fakeusername

Here's a piece of practical advice: political science is a well-established field of study in which a PhD from a decent program will give you a good chance of obtaining a position both inside and outside of academia, whereas an interdisciplinary PhD like American Studies, or to a somewhat lesser extent Communications, will probably not make you a desirable candidate for any position. American Studies, in particular, was a bit of a fad in the 1990s, and from what I've heard from those who had peers in this field those who received PhDs have largely struck out on the academic marketplace. Really, you could make anything you are interested in researching in American Studies or Communications your focus in political science, and polisci covers a broader universe of topics in case you ever change your mind. Accordingly, I would seriously think twice before even applying to an American Studies program.

Your undergraduate GPA is done; there's nothing you can do about it now, so there's no reason to worry about it excessively. People with similar GPAs have gotten into top 10 programs, just don't shoot yourself in the foot by applying only to top ten programs. Save enough cash to apply to a ton of programs (shoot for at least 20) that are spread out across the top 40, and you're bound to get at least a few good offers. The good news is that nearly two years is plenty of time to dramatically improve a file. My two cents: 1) Your GRE needs to be significantly improved, and it's the worth investing the time needed to boost it up as high as possible. 2) Seriously try to publish something. If you get an R&R from a decent journal, it will signal that you have an understanding of political science research is all about, and this will dispel any doubts about your coming from an MPA program. Also, why not consider PhD programs in public policy/administration too? They generally require an MPA, which you will have, and the market for those is much better. I'm assuming here that you have some interest in this study, since you're in an MPA program instead of a terminal MA.

1) I count 32 students on their website, and at least one of those is cross-listed on the placements page. Starting from this number, if we assume that the average time to completion is 5 to 6 years (CVs of recent graduates suggest most who complete do so in this time frame) that would mean an incoming class of about 5 to 6. Sure, this doesn't take into consideration attrition; however, this should have no bearing on placement since someone who doesn't get the PhD, for whatever reason, cannot be placed by definition. 2) Sure there's a way of knowing: simply Google the names! Virtually everyone in this profession has an easy-to-find webpage. Hell, often times even their salaries are public information! By my count, of the 30 graduates since 2008 there are only two VAPs and one whose position is unclear. So about 10% are VAPs, and judging by all the CVs none of the graduates started adjuncting before moving to a more stable position. 3) Short of emailing the person in question, there's no way to know for sure. However, all of the other graduates who are teaching in foreign universities are ones from that country originally. This suggests that American graduates aren't resorting to teaching abroad by necessity. I happen to personally know someone who was offered a position at NU in a field that traditionally pays less than polisci, and they were offered significantly more than that. For me this point doesn't matter so much, since I don't intend on moving to Kazakhstan. 4) My point is that there are numerous reasons why students don't make it through a program, so it doesn't make sense to count those who dropped out as 'failed placements.' If we do that, then virtually all programs have horrible placements records (since the attrition rate across the board hovers around 50%). I'm sure that the attrition rate in some programs is due to the program itself. However, this is an unknown that is constant across all programs (since they all have attrition). Unless someone explicitly tells you that students are dropping out because of the program, it's incredibly difficult to determine whether they are dropping out for that reason or any number of personal reasons. Even worse, if someone claims to have dropped out because of the program (bad faculty, etc.) it's nearly impossible to know if that's really the case since that person might not know if that experience is typical of all PhD programs or not (unless he or she transfered from another PhD program, but the first one may have simply been an outlier in how good it was). We could potentially overcome some of this uncertainly by aggregating the experience of a very large number of students across institutions, but as of now this is a problem that is constant across all programs.

Congrats!

