Espoir2015

Generally, if you want to to critical security studies I would stay in Europe and go to a place like Copenhagen, LSE, , or some other UK school. As a rule of thumb, people with PhDs from US schools doing quant-type work can find jobs Europe, but few European constructivist IR scholars make it to the US.

Most important question: Do you have the money l to afford a MA in the US?

I think that you are approaching your problem from a completely wrong angle. Actually, it is not only you, but most of the comments I have read in this discussion. Although many scholars prefer qualitative or quanitative methods, the position to somehow map the field of international relations or comparative politics along methodological faultlines is hugely problematic and, in my view, false. At the end of the day, as a political scientists, my research is driven my puzzles I want to solve and not by the method I prefer. When I started out studying political science, I was highly sceptical about quanitative approaches (mainly because I never found much interest in math), but the longer I studied I realized how useful it is to learn new methods. I personally made the experience that every new skill I learned provided me with a different perspective on my questions. Being exposed to Social Network Analysis, QCA, GIS software, and more 'uncommon' methods like ethnomethodology or quantitative narrative analysis quite was super enriching for my development as a scholar. Nobody master the whole methodological skillbox, but knowing about their basic assumptions and mechanics is super useful. From this perspective, I think that simply saying. Simply saying I only do quant (or I only do qualitative) research is an unproductive attitude that does not move the discipline forward in any way. Some of the best researchers I know have actually gone back and forth in using more qualitative and more quanitative approaches to international relations and comparative politics. One person that comes to my mind is Elizabeth Wood from Yale, who has done extensive fieldwork, formal modelling, and also a fair amount of more quant work (she actually has as a MA in Physics). There are also plenty of other constructivist-inspired scholars out that that have begun to creative look at more technical tools, like regression analysis or text-mining (Although many people are likely to disagree with this and say that positivist and constructivist ontologies underlie quantitative and qualitative methods, respectively). I know that in world systems theory people have begun to look at networks between states or NGOs. In the end, the strongest papers and books I know combine different methods, which makes them even stronger. No matter which way you go, I would strongly encourage you to take some methods classes (even the more obscure ones). Also, technology becomes more important and provides interesting new perspectives to look at old problems and revisit unsolved puzzles, so you should try to keep yourself up to date. As for gradschools, I you might want to look at Northwestern, OSU and Minnesota.

Given that it takes at least four years to get a BA, and from anything between 5 to 8+ years to finish your PhD, I would be surprised if there were many assistant profs in their late 20s. Many PhD students (myself included) take a couple of years off between BA and PhD, or get an MA. If anything, age becomes an issue then people get tired of living a student life. Not many 30 or 40-somethings are thrilled by the idea of living on 20k a year.

Received this response after having contacted an unnamed gradschool admin. Since when is it acceptable to answer professional mails using ComicSans font in pink?

Although math is important, and there is certainly no way around learning quantitative methods, there are people who have made a career by using only qualitative methods In fact, some of the most influential international relations scholars (Finnemore, Sikkink, Alex Wendt, Robert Cox, Barry Buzan, Peter Katzenstein, John Ruggie) rarely use quant. Also in other subfields like CP, (Paul Staniland) qualitative methods are important and can bring you a long way. So there is certainly more to political science than just number crunching, also in other fields like CP. Despite the growing sophistication of quantitative methods, I have the impression that scholars that try to make strong arguments about causal mechanisms need to be able to use qualitative and ethnographic methods too. (although a solid knowledge of math will make things way easier) In any case, the method you prefer should not determine the questions you ask. You should try to figure out what interest you most. Read some PS literature, and maybe spend some time working. This will change your perspective on the discipline and help you to ask relevant questions P.s. This comes from a person using both qualitative and quantitative methods

I asked the Chicago DGS about my application status, that´s what I got as a response. I guess everyone who hasn´t heard from them can consider him/herself as rejected.

Thank you for the info. I am CP/IR, so I guess you declining does not help me very much I got a mail by the chair of the admissions committee about 1.5 weeks ago, saying that i've been placed on the alternate list.

Hi! I am am an international applicant new to this threat. So far I got rejected at Stanford, NYU, Columbia and UCSD, and waitlisted at Northwestern. I wrote the department asking about my chances to get in/ranking on the waitlist, but no response so far. Did anyone else get waitlisted at NW, or got accepted and is likely to end up going somewhere else? Also applied at Yale and MIT, I heard that decisions are coming this week