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. 

https://polisci.duke.edu/graduate/apply 
So i think this has less to do with economic problems and more to do with a high yield. That sometimes happens with programs where they have a target class, in Duke's case 10-12 students, and they exceed that. That happens because more then the expected number of students accept their offer. 
It is sometimes common among high ranked programs. I know two years ago U of M had an unexpectedly high yield so last year they only accepted a handful (3-5) students. 
I don't think it should be a warning bell for other programs though. Just don't apply to Duke this year 

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 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. 

Not OP, but from my experience this is also true. I'm a transplant to political science out of philosophy because of the paucity of research and opportunities for political philosophers in philosophy departments proper. I've had plenty of contact with the philosophy department both at my undergrad university and others close by, and spent a fair bit of time researching philosophy PhDs before making the switch to political science, and political philosophy 100% fell by the wayside. I've found a few exceptions, though: (1) if the department is more continental you're more likely to have a range of political philosophy, and (2) you'll probably at least get social contract and Rawls in the analytic departments I've encountered. It's also a lot easier to run a couple political philosophy courses for undergrads (everyone can teach Rawls) than it is to develop a robust political philosophy faculty who consistently does great research.
But certainly since the vast majority of American schools skew analytic in their philosophy departments, you'd be hard up doing your PhD in philosophy on political issues. Obviously this is department-dependent (e.g. if you're at Chicago hanging out with Nussbaum and Pippin you're obviously have a lot of options), but places like Chicago seemed to be an exception when I was looking prior to my MA.
 

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. 

 

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.

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.

Thank you very much mate. Asking for additional sources seems to be the better way here.

Whoever was asking about ND theory admits, I have a friend who got accepted for theory the same day I did for CP. I feel like you see less theory acceptance reports because there are less theory applicants and maybe they’re less likely to post online.

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

UNC is a fantastic department and Chapel Hill is super pretty. They've got great people there, it's an awesome choice. Congrats to you!

-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. 

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. 

 

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. 

 

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. 


 

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. 


 

DO NOT get drunk and do / say stupid things.
It happens more often than you'd think... 

Things that I think prospective students who are visiting programs should avoid discussing:
- Starting arguments about politics or things not really relevant to the program (I see that you are in political science, so maybe some topics are more appropriate than others)
- Harassing other visiting students or current students
- Speak disparagingly or inappropriately about other students, faculty members, other schools you've visited, etc.
- Boast about your other accomplishments or other acceptances (for some reason, I seem to notice sometimes there are one or two prospective students are often trying to one-up the others)
- Go on and on about how much another place (whether it's another school you visited or your current school) is better than the school you're currently visiting
I hope the above is all common sense and falls under basic etiquette! 
There are also things that I think one should be careful while discussing but not necessarily avoid completely. It's a matter of discussing it in the right way or with the right person.
- Finances are okay to talk about but it is tricky and you have to find the right way to do it. I think it's more appropriate to discuss this with a current grad student than it is to discuss this with another prospective student. But you kind of have to judge it yourself: some people are going to be more comfortable discussing specifics than others. I think if you are comparing packages just to figure out if you have the best one or not, then that might make people uncomfortable (or if it seems like you are doing that). But if you are asking and discussing finances from the perspective of trying to figure out if you have enough to live on, then that's usually more acceptable. It might also be easier to have this discussion after the visit is nearly over and you have heard from people like the department head or the graduate coordinator. This is because these people might explain how the funding structure in the department works. For example, at my PhD school, it is very simple: everyone gets exactly the same stipend and funding package.
- Negative aspects of the program. It's important to learn about what makes people unhappy as well as what makes them happy. While I am always happy to be honest with visiting students because I want them to make the best choice for them, rather than just get them to come here, there are right ways to ask this as well as wrong ways! Sometimes people just point-blank ask me something like, "What is something you hate about your department?" and they won't get a useful answer out of me. Instead, I think it's better to talk to current students to get to know them first and they will usually share more as they get to know you. Also, if you have specific concerns, you can ask them a neutral question about the topic (e.g. instead of "Is the teaching load too high?" you can ask, "how do you find the teaching load? is it manageable?" etc.)
- Similarly, if you want to know about the bad attributes of various faculty members, don't ask it upfront. It's better to have these discussions privately with students since you will be more likely to get a sincere and useful answer if the student isn't worried that what they tell you will end up hurting them. So, they won't say the most candid things if they don't know you at all and maybe not while they are in the department / during the day (i.e. wait until the social events). Also, in the list of "don'ts" above, don't repeat what they said to other people or other schools. If students hear you telling people about all the negative things you learned about School X or Prof Y then they will correctly assume that you'll be just as indiscrete with the information they might provide you.
Overall, make sure you balance the tricky topics with things that are easier to talk about and leave a more positive impression of you. Try to keep the sensitive topics only to things that are critical to your decision making. This is going to be the first impression you leave on many other people and then they won't see you again for months, so if you leave a really bad impression, it has months for the impression to solidify in people's minds. So, stay professional, stay positive!

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. 


 

12) Is there free coffee? 

If you're brave enough, you can call anyone dad. 

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. 

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.