildings in Minneapolis which do look distinct, but not always in the modern look. There’s a big ‘Farmer-Worker’s Bank’ type thing downtown that I enjoy just because of the anachronistic socialist realism sculptured on the side.

I see the interest in studying it scientifically (is it more or less mushy than poli sci?) but it doesn’t seem to tell the whole story. Part of architecture seems solely artistic.

6. While cappuccino reviews are inherently subjective, the ’smoothness’ quality seems most so. The ideal amount of bitterness probably varies considerably from person to person, in a similar way that some prefer bitter dark chocolate while others sweet milk. Still, I’m amused by the endeavor. I approve, and regret I only tried a few cappuccinos while in Madison. I also agree that Bradbury’s was excellent.

7. Regardless of aforementioned subjectivity concerns, no one should get a cappuccino with skim milk. It will not be creamy, it will not be healthier, and health isn’t why you’re drinking a $4 cappuccino.

8. Christ this note is long. Whatever.