That's based on a pretty big assumption. Iowa didn't even extend offers of admission to ten students this year, and previous cohorts have been as small as three in recent years -- ten is thus hardly a conservative estimate. I also don't understand the logic of including those who droppped out of the program, for whatever reason, as failed placements; someone who dropped out after the MA because they decided academia wasn't for them obviously isn't going to get a placed. It makes more sense to compare PhDs out to jobs received. From what I understand, Willardson also accepted an offer at Nazarbayev for family reasons (his wife is from the region), and to attract scholars Kazakstan has been offering six figure salaries to APs (granted I still wouldn't want to live there); his first offer was a position at a research university in Nevada. I also count seven TT placements in research universities (not including Willardson or Aurburn university although it grants PhDs) since 2008. Sure, it's not placing as well as Rochester, obviously, but within its range it is doing fairly well. Again, making up figures and trying to crunch the numbers without any context-specific information is very close to useless when trying to get a handle on program placement. However, I think you're spot on regarding liberal arts colleges. Jobs at selective LACs are certainly not consolation prizes for those who didn't get an R1 position, and they are probably more likely to consider institution prestige than research universities (which are likely to put more weight on publication record and methods training). Iowa seems to go: R1 (granting significant amounts of PhDs, 2-2 load) -> R2 (MAs, 3-2 or higher). CU seems to place largely at BA granting state schools and some lower ranked LACs, but I know less about that program. Name probably helps a lot at landing those LAC jobs.

I sent you a PM.

Iowa definitely has a better placement record, especially for American; for instance, they have placed two Americanists at TT positions at UNC in the last few years, and their other candidates are also doing quite well. Boulder's only recent TT placement at a research institution is Karreth at UAlbany, and that was an IR placement. I'm accepting an offer to U of Iowa, but in IR. Send me a PM if you want to discuss the program a bit, and if you don't mind I'm certainly interested in hearing about this signing bonus -- somehow it didn't get to me ;~}.

I received that too, so it looks as is we're all top candidates ;~}. I'm planning to accept another offer though, so I just sent an email to the DGS asking to remove me from the waitlist. Good luck on getting in!

Be careful judging on those rankings papers alone. As the poster above me just mentioned, those results are fairly outdated now. For instance, MSU is ranked only a few places behind Princeton in ranking but their placement record in IR has been extremely poor in the last decade; it's still very competitive in AP. In making a decision, get all the most recent placement data available and don't forget to take subfield strengths into consideration.

Me too ;~}. Based on previous years, it looks like U of Florida doesn't start releasing notifications until what would be next week.

U of Florida or Florida State?

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.

Even if that's all undeniably true, PhDs seem to do just fine in non-academic research positions. I've worked in several such environments, and PhDs were more desirable for research positions than MAs, MPAs, and at least as desirable as JDs (who paid significant money for their degrees). Searching the public salaries of my state, workers with PhDs are paid handsomely. Maybe these employers, and others like think tanks and private firms, have been unaware that PhDs are ill-prepared for research outside academia and need you to explain to them how they could significantly cut costs by hiring other candidates.

Now I'm not updating my sig if I get in, just in case you're on the waitlist .

It's not realism to state that "only 10% of you will ever succeed;" that is simply untrue, unless you meant to post this on the philosophy board ;~}. If you're counting the 50% attrition rate, then you might have a slightly better case. However, I don't think it makes sense to count these students among the "failures". For one, quite a few have already said that they have career goals other than being a Professor; this means that it makes sense to cut one's losses after achieving the MA and opting for the career for which they were initially aiming. I suspect the number of PhD students who actually don't want to end up in academia is higher than is readily apparent, since we all know that there is some stigma in the academy about opting for a non-academic job; free MA for those who only wanted one in the first place. Some students drop out of the program realizing that it doesn't entail what they thought it would. These students are probably those you mention as having been good in school, thinking graduate school is more of the same, and with limited research experience. Fine, but you can't count them among the failures for getting a TT job because they decided they didn't even want to attempt to get one at all! They discovered that something else would suit their interests. So, really, you can only count those who completed the PhD: PhDs out, compared against how many get TT jobs. But even that isn't completely satisfactory, because some graduates will choose a non-academic job after getting the PhD even if they can get a TT job. Some eventually realize that at that point they would rather make 80-120k working for the government in DC instead of moving to Nebraska for a 50k TT job. That's certainly not the same as failing to get a TT job. In all these cases, the students in question opted for careers they found themselves preferring to being a Professor, so you're right that there's no shame in dropping out of graduate school. However, that doesn't make it true that those seeking to become Professors are extremely likely (i.e., 90%) to fail. The chances are significantly worse for those coming from low ranked programs, but I don't see any program in the top 50 or so that are regularly churning out adjuncts. Ok, sure, many will have to do a post-doc first, but that's not too bad, especially considering that all med-students, for instance, are legally mandated to complete a three year 'post-doc' after graduating (it makes sense to compare a PhD to other professional programs and careers as opposed to some ideal). Maybe all the government officials/think tankers/private sector workers with polsci PhDs were forced into these avenues because they couldn't find TT jobs; this is hard to verify without actually taking a survey, but it does seem very unlikely. All this being said, I think we do all agree that the road is tough and that the academic marketplace is extremely competitive. 'The Realist' has a very good post about this in this forum. Nevertheless, everyone wants to be seen as a 'realist' and uses this as a mask for doom-and-gloom and statements that are simply hyperbolic (90% rate of failure; saying it's the same as being a rockstar, when really it's the same situation that lawyers face).

