GopherGrad

Yep. MA comps. I sit tomorrow to write on the questions, and a week later I have to defend my essay answers against a panel of faculty. W00t. The list is super huge. Look for stuff that interests you. Read abstracts. If anyone needs one of the articles on the list but can't get it free, PM me. I agree, although it's funny to hear this as I become frustrated with how my theory focus has left me with little new to say about a lot of things. I'm looking forward to start digging through the history of conflict to find some puzzles so I can do some damn writing. That's a huge question. I think most people would agree that there is a vast difference in the way we think of wars between states on one hand and conflict between non-state actors, or non-state actors and states on the other. My interest is far more in the latter, and one way to chop up the "types" of conflict is to ask "why are these groups using violence? In what way are they challenging the state's presumed monopoly?" So, for example, violence over drug trafficking occurs (in part) because the state has elected to give up its imperative to regulate the narcotics market. It's sovereignty is weak in an economic market because it cannot enforce fairness in commercial relations between traffickers, so actors with violent capacity sense an opportunity to provide protection in that void. Contrast that with ethnic protection markets among recent immigrant groups ("mafias"). In those circumstances, the state's sovereignty is weak among a social group, so actors with violent capacity provide protection in that void. Those customers need protection and dispute resolution services in all facets of their lives rather than just in one market. The way that violence is used as a tactic to support a protection business in those two circumstances is very different. (Richard Friman and Peter Andreas write a lot about prohibition regimes and illicit commerce; Diego Gambetta has pretty much written the bible on the political economy of protection racket mafias.) There are other model or ideal ways that violent actors can selectively exploit state particularized state weakness. War economies, like that in the DRC, attempt to atomize communities and impose rents on a variety of transactions. The pillage of lootable resources, like alluvial diamonds in Sierra Leone, works a compeletely different way. I actually just got the great news that I'll be teaching an upper division course this summer at my MA soon-to-be alma about the political economy of violence, so understanding how this typology works gets to be a big part of my summer.

Intra-national Wars Insurgent Organization Berman, Paul: Revolutionary Organization. Downes, Alexander: “Desperate Times, Desperate Measures: The Causes of Civilian Victimization in War” International Security. Felbab-Brown, Vanda: Shooting Up: Counter-Insurgency and the War on Drugs Horowitz, Michael: “Nonstate Actors and the Diffusion of Innovations: The Case for Suicide Terrorism” American Political Science Review. Kalyvas, Stathis: The Logic of Violence in Civil War. Merton, R: “Social Structure and Anomie” American Sociological Review Salisbury, Robert: “An Exchange Theory of Interest Groups” Midwest Journal of Political Science. Weinstein, Jeremey: Inside Rebellion: the Politics of Insurgent Violence. Wood, Elizabeth: Collective Action and War in El Salvador. Greed, Grievance and the Motivation to Mobilize Violence Abrahms, Max: “What Terrorists Really Want: Terrorist Motives and Counterterrorism Strategy” International Security. Cederman, Lars-Erik, et. al.: “Ethnonationalist Triads: Assessing the Influence of Kin Groups in Civil War” World Politics. Collier, Paul and Hoefller, Anke: “On economic causes of civil war” Oxford Economic Papers. Elbadawi, I. and Sambanis, N. “How much war will we see? Explaining the prevalence of civil war.” Journal of Conflict Resolution Fearon, James and Laitin, David: “Ethnicity, Insurgency and Civil War” American Political Science Review. Gurr, Ted: Why Men Rebel. Horowitz, Donald: Ethnic Groups in Conflict. Lake, David and Rothchild, Donald: “Containing Fear: the Origin and Management of Ethnic Conflict” International Organization. Merton, R.: Social structure and anomie. American Sociological Review Pape, Robert: “The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism” American Political Science Review. Sambanis, Nicholas: “Partition as a Solution to Ethnic War: An Empirical Critique of the Theoretical Literature” World Politics. Snyder, Jack: From Voting to Violence: Democratization and Nationalist Conflict. Trager, Robert and Zagorcheva, Dessislava: “Deterring Terrorism: It Can Be Done” International Security. Viability and Success of Violent Challenges Arreguin-Toft: “How the Weak Win Wars” International Security. Edelstien, David: “Occupational Hazards: Why Military Operations Succeed or Fail” International Security. Jones, Seth: “The Rise of Afghanistan’s Insurgency: State Failure and Jihad” International Security. Lyall, Jason and Wilson, Isaiah: “Rage Against the Machines: Explaining Outcomes in Counterinsurgency Wars” International Organization. Mack, Andrew: “Why Big Nations Lose Small Wars: the Politics of Asymmetric Conflict” World Politics. Merom, Gil: “The Social Origins of French Capitulation in Algeria” Armed Forces and Society. Political Economy of Violence Duffield, Micheal: “Globalization, transborder trade and war economies.” Greed and Grievance, Economic Agendas in Civil Wars, Berdal, M. and Malone, D. (eds.) Gambetta, Diego: The Sicilian Mafia: The Business of Private Protection. Reno, William: “Shadow states and the political economy of civil wars” Greed and Grievance, Economic Agendas in Civil Wars, Berdal, M. and Malone, D. Crime and Criminal Challenges to State Authority Andreas and Nadelmann: Policing the Globe: Criminalization and Crime Control in International Relations Felbab-Brown, Vanda: Shooting Up: Counter-Insurgency and the War on Drugs Friman, Richard H. and Andreas, Peter: “Introduction: International Relations and the Illicit Economy” The Illicit Global Economy and State Power. Friman, Richard H.: “Crime and Globalization” Crime and the Global Political Economy. Gambetta, Diego: The Sicilian Mafia: The Business of Private Protection. Fiorentini and Peltzman: The Economics of Organized Crime. Lee, Renssallaer: The White Labyrinth: Cocaine and Political Power Mandel, Robert: Dark Logic: Transnational Criminal Tactics and Global Security Naylor, R.T.: Wages of Crime Varese, Frederico: Mafias on the Move: How Organized Crime Conquers New Territories

