beebly

Perhaps they are applying because they have been taken in by insipid advice to pursue their whims (better known as "dreams") no matter how unrealistic or ill-suited, or they have actually convinced themselves that their love for "the game" is so deep and pure that it needs no merely external crutch like, say, income, job stability, personal dignity, or health insurance for their children--they can be happy without all these things so long as they can spend their days regressing Congressional voting data. Or because they have been strung along by the institutions themselves, which need TAs for their undergrads and RAs for their faculty just like top schools, and face no discernible disincentives to taking on far more graduate students than can ever find suitable employment on the academic job market.

It has never been clear to me whether anything but the immediate financial situation of the graduate institution and its ability to offer stipends places any constraint on graduate admission. And even that is not a great constraint--many people seem perfectly willing to dig themselves into debt at places like Georgetown for the blessed opportunity to be graduate students. What incentive do graduate programs have to peg their admissions to the academic job market and admit fewer students as fewer jobs open up?

Another thing that those perusing placement statistics should be aware of is that departments frequently include graduates in post-docs, and those working in some non-professorial capacity in higher education (for example, in administration or student services) among those placed at "academic jobs" without noting explicitly the nature of their employment. Further Googling may be prudent when dealing with these claims.

Perhaps they are applying because they have been taken in by insipid advice to pursue their whims (better known as "dreams") no matter how unrealistic or ill-suited, or they have actually convinced themselves that their love for "the game" is so deep and pure that it needs no merely external crutch like, say, income, job stability, personal dignity, or health insurance for their children--they can be happy without all these things so long as they can spend their days regressing Congressional voting data. Or because they have been strung along by the institutions themselves, which need TAs for their undergrads and RAs for their faculty just like top schools, and face no discernible disincentives to taking on far more graduate students than can ever find suitable employment on the academic job market.

It has never been clear to me whether anything but the immediate financial situation of the graduate institution and its ability to offer stipends places any constraint on graduate admission. And even that is not a great constraint--many people seem perfectly willing to dig themselves into debt at places like Georgetown for the blessed opportunity to be graduate students. What incentive do graduate programs have to peg their admissions to the academic job market and admit fewer students as fewer jobs open up?

Another thing that those perusing placement statistics should be aware of is that departments frequently include graduates in post-docs, and those working in some non-professorial capacity in higher education (for example, in administration or student services) among those placed at "academic jobs" without noting explicitly the nature of their employment. Further Googling may be prudent when dealing with these claims.

Straussian lovefest.

Straussian lovefest.

You should actually talk to an educator about the state of schools, actual results from charter schools etc...before you publicly post about the state of education....

Perhaps they are applying because they have been taken in by insipid advice to pursue their whims (better known as "dreams") no matter how unrealistic or ill-suited, or they have actually convinced themselves that their love for "the game" is so deep and pure that it needs no merely external crutch like, say, income, job stability, personal dignity, or health insurance for their children--they can be happy without all these things so long as they can spend their days regressing Congressional voting data. Or because they have been strung along by the institutions themselves, which need TAs for their undergrads and RAs for their faculty just like top schools, and face no discernible disincentives to taking on far more graduate students than can ever find suitable employment on the academic job market.

It has never been clear to me whether anything but the immediate financial situation of the graduate institution and its ability to offer stipends places any constraint on graduate admission. And even that is not a great constraint--many people seem perfectly willing to dig themselves into debt at places like Georgetown for the blessed opportunity to be graduate students. What incentive do graduate programs have to peg their admissions to the academic job market and admit fewer students as fewer jobs open up?

Another thing that those perusing placement statistics should be aware of is that departments frequently include graduates in post-docs, and those working in some non-professorial capacity in higher education (for example, in administration or student services) among those placed at "academic jobs" without noting explicitly the nature of their employment. Further Googling may be prudent when dealing with these claims.

1. You can't know that much about me because I'm no longer in undergrad.

2. I didn't apply to any Ivy league schools for undergrad. I applied to two schools I really wanted to go to early decision and that's it. How's that for being a "prestige whore"?

3. I have my reasons for wanting to do the MA. They have nothing to do with trying to get into a better Political Science PhD program later on. They are my own personal reasons that I don't care to share with random people on the internet.

4. I don't believe that I will come to regret having accidentally--and indirectly--divulged where i went to undergrad to people bored enough to try to figure out who some random person on the internet is. If it ever comes up (and I doubt it even will), I think I can accurately say that I stupidly asked people on an internet discussion forum for advice and my motives, character, and intentions were completely misconstrued by several people who decided to start hating me.

I think you waste your time. What will be amusing is when SOOT gets relegated to Penn State - Altoona after graduating (that is, if she ever gets admitted to a program that confers the appropriate name/geographic cachet).

Good on you. You made it further than me. I fired off a number of (admittedly angry) calls, demanding a refund of my application fee for the mistreatment/lack of communication I've received. So far, they are not budging. I am starting to suspect that this is a racket on par with penny auctions.

