Harvard vs. Social Thought for Pol. Theory

[Canadianpolsci]

OK gradcafe people. I need your help. I did really well with admissions, so I'm almost embarrassed to ask for advice about the following wonderful set of options. But still, I'm curious what people think.

I want to study political theory with an emphasis on 19th century German thought, Rousseau, and early-modern thought. I have to choose between Harvard Government, and the Committee on Social Thought. Funding is good from both places and is more or less not the issue (there is a slight edge to Harvard, though). The main issue with Social Thought is it is not a traditional political science department, and my most likely goal is to apply to and hope to get a tenure track post as a pol. theorist in a political science department.

There are wonderful people at Chicago, and, on the surface of it, a slightly better fit. But Harvard also has good people and fit.

So, what do people think? I know it's hard to really give advice this specific, but I want to know what people think.

Thanks in advance.

[Diotima]

Harvard for sure--you'll have Harvey Mansfield!

[AllFiredUp]

No guarantee HM will be around the department for 4+ more years. That, coupled with the itinerant faculty noted on the theory blog, would lead me to choose Chicago.

[yoon7724]

I concur with the previous poster. Though Harvard is the traditioanlly more straightforward choice, coupled with the fact that HM would most likely retire before you finish your disser., I would go to Chicago--far more interesting and still awfully prestigious program.

[JordanJames]

Go with Chicago. You should also note the criticisms that we've all heard regarding the training of American political theorists in poli sci programs that have led many schools to hire philosophers and theorists from the UK instead of poli sci grads. Nevertheless, it's almost a coin flip between Harvard Government and Chicago Social Thought, but I think most of us will agree that the edge goes to Chicago. The program isn't an orthodox one, but it has established an amazing reputation, should be able to open up greater opportunities (across disciplines), and will be more able to accommodate your interests.

One down side: I hear the program is brutal and takes much longer to finish than most poli sci programs, but this is just 3rd hand knowledge that I can't vouch for.

[Quarex]

The proper term, I believe, is "an embarrassment of riches." I suspect you will do well at either place; not that I know you at all, but it is clear through seeing your posts on these forums that you are intelligent enough, and are not nearly as egotistical as many others in your position! Harvard's placement record certainly is more impressive than the Committee on Social Thought's, but the latter's placement record also, well, is not a placement record that any school would be ashamed to have, either.

I am hardly ashamed to admit that I had never heard of the Committee on Social Thought until this thread. How did you even find out about this program? I spent a couple of days looking for good interdisciplinary Ph.D. programs when getting this whole search underway, and though I did find and apply to a couple, this post has shown me I most assuredly missed plenty.

[eve2008]

Did you visit Chicago yet? I'm sure things will be much more clear once you have seen both schools. (At least, that's what I'm hoping for in my case.) Congrats on your fabulous options.

[justpassingby]

Congratulations, you have a wonderful choice ahead of you.

My own opinion is that, if your ultimate ambition is to get a job in a political science department, Harvard would be the better choice. Not only will you receive a Harvard theory education (which is great even if you don't end up working with Mansfield, as someone mentioned above), you'll also be able to make use of all the other resources in the department when completing your degree requirements (like the minor). If you're at Harvard you'll have access to IR/comparative/american/methods scholars of the very highest caliber. This should ensure that you'll get a top notch all-round training in political science, which is essential for landing a good job in a politics department.* Don't underestimate how important this is! When you finally get to the job market you'll need to be able to convince hiring committees that you can talk knowledgeably to non-theory political scientists about things like quantitative analysis, formal modelling, game theory etc., since these methods have such a grip on the discipline of political science as a whole (if you're interviewing at a small school, your hiring committee may itself contain one or more non-theorists!). A poster above made some cryptic comments about polisci departments hiring from philosophy departments or from the UK. I don't think this is widely the case at all. Perhaps Ammar could say more about what he means, and provide some examples.

The Committee on Social Thought is indeed (in)famous, and I'm sure it's a fabulous program for the right sort of candidate, or if you are undecided about what sort of department you want to teach in. But it is very unusual, it's notoriously lengthy and difficult to complete, and I can't think of many (if any) well known political theorists that have come from there recently.

Best of luck.

* PS I'm not saying you couldn't get a rigorous political science training at Chicago. Obviously, their own political science department is as good as (and for some particular subjects, better than) Harvard's. I just don't know how much access you'll have to it as a CST student. Perhaps you could email some current students at Chicago to find out?

[Niels]

One down side: I hear the program is brutal and takes much longer to finish than most poli sci programs, but this is just 3rd hand knowledge that I can't vouch for.

I have heard this as well, also third-hand.

As for program, it is obviously highly prestigious. However, I have heard time and again from professors who are on hiring committees, that people who do non-traditional degrees in theory have a harder time landing polisci jobs. Of course, if you publish an amazing diss, you'll have a cutting edge (as a side note, I've been told by a mentor to understand the degree as a "license" and to not think of your diss as your gift to humanity/your most amazing work of your life. If you begin to understand grad school as the latter, you'll probably end up as an ABD).

But in general, I hear that hiring committees want people to be able to teach the discipline's orthodoxy including being able to also teach basic traditional IR, Amer., or Comp in addition to theory.

I'm curious, why did you not apply to UChicago's poli sci dept? (Selfishly, I ask only because I've been accepted into this program with a 5-year funding package. I'm leaning towards it, but in no way am I committed. I'm extremely lucky to have this option but I also have others. A visit early next month to the windy city will surely help me decide).

All in all, I think you'll be able to great things and achieve a lot in both places. Congrats.

[Canadianpolsci]

I appreciate the comments and advice, thanks.

I think Harvard has a very serious edge placement-wise, in pol. science. That is what stands out.

thanks again. and good luck to all.