StrengthandHonor

UNC has cancelled our recruitment weekend. On that note, I'll make my once-a-year offer: if any of you are considering UNC and have questions, feel free to reach out to me via DM. I'm a current soon-to-be ABD in the department and I'm happy to talk.

Hello, I feel (reasonably) capable of answering this question. I'm advancing to candidacy in a Ph.D. Political Theory program, studied philosophy as an undergrad, and have many friends in political philosophy. The first difference, obviously, is that political theorists are trained in political science departments (usually, though occasionally in literature, law, history, etc.) and political philosophers are trained in philosophy departments. Typically speaking, political philosophers will occasionally be hired for political theory jobs, while the inverse is rarely true. Don't take this to mean that the philosophy job market is better than political theory--my understanding is that while both are bad, political theorists have a decent leg-up in the sheer number and accessibility of jobs. It seems too, that political theorists benefit from being housed in the social sciences when it comes to graduate stipends, which often outstrip philosophy department funding. The bigger difference lies in the rest of the training you will recieve. Political theorists may expect to take quantitative methods, philosophy of law/jurisprudence/con law, and in most departments, some quantity of other political science courses (American Politics, etc.). Methodological training may include formal theory, hermeneutics, and language. Political philosophers, on the other hand, will take courses in metaphysics and epistemology, philosophy of mind, ethics, etc. Their methodological training will focus on formal/symbolic logic, etc. These differences will dictate, to an extent, the way your research and teaching develops. As a political theorist, it would not be unusual as a grad student (period) or a professor (at a non-R1 school) to be asked to teach courses in method, pre-law, AP, or whatever your secondary field is. As a political philosopher, you might find yourself teaching formal logic, ethics, or epistemology. Now as for the difference in research/form: clearly, political philosophers and theorists do read each other. However, they will often publish in different journals (Political Theory, History of Political Thought, Review of Politics for PT and Ethics, Philosophy & Public Affairs for PP). Some questions will tend to be approached by the different fields from different angles: in the realm of philosophy and religion, more of the work on principled pluralism and multiculturalism has come from political theorists, while philosophers have dominated the 'Public Reason' debate. Another way to get at the difference might be to think about the difference between political philosophers like John Rawls, Joseph Raz, T.M. Scanlon, and Thomas Nagel, and political theorists like Michael Sandel, Michael Walzer, Sheldon Wolin, Bill Galston, and Judith Shklar. While many in both disciplines read and engage with scholars from both camps, the methodological approaches of each group differ widely. Political philosophers tend to use the tools of analytic philosophy, and prize narrow, well-formed arguments above all. Political theorists are often more sensitive to the empirical realities of practical politics, and aim to bring a variety of tools and methods to bear on examining issues. J.T. Levy has painted it as a difference between prioritizing 'rigor' and 'richness.' There are a few other differences: political theorists tend to be much more open to critical theory and 'continental' philosophy. Intellectual history of history of political thought, too, is almost solely the purview of political theory. Only you can determine which discipline better fits your skills, aspirations, and interests. I hope this helps a little bit, though.

I'm a current student in another of these departments with small theory cohorts (usually 1 matriculating per year, theory students make up <15 percent of the department). The biggest downside is that you do not (usually) have much room to pivot with your research interests, while still getting the benefits of your faculty's expertise. It's important to remember, though, that you're not in graduate school to do the same thing your advisor does. Additionally, resources for your study may be spread across multiple departments or universities (we have 3 theory profs in the department, but probably 10 across the campus in other departments, plus access to several nearby universities). Places with small cohorts will tend to work best for people with clear and well-defined research interests, and who are self-motivated in finding resources. Some big pluses: You won't have to compete for faculty attention. You will likely (by necessity) become conversant in other subfields in political science. You will learn to talk about your work in ways that communicate its value to people who aren't theorists.

