BFB

You laugh, but I recommend that my students attend Pecha Kucha at least once, to get a sense of what a concise presentation is. And yes, a presentation definitely doesn't hurt.

I'll be sure to forward this to the Dean. Thanks. Yup, it's a big deal. I recommend having down a one-sentence and a one-paragraph version of your project, in case people want to talk to you about it. Also, when you're done with the first version of the poster, reduce the number of words by 50%.

Possibly. But... let me put it this way. There are very good reasons that programs don't do this. To my mind, a threat to rescind someone's admission before April 15 is an unambiguous signal that you want that person more than you care about what's best for him/her as a scholar. My own knee-jerk reaction to that would be to tell them to go pack sand, unless there's something so crucial about their program that I seriously can't live without it. And if you're a DGS who puts your program's or your faculty's desires ahead of what's best for the students you're recruiting, it's time to move on. Mmm, fair enough. I'd hoped to benefit from the wisdom of the collective, but it's probably less comprehensive than I'd imagined. Thanks. I did a bit of searching myself and found one reference, but it was to an unnamed school. Also, this website is vast.

It might be worth arguing the point in principle, but in this case it's a funded offer, and on March 25 both the funding and the offer go away. Can I take the collective silence to mean that our recruit is being singled out for special treatment?

How legit that is depends on the degree of pressure. "Please let us know sooner rather than later" = totally legit. "We are withdrawing your offer if you don't sign before (some date before April 15) = NOT COOL.

If you don't mind, I'd like to ask all of you a question. We've recently been contacted by a student who informs us that USC will withdraw its offer of admission if it is not accepted by March 25. USC is a signatory to the Council of Graduate Schools' Resolution Regarding Graduate Scholars, Fellows, Trainees and Assistants, which specifies that "Students are under no obligation to respond to offers of financial support prior to April 15; earlier deadlines for acceptance of such offers violate the intent of this Resolution." Is anyone willing to confirm that USC has violated the CGS' Resolution by demanding acceptance of an offer prior to April 15? If so, would you be willing to provide me with the name of the individual from whom the communication to that effect has come? I'm not asking you to shame them publicly, though I have no problem if that's what you choose to do. I'd be equally happy to receive DMs. If other programs are doing this as well, please don't hesitate to let me know. Thanks in advance.

+1

There's absolutely no difference in terms of the application process. A file is a file is a file. The only difference is that they petition the Graduate Studies Committee for transfer credit where applicable. And yes, if people are looking to transfer, they generally tell us why in their SOP.

Mm, I think "Don't bother going to a non-top-25 program" is just wrong. It's true that top programs fill a disproportionate number of the academic job slots out there, but as the author points out, those programs also produce a large percentage of people who don't finish and/or end up heading to the private sector. I don't think focusing on a concrete number will be very useful to you. I think you're better off asking for a complete list of placements in the last ten years and asking yourself how comfortable you'd be with a random draw from that pack. If the answer is "Not comfortable enough to devote six or seven years to it," do something else. For you, that line might be at 50, 25, or 10... or you might be interested in 15 but not in 12. As to not going somewhere because of a specific faculty member: That sounds to me like committing suicide for fear of death. Yes, we move around a bit. Yes, people don't get tenure. But you can move too: we get a handful of applications from students at other institutions whose mentors have left or whose circumstances have changed and who would rather continue their program with us. The main exception here is if you're trying to choose one very top school over another because an advanced junior faculty member fits your interests really well. The very top schools have a way of thinking, "We don't need to retain this person; if s/he does well after leaving here, we'll just hire him/her back." (I actually heard this, as a junior faculty member at Harvard. Started sending out job applications not long afterward.) Other than that, though, life's too short to try to second-guess where faculty will be a few years from now. If you've got concerns about a particular person, ask for a confidential answer to the question of whether they're likely to leave soon. I've done this when interviewing for faculty jobs, and the results were pretty surprising. In one case, I basically got, "As soon as I get an offer from one of the following x universities, I'm out of here," while another faculty member just said, "I'm going to die here."

I wish I had a magic formula, but I don't. 50 vs 5, or high 20s to low 60s, seems like a serious gap. It might still work—John Lewis Gaddis was at Ohio University in Athens for a while before going to Yale, for example, and if an aspiring history Ph.D. passed up the chance to study with him because he's at OU, that'd be a bad decision. But it's big. 45 vs 36 is... less big.

I don't really know that it's wooing, per se. Contacting people is just a win-win. You get a sense of who we are and the promise that we see in your research agenda, and we often get a better sense of what your concerns are and where you stand so that, if we can address questions, we will. I'm on board with your advisors. If a program doesn't think it's capable of training you to do what you really want to do, you should respect their judgment.

Mm. I'd lean 75, knowing only this. If 50 funded you, it'd be a matter of how much better the placements are vs. how much worse the fit is... could go either way. But minus funding? Don't do that to yourself. Couldn't have put it better. ... OK, don't take this the wrong way, but, news flash: you're a human being. You have a life, you have to make plans, you may have to make potentially costly decisions about travel and expenses and so on. Of course you can ask about a visit day. They might not have room to accommodate you or funds to bring you, but anyplace with people you'd want to associate with will give you a courteous answer. No experience with this one; no waitlists. But if I offered someone funding after the 15th, I'd certainly expect to be talking about a visit date.

