Bobb Cobb

Unless someone corrects me, I do not think that you can tell except in any rare case where the poster claims to be an international admit.

The places that I applied to last year were quite varied in their responses to similar questions. For the most part, I received answers similar to the one you did. It seems that some places simply do not keep the records in such a way that they are readily available. Although some do, and I am happy that TAMU has a full list so I can at least have an idea about what to expect on the market. I would not read too much into it, and I suspect that many other schools would give similar answers.

While you may not have been referring to me, I am the first to admit that Realist likely knows more about political science than me. Having said that, I simply offered some real experiences of how this process plays out. The job market is in a real slump, and with that I do not think anyone can argue. However, it may be dramatically improved in several years. If not, I think most of us (no matter the school) will be at least in a position of doing something besides that for which we were prepared. While some top graduates may be happy seeking directional jobs, most are not. Many also come out of school with no teaching experience. If there was one thing that the committees I worked for could agree upon, it was that they wanted the candidates to have teaching experience. So keep on discouraging, and I will keep on learning. In the end, I may end right back up selling radios, but I will have the satisfaction of knowing that I tried and went with my aspirations rather than some internet warnings. By saying that I am not discounting these warnings as rubbish, and I am not making light of the situations where mentors have been cautious. I am merely saying that I would like to think that I am old enough to make my own decisions, accept the consequences, and either prosper or learn from them. Looking back I will say that I fought the fight, besides what else would I have done? Go to law school, have you considered their job market lately? What about becoming a manager at McDonalds? Amongst all these warnings of "do not do what I did with my life, or what you want to do with yours" I have yet to hear any alternative career suggestions.

Wow, good luck!

Congrats, that is a good one to have!

I definitely appreciate the advice, and I am not at all trying to diminish your genuine concern. I just want to make sure that those who want to get the PhD and teach and do some research without being the best ever are still motivated to follow their dreams in spite of the possible negative aspects of the career. By the way, all careers have negatives. My last job was in retail, and I made a comparable salary to someone in my first category above. I had much rather teach and research things that interest me while also getting the chance to possibly open student's eyes to a world far beyond their dreams than listen to some corporate jerk bitch about the last quarter in how I had not been using the POS system properly. Even if it means going to school for 5-7 years and not teaching at a top ten, I would rather do it. I think many people underestimate the rewarding power of taking a first generation, inner city student on a study abroad trip, or helping them understand numbers in way that they enjoy it. I'll take this feeling over a few thousand dollars any day.

Of course this is not a bad thing. I am simply saying that there are many people outside the top ten or 25 who lead successful, meaningful lives. I realize that money matters, and that a good job is paramount to a quality family life and personal existence. I said that life is not all about money and jobs. For instance, one could end up teaching at a direction school and their starting salary may be $50,000 with a chance of that improving considerably over time. They may also have more freedom to teach their interests, and less people in their immediate vicinity competing for resources and attention. They may also really enjoy teaching first generation students or less-preivelaged students from poor educational backgrounds. They can still publish some good pieces (maybe not all in the top 3), and they could participate in other things to supplement income if they must like AP Grading, consulting, language facilitators abroad, etc. Is their life really worse off than the person who is at a top ten making $80-90, 000 or even less with much more pressure and a cut-throat system of promotion? I cannot make that call for sure, but I suspect that the former can live a happy life, and still raise a quality family if they are interested in such an endeavor. What is more is that their job may actually be more secure on the long term as they will have a much easier time getting tenure and becoming the bigger frog in the pond.

Hi. I am enrolling in TAMU's political science PhD program in the fall, and I could not be more excited. Anyone else looking to become an Aggie?

I said nothing about GRE scores, but I guess you could equate those entirely different situations. I am simply saying that going to a top ten is not the only option available. I know many successful political scientists who went to schools that are lower ranked. I only wanted to share my personal experiences with the process. I also wanted to explain that (as someone else noted above) sometimes a higher ranked degree can have a stigma attached to it. I am in no way saying that this applies to all graduates of top tens, and it is certainly mitigated by a good record and a grounded attitude. To answer your question, having a pedigree will get you looked at. However, in many cases it takes more than that to land the job. Part of what I was trying to do is point out that there are a fair number of top ten graduates who end up worse off than some others. This is a double-edged sword as often times they refuse to apply to lower ranked places, and when they do they are often beat out by folks with better records. Many people do great from, and indeed many of the best academics almost always come from the top tens. I am not discouraging attending these places, but I just want to caution people that getting into grad school is only the beginning. CPaige, I am not trying to generalize or attach something negative to all top ten programs/students. I can only speak for my own experiences. I have met many great people who attended top tens, including the advisor I mentioned above. I have also met many condescending people from these places, especially graduate students. If you think Yale is right for you, then go for it. I probably would have gone had they accepted me last year. I did not then, and still do not want to work there or any other Ivys for that matter. This is a personal choice and preference based on many things. I certainly am not indicating that they would be bad places to work, or that there is something wrong with the students. I simply take issue with people trying to discourage others from getting a better education than they already have. Life is not all about jobs and money. My goal is to remain in an intellectually stimulating environment as long as I can. This can still happen without attending Harvard and teaching at Stanford. I appreciate the idea of making sure that people know what they are getting into, but frankly I find it insulting to assume that we all do not. I also find it troubling that some seem to suggest that somehow those who attend lower ranked programs and teach at direction schools are somehow inferior people. In the end, they did the best they could with the options they had available. Maybe I have been reading Pol Sci Job Rumors for too long...

