eve2008

i'm hoping in 5-7 years there will be a hiring bonanza after years of hiring freezes...

it *is* really bad this year. all the more reason to apply again next cycle.

LORs LORs LORs LORs I'm pretty certain that is how one gets into a Ph.D program. GRE scores aren't that important, although they are probably used in the pre-screening process (by grad students or staff who decide which applications get to be viewed by a faculty member). I imagine (and this is just my guess) that GRE scores matter more in that pre-screening process if you come from an unknown school or have recommendations from faculty without name recognition, but they would never kill an application from a student who is clearly strong in all the areas that matter (research, research, research). Political science is increasingly quantitative, especially the top programs, and so your Quant score matters more than your Verbal score (maybe not if you are doing theory...) Also, the process is not entirely random. I say this because the very top programs tend to admit the exact same people. So fit does matter to a certain extent, but the admissions committee isn't throwing darts--they know what they are looking for. And I have to say that the cohorts at the very top schools are uniformly fantastic. Programs achieve this by going for the safe bets, and so for all my talk about "GRE doesn't matter," it's still a signal, and it's a good idea to give an adcom every reason to believe you are a safe bet. I second the poster who wrote that if you don't get in on a first go and think it may be because of weak LORs or some other imperfect aspect of your record, an MA might be a chance to shore up some weaknesses (and learn some new skills).

Harvard made decisions last week. Admitted students should be hearing the word any day now.

Where do you want to go? You should call the office FIRST THING TOMORROW and explain your situation if you want to go to Yale. They may need to write a letter or something, but they will in all likelihood release you from your obligation (this is a day or two we're talking about here). You may also want to call Yale and tell them that your funding information arrived so late, you had already accepted another offer. The schools may be able to talk to each other, and that way at least Yale would hold the funding for you for awhile while this all gets sorted out. I don't know if this varies by department, but I do know of people who accepted offers at Stanford before, but were admitted to other Dream U well after the 15th, and was able to get Stanford to release them from their commitment. Just decide ASAP where you really want to go (if funding is no longer and issue). There is very low likelihood Stanford will force you to enroll in their program. If you are interested in political science, I still think Stanford is a great choice, especially if you can take graduate-level political science classes as part of your area studies MA (but if you have never taken poli sci before, they are not for the faint-hearted!) You would be well-positioned, I think, to be accepted to their political science department if you can knock the socks off of a political science faculty member while you are there, and Stanford is one of very very best for political science right now. Of course, you could probably get admitted to many top programs from Yale, also. Best of luck with whatever you decide, and I wouldn't give up on Yale just because you already sent the form to Stanford!

Off-topic: Isn't Stanford better than Harvard at methods?

So it's April 15th. We have all (for better or worse) married ourselves to a new institution and a new career, or are resigned to try again next cycle. I was wondering if any of the lurkers here who are already graduate students or faculty could offer some words of wisdom. How do we get the most out of our first two years of coursework, set ourselves up to write a kick-ass dissertation, publish, and (hopefully) land a great job. What are the markings of a great graduate student? How do you stand out among your cohort? And how do you stay (reasonably) happy and balanced through all of that?

Any more takers? (Also, the Harvard gov department has a new building, so all the faculty are in the same place, and are even organized by floors. Americanists on one, comparativists on another, IQSS on another...I wonder if geography will help change the culture of the department a bit.)

If you're just getting an MA so as to figure out what to do with your life: It really depends on what you want to do. I assume, because you are posting here, that you are leaning toward graduate study in political science. If that be the case, definitely go to Stanford! The Africanists in the poli sci department at Stanford are top-notch--among the best in the country right now (although the senior guy will be on leave 2008-2009). So, if you wanted to continue on at an institution (in their political science department) after your MA, Stanford, not Yale, would be the ideal place. Bear in mind that political science in general, but especially at Stanford, and increasingly in the study of Africa, is highly quantitative. If you are less certain you want to study political science, and you can afford the debt, I would just look carefully at all the Africanist faculty across the disciplines that interest you (political science, economics, history, anthropology, etc.), and figure out which university has the best breadth and depth of specific faculty you are especially keen on working with, and make your choice that way. If you are getting an MA to shore up a weak spot in your application: I agree with the above posters that you don't need to write a master's thesis for admission to a great Ph.D program, but you ought to write a research paper you can use as your writing sample, ideally grounded in the discipline you ultimately decide you want to enter. (If you can publish it, all the better!) That said, did you write a thesis as an undergraduate? If not, then writing a thesis might be worthwhile in itself, because academia is about research, not coursework, and it's sort of impossible to know if you like research unless you have had the chance to do it before. Do you have faculty (preferably well-known and senior) from your undergraduate institution who can write glowing letters for you? If so, then you probably only need one additional letter of recommendation from your MA program, which you can definitely get in a year. If you are aiming for a top-notch Ph.D program, and you have weak/no letters from undergrad and/or a scant research record, you might consider Yale simply because you'll have more time to develop those relationships, and do research. So while I would go to Stanford, it really depends on your individual situation. (I assume, because you were able to get into these programs, you probably already have a pretty strong record to begin with.) Congrats on your great options. You're kidding, right?

