fakeusername

Congratulations! I applied there early because the app was free before Oct. 31, but I forgot to remind one of my Professors to send in an LOR so I guess it was discarded. At least it wasn't a big loss, then :~P.

As I said, crunching the numbers alone in this case doesn't yield much information unless you really look into each individual case. If you follow the links of the 47 you're counting as graduate students, you'll see that several have actually graduated and been placed; for others, you can just cross reference the names with the placement list to see you're double counting. This also doesn't factor in attrition rate, which for PhDs as a whole is allegedly near 50%. I find the best thing to do -- some departments have this information available, some I've had to ask for it, and others you can get if you know a student at the program -- is to get a list of dissertations from the department in question. Simple: PhDs out compared with placements. Also, most programs have some placements in smaller universities. For instance, in the last few years Princeton has placed graduates in places like Texas Christian University, Eckerd College, and MIT. Also, I only troll about a third of time. I'm sure you can figure out when ;~}.

In some ways, I think the attitude of only getting a PhD to become an academic is self-defeating for the discipline (not necessarily on an individual level). I've noticed quite a few PhDs in political science, especially with the methodological training, getting good and high-paying positions in the private-sector, government, research, etc., and the more graduates pursue this path the more academia has to compete to attract the best candidates. Naturally, if all graduates are pushed into academia it drives wages down further and temporary positions will abound; essentially, political science will suffer the same fate as the humanities. If instead departments better prepare graduates for multiple career paths, it will help those who are seeking alternatives without making them feel less accomplished while at the same time making life better for those who believe taking something of a pay cut is well worth the price of working in academia. Everyone wins.

I think this says it all as succinctly as possible. There are perhaps programs that are ill-suited for every goal for which a PhD is necessary or an advantage, but I think you would have to go pretty far down the list to start encountering them regularly. This is a very composed and prudent outlook for the future. Like many of us, I can be more pessimistic than warranted and as a result have forced myself to adopt a plan B in case it really becomes necessary (i.e., to avoid making 'academic' such a strong part of my identity that I would continually pursue non-TT positions to maintain it). I'm actually sure I would be very happy teaching at a LAC and would greatly prefer that to non-academic alternatives, too.

Right, I do not doubt this significant correlation, and all of the aforementioned studies have also found such a relationship but with several notable exceptions of programs featuring much better placement than their rankings would suggest. I should mention that for me this is really the most salient variable in deciding which program to attend: placement. I applied to Binghamton because their placement is virtually 100%, and in my subfield they have consistently placed graduates at research universities; I chose not to apply to several much higher ranked programs because I was less impressed with their placement records (among other factors). Ultimately, the best way for anyone to determine which program has the best placement for their goals is to compare the department's placement information personally. All of the studies, for instance, [apparently, I could really read them more thoroughly] suffer from some major methodological flaws. They compare placement rates for all departments, but fail to take into consider the various training offered by different departments. Because the job prospects are much worse for political theorists, a department that focuses heavily on political theory will seem to have a much worse placement record than one without any theorists when it is possible that the former has an equal or better placement rate for, say, IR specialists; one has to control for this in any study, but it is just easier to compare the available website data. Also, one of the studies ranks placement success based on the raw number of graduates placed in research universities. Nevertheless, what should be more important is the rate of placement controlling for department size; a small department may place fewer candidates than a larger one, but still have a higher rate of placement. Also, there are numerous other variables that are hard to account for. At the research university that I currently attend, about half of the T and TT faculty come from programs outside the top 30. Really looking into these programs and the CVs of others that graduated there around the same time, it becomes apparent that the less successful candidates either a) focused on topics for which there is less demand or b ) weren't trained as much in advanced methodology--in most cases both were true. All I'm saying is that when considering the best placement it is wise to remember that ranking is but a partial proxy and even the quantitative studies on the matter have several shortcomings; one really needs to adopt a mixed-methods approach, so to speak. I totally understand that academia is hyper competitive and that every edge counts, but political science still hasn't gotten nearly as bad as the humanities or even sociology ;~}.

You occasionally come across as somewhat crass ;~}. Ranking is only roughly correlated with successful academic careers. For instance, according to both the studies on placement in research institutions listed earlier and the NRC, FSU performs better than several top 30 programs, and the more recent study claims that it outperforms NYU. Anyway, my top preference is a position at a research university. I would consider liberal arts and MA granting schools, but at that level I would be more likely to consider a higher paying government or research position.

