Gaius12

As a caveat, I don't know much about CIR, but I am very familiar with Fletcher. In any case, what you are asking seems to be whether you can be considered a top candidate for both PhD admissions and the job market by going to either one of these schools. The answer, in my opinion, is that they are two completely different programs geared toward completely different careers, but that if you do very well at either you will be viewed favorably in PhD admissions provided you make a compelling case for why you want to get your PhD. Personally, all costs being equal and not knowing your personal circumstances, I'd go to CIR personally, especially since it has a relationship with the Harris School of Public Policy if you want to do more policy-oriented work (I think they offer a joint MA?). It mostly just depends on what you feel you want to do. Fletcher will cause you more debt since it's an extra year, but you'll likely get a job after you graduate. CIR will give you less debt, which is ideal if you want to pursue a PhD since you'll have difficulty paying off debt on a PhD stipend. They are both great programs, however, so good luck with your decision.

By "good for political theory," I mean "generally considered to be better for political theory than for the other subfields that each school offers." Academic job prospects upon graduation would be one major criterion for what constitutes a "good" program of course, although since most people's job prospects in academia don't seem to be particularly great, perhaps that is not the only thing that matters for considering a program to be good? In any case, please feel free to answer utilizing whichever definition of good most suits you (and I mean that in a friendly, not snarky, way).

Hello again everyone, So since US News doesn't provide rankings for political theory beyond #14 or so, I am just wondering, are either CUNY or NSSR good for political theory? Or at least, would they be higher ranked for political theory than their overall rank in political science? I have heard some good things about both programs (and bad things of course), but I am just wondering since I am trying to decide on some lower ranked programs to apply to for my cycle next year. As a note, I want to study political theory. Thanks!

Hello everyone, So two friends of mine recently got accepted at CUNY (political theory) and Missouri (American/public opinion/electoral politics), but in both of their cases, no mention was made of funding. That is not to say they weren't given funding, it's just that neither department made any mention of it at all. Is this common? And how long after decisions do such schools normally inform accepted students of funding? Thanks!

I've heard this discussed too HC about the stigma against being placed at an LAC. I get that the teaching load is greater and producing research is harder, but don't some people want to prioritize teaching over research maybe? Also, I've noticed that while top LACs still have assistant professors from places like UChicago, they also have many from much lower ranked schools. Is getting a job at a pretty good LAC easier than getting a job at say a mid-ranked R1? If someone's goal is to get a tenure track job at an LAC, would getting a PhD at a lower ranked school, one that perhaps gets them teaching experience (as many lower ranked PhD programs seem to from my limited knowledge), not be as big a deal?

Wow guys, thanks for some great responses. Yeah, I know Stony Brook is a great program, but depending on which field you go there for I assume that it can be either great or very mediocre (although that's true of a lot of programs I guess). UVaSpades, that's interesting, do you think people really do that? Also, do you guys think that doing a lot of research/getting publications in above average or really good journals can make up for going to a lower ranked PhD program? In other words, can working really hard improve your job prospects even if you don't go to a great program?

Hey everyone, I have a scenario that I was just positing and I am wondering what other's thoughts are on it. Say you got accepted to two programs, one a highly ranked masters, such as say Columbia or NYU, that would cost you tens of thousands of dollars, and one a lower ranked PhD, say New School, CUNY, or Stony Brook, with full funding as to allow you to live semi-not-uncomfortably. If given the choice, what is the best option (presuming one's goal is to become a tenured professor one day): (1) to say no to both programs, try to improve GREs and research experience, and try again next cycle; (2) accept the masters, take loans, and hope it improves your admissions chances for the next cycle; (3) accept the PhD and hope that when you finish you can find a job you don't hate in a very difficult academic job market. Although I will not be applying until next cycle, I intend to apply to a range of schools in terms of ranking from Princeton to maybe CUNY. I am just curious as to what I should do if my cycle were to go that way, and it might as I have good, not great, stats, and judging by what I've seen on this forum thus far, you really never do know what will happen with PhD admissions. Thanks!

Hello eveyone! I'm new to gradcafe, but I was wondering if anyone could give me some advice. I was recently admitted to a relatively lowly ranked Phd program (~50-70 in US News), and it was the only one that accepted me. I feel that my research interests line up fairly well with at least two of the professors in my subfield, but I worry greatly about being able to get a job after graduation. My undergraduate stats were pretty good (~3.58 GPA, 166V/159Q GRE with high thesis honors), so what are peoples thoughts about accepting the funded offer at this school, and potentially leaving after getting the terminal MA to apply at a higher ranked program, provided I do not end up loving the school of course? Do you think that one can make up for getting a PhD from a school with less name recognition by being productive research-wise? Thanks!