Well, I'm only being encouraging because what I'm saying is true. Here's something I don't talk about too much: my academics were so bad after high school that I was rejected from attending a four-year university at all, twice (there were other factors involved, but mostly that). Now I've caught up to and surpassed some of my old peers. I personally know of several people who were rejected to all the graduate schools to which they applied, only to be accepted to a bunch of top programs a year or two later. So maybe after I spend a couple years at Binghamton, or wherever, we'll cross paths at MIT, or somewhere, and that's if you still don't get accepted somewhere this time ;~}. There may be plenty of things to complain about in the U.S., but one thing it's still not is a caste system. So, really, don't give up yet.

Don't give up already! Aren't you still waiting to hear back from more places? Even on the off chance that you don't get accepted anywhere, that gives you a year to get a leg up on the competition next year.

I'm not sure, but that might improve the chances for everyone else if you're really certain. There are a few programs I plan on turning down if an offer is made, but I won't tell them until I hear some decision (since I could be rejected from them anyway).

In previous years, 2012 especially, their decisions have been spread out over several days, and I can't believe there would only be five results postings if all the acceptances have been released (also based on previous years). That gives us at least a couple more days to be hopeful.

UCLA? I notice five, but that's still not too many so we should be expecting another wave of acceptances.

Based on your experience, I would say that pursuing a PhD in political science with a focus on China is the best option. I don't think a PhD in Chinese Studies would make you competitive for academic positions and wouldn't be much of a leg up in the type of work you are already doing, whereas a PhD in political science would be a benefit for both. I would look at any departments that have a strong comparative focus on China and with some really prominent China scholars. Harvard, Yale, Stanford, and Columbia are good. Berkeley has O'Brien and Dittmer, and is probably the best option; MIT has Fravel; GWU has Shambaugh; Cornell has Mertha and Carlson; Michigan has several China scholars; UW Madison also might not be a bad choice, since Manion is still there. Any of those would be a great place to get a PhD in political science with a focus on China, and because you have experience they would probably fund your language training.

IR is my subfield too. GWU was my first rejection, but I was actually slightly impressed that they were so quick and professional so it didn't sting too much. Have you been accepted anywhere so far?

Likewise! From what I've personally heard, there isn't much of a preference either way as long as one's record is fairly solid. I know for top sociology programs few are admitted straight from undergrad, but I don't think this is as true for political science--however, I'm sure proving work abilities in relevant fields or, for instance, a master's from a great program is a big boost. I'm sure it's hard to gauge since background of applicants is likely highly variable.

Yep, currently finishing my final semester of undergrad too.

That's definitely something to consider. Right now one of my offers is only 5k more than the others, which is enough to put that on the top of my list (though it also is at least as good a fit for me as the others if not more). I would really only consider taking a substantially smaller offer if the program is significantly better. All your acceptances are at first-rate programs though, so I think it makes sense to take the highest offer unless another really is too good of a match for your plans to pass up.