poli90

Cpaige- I was invited to the March 12th admit day, so I am guessing it was for all accepted and waitlisted applicants (which also tells me the waitlist isn't very long). I'm still not sure if I can go due to work commitments... It's also nice seeing some colleges post their upcoming courses publicly: https://polisci.wustl.edu/sites/courses

curufinwe: Are Americanists "only journalists"? I really find the attempt by advocates of a single, narrow approach to studying politics to make their approach hegemonic and disparage any other approaches really nasty. It is not a matter of regional studies vs big-N quant studies, but rather focusing on high quality scholarship whatever its form and looking at how diverse approaches can complement each other.

Congrats to the Austin admits...I've heard its a great city, too.

Yup, got the same email. Given that my informal acceptance was pretty formal, as I'm assuming everyone else's was (letterhead, etc.), I'm pretty sure it is just an administrative disconnect.

My fun plans is a trip to Latin America with my girlfriend this summer. Otherwise I'll read like crazy to avoid boredom. I have piles of articles I've been reading, plus a Hegel reading group, plus stacks of books that I have to get to. I may look into comp. exam lists, although I already have a pretty strong idea of what I have to read in that direction. Right now I'm reading Hegemony and Socialist Strategy, after that I hope to work on Habermas's The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere....

I was a theory admit too...

Just got an email from Chicago: admitted for PhD with five years funding.

<-- Has most of that info.

That is a very interesting survey, although the results seem slightly tilted by a few strong theorists (especially Brown and Connolly). It is interesting to see JH still ranked so highly even though I don't know how much Richard Flatham is teaching/supervising, etc.

How about to date are these rankings and what's the methodology?

Oxon, I hope you're feeling better, and I know how ridiculously wrong that was, but this is still making me laugh every time I read it:

It couldn't be a straight-ahead mass email/mail merge as they attached a personalized admissions letter. So, there could still be more to come.

Just got an offer from Northwestern too...visitation weekend is March 4th to 6th. Very happy I got an acceptance before the inevitable rejections! And at one of my top choices.

Subfield: Theory Research Interests: modern political thought (esp. Hobbes, Kant, and Hegel), modernity, critical social theory, democratic theory, continental political thought (Foucault, Arendt, and Habermas), political theory and revolution, affect and rhetoric.

I've heard that IR generally has the highest standards as far as GRE, GPA, work experience, etc. goes, but there will be more spots than for theory.

A major thing to look at too is methedological approach. Do you want to be trained in quantitative or qualitative research? Area studies or big-N studies? You can usually tell the program's overal approach by looking at their program descriptions and the structure of the program.

I am definitely "that guy" who is mainly reading to over-prepare for grad school. In any case, at the moment I am working on: James Bohman - Democracy Across Boarders Hegel - Elements of the Philosophy of Right Sheldon Wolin- Politics and Vision Just recently finished Emergency Politics by Bonnie Honig and Another Cosmopolitanism by Seyla Benhabib. In the non-academic world, I've been slowly working on Underworld by Don DeLillo. I've also been reading various essays and journal articles I find interesting. I think one of the advantages of my subfield (political theory) is that much of the leading work is genuinly interesting and not just overly dry empirical work. It often incorporates various narratives, cultural examples, and case studies in a very fun way. Or then again, that may just be my peculiar bias.

Northwestern (hopeful I'll get in), Yale (not very hopeful), Chicago (still not very hopeful), Toronto MA (so at least I'll know that I'm going back to school next year).

