[The real] Ph.D

[l0rca]

What colleges/universities out there are the most presitigious in the philosophy and similar humanities departments?

Also, what is the general outline of courses and classes a Ph.D in philosophy has? Does anyone know where I could find this information?

[Complexity]

Are you going for prestige or understanding?

Do you want to study philosophy or become a philosopher?

My advice: Turn your back on the academy, do things that you love, be open to the world, and live as well as you can.

[wunky]

Are you looking for certain schools of thought.
Particular approach.
Secular
Religious

[l0rca]

Mostly, I ask because I am simply interested in starting a discussion about philosophical institutions.

Are you going for prestige or understanding?

Is this a rhetorical question, or would answering it allow you to give me a more focused opinion?

I'd go for the school that offers the best distribution between comprehensiveness and excellence in teaching.

Do you want to study philosophy or become a philosopher?

I don't really define these two differences enough to make their questioning important.

My advice: Turn your back on the academy, do things that you love, be open to the world, and live as well as you can.

But I love the academic world. What if I want to become a professor, or write the textbooks?

[drkitten]

Is this a rhetorical question, or would answering it allow you to give me a more focused opinion?

It's not at all a rhetorical question :"Philosophy" is a huge discipline, and a school or department's reputation may or may not be deserved in all of the areas that it covers. (This is also true of other fields. MIT, for example, is one of the top universities in the world for formal Chomskian syntax. It's also one of the worst universities for non-Chomskian syntax, simply because of the enormous influence Chomsky wields over the department.)

However, one of the things that the overall reputation of a school will often control is the type of job you can get after graduating; a mediocre philosopher from Princeton can often, or even usually, get a better job than a top-notch philosopher from Whatsamatta U., on the basis both of personal contacts and institution reputation.

[Questioninggeller]

What colleges/universities out there are the most presitigious in the philosophy and similar humanities departments?

Also, what is the general outline of courses and classes a Ph.D in philosophy has? Does anyone know where I could find this information?

UC Berkeley is the top rated. Information about their program: http://philosophy.berkeley.edu/graduate/overview

APA's list is http://www.apa.udel.edu/apa/asp/departments.asp

What type of philosophy? Ethics, metaphysics, epistemology, logic, phenomenology and so on? Or an interest better served with theology, theological studies?

[drkitten]

UC Berkeley is the top rated.

According to whose rating?

II believe that USNews rates Harvard #1, Berkeley #2. (and rounds the top 5 out with Princeton, Yale, and Stanford). No doubt this has caused many loud discussions in Cambridge watering holes. But different rankers will have different criteria and different weights, and so get different rankings.

But more to the point, does this rating system include other, non-US, schools? It would be interesting to see where Toronto, Oxford, Cambridge, and some of the top Australian schools ranked against Harvard/Berkeley -- to say nothing of the non-Anglophone schools such as Paris-Sorboone.

[Questioninggeller]

According to whose rating?

II believe that USNews rates Harvard #1, Berkeley #2. (and rounds the top 5 out with Princeton, Yale, and Stanford). No doubt this has caused many loud discussions in Cambridge watering holes. But different rankers will have different criteria and different weights, and so get different rankings.


To directly name a school and a source: Michigan State U. is ranked as the top doctoral program in philosophy for the US. That is from Jan. 2007. Source: http://chronicle.com/weekly/v53/i19/19a00801.htm

In 1995 it was Princeton. Source: http://www.pitt.edu/utimes/issues/28/92895/13.html

However, as you noted Berkeley, as a whole (not department), is ranked #2 and Harvard as #1. From what I know about job placement (talking to PhD grads in philosophy) (you can see a basic outline http://philosophy.berkeley.edu/graduate/placement and http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~phildept/placement.html ) and job recruitment, Berkeley philosophy is slightly more prestigious, but I concur that it is splitting hairs. Yet, it is important to note applicants are based on their personal merit not the schools. Thus, one from Harvard and one from Berkeley, applying for the same job, are going to selected for their work, and not the school's reputation.

The most important part of a program is whether you like being there (the people, the classes, the subject). Rankings aren't important, and come far behind actual interest and human interaction.


But more to the point, does this rating system include other, non-US, schools? It would be interesting to see where Toronto, Oxford, Cambridge, and some of the top Australian schools ranked against Harvard/Berkeley -- to say nothing of the non-Anglophone schools such as Paris-Sorboone.

In terms of global, here is an article from 2002 that lists "top ranked," but without putting them in order. http://www.auckland.ac.nz/uoa/about/news/articles/2002/11/0001.cfm

In terms of schools, not departments, http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/rank/2004/top500(1-100).htm

[Complexity]

I believe those 'or's to be exclusive, not inclusive.

Do as you feel you must.

[l0rca]

I believe those 'or's to be exclusive, not inclusive.

Do as you feel you must.


True enough. I'm really being inquisitive here. I can't even try to attend any of these schools until I'm not longer active duty, but I want to start pining towards that goal. I know an ameture's handful about philosophy, and much less when it comes to selecting an insitiution. My questions are blunt, and they reflect my presumptions. But I'm happy to see people care to inform me.

[drkitten]

True enough. I'm really being inquisitive here. I can't even try to attend any of these schools until I'm not longer active duty, but I want to start pining towards that goal. I know an ameture's handful about philosophy, and much less when it comes to selecting an insitiution.

Well, as Complexity hinted, you may be starting out at the wrong end when it comes to selecting an institution.

I have to counsel a lot of pre-Ph.D. students, and the advice I generally give them is "Don't." Not to put too fine a point on it, but it's generally a mug's game. Getting a Ph.D. is expensive, emotionally taxing, very time-consuming, and usually not worth the time and effort you need to give. In more detail, I find that there are generally three reasons that people want to get a Ph.D.

The first is simple emotional validation. Because people who have Ph.D.'s are smart, getting a Ph.D.will prove to me that I'm smart, even if I still fold shirts at H&M or the Gap for a living. Merely getting the Ph.D. will be an accomplishment that no one can ever take away from me, and it's worth it for that accomplishment, even if I never do anything with it. If this is what you're looking for, then "prestige" shouldn't really enter into it, yes?

The second is because you want the union card. If you want to lay pipe, you join the pipefitters' union. If you want to drive a truck, you join the Teamsters'. If you want to join the professoriat, you get a Ph.D.. In this case, prestige can be very important -- you will probably never work at a school better (or even as good as) the one you attended for your degree, so if you go to a second-rate school, you'll teach at a third-rate one forever. But there is such a Ph.D. glut at the moment (and into the foreseeable future) that the odds of your being able to land a professorial job at all are slim, probably less than one in ten. I don't consider those betting odds, and I try to steer students away from the idea of a Ph.D. as a professional advancement degree.

The third is because you love the discipline and want to spend the rest of your life doing it -- even if it means starving in a garrett for seven years and then folding shirts at the H&M and writing books on metaphysics in your spare time for the rest of your life. This, I think, is by far the best reason to get a Ph.D. (and oddly enough, it's the one most likely to lead to professional advancement, too. How "Alanic." Or maybe "Rolling Stones"-ic -- "You can't always get what you want.") But if this is the case, the important question isn't the prestige of the school, but the quality of the faculty and instruction. And more importantly, the quality in your particular area. If you want to study metaphysics, it doesn't matter how good the ethics and formal logic programs are, and vice versa.

