University of Pittsburgh

Next stop: the History and Philosophy of Science Department at the University of Pittsburgh. I was shown around by Jonah Schupbach, a grad student I’d met in Konstanz last September. Coincidentally we were both there to present a paper we co-authored with Jan, my BA supervisor. Jonah kindly showed me around at the department, introduced me to a number of other grad students and Bryan, Peter, him and me went out for lunch together and had a nice discussion about Kevin Zollman’s paper at the grad student conference this weekend.

Unlike CMU, HPS does not have people working on topics that are directly related to my research interests so far (decision / rational choice theory). John Norton and Jim Woodward might be pretty good matches, with interests in philosophy of probability, general philosophy of science and philosophy of social science (unfortunately neither of them were around when I visited). If I were to come here, I would get a very broad education in history and philosophy of science and presumably branch into new research interests (in addition, perhaps, to satisfying some of my rational choice interests at CMU). Although I’m sure this would be great fun, I tentatively view this as a pretty big disadvantage of coming to Pitt.

Which is a shame, as this place scores nearly perfectly on any other criterion I can think of. I really liked the grad students I met (nearly half of the total population) as well as the faculty I spoke to. Although the student:faculty ratio is much higher here (3:1) than at CMU (1:1), I understand that most of the faculty members are around and available most of the time.

As I mentioned in my previous entry, the academic climate here in Pittsburgh is outstanding, with interesting stuff going on all the time between Pitt HPS, Pitt Philosophy, the Center for Philosophy of Science and CMU. As Jonah put it: “if you take some initiative to mingle with the CMU and Pitt Philosophy students and faculty, it really feels like one big department”. Note to self: it would be interesting to compare the size of this combined department to for instance the size of Ann Arbor’s department.

The funding package is very generous, in the vicinity of $24,000 plus most of your conference and reading expenses. Given that Pittsburgh is one of the cheapest cities in the US this should be more than sufficient. Although I probably won’t know for certain until a few days before the April 15 deadline, in recent years they have been able to offer funding to all waitlisted students eventually.

The course load is apparently quite heavy, with students taking courses for three or four years. Unlike at CMU, “courses” that are really research time don’t seem to exist. On the other hand, the teaching load is guaranteed to be light (as opposed to CMU, where it’s somewhat heavy in principle, with lots of possibilities to make it lighter). In your first five years (apparently most people end up taking six years) you have two teaching years and three “fellowship years”, usually the first, third and fifth, in which you have no obligations other than your own courses/research.

The facilities for PhD students are excellent, with office space on the 9^th floor of the Cathedral of Learning (see picture), all of which have an amazing view. There is also a nice common room where the students seem to hang out quite a lot. The grad students all feel confident of landing a good job, as excellent support from the department has enabled them to maintain a 100% placement record for years. Both students and faculty also felt confident claiming that this is the best department in the world for philosophy and history of science.

Grad students report receiving ample opportunity and money to attend conferences and even to spend significant time at other universities. For instance, Jonah spent nine months at TiLPS in Tilburg, Bryan spent a semester at the University of California, Irvine, and Katherine is spending a year in Berlin.

Students are encouraged to publish on their own (as in this case there can be no doubt about intellectual ownership), but co-authoring with faculty also happens. An important part of the requirements for the PhD at Pitt are the comprehensive papers. These are two single author papers, one on history and one on philosophy of science, that should be of publishable quality, written at the end of the second year.

The faculty seem to get along well. By the grad students’ account there are no factions or animosities either intra-faculty or between Pitt HPS, Pitt Philosophy and CMU. The grad students also seem to have a collaborative atmosphere going on, sharing their work for instance in the well-attended weekly Work in Progress talks.

That concludes my notes on Pitt HPS. Next up: UPenn.

Carnegie Mellon

Here are some of my notes and thoughts concerning Carnegie Mellon University.

CMU was the first university I visited, after arriving in the States Wednesday night. My host was Lizzie Silver, a friendly Australian girl who is herself in her first year as a grad student. She told me Pittsburgh is an old industrial city that has been shrinking ever since the steel industry collapsed. As such most houses are relatively old, spacious and cheap. It should be relatively easy to find a place here, and if you have a roommate prices should be under $ 500 / month.

