The Realist

In the spirit of helping today's applicants, it might be worth contributing a post of your own on what you've learned since starting the PhD program...from a current grad's perspective, what do you wish that you'd known when getting into the process? Of course, you should only do this if you are making solid progress on the diss.

It's hard to give specific advice on this question. Lots of schools are good at IPE, but placement varies pretty widely among even the best programs. I would still recommend choosing a program based on a subfield (like IR or PE) rather than sub-subfield like IPE, but that's splitting some very fine hairs. A choice between UW-M and a school that's excellent but not notably strong in IPE, like Chicago, would be tough. A choice between UW-M and, say, Princeton should be easier to make.

I am a tenured associate prof in political science at a large state university. Around this time in the application season, I can't help but think about all the things that I wish that I had known before entering my PhD program. I posted this several years ago under the screen name "realist" when I first learned about this forum from a senior applying to PhD programs. Two years ago I posted it again. Now it's time for the third generation. I've made a couple small changes from the original version but this is basically the same as what I wrote the two times before. While some of this may be hard to read, I offer it as-is, with only the thought that more knowledge is better than less knowledge. I. Choosing Graduate School Your graduate school choice is probably the most important choice that you'll make in your career. Do not take this lightly. There are many reasons, but they boil down to some uncomfortable truths. The most important one is that only the best departments (say, the top 25) can reliably place students in academic jobs. And even among these "top" departments, less than half can expect to find themselves employed in a tenure-track position within 8 years of matriculation. While there are thousands of colleges in the United States, there are many many many thousand more political science PhDs. 5-7 years is a very long time to spend in a low-paying job (which is what graduate school is) only to realize that you have very little chance for promotion. Is it fair that this is the case? No. Are there very smart graduate students that are not at top departments? Absolutely, there are literally thousands of them. But this is how the world works. And you have no chance to change it from "the inside" unless you are already at a top department. You should also be aware that advisers are fickle beings. Especially outside of the top institutions, they are busy and pressed for time, and they cannot offer you the type of guidance and support that you may believe that you are going to get. I had a very close relationship with a very influential adviser, and saw him for about 10 minutes once every two or three weeks. This is the norm. Do not assume or expect that you will have a different experience (although there is a chance that you will). Moreover, good scholars are often terrible advisers. I think that one of the worst aspects of our profession is that at middle-range departments, top scholars often will not even acknowledge graduate students. You should also be aware that graduate school is an unequal partnership between students, who receive very little and give very much, and faculty, who have many other things to do but rely on students to do things that are in the university's best interests. Graduate students are (1) essentially powerless and (2) extremely cheap labor. Universities have an incentive to keep a lot of graduate students around to fill instructor slots and TAships. This means that they will keep on a lot of graduate students who will never have a chance at a tenure-ladder job. This is a pathological system of incentives, and I find it repugnant, but this is the reality. So what sort of advice does this lead me to give? First off, above and beyond almost anything, you need to go to the best possible graduate school. It doesn't matter if you don't like Ann Arbor as much as Athens or Austin, graduate school matters tremendously for your future ability to get a job. It's not that hiring committees care exclusively about pedigree, although that does indeed matter to many people. Rather, the reason why you need to go to the best possible graduate program is because you need to surround yourselves with the smartest and most motivated students possible, because you will do most of your learning from them. You also need to surround yourself with the faculty who have been judged by the discipline as having the best reputations and connections. Those things are highly, highly correlated with the "rank" of the graduate program. As a corollary, you need to think long and hard about graduate school if you do not have the opportunity to go to a top one. You should understand that even if you do, you may not have a good chance of landing a tenure track job. The ones available to you, moreover, will likely be at "directional institutions" (think Northern X State) or small, low-ranked liberal arts colleges in the middle of nowhere. Even there, you will be competing with Harvard and Berkeley PhDs for a job. It's hard. It's not as hard as English or History, but nevertheless it's really hard. You should know this and plan accordingly. The academic job market has gotten much harder in the four years since I first wrote this. There are thousands of students right now chasing a couple hundred jobs, and every year it gets worse because most people who strike out in one year go back on the job market the next year. Do not assume that the academic job market will get easier in 5-7 years, when you are going onto the job market. First, there will still be a substantial backlog of unplaced PhDs. Second, trends in academia are leading to more adjunct