dih2
-
Posts
49 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by dih2
-
-
thanks!
-
What sorts of questions are most useful to ask?
-
3 hours ago, Comparativist said:
Why is that absurd? Lots of the smaller programs have cohorts of 8-12.
Is this common among very elite programs though?
-
4 minutes ago, ralphwiththeconch said:
Still waiting for the official UChicago response, but wanted to share some intel I got from a student there - the cohort size has gotten much smaller in recent years (15 people in 2011 vs. 8 people in 2016) and there has been a lot of turnover in faculty. The student mentioned that there is a major hiring shift going on. I don't know the specifics, but I thought I would share in case it might be helpful to anyone (i.e. if you are attending, make sure your POI isn't about to leave!).
The cohort is only 8?!?! That's absurd!
-
Is it bad to do a PhD at the same place you did your BA? Specifically, does anyone know if this is a big deal for the theory subfield?
-
Cohort is 24 people. Is that smaller than normal?
-
Claiming an acceptance!
- The0ry, international_IR and krapp
-
3
-
3 minutes ago, oakeshott said:
JK: Just heard from Harvard. Waitlisted.
do they normally send out all decisions at once?
-
1 hour ago, VMcJ said:
Well, Harvard shenanigans, apparently.
so no Harvard today I guess?
-
2 minutes ago, Bibica said:
@AsymptoticallyUnbiased Here you go, my friend. This is the source of our obsessions.
lol, we may have just killed you productivity
-
-
22 minutes ago, advark said:
so when is Harvard coming?
Lol, that's what I want to know
-
13 minutes ago, Comparativist said:
Well, it is presumably supposed to be. But it's track record of predicting who will last and who won't is not very good. Of course, I don't think anyone should expect it to be perfect.
It seems the admissions process is fairly reliable for determining especially strength of applicant/student and potential. You can see that every cycle in these threads. There are a handful of applicants every year that do extremely well across the board. Then there are a handful that get rejected from most or all places. It also does an adequate job of sorting students into the tier of programs that they should probably belong to (not perfect by any means though).
But it doesn't seem like a very good indicator for predicting attrition. Attrition rates for most programs - even top ones - are somewhere around 50%. That's extremely high. Now, I don't think attrition rates should be 0% or else your program isn't rigorous enough (and we certainly wouldn't want the potential candidates pool for academic jobs to double which would be a disaster).
But I also see an admissions process that looks for the best students rather than potentially the most promising or committed ones. Large emphases on pedigree, GPA, GRE, ect. that really doesn't indicate a whole lot.
I did a masters in a program affiliated to a top 25 program and watched attrition closely. Out of a cohort of around 20, 2 or 3 people didn't make it past the first year and a half (one even dropped out after the first semester). Another 2 probably won't even make it to comps. Then a bunch will take the masters and leave. It's crazy how unprepared and unfamiliar these students were with what grad school entails. This is typical across many programs.
That being said, I am sure the admissions process is difficult to do. Lots of applicants and lots of noise in the process.
But I do think there are a few things these programs could do:
1) It's interesting that there is a real lack of an interview process throughout the discipline. Most sciences programs employ them extensively. Even other humanities/social sciences like sociology and history use them quite a bit as well. One way of weeding out those great students that don't really know what they doing/committed is through interviewing them.
2) Smaller cohorts. I really see no reason why some departments have these massive cohorts. Yeah, they need TAs of course, but there are ways of addressing this. The academic market is saturated as it is...and having smaller cohorts that support their students better would make attrition less likely.
3) Political science as a discipline could make masters programs more prevalent and/or used as breeding grounds for developing good candidates for top programs. Other disciplines and countries do this, not sure why political science doesn't. A student who has been through a rigorous masters program is much less likely to not know what they are getting themselves into.
But what's really so wrong with people dropping out? As you say, the job market is super-saturated, and there just aren't jobs for many. Perhaps it isn't so bad that lots of people do a couple years of a PhD, learn quite a bit, maybe get a MA, and drop out to pursue another career path. I'm going in to a PhD knowing full well that I might not get a job in academia. As a result, I'll be looking quite aggressively at alternative professional opportunities.
I don't think though that requiring a MA, for example, would be all that much of an improvement. Many of these programs are unpaid. Does it really make sense to incentivize more folks to pursue them? There the tradeoff becomes much starker. And for every 1 person who successfully finishes an MA and is accepted to a top graduate program, another 1 still doesn't get in, and is left with just more debt. That's of course exaggerated for effect, but I think there's a serious point there.
Regarding smaller cohorts, I think I largely agree. One worry is that smaller cohorts would encourage universities to cut funding for these departments and for research (which would be terrible). But certainly non-elite elite programs should consider reducing the number of students they take
-
4 minutes ago, Comparativist said:
Yeah and it's frustrating for people that have been preparing for this for like 4 years and have taken a number of grad courses in a reputable program to have these flimsy students take spots.
Isn't the admissions process itself this screening process? Do these departments accept students who haven't demonstrated that they will likely succeed in the program?
-
19 minutes ago, Monody said:
I think that it is important to note that given the low number of admitted students, 4% turns out to be about 1 spot. Of course, it can be the difference between an acceptance and a rejection, but the chances do not become that much smaller.
Well, I think it matters where that 1 spot falls. If it falls in theory, for example, we go from 4 spots to 3. That's a rather sizable reduction in your chances...
-
8 minutes ago, oakeshott said:
Significant reduction in the number of spots due in part to high yield last year.
Does this have to do with Harvard's funding cuts/reduction of spots across grad schools? Also, do you happen to know if it applies across sub fields?
more generally, how does that work? Are there quotas within departments for the various subfields?
-
What schools should we expect to hear from this week?
-
Has anyone emailed Harvard?
-
Some Yale results went out last weekend, could that happen again this weekend?
-
13 minutes ago, ralphwiththeconch said:
Omg I know. From the looks of the results board (taken with a grain of salt), it looks like Sociology has started informing their rejects. Hopefully that means Harvard Gov might be coming soon with news.
Is there a reason to think they go together?
-
Does anyone know how the possibility of unionization (I believe they are voting this week on it) would effect future yale grad students?
-
26 minutes ago, Bibica said:
The letter on the website. It included funding, did it not? My first email from ad comm also included details on the funding package.
I haven't received anything else about the visiting days but I'm sure it's funded. I did get info about diversity recruitment days (3/26-7) but won't be able to attend. That one offered a $400 travel voucher (they scheduled your travel) and put you with graduate students for that time.
It included some vague language "fellowship for the first 2 years, TA the next 2 years, dissertation fellowship after that" But I was hoping for some specificity (especially on compensation during the years when you teach.)
I also understand yale is going through this grad student unionization debate. Does anyone know of an objective source of information for how that might effect future grad students? How could funding packages change? What would union dues look like? How would it effect ability to work as an RA, etc.
-
19 minutes ago, Bibica said:
@HermioneWannabe I know someone in AP who was rejected. It could be that no one who uses this site got an offer for AP? I only say that because I've already gotten my official letter and in previous years Yale sent those all out at once.
However, visiting days are quite late (April 4-6) so they may have some stuff to sent out still? I'm not sure how likely that is.
by the letter, do you just mean what was updated on the website (the letter from the dean)? Or have you received a package with more substantive info?
Also, just to repeat, are these visiting days funded? I need to figure things out financially if not...
-
Has anyone who got accepted to Yale heard more details about the visiting weekend? Is it funded? I just know the dates, but have heard nothing else.
Programs strong in Marxist study?
in Political Science Forum
Posted
Out of curiosity, what kind of Marxist is Tuck?