bees

I disagree with framing the pursuit of the Ph.D. in such utilitarian concerns, and the anxieties about well-being it encourages. I think most of us don't go into programs with the expectation of being millionaires, let alone the desire for status (except perhaps those who covet assiduously the repute of being pursued by the Ivies). Conversely, this user seems focused more on the maximization of wealth than the refinement of the mind's eye. If you want wealth, particularly lots of wealth, your best route isn't through academe. Let's face it. Moreover, if this poster's mindset is the one you take into the program, I fully expect you will have a quite turbulent, even tortured experience at a time when you should be enjoying the enrichment your natural aristocratism admits.

I think it might be better for you to take Wisconsin over Yale's regional studies master's for four reasons:

1. Too much financial sacrifice and time if you go to Yale.
2. I am not sure Yale's brand value automatically means a superb Russian studies department.
3. Political science professors are somewhat arrogant; they would like to see letters from poli sci faculty.
4. Wisconsin is a well-regarded poli sci program.

I think you're attracted to Yale's brand value. But, if you really want to get into a top poli sci program, why not go into a master's program in IR? Feel free to send me a message if you want to hear more about what I think. I have been holding this thought of mine for you, but I just had to say this to you since you might be better off by choosing Wisconsin or any other excellent poli sci programs you are going to get into over Yale's master's program.

Yes, I understand your stance on the issue and that a few people from non-top institutions still manage to get great jobs in academia. But, for most people, going to Emory will make job hunting inevitably difficult in academia. This is why I didn't even think about applying to non-top-notch schools, just like most of you here.
I am also often surprised by how so many people apply to non-HYPC Ivy-league poli sci programs, thinking that they are REALLY good, not to mention people always confuse politics with political science.

OK, I'm not going to name any names here, but I must say that some of the comments I'm reading on this board are starting to make me think that there is credence to the stereotype that academia can be a very stuffy and elitist profession. My main focus as a soon-to-be graduate student is gaining the opportunity to get solid training that will allow me to be a good professor who students enjoy learning from. Of course I hope to have the opportunity in my career as a professor to conduct research and publish papers- who wouldn't? But at the same time, if I end up working at a terminal MA or (gasp!) BA program, I'd be far from disappointed. What I care most about isn't money (because frankly I already have plenty of that being one of those trust-fund kids) or prestige, but instead being able to make a difference in people's lives. Where I get my training of course matters, but I don't share the view that some on this board seem to harbor that if a person gets their PhD at a non-top-ten program such as UC-Davis or Florida State (see signature below) that they're going to have a miserable time finding a job or that if they don't then that's the exception, not the rule.

I have never wished those going to top-of-the-heap programs anything but congratulations. But I must say that it's really a turn-off when people start projecting this "better than" attitude to the point where it becomes dismissive of anybody who isn't joining them in the Ivy League.