lev calderon

I just called a school that gave people on this forum acceptances yesterday with "Hi, I'm a PhD applicant. Did all the acceptance letters go out already?"
Response, "No, we have a rolling admissions process and final decisions have not been made."
Me: "Do you know when final decisions will be made?"
Her: "Within the next couple of weeks"

So, according to your logic, she just told me I would see a reject letter in a couple of weeks because the offers have been completed?

I just called a school that gave people on this forum acceptances yesterday with "Hi, I'm a PhD applicant. Did all the acceptance letters go out already?"
Response, "No, we have a rolling admissions process and final decisions have not been made."
Me: "Do you know when final decisions will be made?"
Her: "Within the next couple of weeks"

So, according to your logic, she just told me I would see a reject letter in a couple of weeks because the offers have been completed?

I just called a school that gave people on this forum acceptances yesterday with "Hi, I'm a PhD applicant. Did all the acceptance letters go out already?"
Response, "No, we have a rolling admissions process and final decisions have not been made."
Me: "Do you know when final decisions will be made?"
Her: "Within the next couple of weeks"

So, according to your logic, she just told me I would see a reject letter in a couple of weeks because the offers have been completed?

What's the norm in Political Science for withdrawing an acceptance, e.g. someone gets admitted to NYU but is pending at Purdue and knows she will take NYU over Purdue, shouldn't she withdraw her application from Purdue?

I don't believe someone got into Yale. Oxon and Suddenly Paranoid clearly would've heard back from yale in the first batch.

I don't believe someone got into Yale. Oxon and Suddenly Paranoid clearly would've heard back from yale in the first batch.

Legal academia is a different ball game. Having a phd is now becoming the norm. Jonathan click, a jd/phd from george mason is tt at penn. If you can get a phd and do empirical research, you'll land a job at a law school. I also think there's always exceptions -- I think someone who can integrate political science with behavioral economics will be a strong candidate even if he went to johns hopkins. Also, hiring works different in professional schools and think tanks - a business school might like a notre dame phd who can do ethics or a texas phd who can do institutions and organizations. Someone who can teach law and economics is going to get hired at a law school even if not top 10 (see henry butler, gerrit de geest, etc). And for think tanks, phds are plusses because think tanks have become a lot more serious about empirical research and many are attaching themselves to universities (baylor college of medicine, george mason, and ucsd are going in this direction).
And, look at the faculties of top 50 liberal arts colleges, many plsc profs are not from the top ... But they're excellent teachers, which matters there.
And in terms of private sector ... A phd makes you a lot better at developing algorithms and forecasting at a hedge fund than does an mpp.
There's a world outside political science departments for those of us who aren't lucky enough to go to a top 10.

Could the study be limited? I only applied to east coast schools and will only be looking for east coast placements post phd, e.g. I'd sacrifice placement if it meant staying in the region. If a lot of people, esp. Ivy league graduates behave in such a manner, then you could have a group of highly qualified phd candidates with a low placement percentage due to regional preferences. And, in many ways, even a brown phd can get away with this (eg avoid placement) with more ease than a rochester phd simply because the ivies have more cash. Under the east coast snob analysis, I'm not sure placement equates to quality.

And to whoever said think tanks are academic backups: the center for neuroeconomics is a think tank with more nobel laureates than any political science department. Again, preferences matter.

Legal academia is a different ball game. Having a phd is now becoming the norm. Jonathan click, a jd/phd from george mason is tt at penn. If you can get a phd and do empirical research, you'll land a job at a law school. I also think there's always exceptions -- I think someone who can integrate political science with behavioral economics will be a strong candidate even if he went to johns hopkins. Also, hiring works different in professional schools and think tanks - a business school might like a notre dame phd who can do ethics or a texas phd who can do institutions and organizations. Someone who can teach law and economics is going to get hired at a law school even if not top 10 (see henry butler, gerrit de geest, etc). And for think tanks, phds are plusses because think tanks have become a lot more serious about empirical research and many are attaching themselves to universities (baylor college of medicine, george mason, and ucsd are going in this direction).
And, look at the faculties of top 50 liberal arts colleges, many plsc profs are not from the top ... But they're excellent teachers, which matters there.
And in terms of private sector ... A phd makes you a lot better at developing algorithms and forecasting at a hedge fund than does an mpp.
There's a world outside political science departments for those of us who aren't lucky enough to go to a top 10.