The next two posts are from the comps reading list I put together for my MA degree. First international war, second, intra-national. International Wars Realism Blainey, Geoffrey: The Causes of War. Brooks, Stephen: “Dueling Realisms” International Organizations Fearon, James: “Rationalist Explanations for War” International Organization. Mearshimer, John: The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. Wohlforth, William: “Realism and the End of the Cold War” International Security. Waltz, Kenneth: Theory of International Politics. Security Dilemmas Fearon, James: “Domestic Political Audiences and the Escalation of International Disputes” American Political Science Review. Glaser, Charles: Rational Theory of International Politics Jervis, Robert: “Cooperation Under the Security Dilemma” World Politics. Van Evra, Steven: “Offense, Defense and the Causes of War” International Security. Structure and Polarity Duetsch and Singer: “Multipolar Power Systems and International Stability” World Politics Hass, Michael: “International Subsystems: Stability and Polarity” American Political Science Review Nexon, Daniel: “The Balance of Power in the Balance” World Politics Wohlforth, William: “The Stability of a Unipolar World” International Security. Wohlforth, William: “Testing Balance of Power Theory in World History” European Journal of International Relations. Waltz, Kenneth: “The Stability of a Bipolar World” Daedalus. Waltz, Kenneth: “Structural Realism after the Cold War” International Security. Liberalism and Democratic Peace The Politics of Accountability Doyle, Michael: “Three Pillars of the Liberal Peace” American Political Science Review. Finel, Bernard and Lord, Kristin: “The Surprising Logic of Transparency” International Studies Quarterly. Owen, John: “How Liberalism Produces Democratic Peace” International Organization. Weeks, Jessica: “Autocratic Audience Costs: Regime Type and Signaling Resolve” International Organization. Relations Between Democracies and the Liberal Consensus Downes, Alexander: “How Smart and Tough Are Democracies? Reassessing Theories of Democratic Victory in War” International Security. Doyle, Michael: “Liberalism and World Politics” The American Political Science Review. Doyle, Michael: “Three Pillars of the Liberal Peace” American Political Science Review. Desch, Michael: “Democracy and Victory: Why Regime Type Hardly Matters” International Security. Owen, John: “How Liberalism Produces Democratic Peace” International Organization. Rosato, Sebastian: “The Flawed Logic of Democratic Peace Theory” American Political Science Review. Rosato, Sebastian: “Explaining the Democratic Peace” American Political Science Review. Constructivism, Regimes and Norms Institutions and Cooperation Buzan, Barry: “From International System to International Society: Structural Realism and Regime Theory Meet the English School” International Organization. Johnston, Alastair Iain: “Review of Strategic Culture” International Security. Jervis, Robert: “Cooperation Under the Security Dilemma” World Politics. Jervis, Robert: “Security Regimes” International Organization. Krasner, Stephen: “Structural Causes and Regime Consequences: Regimes as Intervening Variables” International Organization. Norms Carpenter, Charli: “Women and Children First: Gender, Norms and Humanitarian Evacuation in the Balkans” International Organization. Hopf, Ted: “The Logic of Habit in International Relations” European Journal of International Relations. Kahl, Colin: “In the Crossfire or the Crosshairs? Norms, Civilian Casualties and U.S. Conduct in Iraq.” International Security. Price, Richard and Tannenwald, Nina: “Norms and Deterrence, the Nuclear and Chemical Weapons Taboo” in Katzenstein, Peter: The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics. Valentino, Huth and Croco: “Covenants without the Sword: International Law and the Protection of Civilians in Times of War” World Politics. Constructivism Bull, Hedley: The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics. Finnemore, Martha: “Constructing Norms of Humanitarian Intervention” in Katzenstein, Peter: The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics. Ferrell, Theo: “World Culture and Military Power” Security Studies. Development and War Beckley, Micheal: “Economic Development and Military Effectiveness” Journal of Security Studies. Desch, Michael: “Democracy and Victory: Why Regime Type Hardly Matters” International Security. Narang, Vipin and Nelson, Rebecca: “Who Are These Belligerent Democratizers?” International Organization. Mansfield, Edward and Snyder, Jack: “Democratic Transitions, Institutional Strength and War” International Organization. Snyder, Jack and Mansfield, Edward: Electing to Fight: Why Democracies Go to War. Snyder, Jack: Myths of Empire: Domestic Politics and International Ambition

