Welcome to the GradCafe

Hello!  Welcome to The GradCafe Forums.You're welcome to look around the forums and view posts.  However, like most online communities you must register before you can create your own posts.  This is a simple, free process that requires minimal information. Benefits of membership:

  • Participate in discussions
  • Subscribe to topics and forums to get automatic updates
  • Search forums
  • Removes some advertisements (including this one!)


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Comparativist

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Application Season
    2017 Fall
  • Program
    Political Science

Recent Profile Visitors

848 profile views
  1. Not good.
  2. The issue with older applicants isn't gaining admission - which is very possible if you are competitive against other applicants - but the backend, the job market. You will be somewhere around your mid 40s by the time you hit the academic market, which is risky for universities. Universities that put out TT lines are looking for an investment of at the very least 20-30 years (especially R2 type places, which by the looks of the programs you are applying to, is the market you would be focusing on). It's harder to justify that in your mid 40s when the market is as competitive as it is and they can just take someone just as qualified/more qualified but younger. There is a significant chance you could spend 5-6-7 years getting your doctorate and not have anything to show for it by the end of it. Whether you want to take that risk is up to you. But I would think long and hard about it.
  3. Another issue I didn't see mentioned is this: you got interviews but you didn't nail jobs...that means you have some things going on in your CV/Resume that is interesting to people, but you may not be doing well in the interview stage. A job offer could very well be possible if you worked on that aspect and/or got feedback on your interviewing skills from someone.
  4. Why not just make one yourself? Excel is fairly intuitive.
  5. I mostly only really know the political sociology stuff but Skocpol's Social Revolutions and Moore's Social Origins are absolute classics. Have nothing to do with your interests, but if you're serious about pursuing sociology you'll probably be forced to read them at some point. I mean there are also classics like Bourdieu, Durkheim, and Weber. I think when someone wants to get acquainted with a field or subfield, the first thing to do is to dive into the classics. Even contemporary research still speaks to them in some way.
  6. Comprehensive exams cover the major canon of sociology and it's subfields. They aren't "exam related."
  7. CHYMPS + top 20 privates. A couple of publics here and there may also (ex. UCSD).
  8. There are plenty of applicants (and students and scholars!) that straddle the line between IR and CP. It's not a big deal to be slightly ambiguous in respect to those two subfields IF there is a obvious reason for it and you have a clear and concise proposed project in your SOP. You may also want to be strategic with respect to competitiveness. From past cycles, the comparative subfields were thought by many to be more competitive than IR in regards to available spots vs. applicants. I believe this fluctuates from year to year though. Might be something to think about when declaring your 'first' subfield.
  9. Why do you want to do a Ph.D.? You make it seem like it's a plan B because you didn't get into law school. A Ph.D. program should never really be a plan B because it is a MASSIVE commitment. Listen, I had similar 'stats' as you and I got into a few top 15/20 programs. But I also had a lot of research experience, good letters, and a pretty defined project/writing sample to make up for some of those weaknesses, do you have those things? If you don't, it's going to be really tough for you...especially for top 10s. You are going to be competing against people that have known and prepared for Ph.D. programs and applications for multiple years WITH perfect stats and all the rest.
  10. I'm not in the subfield of political theory, but I have never really seen these topics in mainstream political science departments in the US. Might be a bigger thing in Europe. Or rather, might be more popular in disciplines like German studies or history. I mean topics like authoritarianism are still significantly popular but that doesn't really have anything to do with nazism. Typically political science isn't focused on specific historical time periods. That isn't to say that projects cannot be historical. But what you seem to be describing is more the realm of history.
  11. You don't need anything really, these are extremely basic operations. 4-8 GB RAM, i3 processor, any GB hard drive. Every brand will have a basic consumer line of laptops (i.e. Inspiron for Dell), this is the type of line you should be targeting (should cost you no more than $500-700).
  12. It's entirely field dependent. In my sub-field, books go a long way. Generally, the better and more comprehensive your dissertation is, the closer it is to being publishable as a book. Furthermore, sometimes your dissertation is what hiring committees look at (although, much more likely it is your job market paper and/or past publications). In my field there are also dissertation awards that come with quite a bit of prestige and opportunities. Lastly, if you put together a sub-par dissertation your letter writers are less likely to back you as much as if it was excellent. So no, I don't think the dissertation is just a hoop to pass through.
  13. Page length of dissertation has little relevance to quality. What's more valuable, a dissertation where the core research results in two publications but is only approx. 100 pages or a dissertation that is 800 pages long and results in none?
  14. Wisconsin has always had a strong focus/placement record for Russian politics. Gehlbach and Herrera are good. Honestly though, in CP it's more about overall program strength + training plus a couple of substantive POIs than raw numbers of scholars who work on X area.
  15. I shouldnt have been so overstated. I'll reword my statement: it's not very common for programs to have 'double' majors. Duke is an oddball in terms of fields. I believe Chicago also has two majors. Most programs do not. The main point here is that course requirements are generally hoops to jump through in doctoral programs. They have little relevance of how you will succeed on the job market.