and lecturer positions and fewer tenure-track positions in all but the very best schools (and it's starting to happen there too). The number of tenure track assistant professor positions in political science listed on APSA's eJobs site has dropped from around 700 per year in the early 2000s to about 450 in 2010. I would not still be in academia if I didn't have a tenure-track job. Let's say you don't want to go be professor. Maybe you want to work in a think tank or a political consultancy. OK, fair enough: but in this case, I would recommend against getting a PhD in political science. There is little that you can gain from a PhD in political science that a think tank will find attractive that you cannot also have gotten from a good MPA/MPP/etc. program. Outside of academia, the PhD has little value-added over most professional masters degrees. Given the opportunity cost, the only people who should get PhDs in political science are people who have a passion for college teaching, or those who have a passion for academic research and who are willing to settle for college teaching if the academic research thing doesn't work out. Do not choose graduate school based on one individual who you "want to work with." Instead, you should choose the best program (by subfield) that you can. Why? Let's say that you identify one faculty member whose research interests match yours perfectly. For this to be the person upon whom you rely for your entire PhD course of study, it must be the case that (1) your research interests don't change (which is rare), (2) that your potential adviser is a nice and approachable person (which is about a 50-50 shot to be honest), (3) that your own research is interesting to that potential adviser (which you should not assume, regardless of what is said on recruitment weekend), and (4) that that adviser doesn't leave (which is common, especially for productive faculty at top-50-ish departments). If you chose a program based on that individual and any of these don't work out, you're in trouble. If you've chosen the best program, you'll be OK because there are other options; if you've banked on one faculty member, you're out of luck. You should be flattered by faculty who are nice and approachable during recruitment weekend. But recruitment weekend is not like the other 51 weekends a year. Remember, faculty are approachable during recruitment because you provide them with an unlimited supply of discount labor. They have their own worries and incentives, and these rarely align with yours. Likewise, funding matters. You should not go to graduate school unless you have full fellowships (teaching or otherwise) for five years and a stipend large enough to live on. Without these, graduate school is a long and expensive process with little reward. There is a constant demand for doctors, so doctors can pay for medical school and still come out ahead. $200,000 in debt and only qualified for a very low paying job is a terrible situation that many PhDs find themselves in. It is tempting to think that a potential adviser's kind words mean that you are special. You are special, but so are many many others. Wherever you are, you will likely not even be the smartest or most successful member of your cohort. Do not fool yourself into thinking that you are the one who will buck the trends that I have described. It's just not likely. Finally, I have made a big point about top 25 schools. We all know that Stanford is and Purdue isn't, but what's the definitive list? Simply put, if you have to ask, your school is not in the top 25. And of course subfield matters more than overall ranking. Emory is not a top-25 theory department so think long and hard about going there for theory. JHU is not a top-25 American politics department but it's a different story altogether for political theory. If you need to convince yourself that your program is a top-25 program, it's almost certainly not. II. Your Career If you decide to go to graduate school, congratulations. I mean this sincerely. You are embarking on the most intellectually rewarding period of your life. Of course, intellectually and financially rewarding are not the same, but given this choice, here are some tipcs. The best political scientists are the following five things: smart, creative, diligent, honest, and nice. Smart is obvious. The rest are not. The best political scientists are creative. They look at old problems in new ways, or they find new problems to look at. A good way to land a middling job (or no job) is to find a marginal improvement on an existing estimator, or take lessons from Paraguay and apply them to Uruguay. The best political scientists ask new questions, and they find new things to estimate. The best political scientists are diligent. They think about problems for years and years, they rewrite their draft papers repeatedly, they collect giant datasets from scratch, and they go into the field, learn the language, and stay there until they have learned something. There are no quick research trips, there are no obvious philosophical points, and there are no downloadable datasets left to analyze for easy and quick results. The best political scientists are honest. There are many points at which you might fudge your work: creating a new dataset fromscratch, during fieldwork, in writing up your results. You will be astounded at how frequent this is in our profession. Don't do it, for it always hurts you in the end. Being wrong and honest about it is OK. Being wrong and hiding it never works. Finally, the best political scientists are nice. It is tempting to be prickly to make yourself seem smart or to protect your ego. But the same person you criticize today might be in a position to give you a job tomorrow. As they say, make your words soft and sweet, for you never know when you may have to eat them. ************ I hope this helps you all. I wish you the very best of luck with your careers.