I understand the difficulty. Really, the best advice I can offer is to look at a variety of programs and determine what sort of department offers you a) the best resources for the type of work you wish to do and b) the best path towards a Ph.D. if you plan to continue that route.

I am speaking to my experience as someone who moved from politics and philosophy as an undergrad to a theory Ph.D. program, and from what is a fairly common perspective in academia. There are, of course, Phil programs that focus in social and political philosophy. I don't know where you attended undergrad, but it is also true that political philosophy and applied ethics are more widely taught in undergraduate classes than as the focus of graduate programs. I think an excellent exercise is to examine the types of projects and papers that are being produced in political philosophy programs versus political theory as a discipline. Check out the recent conference programs, and ask which type of work you would rather do. I think my comment about the marginalization of political philosophy within the discipline is adequately supported by reading mainstream philosophy journals and conference proceedings. But YMMV.

I'm a currently attending theorist, and I have a fellowship at an "ethics center" hosted in the philosophy department at my university. The methods of political theory and the methods of political philosophy are, at least today, very distinct. First, as a general note, political philosophy is almost an afterthought at most Ph.D. philosophy programs, where the focus tends to be on metaethics, metaphysics and epistemology, philosophy of mind, etc. Traditional "moral philosophy" and political philosophy are less important in those fields. There is a sharp divergence in method of interpretation, the aim of our work, sensitivity to real-world or empirical facts, analytic rigor, and the 'canon' of thinkers and text. Jacob T. Levy has a helpful meditation on some of these differences at the following: https://profs-polisci.mcgill.ca/levy/theory-philosophy.html Some of the distinctions are, without doubt, arbitrary. Others are much more integral to either camp's work. -- All that to say, regardless of what you think of the distinction, it is a real and lived distinction and these departments and thinkers are usually compartmentalized through their various institutions. If your aim is to be a political theorist, in a political science department, you will probably not experience a great benefit from pursuing an M.A. in a philosophy department.

Don't stress out about it. If you don't have any immediate questions, say something along the lines of "Thank you so much for the kind email. I too am excited about the prospects of working together. I look forward to speaking more at the admitted students weekend." That should do it. If you're certain this is where you are attending, feel free to start discussing more about getting ready for next year -- you could ask for summer reading recommendations, etc. If you haven't made a decision, just be polite, kind, and demonstrate your eagerness and excitement over being accepted without overplaying your position.

As you note, you do not have much leverage. And even for those who have leverage, exercising it can really put a poor taste in the mouth of your future colleagues. If the financial concern is really the primary obstacle to accepting the offer, though, it might not be bad to bring it up in a conversation with your POI. Say something along the lines of "I'm excited and honored to have received this offer, and I would like to attend. However, I am concerned about the financial offer, and worried about securing a comfortable standard of living. Can you point me towards any information on how other graduate students make the financial package work? Are there additional sources of funding?" And before you do any of that, make sure that you ask some current students in the department about how they make ends meet. My current institution has a stipend that is very low compared to our peer institutions. However, almost all graduate students find it is enough -- we have a lower cost of living, most students receive some form of summer funding, etc. Feel free to PM me for more details.

Don't panic. UNC also does go to the wait-list, so don't panic until it's April 14th. Good luck!

FYI, UNC sends their acceptances out (typically) with personalized contact from POIs. All the admissions decisions were made last week, but they will likely trickle out for a while. *Am UNC grad student. **Also, PM me with questions about UNC.

-Theory is a small subfield, comprising 10-15% of the discipline. -Much of the wisdom that applies to the rest of PS has little bearing on theory -- see how the good schools for theory have little overlap with the USNWR overall rankings (for example, Notre Dame, Boston College, and Brown are all much better in theory than in any other subfield). It is true that some programs do not have theory, but the theory heavy programs make up for that. - Admits are down at many institutions. Duke, for instance (t10 theory and overall) admitted one theory student last year. Many departments admit 3 or fewer theory students per cohort, which means they show up with low frequency in this forum. Edit: I am currently enrolled in a t15 department, studying theory.