The best way to pick a program is to figure out who you want to work with -- and then apply to the school where that person teaches. If you want to study consciousness, the top name in the field is Daniel Dennett. Today, he's at Tufts, so it's worth going to Tufts for. But if he accepted a position at UC-Santa Cruz for next fall, you want to go there instead. Because you're not studying at Tufts/UC-SC, you're studying with Dennett. See the difference?

[Questioninggeller]

But there is such a Ph.D. glut at the moment (and into the foreseeable future) that the odds of your being able to land a professorial job at all are slim, probably less than one in ten.


Are you strictly speaking about philosophy professorships? Because that is not true for all fields and subjects.

[drkitten]

Are you strictly speaking about philosophy professorships? Because that is not true for all fields and subjects.

Of course not. It's largely true for most if not all of the various "humanities" disciplines, though; I'd be hard-pressed to name one that didn't have that particular Ph.D. glut..

[joobz]

The third is because you love the discipline and want to spend the rest of your life doing it -- even if it means starving in a garrett for seven years and then folding shirts at the H&M and writing books on metaphysics in your spare time for the rest of your life. This, I think, is by far the best reason to get a Ph.D. (and oddly enough, it's the one most likely to lead to professional advancement, too. How "Alanic." Or maybe "Rolling Stones"-ic -- "You can't always get what you want.") But if this is the case, the important question isn't the prestige of the school, but the quality of the faculty and instruction. And more importantly, the quality in your particular area. If you want to study metaphysics, it doesn't matter how good the ethics and formal logic programs are, and vice versa.

that's good advice for any major life choice.

And I fully agree with selecting an advisor and not the school (if you can do that). In some fields, there are well respected individuals in science community that are at small schools, but have graduated students that went on to higher ranked institutions. (but this is in the sciences, so I do not know if that translates well.)

Also, and what I think is most important, is make sure you match personality well with your advisor. He/She may be the leader in the field, but if you hate each others guts (for whatever reason), it won't be a rewarding experience.

[3bz]

The best way to pick a program is to figure out who you want to work with -- and then apply to the school where that person teaches. If you want to study consciousness, the top name in the field is Daniel Dennett. Today, he's at Tufts, so it's worth going to Tufts for. But if he accepted a position at UC-Santa Cruz for next fall, you want to go there instead. Because you're not studying at Tufts/UC-SC, you're studying with Dennett. See the difference?

If you by top name mean the figure who is most well known to the public, then that would be Dennett. He has not published anything on consciousness for a good while though (in case someone mentions it, sweet dreams is a collection of papers from 2000-2003), he seems to be more interested in evolution and religion now, so it's not at all obvious that he should be called the top name in any other sense than as being a publicly well known figure.

Well written on the subject of Ph.D's, the economical and overall condition seems to be a lot harsher in the US than for us over here in Sweden. What you wrote still made me a bit less eager to go down that path however :)

[l0rca]

If you by top name mean the figure who is most well known to the public, then that would be Dennett. He has not published anything on consciousness for a good while though (in case someone mentions it, sweet dreams is a collection of papers from 2000-2003), he seems to be more interested in evolution and religion now, so it's not at all obvious that he should be called the top name in any other sense than as being a publicly well known figure.


Who would you said are, then?

[l0rca]

DrK', thanks for that.

I still want a degree it in. Perhaps a bachelors.

I'm more interested in logic than metaphysics. I don't think metaphysics is a fulfilling field in philosophy anymore. Though theories about consciousness do appeal to me in philosophy as well, I think I could learn about that on my own. The logic philosophies seem to be more fundamental and essential.

[3bz]

Who would you said are, then?

Baars is one of the first to come to mind, but also: Koch, Edelman, Metzinger, the Churchlands, Searle, Dehaene, Chalmers, Velmans and many others.

[l0rca]

Would you give some sort of summary? I guess not a summary of all, but in what direction it is heading? Whatever you feel like summarizing, I guess, would be nice of you.

[pgwenthold]

that's good advice for any major life choice.

And I fully agree with selecting an advisor and not the school (if you can do that). In some fields, there are well respected individuals in science community that are at small schools, but have graduated students that went on to higher ranked institutions. (but this is in the sciences, so I do not know if that translates well.)

Also, and what I think is most important, is make sure you match personality well with your advisor. He/She may be the leader in the field, but if you hate each others guts (for whatever reason), it won't be a rewarding experience.


Personally, no. Can still be professionally rewarding.

When counseling prospectives, my suggestion is the following: find out what are the most prestigious journals in the field, grab a stack, and start reading. Find the articles that you find interesting and note who wrote it and where they are from (regardless of whether you understand it all or not). Continue until a pattern develops, in terms of people, location, or topic (if it is a topic, then you will need to do more research to find the top places that work on that topic). Apply to the places that best cover your pattern of interests.

(if you can't understand any of it, then stop, go back, and learn something in the field before you worry about grad school)

Remember that first and foremost, a PhD is a research degree, and you don't want to pick a program based on classes or coursework. By chosing the most prestigious journals, you will come across the best work being done in the field, and you can discover the kind of work that interests you within it.

[pgwenthold]

Are you strictly speaking about philosophy professorships? Because that is not true for all fields and subjects.

In what field is there not a glut of PhDs applying for professorships?

DrKitten has provided an opinion on humanities. It's no better in the science. It's not uncommon for us to receive more than 100 applications for a single opening. There might be at any one time, 5 - 10 institutions hiring for this same type of position, and so the 1 in 10 getting a job figure sounds a little optimistic, even. 1/15 is probably even more reflective in science.

[drkitten]

In what field is there not a glut of PhDs applying for professorships?

I believe that some of the engineering disciplines still have a reasonable number of professorships available, largely because the industrial demand is so great (and professorial salaries are comparatively low) that becoming a professor is not in high demand. Computer science, for example, is picking up after the total dearth of industrial jobs with the collapse of the dot.coms, and I believe the demand for/of biotech startups is doing a good job of cleaning out the departments of biomedical engineering. The emerging departments of forensic science are booming, and they're hurting for faculty --I blame CSI.

Beyond that, damfino.

[drkitten]

DrK', thanks for that.

I still want a degree it in. Perhaps a bachelors.




If all you want is an undergraduate degree -- well, you can basically do good undergraduate work anywhere, and the "prestige" schools are often the worst, because the professors who make the school so prestigious are unavailable for the undergrads. I'd simply pick the closest affordable undergraduate school with the largest volume count in the library....

[joobz]

Personally, no. Can still be professionally rewarding.

When counseling prospectives, my suggestion is the following: find out what are the most prestigious journals in the field, grab a stack, and start reading. Find the articles that you find interesting and note who wrote it and where they are from (regardless of whether you understand it all or not). Continue until a pattern develops, in terms of people, location, or topic (if it is a topic, then you will need to do more research to find the top places that work on that topic). Apply to the places that best cover your pattern of interests.