"Wittgenstein, Russell, W.Wilson, W.James, etc. came from money; M.Nussbaum, R.Dworkin married into it." QED.... I suppose the first point to make is that the burden of proof is not on everyone else to provide "counterexamples" but for you to demonstrate that your sample of 6 philosophers, none of whom started their careers in the last 20 years, can reasonably be generalized to the statement that only rich people succeed in the humanities/complete Ivy League PhD programs. There is no point naming names (as if I had access to their tax returns), but most political theorist seems to have come from a stable middle class backgrounds. I do agree that there are significant barriers in academia for lower income people, but just as it is absurd to say family background has nothing to do with future success, it is equally absurd to say, without any actual evidence, that "there's an unmistakable reality that those at Harvard and its class of PhD programs are independently wealthy. "I also don't think political science is largely empirical. I kind of wish it was, but most PhDs in politics are focusing on American Government, Comparative, IR, Theory or Public Law, not methods or formal theory." Methods and formal theory are both non-empirical (that's why they call it formal theory...). Likewise with much normative political theory (although I would argue that there are always implied empirical issues, just as empirical research always assumes answers to certan normative questions. I don't really think the normative/empirical distinction is very strong or very tennable.). The issues developed in those areas only become fully empirical, in the general use of the term, once they are applied by Americanists, Comparativists, etc. ""Political science is not part of the humanities. " Go read Plato and Aristotle." Heh...don't know if this even needs a comment. Quite simply, modern political scientists are not taking guidence from Plato and Aristotle. Do you really consider that an argument that you have "established that empirical methods is the sub-discipline and the rest is humanities-like"? Look, I am not a big fan of the idea that the social sciences should model the natural sciences. I much prefer the idea of a pluralistic field of Politics or Political Studies than the outmoded idea of Political Science. But really, I still know the sort of empirical research that is widespread in the discipline. That said, I would certainly agree that the areas within Political Science departments that engage with Plato and Aristotle are taking part in the humanities or some sort of broadly conceived humanisitc discipline. "Who do you think funds political science fellowships at top schools that allow students to go finance-free?" Rich lawyers who did their undergrads there? EDIT: With all that said, also agree that this conversation is not very productive. As for the question of doing any prep for grad school, I will confess that I have been reading quite a lot of recent political theory and I'm in a Hegel reading group...I'm planning on taking it easy in the summer when travelling.

Rochester is seen as a highly specialized/boutique school. If you are really and exclusivly into quant methods, it may be a good place, but even then you are going to miss out on some of the breadth of the discipline. As quant methods solidify their position at the top of the discipline, its placement is going to stay strong. Departments want a few well trained methods people, and it has a reputation for doing the best training. However, for most people's purposes I doubt it is the best department. They also only accept a handful of students (5-6) each year.

My main research interest is (currently) to look at Kant and Hegel's reactions to the French Revolution, and what that says about the relationship between the Enlightenment/modernity and the French Revolution more broadly, as well as specific theoretical issues such as the faith in progress/teleological view of history that is supposedly endemic to Enlightenment thought. I'm more generally interested in modern political thought and contemporary democratic theory and political theory. I like reading Hobbes, Rousseau, Nietzsche, Arendt, Foucault, Frankfurt School writers, Habermas...

Well, I'll do it too, even though I feel like it will only add to my worry that I am getting my hopes up: - Highest graduating average in my major in my cohort. - Several A+'s in courses in my field (very rarely given at my undergrad institution, which tends to have slightly lower grades than equiv. US schools). - Top student in several graduate level seminars competing with MA/PhD students. - Top grade in my class for my honours thesis. - Great GRE's: 800 v/730 q/4.5 awa. - Extraordinarly strong (I hope!) recommendations from well-known and well-connected professors in my field. - Worked as a research assistant. - Compelling research proposal and strongly written SoP.

This problem was tough for me to get around, as I spent the last two years working for a major Canadian political party. In the end, I left them out of my personal statement but included it in my CV - I really don't think they will care. On the other hand, I am applying to a fairly left-leaning field and worked for a left-wing party.

If you do apply to toronto, make sure to apply for the SSHRC as well. The deadline is a lot earlier (usually sept or october) and you may have to apply through your department, but since so many people miss the deadline (at least at my school) it is not all that hard to get it.

Yup, 800 V, 4.5 AWA here too. I was peeved about it for a while, but on the whole I think an 800 verbal could be more of a boost than a 6 AWA, so.... I am just focusing on polishing my writing sample and SOP, in the hopes (which I think are grounded) that committees take the AWA with a grain of salt.