Heads up, UNC offers should be out shortly.

Take the course for normal credit. I definitely don't intend to sound mean, but if you are struggling with an undergraduate intro to statistics course, you have almost no shot at getting into (or succeeding in) a mainstream political science department. Many political science Ph.D. programs require somewhere between 3-5 methods courses for anyone who isn't a political theorist/philosopher. I can't speak for graduate adcoms, but I don't really know why you would consider taking such a course pass/fail. If you're just going to have a P grade on your transcript for intro to statistics, all you are telling an adcom is that you could achieve a minimum of a C in a basic statistics course. That (at best) tells the adcom nothing useful, and (at worst) makes them question why you wouldn't just take the course for credit.

Chiming in late (because as a current student, I'm not around much). Aside from the additional time/research, remember that if you begin a 1-year M.A., you will be applying to Ph.D. programs at the end of your first term of the M.A. This means that your application will have little additional strength (aside from saying you're in an M.A. program). You'll be asking LOR writers from people who've known you <4 months, and who will likely need to submit your LOR before you've even submitted your final seminar papers for them. It's tempting to do a 1-year for cost/time considerations, but it's unlikely to be as useful as if you can apply to Ph.D. programs after 18 months in a M.A., with a good idea or head start on your thesis. The same logic applies to Post-doc positions on the other end of a Ph.D. A one year post-doc just means that you'll be applying to jobs with one more line on your C.V. and a completed dissertation. It's mostly just postponing the job search for a year while you finish your Ph.D. A 2-3 year postdoc means you might be applying to jobs with all of the above, plus more publications or a book manuscript.

Some things you should learn: LaTeX -- it's industry standard for typesetting --- learn any additional subsets or add-ons to LaTeX that might be useful, such as BibTeX, etc. A statistical programming software. Ask someone in your department what is standard. Many departments use R due to its free and open-source character, but some will still use STATA or even SPSS. Once you know one stat programming language, it is fairly easy to pick up the syntax for another, but you're best off focusing on whichever one your department uses. --also learn add-ons to these programs. For R, you should probably learn RStudio, sweave, Knitr, and RMarkdown at the very least. A reference management software. In this case, conformity with your department is less important. Just pick one, learn it, and use it. Mendeley, Zotero, etc. Other useful apps. You might find Instapaper or Pocket to be helpful, particularly in terms of saving and later referencing non-academic articles. In my own research, I read a lot of magazine/popular articles that I am unlikely to reference, but I might want to find later for some reason.

12) Is there free coffee?

