rwillh11

Never mind, not sure why I bothered. If this isn't a troll, this is just sad.

Never mind, not sure why I bothered. If this isn't a troll, this is just sad.

I am not trying to disparage you, far from it. But the simple matter is that lots of people jump through these hoops but you seem to be reluctant for whatever reason. For one, countless students do internships while not having a lot of money. You could take a basics statistics class no problem at a community college. And I am sure that you could find someone to do an independent research course or thesis in your faculty if you modify your research interests. You could also finish your undergrad and study languages either independently or abroad if you save up some money and/or get a job. These are just a few examples. 
 
I mean, put it this way...I actually didn't cultivate my three letters of rec until my senior year (and even the last semester at that). I worked as a RA, did an independent research class with a prof, and did an honours thesis all within 4-5 months before I graduated. Senior year is actually the time where these types of opportunities really open up. 

Then be satisfied with nothing. That's the bottom line. You think you are entitled to things without making sacrifices or commitment. This isn't how things work in the real world.

ITT I see a lot of excuses and not a lot of action. Everything that is pointed out to you, you seem to reply back with some form of a caveat. 
 
For example:
 
- history has language requirements
- political science and other social sciences require quant training
- internships don't pay
- can't do X and Y because not in an honours program.
 
Sounds like a lot of excuses for your lack of motivation and/or laziness. Seriously. If you want something you have to jump through hoops and get the necessary skills and experience to get there. You are not entitled to anything. 
 
Personally, I have had to jump through a lot of hoops to get where I want to be academically, like learning languages when I am not particularly skilled or quick at them, taking and willing to improve my quant skills to succeed in political science, going to office hours countless times when talking to professors was once very intimidating for me, coming from a very untraditional and unacademic familial background and rising to the top of my respective cohorts on effort, ect. Life isn't all roses my friend, you need to do what you got to do to succeed if your desires are even somewhat ambitious. 

It's not about like. Political science is a quantitative field and you seem upset that this discipline is not what you thought it is. Poly sci without stats is a humanity, which one depends on what your research questions are. My husband is applying for poli sci PhDs this cycle, while I apply to history programs. We talk a lot about the differences and approaches of our disciplines, because we have many overlapping interest areas. However, we generate questions and interrogate them extremely differently. One of the large differences in the fields are qual/quant. And frankly, as a historian, I can also tell you that quant analysis is very prevalent in history right now, too. Big data is a trend that everyone is interested in because it creates new research questions and new lines of inquiry. It's a tool, and a very valuable one, in academia right now, in just about every discipline that has things you can count, measure, map or extrapolate from. 
 
Take a giant step backward and re-evaluate where you are at. Start, first of all, by looking at recent issues of the big journals. What's being published in journals is where the research in the field is moving. Even better, try going to a conference, or at least finding CFPs for conferences in the discipline. See what's getting accepted. You'll find that it's likely to be mostly quant-heavy.
 
Second, take your faculty's advice seriously. If they don't want to supervise your work, that signals a big problem, either with the work itself or with you. If they won't supervise you, chances are they won't feel comfortable writing for you, nor will they write good letters even if they do.
 
Third, realize that departments are set up in specific ways, and those ways are slow to change. You've noted that programs that don't have quant-heavy training are few and far between. That means that those faculty positions are fewer and further between.
 
Fourth, the job market in academic political science is not much better than that for history. We're all slightly crazy to be pursuing this as a field, because we are all smart enough to find easier to get and better paying jobs. Think why you want to do this, and if you really need a PhD to achieve your goals. For the government-based jobs, you likely don't. But also bear in mind that many of those jobs are analytic jobs, and not theory jobs.
 
Fifth, you're very, very early in your career to have such strong opinions about the discipline. How much theory and methods have you read? Professors and application readers are going to be very put off by someone at your level dismissing 80%+ of the work done in the field. It shows, among other things, a lack of understanding about the state of the discipline. It also probably relates very much to the second problem above. Academia is a hierarchy and it's often a very traditional one. You don't usually have a lot of flexibility in the training done at whatever institution you attend. You take the classes you need to take, in the sequence you need to take them in. You then write a dissertation that gets approved by a committee both as a proposal and as a finished work. If being told how to approach your education is a problem for you, a PhD may not be an enjoyable experience, no matter which discipline you choose to pursue.

"The problem is, I see no value in quantitative research, it's reductive and constraining and forces square pegs into round holes to make them fit rigid and inflexible models."
 
This is simply because you do not understand it.

