CrimsonBlue

Do you mean Political Science and International Affairs Program? I applied there. It's more competitive and with a late deadline. So, we might be hearing from the program a lot later!

I applied to PEG!

Congratulations on UCSD!!!! I wish I applied to the regular political science program. I applied to its joint degree with a late deadline (Political Science and International Affairs). UCSD is one of my top choices!

Wow... Yeah, Harvard deserves to notify us later than other schools. It is my DREAM school as well because of Frieden, Shepsle, Hiscox and Rodrik (an economist thinking like a political scientist).

Sincere congratulations to Berkeley scholars!!! Let' get this party going!

It's a neutral sign. Some schools won't even post placement records. But, yes. Stanford and other top institutions list everything...

I would consider going to NYC for free if you know what I mean...

I am sooo excited to hear back whether it's a rejection or acceptance. I just want to be done with waiting.

Duplicated...

I almost forgot about NYU! Do you know when we are supposed to hear back? I would like to visit the Department in case I get in.

No worries. I can testify against your myth. Also, as I said, it really depends on the fit and which faculty members are willing to take your research interests. I wouldn't stress out about it too much. For instance, people get into Stanford, Harvard, Princeton, etc but still get rejected from other top institutions like Chicago, WashU, etc.

Personal networks matter, too. For instance, whether Duke's committee members know your recommenders matters a bit. Plus, the "fit" is incredibly important regardless of how excellent you are...

Rejected at Duke as well. But, would I care even a little with an offer from Michigan? NO!

I completely sympathize with you. Fortunately, my professors have been telling me the exact same points about getting a Ph.D. and becoming a professor. I resisted their advice first by applying to top 16 in my subfields, while they were telling me to apply to the very very top ones only (say top 5). They were very realistic. Now I have an offer from a top 5 institution, they are happy for me, but still emphasize that there is a lot of work to be done before becoming a tenure-track professor, of course. Also, getting a Ph.D. should not be the end of your goal, but rather a means to further research. That's why getting a job at a top research institution with abundant funding is crucial. We all have different goals, but getting a Ph.D. for some other goals "may" not be an optimal decision given the opportunity costs of money and time. And, YES. The Realist is trying to help all of us by discouraging us. Some people just don't get what a Ph.D. really is. It may not be their comparative advantage. It may sound crucial, but they might be better off, doing something else. Folks, listen carefully what The Realist says. This is invaluable information. I am going to share this thread with any prospective students who want to pursue a Ph.D. in political science. You will get what he is saying, once you are on the job market. I have been exposed to the rough picture of this issue by talking to poli sci Ph.D.'s on the job market. Sometimes, your passion for research alone cannot make things happen. SAD but TRUE...

Thanks for this. I would very much like to hear from UCSD for its strength in IPE. I actually applied to the joint program in Political Science and International Affairs, so I might hear back later than those of you who applied to the Political Science program.

Thanks. This is what my professors have been telling me. I resisted their advice first, but I followed what they were telling me regardless. It is not elitism. It is the reality.

Apparently some people misread my previous posts. To summarize what I think: 1. It's better to do research first and then use your financial resources and effort in choosing programs to apply. For me, top 10 schools came out to be right, so this is why I did it. Also I want to stay in academia, and I know I would be better off at a top 10 institution. 2. Do not focus on big institution name values: what I said was that a lot of people apply to Ivies, thinking their overall reputations are the same as those of the programs there. We all have different goals, some of our career goals do not have to stay in academia and may need big institutional name values. I am at one of the Ivies. While I don't feel the privilege while I am here, it is indeed something people respect and envy at the same time. It's definitely a plus if you want to do something else besides professorship. For instance, while Brown's poli sci department is not one of the best, if you tell the general public that you did a ph.d. at Brown, this will impress many of your business partners.

Yes, I understand your stance on the issue and that a few people from non-top institutions still manage to get great jobs in academia. But, for most people, going to Emory will make job hunting inevitably difficult in academia. This is why I didn't even think about applying to non-top-notch schools, just like most of you here. I am also often surprised by how so many people apply to non-HYPC Ivy-league poli sci programs, thinking that they are REALLY good, not to mention people always confuse politics with political science.

Although it is a bit outdated, I like the paper. The job market is quite volatile for professors. But, looking at these past trends certainly helps to see the stability of each institution. Whether people like it or not, it seems Harvard is the big hub of political scientists!

Yeah. But, Wisconsin is already a top program. Plus, even if you take poli sci courses at Yale, it wouldn't necessarily give you an advantage at the very top poli sci programs. Yale is not precisely regarded one of the best poli sci programs for its placement records. (Its placement records sucks compared to Harvard, Stanford, Michigan and Rochester.) Think like an economist in terms of considering opportunity costs. Yale is a great institution for undergrad, law and other graduate programs. But, it may not be what you think it is at some grad levels.

I think it might be better for you to take Wisconsin over Yale's regional studies master's for four reasons: 1. Too much financial sacrifice and time if you go to Yale. 2. I am not sure Yale's brand value automatically means a superb Russian studies department. 3. Political science professors are somewhat arrogant; they would like to see letters from poli sci faculty. 4. Wisconsin is a well-regarded poli sci program. I think you're attracted to Yale's brand value. But, if you really want to get into a top poli sci program, why not go into a master's program in IR? Feel free to send me a message if you want to hear more about what I think. I have been holding this thought of mine for you, but I just had to say this to you since you might be better off by choosing Wisconsin or any other excellent poli sci programs you are going to get into over Yale's master's program.

I think I will see you at Rochester as well if you are coming! Although we have vastly different research interests, some of the great ideas actually come from different fields. I am at one of the Ivies as an undergrad. But, for now, I might want to be careful with revealing where I really go, haha. Also, it's CrimsonBlue... Crimson=Harvard and Blue=Yale

Cool. Thanks! BTW, what's your top choice? You are doing really well! Are you coming right out of undergrad?

Stanford gives about 30K for stipend. This is unique among other poli sci programs due to the high costs of living in the area. You will be able to support yourself with this. But, this won't be really really generous. Rochester, for instance, is a pretty inexpensive town, so the funding I got is generous. Also, u might want to look at whether your funding package requires you to work as a research assistant or teaching assistant. Most packages do, and they are great sources of experience for your future career. But, too much teaching commitment can get int your way. Also look out for summer funding and incidental funding!