(if you can't understand any of it, then stop, go back, and learn something in the field before you worry about grad school)
It's a good approach to learn the field you are interested in. and it goes without saying to select only productive groups. But i've seen too many occurances where personality clashes destroyed any productivity. It's a jading experience for the student, and a waste of resources for the advisor. Something that can be completely avoided when personal relationships are taken into account. This doesn't mean you need to be friends, but simply that you can work with each other.
Anyway, there are almost always more than 1 leader in any field. So I don't see any compromise when considering relationships.

Remember that first and foremost, a PhD is a research degree, and you don't want to pick a program based on classes or coursework.
I agree. I've had several conversations with students who didn't understand what they were getting into. Actually, I have just received an email from a potential student asking if her RA will require her to work a full 20 hour/week and if she would have to conduct research during the semesters that she is TAing.

[l0rca]

If all you want is an undergraduate degree -- well, you can basically do good undergraduate work anywhere, and the "prestige" schools are often the worst, because the professors who make the school so prestigious are unavailable for the undergrads. I'd simply pick the closest affordable undergraduate school with the largest volume count in the library....

If you're a girl, this makes you one sexy hacker!

*Rrrrr....*

[pgwenthold]

It's a good approach to learn the field you are interested in. and it goes without saying to select only productive groups. But i've seen too many occurances where personality clashes destroyed any productivity. It's a jading experience for the student, and a waste of resources for the advisor. Something that can be completely avoided when personal relationships are taken into account. This doesn't mean you need to be friends, but simply that you can work with each other.
Anyway, there are almost always more than 1 leader in any field. So I don't see any compromise when considering relationships.

It doesn't hurt to visit just to see, but it can be tough to know whether the relationship will work. However, I would suggest that it is more likely to work if you are working on something you really like. You are willing to put up with a lot more.

[ReligionStudent]

First I want to comment on the idea that a PHD is expensive, which I know someone said.

Well it is in that you are really only to do TAing as a career for like 5-10 years, but almost all large institutions fully fund for much of the PHD at this point, which is why they accept so few students.

The program I am going into is full scholarship for four years with 12000 stipend per anum and then an additional 7000-5000 a year in grants (and of course you apply for more). I know in my area (archaeology) they accepted three students last year, and probably ten or so in the entire anthro department

When my girlfriend was looking at PHD programs U Penn quoted here 12 acceptances a year with all fully funded (that was in anthro as well).

Now if you are going into a terminal MA program before a PHD program, you will pay, usually between 15-30000 a year or more depending on the school. (that's what Columbia is, SUNY Stony Brook is roughly 10000 a year. Drew University, which is in the next town from where I live now is 40000 a year undergrad, so it veries a lot).

Housing near most universities is expensive, due to many employees and students living near by, as well as the positive economic impact a school has. Near SUNY I am looking at roughly 1000 a month or more, near Rutgers where I did my BA/BS it was common to pay 600 or more a month for off campus. Books will also run 500 or more a semester, especially in PHD programs.

So that's what you are probably looking at in most humanity fields. My advise is to first (obviolusly) get a BS or BA, read journals and meet people. Begin going to professional meetings as soon as you can and get to know the culture and people. This will also help you get into schools. (both my MA school, Columbia, and PHD school, SUNY Stony Brook, I knew people in the department well, and this will often be the case if you get in somwhere).

My suggestion for undergraduate school is that if you know what you want to study, go to a school without a PHD or MA program if possible. Then they will likely have professors for all undergraduate courses and few TAs to deal with. You will also be more likely to have professors who care about the undergraduates and focus on them instead of just the disertation candidates. (This was what my BA program at Rutgers was like, I got to study under some good names in the field at probably one of the best depts in Religion in the NE because none of them were preocupied with grad students.)

Big name schools will help you get a good job, and often attract some of the better names in the field, but the best way to get a feal for who is where and where to go for a PHD is to become as involved as possible as an undergraduate in actual research (this will also help you get into a PHD program, most of which will look for students who have done a thesis or similar indipendent research) and read lots of journals and go to conferences etc. The more like a graduate program you can make your undergraduate the better chance you will have of getting into a grad program and doign well in it.

Also remember location. I am finishing my MA at Columbia, its a great school with a great program, but I found out that I hate the city, so I did not even apply their for PHD even though I likely could have got in. Instead I am moving to Long Island near a beach, where I will be in a great department and actually happy with my surroundings at the same time.

Also, don't listen to people that say accademics aren't worth it etc, I have been in school 6 years, and have at least 5 more to go, I am loving it and learning a lot, I have a Computer Science degree I may never use (unless I start working on certain archaeological techniques), but it was worth it and I learned a lot. I know I have tons more choices because of it, and by the time you get to PHD you will be getting paid (not much but some) to do it.

It may be hard to get a professor job in most fields, but there are other things to do, research, post-doc work, work for book companies, etc. You can also work for private high schools etc, which often provide more money than universities. I know a PHD archaeologist who teaches ancient history at a local private school and field school for a local parks commision. There is always a huge need for high school teachers, and PHD looks damn good in this area where most people only have a BS and if you are in an affluent area with high property values you can be well paid with good benefits.

Some parting advice my advisor gave me:
Don't be afraid of student loans, they are some of the cheapest loans you will ever get and they will pay themselves off with better carear choice and more happiness.
File for any grants you can, the worst they can do is say no.
When defending a paper to others, don't be afraid, if you wrote it you are the expert and know more than them.

[Dr Adequate]

Mostly, I ask because I am simply interested in starting a discussion about philosophical institutions. Good.

Do not study philosophy as an academic pursuit. Really. Don't.

[ReligionStudent]

Good.

Do not study philosophy as an academic pursuit. Really. Don't.

Here here!

[drkitten]

First I want to comment on the idea that a PHD is expensive, which I know someone said.

Well it is in that you are really only to do TAing as a career for like 5-10 years, but almost all large institutions fully fund for much of the PHD at this point, which is why they accept so few students.


Oh, how I wish this were true. In some disciplines -- the engineering and science disciplines, mostly -- it even is. As a general rule, engineering graduate students can count on full funding for as long as they take to complete their degree and for the most part don't even have to TA for it, because the NSF or NIH or QWERTY or other alphabet soup will pick up the tab for a "research assistant."

In the humanities and social sciences, the picture is much bleaker. A friend of mine was looking at history programs and came to the conclusion that of history Ph.D. students at top schools, about 1/3 are sufficiently-funded, 1/3 are underfunded, and 1/3 are not funded at all. Another acquaintance of mine would routinely split half-time TA appointments again at her school, in order to be able to provide a pittance of funding for more students. But the worst part is that in almost none of these schools is there any assurance of further funding. If you're funded for 2007-8, enjoy it, because you may still starve in 08-9.


Also, don't listen to people that say accademics aren't worth it etc, I have been in school 6 years, and have at least 5 more to go, I am loving it and learning a lot, I have a Computer Science degree I may never use (unless I start working on certain archaeological techniques), but it was worth it and I learned a lot. I know I have tons more choices because of it, and by the time you get to PHD you will be getting paid (not much but some) to do it.

It may be hard to get a professor job in most fields, but there are other things to do, research, post-doc work, work for book companies, etc. You can also work for private high schools etc, which often provide more money than universities. I know a PHD archaeologist who teaches ancient history at a local private school and field school for a local parks commision. There is always a huge need for high school teachers, and PHD looks damn good in this area where most people only have a BS and if you are in an affluent area with high property values you can be well paid with good benefits.