Hard to say. You can get whatever training you want at Berkeley (see: Fearon). You cannot get the broad Berkeley training at NYU or Rochester. Rochester's placement is great. Berkeley's is far more uneven, and the modal Berkeley PhD is not a formal theorist. Don't know about NYU placement because I don't know class size. I also don't know about the funding situation at Berkeley but that would play a central role in any decisions that I would make.

I don't think that there's any evidence that Harvard's placement record is better than the others'. The best Harvard students write their own tickets, but there is maybe one of these each year and they have a very large incoming class. So do the math about what happens to the rest. Stanford's incoming class is smaller, and the evidence of their placement record being superior is not anecdotal. If I'm not mistaken it's the only one of these schools that lists full placement histories on its website. (Could be wrong about that.) No idea if Harvard has perfect yield, but it might. I don't think for one second that Harvard students are "really a cut above the rest" and that the others at other schools just didn't get in there. If you think that, stop, right now, both for your own sanity and for that of your colleagues.

I can't speak for other departments, but we've never done that, at least since I've been here. The acceptance emails go out as soon as we have run the admit list by the full faculty and the deans.

These are all good observations, but I don't consider any of them to amount to a bias. Regarding GREs, we do understand that performing well on them will be more difficult for students who do not speak English as a first language. But we also understand that graduate school will be more challenging for them; if the GREs are that challenging, then graduate school will be too. You are punished no more, and in fact probably a bit less, than a domestic student with similar GRE scores. Regarding foreign universities: From my own experience, I can tell you that if you come from one of the 30 or 40 largest countries in the world--and in addition to that, every country in Europe--we are familiar with your university system and whatever ranking it might have. If you're from Laos we might not be able to rate universities against one another, but very, very rarely do we even encounter an application from a foreign student whose university we are not familiar with. What you also forget is that we do not much care about the name of your university, we care how you did there. We are not wowed by an Oxford degree. We know that first class honors at, say, Bristol is more impressive. We know that many European students attend the local university rather than searching out the "top ranked" one in any particular field. We know that University of Hong Kong is first, CUHK is second, etc. And so on. Regarding letters: we know how to read the signals from foreign universities. We know that LoRs from England are really short, and those from the US are really long. We can factor all of this in.