Called Yale today.
Facts: Decisions have not been made yet. Decisions are made in the month of February and they expect to make final decisions within the next 2 weeks.

I have been constantly checking my email all day long and I just got an email saying my submission to a CFP had been accepted and I was selected to deliver the paper at a conference in April! I'm so excited - this will be my first conference presentation and I'm actually kind of terrified because I always pictured this moment coming at some point when I had an advisor to assist me and prep me for what was going to happen but I'm unaffiliated at the moment. Can anyone else who's done this give me any advice/tips?

Called Yale today.
Facts: Decisions have not been made yet. Decisions are made in the month of February and they expect to make final decisions within the next 2 weeks.

Called Yale today.
Facts: Decisions have not been made yet. Decisions are made in the month of February and they expect to make final decisions within the next 2 weeks.

Why not? I have nothing to lose, a ton of you have peace of mind to gain, and I don't think a five-minute phone call would overburden the grad secretary.

(Now, will anyone call Rutgers for me? 732.932.9576? Haha. I'm divided as to whether it would be messy to start a trend of calling each others' schools, but a quick phone call might not be such a bad idea as long as we don't all do it. The last thing we'd want to do is have phones ringing off the hook so grad offices can't get work done.)

You could call Yale. 203.432.5241

I think Thom Wall is a little busy:

Yeah, the fact that the AdComm knows who it's taking/not-taking already indicates that they could call who they've admitted. P.s. congrats to those offered the funded MA at Yale, that's really impressive. p.p.s. why didn't Yale choose to WL? p.p.p.s. anyone try calling the admissions offices for decisions?

Yeah, the fact that the AdComm knows who it's taking/not-taking already indicates that they could call who they've admitted. P.s. congrats to those offered the funded MA at Yale, that's really impressive. p.p.s. why didn't Yale choose to WL? p.p.p.s. anyone try calling the admissions offices for decisions?

See: http://chronicle.com...l-in-the/44846/ --
"As things stand, I can only identify a few circumstances under which one might reasonably consider going to graduate school in the humanities:


You are independently wealthy, and you have no need to earn a living for yourself or provide for anyone else. You come from that small class of well-connected people in academe who will be able to find a place for you somewhere. You can rely on a partner to provide all of the income and benefits needed by your household. You are earning a credential for a position that you already hold — such as a high-school teacher — and your employer is paying for it. Those are the only people who can safely undertake doctoral education in the humanities. Everyone else who does so is taking an enormous personal risk the full consequences of which they cannot assess because they do not understand how the academic-labor system works and will not listen to people who try to tell them."

Think about the most famous political theorists or philosophers -- I can't think of any that didn't come from money. I think the facts are different in natural sciences and empirical social sciences, but otherwise I think the overwhelming majority of successful academics come from $$$. I actually think William James wrote an essay on this called "The PhD Octopus." Also cf. Dinesh D'Souza "Professor Moneybags" National Review (http://www.accessmyl...demics-get.html)

Plus, if anyone here argues that where you went to UGRAD matters for PhD admissions, then cf. http://www.insidehig...06/12/kimbrough (elite college kids are overwhelmingly from $$$).

I think Benton/Pannepaker is making an economic argument: the economic signals for non-empirical social sciences/humanities are pretty transparent: you're not doing economically profitable work, it's not very translatable, and there aren't institutions that readily fund your research (e.g. no NIH grants).

We all seem to understand this reality because we apply to top-1o schools. Typically, if you don't go to a top-10 school and you want to do non-empirical social science, you're placement chances are slims. The reason rank matters so much in disciplines like law, political science and the humanities is because it's hard to price one's scholarship, so you price proxy mechanisms and create an artificial market that way.