I'm not really aware of any solid MA programs that regularly provide full funding. However, given your background, why don't you want to apply directly to PhD programs? You would definitely receive funding in that case, and the vast majority of programs require their PhD students to start from scratch when they enter even if they already have an MA from another institution. In other words, you would have to do an MA twice and likely pay something for the first.

Just received an acceptance from MSU, which was unexpected since I noticed that they sent out some acceptances during the end of January. That eases the pain of waking up to a rejection from Northwestern ;~}.

Your stats are way better than mine, and I've been accepted to two programs in the 40-50 range. I wouldn't rule you out of being able to compete for a spot at a top 25 program. Although maybe it's different for public policy PhD programs, I was uncomfortable with the placement records at almost every political science PhD outside of the top 50; initially I was going to apply to a few lower ranked programs, but my adviser recommended against it and I'm glad I took that advice. Also, at the university where I am located now the public policy professors make more on average than the political science professors, and I guess this is to offset the price paid to get an MPA first (i.e., the same reason business professors make more in part because they paid for an MBA before the PhD). That's just one thing to consider if you were undecided about which discipline to pursue, but of course my example is only from one university.

Nothing like a 3am email to make sure everyone starts their day right. Bummer.

Congratulations to those accepted to Duke, TAMU, and UNC! Lots of silence on my end; I must be on a dozen waitlists or something ;~}.

Oh, totally. Every time my email tab hits (1) it becomes a life-or-death emergency; I've spammed and unsubscribed from tons of stuff. Looks like there won't be much going on today though, besides the recent UT Austin acceptances.

I believe that most everyone uses US News. However, you have plenty of time to check out each department individually to see which has the best fit for your interests and to look over their placement history (I skipped anything outside the top 50 or so, but it seems like others barely look beyond the top 10 ;~}).

That might bode well for you, since the link still hasn't appeared on my application page.

Although the trend of graduates from top schools getting better placement is fairly strong, it's not anywhere near deterministic. A recent Ph.D. from a lower ranked program such as UGA or Boulder (or FSU/Bing I hope :~P) with a really strong methods backgrounds has a better chance at getting a decent paying TT position at an R1 than a political theorist from an elite institution. At the middle-to-low ranked research university where I currently study, there's a fairly even divide between graduates from elite institutions and those from the 40-50 range among the junior faculty. However, I would have to agree that the options for a UConn grad look really limited. They actually seem to have a pretty good placement history compared with others in that range (i.e., better than Dallas, UAlbany, Kentucky, and Temple), but they also haven't placed any of their graduates in research universities. For me, that would be the deal breaker; but if your goal is to do teaching in a small liberal arts college then it doesn't seem too bad.

Thanks, and good luck. Guess I'll be getting an email soon, maybe. Edit: Nevermind, I understand now after reading their website. A separate link appears on the application page once a decision has been, or is about to be, made.

Where do you see "no decision"? I don't even see that.

Mine says "Self-reported test scores: received," and there's a note about sending GRE scores (which I did). I agree, though, that you could just send them an email. Most graduate school departments have been good about notifying me if there's something missing.

Thanks! I hope you all get your acceptances sooner rather than later ;~}. I was notified by email. Also, for those few waiting for Binghamton I was told that the decisions would be released between this Friday and next Tuesday.

Accepted to FSU! Totally thought I was going to be rejected since several acceptances were already claimed, and I mentioned wanting to work with Will Moore (among others) even though he is apparently leaving. Huge relief ;~}.

Texas. I checked my app for Penn State, but didn't notice anything. With a reject from Austin and silence from Penn State and UC Irvine (sociology for that one), I hope you are all having a luckier day than I am ;~}.

Yes, on the "My Status" page. From there, I just clicked the "admission" tab and there is a short message and the word "denied" in yellow letters on the sidebar. If you're lucky, though, yours might say something different or nothing at all.

^ No, for UT Austin I checked the website. It also mentions that no further notifications--letters or email I suppose--will be sent out, though maybe this is different for acceptances.

Same here ;~}. Just scrambled to check the online application status, but it doesn't mention anything.

Hi there. Congratulations on the acceptances! I applied to both those programs, but I take the silence as unofficial rejections ;~}. I won't be studying theory and haven't taken much coursework on it, but I do find it incredibly rewarding. Good luck with the rest of the schools.