southerngent

Just a friendly note to say "be careful" about referencing the USNWR rankings too exactly. I think that practice is fine at the top end -- I would still say that the top 10-15 schools are roughly the same ones -- but these rankings are both a bit outdated and (as someone has said) aren't based on any kind of metrics beyond peer review, per se. Not that they shouldn't be trusted, but they are not perfect measures of what you all are interested in. My advice -- (ok, so this might be a moot point at this stage, but...) If anyone is interested in a school that is "lower" on USNWR than they'd like (whether it be 25th, 50th or 75th), you should also take time to cross reference with other rankings lists. I would specifically suggest NRC for political science and ARWU for social sciences, as these will better proxy for placement, faculty track record and (in the case of ARWU) both intellectual and programmatic resources. If you do this, you'll notice that some institutions noticeably drop down the lists (Georgetown, UVa, etc.) while other schools more broadly outperform USNWR in things like placement and overall programmatic experience (Syracuse, USC, GMU and even places like LSU or Mizzou). This is not an endorsement or critique of any of these programs, but rather a reminder that the full picture is out there beyond USNWR.

Disclaimer: nothing talked about here includes the dissertation. Having an awesome topic and a killer product on that front is critical.... Seven were single author, one coauthored. I've since had two more single authored and one more coauthored (during my first year) that were in process during my last year in the program. If you were in my subfield, you would definitely have heard of every journal. Likely the same if you are just a political scientist, honestly. No odd ones. Three were big "brand name" outlets (top of the second tier known for specific kinds of work) and two others are "top" (meaning something like ISQ, WP, CPS, IO, etc.). One each solo and coauthored for the "top" ones. First of all, I think that successfully publishing this much is something that many, but not all people will want to do. Remember that you want a balanced portfolio that is biased towards what you want to do. With that in mind, I think that the first step involved is to familiarize yourself with what the journals you want to publish in look like and to make the cognitive connection to what is required to produce the research necessary for pieces in such places. Then, as a completely separate exercise, think about what you'd like to do after graduate school and consider what might be needed to get there in terms of a portfolio. It's not a bad idea to put that on to paper here in the form of a fantasy CV. The point in doing this is twofold. First, it is a bit inspirational. You can't imagine how good it is to feel when you actually get to update your real CV to make it look much more like your "plan" version. Second, and more importantly, it allows you to make a strategic plan. How long will it take for each in terms of research, writing and then submission timeline? What is needed to do it in the next two or three years? If you make a pretty good plan for yourself, then you'll be able to get more disciplined and ultimately achieve your goals. Just break everything down into doable tasks and proceed a little at a time. This makes it easier to be productive and to get the most out of your new "job" (which absolutely is what grad school is, so definitely treat it as such!). That is obviously all organizational advice. I assume in all of this that you are receiving appropriate methodological training and that you know generally what your interests are. In terms of your own field of research, I would advise that hypothesis testing papers, review articles (which do count for less) and new data introductions are the lowest and easiest fruits to grab. In IR, I would say that you might extend this to qualitative analyses of a particular topic, but only for some journals (SS, EJIR, JSS, etc. at the high end, maybe RIS). You don't have to know what your papers will be about while you make your X year plan, but surveying journals (and the CVs of careers you want to emulate) should help you get ideas for possible projects. With regards to publishing with faculty, you should take all opportunities to network and start projects. Towards the end of your PhD, this might even extend to collaborations with particular faculty in your field of study (but not at your university). This is great. Put yourself out on a limb and just ask if faculty would like to work with you on a project/idea you've had. My only warning for you is that the expectation that PhD student publications largely rest on faculty coauthorship is a limiting one. Certainly, you want and (to a degree) need explicitly faculty buy-in to your growth as a scholar. But proceed with your own plans regardless of what your situation is. Never rely solely on others. For you specifically, wb3060, I would say that you are on a good track. I sent my first manuscript out in my second year also. I just sort of never looked back and it snowballed a bit. Also be aware that the expectations for different institutions are very different. My background is overkill for a ton of universities, but it also made me credible and competitive for big schools with an emphasis on research. If you want non-academic government or other job, then journal publications are probably not what you need to focus on. Perhaps do a few papers for policy-heavy outlets and focus on reports.

You mean your chances of landing at a 4-4 from a school ranked between, say, 45-65? Yea, I'd say that your chances are reasonable enough. The fact that you want that kind of professorial experience for your career nicely sets you apart from others that look down upon that high of a teaching load to be honest. But you definitely need to put in the work still to make sure you get where you want to go. Two pieces of advice. First, teach everything you can. Those places value teaching and someone who has adjuncted, taught in their own department or taught a few CC level courses will stand out for them. Worst case scenario, you take a visiting position for a couple of years teaching until the right TT gig sticks. Second, reach out to specific schools you are interested in working at at the appropriate juncture (i.e. probably the season just before you go on the market) to put yourself on people's radar. And yes, in short, teaching your own course is better than TAships and TAships are better than nothing. Again, this is at all but the more highly ranked places (top 20-30 maybe) where teaching gets short shrift. But please, don't take this to mean that you can neglect research and publications. You are getting a research degree for one thing. For another, the goal is to have an extremely well balanced portfolio that only overdoes it on the really important parts. I'll let you decide which parts those are, as it depends on your career goals.