I've posted here before with my thoughts about choosing graduate school. Seeing how so many of you are in the middle of this supremely stressful time, agonizing over admissions and deciding where to go, I thought that I would let you all have some insight into what the process looks like from the perspective of an admissions committee member. I do this for three reasons. First, some of you could use the distraction. Second, many of you are facing the prospect of asking "why was I denied at school X" and should know how difficult this process is. Third, this is the first time that I've served on an admissions committee and I frankly was surprised at how hard this was, so now that it's all over I want to record my own thoughts. Some background: I am an associate prof at a large department that is somewhere in the 20-40 range. We're good, not great, and we place our students fairly well. We admit an average sized class for schools at our rank. We have somewhere between 30 and 40 times as many complete applications as we have spots in our program. Another 50-75 every year are incomplete (missing GRE scores, something like that). We do not hold it against you if you are missing one of your letters of recommendation, but if you are missing more than one your files goes into the incomplete pile and is not reviewed. From there, the process works like this. Every candidate who submits a complete application is given an anonymous number. We then do an initial pass through the applications to eliminate students who are simply unqualified based on test scores. The bar for this is very, very low, but if you cannot score at least a 100 on your TOEFL and a 500 on each of your GRE sections you are eliminated at the very beginning. This doesn't cut a lot of people, but it does have the benefit of eliminating students whose English or basic math skills are not up to snuff. From there, the files are divided randomly into piles, which are divided up across the members of the admissions committee without regard to subfield or anything like that. Each file is read carefully by a committee member and assigned a numerical score from 1-10. Anyone who receives a "1" at this stage is automatically forwarded to the final round. The remaining files that receive a 2-10 ranking are then given to another member of the search committee, who re-reads them and rescores them. Any file that receives a "1" in this second stage is automatically forwarded to the final round. The remaining files from this stage (meaning that they received "2" or lower on both initial reviews) are then divided up based on subfield and given to the member of the admissions committee who represents that subfield. That committee member then ranks the files a final time. Any student that receives a "1" or a "2" at this penultimate stage makes it to the final round, regardless of the earlier scores from the first two reviews. The point of doing it this way is to ensure that we give every student a fair shake. Each student receives a close read from three separate faculty members, each of whom can advance a student to the final round. We end up with around four times as many files in final round as we have available spots. Each committee member then ranks these students, and we have a big meeting where we decide who to admit and to waitlist out of this group. We then bring our proposal to the subfield representatives who are *not* on the search committee, and they have the ability to lobby for different choices from the final round (although they tend not to do this). From there, the department votes on the proposed list of admits and waitlisters. *********** So that is how the process works in terms of procedures. I suppose that all of you are probably wondering how we decide who gets one of the 1s. The answer is that it is supremely difficult to do this. We make mistakes, I am sure of it. Our goal is to find people--and this is important, so read carefully--who can successfully complete our program and secure a tenure-track job. That is the outcome that we are trying to achieve; we are not trying to admit the smartest, the most unique, or even the most interesting students (although we do want these people too!). It's possible that other departments that care less about placement are more interested in just admitting smart people, and I bet that for schools like Harvard and Princeton, that's probably true. But for us, we want students who will succeed. The challenge is that it is really difficult for us to tell what kind of applicant will be able to do this. We know that you will have to be bright, you will have to be creative, and you will have to be highly motivated. But trust me, anyone who has gone through a PhD can tell you, it's not like anything you've ever done before. Unless you already have a PhD, there's nothing that you could write in your application that will convince us that without a doubt you've got the chops. We have to make a bet based on imperfect information (and in fact, we probably are facing a game of incomplete information too, at least about your own objectives). It takes a special kind of person to do this, and I'm not certain how much we learn from pedigree, letters, grades, and test scores, but that's what we have. What I can say for sure is that even if we only based our decision on pedigree, letters, grades, and test scores, that wouldn't be enough to whittle down our choices to a manageable number. We are dealing with a massive oversupply of qualified candidates. In my first round alone, at least 20 students were Ivy League grads with 3.7+ GPAs, 700+/700+ GREs, and glowing letters. We could have populated an incoming class with these alone, yet each other admissions committee member probably had the same number of people with similar backgrounds. Then you dig deeper and you realize the number of people with incredible life experiences, great grades, great letters, and all the rest, but from other schools. Or they have great writing samples that make it clear that they know what a political science PhD is all about, even if they don't have the very best grades. Or you get a student who has worked two jobs to pay for an education at a regional state university, someone whose drive and motivation clearly signals his/her ability to bring a project to completion even if s/he does not have the best pedigree. Or someone who's at the top of her class at a top-rank Indian university. I could go on. There are simply too many of these people for us to admit all of them. So what does it come down to? At the end of the day, it's seemingly minor things like "fit," or "interest," or "promise." Most of these are beyond your control as applicant. If you don't seem to have a good idea of what graduate school is all about--many applicants, unfortunately, do not--you don't make it. If you make a big deal about how you want to work with Professor X, and Professor X is considering a move to a different department, we don't accept you. If your writing sample doesn't show that you can express yourself clearly, there is little hope for your application. If your application emphasizes grade/scores/letters/pedigree, but doesn't convince us that you have what it takes to succeed in the PhD, you're not going to be admitted. If you've gone straight through from undergrad, without the sort of life experiences that convince us that you know why you want to go to get an advanced degree, the bar is a lot higher (but not insurmountable). And these are very fine distinctions, and again, we definitely make mistakes. There are two things that you should take away from this. The first is that, at least this year, admission to my department (admittedly, not the best one) was fiercely competitive. Unbelievably so. I have never served on an admissions committee before (my department only allows tenured professors to be on this committee) but I get the impression that it's gotten much harder since I got my PhD. The second is that you should not sweat it if you don't make into the departments of your dreams. I'd say that at least 80% of the total applicants in our pool this year were plausible candidates for admission, meaning that I would have been happy to admit them. We end up making a lot of hard choices based on imperfect signals of future professional performance, and to reiterate once more, we definitely make mistakes. Nothing makes me more frustrated than when we admit a dud (it happens). I am always happy to see a student who didn't make it into our department succeed somewhere else. Best of luck to you all.

