guest56436

I don't get the outrage. If you pay for a service, don't you expect to get what you purchased? Same reason why there are websites that review mail drug orders or prostitution or whatever illegal/unethical behavior people engage in where the market can't really provide consistent means of recognizing reputation. As for people doing this...well you have to recognize that a large portion of people go to college because they "have to" to succeed in whatever endeavor they want. When there's people who don't want to be there and/or don't care/want to study then of course this type of thing is going to exist.

Not very popular in mainstream US political science.

What the hell does ''this is not on" mean?

Wow, I can't believe how poor some of these placement pages are. OSU just lists some schools without names and dates while Brown's list hasn't been updated for 5 years.

I usually pick a day out of the week (usually a Friday, but depending on my schedule) that is completely open which I devote to my own writing and research. I think it's important to slot out a significant portion of time each week solely for writing purposes, although some prefer the small blocks each day approach.

Apply to programs, just like everyone else.

I don't think the quality is higher tbh, but before I give my reasons why, why are doing this masters? Is it a path towards doing a Ph.D.?

Why do you assume LSE is better quality at the masters level?

Yes. For any SE Asian prospectives out there, that means Michigan is now probably the top place to study the region (already have Hicken). PM me.

Totally agree with the above. I would also recommend that you take a hard look at different disciplines if this is significant factor for you.

My unsolicited advice for people applying in comparative: Definitely apply to a couple boutique programs (top 20 programs preferably, but perhaps top 30ish as well, that are strong in your area/interests) but definitely target the top 10 departments. As long as you have good area training coming in and are competitive against top applicants, a top 10 department with potentially less of a fit is more ideal than a really good fit at a lower ranked department. You do not need a large number of people working closely on your area and/or interests to make it work. You never know what will happen, might as well try to bat for the fences. So for the OP, apply to some places like Indiana and Wisconsin, but you should really be shooting for places like Stanford, Michigan, Yale, and Columbia if you are competitive enough to have a shot there.

Chicago is a strong department. They went through some rough times in the late 90s and 00s but they seem to be making a strong effort to replenish some strengths - they have made a number of recent hires. That being said, the comparative department is still largely an issue and in flux. They used to have an extremely strong comparative department but have lost a lot of big names (for example, Stokes, Boix, Pzerworski, ect). The recent hires they have made have not been in comparative. And it looks like they are still bleeding a bit (Slater is moving to Michigan). I also think a couple of their stronger junior scholars are getting multiple offers and might be leaving. Definitely worth applying to - good training, funding, and overall a strong department - but I would make sure (or at least try to) that your POIs are stable.

Are you looking at Wisconsin?

It was once a pretty solid program (used to be ranked top 20 even) but has since dropped significantly. One reason is it hasn't followed the times methodologically, I don't think it even has a year long stats sequence - which is bad. Many of the top profs there have either left or are not productive anymore and I don't think they really have the resources to entice big talent there at the moment. I don't think anyone in comparative is a big mover in the field (not to say they don't have some decent scholars there). I don't trust any programs that don't make placement lists that include original placements, years, and names. These are usually skewed and not representative of recent placements by the program. Is it a bad program? No. But I certainly wouldn't go there personally.

Not good.

The issue with older applicants isn't gaining admission - which is very possible if you are competitive against other applicants - but the backend, the job market. You will be somewhere around your mid 40s by the time you hit the academic market, which is risky for universities. Universities that put out TT lines are looking for an investment of at the very least 20-30 years (especially R2 type places, which by the looks of the programs you are applying to, is the market you would be focusing on). It's harder to justify that in your mid 40s when the market is as competitive as it is and they can just take someone just as qualified/more qualified but younger. There is a significant chance you could spend 5-6-7 years getting your doctorate and not have anything to show for it by the end of it. Whether you want to take that risk is up to you. But I would think long and hard about it.

Another issue I didn't see mentioned is this: you got interviews but you didn't nail jobs...that means you have some things going on in your CV/Resume that is interesting to people, but you may not be doing well in the interview stage. A job offer could very well be possible if you worked on that aspect and/or got feedback on your interviewing skills from someone.

Why not just make one yourself? Excel is fairly intuitive.

I mostly only really know the political sociology stuff but Skocpol's Social Revolutions and Moore's Social Origins are absolute classics. Have nothing to do with your interests, but if you're serious about pursuing sociology you'll probably be forced to read them at some point. I mean there are also classics like Bourdieu, Durkheim, and Weber. I think when someone wants to get acquainted with a field or subfield, the first thing to do is to dive into the classics. Even contemporary research still speaks to them in some way.

Comprehensive exams cover the major canon of sociology and it's subfields. They aren't "exam related."

CHYMPS + top 20 privates. A couple of publics here and there may also (ex. UCSD).

There are plenty of applicants (and students and scholars!) that straddle the line between IR and CP. It's not a big deal to be slightly ambiguous in respect to those two subfields IF there is a obvious reason for it and you have a clear and concise proposed project in your SOP. You may also want to be strategic with respect to competitiveness. From past cycles, the comparative subfields were thought by many to be more competitive than IR in regards to available spots vs. applicants. I believe this fluctuates from year to year though. Might be something to think about when declaring your 'first' subfield.

Why do you want to do a Ph.D.? You make it seem like it's a plan B because you didn't get into law school. A Ph.D. program should never really be a plan B because it is a MASSIVE commitment. Listen, I had similar 'stats' as you and I got into a few top 15/20 programs. But I also had a lot of research experience, good letters, and a pretty defined project/writing sample to make up for some of those weaknesses, do you have those things? If you don't, it's going to be really tough for you...especially for top 10s. You are going to be competing against people that have known and prepared for Ph.D. programs and applications for multiple years WITH perfect stats and all the rest.

I'm not in the subfield of political theory, but I have never really seen these topics in mainstream political science departments in the US. Might be a bigger thing in Europe. Or rather, might be more popular in disciplines like German studies or history. I mean topics like authoritarianism are still significantly popular but that doesn't really have anything to do with nazism. Typically political science isn't focused on specific historical time periods. That isn't to say that projects cannot be historical. But what you seem to be describing is more the realm of history.

You don't need anything really, these are extremely basic operations. 4-8 GB RAM, i3 processor, any GB hard drive. Every brand will have a basic consumer line of laptops (i.e. Inspiron for Dell), this is the type of line you should be targeting (should cost you no more than $500-700).