buckinghamubadger

And UCSD too seems like they're getting ready to announce too. Has GWU sent out acceptances or just rejections?

So far in the likely to come next week column I have: Texas Northwestern Colorado Washington Arizona State UCI The Bulk of Stony Brook And possibly more from Rice, Ohio State and Penn State In the wouldn't be surprising, but not exceedingly likely column: WashU Princeton Michigan Harvard Next week could be a really big one.

I think the hardest part about this part of the cycle is that in three weeks time a lot of us will know mostly everything. I expect to hear from at least six of the nine schools I'm still waiting on in that timeframe. Three weeks usually seems like no time at all, but right now it feels like an eternity. Also it was nice when we were only seeing acceptances, but now that we're seeing rejections, that just makes me more anxious.

@csantamir, It looks like IU typically decides in the 2nd or 3rd week of Feb. Notre Dame and Virgina each seem have 'slow drip' admissions processes. I estimate each may start making decisions the week after next and continue doing so until mid to late march

Oh and one other thing: I don't know if anyone else applied to Brandeis, but I know for a fact that the admissions committee has not met yet. We'll probably be waiting on that one for quite some time.

@sfirus93 no problem. UT, Northwestern and CU Boulder should start to trickle in any day now (in fact UT might already have a result or two). It also sounds like there are more OSU and Stony Brook decisions coming soon. I don't know anything about Penn State or Arizona, but its possible that they will have more decisions Looking at decision dates last year, I noticed that it would not be out of the ordinary for any of the three top 20s I applied to (WashU, Princeton, Michigan) to announce next week. WUSTL tends to be Late January/Early February pretty regularly. Some years UMich and Princeton announce in late Jan/early Feb, some years they wait until late-mid Feb, so it's hard to get a read on those two. UCI is also likely to announce some decisions and conduct interviews next week or the one after. If there is particular interest in a set of schools, I can look into it. I'd like to post something of a forecast by weekends end to help ease (or heighten) anyone's anxiety

@meteora I have heard that some schools tend to accept their top choices first and then wait and see if they decide to go before sending out other acceptances. In the past it looks like Illinois has accepted people late in the cycle, which may be indicative of them doing this, but it's also possible those were people who were initially waitlisted. So it's tough to say, but possible that they are not done yet. Also it's possible that AP got released first and other subfields will come later it you're in a different subfield. I certainly wouldn't assume rejection yet.

@sfirus93 I said WashU might announce next week based on history and their FAQ page. Is there other info that says that it might be out tomorrow?

I'm kind of surprised there was nothing from CU Boulder today. Historically it's usually today or tomorrow that they start announcing. On another note, based on history and their FAQ page,and I would not be surprised in the slightest if WashU announced next week. (Crosses fingers, knocks on wood)

Depending on your specific interests, WashU might be a good fit for you: (https://english.wustl.edu/browse) "Scholars in the English department approach the study of gender and sexuality from the perspectives of history, theory, biography, psychoanalysis, and global politics. We work in periods from the medieval to the contemporary; in genres including poetry, drama, the novel, and film; and in American, British, Irish, and European contexts. Our teaching and research cover a range of topics: medieval women’s writing, premodern sexualities, early modern women’s labor and commodity consumption, life writing, histories of second-wave feminism, the “traffic in women,” housework, feminism and globalization, theories of embodiment, and sexual difference. We are closely associated with the program in Women, Gender, and Sexuality Studies, and many of our graduate students choose to pursue certificates in this field."

@megabee, how important is funding to you? To me it's one of the most important factors to the extent that I'd be willing to go somewhere that is less prestigious in order to ensure that I'll be making a decent living wage, I really don't want to end up at one of these places that throws you 15K to live in a high cost of living area. If it's that important to you, I think it's fair game to ask now. If you'd take an offer from somewhere in spite of bad funding because it's a better program, I'd keep my mouth shut.

Sorry about that. I'll stick to the topics at hand. I just got caught up in the heat of the discussion.

On the subject of admissions decisions coming this week, the University of Colorado Boulder tends to release some decisions Wednesday or Thursday of this week with more to follow in Feb. Though they have not always followed this trend (they may start next week), we might begin to hear stuff from them in the next couple weeks. Not sure if I am the only one who applied.

@BigTenPoliSci I am sorry that so many in your program found themselves in that situation. It is a real shame and I wish you the best. But in all reality, there are top 20 programs where it is almost just as bad. For every 18 grads, my numbers show that only 5.4 got a TT job from UCLA, 6.5 from Northwestern and 6.8 from Penn. In other words your cohort probably looks just like some of theirs over the past five to six years. Point is that the solution isn't to put blind faith in a ranking system run by people who stand directly to profit from creating a perception of greater competition.