This is just untrue. That sort of preparation is unnecessary. I expect PhD applicants to have taken calculus to the level of AP Calc, first semester college-level stuff, and a class or two in applied statistics. Most of the results that we work with in political science require little more than what you would know from those classes, and the rest you can learn in graduate school (that's what graduate school is for). If you expect to make fundamental discoveries in statistical methods or pure game theory, then perhaps you need more preparation, but I don't think so, and that only describes less than 1% of all political scientists. The idea that you have to double major in math or take all of these classes is just a way to scare prospective students. Prospective students, listen: this advice is just utterly wrong. Even if you want to do quantitative work in quantitative-heavy fields, this advice is wrong. That's not to say that logical and/or mathematical reasoning is irrelevant to your preparation. It is not. But you can demonstrate that many ways: a major or minor in econ, substantial coursework in analytical philosophy or computer science or engineering/physics, a good senior thesis, many different ways. It's just nonsense that students of a human science need a course in topology as undergraduates.

International students are still very competitive at top programs. This has not changed one bit in the past decade and it is unlikely to change any time soon. Regarding your own situation, if what you say is true (1. you are applying to a top school, 2. you are applying to do IPE, and 3. you went to a top tier school in Korea, which means one of the SKY schools) then you need not worry about people not knowing your undergrad institution or its quality.

I would advise you against this. Unless you have a specific question I'm not sure what you could gain by contacting one of us. We don't have the time, nor the inclination, to chit chat. If your file is strong, you will get a good look. If you file is weak, a phone call or an email will not help. Hope this helps, and best of luck.

It's a question of the skill-set that most Canadian PhDs bring, which in most cases is not insufficient to compete with the majority of American applicants. Students tend not to have any quantitative training, and the qualitative training they have is usually post-positivist. The consequence is that Canadian PhDs are in competition with American PhDs only for jobs that are open to post-positivist scholars, and there are plenty of such scholars from American universities too...but the American PhDs tend to be better trained in standard qualitative and quantitative approaches as well as post-positivist research methods. So, the room for Canadian PhDs is pretty small. Canadian PhDs are also rarely prepared properly to navigate the ins and outs of the US job market, so many do not know how it works, and fail to land interviews. I will add that there are certainly some exceptions to these patterns, but as always, do not plan on being an exception. My sense is that theorists from Canada can do a bit better.

I tend to believe that if you want at all to teach in the US, then the opportunity costs of going back to the US for two more years on the way to the PhD are absolutely worth it.

This is a really difficult question. Are you looking to get a job in the United States? Because if so, British (and European more broadly) PhDs are on the whole not worth a lot. The exceptions are Oxford and Essex, but even though these schools can place people in the US, it's pretty rare. The same goes for Canadian PhDs. Different story if you want a job in Canada or the UK, but I don't know enough about that to comment on it knowledgeably.

If that's what you want, then any school that has a program in normative political theory will fit. (Just about every school does.) But the type of political theory that you seem to be interested in does indeed fit well at Cornell, Chicago, Northwestern, and Berkeley. Also Hopkins. For a lower ranked school think the schools in NY that are not Columbia or NYU (CUNY, New School, etc.).