Great power type conflict or asymmetrical stuff? I can dump a huge reading list on your for either, but you shouldn't sweat reading a ton this summer or anything.

Ah, you're so cute and earnest and full of zest for life. First things first, PhDs are generally for academic tracks. The career you're aiming for will probably require a Master's, especially since you don't have a polisci/IR background. There are professional PhDs and programs in Public Policy that mix academics and professional training, particularly in DC and the UK, but you probably don't want to start there. Second, the path to the top of Think Tank Mountain has been abandoned in favor of barista jobs by better (wo)men than you or I. Truly high supply and low demand. Getting recruited out of school is hard. Often times you get a string of unpaid internships and making the transition to getting paid is harder. Debt, debt, low income, more debt, jump off Brooklyn Bridge. Some advice: 1) Look at some think tanks, NGOs, government positions that you think you might want in 5-10 years. Study the CVs of the people in those positions. There are a lot of acomplished, ecclectic people, but look for trends. 2) HUSTLE. Email those people and organizations. Get informational interviews about the day-to-day work like and the paths these people took to get where they are. Ask smart questions and be humble. Stay in touch. Use this info to determine if you really want this career. 3) Go to the best MA program you can get into, BUT: a) preference those in NY or DC (see #4) and b ) take scholarships if offered. Do NOT go to a school that seems ill-suited to set you up in meeting your goals! 4) HUSTLE. Attend lots of conferences and happy hours and events. Press the flesh (but don't be a suck up), get more informational interviews and stay in touch with all those people. To the well-networked go the spoils! Edit: God, I HATE that stupid smiley in sunglasses. Has anyone ever used it on purpose or was it just created to annoy people that like lists?