First, I would like to thank The Realist for sharing these thoughts on the process. I am not sure if the intent was to answer any questions/debate the issue, so I will refrain from doing those. I would like to share my thoughts from my own experiences, and I would like to also comment on the elitism issue that was briefly discussed in the Results thread. While my experiences are limited, I did serve on a search committee on two different occasions in my previous MA program. This program is in a non-ranked state university in the south. Some of the faculty were from top ten schools, while others were from schools that rarely make the top 100. This provided a wide range of attitudes and egos to observe, especially since that was all I was expected to do until voting time. In looking at applicants' files, two patterns would emerge. The top ten professors would immediately cull the files down to applicants who were from top 25 schools. The other professors would carefully read each file and consider publications, advisors, experience, fit, etc. Only after narrowing down to schools worthy of themselves would the top ten profs ever consider these other details. On both occasions the committees were somehow able to come up with a short list that contained a wide range of academic background, diversity, research style, etc. Then the interviews would start. The top ten professors would immediately comment on how much better trained the applicants from their peer (or in one case, their own) universities were when compared to the applicants from further down the ranking heap. In both cases, the applicants from top ten schools had zero publications while the others typically had at least one, if not 2-3. The professors from the lower schools would always comment on how smug the applicants from the higher-ups tended to be, and often questioned why they are applying to our school in the first place. Are they the worst in their cohort? After all, do top ten outfits not always place in the top-25? Will they be smug and look down upon us if we hire them? In both searches, the lower ranked applicants with publications won out. This is likely due to the fact that the elitists professors were in the minority. In my view both of the hires turned out to be good professors and proficient, well-trained researchers. I know that at least 3 of the top ten applicants remain jobless. There was also a Yale PhD on the faculty who did not make tenure (no publications), and was therefore let go. It seems that the applicants from top ten universities who either lack the ability to publish, or assume that their Ivy degree is enough to carry them through eternity, usually end up jobless. I have one other experience to share. Last year my advisor and I went to the MPSA conference with a paper we had spent much time on. The chair of the panel was from UMich, and the discussant was from Yale. They were both PhD candidates nearing the dissertation stage of their gradate careers. They were both condescending and rude. The discussant said that our paper "could have benefitted from some more advanced econometrics" as if Yale is the hub for such things. The HLM was apparently too juvenile for their taste. The chair spoke up and also exclaimed that they had taken issue with a thing or two, which seemed to be outside of their role as timekeeper, moderator of the panel. They were much more friendly to the other three papers, which came from institutions that they thought were worthy of their time. Luckily, the peer-review process is alive and well, and Public Opinion Quarterly accepted our piece immediately, as it was. Ironically, they had no idea that my advisor had gotten his PhD at a top ten as well. they just assumed if he was at a non-ranked, southern state school that he must obviously be dumber than them. What can be gleaned from these stories? First, pedigree matters. Although it does not always matter for the same reasons that we would all like. It will almost always get you an interview, but beyond that there other issues that come into consideration. Going to a lower ranked school will not gain you any respect with those who went to top ten schools. In fact, they will consistently disparage you and snicker when they see you name tag at a conference. However, if you go to a lower ranked school and work hard, you can land a job. It will not be top 25, but it may be equally rewarding. Surely most people who go to these schools know this already. If you go to a top ten, congratulations. I myself applied to several last year, and I was rejected outright by all. I would suggest though, that you keep a level head and your feet on the ground. The degree will not take you much further than an interview, and publications still matter. In the end, both types of graduates have conditioning and socialization that they must deal with. It is the ability of the student to overcome these pressures and transcend the norm for their particular ranking that makes them shine as academics. I have no idea if my experiences are the norm. I amy also be suffering from a biased perception, but I hope this at least provides some insight into how this process works. I wholeheartedly agree with The Realist about honesty and good manners. I have met my fair share of all types, and I am not even too far into the process. Having said all this, I also have met some extremely nice and well-grounded folks with top ten degrees. This (along with a good record) is obviously the most desirable combination for anyone to have. So, go to your top tens, and go to your lower ranks. They all have their rewards and shortcomings. Just know that in the end, there is more to it than that. I think we can all agree that Austin and Athens are better than Ann Arbor.