I think Rossiya is officially my favorite internet personality ever. Can the GradCafe set up some kind of a fan page for her? па русскй?

I think Rossiya is officially my favorite internet personality ever. Can the GradCafe set up some kind of a fan page for her? па русскй?

Many programs will ask you which professors you want to talk with and set up meetings for you two, and if they don't, you should ask them to do this. They'll also usually have a current student in your subfield host you, so you can ask that person questions, as well as the students you meet at the lunches and the evening parties the department arranges during the visit. In general, you are being sold the program at these events, so if you want to talk to anyone, you should just ask and the department will try to produce that person for questioning, even if he happens to be in the depths of some pre-historic bog in Australia at the moment. (Usually, if someone is actually out of town, they will schedule a phone call for you or give you an email address.)

There seems to be some kind of ancient oral tradition that passes on the set of expected questions to prospective students each year. They include, for professors: what are you currently working on, what are your grad students working on, will you be around next year (and beyond) for me, what classes will you be teaching... For grad students: what are you working on, how do you like it here, how supportive is the department, how high is morale, do most people finish mostly on time, how much do you interact with your professors or advisors, how freely does the funding (and the liquor) flow, what are the sectarian divisions among the faculty and do they affect your life (this will vary by subfield), how well are people like me (insert your particular issue) treated here, does your health plan cover my future (or present) offspring...

I attended several of these open houses the year I applied and thought they ranged from mostly to totally useless (the free trip was nice though). You probably already know the answers to most of these questions, and the others don't really have clear answers (unless a department is truly atrocious and crushes all its students so that 100% of your sample will reply that they are miserable, morale is low, and everyone is on the first train out). The meetings with professors can be awkward though if you aren't armed with some time-filler.

The most useful and applicable piece of information you can possibly acquire at these events is how socially and intellectually tolerable the other grad students are and how much you want to spend the next few years talking and hanging out with them. Try to engage them in substantive conversations and see if they can carry on a discussion that interests you. Also talk to them about non-academic matters. Find out if they're narrow partisans, or mean-spirited jerks, or pompous self-promoters, or any other sort of people who are unlikely to be be helpful or pleasant. You might try the same with the professors if you feel up to it--suggest some of the arguments you're considering to them and get their thoughts. Some professors are very good at answering the kinds of bureaucratic questions that prospectives typically come armed with, but much less good at helping you develop your ideas, which you will discover too late.

Perhaps they are applying because they have been taken in by insipid advice to pursue their whims (better known as "dreams") no matter how unrealistic or ill-suited, or they have actually convinced themselves that their love for "the game" is so deep and pure that it needs no merely external crutch like, say, income, job stability, personal dignity, or health insurance for their children--they can be happy without all these things so long as they can spend their days regressing Congressional voting data. Or because they have been strung along by the institutions themselves, which need TAs for their undergrads and RAs for their faculty just like top schools, and face no discernible disincentives to taking on far more graduate students than can ever find suitable employment on the academic job market.

It has never been clear to me whether anything but the immediate financial situation of the graduate institution and its ability to offer stipends places any constraint on graduate admission. And even that is not a great constraint--many people seem perfectly willing to dig themselves into debt at places like Georgetown for the blessed opportunity to be graduate students. What incentive do graduate programs have to peg their admissions to the academic job market and admit fewer students as fewer jobs open up?

Another thing that those perusing placement statistics should be aware of is that departments frequently include graduates in post-docs, and those working in some non-professorial capacity in higher education (for example, in administration or student services) among those placed at "academic jobs" without noting explicitly the nature of their employment. Further Googling may be prudent when dealing with these claims.

Perhaps they are applying because they have been taken in by insipid advice to pursue their whims (better known as "dreams") no matter how unrealistic or ill-suited, or they have actually convinced themselves that their love for "the game" is so deep and pure that it needs no merely external crutch like, say, income, job stability, personal dignity, or health insurance for their children--they can be happy without all these things so long as they can spend their days regressing Congressional voting data. Or because they have been strung along by the institutions themselves, which need TAs for their undergrads and RAs for their faculty just like top schools, and face no discernible disincentives to taking on far more graduate students than can ever find suitable employment on the academic job market.

It has never been clear to me whether anything but the immediate financial situation of the graduate institution and its ability to offer stipends places any constraint on graduate admission. And even that is not a great constraint--many people seem perfectly willing to dig themselves into debt at places like Georgetown for the blessed opportunity to be graduate students. What incentive do graduate programs have to peg their admissions to the academic job market and admit fewer students as fewer jobs open up?

Another thing that those perusing placement statistics should be aware of is that departments frequently include graduates in post-docs, and those working in some non-professorial capacity in higher education (for example, in administration or student services) among those placed at "academic jobs" without noting explicitly the nature of their employment. Further Googling may be prudent when dealing with these claims.