@BigTenPoliSci, I'm sorry that so many in your found themselves in that situation. I really

Here is the page that shows 5 year placement at Notre Dame: https://graduateschool.nd.edu/departments-and-programs/ph-d-programs/political-science/placement-history/ Here is the one showing Michigan's five year placement: https://tableau.dsc.umich.edu/t/UM-Public/views/RackhamDoctoralProgramStatistics/ProgramStatistics?:embed=y&:showAppBanner=false&:showShareOptions=true&:display_count=no&:showVizHome=no&FOSDParameter=All+Rackham Note the marginal difference. Also Oprisko et al don't control for program size. Of course Princeton places more people than WashU. It has over 100 students while WUSTL only has like 30. If you look at the placement efficiency ratings on that very study you see that the story isn't so clean. No one is disputing that CHYMPS are the best programs, just that there isn't a magic number where you can draw the line. These things are a lot more fluid and nuanced than top 20 or bust.

@BobBobBob I'd take a 25 percent better chance at getting any TT job than a better chance at getting an R1. USChas placed 9 of it's 11 grads over the past two years in TT Jobs, and an additional one in a non-TT WashU has placed 13 of 14 in the past three years at TT jobs. Princeton over the past six years has placed about 47 percent of it's grads in TTs and 88 percent in either TT or non-TT. NYU is 53 percent TT, 86 percent total.

But Michigan and Note Dame actually have very detailed data on their grads posted somewhere. I'll link it when I find it.

I'm talking about both TT placement and TT+Non-TT placement I looked at both and the trends still hold

Let me actually break down this whole top 20 absurdity. Of the places that keep detailed info on placement Michigan (#4) places 60 percent of it's PhDs in TT jobs after 5 years, Notre Dame (#37) places 53 percent. Is Michigan still a better program, probably, but would I advise someone not to go to Notre Dame because it's not in the big bad top 20. No! In fact it makes relatively little difference. When I was applying I analyzed placement rate by looking at the number of placements over the last six years and dividing it by the number of grad students currently in the program and guess what? I decided not to apply to Penn (#19), Northwestern (#19) or UCLA (#12) because of how poor their placement record was. You know what schools placed more of their grade than these programs? Colorado (#40), Washington (#33), Notre Dame (#37), Virginia (#37), Stony Brook (#29), USC (#51), Brandeis (#81). And we're not just talking about small differences that could be explained by reporting errors, we are talking about 20 to 40 point swings. USC (#51) and WashU (#19) have recently placed better than Princeton (#3) and NYU (#12). Brandeis and Stony Brook are top notch programs that don't get the love they deserve. So believe in the top 20 if that's the best measure you can use, but do your homework before claiming it's the 'be-all-end-all'

@sfirus93 I think you're absolutely right, and I think universities should make more of an effort to make this data more readily available. Nonetheless, I think looking at departments placement pages (which are admittedly flawed) will give you a better sense of how good the program is than the US News rankings

Two questions that may matter more than where you went to school are: what have you published and what have you taught?

@Salve, I advise everyone not to get too caught up in the rankings. There are some great programs that are not listed: UNC, Washington, Stony Brook, Brandeis, USC, Texas, just to name a few. People still get jobs from these departments. Heck, some people rank Brandeis as low as 80-something, but they still a place higher portion of their PhDs than UCLA. It is important to remember that the rankings are a short cut. It is the burden of the person applying to determine whether or not the program in question meets their standards. Don't let US News dictate what programs are right for you. Do your own research and decide whether or not these programs fit your goals. The hierarchy is real, but it's not the be-all-end-all that some will have you believe. There are people who graduate from Michigan or Harvard who don't get jobs and some people who graduate from North Texas or Illinois-Chicago who do. There's a clear top six. The top 10 or 20 or 25 or 30 seems to be something of a myth. Just make sure you're going somewhere that places people and do the best you can.

So University of Washington apparently sent out interview requests today and I didn't get one. I'm wondering if I should be worried. I am unlikely to go to Washington because of funding reasons (living in Seattle on 20K a year does not sound fun), and I already have another offer at Missouri (with roughly the same funding to live in Columbia where my dollars would go about twice as far), but I'm worried that it could be indicative of bad news to come. If I can't get into Washington (where I am a good fit by the way) what chance do I have at Michigan, Princeton and WashU? It's probably irrational, as my professors in my MA program stressed to me that there is a lot of randomness in the process, but I can't help but feel a little worried. I'd happily go to Mizzou, but I hope to get other offers and see what else is on the table.

Also, what subfield are you in?