Rockerika

I apologize in advance if any of this sounds like the griping of a big ego or someone whining about the consequences of their odd situation. My intention here is advice and insight from other grads on my genuine reflections on my recent career, not to brag or be a pompous ass who doesn't appreciate what he's got. I also appreciate that in many ways, my problems are created by my inability to get into particular programs given the tight admissions climate and my own profile. I am a doctoral student in a small state political science program. I am reasonably confident that I will be able to find a teaching job after completion, as this program is specifically targeted towards producing PhD holders that are attractive to teaching focused schools with a broad approach and pedagogy requirements. I also have an MA, meaning when I finish this program I will have been in grad school for six years, with adjuncting experience in between and on top of my studies. I am about to comp for the second time in American, Comparative, International Relations, and Political Theory, after which I am ABD. I am confident I will be able to pass comps, assuming I can get through the American section. My passion is history and philosophy of politics, especially surrounding technology and how it relates to power in society. The primary reason I'm still in political science as a discipline has more to do with job prospects vs. history or philosophy programs than actually identifying with the mainstream of political science. I care a lot more about teaching than I do research, which I really see the same way as many faculty do about teaching, being something required by the job but not my forte. That being said, I do intend to go for a 4 year school as I really like the collegiality of having a program and seniors vs. the more temporal way community college teaching can be. The problem I am running into is that I don't really feel like I've been intellectually challenged or forced to grow since I was an undergrad and had a more diverse and rigorous experience that inspired me to follow this path. As an undergrad I took courses that were very broad in terms of the diversity, but narrow in terms of the detail and rigor (I took classes specifically about Machiavelli and the Transcontinental Railroad, for examples). Graduate school is supposed to allow you to get that depth on a narrow topic, but I haven't really gotten to experience that in either program. To be a bit egotistical and perhaps a bit hyperbolic, I think seniors from my undergraduate time could eat a lot of my fellow grad students for lunch in a seminar. Both grad programs I've attended had only one theorist that teach only survey courses at grad and undergrad levels, both late in their career (my current advisor is retiring this year). I've recently begun pivoting my possible dissertation topics towards comparative politics with another professor, but can't help but look at the path this will go down as underwhelming. Frankly, on the theoretical end there isn't any way at my current institution that I can do the highly abstract philosophical work I'd like to do, simply because I don't think there is anyone in the department in a position to help on that end. That isn't a backhanded slight, just the reality. Next year there will only be three faculty in the whole department that aren't Americanists of some stripe. I get along with them and have an article in the works with the two behaviorists, but this year they've seemed distant for some reason, and I wonder if it is because I've made it obvious that I don't intend to do my dissertation in their area. So now I have to write some kind of dissertation, but I have no idea the scope or approach I should take. I realize that the "easy" way out would be to simply approach faculty in the department and do a more "political sciencey" dissertation that might not be as theoretical or stimulating as I'd like with close supervision, get the thing done, and graduate. I'll probably do that, as I'm too close to just not finish the program. I understand the bureaucratic options available. What I'm looking for is insight into how I can deal with feeling like I haven't actually done anything intellectually, and that I have yet to have graduate level support at the same level of commitment and challenge as I had as an undergrad. I know I can do publishable work and get through any program. I just have not had any opportunity to take classes on my interests to get the specific background knowledge or anything approaching a close working relationship with a specific advisor. I've been seriously considering doing a second PhD in philosophy, history, or English after this program if I don't get a job immediately just to feel like I did something vaguely like what I am interested in (non-GRE admission ones, not paying for that in time or money again). The thought of starting over again from the beginning is not great either, but being on a grad stipend for another 5 years certainly beats working outside academia. I'm sorry if this has not made sense, I'm just running out of time to figure all this out and haven't finished this semester in the best of spirits regarding academia or the last 6 years I've spent doing this. Thanks in advance for any insight or advice, even if it's to tell me I need to just shut up and bear it.