In another life, I was a member of the ThornTree posting forum for backpackers at Lonely Planet's website. They had a politics forum that got so rowdy they closed it and a group of exiles started a new site. It is a dark and unpleasant corner of the internet, where trolls and worse (laypersons!) eat alive the white knights that dare enter. Cave! Hc svnt dracones: politicalstew.com

*appropriately surprised emoticon*

PROFILE: Type of Undergrad Institution: Public Big Ten (undergrad/law school) Mid-tier private uni (MA) Major(s)/Minor(s): Theatre and Creative Writing (undergrad); International Affairs (MA) Undergrad GPA: 3.5 Type of Grad: Law School/MA Grad GPA: 2.9 / 3.97 GRE: 750/750/6 Any Special Courses: Letters of Recommendation: MA faculty Research Experience: RA position for two years during MA Teaching Experience: None Subfield/Research Interests: Political economy of violence, social movements, identity construction, nationalism and political development Other: five years of work experience in corporate and commercial litigation RESULTS: Acceptances($$ or no $$): UCSD (funded) Waitlists: Rejections: Harvard, Princeton, Berkeley, Stanford, Columbia, Yale, Duke, MIT, Chicago, Northwestern, Minnesota Pending: Going to: LESSONS LEARNED: The only kitchen mistake you can't fix is a fallen souffle. SOP: I am interested in pursuing a Ph.D. in political science followed by a career in teaching and research. My primary research interest is the organizational behavior of violent groups. Specifically, I have begun to examine how political, economic and cultural factors explain variation in the strategies and goals of such groups and influences patterns of group membership. I am particularly drawn to sub-Saharan Africa and have also enjoyed researching cases in Latin America and Central Asia. Jesse Driscoll’s interest in settlement and peace-making in the wake of civil conflict and state failure addresses the opposite side of the same coin. The processes of integrating “unruly populations” offer great insight into the processes by which “unruliness” and social disintegration unravels societies. Phillip Roeder’s research on the continuity of civil war settlements, institutional design and post-conflict politics similarly engages a wide range of social and economic factors in explaining violence and social tension. My research will address two major gaps in similar contemporary scholarship. First, I see the economy of violence as fluid and closely linked to changing social contexts. I will highlight this dynamism to further flesh out the relationship between social contexts and the tactics used by violent entrepreneurs. I initially developed this line of inquiry in a recent paper delivered to the Midwest Political Science Association’s annual conference. In it, I examined street gangs in South Chicago, focusing on a peculiar period of peaceful behavior. Using historical analysis and process tracing, I argued that gang leaders were well-positioned to capitalize on new inflows of community development funds and temporarily redirected the efforts of their organizations to profit from these programs. When this strategy failed to deliver the protection benefit sought by the gangs’ members, the cycle of violence resumed. Second, I will examine variation among the incentives violent groups offer. The strategies and goals of violent entrepreneurs determine the membership and support they are able to attract, reflecting society’s demand for those incentives. Leveraging the observation that almost all violent groups provide some economic and social benefits requires a sensitivity both to shifts in the political economy and the fabric of deeply felt (but perhaps not deeply rooted) identity conflicts. The “greed versus grievance” debate overlooks key mechanisms. I will examine violent movements to ask how each is expressed, how they are related and how those relationships drives cycles of conflict. Two recent papers highlight my developing skill and interest in this work. The writing sample included with this application examines variation violence between neighboring regions in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Despite the ostensibly ethnic nature of this conflict, I find a compelling link between the size of mining concessions in a region and the region’s stability. (Larger concessions attract corporations who invest heavily and sponsor a single militia for protection.) While I believe identity politics can and does play a crucial role in how violent organizations form and behave, the value of economics and game theory to my research cannot be overstated. Samuel Popkin’s work on peasant political economy illuminates similar dynamics in the absence of great state power. Another paper examined the recent Tuareg uprisings in Northern Mali. Traditional Tuareg practices are often in tension with fundamentalist interpretations of Islam, yet the Tuareg allied with fundamentalist groups to push the Malian army from the north. Weeks later, Tuareg rebels and their Islamist allies were themselves at war over the implementation of sharia law in Tuareg lands. Historical research and interviews allowed me to address difficult questions key to my future research: how are powerful conceptions of belonging and community altered instrumentally by social contexts and what constrains these changes? Victor Magagna’s exploration of the politics of ancient societies informs the debate about the durability and salience of political identities, vital insight into debates of nationalism. Claire Adida’s modern exploration of the role of ethnicity in politics helps illuminate the difficulty of exploring and understanding cross-cleavages in identity. Karen Ferree examines the circumstances under which mutli-ethnic states come to see governments as inclusive and effective. These questions are macro-social; the concepts central to examining them defy easy quantification. The debates important to me are argued intersubjectively, relying on the presentation of useful frameworks and qualitative evidence to craft compelling explanation. Still, I expect my work requires a multi-method approach. Quantitative analysis will be useful to examine granular trends and relationships, tying the pieces together to discuss the use of violence broadly will require careful historical analysis and process tracing. The organizational behavior of violent groups interests me for a variety of related reasons. Intellectually, the study of violence offers unique leverage into understanding fundamental relationships among and between people and institutions. Put (too) simply, we learn about the state in part by examining how other organizations fill the cracks its failures leave. Studying organized violence is an emerging and exciting way to frame larger questions about how states and institutions relate to the expectations of their constituencies. More practically, abusive coercion causes a great deal of pain and suffering, both directly (in terms of the casualties of conflict) and indirectly (as instability and violence hinders growth and development). I appreciate the growing calls for a more policy-relevant political science and would strive to make my research relatable to practitioners. During my short service with the U.S. Department of State, I saw this suffering and its systemic causes firsthand. These experiences influenced me greatly and provided a great deal of the impetus for my decision to leave corporate litigation. My path to this career belies a developing passion for my research, a diverse and developed set of analytical and research skills from outside the social sciences and a maturity that both evidences my preparedness for post-graduate study and highlights the positive impact I can have on the department for reasons outside my academic fit. I feel strongly that UC San Diego’s department will provide the right training and mentorship for my research and career. Thank you for considering my application.

