yoon7724

I personally do not have anything enlightening to say to your exact question, but just out of curiosity, did you not apply to Chicago? Chicago offers MAPSS with some (and in some cases, full) funding--of course, you'd have to pay for your living and miscellaneous costs. I do not know if the deadline for that program has passed, but a program of such caliber might be of some help. Plus as far as what i know, i strongly would urge you to apply for the 1st or the 2nd tier MA programs for it would situate you much better than the plan you described above-to trasnfer from a lower-tier Ph.D. program to a higher one.

update: decisions might not come out until the end of next week. It is rather confusing. but good luck to all again.

From a credible source, if you have not gotten an email, then you are still in the running. Decisions should be out by tomorrow or, at the latest, by early next week.

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.

there are a few "reject" postings. So, i guess they begun sending out decisions. Good luck to all!

Answering the list of questions realist put up above, hope the following truths may be of some help. 1) Men are selfish (or, self-loving). 2) Modern Ph.D.s from the States, which is a liberal capitalistic society, have to "compete" for jobs that are "scarce" to begin with and getting scarcer year after year. 3) 'More than often' good teachers/scholars, if you want to make that distinction, produce good students. Now let us all do the math. Just one last thing: 4) As everything is in life, there are many encouragning exceptions to the established fiat. However, most of them rise to the top by knowing exactly where they are and then improving (and proving) their worth in their game, not by claiming their desert for recognition this early on. As the cliche goes, life is a marathon; don't get all grumpy now. You might as well save the energy because it is going to be a long one.

I tend to concur with canadianpolsci and realist. Advice from realist is simply what most, if not all, graduate students know to be true, true in the sense that that is how things are done in the real world. All of those who seem to have big disagreements with reliast so as to even imply the underlying motive of realist or others suspect must heed the difference between "is" and "ought"-although i am mindful of the fact that the fact-value distinction does not directly apply here. What I mean is that even the repugnant flaws of pol sci dept, as realist has admittied, are part of the ontological world into which we are boldly marching. Personally I do not like those flaws and wish things were different, but that's the world we are going to live in.

Dear Realist, Thanks for your information. I just have one quesiton. As said, you seem to have some knowledge as to how the hiring committee usually works. So, could you shed some light on this matter so that I can prepare myself to be a more attractive candidate after my Ph.D.?

Re: Chicago Comm. On Soc. Thought. Indeed, I was looking into the program, which personally fascinated me for a variety of reasons. Nonetheless, I do not think it is the proper place to do your more or less "formal training" to be a TT prof. The reason being-as several of my mentors have informed me--that the program is geared towards accomodating truly 'unique' persons to develop a truly 'unique' take on things that would usually not make it into the to-do list by the pol. theory dept. All in all, is the program itself worthwhile for those who seek 'the truth'? Absolutely. But as you've consistently said, for getting yourself as ready as possible for the real world? Probably not the best choice. That is not to say, it is the worst choice either. After all, it is a very famous and 'prestigious' program run by a hodge-podge of famous and respected ladies and gents from all over the country. If you ask me, this program seems to be a good compromise between the truth-seeking and the royal road to a TT job. At the end, as everything is in life, if you want it, then you will have to go for it to see where it will lead you.

Thanks everyone for their contribution. Anyway, before boring anyone away, let me succintly say that my research interests primarily revolve around modern & contemporary political thought (Nietzsche and Oakeshott), which means that I am some sort of radical anti-liberal, which does not necessarily mean that i am conservative, but could be. In any case, any thoughts? By the way, does the fact that Notre Dame runs "review of politics" carry any weight?

Silencio: if you don't mind me asking, where did you get your M.A. from? Ferrero: about the upward trend of WUSTL I have no doubt. In any case, does anyone know how good Notre Dame or UVA is, just strictly Theory dept? They both are a bit lackluster in overall rankings, but their theory dept. seem to be regarded as extremely competent. So, any thoughts on that?

For a small group of those who know a thing or two about Political Theory ranking, would you please comment on which schools are considered best, excellent, good, and then the rest (in terms of placement and reputation) ? I've seen many rankings, but they seem to be more in line with the so-called mathematical side of PoliSci, i.e., Amer, Comp, and IR. So, anyone care to comment?

On a similar note, when you say "top 25", do you mean top 25 overalll or in each sub-field? Care to elaborate?

Re: Notre Dame Decision From a credible source, I heard that the committee will not finalize their decision, at least, until the second week of March. So, it may well go into the third week until we hear anything. With regard to the Peace program, I have no idea. But the department seems to be putting quite a bit of money into its poorly ranked subfields--American and IR--as it does so with Compar. and Theory, the latter of which I believe is its forte and selling point.

Dear Silencio1982, I absolutely agree with what you said. I am simply curious as to which ranking, i.e., sub-field or overall, I should look at, when you say it would be beneficial to go to "a school in the 1-25 range that you don't get from 25-50, or 50-75, or 75-100 and so on and so forth". Could you elaborate on that? Thanks.