I'm in a similar situation, my PhD research is in many ways going to be dependent on what combination of my interests are represented by the faculty in my PhD department. I'm finishing my MA in Political Science and looking at PhD programs. I know my main specialization is going to be theory (hoping to get into Berkeley to do their Critical Theory designated emphasis during my PhD). However, because the theory I'm interested in is poststructural and critical theory, it becomes more difficult to find someone to work with in a program that's right for me. This makes my second emphasis and ultimate research project dependent on the schools I get into and the professors that I might be able to work with. Given the schools I'm applying to, I'm most likely going to make my PhD minor International Relations simply because it is the most theory related subfield, and focus on doing my dissertation on a theoretical topic. That being said, if I get into somewhere with a strong poststructural/critical theory presence and a strong American Political Development presence, I might make my second subfield American Government and focus on APD, then write my dissertation as an APD project with a genealogical theoretical basis. I think this is the better option, but requires the faculty presence to put together a solid dissertation committee.

@Atypicalgirl I don't have much in the way of experience to share on the MA front, but I will share what I experienced. I only applied to three as backup plans for getting some grad experience before trying again: University of Montana, Idaho State, and Portland State. I'd recommend you the program here at UM, but the funding here has been tight more recently due to budget problems and students aren't getting a full second year of funding to finish after being given their first year. Check out schools that don't have a PhD program, they tend to fund their MA students better because they have to in order to keep the program going. Idaho State waited until almost September to offer me funding otherwise I probably would have gone there. It wasn't a horrible package for the cost of living there... 12k/yr I think. I wouldn't bother with Portland State, unless someone else can share a better experience on the funding front. I was offered a $3000/yr stipend when I got in there. I don't know if that's standard, but there's no way you can live in Portland, OR on $3k/yr. I can barely do Missoula on $9k/yr.

I'll spare you the typical answers, "you'll never get a job unless you go to Harvard" and "retake the GRE until you get a good score, regardless of cost", etc. Short answer, yes, you can get into lower ranked programs with lower scores by showing an ability to do research through experience and writing samples. But you have to have something in your application to offset the low score. I have similar numbers and research interests. (Contemporary Theory, American Political Development, IR). I got into some lower ranked PhD programs last round, even one decently ranked program (UC Boulder), but ultimately decided to do an MA first and try again. I would apply to some full funding MA programs as a backup, so that you can establish a graduate GPA and some CV lines if you don't get into a PhD program the first round. The main thing you will want to look into is quantitative methods requirements in Graduate Student Handbooks on departmental websites. Departmental websites tend to be full of little or no actual information, so go straight for the handbook download if you can find it. Johns Hopkins and Northwestern (no/little quant for Theory majors at NW) are both quality schools with less on that front, though they require more in the way of language and other methods (full second language at JH). That can give you some indication of how much your lower quant score will hurt you during the process. If even theory majors have to take an entire semester of stats and quant, you will probably struggle and get little out of that entire semester. I would especially double check this for UMD and Ohio State. My UG adviser went to UMD and he has not heard good things about how it has changed for qualitative folks since then. Generally be wary of schools in Midwestern states if you are a more theory/qualitative centered person as well. Try to find schools from a wide variety of rankings which seem like a good fit for you methodologically and apply for them. Hope this helps.