Or, alternatively, you can simply start teaching -- by the time someone else gets his/her Ph.D., you'll be an experienced teacher with five to ten years "in the trenches," possibly working as a department chair or something. Even in fields like Computer Science, the Ph.D. is almost invariable a money-loser. There's no job you can get with a Ph.D. that pays you as much as you lose in ten years of salary increments. A well-chosen masters' degree will pay for itself in as little as two years, sometimes. A Ph.D. almost never pays for itself.

[ReligionStudent]

Oh, how I wish this were true. In some disciplines -- the engineering and science disciplines, mostly -- it even is. As a general rule, engineering graduate students can count on full funding for as long as they take to complete their degree and for the most part don't even have to TA for it, because the NSF or NIH or QWERTY or other alphabet soup will pick up the tab for a "research assistant."

In the humanities and social sciences, the picture is much bleaker. A friend of mine was looking at history programs and came to the conclusion that of history Ph.D. students at top schools, about 1/3 are sufficiently-funded, 1/3 are underfunded, and 1/3 are not funded at all. Another acquaintance of mine would routinely split half-time TA appointments again at her school, in order to be able to provide a pittance of funding for more students. But the worst part is that in almost none of these schools is there any assurance of further funding. If you're funded for 2007-8, enjoy it, because you may still starve in 08-9.

I am very suprised at this. I have been looking at grad schools twice in the last three years (MA and PHD) and both times every school I looked at offered full tuition and usually a TA/stipend for PHD students. Schools my girlfriend looked at had the same thing going from the ones I was at with her. And these are all Archaeology/Religion or in the case of my girlfriend physical anthropology programs. I think these would also qualify quite easily as top schools. Maybe its different in history than religion and archaeology, but I can't imagine that it is that different. Certainly I don't know anyone who is PHD who is not funded for tuition and with a stipend

As for if it is assured, mine is garunteed in writting, and I know the other people in the department have had it for multiple years as well.



Or, alternatively, you can simply start teaching -- by the time someone else gets his/her Ph.D., you'll be an experienced teacher with five to ten years "in the trenches," possibly working as a department chair or something. Even in fields like Computer Science, the Ph.D. is almost invariable a money-loser. There's no job you can get with a Ph.D. that pays you as much as you lose in ten years of salary increments. A well-chosen masters' degree will pay for itself in as little as two years, sometimes. A Ph.D. almost never pays for itself.

Schools wherever you are must have a very high turn over rate if someone gets department chair in five years. And that truthfully is not going to bring you that much more money anyway.

Yes you will be making more in those five to ten years than you would going for a PHD, but for high paying and secured teaching positions there is competition, as well as for tenure.

[drkitten]

I am very suprised at this. I have been looking at grad schools twice in the last three years (MA and PHD) and both times every school I looked at offered full tuition and usually a TA/stipend for PHD students. Schools my girlfriend looked at had the same thing going from the ones I was at with her. And these are all Archaeology/Religion or in the case of my girlfriend physical anthropology programs. I think these would also qualify quite easily as top schools. Maybe its different in history than religion and archaeology, but I can't imagine that it is that different. Certainly I don't know anyone who is PHD who is not funded for tuition and with a stipend

Perhaps you're not asking the right questions? Yes, almost every school "offers" full tuiltion and a stipend for Ph.D. students. But how many of those offers do they make?

Here's a quote from the NSF (http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind06/c2/c2s2.htm) about the makeup of "S&E" (science and engineering) graduate students.

"Primary mechanisms of support differ widely by S&E field of study. For example, in 2003, full-time students in physical sciences were supported mainly through RAs (44%) and TAs (39%). RAs also were important in agricultural sciences (58%), biological sciences (42%), and engineering (41%). In mathematics, however, primary student support is through TAs (54%) and self-support (19%). Full-time students in the social and behavioral sciences are mainly self-supporting (45%) or receive TAs (20%)"

In the social and behavioral sciences -- which are still sciences, and therefore substantially better funded than the humanities -- still nearly half of the students are self-supporting, which is to say, paying for it themselves through student loans. (And, of course, this doesn't distinguish between Ph.D. and MA, but in most of the humanities, and philosophy in particular, very few schools offer a terminal MA.)

It may be that you're looking at atypical departments. Students at top schools are certainly more likely to have funding, simply because top schools are better at generating it.

[ReligionStudent]

Perhaps you're not asking the right questions? Yes, almost every school "offers" full tuiltion and a stipend for Ph.D. students. But how many of those offers do they make?

Here's a quote from the NSF (http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind06/c2/c2s2.htm) about the makeup of "S&E" (science and engineering) graduate students.

"Primary mechanisms of support differ widely by S&E field of study. For example, in 2003, full-time students in physical sciences were supported mainly through RAs (44%) and TAs (39%). RAs also were important in agricultural sciences (58%), biological sciences (42%), and engineering (41%). In mathematics, however, primary student support is through TAs (54%) and self-support (19%). Full-time students in the social and behavioral sciences are mainly self-supporting (45%) or receive TAs (20%)"

In the social and behavioral sciences -- which are still sciences, and therefore substantially better funded than the humanities -- still nearly half of the students are self-supporting, which is to say, paying for it themselves through student loans. (And, of course, this doesn't distinguish between Ph.D. and MA, but in most of the humanities, and philosophy in particular, very few schools offer a terminal MA.)

It may be that you're looking at atypical departments. Students at top schools are certainly more likely to have funding, simply because top schools are better at generating it.

The schools I have seen offer it to all PHD students they accept, its part of what they look at when they deside how many to accept. if nearly half are self supporting, and it includes both MA and PHD that is better than I would have hoped. Most schools which have both terminal MA and PHD (Of the schools I have applied to only two did not have both, and one had PHD only and the other MA only, so I wouldn't say most don't have terminal MA). use MA students to at least partially fund the PHD. This is why they let it a lot of MAs for every one PHD they let in. (That is info dirrectly from a Professor my girlfriend did research with at UPenn).

As for top schools, I simply mean in their field. I have applied to state schools like SUNY SB, midline schools, and IVYs. But I also have exposure to the whole school process through my job, where I have to work with people applying to schools all the time.

Additionaly, of those supporting themselves that I know, a decent number are probably in work study etc, for the school or are doing somthing actually in their field. Although none of these are PHD students, mostly MDivs.

[Thinktoomuch]

There's no job you can get with a Ph.D. that pays you as much as you lose in ten years of salary increments. A well-chosen masters' degree will pay for itself in as little as two years, sometimes. A Ph.D. almost never pays for itself.

Not absolutely true (nothing ever is) but generally true. Has been for at least 30 years that I know of, from the HR selection point of view.

[Thinktoomuch]

Religion Student, given that you are aware of it (I'll say it here just so Jiri will see it and not get snippy...MY SPELLING IS BAD. ) I hope you will not feel offended by my question in good faith: how do you reconcile that (and the less than excellent syntax) with your high learning ability? A couple of decades ago that would have almost guaranteed that you would not make the shortlist in any competitive selection. Have criteria changed now?