Congratulations to everyone that received a great admission this cycle. To the rest, chin up and good luck with whatever you take on next.

Thanks! My ego would have appreciated another acceptance, but my career only needs the one.

Alas. Rejected. Mr. Wall said that remaining notifications are going out momentarily. Unless one of the jobs I'm interviewing for comes back with an offer that's really exciting, it appears that I'm San Diego bound. Good luck to the rest of you in making decisions and cleaning up your lingering applications. I'm sure I'll meet many of you in the coming years, even if we never realize we already know one another.

My last open application is Harvard, and while I'm reasonably certain I'll be rejected (and I remain reasonably certain that we'll see more acceptances) there is a part of me that wants to bug the poor guy so I can be done.

If I can figure out a place to store the picture online I'll post it tonight. I had heard somewhere that the most competetive programs don't really waitlist because they can predict their yield extremely well. I have no idea if this is true. For whatever it's worth, I still find it odder that no regular poster has claimed an admit from Harvard. It's (one of?) the largest elite program(s) and we've had claims for every other program of comparable competitiveness (incuding PEG, which takes what, four students?).

To the extent that this is meant for me, I actually agree with it. What I keep suggesting is that we completely ignore them. Who knows if they are trolls, have some inside track or special circumstance that would 1) garner them an earlier than usual acceptance and 2) prevent a regular poster from simply claiming and explaining it on this thread? Who cares? My point is and always has been that some number of these reports have appeared in fits and starts for every major program over the last three cycles, and in every case they were followed by a more traditional burst of admissions, some of which are claimed by known personalities in a thread like this one. It may be that Harvard is different this year for some reason, but I wouldn't worry about the sky falling until after the obligatory page of congratulations fades away. To the extent that anyone who just got into Harvard was wounded that GopherGrad, of The Internet didn't trust your anonymous posts, I apologize. It was not my intent to rain on a parade to which I almost certainly won't be invited.

Runner12 was accepted to Harvard's PEG program, which is different than the larger Department of Government and puts out acceptances at different times. I absolutely beleive runner's claim and I think PEG was done some time ago.