In the natural sciences, salaries are at least partially determined by grants money and people apply to schools based on research agendas solely, knowing that a PhD from Harvard in neuroscience and a PhD from Texas Tech in neuroscience aren't going to lead to large salary differentials. Plus -- just look at science PhDs admissions -- they INTERVIEW and pay for flights because they have money. To succeed in a profession where there's limited external funds often means a) one is a natural super star or one is very good and has independent wealth. Plus, the natural science/economics heavily weigh the post-doc system and in these sciences the post-doc institution often means more than the PhD institution. Also look at faculty: a typical biology faculty will have a range of schools where professors got their phd but you can best a top 50 political science professor went to a top 10 school. There's also the same parallel in professional school: for MDs, the intership/residency institution matters more than the MD institution and most MD faculty at top 10 medical schools come from a range of MD institutions whereas in legal education top 50 professors went to top 5-10 schools. THe key is that the sciences sell patents, they get grants from corporations and pharmaceutical companies and they do translational research that is relevant to health or drugs. There's less of an internal incentive for the professors to have independent wealth. The incentives are clearly different in non-empirical political science. Obviously, for our methods cousins, they can get big grants, placements at banks and firms, etc.


Wittgenstein, Russell, W.Wilson, W.James, etc. came from money; M.Nussbaum, R.Dworkin married into it.

Hey all!

This is my second year applying to grad schools, but first year with PhD programs! I graduated this past year and am looking to study comparative politics (with a regional focus). My quant and verbal GREs are within the 700-760 range and I have a 5.0-5.5 on the writing. I graduated with a high 3.9 from a flagship public in a small state and my recommendations are solid, but from lesser known professors. I have a couple of other things going for me (study abroad/awards/some languages), but let's be honest, it's a bit of a crapshoot :-) Oh, and last year, I applied/was accepted to the MPhil in Politics at Oxford (the only school I applied to), but didn't attend because of finances.

I'm probably applying to far too many programs (10-12ish), but seeing as most of them are top 20-25, I'm just hoping to get into one of them! And as a last word of encouragement to everyone, applications have actually been declining to PhD programs over the past 4-5 years or so. Many schools (like Duke, UCSD, Minnesota, UNC) keep public statistics on admissions, and the average number of applicants/GRE scores have been declining recently, so your chances are probably better than you think.

Good luck to everyone and I'm glad to see this board getting a little bit of life. I definitely read through the entirety of last year's posts while preparing my applications!

This is a test: Can you spot the grammatical error in Yale's email:

"Be certain to visit the Frequesntly Asked Questions section (Questions Not Answered) for specific instructions on how to address your e-mail. "

I wouldn't worry -- you're pretty much the paragon of an admitted applicant. Plus from the looks of things, you meet the profile of HYP grad school types: financially comfortable, e.g. don't have to worry about working during the PHD, rushing through the dissertation, being anxious about well-paid placements, etc.

I'm really not trying to debate anything. Several posters ask questions about whether one's chances are increased without fellowship or not and several posters are not doing empirical social sciences. Also, I think it is rather naive to discuss fellowship, admissions, etc. without not recognizing that our profession excludes many participants from entrance.

Now onto your claims.

1. "Political science is not part of the humanities. " Go read Plato and Aristotle.
2. Now read my post and re-read it. I spoke of political science in terms of its non-empirical elements; I would be the first to concede that my comments do not apply to empirical methods in political science, which is itself heavily dependent on mathematics and economics.
3. 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.
4. You also missed the point of my argument which did not focus on graduate admissions as much as the nature of the profession (e.g. professors). A lot of non-wealthy people are in graduate school, but how many of them place and stay as professors? Guess what -- not many.
5. " But even that doesn't matter, because most top political science schools give stipends, so finances aren't an issue." This is a non-argument (i) even 25k stipends does not cover one's finances, especially if one has a family (thanks for conceding that you've never held a real job and that you don't even think about graduate students who have to support families); (ii) I was making a comparison to the sciences where stipends for graduate students are much higher, and (iii) are you really so naive? Who do you think funds political science fellowships at top schools that allow students to go finance-free? . . . wealthy ivy-league alums and they want to see proxies for value-creation, i.e. Yale graduates teaching at elite schools not community colleges and a lot of that, in the long-run, will depend upon the wealth-creation or retention of graduates.
6. "Your historic examples are silly and irrelevant. First, the sample is ridiculously small. Second, they are only from a sub-discipline of political science. Third, they are all from an era where few people went to college at all. There is no reason to believe political science programs have the same socioeconomic makeup as they did 50 years ago."