[ReligionStudent]

:boggled: Religion Student, given that you are aware of it (I'll say it here just so Jiri will see it and not get snippy...MY SPELLING IS BAD. ) I hope you will not feel offended by my question in good faith: how do you reconcile that (and the less than excellent syntax) with your high learning ability? A couple of decades ago that would have almost guaranteed that you would not make the shortlist in any competitive selection. Have criteria changed now?

Well, while my spelling is poor, this can easily be overcome with spell check and editors. My grammer is actually better than presented her. Additionaly, as far as proof of my writing schools have seen my 650 GRE verbal and 6.0 writing as well as samples of writting from classes, my thesis, and publications. Also, I teach SAT and GRE level grammer on the side.

Schools just recieved more accurate portrayals of my writting ability, thankfully passed through a spell check. Also, in addition to English I do speak a little French, read Biblical Hebrew, and know some Ge'ez, so that helps as well in the language area of my CV.

So yes I have poor spelling, if JREF had a spell check it would not be as evident here, and my grammer is much better than I usually present in my stream of consiousness answers on the forumn. Its probably something I should focus on, and present gramatically correct responces.

[Scottch]

FWIW -

I did get my Ph.D. because it was something I wanted to do - a goal in my life. I liked doing research, I liked talking to and helping undergraduate students, and I appreciate most of my colleagues in academia.

I taught high school (math and physics) for 10 years as I received my degrees (masters and doctorate). I then found a consulting job for a year as I did my dissertation as was hired at a smaller college in the Midwest this last year. I took out loans that I know would be difficult to pay off in any short amount of time, but I live within my means and it just means I don't buy a new car every five years - I drive my car until it dies and buy nice used ones for about 20 years.

I got my Ph.D. in Education and know that I would not have made as much money as I did without it and stayed in public education (I am still making less now than when I left teaching). But, after scheduling my bathroom times during the day as a high school teacher, this new job allows me the freedom to affect positive social change at a broader level. I am now exciting a new generation of teachers to think skeptically and to model the thoughts of science and mathematics to a new generation of students.

It is totally worth any amount of money that I "would" have earned. As I said, I live very comfortably, but now I can take consulting jobs for about $2,500 a week in the summer or teach online. I didn't do it for anyone - but I recognize that I could affect society positively more if I did have those three letters after my name. Is it right...of course not...but it is reality. My opinions on education are no more or less valid than any one else's - but that is what the scientific process tries to determine.

Scottch

[ReligionStudent]

This is perhaps one point I forgot that Scottch naile. You may not make as much while at school, but its really enjoyable for a lot of people to do it and exist in that culture while still learning.

[Ben Tilly]

:boggled:

Well, while my spelling is poor, this can easily be overcome with spell check and editors. My grammer is actually better than presented her. Additionaly, as far as proof of my writing schools have seen my 650 GRE verbal and 6.0 writing as well as samples of writting from classes, my thesis, and publications. Also, I teach SAT and GRE level grammer on the side.

Schools just recieved more accurate portrayals of my writting ability, thankfully passed through a spell check. Also, in addition to English I do speak a little French, read Biblical Hebrew, and know some Ge'ez, so that helps as well in the language area of my CV.

So yes I have poor spelling, if JREF had a spell check it would not be as evident here, and my grammer is much better than I usually present in my stream of consiousness answers on the forumn. Its probably something I should focus on, and present gramatically correct responces.

Geez, I'm not sure when I remember running across a supposedly educated adult who had worse spelling. And I can see at least one error that spell check would not fix. (You wrote "her" instead of "here".)

Furthermore I'll note that 650 verbal puts you in the top 10% of people taking the GRE. While that's good, I wouldn't call it excellent. Especially not if you are particularly well prepped for that test and are therefore likely to be outperforming your native ability. (The fact that you're teaching people how to pass it suggests that you are.)

Finally I'll agree with others that I find it hard to reconcile your spelling with being good verbally. While it is theoretically possible, it strikes me as very unlikely.

Regards,
Ben

[ReligionStudent]

Geez, I'm not sure when I remember running across a supposedly educated adult who had worse spelling. And I can see at least one error that spell check would not fix. (You wrote "her" instead of "here".)

Furthermore I'll note that 650 verbal puts you in the top 10% of people taking the GRE. While that's good, I wouldn't call it excellent. Especially not if you are particularly well prepped for that test and are therefore likely to be outperforming your native ability. (The fact that you're teaching people how to pass it suggests that you are.)

Finally I'll agree with others that I find it hard to reconcile your spelling with being good verbally. While it is theoretically possible, it strikes me as very unlikely.

Regards,
Ben

First, her instead of here is a typing error, I know the spelling difference. I have also said that some of my errors are due to typing and just quickly submitting. I'm sorry if this is getting bothersome, I will be more careful in the future.

As for the GRE, I'm sorry the 650 was my score three years ago, the score when I took it last was 670 which puts me in the top 5%. Of course the verbal section has nothing to do with spelling at all. The only place where spelling is visible is on the writing section,
on which I recieved a 6 out of 6. As far as verbal goes, I am quite capable of reading, and my girlfriend continously tells me I am too annoying about correct grammar. Additionally, the percent is a self selected group. For instance, my 780 in math is only in the top 11%, but it is better than that in the general population. As for the tests in general, anyone that works for TPR will point out that SAT and GRE are really tests of how well you test, not how intellegent you are or even your math or verbal skills. I merely pointed out that score because it would explain, at least in part, my acceptance to MA and PHD programs.

As for concerns with my verbal skills, my recent email from my editor state "These entries are quite excellent". The only concern for editing noted was not my verbal skills, but concern that the target audience would need more clarification on who Albright was.

If this has turned into a thread of asking me about by verbal vs. spelling skills, I should note that while I was classified as having a learning disability in high school for my spelling, I was still able to be in Enlish AP at the same time. They are two sperate areas to me. My spelling does not necessarily represent my intelligence (I have known quite a few very intelligent people, including medical doctors, who do not have excellent spelling) but is a completely different problem.

It is very nice that you find it difficult to reconcile my spelling with my verbal ability, but there is the other evidence, including the acceptence of my publication, my acceptance to schools, or my verbal scores on tests. These certainly do not indicate a poorly educated individual, as your first line seems to imply I may be. If you really wish for for some proof of my education, look up my degree at Rutgers or my attendence at Columbia. I fail to see the reason to attack my level of education or my verbal ability, when neither has anything to do with my origional post on this thread.

I actually find this an upsetting turn of the thread, as my only point was that grad school/PHD is a good thing for many people, and that fears of price and lost years to one's career can be seen as unfounded. I fail to see how poor spelling prevents me from posting a view representative of someone involved in two graduate programs, as I am involved in two graduate programs. I never meant to sit here and say, look at me I am so intelligent, but to offer the opinion of someone who is going through those lost years of career time. In fact, I fail to see where I made arguments based on intelligence and not experience of either my girlfriend (who btw has excellent spelling) or I.

