poli90

The key, quite simply, is unionization of adjuncts and lecturers and bringing them under negotiated collective agreements with job security, benefits, negotiating wages, etc. Administrators have used the guilt of perceived academic failure to abuse and exploit the many academics who do not get plush tenure track appointments without them pushing back. The only solution is to argue for non-TT jobs in higher education as legitimate careers that need to be treated like other careers, with job security and the like. And the only way I see that happening is if non-TT faculty begin to seriously organize and assert their rights as essential part of the enormous and lucrative higher education industry (the same goes for TAs).

I don't think this can be emphasized enough. I'll have two years of working at good, interesting political jobs when I enter grad school, and I know beyond a doubt it is the right thing to do. I also think taking the time off helped me place higher into grad school, as it meant I had more time to study for GREs and work on my applications (I was only working part-time during the application season, so that also helped....) But seriously, take time off before grad school. It's a huge commitment and a huge opportunity cost investment, and it should never be a default option "because I don't know what else to do." When people now ask me about grad school, I always tell them to take time that I think it is best to take time off first - which is not to say some people aren't perfectly fine going straight through.

I don't think this can be emphasized enough. I'll have two years of working at good, interesting political jobs when I enter grad school, and I know beyond a doubt it is the right thing to do. I also think taking the time off helped me place higher into grad school, as it meant I had more time to study for GREs and work on my applications (I was only working part-time during the application season, so that also helped....) But seriously, take time off before grad school. It's a huge commitment and a huge opportunity cost investment, and it should never be a default option "because I don't know what else to do." When people now ask me about grad school, I always tell them to take time that I think it is best to take time off first - which is not to say some people aren't perfectly fine going straight through.

I don't think this can be emphasized enough. I'll have two years of working at good, interesting political jobs when I enter grad school, and I know beyond a doubt it is the right thing to do. I also think taking the time off helped me place higher into grad school, as it meant I had more time to study for GREs and work on my applications (I was only working part-time during the application season, so that also helped....) But seriously, take time off before grad school. It's a huge commitment and a huge opportunity cost investment, and it should never be a default option "because I don't know what else to do." When people now ask me about grad school, I always tell them to take time that I think it is best to take time off first - which is not to say some people aren't perfectly fine going straight through.

I think Suddenly Paranoid's SoP is a good lesson in a key point to remember: programs are looking for interesting researchers, not interesting people (I'm sure you are an interesting person, SP, but you really do put your research front and centre). If you are going to use an anecdote, make sure it ties in strongly and creativly to your research, and is not just a story about why you want to study politics in grad school (the only really good reason is because you want to do research etc) or how you first got interested in politics.

I think Suddenly Paranoid's SoP is a good lesson in a key point to remember: programs are looking for interesting researchers, not interesting people (I'm sure you are an interesting person, SP, but you really do put your research front and centre). If you are going to use an anecdote, make sure it ties in strongly and creativly to your research, and is not just a story about why you want to study politics in grad school (the only really good reason is because you want to do research etc) or how you first got interested in politics.

I think Suddenly Paranoid's SoP is a good lesson in a key point to remember: programs are looking for interesting researchers, not interesting people (I'm sure you are an interesting person, SP, but you really do put your research front and centre). If you are going to use an anecdote, make sure it ties in strongly and creativly to your research, and is not just a story about why you want to study politics in grad school (the only really good reason is because you want to do research etc) or how you first got interested in politics.

I'm planning on asking about the advanced graduate students they are currently working with, the sort of research they are doing (both the prof and their grad students), and how their students have done on the job market. I'm more interested in how they answer these questions (do they know who their students are? do they seem involved?) than the content, although that is definitely important too. I'm asking about what courses they are planning on teaching, which also gives an opprotunity to talk about more substantive research related things. I'm asking about opportunities to RA, especially to get out of TAing. I'm asking about their attitude towards publishing while in grad school, if any of their students have published or presented anything recently, etc. I'm really trying to get an idea of the general feel and approach of the department. I'd love to hear some of the questions other people have.

"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.

"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.