Aunuwyn

FSU is the stronger program, especially if you might be interested in experimetnal work.

Wow that is an awful package, especially for Austin.

FSU is in within high esteem across the discipline, especially in regards to methods, public opinion, experimental work, and IR. Also it is a top 25 program by several rankings, and has the pedigree that will be able to get you a good job. You will all soon realize that the rankings of a department, even a top 5, will have little effect on your ability to place after graduation. Your ability to come out of school with a publication, write an interesting dissertation, and your competence at presenting your research in froint of an academic firing squad is all that matters. In short go to a program, keep your head down, work hard, take advice, and learn, and you will be a success. Keep in mind that the dropout rate is 50% for a PhD.

No, I mean if you are serious about your career and sieze the opportunities you will get excellent training. There are some faculty at these institutions that definatley could and should be working at top 5 departments.

If you want to be in Academia, American shouldn't be considered. Depending on your field choices, and interests, I could suggest a proper order of schools from those.

Emory, Rice, and WashU are great programs. Also the training in these departments is equivalent to the top 10 if you seek it out.

1. Being a marginal admit to one of these programs you probably wouldn't get funding, or at least not a full award. 2. It's unnecessary to waste more than 3k applying to each of the programs and instead focus on the back 5, since your chances of getting in the better ones would be astronomically low. 3. Not everyone has a substantial sum of money to throw into applications, I didn't. 4. You are not guaranteed that your investment will ever payoff in an academic job as the market is extremely tough.

No.

You are an exception, not the rule. There must have been something else on your application that was very impressive, but at most of these places you wouldn't make the first cut. If the OP applied to every top 30 school they might get into 3. That is a terrible hit rate, and an expensive strategy. They should be realistic in their options and target mostly top 40 schools, and then try to transfer up later.

Not any in the top 30 since your GPA is too low.

Congrats man! I might have to come visit for the Miami game in two years.

Political science is not the place for you then, the discipline has become such that lacking statistical or formal modeling skills will leave you uncompetitive in the job market.

That's a shame, she was one of the better faculty at the school.

That's not true at all.

Depends, where are you applying now? Its possible you can go to a top 30 program do the masters, and then transfer somewhere better. Of course, you might end up liking it at a top 30 program or decide the lost time of restarting at a newer school may not be worth it.

Actually, I Lied. The only one who has a chance at understanding debate here is you, you deluded worm. You don't even attempt to respond to the points I made which demolish your pseudo-intellectual babble, instead you wriggle away into the dirt like moral cowards do when exposed as frauds.

This is going to be the last time I post on this thread. First, I'm going to go ahead and say that you are either one of the greatest trolls on the net, or you are fantastically stupid and I am amazed you are working your way through Higher ED. Law and Politics ARE NOT essentially the same field. If this was the GRE the analogy would be Dentists:Doctors .... Lawyers: Political Scientists. Yes some political scientists study legal topics and institutions, but that by no means defines the discipline of political science, not even close! In fact if this was the early 1990s I could argue that an entire subfield of the discipline is predicated on the ABSENCE of laws. Your argument is predicated on complete ignorance of my discipline, and when presented with facts that undermine what you say you simply brush them aside and continue this asinine argument. If you didn't notice, your original question was, "Why mostly PhDs and not JDs in University Political Science faculties?" This question implies 1. that political science faculties being mostly PhDs is aberrant and should really be JDs, and 2. that JD training is both equivalent and in some cases superior to PhD training in political science. Numerous people have blown up your argument by providing facts to negate point two. Since we can reject the second implication, left with no other validating assertion we can also reject the first assertion that underlies your question. It is in fact NORMAL for political science faculties to be mostly PhDs, and it would be aberrant if otherwise was true.

Good luck to those of you on pins and needles this cycle. My advice, though no one will take it, will be to never check that list as it will start taking over your life.

I don't think you know the proper characterization of a weasel. Weasels tend to dart in and out, hide, dissemble, and double cross people. I believe anything "inflammatory" I have said is upfront and direct, very un-weasel like. Further, I (and most professors) don't suffer fools lightly, and since they exist a plenty on this board and on the net you are witness to my much more aggressive argumentative tendencies. Finally, humility is a trait good for religious messiahs not successful people, and in the real world people who are intelligent and useful, not agreeable, get jobs. Oh and to illustrate the naivety of this statement "For all of your proclaimed familiarity with the academic literature, you've missed out on the one essential attribute of all successful social scientists: humility," and to stay on topic with the thread; I invite you to read John Mearsheimer's piece The False Promise of International Institutions, and then the sequence of responses and his responses to them. You will quickly see that the Academy is not all the clouds and sunshine that you seem to think it is buttercup.

I graduated from Korbel, I am not currently there. I am in a formal political science program. Of course, you would of been able to conjecture that from my reading recommendation if you were familiar with the academic literature.

nt

SLACs are possible avenues to teach political theory as they emphasize mostly on teaching. Torn between consulting and academia, best of luck to you.

To answer your actual question, no one here can answer that. The reason is every department is different, and the person you emailed may or may not have power to lobby for admissions. Additionally, the person could have meant it as being an acceptable topic to study in the program, but not as any sort of signal that you would be selected. Coming from a similar background as yourself, what is your career goal in getting the PhD? I don't think normative theorists will be in demand at think tanks or other agencies, this wouldn't of course make a difference in the State Department however.

You are just using semantics and verbal sleight of hand to construct a bullshit argument. To answer the title of your thread "Why Mostly PhDs and Not JDs in University Political Science Faculties?": because resources are scarce and JDs don't have the qualifications to be both researchers and trainers of graduate students.They might be able to teach undergrads in limited situations, but faculty are not hired for undergraduate instruction. That's what adjuncts are for. Even in the adjunct market a PhD has an advantage over a JD because they can teach a broader array of courses.

What you say is possible, but foundational normative theory is moving to philosophy departments in schools. If you don't go to a top 3 pol theory school you are never going to be a tenured political science professor. I hope you can prove me wrong though because I have a soft heart for normative theorists.