It sounds like you are off to a great start for doing qualitative work while being able to do enough math to get by in the obligatory quantitative classes required at most departments. Speaking 3 languages will be a great help as well. How much rankings matter depends on your career goals. What are you looking to do with your PhD? I'm currently looking for qualitative/open minded programs as well, so I will share some of my picks: Northwestern University U of Minnesota UC Berkeley Arizona State (they have Richard K. Ashley for IR Theory work, but aren't ranked high at all) Every school will have different letter guidelines, some only want three academic letters, some will require 2 letters but accept a third, etc. I would definitely recommend academic letters only if you have enough former professors to write them. You might be able to get away with your CO being the third, but a third glowing academic letter would be better. I don't have any particular recommendations for schools for East Asia studies, because that isn't my area of focus. Maybe check out University of Washington? I would recommend finding out who the experts of that particular field are and applying to the schools they are teaching at. I can't tell you much as to what military experience will do for/against you, but whatever your experience is, find ways to use it to your advantage. A PhD program requires a lot of discipline and determination to complete. I'm sure military experience can only help on that front. It might take some time to adapt to the less structured environment of academia again, but whatever you bring with you from your service experience, find ways to make it into an advantage. Certainly no one is going to hold your military experience against you for admissions, etc. To bolster your applications, study for the GRE,.Get back in touch with your Master's advisers and professors to ask for advice and letters of recommendation. They might be able to recommend programs to apply to. Catch up on the current state of East Asian IR literature. Decide what your second subfield will be, most programs require 2 (American, Comparative, Theory...). Take notes/write drafts for your statements of purpose Generally just try to get yourself back into the mindset of being a scholar and student. Hope this rambling helps! A lot of this depends on what your goals are after the PhD.

You typically have to select two subfields for a PhD, so you could do both (Is this the case where you are going?). American is almost always the safest bet in the US, every school seems to need 5 sections of Intro to American Government for some reason. The combo of American and any other second field is probably the most career-safe choice. What really matters is whether you are prepared to devote your professional life to a particular subfield or not. In regard to behaviorism and voter behavior, yes and no. It is the dominant strain of American PSCI right now, so a lot of people are doing it. It is hard to set yourself apart doing that sort of thing anymore. However, it also makes you a safe hire for other behaviorists who don't want someone vastly different joining their department. It's a double edged sword. Hope that helps.

I applied to ISU but didn't get offered a spot and funding until August, after I had already accepted here in Montana. My quant scores are pretty awful, but have high verbal and analytic scores. They require you take the test, but don't really look at it if you have a high GPA record. I'm likely to apply there again as a backup school, so I'm glad to hear they have at least some placements.

I grew up in a small town near Bozeman by Montana standards (100 miles/ 1.5 hours away), but go to Missoula (UM) now, so take my POV with that in mind. I'm sure you've heard people rant and rave about how beautiful Bozeman is with the mountains and all that, so I'll skip that bit. It's a nice little college town, and MSU is increasing enrollment compared to UM right now because its a more STEM focused school whereas UM is more Liberal Arts focused. Skiing is the activity of choice, and pretty much everyone there owns a Subaru with a roof rack for that purpose. Be ready for a major climate shock moving from the south to Montana, of course, but I'm sure you already knew that. The downtown area has a lot of little local shops that are worth a look, and it has many of the big chains you'd expect. Bozeman and its surrounding area has grew a lot throughout the housing boom, then crashed. There is a lot of suburban sprawl. Culturally, it is a very "yuppie" environment one could say, but also full of many kinds of people. You have a mix of well to do college kids spending their parents' money to go skiing for 4 years, "granola" types, and hardcore Montana Republicans going into STEM and business fields for the money. Being close to the middle of the state, it is a bit of a mixing pot culturally, especially compared to Missoula, which is definitely more liberal. What kind of things were you specifically wanting to know?

@bhr I don't dispute that it is probably a rare practice, and I definitely don't dispute that it is an idiotic one. But it is an open and accepted one in the department I'm in right now. I'm amazed anyone finishes, but most students who enter the program here are finishing and some go on to PhD programs. The only reason I mention it here is as a cautionary tale.

@missjackson293 I am a Political Science Master's student, and am in the same boat you are. I want to attend some social science program, be it Poli Sci, Soci, anthro, history, etc but want somewhere with a good qualitative bent. From what I've discovered, these are few and far between anymore. You might look at University of Wisconsin-Madison and see if there is right for you. The program requires some quant methods, but they just picked up Alice Goffman (author of On the Run: Fugitive Life in an American City), who could be an interesting professor to work with for an aspiring urban ethnographer. Northwestern and Johns Hopkins have a reputation for being more methodologically diverse as well. I would just go to department websites and hunt down the course requirements in the grad student handbook and the faculty specialties. If you get the impression you will be taking 6 quantitative methods courses and sitting in a room running sims and regressions all day, give it a pass. That's how I've tried to answer this question myself. Hope this provides some help, and best of luck!