This is precisely why I never check it. Harvard admits a big class. When I hung out here during my application cycle two years ago we must have had three or four regular posters claim on the same day. This has happened this cycle with every single elite school: the rumor goes up that they are done and a few days later we get a rush of claims, often through channels that contradict the early reporting. The dude that claimed the Harvard admit has (I think) one other post in which he claimed a Yale admit a week before everyone else got theirs. I might be Carl Roving here, but I haven't been wrong yet and I don't think it's time to call it on Harvard admits yet.

If we don't have a couple regular posters claim admissions by the end of the week I will do just that.

1) Because I find studies that make arguments about the power of earnings to affect job satisfaction at low income levels compelling, and the way the mechanism is described, it seems to me that even people who love the substance of their jobs are affected by the despair sometimes associated with low wages. 2) Because I gave up a ten-year career in an extremely lucrative profession to get a master's in political science. Despite my certainty that I made the right choice for me and my continuing passion for academics and teaching (I have, after all decided to do a PhD), making ends meet has been extremely stressful and distracts both from my achievement in the field and my overall satisfaction with my life. Sometimes, frankly, it doesn't feel like a matter of wanting it. I simply wonder if I can cover my existing bills on a student's salary. *snort*

Perfect. If they offer us pay raises, I'll take yours.

I understand how a faculty member might not feel it their place to question a student's stated dedication to persuing a PhD. I can only emphasize that these suggestions arose in response to Professor Nooruddin's question about how to better tackle the problem of attrition rates. I don't think it's easy to calculate the value added of a human resource in purely monetary terms in any business. But if low pay is partly responsible for a loss of a class of human resources, and some space exists in the suspected production value added by that class, the firm should at least consider whether total productivity would rise by increasing wages and reducing turnover. Some business literature emphasizes the outsized role that small absolute wage increases have on job satisfaction among people with lower incomes. This suggests to me that graduate students, as human capital with high but intangible value that produce high costs with turnover, would be ideal candidates for small absolute wage increases to reduce attrition.

I'm not faculty, but you seem like an ideal candidate for a Master's degree. There are several universities that offer terminal, academicly oriented MA degrees and offer decent funding to some students. You've probably already read about the Chicago MA programs. I would recommend at least considering smaller, cheaper programs. I have heard good things about Wake Forest. I am presently finishing an academic MA at Marquette and have been impressed in general with the mentorship and training here. If you want more information about that program or to discuss why I chose to seek an MA and why I see this as a good fit for you, send me a PM.

Did I miss the flurry of Harvard admits or something? Well, sure, but it does beg the question of whether the couple should have been together in the first place. The problem my post was hoping to help solve was the high attrition rate, so I was taking as a given that we see this as a problem. Whether age or experience is a decent predictor or not, and accepting without reservation that attrition decisions have a lot going into them, I'd be a little surprised if some careful study of who quits and why wouldn't help departments design an application process to better evaluate that risk. I'm both unsurprised and happy that faculty sees grad students as good value added at the price. I'm also not surprised to find its mostly out of your hands. The money issue, like the suggestion of some intake counseling, would I guess require a little bit more of a political shift at the university level. 1) My suggestion would be to increase the grad student salary budget and keep roughly the same number of students. I might be wrong about this, but I believe there is a general impression that grad students add more value than their compensation seems to credit. Budgets are tight and that is a real problem, but we are really cheap labor and it's not totally insane to suggest higher wages from a labor relations standpoint. 2) I have yet to speak to a PhD candidate or faculty member whose passion hasn't waxed and waned over time. The investment in a PhD is clearly one of passion; lots of us could make more money doing something else AND not lose the 5-7 years of income opportunity.* If your passion is weak at the same time as your finances and a job comes knocking ... A program policy of slightly higher salaries coupled with counseling on proper financial management (as well as health and relationship management) means that students feel better about their incomes, family lives and health a greater percentage of the time, some people who become discouraged would stick it out. *As an example, pretend that you were set to graduate at 31, retire at 71 and could have saved $10,000 for retirement per year on average over a six year PhD if you worked instead. At 7% interest, you're sacrificing a million bucks. These types of things will occur to you when you're sick of ramen and Stata.

