IRTheoryNerd

People in conflict love Peace Science; people in IPE love IPES. 

Certainly. I agree that it's a fantastic school. In terms of overall rankings Toronto is slightly better but within the same cohort. In terms of departmental fit, there are people at both schools I could work with but Northwestern is a slightly better fit. It is also more interdisciplinary and has a very strong appreciation for critical theory. At Toronto, Emanuel Adler, with whom I would have been thrilled to work is phasing out his support of graduate students and I was advised by a current grad student there to not invest my application on his guidance. In terms of cynical funding considerations, Northwestern blows U of T out of the park. Toronto offers a stipend of $15,000 CAD and Northwestern offers $24,000 USD. The living costs in Toronto are much higher than in Chicago as well, so that'd be a very significant concern. Lastly, and this is a personal issue, I am slightly worried about the prospects of landing a US job with even a Canadian degree. This pains me as I am a dual Canadian-US citizen, and I know how wonderful U of T actually is. So simply to make life a tad easier later on, that had to be included in my considerations. Do you think you would have made the opposite choice?

Will decline Toronto as well, good luck to waitlisters.

Hey everyone, 

Well, we just spent about 2.5 months of hell together, waiting for admissions decisions, and gradcafe pretty much single-handedly made it tolerable. I figured it would be great to start a thread to see where everyone ends up going. So, if you've already picked a program and don't mind sharing, what program will you be attending this fall? =)

In at UPenn. I'm at a loss for words. I'm hoping everyone else who has been shut out so far receives some good news soon (hopefully a few more today who also get into Penn).

I second packrats comment. BFB deserves to have a shrine built in his honor after all of his contributions on this forum. It may not seem like it, but you've doubtless helped make countless people's dream careers possible by helping us all figure out how, where and why to apply. 

Does anybody have any inside information on Georgetown? are they done admitting? what's the deal with these trickling out of both acceptances and rejections... it doesn't seem to follow any previous years patterns. also, subfield info at all?

I would argue too few top programs actually stress methodological pluralism---the farthest they go in terms of methodological pluralism is to assign George & Bennett alongside King, Keohane & Verba. The false dichotomy between qualitative and quantitative methods (not methodology) is alive and well as though it is the only difference in possible research techniques. Some PhD students coming with prior exposure to advanced statistics simply don't find the underlying logic and philosophical ontological assumptions of neopositivist methodology terribly useful in answering the sort of important questions they seek to ask. Insofar as this is the case, more advanced statistics requirements will not be a solution, but a waste of time for these students. Sure, it's nice to be able to arm yourself with counterarguments, so a few stats classes should be taken by all students. But a few philosophy of science and non-positivist methodology courses should also be a part of the standard curriculum. That would certainly go a long way in getting all of us to stop talking past each other, unfairly criticizing each others' work without any concept of internal validity, and allowing for a future US political science academe in which not only quantoids are welcome. I suppose that has little to do with the immediate concern of job placement, except this: students should focus on improving how they articulate their arguments for why non-positivist methodology make valuable contributions to the field, and engage with senior scholars (at conferences, within departments, on dissertation committees) who might push back against outside the box thinking. Find natural allies. Cultivate those relationships. Network the hell out of them. But don't compromise your research to the point that you barely recognize it as your own in order to land a job or appease a committee member whose raison d'être is to unreflectively prescribe positivist methodology for any and all projects, tone deaf to the actual research question itself, and convinced that anything that isn't hypothesis testing lacks scienticity.

Oh, you're totally right! The shuttle stops right near the red line exit at Loyola station too.

There are always such people who cannot bow out gracefully. Set backs are temporary. There is no need to drag down your good name and everyone who has supported you because of a set back. We are here to help each other pull ourselves up regardless of outcome, not be condescending and vindictive.

I would argue too few top programs actually stress methodological pluralism---the farthest they go in terms of methodological pluralism is to assign George & Bennett alongside King, Keohane & Verba. The false dichotomy between qualitative and quantitative methods (not methodology) is alive and well as though it is the only difference in possible research techniques. Some PhD students coming with prior exposure to advanced statistics simply don't find the underlying logic and philosophical ontological assumptions of neopositivist methodology terribly useful in answering the sort of important questions they seek to ask. Insofar as this is the case, more advanced statistics requirements will not be a solution, but a waste of time for these students. Sure, it's nice to be able to arm yourself with counterarguments, so a few stats classes should be taken by all students. But a few philosophy of science and non-positivist methodology courses should also be a part of the standard curriculum. That would certainly go a long way in getting all of us to stop talking past each other, unfairly criticizing each others' work without any concept of internal validity, and allowing for a future US political science academe in which not only quantoids are welcome. I suppose that has little to do with the immediate concern of job placement, except this: students should focus on improving how they articulate their arguments for why non-positivist methodology make valuable contributions to the field, and engage with senior scholars (at conferences, within departments, on dissertation committees) who might push back against outside the box thinking. Find natural allies. Cultivate those relationships. Network the hell out of them. But don't compromise your research to the point that you barely recognize it as your own in order to land a job or appease a committee member whose raison d'être is to unreflectively prescribe positivist methodology for any and all projects, tone deaf to the actual research question itself, and convinced that anything that isn't hypothesis testing lacks scienticity.