Unless, due to personal circumstances, money is not going to be an issue for you, YES.  There is no guarantee at all of finding TT positions after graduating, even from top schools. You could look at getting a UK PhD, or a continental European one, but funding is super limited. (basically the LSE or Oxford might fund you,but no one else has any money). You should not put yourself $100,000+ in debt to enter a very tough job market. That would be financially ruinous for most people. Look at the costs of tuition for grad programs. Its just not realistic to do it without funding....unless you have the money. 
 
On the other hand, if you are lucky enough to have the money, go for it. Many of us wish we could be so lucky as to disregard the funding and job market and just follow our hearts to the school that suits us best. If you have the resources to cover the cost, you might as well do it. But the only way I would advise considering that path is if you are lucky enough to already have the resources to pay for the school. Do not go into tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt to pursue a PhD. Also, if you cannot find someone to find you, you may want to take that as a signal about how your research interests might fair on the job market. We certainly need more heterodox research...but its not going to make finding a job in 5-7 years any easier. 

This too...I know you say there are no jobs in that field. But take a real solid look at the job market in our field. If you want a feel for how tough it can be, go read Poli Sci Rumors. While the job market for Poli Sci may be (a bit) better than for History PhDs, it is still not good. And for someone who doesn't want to do heavy quant, its 100x worse. Also, a funded PhD in History >>> an unfunded PhD in Political Science. 

1. Have you thought about applying to History departments? They do various things there which may be more interesting to you.
2. I highly doubt that your professors do not agree with your research proposal because of the methods you want to use. I am in a very quant heavy department but professors know that some undergraduates are not that quantitative and they supervise qualitative projects  all the time. Maybe your idea (do not take this in the wrong way) is not that interesting? I mean you need to read a lot to get some idea where the profession is right now, maybe you have not found the edge yet.
3. If you think the issue is with the methods though, have you tried to study with a philosophy or a history professor (geography sociology depending on your interest)? Maybe that could help you assess whether your research fits to those disciplines better and even if not they may know the relevant political science literature better than your quantitatively inclined professors. Producing a writing sample in your chosen field may matter a lot during admissions.

what are you talking about

That is a terribly organized chart.

I think there is good arguments on both sides.
 
Bottom line. the academic market for political science Ph.D. holders is brutal. You are looking at spending 5-7 years preparing for a job that in most likelihood you will never get. This is especially true for people who go to universities outside the top 10. Even for places like Stanford, you can have years where only a couple people out of 10 get placed in TT jobs. That's pretty ridiculous. 
 
On the other hand, what people don't seem to factor in is there are a lot of ABD and Ph.D. holders that really aren't that good. Lots have crappy dissertations and some don't even get anything published. Then they wonder why they are not getting offers. Ridiculous.
 
There are also a lot of advisers out there, whether from top R1 schools or not, that don't really even give a crap about you. They don't help you network, they don't teach you how to publish, and you can sometimes be stuck out there alone on an island. 
 
On one hand, I see why there is disillusionment among Ph.D. students and grads. On the other, there seems to be a lot "grass is greener" mentality as well. People who have failed in the academic market seem to think that life would be all rosy if they didn't do a Ph.D. and used those years to gain a foot in the job market. Or may be they are frustrated that they spent the better part of their 20s not getting laid, staring at a computer screen doing regressions, and not enjoying their life. They then use this opportunity to shit on the whole industry and put out "facts" towards grad students. There are also a lot of wannabe academics who are obsessed with social recognition, that are extremely elitist and think that anything besides TT at a R1 is below their standards, a waste of time, and a knock on their ego; this is ridiculous.
 
The question becomes what you want for your life. The vast majority of people who graduate with political science BAs (or most social science degrees) will amount to jack squat in the private sector. This means working average jobs, doing things you may not like, making extremely average salaries, and probably being in debt like the typical consumer in North America. But of course a lot of doctoral grads will have allusions about them being the top 2% and making their life so wonderful if only they didn't do a Ph.D. 
 
If you are dead set on academia you have to live with the fact that you probably might end up unemployed and disillusioned. 
 
You have to ask yourself...what are you looking for in life? Do you value money and job security? Are you more driven by your work than what your work affords you in your lifestyle? I really think your personal priorities are the crux of the matter in this debate, not what TT stats are, not what attrition rates are, not what unemployment is, or whatever. 

