Tan

The New School obviously should be on the list; I did not mention it because it typically does not give PhD funding. As I said above, you really shouldn't worry that much about whether a school is focused on empirical research or not: As long as it has a strong theory program, it simply won't matter that much whether IR/Comp/American are empirical-heavy or theory-heavy. It might matter down-the-line for when you decide where to go and you might want to look whether faculty in other subfields interest you, but it really shouldn't be something you think about when deciding where to apply. Look at the theory subfield primarily, not the rest - so forget about theory/empirical or quantitative/qualitative divides. You'll have enough to think about in terms of which programs are strong in continental/poststructuralism/radical democratic theory and which have little of that. Any school has a theory program, but many schools are not good fits for the type of theory the OP is talking about. Hard to know what school where you could study these things would be considered a "safety" school. Your best bet is to cast as wide a net as possible. I'm the only one who mentioned UVA, Notre Dame and Duke, for instance: While they might not be the first places that come to mind to study post-structuralism and radical democratic theory, they're still all places that have the reputation of being friendly to continental thought, which means you could do good work along the lines you're looking for there. And based on your interests you really couldn't go wrong with any of the places that the past few people have mentioned. Plus, as readeratsleep said, you have a lot of time to figure out where exactly you're applying. I didn't put my final list together till late October. Take the GREs first, do more research on schools that we haven't mentioned, and then figure it out.

OP, I'm a theory student as well - and interested in similar things as you. For theorists, the divide really isn't about the schools' qualitative/quantitative reputation, which in most places will not impact theory students. Yes, US schools are more quantitative-heavy than European counterparts - but that's not why you'd be going to any department. For instance: Berkeley is known as being strong in qualitative (I believe), but it also has a strong political theory program alone the lines you're talking about (continental/critical theory) AND it requires no quantitative training of its theorists. On the other hand, universities that might have a very strong qualitative reputation might have absolutely no theory. So it seems to me that you might confusing things a bit, and perhaps not realizing that "political science" is a vast amorphous and arguably ill-defined discipline whose fault lines are different from subfield to subfield. In short: forget about asking which schools are strong in quantitative or qualitative - and look which schools (1) have strong political theory, (2) have strong theory in your field ("post-structural theory, radical democratic theory, post-foundational ethics"). Based on those interests (and my presumption that it means you're interested in schools that are strong in continental thought broadly-speaking), the schools you should apply to are: Berkeley, Chicago, Northwestern (particularly strong in democratic theory), Johns Hopkins, Cornell, UVA, Notre Dame, Yale, UCLA. Columbia and Duke are strong programs, but they might or might not best suit your interests, so you should look into them. I'm sure I'm forgetting some programs that are good fits, but that's definitely the main list of schools that are strong in the areas of theory you mention. (If you're more interested in analytic approaches or liberal thought, they'd be many other great schools to consider.) (Your post makes it sound like you might also be interested in comparative politics? In that case your considerations would be different. But since your primary interests definitely seem to be political theory, I think that should dictate your choice.) I went through the same questions this past year, so you can message me if you have more questions. You could also take this to the political theory advice board (https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=21008160&postID=2543568182467160248) and also read past threads there, they're at times useful.

(1) I know a few people who either have or are pursuing JD/PhD joint degrees, so it's doable. But it's more useful to pursue some sort of academia/social activism career than it is if you'd want to work in a law firm, I imagine. (2) This is really the sort of decision that you can't get satisfactory advice for: It's two different lifestyles, priorities, work environments, goals... Hard to do a pro/con list here, it's just qualitatively hard to compare. If you are really undecided, your best bet is to take a few years off, try to get a job related to something you'd want to do in the legal realm and see whether it's interesting to you or whether you'd be happier in academia.

double post sorry

Hard to say without knowing anything more specific about the schools! An important factor might be other departments: If School A has a good crowd of theoretically-minded people outside of Poli Sci, it might be fine that within the department there are few theory-minded people; otherwise, you might not have a big enough community with which to discuss your interest. In School B, if there aren't that many theoretically-inclined people you'd want to work with outside of the PS department, you might end up feeling like you can never expand out of the department... Another factor: You haven't said anything about your fit with the theorists in school B. Why don't you get more specific?

I must have met with at least 13 professors in the 3 schools I visited, and I'd say at least 9-10 of them directly asked me what other schools I was considering. So this seems very common. What was less predictable was professors' reaction - between those who immediately bash the schools you mentioned and those who have a more balanced approach.

I haven't been around the board for a few days, what is "yesterday's incident?"

Yes: It'll be March 11th-12th.

Thanks sunseeker, and certainly don't lose hope for UCLA as these are definitely being sent out by subfield.

I just received a UCLA acceptance as well (can't say I expected to get news from a school on a Saturday)!

Congratulations! I was obviously not doubting your acceptance (I posted that aggressive post on the results page), but there was a loooog list of people claiming Government PhD acceptances yesterday, and I was referring to those. You can enjoy your champagne!

The Columbia acceptances are real, the rejections are not. The Harvard ones are fake as well, it's pretty clear. I don't think anyone has claimed anything, that only happens when it's fake.

Is there any moderator with the power to at some point erase last week's fake Yale-Harvard-Princeton results and today's fake Columbia-Harvard results? While everyone here right now has figured it out, I feel bad for people next year who are going to be totally confused about what's going on.

Someone took the time to post just as many fake Harvard, Princeton and Yale results. Appears he/she still has a lot of time to waste.

The email does contain my name, so from there it's not possible to tell how slowly/fast they're admitting people. (It just came 20 minutes ago.)

I was just admitted to Columbia as well! (E-mail from the DGS)

The department's health in general or the funding packages?

Sorry for all those who're getting bad news. I claimed a Berkeley acceptance last week, but I haven't seen anyone else on this forum accepted there for theory. Anyone?

I think people who apply to theory programs are aware of this though, as in someone who applies for theory at Princeton or NYU is unlikely to also be applying at Northwestern, Cornell and probably Berkeley, and vice-versa.

Yale has not sent out any acceptances yet (don't pay attention to the few admissions posted on the results page, no one on the forum has claimed a Yale acceptance).

Also, and I'm sure you didn't mean any harm by this, but we should probably refrain from saying that some schools are "not that great" as it is bound to hurt those who did get in, those who are planning to go there - not to mention that it is false, at least in the subfield I know about (theory). Those kind of assesments just open the door to uglier discussions than those we've been able to maintain.

I'm sorry to hear that... but don't lose hope! Not just because you could hear from elsewhere, but also because I would be very surprised if Berkeley is done with its acceptances. Compared to other schools, there are few people who have posted Berkeley acceptances so I suspect more are still coming - not to mention they had said the process would last into next week when someone called them on Tuesday.

There is a part of arbitrariness in admissions, things that can't be explained rationally... That said, Northwestern is a very highly ranked school in political theory, definitely in the top 10, especially for critical theory-oriented students.

That said, someone is really having fun, eh? Too bad some people have no other life than trying to make others upset.

As someone who has not applied to Princeton, and thus has no interest in lying to myself: I think we can safely say the Princeton results (and now the Yale results) are fake, so everyone should calm down. When Northwestern had 4 results posted last week, all of them also said who they were on the board; same with other schools I've been keeping track of closely. So the odds of 15 people hearing responses and none posting here? Zero. So every one breath!