I'm not the most qualified person to offer advice on this topic, but I have spent a lot of time mulling over poli sci, stats, math and econ department course offerings and think about the classes I *wish* I had taken as an undergraduate. I would say, as an undergrad, you should take the math and econ you will need as prereqs for the upper-level classes in grad school, but don't worry about going crazy on upper-level classes since you will have time to get the tools you need in grad school. Now you should just worry about getting a foundation in basic math and econ, and exploring your substantive interests; I think even more important than your toolbox is your ability to frame an interesting question. Math (2 semesters): I would take math through multivariable/linear algebra if you can stomach it (I think that's usually 2-4 semesters of math, depending on your preparation). If they have a track for economists or social scientists at your school, take that so you won't be competing with the engineers and science majors. A lot of the math you will learn in those classes you will never need, so a more tailored sequence for social scientists will probably make better use of your time. Econ (3 semesters): I would take the intro micro/macro sequence and the intermediate micro theory class. Further classes are really at your discretion, and as far as econometrics, often times the political science department's advanced quantitative methods class is a rough equivalent. I'd also take one or two topical political economy classes (i.e., the Political Economy of X) so that you can get a sense of how economists approach political questions. I took one such seminar and found it tremendously helpful. Can you minor in political economy at your school or do a joint major between the two departments? I wouldn't worry about taking game theory now, as you will have plenty of opportunity to take both game theory and formal modeling classes in grad school, and you might find the ones offered by the political science department more relevant. Stats (1 semester): I wouldn't necessarily take anything beyond an intro stats class, since after the first one or two semesters, classes can get highly specialized and you don't know the tools you want to get until you have a clear idea of what your dissertation would be. Really, you can take stats as a grad student, so I wouldn't take more than one or two semesters. Also, you should check the syllabi for the intro stats class and the poli sci methods sequence, as you may find a lot of overlap. Poli Sci Methods (2 semesters): What I *would* do, if your department offers it, is take the full undergraduate research methods sequence. Just as important as getting the prereqs out of the way for grad classes is getting training in basic quantitative methods in time for you to use them in your thesis. Your thesis is ultimately one of the most important parts of your graduate school application (as is your relationship with your thesis adviser). The question is probably not "where can I use these tools?" but what "questions interest me?" Ask the question first, then figure out what tools you need. Game theory has tons of applications in political science, especially if you're interested in IR, institutions, collective action, legislative politics, civil war... Also just Googled this page at Columbia. Might give you some ideas: http://www.columbia.edu/~de11/gamethry.html This looks like a decent intro to game theory. You may find others in your school library: http://www.amazon.com/Theory-Political- ... 0691034303 Here are some books that have been recommended to me. You might check them out from your school library and figure out what you're comfortable with already, given whatever calc you had in high school, and what might make the most sense to you in terms of math offerings: http://www.amazon.com/Fundamental-Metho ... 610&sr=1-1 http://www.amazon.com/Essential-Mathema ... 630&sr=1-1 I'd also email the undergrad reps in the Poli Sci, Econ, Math and Statistics departments, and explain your goals. They would be the best resources for figuring out what classes you need to take to get the background you want! Good luck. And good for you for starting so early.

I would probably *not* get a Ph.D there, especially if you do come to decide that you want a career in academia in the US (minds change), but this is a master's degree. I'd go for Italy because it's free, you'll get unique insight into European perspectives (which are very important for understanding these international institutions) and your graduate experience will be FUN in a way that a CEE Ph.D stateside probably won't be. You're only young once.

When I said that having a woman adviser might be a reason to consider one school over another, it had nothing to do with preferring women as formal advisers because somehow we communicate better or I think that they can better support my intellectual vision. To put it another way, I have absolutely no preference as to the gender of the members of my committee; I think it makes no difference. In fact, I never noticed the gender of my professors until after I finished college and read a report about how few women are in academia. It was something I hadn't noticed before simply because it hadn't mattered before. But looking back I realize that, like the OP, I was taught by male, not female, professors. Clearly that has had no impact on my success to date; they were able to teach and mentor me just as well as anyone. But now that I'm actually going into academia, it's pretty scary. It's scary that more than half the graduate students in this country are women, but only a quarter of the professors are men. It's scary that so many women drop out of the pipeline. Because I certainly don't want to spend all that time and effort only to end up abandoning my goal of becoming a professor, as many clearly do. I don't think it's because they feel inferior or fear they can't cut it. It's because some women *gasp* want babies. It's because most women in most relationships face different pressures from their significant others and have different expectations of themselves than men do. I think men are far more likely to ask the woman to make sacrifices for his career--and spend more hours in house-management/child care--and she is more likely to oblige. There are, of course, many many exceptions. But the doesn't change the fact that most women professors are unmarried and/or childless, while most male professors are married with children. Or that, as that study I posted shows, men with children pre-tenure are actually slightly more likely to get tenure (presumably because they have a stay-at-home wife) than men without children, whereas women are dramatically less likely. Waiting until post-tenure to have a child is probably not an option for me since I will likely no longer be able to have one. And so knowing just one woman in my field that I have a close relationship with who was able to get tenure at a top university, have children, and stay married gives me a little added security in the form of 1) a daily message that it is possible and 2) someone who can mentor me intellectually, but may also be able to help me navigate the unique issues of work-life balance women face (and men like Minnesotan, luckily, probably haven't had to think about). I also think that whether you are a woman or a minority (or both), being in an all-white, all-male environment sends a subtle message that you don't belong. It doesn't matter how supportive or amazing the faculty are, there's still this sense that people of your profile aren't meant to succeed. All the superstars (at least in my area) are men. That didn't matter when I was reading their books and learning from them. It matters now that I hope to become one.

I have 12 very long (but I hope happy!) years of training and research and job market and all of that stress ahead of me. I may not end up taking my own advice, but I think there's a lot to be said for taking a deep breath before embarking on that.

At one of the schools I'm considering, there is a woman I think would could be a really strong mentor for me. She's called me several times and has been really reaching out to me to join the department. Having a strong relationship with a woman mentor may be even more important than I had thought...

http://ucfamilyedge.berkeley.edu/marriagebabyblues.pdf http://chronicle.com/free/v50/i15/15a00101.htm