Oh, and to anticipate a follow-up question....I accepted one of the Polisci programs ranked in the 50s. The reasons? I eventually realized I had poor fit with the ones in the 30s. One of those wasn't my fault (two professors were leaving for other locations my application year) and one was. I went about questioning the other programs about placement and training and so on, decided that what I really wanted was a 3-2/3-3 type of research-oriented gig, and chose appropriately. I actually can't emphasize how much fit seemed to matter for me. There were two professors that really wanted me to come, the school was famous for its programs in data sciences and stats (outside of polisci), and the attitude about my career trajectory seemed right.

I applied to ten programs. I received five acceptances and was placed on the wait list at two other programs. If you want to know rankings, I was accepted at programs ranked in the mid 30s (two of them), low 50s (two of them) and low 60s (one). I was also accepted to a Public Policy PhD program (not counted in the original ten) ranked around 30. I chose to go Political Science because it was where my interests lay (over what a PP degree could do for me). I got interested in political science in undergrad (a SLAC with one of the better programs in the country) and my interest in studying world politics in my area only deepened when I left undergrad to do internships and basic RA-style positions in think tanks. Did an MA and decided that the PhD was for me. Also, the lifestyle of a professor, if you can make it, is attractive for my wife and I.

I'm a little unclear as to what you are asking with your first questions. I think you'll find that most of the first several dozen programs on any of the rankings lists have largely got great faculty and differing varieties of support for both students and professors. There are also inevitably a few deadweight faculty at most places and certainly students that come out not representative of the training they've received. I think you'll also find that some of the better places for student support are not top ranked programs. This is perhaps most particularly true of those programs ranked in the 15-35 range. I have many friends at these programs (I also chose not to go to two that I was accepted to) and many suffer from cultures that emphasize competition with the truly tippity-top program (CHYMPS) at the expense of realistic research and publication strategies. Faculty at lower ranked (I'd say 40-65/70) schools often have a more realistic view of job prospects and work well with those students as a result of this. If you are simply asking what makes a program more highly ranked, then I'd direct you to the methodologies of most of the main ranking efforts. The most commonly cited one is not particularly rigorous and actually invites the conclusion that "expected" performance by departments drives their consistent ranking. Anyway, that's a discussion for another time. I'm certainly not saying that top ranked programs are worthless. Exactly the opposite. But there are disadvantages to consider and there are strategies that can easily take you where you need to go from "middling" ranked places. You really need to just consider all the inputs. Look at how rankings are generated and do your own research on who actually gets jobs. You'll find that rank is one of several main explanatory variables involved and rarely the most important one once you get to the interview stage on the job market. Again, publication and interesting research (and teaching experience in some places) are paramount. I think I'm one of the better placements in the past couple of years, but only in terms of the exact type of institution I landed at. In terms of TT jobs, I am not particularly unusual. We get about 70% of our graduates in such positions (LACs, R2s, directionals) within the first two years post-PhD, and that isn't differentiating between those that want academic jobs vs. not. One guy wanted an alt-academic job and he went straight to director of somesuchthing at a northeastern school. Another is a consultant in Cali, where he's from.

Since posting on another thread about some misperceptions re: the importance of hard work/passion vs. pedigree in our field, I've had a number of private message requests for me to do an AMA. You can look to the other thread to see what I said about my background here but, briefly, I'm a new assistant professor at a recognizable large state school that values research and teaching both. I made it here "despite" coming from a US program ranked ~50-65. Others in my cohort and those before me have made similar leaps to Ivy League postdocs and TT gigs at LACs, choice directionals in their home regions, R2s and even two R1s. The bottom line of my last post was that hard work and self-starterishness with a good dash of strategic planning can totally get you where you need to go. Only a tiny handful of programs might get you in the door of a TT gig after the PhD without significant progress on research (read: publications, the coin of the realm) and a good background of other skills, and so this is a lesson anybody at any program anywhere needs to pay attention to. Regardless, since many of you are applying and making final decisions about where to apply/go, I'm here to answer any questions you might have about how I chose my program, the course through a middling (in terms of ranking) program, publishing while in such a program, networking or appearing attractive for TT gigs with this profile. AMA!

I also want to underline this. I couldn't agree more. Competition (in any meaningful sense) is not primarily with others in your cohort but with others in the field in general. Success will almost never be the direct result of only outperforming others in your department, particularly if your cohort happens to be a meh one. Measure yourself against others in the field at your level or just above and craft your strategies around competition (collegial competition, mind) with them. Did they publish in ISQ? Well look at their available project work and how they went about doing it....aaaaaaand mimic (with your own research, of course). Conferences can also bring some of the most important connections you have. I had a job interview in my fourth year (I was in my fifth as an ABD when I got my current job, so one year before that) because I met an associate professor from a regional school at a conference who remembered my background a few months later. Great experience, even if the job ultimately went elsewhere.

