transcendentalist

> I was once told that the top universities actually communicate to each other which applicants they accept This is true though the contacts are not formalized and are idiosyncratic. It's more about finding someone you know on their admissions committee. > in order to avoid sending admissions to the same top candidates This is false. Top departments compete with each other on everything, and there is no good mechanism to enforce this purported commitment. The SP affair gives me new respect for Christians. It is an unlikely story superficially if you don't know the process, but I have seen the person for myself and know of several people at admitting departments that have made a decision. But to the agnostic, the threatened, or the outright afraid, this might as well just be ranting about a bearded mystic I saw at a seafood shack.

The dude is completely legit. If you had any concept of the intradepartmental politics of admissions, combined with his fantastic profile, you would not be a doubter. As of now it's best for people who've never been to grad school not to pontificate about what is and is not possible in admissions. Just accept that he had an amazing run, wish him well, and go on your way.

Apparently a "quantal response person" is someone who uses a specific type of formal model sometimes used in international relations. Realist tells us where such scholars have tended to get their Ph.D.'s. Is heeding this advice the right decision if one wants to specialize in this application in IR? Does the advice take account of changes in these programs or different programs over the last several years? Does Realist know? Or is this just a way to stay behind changes in grad programs rather than ahead of them?

It is like advice that I have heard as well for Ph.D. programs. What is problematic is Realist's attempt to speak authoritatively from a categorically powerful position about matters that are contested among his or her peers. Realist's uncontroversial advice all begs the question: which programs are best, in general or in specific areas? That is why Realist quickly turned to discussing this. But that enters territory that is full of interstices of gray which is why Realist's peers do not have a single ranking scheme they all agree upon. Realist elides this problem by acting as though it's all obvious, and even showing impatience when his or her advice is not heeded instantly or questioned. Is Realist an expert on all areas of political science? Is one person really qualified to speak authoritatively about program rankings even if they are an expert? If so why doesn't the discipline see things as clearly as Realist does? Realist is attempting to bypass debate among peers by turning to an audience that she or he knows is not equipped to challenge him. If political scientists do not challenge such expressions of dominance who will? These are matters of real importance to posters at this message board. It is conceivable that life decisions will be made based on what is posted here. We are all seeking maximum information on the issues and I applaud realist for (I am sure) sincerely wishing to provide some, but intention does not overcome these problems. Even the title of this thread is problematic. An "Actual Ph.D." As if none of us has ever spoken to one! Realist takes the mantle of missionary visiting the benighted and expects gratitude in return for dispensed truth.

I'm not attacking anyone. I'm asking questions everyone should be asking. Some of the posted information is obvious (and therefore we didn't need realist to tell us). Some of it may be more controversial. Is Northwestern any good? What departments can make you a good comparativist? Realist may not have started out stating this information but he did state it. When such information is given we should consider the expertise and the interest of the source, always. Also what is a "quantal response person"?

About the process and recommendations in general you are probably right but that is the reason for the clause "especially..." in my post. When it comes to "naming names" about programs? I don't know. S/he may have gone to one of the programs s/he is talking about. S/he may work for one. S/he may be recruiting people who post on this board. S/he may be competing to recruit people against another program s/he talks about. All I can say is, if you think someone in realist's position always has an incentive to be above-board and honest in an anonymous internet forum related to his or her profession, google the job market blog for American and Comparative politics. I'm not saying anything about realist specifically because I don't know him or her.

Realist, what incentive do you have to give unbiased advice, especially about which programs are of high quality overall or in specific areas?