This is precisely one of the major problems.  Many of those attempting to dissuade others from going to graduate school are implicitly comparing it against some ideal, instead of other viable career options.  Sure, there's plenty to complain about, but have they seen message board comments from failed lawyers?  Actually, pick any professional field, including medicine now, and you will find the same complaints.  Once I overheard a Professor downplaying the idea of getting a PhD, only to turn to another student to commend their decision to go to law school.  Seriously?  Check out lawschooltransparency.com to see how poor placement for JDs can be, and these are students who payed six-figures for their education.  Even an MBA doesn't guarantee high pay unless you're coming from a top program, but the higher up you go the more you pay for less return.  Ok, maybe that means it is best to just finish higher education after the BA level.  However, for some an extra five to seven years of study is a worthy deferral for having a job they like.  But life with only a BA isn't some paradise, either.  The median income for someone at that level is $46,900, which is slightly less than the salary for a new Assistant Professor at South Dakota State Technical College.  Fine, fine, the median income for BAs also includes everyone who got one in puppetry or politic . . . art history; they should have all gotten degrees in computer science.  Fair enough, but at that point you might as well tell them all to forego college because one can learn enough programming to get a solid job oneself while working on the side, and the relevant skills are all that employers care about anyway.  Problem solved: start shutting all the university doors tomorrow.  Really, those who are excessively doom and gloom about the situation in PhD programs* are saying "oh if only you knew what I knew" or "look at the burden I have to bear."  If this is coming from PhD students or Professors, why don't they simply leave academia and cut their losses?  News flash: no job is perfect, employment is never guaranteed, high pay is not an entitlement, you won't receive praise for simply doing your job, some people in every career will ultimately fail and many more will fall short of their top goals.  That's realism, the rest is mostly narcissism from people who think their lot in life should better for no good reason.

*Does not include the humanities.

The bar?

I'm in at Irvine.  First admittance, so...there's one.

yes, I think we can all agree these people need a bit of a wake up call.

You're right, opportunity cost does not measure intrinsic value, nor is it intended to. Opportunity cost is purely a financial discussion. And that's been mentioned already in this thread. 
 
But that also wasn't what this thread was aimed at, nor are you (obviously) the target audience.
 
As I mentioned on the last page, if you know what the opportunity cost is, and the intrinsic value is worth it to you, then this reality check isn't something you need to hear. Similarly, if you have career experience, or know you'll be able to get a non-academic job (and are OK with that), then this reality check isn't really something you need. 
 
But that doesn't mean that there aren't a large majority of prospective and beginning graduate students who have no idea what the job prospects in their field are, have no backup plan, and have no savings to fall back on. Many of them are already in debt, and a large portion of them are considering/have taken out loans for graduate school, thinking that they'll be able to pay it off easily once they slide into a good TT job that pays a huge salary. And that's just magical thinking all around. 

Me too!

This. If you've spent a few years working a job you hate, or searching for a job in the real world (I've done both), risking the academic job market doesn't look all that bad. 

See, I think it is a bit doomsday. For the reason that going to grad school is a 'waste of life.' What exactly about going to grad school is a waste of life? As opposed to what, working in a typical job 40+ hours a week that you may or may not like?
 
To me, that's a false dilemma. 
 
That's the problem with a lot of these arguments for me. It's like, for the vast majority of people in the world; they spend most of their life working in completely average jobs, working to live. So what exactly are most people sacrificing here? 

This. If you've spent a few years working a job you hate, or searching for a job in the real world (I've done both), risking the academic job market doesn't look all that bad. 

Here's the updated look at NYU's placement for the class of 2006: http://politics.as.nyu.edu/docs/IO/4610/NYU_Placement.pdf
 
The Class of 2006 currently has 4 TTs, 5 post-docs, 1 NTT, 1 still ABD.  6 dropped out, which can occur for various reasons and there is no evidence to impute that onto the Politics department itself without evidence.  Therefore, out of 12 people, 4 already have TTs and 5 are taking the right steps to get them in the future.  I hardly see how those numbers are poor at all.
 
As I've said before, I agree with you that a dose of realism is beneficial for people who are making the decision to enter graduate school, especially in a field such a political science with a sub-optimal TT market right now. 

This. If you've spent a few years working a job you hate, or searching for a job in the real world (I've done both), risking the academic job market doesn't look all that bad. 

On the first point, given that there are only ~100 schools granting political science PhDs, you definitely wouldn't want to do a program ranked towards 100, especially given your solid stats. If its more towards a top-50 program, might be worth going for it. Look at the placement history of the program-if they seem to do a good job getting recent grads into tenure track positions, its probably worth going for it. If not, I'd look elsewhere. And don't assume you won't get into top programs, if there is a good fit, you would be really competitive.