I'd say that most people responding on this thread since yesterday have it roughly right. There are a mixture of things that go into getting a TT position from any rank-level program and disciplined hard work is a massive (probably the biggest) part of it. Hard work, of course, entails figuring out what strategy is likely to work getting you where you want to go from where you are, executing that strategy in publishing and teaching terms, and networking/being collegial at every step. Cooperstreet's post about luck perturbs me somewhat, as have other posts made in the same vein. I didn't mention luck of any kind, so don't assume that plays a big part. I had two offers for PhD programs around rank 30 (locations not ideal, but still) and decided that I could do better with networking and building my portfolio at my lower program. I then worked my ass off and the results of myself and others that have (roughly) shared my profile on the market (as well as my route through grad school, where I didn't come in with pre-existing relationships or many skills) certainly don't suggest a noticeable degree of luck. Notcoachjrc makes a great point about potential selection bias with my experience and those at my school, of course, and it should be noted that I'm not saying possible prospects means an easy path. You have to work at it. The other thing that gets me about cooperstreet's comment and others like it is that its a relatively limited way to interpret data. Saying "[t]he data do not lie" is fine, but you are attributing a lot to one explanatory variable. Why not look past numbers and try for some theory, eh? While other data about work ethic, networking skills, SC behavioral tendencies, etc. might be hard to come by and easy to discount, you shouldn't discount the fact that this is just a job market. Merit has value and hiring is made via a range of SC decision-making paradigms, much of which has nothing to do with pedigree once you move past the top 60 PhD granting R1s. Citing the pedigree correlation, regardless of whether its a good idea or not, is simply not good practice for you as a potential applicant in future markets. Try to do some research and get a more nuanced idea of what actually breeds success and I think you'd find that there are common factors that matter across all programs. I'd argue that focusing on these is more important than worrying about the difference between ranks 10 and 18, 15 and 27, or 38 and 51. SCs certainly care about who you've become and what you've accomplished more than what school you were able to get into 5 years ago. Also try to remember that most professional grad-school-to-chosen-career job markets look like this. Percentages of folk getting the specific job they trained for out of law school, public policy school or in the sciences are pretty much the same as the 30% TT number. If academia wasn't as hung up about the TT status (arguably for good reason, sure), the market wouldn't be near as scary looking.

Sure thing. And, though perhaps another thread would be a better forum for this, I'm happy if you want to AMA. Don't get me wrong, going to a top program and wanting a top job is a legitimate thing to do. Maybe even a slight majority of the people that find this part of GradCafe are in that vein. But it isn't representative of the job market in its entirety and it doesn't mean that you can't be an awesome contributor to the field at a good university through teaching and research. Yes, the job market is hard, but discipline and hard work can get you where you want to go from almost any program (which is ultimately that awesome professorial lifestyle/career, right?). Just be strategic.

^ Yea, Grad-SchoolTruther is correct. This whole thread is ridiculous without some clarification. It entirely has to do with the fight for top research university jobs by those people in top (and middling, which is where more of the angst actually comes from) programs and says nothing about the reality of the job market for other (read: most) universities (R2s, LACs, some SLACs, directionals, professional schools, public policy schools, and even some low-end R1s). To clarify, I just graduated from a US program ranked 55-65 (last May). I just had my first semester as a TT AP at a regional R2 (meaning one of a couple of large state universities in this state, 2-3 load, some funding, reasonable tenure requirements, etc.). It was great. I came out of my program with a well-balanced portfolio of two courses taught as instructor (and a bunch of TAing), 8 peer-reviewed articles (mostly second tier, only one in a "top" journal) and an interesting dissertation project. I just wanted to find a good professorial TT job at a university that was solid in a place I actually might want to live. I reached out to some department chairs in my final year because of personal interest in regional schools. Got positive responses even when there was no opening. People appreciate your interest. Tailored my letters everywhere else to demonstrate my fit potential and flexibility to be a good scholar-teacher that would be invested in the department/students. Got 6 interviews, 4 fly-outs, 2 offers. The other was an R1 (public policy PhD program), but in a place my spouse couldn't really deal with. Also got a VAP offer early on that I declined. The bottom line is that you can do absolutely fine from a lower (or possibly even unranked) program. I know my article count was high coming out of grad school....and I planned on it being that way. Seriously, my profile was 3 years of planning and executing to the best of my ability. Another graduate colleague of mine performed similarly with much less under his/her belt and is at a great LAC in his/her hometown now. Just realize that if you want a job at a decent university (i.e. your priorities are different from these chest-blowers obsessed with prestige) you need to be a self-starter and build the profile that sells!