[roger]

Don't worry about it, ReligionStudent, some people just want to run other people down. It reflects on them, not you. I've had articles published without a single editorial correction, had a professor ask me to co-author a book, etc., yet have been accused of being less than intelligent, unable to form a proper thought, etc., on this forum, due to my writing. I know whose opinion I'm going to value more highly. Like you, I do type informally, my spelling skills are quite inadequate, and I type quickly, which often leads me to place apostrophes where they don't belong. I understand the difference between "it's" and "its", but my fingers don't. I often find I have typed homonyms, or near homonyms, for words. I don't just mean "won" for "one", but maybe "wrung" for "one". (I don't recall making that particular error). It's just something wonky going on between my fingers and brain. My proofreading skills are equally poor (I just struggled, and typed pore, then pour, before getting poor :)). I would probably not catch it if I had left the "pore" in, and just read the post before hitting reply, but I'd certainly catch it if reading word-by-word. It's just how this brain works. It doesn't stop me from writing at a level acceptable for the PhD humanities level or the popular press. It does stop me from writing grammatical and perfectly spelled posts in a reasonable amount of time on a bulletin board. So be it.

But hey, anyone who wants to call me uneducated because my fingers spit out 'pour' and 'pore' for 'poor', or because the sentences above run on occasionally, knock yourself out. After you get done with that, I know a bunch of dyslexics you can make fun of next.

[ReligionStudent]

Don't worry about it, ReligionStudent, some people just want to run other people down. It reflects on them, not you. I've had articles published without a single editorial correction, had a professor ask me to co-author a book, etc., yet have been accused of being less than intelligent, unable to form a proper thought, etc., on this forum, due to my writing. I know whose opinion I'm going to value more highly. Like you, I do type informally, my spelling skills are quite inadequate, and I type quickly, which often leads me to place apostrophes where they don't belong. I understand the difference between "it's" and "its", but my fingers don't. I often find I have typed homonyms, or near homonyms, for words. I don't just mean "won" for "one", but maybe "wrung" for "one". (I don't recall making that particular error). It's just something wonky going on between my fingers and brain. My proofreading skills are equally poor (I just struggled, and typed pore, then pour, before getting poor :)). I would probably not catch it if I had left the "pore" in, and just read the post before hitting reply, but I'd certainly catch it if reading word-by-word. It's just how this brain works. It doesn't stop me from writing at a level acceptable for the PhD humanities level or the popular press. It does stop me from writing grammatical and perfectly spelled posts in a reasonable amount of time on a bulletin board. So be it.

But hey, anyone who wants to call me uneducated because my fingers spit out 'pour' and 'pore' for 'poor', or because the sentences above run on occasionally, knock yourself out. After you get done with that, I know a bunch of dyslexics you can make fun of next.

It just bothers me quite a lot. This has been a learning disability or unique way of learning (I am not sure which, it was classified as a learning disability, but I always felt that I just learn spelling and words differently than the majority of people.) which I have struggled with for a long time, and have been able to overcome. I certainly thing moving from SPED classes in 5th grade to AP in high school and then going on to get and MA and begin work a PHD is overcoming it. And I am proud of my ability in moving beyond what professionals told me was a disability.

Sorry to vent, but I have just found this discussion rather upsetting. The first post about it was not so, Thinktoomuch, as I think it was an honest question. But Ben's was unnecessarily an attack, which I feel was quite pointless to the thread.

[Thinktoomuch]

Thank you for understanding RS, Roger appeared to make me guilty by association. My youngest son is affected by dysgraphia but ranks in the top 1% of verbal ability, with barely average scores in other practical cognitive areas, and is doing well at uni. I certainly would not disparage people with learning disabilities. What I was really interested in, and I think has been answered indirectly for the academic environment, is their impact on people's opportunities. I still think that non-academic employment would be much more adversely affected, though.

ETA: As regards relevance to the thread: the above mentioned son's scored A+ in Philosophy... but the school encouraged him to get a "real job" and so he picked electronic engineering. I should have said this at the beginning...

[wunky]

RS-
I for one believe that as long as you get your message across then you have succeeded. Not everyone does everything in the same way- imagine how flat and boring life would be. I know some people who purposely ignore grammar and spelling in their posts-

I envy that you will be in school and near the ocean. My school was landlocked by large, politician filled marble buildings.

What direction is your research heading? (Just curious)

BTW- one of my favorite people at University of Chicago is ABD in relgion/library sciences- did all the course and then decided that he did not want to do the final step. He is very highly regarded in his field, happy with what he does, and has inspired/ encouraged more people than I am probably aware of.

[ReligionStudent]

Thank you for understanding RS, Roger appeared to make me guilty by association. My youngest son is affected by dysgraphia but ranks in the top 1% of verbal ability, with barely average scores in other practical cognitive areas, and is doing well at uni. I certainly would not disparage people with learning disabilities. What I was really interested in, and I think has been answered indirectly for the academic environment, is their impact on people's opportunities. I still think that non-academic employment would be much more adversely affected, though.

ETA: As regards relevance to the thread: the above mentioned son's scored A+ in Philosophy... but the school encouraged him to get a "real job" and so he picked electronic engineering. I should have said this at the beginning...

As for non-academic fields, I can only offer personal observations. My father does not spell very well either. He's fine with spell check and can write well, but in emails he is just a loose as I am on this forum. However, he is a veterinarian who owns his own business. Outside of academia, personally, I have had relative success. Last summer I worked full time for the county as a lab assistant. This was not an academic environment, but one of public health. The entomologist I was working under offered to train me to do his job at another county full time. So, there are areas to succeed in, you just have to look.

[ReligionStudent]

RS-
I for one believe that as long as you get your message across then you have succeeded. Not everyone does everything in the same way- imagine how flat and boring life would be. I know some people who purposely ignore grammar and spelling in their posts-

I envy that you will be in school and near the ocean. My school was landlocked by large, politician filled marble buildings.

What direction is your research heading? (Just curious)

BTW- one of my favorite people at University of Chicago is ABD in relgion/library sciences- did all the course and then decided that he did not want to do the final step. He is very highly regarded in his field, happy with what he does, and has inspired/ encouraged more people than I am probably aware of.

I am personly very glad to get out of NYC (I was actually just walking on the beach about 30 minutes ago out here on LI).

My research is focused on late bronze age and early iron age life in the levant. Specifically the development of the religion of Judah and Israel in cultural context. So far I have done a lot of work with text, but I am moving to a more archaeologically focused program.

[Ben Tilly]

First, her instead of here is a typing error, I know the spelling difference. I have also said that some of my errors are due to typing and just quickly submitting. I'm sorry if this is getting bothersome, I will be more careful in the future.

As a person who also has naturally bad spelling (compounded by having had to learn two spelling systems), I can understand that. But it is sufficiently bothersome that you really should work on it. (That said, I'll note that you clearly did work on it for this post. Thank you.)

As for the GRE, I'm sorry the 650 was my score three years ago, the score when I took it last was 670 which puts me in the top 5%. Of course the verbal section has nothing to do with spelling at all. The only place where spelling is visible is on the writing section,
on which I recieved a 6 out of 6. As far as verbal goes, I am quite capable of reading, and my girlfriend continously tells me I am too annoying about correct grammar. Additionally, the percent is a self selected group. For instance, my 780 in math is only in the top 11%, but it is better than that in the general population. As for the tests in general, anyone that works for TPR will point out that SAT and GRE are really tests of how well you test, not how intellegent you are or even your math or verbal skills. I merely pointed out that score because it would explain, at least in part, my acceptance to MA and PHD programs.

