guest56436

For the record, I'm not trying to be overly negative. I just don't like to see undue optimism or half-truths. I think there is always value in the more 'experienced' grad students/scholars who come on here and drop bombs of truth. The waters of academia are incredibly rough; don't go in with wool covered eyes.

It doesn't really matter if you're looking at macro trends. The fact that roughly 80% of TT positions in political science are awarded to graduates from the top 20 speaks volumes of the overarching prestige-driven hiring of academia.

Yes. And there's many other instances of 'cooking' that goes on: 1) They often don't specify position on the list. So you could get a VAP placement and that person may never find a TT job afterwards. This isn't a placement. Tied to this, sometimes they will list adjunct positions as placements. 2) They aren't updated regularly. Someone quoted a placement page of a Florida university a couple of pages back. I took a quick look and decided to google some names. One person listed as being placed at the University of Alabama...yet, when you google their name they have no position there and the only thing that comes up is their graduate school pages. 3) They very rarely include statistics about the number of people who don't get jobs...nor do they break them down by type, type institutional type, ect. I think UNC was the only one that really had decent statistics on this that I have seen. 4) They often mislead by only updating the placement page based on the ones that finally get positions eventually. There's rarely ever a progression to see what kind of struggle it was to get there. For example, oh we placed someone at Clemson this year! Oh wait, btw, he graduated 5 years ago and has been bouncing around from VAP to VAP to post-doc since then. 5) In some cases, the placement records are just flat out erroneous.

The problem is differences between subfields flatten out as you move up the ladder. In many cases lower ranked programs will stack certain subfields to make a 'comparative advantage' (think, the way that JHU, Brown, ND, stack their theory faculties for example). But as you move closer and closer to the top 20 and up, you'll notice that most departments are fairly strong across the board (with some differences and specializations of course). For example, those three aforementioned programs have great theory faculties - and I'm sure their programs are decent as well - but there's no reason to suggest that you wouldn't get a much better training/potential to land a job at Chicago, Berkeley, or Yale regardless of what type of political theory you study.

Really? It's well documented across all major disciplines, including political science, in all of US academia: http://www.slate.com/articles/life/education/2015/02/university_hiring_if_you_didn_t_get_your_ph_d_at_an_elite_university_good.html https://chroniclevitae.com/news/929-academia-s-1-percent https://www.chronicle.com/article/PhDs-From-Top/136113 http://gppreview.com/2012/12/03/superpowers-the-american-academic-elite/ ^^ Quote from above: "Our research confirms that there is a direct correlation between institutional prestige and candidate placement. If we consider the highest ranked programs, the three tied at #1, we find that Harvard University has successfully placed 239 political scientists at 75 institutions—including twelve at Harvard. Princeton has successfully placed 108 political scientists at 62 institutions—including five at Princeton. Stanford has successfully placed 128 political scientists at 51 institutions—including three at Stanford. The highest ranked public university, The University of Michigan at Ann Arbor (ranked number four overall), has successfully placed 141 political scientists in 61 institutions—including seven at Michigan. These four schools contribute 616 political scientists; roughly twenty percent of the total tenure-track lines in the discipline at research-intensive programs. The median institutional ranking for the 116 institutions covered is eleven, which implies that eleven schools contribute 50 percent of the political science academics to research-intensive universities in the United States. Over 100 political science PhD programs are graduating students that will contest the remaining 50 percent of openings." There's plenty more of this evidence, btw, and it's not hard to find.

The game has changed. Sorry to say, but it doesn't work that way anymore. Obviously do what you want...I never said otherwise. But don't say I didn't warn you.

Guys and girls...the rankings thing is straight-forward: Ideally, you want to go to a CHYMPS. A top 10 is good. A top 20 is fine. Outside top 20? Not advisable. That's it. Are there caveats? Sure. For example, the big publics in the 7-20 range are pretty hit or miss. The privates in the same range fund and place their students better. Does Emory place their superstars well? Certainly. Are there some very highly ranked programs that don't really punch their weight in terms of placement (*cough* Duke *cough*)? Yes. But all of this is to say that these exceptions are relatively minor and inconsequential. I strongly, strongly advise you to not try to 'buck' the rankings/prestige trend. It's hierarchical for a reason. As you move up the ladder the training is better, the faculties are better, the methods are better, the funding is better, the resources are better, and the networking is better. All of these factors are going to help you, maybe, get a job. And you can sit there and say, 'but what really matters is what you publish'...okay...but that doesn't change the fact that you should try to go to the best institution you possibly can, and if you cannot get into a certain threshold of program, you should seriously consider (and that's really a nice way of saying: don't fucking do it) not attending and trying again.