The next two days I spent visiting the Department of Philosophy at CMU. In terms of research the place seems very well-suited to me, with a strong focus on formal methods. Faculty that would be particularly interesting for me to work with include the decision theorists Horacio Arlo-Costa and Teddy Seidenfeld, Kevin Zollman who specializes in evolutionary game theory and David Danks who specializes in (causal) models of cognition. Unfortunately I did not meet Teddy Seidenfeld, but all the other faculty I met were all very friendly and open.

The Department is relatively small, by my estimate (I didn’t ask for exact numbers) around 20 each of faculty members and PhD students, plus a handful of master’s students. Master’s students are on a very similar program to PhD students, except they leave after two years with a master’s degree (usually).

Speaking of the program, PhD students are expected to take three courses per semester throughout the first three years of their enrollment (or was it the first two years? I forgot). There are a number of methodological courses everyone takes in the first year, but other than that you are expected to pick courses relevant to your own development. Taking courses at other departments of CMU and at the two sister departments at UPitt (History and Philosophy of Science and Philosophy) is encouraged.

According to David, in practice students take only two courses per semester after the first semester, the third slot being filled with courses like “independent research” or one-on-one reading with faculty – so effectively working on the research that will lead up to your dissertation.

An important goal of the course work is to develop areas of competence – areas that you would be able to teach courses in as you go into a career in academia. At CMU this is tailored per student, as different students want to go into different departments after the PhD, with some going to Math or Computer Science departments and others to Philosophy departments.

After the first semester a grad student at CMU is expected to work as a teaching assistant (TA), grader or research assistant (RA). Lizzie pointed out that serving as a TA in the intro to philosophy course at least one semester is compulsory. She decided to get this out of the way as soon as possible, so she would have her hands free if any possibilities for RAing came up. RAing is usually tailored to specific students in such a way that it is effectively pure research time for your PhD or close to it. Due to the relatively large number of grants active in the department, it is often possible to finance grad students in this way, freeing them from grading duties.

Work of the above-mentioned types can also be done over summer. This is a way to improve your financial situation as well as a chance to run your own courses as a lead instructor (i.e. lecturer) or to work on your research in relative peace. Ruth, one of the current grad students, indicated that the stipend as-is is somewhat minimal, but with the possibilities to earn more money over summer it is easily sufficient.

Much was made by both faculty and students of the open door policy. Apparently grad students spend a lot of quality time with the faculty, and also help each other a lot. Even though the grad student offices are located in a separate building from the faculty offices, they assured me they met up a lot, especially with their own adviser(s). There’s also the Thursday afternoon tea where the faculty come to the grad student offices for beer, wine and snacks (no actual tea).

The offices themselves seemed spacious enough, although only two have windows. They did have a nice common room and kitchen, with a fridge containing leftovers, which are often around due to the tea and other (free) food consumption in the common room.

The students seem nice as well. They were around a lot of the time, were very helpful in answering questions, and we had great fun celebrating St Patrick’s Day Thursday night and at the department dinner and conference party Friday night.

They told me they regularly attend conferences and submit papers to them. In general, the aim of the program is to have you submitting papers to conferences and journals as early as possible. Exchanges with other universities also happen, but they are somewhat rare, and due to funding issues may be more difficult to set up than in Europe.

Welcome!

Welcome to this temporary blog!

I will be using this to collect my thoughts as I travel around the North-Western part of the United States, visiting six universities that have offered me a place in their PhD program. Here I will post my first impressions of

1. Carnegie Mellon University;
2. the University of Pittsburgh;
3. the University of Pennsylvania;
4. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor;
5. University of Wisconsin-Madison;
6. University of Missouri-Columbia.

The big finale follows when I get back home on April 8 and will have one week to make my final decision on where to do a PhD.

Now, I need your help! I'm preparing a list of questions with the minimal information that I hope to get answered about each of these six universities. I want to learn about:

1. Who I will be working with and what they are interested in (obviously).
2. The details of their financial offer and (if applicable) my status on the waitlist for financial aid.
3. How much time can I expect to spend on coursework and teaching? What kind of courses am I expected to take and teach?
4. What facilities do they have for PhD students?
5. What can I expect from my supervisor (and what do they expect from me)?
6. What is their policy on attending conferences or spending time at other universities?
7. How expensive is the city and how is the housing market?

So, what are some other questions I should definitely ask?