I would argue too few top programs actually stress methodological pluralism---the farthest they go in terms of methodological pluralism is to assign George & Bennett alongside King, Keohane & Verba. The false dichotomy between qualitative and quantitative methods (not methodology) is alive and well as though it is the only difference in possible research techniques. Some PhD students coming with prior exposure to advanced statistics simply don't find the underlying logic and philosophical ontological assumptions of neopositivist methodology terribly useful in answering the sort of important questions they seek to ask. Insofar as this is the case, more advanced statistics requirements will not be a solution, but a waste of time for these students. Sure, it's nice to be able to arm yourself with counterarguments, so a few stats classes should be taken by all students. But a few philosophy of science and non-positivist methodology courses should also be a part of the standard curriculum. That would certainly go a long way in getting all of us to stop talking past each other, unfairly criticizing each others' work without any concept of internal validity, and allowing for a future US political science academe in which not only quantoids are welcome. I suppose that has little to do with the immediate concern of job placement, except this: students should focus on improving how they articulate their arguments for why non-positivist methodology make valuable contributions to the field, and engage with senior scholars (at conferences, within departments, on dissertation committees) who might push back against outside the box thinking. Find natural allies. Cultivate those relationships. Network the hell out of them. But don't compromise your research to the point that you barely recognize it as your own in order to land a job or appease a committee member whose raison d'être is to unreflectively prescribe positivist methodology for any and all projects, tone deaf to the actual research question itself, and convinced that anything that isn't hypothesis testing lacks scienticity.

You can probably find more to do living in northern Chicago than in New Haven. At least that's what I tell myself to ease the sting. 

This new project might be of interest to you:

https://sites.google.com/site/honestgraduatenumbers/

I would argue too few top programs actually stress methodological pluralism---the farthest they go in terms of methodological pluralism is to assign George & Bennett alongside King, Keohane & Verba. The false dichotomy between qualitative and quantitative methods (not methodology) is alive and well as though it is the only difference in possible research techniques. Some PhD students coming with prior exposure to advanced statistics simply don't find the underlying logic and philosophical ontological assumptions of neopositivist methodology terribly useful in answering the sort of important questions they seek to ask. Insofar as this is the case, more advanced statistics requirements will not be a solution, but a waste of time for these students. Sure, it's nice to be able to arm yourself with counterarguments, so a few stats classes should be taken by all students. But a few philosophy of science and non-positivist methodology courses should also be a part of the standard curriculum. That would certainly go a long way in getting all of us to stop talking past each other, unfairly criticizing each others' work without any concept of internal validity, and allowing for a future US political science academe in which not only quantoids are welcome. I suppose that has little to do with the immediate concern of job placement, except this: students should focus on improving how they articulate their arguments for why non-positivist methodology make valuable contributions to the field, and engage with senior scholars (at conferences, within departments, on dissertation committees) who might push back against outside the box thinking. Find natural allies. Cultivate those relationships. Network the hell out of them. But don't compromise your research to the point that you barely recognize it as your own in order to land a job or appease a committee member whose raison d'être is to unreflectively prescribe positivist methodology for any and all projects, tone deaf to the actual research question itself, and convinced that anything that isn't hypothesis testing lacks scienticity.

Never give up
 

Never give up
 

Never give up
 

Love the person who expected to get into Yale and the person above them who tells them what's up...Bless you, GradCafe.

Two rejections today. Unrequited love.  
 

Two rejections today. Unrequited love.  
 

Two rejections today. Unrequited love.  
 

Two rejections today. Unrequited love.  
 

Do schools generally email an itinerary beforehand, or is the schedule usually just distributed when you arrive? I usually feel more relaxed about these sorts of things when I know what to expect ahead of time, but I'd assume the departments don't fully appreciate my anxiety.

I really hope it will be useful for someone here:
I have just declined a CU-Boulder offer, Theory subfield. They asked me to inform them of my decision as soon as I know for sure, so hopefully they will be making this offer to someone on the waitlist very soon.
 
I sincerely hope it means exciting news for someone.
I discovered, it is pretty heartbreaking to have to decline a program you are really excited about.