I know all of this. Note my statement that I discount scores from heavily prepared people exactly because what is being tested is their preparation, not ability. Further I'll note that if reciting your scores didn't impress me the first time, then continuing to recite them won't impress me the second.

Why not? Well, several reasons. The first is that anyone can claim any scores, and nobody else can judge whether you're lying. The second is that it is unclear what high scores really mean. (Intelligent or prepared?) And the third is that the scores you're quoting aren't that impressive to me. Why not? Well one reason is that my scores (with no more preparation than reading a book) back in the early 90s were V:760/Q:780/A:800 and math 990. (I have no idea why the subject exam was on a 990 point scale. Also there was not at that time a "writing" portion.)

Note that I would never state my scores as proof that I'm intelligent and capable. Why not? Well. nobody has reason to believe my claimed scores. And even if you do believe them, how do you interpret them? It is far more reliable in my opinion to just be yourself. If your abilities truly are superior, then that will become obvious over time. Conversely if someone is not convinced that you're superior, telling them otherwise is not going to win points.

As for concerns with my verbal skills, my recent email from my editor state "These entries are quite excellent". The only concern for editing noted was not my verbal skills, but concern that the target audience would need more clarification on who Albright was.

So a person I don't know claims that an editor that I don't know gave you compliments. This is supposed to convince me? Like it or not I'm going to judge you based on my experience, not someone else's.

If this has turned into a thread of asking me about by verbal vs. spelling skills, I should note that while I was classified as having a learning disability in high school for my spelling, I was still able to be in Enlish AP at the same time. They are two sperate areas to me. My spelling does not necessarily represent my intelligence (I have known quite a few very intelligent people, including medical doctors, who do not have excellent spelling) but is a completely different problem.

In most jobs your appearance is irrelevant to performing your duties. Yet most of us still dress up for interviews. Why? Because surface impressions affect people's opinions.

When it comes to writing, your spelling leaves a strong surface impression.

(Random note: I know of at least one exception to the "dressing up" rule for interviews. In technology there is a widespread disdain for people who wear suits, so people tend to show up for interviews in casual dress.)

It is very nice that you find it difficult to reconcile my spelling with my verbal ability, but there is the other evidence, including the acceptence of my publication, my acceptance to schools, or my verbal scores on tests. These certainly do not indicate a poorly educated individual, as your first line seems to imply I may be. If you really wish for for some proof of my education, look up my degree at Rutgers or my attendence at Columbia. I fail to see the reason to attack my level of education or my verbal ability, when neither has anything to do with my origional post on this thread.

I have no more than your word that you have said publication, those acceptances, or your verbal scores on tests. And I am unable to look up your degrees because I don't even know your name. (And if you gave me one, I'd have no way to be sure that you didn't give me someone else's name.)

I actually find this an upsetting turn of the thread, as my only point was that grad school/PHD is a good thing for many people, and that fears of price and lost years to one's career can be seen as unfounded. I fail to see how poor spelling prevents me from posting a view representative of someone involved in two graduate programs, as I am involved in two graduate programs. I never meant to sit here and say, look at me I am so intelligent, but to offer the opinion of someone who is going through those lost years of career time. In fact, I fail to see where I made arguments based on intelligence and not experience of either my girlfriend (who btw has excellent spelling) or I.

Understood.

What caused me to react was http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2525099#post2525099. I have a bad reaction to posts where people claim to be great because of unverifiable information (in your case your test scores), while the content of the post leaves the opposite impression.

Regards,
Ben

[ReligionStudent]

As a person who also has naturally bad spelling (compounded by having had to learn two spelling systems), I can understand that. But it is sufficiently bothersome that you really should work on it. (That said, I'll note that you clearly did work on it for this post. Thank you.) So if you know that the contrary is easily possible, how can you possibly state the assumption that spelling = intelligence.



I know all of this. Note my statement that I discount scores from heavily prepared people exactly because what is being tested is their preparation, not ability. Further I'll note that if reciting your scores didn't impress me the first time, then continuing to recite them won't impress me the second.

Why not? Well, several reasons. The first is that anyone can claim any scores, and nobody else can judge whether you're lying. The second is that it is unclear what high scores really mean. (Intelligent or prepared?) And the third is that the scores you're quoting aren't that impressive to me. Why not? Well one reason is that my scores (with no more preparation than reading a book) back in the early 90s were V:760/Q:780/A:800 and math 990. (I have no idea why the subject exam was on a 990 point scale. Also there was not at that time a "writing" portion.) My scores were not meant to impress, they were meant to illustrate how I got into a school, which was the point of the post. You read a lot more into it than you should have. I was not claiming intelligence, just a CV that is valid for my schools. As for highly prepped, my scores were 650, 780, 5.5 before I began teaching. That was average college senior level of prep. Also note, scores have been succesfuly scaled down since the early 90s. While I state this only to prove that you for some reason go off on scores like you are an expert, but seem to be pulling it from nowhere.

And I think we generally assume on these boards that if someone says something about their scores to show how they got into school, there is no reason to think they are lying.

Note that I would never state my scores as proof that I'm intelligent and capable. Why not? Well. nobody has reason to believe my claimed scores. And even if you do believe them, how do you interpret them? It is far more reliable in my opinion to just be yourself. If your abilities truly are superior, then that will become obvious over time. Conversely if someone is not convinced that you're superior, telling them otherwise is not going to win points. My point was never that I was superior, just that your post was in poor taste, and unnecessary. You come out telling me I am not intelligent etc, for no reason at all.



So a person I don't know claims that an editor that I don't know gave you compliments. This is supposed to convince me? Like it or not I'm going to judge you based on my experience, not someone else's.



In most jobs your appearance is irrelevant to performing your duties. Yet most of us still dress up for interviews. Why? Because surface impressions affect people's opinions.

When it comes to writing, your spelling leaves a strong surface impression.

(Random note: I know of at least one exception to the "dressing up" rule for interviews. In technology there is a widespread disdain for people who wear suits, so people tend to show up for interviews in casual dress.)



I have no more than your word that you have said publication, those acceptances, or your verbal scores on tests. And I am unable to look up your degrees because I don't even know your name. (And if you gave me one, I'd have no way to be sure that you didn't give me someone else's name.) In your effort to argue with me, and tell me I am an idiot you beyond skeptic to paranoid. Your post is off topic and just generally mean spirited.

I also fail to see how a post on a board I made for fun is somehow incongrous with a good test score, as no part of it has to do with spelling per se. (writing section takes it into account somwhat, but it isn't a spelling bee).

I would love to see some study that states spelling corelates with intelligence, since you make this statement, and only seem to say you are swayed by such proof.

[Ben Tilly]

So if you know that the contrary is easily possible, how can you possibly state the assumption that spelling = intelligence.

I did not say that they are equal. I said that they are strongly correlated. Specifically I said that I've never previously encountered any person of your education level with spelling that bad. Secondly I said that I find it hard to reconcile your spelling with your claims to excellent. I didn't say that it was impossible, just unlikely.

My scores were not meant to impress, they were meant to illustrate how I got into a school, which was the point of the post. You read a lot more into it than you should have. I was not claiming intelligence, just a CV that is valid for my schools. As for highly prepped, my scores were 650, 780, 5.5 before I began teaching. That was average college senior level of prep. Also note, scores have been succesfuly scaled down since the early 90s. While I state this only to prove that you for some reason go off on scores like you are an expert, but seem to be pulling it from nowhere.