I know most well-funded programs admit a few more than they expect to matriculate. This gives them the cohort size that they have determined to be ideal based on past experience, funding, class sizes, and potential mentors. As you suggested, this sets up the possibility that programs could end up with more or less than they anticipated or wanted. This has happened at a few places ranked in the lower part of the top 25 (and maybe others, but I know about these) because of a trickle-down effect from the higher ranked schools. For instance, programs A, B, C accept less students, but D accepts the normal amount. This causes D to end up with students who would have otherwise gone to A,B,C in normal years. This is why most places say they want a cohort of 5-7, 8-10, 12-15 etc. as it is not an exact science, but rather a reasonable expectation based on past experience and current circumstances. There are some places without official waitlists, but I suspect most have at least some sort of fall-back options lined up.

I know last year that some people were admitted and others were called for interviews about the same time. I do not know what the difference is between these folks, but I do know that type of system is in the norm for Emory. Then I think they had another recruitment type event later on, but my memory may be serving me poorly on that part.

I cannot imagine that it matters too much as long as we are respectful and thoughtful about what we post. Surely no program is concerned with grad students getting together to discuss their interests, successes, and failures. This is not like the job rumors board where things sometimes devolve into hateful discussions and personal attacks.

Nope, that is exactly what I have. I kind of wish it would go ahead and update, but I am just paranoid like that. I am betting that the department will wait until they have a batch and do them all at once. I will let you guys know if/when it changes.

I agree that people should make sure that the funding packages are sound, and that they should at least enquire their potential advisors about their future plans. I have been told by many as well about this "coming exodus," but it simply hasn't happened yet. By the time more positions come open, the crisis in California may look totally different. I guess we will just have to wait and see, and in the mean time I hope nobody gets screwed in grad school as a by-product of this event, if and when it occurs.

For some reason there is a perception among many that half the faculty are going to leave the UC schools anytime now. However, as stated, the actual event has yet to happen except for a few, and there is no indication if these few left for economic reasons. It appears that much of the speculation regarding the economy's effect on pol sci departments is just wrong. Although, we do know that many are not hiring, and/or have cut a line or two. I suspect that the bigger, stronger schools are going to be fine, whereas the lesser outfits are going to shoulder more of the cutbacks, if any. This is a moot point anyway as most folks around here are aiming for the bigger, stronger schools.

I bet "soon" is the word of the week.

TAMU's is March 26-28, which is a Friday, Saturday, or Sunday. I guess some are on actual weekends.

I understand the feeling, as I suffered through the process last year. I do know how it feels to see results posted at a place I applied, and then not hear anything for a long while. This year I am on the other side of that situation as some folks had initially thought that the TAMU posts were not legit. My point was just that we should consider that these things are not scientific processes, and that there are many issues at play at many of these schools...especially in these economic circumstances. On the other hand, there can be logical assumptions made, and I agree with the thoughts on deadlines/time to admits posting etc., but we should also consider that these are true. While the past results provide a good guide, they are not full proof. Also, as I said, some people choose not to post here for a variety of reasons.

I understand the feeling, as I suffered through the process last year. I do know how it feels to see results posted at a place I applied, and then not hear anything for a long while. This year I am on the other side of that situation as some folks had initially thought that the TAMU posts were not legit. My point was just that we should consider that these things are not scientific processes, and that there are many issues at play at many of these schools...especially in these economic circumstances. On the other hand, there can be logical assumptions made, and I agree with the thoughts on deadlines/time to admits posting etc., but we should also consider that these are true. While the past results provide a good guide, they are not full proof. Also, as I said, some people choose not to post here for a variety of reasons.

Why are so many folks so arrogant to assume that just because they applied to a school and have not been contacted while others claim to have been contacted that it must be fake? Not all decisions are made at the same time any given year, and sometimes it takes over a month or two for some places to get through the files and generate a possible cohort size (or a bit larger) list of admits. Having said that, if there is a good reason to be suspicious then by all means go ahead. Otherwise it is a bit off-putting (and unfair imo) to those who have been accepted and choose to post the anonymous results, but choose not to post here. Just my thoughts.

I know that supposedly Georgia and Kansas funded several students less than usual last time as did Oklahoma. Also, I think Northern Arizona was mentioned as well. I also remember some other discussions on here and elsewhere about programs cutting way back, and some to the extent of funding no students. There were several complaints lodged regarding the fact these schools failed to announce this in the beginning of the application cycle. I only had direct experience with one of these, so maybe I am simply spreading rumors. I was mainly referring to the fact this seemed to have happened a bit last year due to the economy, and it appears that schools and administrators (not necessarily faculty) have little remorse for it. It is unfortunate that it may continue, especially at a place like UIUC.

The no-funding business happened at a few places last year. Most were quite happy to take applicants' money and time, and then reward with very little.

Applied to one, admitted to one. To further qualify this, I applied to several last year with varying degrees of success, but not 100% .