1. Provide counter-examples
2. Eh, I think we've established that empirical methods is the sub-discipline and the rest is humanities-like.
3. Your college argument is silly because those that did teach pre-1900s did not have PhDs or got PhDs from Germany; notwithstanding most of the great "American" college professors back then were imported from Europe.
4. Actually, I think there's reason to think PSCI programs are worse off -- as economics, methods, and empirical social science has dominated, traditional "government" programs have less value, cf. Coburn's NSF resolution.

You are incredibly obtuse. Read something.

See: http://chronicle.com...l-in-the/44846/ --
"As things stand, I can only identify a few circumstances under which one might reasonably consider going to graduate school in the humanities:


You are independently wealthy, and you have no need to earn a living for yourself or provide for anyone else. You come from that small class of well-connected people in academe who will be able to find a place for you somewhere. You can rely on a partner to provide all of the income and benefits needed by your household. You are earning a credential for a position that you already hold — such as a high-school teacher — and your employer is paying for it. Those are the only people who can safely undertake doctoral education in the humanities. Everyone else who does so is taking an enormous personal risk the full consequences of which they cannot assess because they do not understand how the academic-labor system works and will not listen to people who try to tell them."

Think about the most famous political theorists or philosophers -- I can't think of any that didn't come from money. I think the facts are different in natural sciences and empirical social sciences, but otherwise I think the overwhelming majority of successful academics come from $$$. I actually think William James wrote an essay on this called "The PhD Octopus." Also cf. Dinesh D'Souza "Professor Moneybags" National Review (http://www.accessmyl...demics-get.html)

Plus, if anyone here argues that where you went to UGRAD matters for PhD admissions, then cf. http://www.insidehig...06/12/kimbrough (elite college kids are overwhelmingly from $$$).

I think Benton/Pannepaker is making an economic argument: the economic signals for non-empirical social sciences/humanities are pretty transparent: you're not doing economically profitable work, it's not very translatable, and there aren't institutions that readily fund your research (e.g. no NIH grants).

We all seem to understand this reality because we apply to top-1o schools. Typically, if you don't go to a top-10 school and you want to do non-empirical social science, you're placement chances are slims. The reason rank matters so much in disciplines like law, political science and the humanities is because it's hard to price one's scholarship, so you price proxy mechanisms and create an artificial market that way.

In the natural sciences, salaries are at least partially determined by grants money and people apply to schools based on research agendas solely, knowing that a PhD from Harvard in neuroscience and a PhD from Texas Tech in neuroscience aren't going to lead to large salary differentials. Plus -- just look at science PhDs admissions -- they INTERVIEW and pay for flights because they have money. To succeed in a profession where there's limited external funds often means a) one is a natural super star or one is very good and has independent wealth. Plus, the natural science/economics heavily weigh the post-doc system and in these sciences the post-doc institution often means more than the PhD institution. Also look at faculty: a typical biology faculty will have a range of schools where professors got their phd but you can best a top 50 political science professor went to a top 10 school. There's also the same parallel in professional school: for MDs, the intership/residency institution matters more than the MD institution and most MD faculty at top 10 medical schools come from a range of MD institutions whereas in legal education top 50 professors went to top 5-10 schools. THe key is that the sciences sell patents, they get grants from corporations and pharmaceutical companies and they do translational research that is relevant to health or drugs. There's less of an internal incentive for the professors to have independent wealth. The incentives are clearly different in non-empirical political science. Obviously, for our methods cousins, they can get big grants, placements at banks and firms, etc.


Wittgenstein, Russell, W.Wilson, W.James, etc. came from money; M.Nussbaum, R.Dworkin married into it.

http://chronicle.com/article/If-You-Must-Go-to-Grad-School/45269/

And, as a historical matter, only the super-rich attended PhD programs (the first American University to offer the PhD was Johns Hopkins -- e.g. Woodrow Wilson, John Dewey).

There's an unmistakable reality that those at Harvard and its class of PhD programs are independently wealthy.