I'm not sure where you get the impression that I think I'm an expert. What I've said about standardized tests is common knowledge, combined with a Google search to find out what 650 meant on the verbal section. I'm also not sure what you mean by "successfully scaled down". I do know that in the year that I got those scores, I was in the top 1% of all test takers on each of the verbal, quantitative and analytical sections. (More than 1% of people who took the math subject got the top possible scaled score. I suspect that this reflects the fact that math majors do significantly better than most on the regular GRE.)

About how you used the score, my interpretation of http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2525099#post2525099 was that your GRE was proof of your writing ability. Technically you were saying that it was part of how you proved your writing ability to the schools. But the impression that I had is that you expected others to find it convincing as well.

And I think we generally assume on these boards that if someone says something about their scores to show how they got into school, there is no reason to think they are lying.

My point was never that I was superior, just that your post was in poor taste, and unnecessary. You come out telling me I am not intelligent etc, for no reason at all.

And I am also not saying that you were lying. I am trying to tell you what impression your post left on me.

In your effort to argue with me, and tell me I am an idiot you beyond skeptic to paranoid. Your post is off topic and just generally mean spirited.

I also fail to see how a post on a board I made for fun is somehow incongrous with a good test score, as no part of it has to do with spelling per se. (writing section takes it into account somwhat, but it isn't a spelling bee).

I would love to see some study that states spelling corelates with intelligence, since you make this statement, and only seem to say you are swayed by such proof.

Where did I say you were an idiot?

As for the study, I don't know of any. However I do have lots of anecdotal evidence of a link. Or more precisely, I know a lot of intelligent and highly educated people. Their spelling varies. But I've never previously encountered any whose spelling reminded me of a fifth grader. I also know a lot of not so intelligent and not so highly educated people. Their spelling tends to be a lot worse. So based on experience, I'm confident that there is a correlation.

Anyways we're now going round in circles. Respond as you will, I'm exiting this conversation now.

Regards,
Ben

[drkitten]

I would love to see some study that states spelling corelates with intelligence, since you make this statement, and only seem to say you are swayed by such proof.

Be careful what you wish for, RS, as you may receive it.

From the Journal of General Psychology (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2405/is_1_129/ai_86431655):

Spelling ability, as measured by the number of correct scores on the spelling test, was significantly correlated with the total score on the Shipley test, r(80) = .47, p < .001. It was also significantly correlated with the vocabulary score on the Shipley test, r(80) = .50, p < .001, and with the abstraction score, r(80) = .30, p < .01.

(The Shipley is a light-weight IQ test.) Of course, this suffers from the fundamental problem that the entire foundational assumptions of IQ research are flawed and that the central valdation studies as done by Burt et al. are actively fraudulent.... but if you accept IQ as a measure of intelligence, then the correlation between spelling ability and intelligence is among the strongest non-trivial correlations I've seen in the field of psychology.

[ReligionStudent]

Be careful what you wish for, RS, as you may receive it.

From the Journal of General Psychology (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2405/is_1_129/ai_86431655):


(The Shipley is a light-weight IQ test.) Of course, this suffers from the fundamental problem that the entire foundational assumptions of IQ research are flawed and that the central valdation studies as done by Burt et al. are actively fraudulent.... but if you accept IQ as a measure of intelligence, then the correlation between spelling ability and intelligence is among the strongest non-trivial correlations I've seen in the field of psychology.

Of course that's the issue, IQ studies vs. actual intelligence. I also think that this would overlook people with disabilities like dyslexia who are poor spellers but quite intelligent. (BTW, I am unfamiliar with these studies etc, as I don't read psychology publications, but I love the fact that you just outright call somthing a fraud.

[ReligionStudent]

I did not say that they are equal. I said that they are strongly correlated. Specifically I said that I've never previously encountered any person of your education level with spelling that bad. Secondly I said that I find it hard to reconcile your spelling with your claims to excellent. I didn't say that it was impossible, just unlikely. I never claimed excellence, though if you take my position as being in the top 10%-5% of a group composed almost completely of college seniors and graduates applying to graduate programs, that is not a terrible possition to be in.



I'm not sure where you get the impression that I think I'm an expert. What I've said about standardized tests is common knowledge, combined with a Google search to find out what 650 meant on the verbal section. I'm also not sure what you mean by "successfully scaled down". I do know that in the year that I got those scores, I was in the top 1% of all test takers on each of the verbal, quantitative and analytical sections. (More than 1% of people who took the math subject got the top possible scaled score. I suspect that this reflects the fact that math majors do significantly better than most on the regular GRE.) As people continue to do better on standardized tests overall on a year to year basis ETS scales the tests back, So, what would have been say a 1600 on the SAT 10 years ago is like a 1300-1400 now (rough estimate since I am away from my work papers). Most of the time quantative on the GRE is has lower % on the higher scores because it is an easier section to prep for and people do better on it overall.

About how you used the score, my interpretation of http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2525099#post2525099 was that your GRE was proof of your writing ability. Technically you were saying that it was part of how you proved your writing ability to the schools. But the impression that I had is that you expected others to find it convincing as well. No my only position was that it was convincing to schools. Though I will note that your discussion was of my verbal which has nothing to do with spelling or grammar. That's all writing section.



And I am also not saying that you were lying. I am trying to tell you what impression your post left on me.

Where did I say you were an idiot?

As for the study, I don't know of any. However I do have lots of anecdotal evidence of a link. Or more precisely, I know a lot of intelligent and highly educated people. Their spelling varies. But I've never previously encountered any whose spelling reminded me of a fifth grader. I also know a lot of not so intelligent and not so highly educated people. Their spelling tends to be a lot worse. So based on experience, I'm confident that there is a correlation.

Anyways we're now going round in circles. Respond as you will, I'm exiting this conversation now.

Regards,
Ben

As I have stated my spelling is better than this, but it takes a concentrated effort to do so. Words in my mind are not linked to spelling like most people's are. Of course, experience can also only speak of itself, not other examples.

[drkitten]

(BTW, I am unfamiliar with these studies etc, as I don't read psychology publications, but I love the fact that you just outright call somthing a fraud.

Not just me. Cyril Burt is notorious for manufacturing data; it's one of the most famous scandals in the history of behavioral science.


From Wikipedia:


Sir Cyril Lodowic Burt (March 3, 1883 – October 10, 1971) was a prominent British educational psychologist. He was a member of the London School of Differential Psychology. Some of his work was controversial for its conclusions that genetics substantially influences mental and behavioral traits. After his death, he was famously accused of scientific fraud.

From the late 1970s it has been generally accepted that "he had fabricated some of the data, though some of his earlier work remained unaffected by this revelation."[1] This was due in large part to research by Oliver Gillie (1976) and Leon Kamin (1974).[2][3] The possibility of fabrication was first brought to the attention of the scientific community when Kamin noticed that Burt's correlation coefficients of Monozygotic and Dizygotic twins' IQ scores were the same to three decimal places, across articles – even when new data were twice added to the sample of twins. Leslie Hearnshaw, a close friend of Burt and his official biographer, concluded after examining the criticisms that most of Burt's data from after World War II were unreliable or fraudulent.