A couple of thoughts here, in a different order: (c) I am sympathetic, and it's true that some departmental cultures might not be productive for you. That's a decision and a call you have to make. (b) I think confidence has little to do with outcomes. A confident, talented scholar will have a better outcome from Michigan than from Wayne State. Sure, departmental differences, living situation, etc. makes a difference, but those differences (I believe) are ones that help you decide between UNC and Wisconsin, or between Yale and Princeton. It's asking too much of "intangibles" to ask them to overcome large differences in program quality. (a) As a theorist, I am particularly sensitive to this point. My solution is to, broadly, just place those schools which have strong theory departments alongside other top schools--that is, if someone were to ask me (as a theorist) what the top 15 schools were, I'd list Northwestern and John Hopkins and Notre Dame, alongside the top 10-12 overall programs. Notre Dame's excellence in the theory subfield makes it a top program for theorists. Obviously, there's a balance between overall program strength and strength in subfield. I do want to make several additional points, however. I pointed out earlier that we will all be hired (or not hired) on the basis of perception. Search committees will use heuristics to make their job easier in a high noise low signal environment. Among other heuristics, search committees will think about the overall reputation of your program, of whether they've heard of your work, of the reputation of your advisor and references, etc.--just as is the case in graduate school admissions. It's not fair. In applying to graduate school (and in applying for jobs), you may very well have candidates of identical quality from vastly different backgrounds. But the sad (yet understandable) truth is that in applying to grad school you'll have a better shot with LORs from well-known scholars and a degree from a top institution than a degree from a no-name place and unrecognizable LOR writers. The same is true in getting a job. Now, where does this come home? As a theorist currently in graduate school, I have to encourage my fellow theorists--nay, I beseech you!--think about the job market. I began regularly cruising the Chronicle's job postings and those on Higher Ed Jobs before I began graduate school. You'll notice, there are almost no positions out there that are hiring just political theorists. That is to say, you will be unlikely to get a job simply based on being a damn good political theorist. Of the many universities and colleges in the U.S., a relatively small proportion of them can support people who just do political theory. Many/most of the jobs require or state preference for theorists who can also teach Con Law, Methods, American Politics, etc. You will probably be hired as a swiss army knife, not as a full-time political theorist. If you are certain that you are in the top 5-10 political theory Ph.D. students in your year, perhaps you will be fine--but otherwise, you need to seek broad training in a variety of areas--because that's what the jobs require. One last word on perception and the job market: It is unlikely that your search committee will have more than 1 or 2 political theorists on it. It's quite likely, at many institutions, that if they're hiring a political theorist it's because their only one is retiring. Much more likely, your search committee will have Americanists and comparativists. Most people in our discipline (non-theorists) have little ability to accurately judge the quality of political theory work. Thus, the reliance on heuristics becomes even more pronounced. Also, many in our discipline don't know the names of top political theorists (or they might know just a handful of the biggest names). So to an even greater degree, decisions will not be made entirely on the basis of merit or real quality, but on perceived quality of your training, corroborated by LORs and publications. I have spoken to a number of well-known, tenured political theorists at top schools, and the near unanimous advice I've received follows these lines: 1. go to a school where you can produce AND PUBLISH quality research in your subfield 2. go to a school where you can learn and work outside of political theory (in other words, probably don't go somewhere with a solid theory program and low quality overall program). 3. If you have any ability or inclination, take methods courses so you can contribute to quantitative research agendas, teach methods, and maybe coauthor (even if you don't do quant work on your own). 4. Cultivate good relationships with well known figures. 5. Practice telling non political theorists why your work is important. Sorry for the novel, and I hope it helps. It's a killer decision--last year, I was choosing between theory boutique programs and some broader programs. There isn't any one-size-fits-all approach. I'm just trying to offer some things to think about.

These are quite correct. Your "Success" (getting a job in academia) will be a function of placement, program reputation, your advisor quality and placement, your dissertation quality and publications, your teaching experience, and intangibles. Your dissertation quality and publications and your intangibles are a function of both program quality and personal happiness. Being in a well-ranked department with good faculty members will likely put you in the best position to succeed on the job market. Ranking is, more or less, a heuristic for program quality. And yes, I am aware that the rankings measure perception--but you will receive a job based on the perception of your education and dissertation quality, not on its actual quality. I am quite sure that there are poorly ranked programs where you can receive an equal education with higher ranked programs, but none of that will matter on the job market if everyone thinks your training was inferior. @Comparativist is correct in saying that you should emphasize measurables in this decision. You will not get very good picture of life in a city or a department during your visitation weekend. That being said, visitation weekend is a good opportunity to look for obvious red flags. One school I considered strongly (very well-ranked in my subfield) had graduate students who told me they were completely miserable and explicitly told me to accept other offers. Another school, it was obvious that I could not live even moderately comfortably on their stipend offer in the city (a judgment corroborated by graduate students). There are some things you can rule out. If you suffer from terrible Seasonal Affective Disorder, you probably want to think about that before you go live in Chicago for 5-7 years. It's hard for program rank to overcome being unproductive for 3 months of the year.