Thanks for the kind words. Two things. First, as RWBG points out, subfield rankings are more informative, and they can vary a lot. Second, my own inclination is to focus on fit, fit, fit, far more than rank... if the ranks are equal, all the more reason to focus on fit.

Or a lack of savvy, or some combination of the two. It's hard to say exactly what, though. We have members of the Admissions Committee, who are most familiar with the files, call students, and I invite everyone to chat as well, though if you don't take me up on the invitation, I don't nag you. We don't generally ask your POIs. I'm not sure why; the best answer I can give is that the people who selected your file in the first place are already geeked about it, so they're very willing to call—in irfannooruddin's case, I probably couldn't stop him if I tried. Cold in response to your emails... I hesitate to speculate, but that's not the foot I'd want us to be putting forward. That's the most jarring part of what you write: they respond to an email and in so doing are off-putting to you?

Thanks. And to beat Irfan to the punch, that'd be IR and Comparative.... On this topic, just saw an interesting 2007 article on a ranking system for political science based on placements (summary and paper; hat tip to Jan Box-Steffensmeier). Might provide additional info for those of you on the fence.

I doubt it matters much. You don't want to wear a suit and be That Person, or show up looking like a hobo (save that for when you're a professor), but otherwise, you'll be fine.

Well, the theme could be your interest in (say) the intersection of development and interstate war... which would situate you well to study both with development people and conflict people. My point is, write about whatever geeks you out. Your admissions committees will say, "Hm, that's a CP/IR mix." We've had a fair number of files handed from CP to IR or vice-versa.

I'd say you should mention your interest in IR and CP if you're applying to places that are a good fit for your combined IR/CP interests, and not mention it otherwise. I'd also say that you should only apply to places that are a good fit for your combined IR/CP interests.

Staggered over what time period? I don't mean to play the "bureaucratic inefficiency" card again, but in our case the Grad School sends out the initial letters and we follow up. They post acceptances all at the same time—across the entire University—so there might be a bit of a delay, but there shouldn't be much. They also don't send email when you're not funded... but they don't tell us that they don't. All of which I discovered to my horror last year after sending an email that began, "As you've already heard from the Graduate School...." Anyway, the upshot, once again, is that if the outcome seems incomprehensible to a sane person, your first hypothesis should be that it was produced by a bureaucracy.* *Or a committee. Interesting. Never had any idea, when I was there. For what it's worth, whoever recommended contacting Thom Wall was spot on. Quality human being.

Not that it's any of my business, but the second-order anonymity of that Results board (you can't even know the pseudonym of the person claiming an admit??) makes it maddening to me, and I'm not even applying anywhere. It must drive you people nuts.

Hmm. My guess is that the very top Departments wouldn't feel the need to change a thing, since they generally place well (which is one of the main criteria by which they are judged to be top Departments), and that what this would mean is a diminution of the programs at lower-ranked schools and probably an increase in the already-high concentration of placements coming from top departments. That said, I can't say I'd object too much to a policy that prompts our peer institutions to reduce their admissions substantially. Some of them can be a bit of a pain when it comes to recruitment.

Wouldn't be the first.

"Hello. I'm sorry to bother you during a busy time, but I've noticed that a fair number of others have heard back from your Department regarding their applications. Could I ask about the status of mine?" Then thanks, etc., etc.

Mostly school matters to me in terms of interpreting GPA and putting letters in context. I'll slightly notch up the value of a high GPA/good letters from a top program, and slightly notch down the value of those things in a much lower-ranked program. Quality of student is only loosely correlated, imo, with rank of institution, so these really are slight adjustments. In both instances, though, an unknown school pretty much puts you in the "no adjustment" pile. Thanks I think they're quite valuable, mainly in that they help you focus what you want to work on in graduate school and find a more compelling set of ideas to include in your personal statement. I don't care about the piece of paper.

Fair point. But if, as you also argue, graduate students are a biased subset of employees who are willing to trade significant earning potential for job satisfaction (and a chance at perfect job security), what makes you think that most, or even many, cases of attrition are due to a desire for greater earning potential? Indeed, if the main calculation is earning potential vs. job satisfaction, an increase in salary, if it did anything, would retain the least satisfied students, who might not have the best long-term prospects in academia. To be clear, I'm responding to the argument (and to a degree playing Devil's advocate), not reacting against the idea that graduate students should be better paid. I think that should happen on purely humanitarian grounds. Congratulations—both on your impending wedding and on having found your passion. To a degree. It speaks to your tenacity and ability to do hard work, which clearly matters. But I can't emphasize enough that you're sending your application to a bunch of geeks. You can't do much better than to tell us what turns your crank, what keeps you up until 2am, what question or idea you just can't get out of your head.