@drivingthoughts thanks for sharing your experience. Maybe some states have more stringent rules than others. Obviously I plan to ask if I am offered admittance to these schools, I just was not sure if anyone had ever run into an issue with these kinds of requirements. In Montana, you have to be in the state for a full year and any time spent here while attending school half time or more does not count. Its ludicrously difficult unless you're willing to take a year off and work full time just to come here for school on in state tuition. And they wonder why our enrollments are declining, eh?

This is entirely dependent on the school/department. Be very careful. My department only has an MA, no PhD. Here, almost all first year MA students are given a year of funding up front. Almost none receive any funding after that, and have to pay for it out of pocket (I got lucky). Many schools won't tell you this so that you attend, then pull the funding out from under you just as you are halfway through the program. Qualifications won't be any different from a PhD student, being a student in the department. Just try to keep your grades up, because as soon as they see a reason to, they will give your funding to newer students. Being a senior student doesn't mean anything if the department is using the funding as a way to recruit new students. Again, this is entirely dependent on the department. Best to ask.

I am finishing an MA in Political Science and have begun the process of selecting schools to apply to for my PhD. I have noticed that several schools (notably Berkeley) state something to the effect of " United States citizens and Permanent Residents are required to achieve California residency by the end of their first year in California to receive continued fee support." Most states define this as something like proving that you are "living in the state for a purpose other than education" ( or, "proving" something that is entirely false by meeting arbitrary state defined standards of reality) by attaining some degree of non-academic employment. I know that no one is taking a year off from school to work in Berkeley, California or Boulder, Colorado just to get residency so they can continue getting funded in a PhD program. Has anyone encountered this that can explain how this situation is usually resolved? TIA

York looks great! One of my UG degrees is in Interdisciplinary Social Science. The only thing I couldn't see is whether they offer tuition waivers with their funding options. Do you know if it is included? Faubion is the reason I am looking at Rice, for sure. A lot of the other big Foucault scholars are in bioethics or literature departments. As it gets closer, I will for sure start reaching out to particular faculty.

I will be finishing my MA in Political Science in Fall of 2016/Spring 2017 (depending on questionable funding situation with my dept.). I've begun preparing the schools I will be applying to this winter, and am hoping to get some advice on which departments might fit my research interests. I'm not married to getting my PhD in Political Science, and am looking at Anthropology, Sociology, and History programs as well. However, I want to teach Political Theory courses, so Poli Sci is the field I am most interested in continuing my career in. My research has focused heavily on late career Foucault, as well as the Control Thesis of Deleuze. Using their concepts like discipline, control, technologies of power, govermentality, etc I have done in depth analyses of applied subjects. For instance, this year I am working on 3 major papers in this vein, one looking at contemporary Europe, another a literary topian comparison between Walden 2 and Brave New World, and the final being analysis of contemporary American governing practices. It is my hope to continue work on the final paper, using Foucauldian analysis to engage in a larger American Political Development work. I'm looking for a department that will be conducive to these kinds of projects. In addition, I am hoping to go somewhere with a qualitative focus, or at least somewhere that balances qual/quant requirements. I've done a bit of research and have a good list of potential places to apply. Does anyone have any further suggestions to look into? I know "help me hunt down a good qualitative program" is a common question, but I thought I should be more specific. Thanks in advance. Here are the departments I'm already considering, from a wide variety of USNWP rankings: Johns Hopkins University of Virginia University of Oregon University of Colorado Boulder University of Washington UC Berkeley (PSCI and Anthropology) Northwestern U of Minnesota Indiana U-Bloomington Wisconsin-Madison (PSCI and Sociology) Rice (anthropology)