People who say that you shouldn't mention your personal life, generally, are the same type of insufferable persons who say that you shouldn't be married in graduate school, or that having relationships will distract you from your research. It's true, people who have lives outside their work make less "useful" RAs, because they tend to have boundaries--they won't stay in the office until 10 PM every night working on their advisor's datasets. If I sound cynical, it's because I am. Professors typically have spouses, children, and take vacations--but a few (not all) professors want their students to live ascetic lifestyles dedicated to the professor's research. All that being said, talk to fellow graduate students about relationships, if your relationship is a big part of your life. My departmental culture, for instance, is very friendly towards spouses/SO's and those people are welcome (and regularly seen) around the office, at happy hours, and at department social events. My wife is happy, has good work, and is welcomed into my life at graduate school--and that makes me happier and my work better.

It works out. I'm in a small subfield in my department (Theory at UNC) and we have one (and occasionally two) seminars per term in the subfield. So you'll get your 5-6 courses in your subfield no problem. Most of our seminars have 4-6 students in them--comprised of students across cohorts, plus one or two advanced undergrads, plus sometimes students from other departments or institutions. We also have the opportunity to take seminars over at Duke. To be honest, I'd much rather have the experience of less choice, but having 4-6 student seminars at UNC than the classes at Duke, which have more diversity of topic but usually have 15-20 students, with <1/4 of the students being theory subfield Ph.D. students.

This 1,000,000x. I could have never afforded to take the GRE twice or apply to 9 schools on my own. I'm from a low-income background and had little in the way of savings even. I harassed everyone I could think of at my small LAC for assistance--both of the departments I was affiliated with, the learning center, the internship/career development office, and even at one point the president's office. Between that, and requesting waivers from most/all of the schools I applied to (and providing the necessary documentation), I didn't pay anything out of pocket for the GRE, and ended up having all but one application fee covered. Especially if you're from a low-income or underrepresented group--and have good grades and a good reputation--people are willing to do a lot to help you. --- Also, can we take some of this info and make it a pinned post or part of a wiki or something?

If you have the sort of really minor logistical questions (dress code or office norms, whether professors seem to be pro-technology or anti-technology, etc.), save those for graduate students (maybe your "host" when you go to the visit--or just observe. For talking with your POI, ask questions about their upcoming projects, future projects/grants they might be working on, how they tend to work with their TAs or RAs, etc. Try to feel out how collegial and collaborative the environment will be. It's also a good time to ask probing questions about hiring plans, etc. Ask specifically about placement records in your subfield, and ask about students your POI has advised, and where they are/what they're doing now. For talking with the DGS, ask about funding, summer funding, conference funding, and more funding. Ask about TA or RA policies. Ask about fellowship aid. For graduate students: Ask honest questions about living situations. Ask them whether they can live comfortably without taking on debt. Ask about the atmosphere of the department. Ask about fun things to do, places to grocery shop, public transportation or parking, good places to begin looking for apartments, etc.

There is quite a bit of summer funding available for teaching, RA work, or just your own research. Those are much more likely to be received in summers 3 or 4, though. A lot of students work an alternate job in the summer. There are public policy thinktanks in Raleigh, etc. where you might get an internship or fellowship.

I'm in Chapel Hill, and $17k/year is sufficient. The funding at UNC is on the low end, but it's fine. My spouse and I live comfortably on my stipend, in a nice but old apartment not far from campus. She works, but her earnings net 0 after her school expenses. So yeah. I mean, we don't eat out every day, I make my coffee at home and carry a thermos instead of buying coffee during the day, we've got our car paid off, and we shop at Aldi. Yeah, a public school stipend won't go very far if the cost of living is insanely expensive, nor will it go very far if you're a big spender. But if you're happy to live modestly, you probably won't have any problems.

Congrats on those of you who received UNC acceptances(@dr.strange, @megabee, etc.) My understanding is there are still a few more to go--you'll notice that almost all of the acceptances on the results board are comparative/IR. If you have any questions, please shoot me a message. I'm a current student in the department and happy to help.