There is no inherent power balance. I don't have any de facto or de jure power over a woman that I hold no ability to coerce or manipulate. She makes her own decisions, and I hold no power over her to influence those decisions strongly in one direction or the other. So I struggle to see any power imbalance. All relationships are a struggle for power (and on the flip side, a series of compromises), on both sides. She chose to allow me to talk to her. She chose to give me her number. She chose to go out with me. She chose to...you get the point. To suggest that, solely because I am older than her, that I hold an disproportionate amount of power in the relationship is completely fabricated in your mind. Incorrect assumption #1. Where did I say that? Because I value the optimistic, free-spirited, and open nature of younger women you jump to the conclusion that I strive for the bold? I love how you believe that a 19 year old girl, who is by all accounts a fully matured adult in our society, is inherently a victim or completely incapable of knowing what she wants or who she is. That's a little, uh, misogynist (lol) don't you think? For the record, the gaps in my past relationships have grown over time. I started by dating women older or the same age as I, then the age difference got larger over time. Conclusion? I like dating women aged 18-25. Why? For reasons I have already stated (among others that I don't feel the need to disclose here), and not least of which, because they are inherently - on average - more attractive in this age group. I mean, this isn't rocket science. We are biologically programmed to be attracted to women in this age group (in fact, even younger - but we have moved away from that as a society for obvious reasons). Incorrect assumption #2. Even if she was an undergraduate at my institution, it wouldn't make a difference anyways (unless, of course, she was one of my students). An undergraduate student is not in a subordinate position to a graduate student, how does that make any sense? I do not hold any power over random undergraduate student X. And furthermore, there are no rules against having romantic relationships with undergraduate students at my institution outside of those that you are professionally involved with. I'm so confused at how you come to the conclusion that men who actively seek out younger women are to be avoided. You do realize that the vast majority of romantic relationships between men and women in the entire world are where the man is older than the woman right? By your logic, a significant amount of men in this world are to be avoided.

Yes, because I rarely drink these days anyways so it's not that important to me. It's certainly possible it may derive from a lack of maturity, but I don't think it's exclusive to that. Does a guy that has a preference for dating older women necessarily stem from being too mature? I don't think so. Younger women are more pleasant to be around (and this goes for both women or men for the record) because I think older people in general are less accommodating. They're often more abrasive, more cynical, less likely to be adjustable to their surroundings, and more close-minded. Whether you think this is a trait that is important in a potential partner is your prerogative, but I can personally relate to its value. There are plenty of downsides for dating younger people as well, one of which is a much greater degree of naivety. And if you find that is important, you may not desire to date younger people. There are tradeoffs just like anything else. I just don't think one should claim that someone who has a preference for a certain type of potential partner (whether that is age, race, or whatever) as 'creepy.' Because well, that would make me 'creepy' because I was recently dating a 19 year old. But if I was actually creepy, she wouldn't have dated me in the first place.

Well I don't know about the 'child-like' aspect, but what is exactly wrong with having a preference for younger women? All else being equal, they are usually more attractive and pleasant to be around.

Frankly, I completely disagree. There's nothing inherently 'creepy' about pursuing younger girls romantically. I'm nearly 30 and continue to pursue girls aged 18-22. Why would I limit myself to a small pool of potential partners (especially when I live in a small college town)?

Patently false. Cant believe people still believe this crap.

Hahaha nice username.

Before the end of the month.

NRC would be better if it was more frequent, but it's not frequent enough to be considered accurate.

Very rare. A few programs do it (more used to, in fact), but the vast majority do not. I can't think of any top programs that regularly interview applicants.

Just a heads up, last year (and I believe others) UNC had a long trickling approach to admissions. The first one came real early (was a fellowship candidate) and there were a bunch of waves of admits and waiting listers, as well as tiered rejections. Personally, I received an acceptance two days before March 15th (didn't accept it though). In other words, don't expect for everyone to 'hear' from UNC like many other programs approach it.

I know it's hard. But it's still too early to be anxious. If you are going to be anxious, wait until end of Jan/Feb.

Dude, no one can answer this. You're competitive. But these smaller programs only admit approximately 3-4 people by each subfield a year. Sometimes the process at the top end of applicants (i.e who gets in or not) is rather random.

Turn your best work so far into a working paper.

Nope.

You won't.

The difference between law school and Ph.D. apps are the latter are not as much of a hoop-jumping/qualification process. Your GPA/GRE are only part of the puzzle (yours are excellent though, so that's a plus)...what's going to get you accepted are your LORs, SOP, research experience, and writing sample.

I did as well. And I was ready to say there's not much of a justification haha, latex takes like a day to learn and is vastly superior.

Maybe there is an alternative out there. For example, economics has a different forum for grad applications, that's why there are like zero people in that field on here.