AHL

Same here.

That is true. An Americanist faculty member told me that yes, Jacobson, Kernell, and Popkin are expected to retire in the next few years, but they will likely remain active and sit on students' committees as always. They just won't teach classes any more.

This might be the most touching thing I've read on this forum. Congratulations on your acceptances.

You said you've been accepted by two T-20 schools. That's exactly what Wisconsin is!

Damn...

To my knowledge, all the graduate schools are in an association which makes these rules.

All Apr. 15.

Thanks. I will definitely ask and cannot give them the benefit of the doubt.

I can't think of why this document might not be real. In fact, it confirms my worst fears. I think that the AP faculty they're talking about are Jacobson, Kernell, and Popkin, or at least two of these three, all of whom are my POIs. I will definitely have some questions to ask during the phone call that has been scheduled. It was clear in my application that I'm interested in working with these people. All of them were listed in my SOP. My question is whether the fact that I was accepted means that (they think) I don't have that much to worry about... In any case, I thank the starter of this thread for sharing this document and alarming me about the severity of the situation.

In this document: "Unlike previous plans for future hiring, our planning for this three‐year hiring cycle is complicated by the anticipation of substantial turnover through retirements and other separations. In the next four years we anticipate eight to ten such retirements and separations—about a quarter of our entire faculty. Half of these are likely to occur in the field of American politics, but all fields (including Comparative Politics, International Relations, Political Theory, and Methods) face the likelihood of one or more losses." So sad.

Today I asked my undergraduate thesis adviser for his opinion on choosing which program to attend. He says that there might be five schools whose degrees can pretty much get you a job just because of their name brands, such as Harvard and Berkeley. When a school's ranked lower than, say, top five, its ranking ceases to be so important and who your adviser is becomes extremely important in determining your job prospects. What do you think?

I'll claim a UT-Austin rejection. Did not receive notification and saw it on the application portal. Well, what do you know...

I'm pretty sure the policy of full deduction after achieving candidacy applies to every non-resident student, since it is on its website. However, in my case UCSD has given out information in chunks, perhaps unintentionally. First I got the letter I assume every admit got, whether domestic or international. I emailed back with the inquiry about funding, and got the revised letter awarding first three semesters' non-resident tuition. I emailed back, again, with the question of whether the said policy applies in addition to the funding package, and got an affirmative response. In other words, I don't think you have much to worry about, assuming different individuals' funding packages don't differ wildly. However, either you'll get this information in your official admission letter, or they have to be specifically asked to tell you.

Update: Yes, this policy does apply in addition to whatever funding package you get.

International admits of UCSD: I just received a revised acceptance letter containing more relevant funding information for folks like us. It says that the department awards me with three years of non-resident tuition apart from the stipend. I just followed up by asking whether this policy applies in addition to the funding package (http://ogs.ucsd.edu/academic-affairs/degree-information-procedures/non-resident-tution-for-doctoral-candidates.html). I will share any updates that I get.

I'll claim another Vandy acceptance. I guess this goes against my earlier quote from my interview that decisions would be released in late February, and confirms the unpredictability of the timing of this process.

I was told that the committee would meet two or three more times during my phone interview last Thursday, and decisions would be released "toward late February."

Prompted by the Georgetown result: For programs like Georgetown and UT-Austin that use a different name than "Political Science" ("Government" in both cases), could applicants please include the phrase "Political Science" in their result entries? That would make searching and viewing easier. Thank you!

This is wonderful! I should thank you for calling my attention to UCSD's apparent rapid decline and WashU's ascent. As a matter of fact, American Politics is my major field, and Comparative Politics is my second/minor field where applicable.

You're right. I do have a good idea of the faculty of both programs. In fact, I applied only to programs that I deemed good matches. I just wanted to see what other people think based on their knowledge or impression. I'm extremely flattered by both acceptances, and my awareness of the limitations of rankings is exactly why I posted my question.

Thank you for weighing in.

Thanks for this! The year we would have to worry about is the second year, correct?

I don't know whether it's realistic for me to think like this, but I'm hoping either that UCSD doesn't completely rule out funding non-resident international students beyond the second year (my letter does not mention anything about international students unable to become California residents and I think we all got the same letter), or that there is room for negotiation before we accept/reject its offer.