Is there any connection between age or work experience (or even prior graduate school completion) and attrition? My biased and completely unsupported notion is that the interests and ambitions of the college senior are more volitile and less informed* than those of older, more experienced candidates. If this is the case, simply signaling to candidates that work experience is valued would drop attrition. You could also consider asking a supplemental question or crafting the SoP prompt to have the candidate discuss why they believe they are a good fit for the grad student lifestyle. *When I say "less informed" I'm less focused on whether the candidate has the passion or curiosity to remain animated by social puzzles. I'm more referring to understanding of work routines, work/life balance, family ambitions, whether one really wants to be a self-starter or an employee, etc. Some time ago, many top law programs started to notice that JD candidates that came in with work experience achieved more in their careers and were more satisfied as attorneys than students straight from undergrad. A lot of ink has been spilled musing, at least, that candidates with work experience 1) better understand how "being a lawyer" will affect their other interests and goals and 2) distinguish better between different types of legal careers and choose one that fits their life rather than chasing white-shoe salaries and prestige. As a result, some of the top programs explicitly list work experience as a desirable qualification. Some, like Northwestern, even require it. There is a trope repeated to grad school applicants (doubtless it's at least partly undertrue) that schools want interesting researchers, not interesting people. Since we recognize that an applicant's interests are highly likely to change during the program, shifting the concept of who "fits" slightly away from research interests and toward temperment, personality and maturity might help. Another hunch, put forward only partly out of self interest: pay grad students more. It probably doesn't even need to be much. Relatedly, require some counseling in money management for high-potential, low-income earners. I'm sure the faculty here remember this, but being broke is really stressful. If some job offer comes knocking when your checking account is showing double digits (and both those digits are behind the decimal) it's going to look sweeter. I'd be shocked if a meaningful portion of attrition wasn't influenced by a feeling of financial duress. Drawing an analogy again to law school, some programs have started providing some counseling on money and health management at the outset of the program. Not only is graduate school stressful in a direct sense, the time and opportunity costs involved in completing it can have serious indirect effects on health, finances and relationships. The Methods series is hard enough without also feeling sick, poor and resented by your partner. Equipping students better to deal with these indirect stresses might go a long way to increasing completion rates. The probability is one. In the case of every other elite program, there came a day or two in which the board clearly lit up with results and at least three or four regular posters claimed admits in this thread in short order. I would buy a hat so I could eat my hat if Harvard turns out to be any different.

Okay. I'll revise: Without disagreeing with this in any way, there's a reason it's hard for us to accept. The discipline seems to value admission to top programs. If the admissions process is selecting a somewhat random group of lucky students from a sea of similarly qualified ones, the concentration of placement results among graduates of the most competitive programs is a puzzle that has only arbitrary and depressing answers. Whether we are all so similarly talented that even a reasonable process can't identify those that are slightly better, or whether the process is not sensitive enough to pick those who are slightly better from a pool of somewhat similar candidates, the same result obtains. After passing some threshold of hard work and achievement, a threshold a great many seem capable of achieving, your fate passes into God's hands. Despite this, there is a strong correlation between pedigree and placement. The judgments of the admissions committees, recognized as "low information", nevertheless create a trajectory that is extremely difficult to break. Students who have worked so hard for so long will resist the conclusion that their success or failure is arbitrary and search instead for meaning in the tea leaves. Chance is an unacceptable explanation for the disposal of our effort and talent, even if it is the true one. Distinctions made with low information should logically be low consequence; we expect distinctions with high consequences to be meaningful. This resistance strikes me as natural (maybe even healthy) and a decent explanation for the applicants continuing to tilt at the windmill of building an improved application despite the repeated advice of faculty members that doing so is anything but straightforward for reasonably qualified students.

Without disagreeing with this in any way, there's a reason it's hard for us to accept. The discipline seems to value admission to top programs. If the admissions process isn't well-suited to select the most talented candidates, the concentration of placement among the most competitive programs is a puzzle that has only arbitrary and depressing answers.