catchermiscount

I strongly encourage him/her to apply to Rochester, and the weather at Cornell ain't much better if you're looking for commonalities.

You can't have it all ways. If you're picking a narrow field---and really taking a very strong stance not only on field but on the style of department you want---you can't say "oh my God the thought of living in <insert town here> makes me want to puke." I'd recommend a little more flexibility on both geographical and academic dimensions.

Rochester, Stanford GSB, Caltech, Princeton, maybe NYU. The existence of theorists on the faculty does not imply a solid theory curriculum. Indeed, one of the departments mentioned here has a theorist that (1) tends not to take on students, and (2) tends to spend his/her time outside of political science due to some hostility within the department. While it's smart to look at the faculty, also look at very recent students. Who's been turning out good theorists? Or, if you're just thinking about using theory to do IR, who's been turning out good applied users for IR? If that's the criterion, then Caltech or Stanford GSB might not be the best options, as their (formidable) strengths lie elsewhere.

Among better departments, Michigan (top 5), Duke (top 10), and UNC (top 15) seem like smart additions to the list. Duke isn't necessarily thought of as a political psychology/communication place, but they've re-tweaked their major fields and might provide a nice fit, particularly with the blend of identity and behavior given your flirtation with comparative. The CoachRJC Graduate School Lifestyle Fund accepts PayPal ;-).

One more idea about looking for fit: my ex-officemate, who is far smarter than I, posted an idea here once (I don't know if it's his or not): peruse the last few issues of top general political science journals (American Political Science Review, American Journal of Political Science, Journal of Politics) and the top journals in your particular field (e.g. for IR/security, you'd look at International Organization, Journal of Conflict Resolution, International Studies Quarterly, International Security, etc.). Take note of the people that do work that you like, and check out the rest of their work. If they are a full or associate professor, consider applying to the department where they work. If they are an assistant or young associate professor, consider applying to the department where they got their PhD. While nuances make this approach less than perfect, it will yield a set of candidate schools that more or less meet the "fit" criterion.

"Fit" need not be tight. When I received a phone call of admission from my current home, the professor simply said "oh, you want to do quantitative and formal conflict stuff, so you'll fit right in." He did NOT say "oh, hot damn! You're like a mini-version of eight of our faculty members, and you guys will be writing identical articles on identical subjects with identical arguments!" A "fit" is somebody that is generally interested in the kind of research associated with a department on both substantive and methodological lines---which is to say, it's somebody that stands the most to gain from the training that a given department offers. Observe that some of the best-known advisors in the discipline's history did not necessarily match their students perfectly. One example from here is Dick Fenno, whose family tree in Congressional studies is as good as it gets. He was famous for soaking and poking (which is to say, actually TALKING to Congresspeople), but some of his most accomplished students used formal theory, and others used quantitative methods. Coming from the other direction, the methodologist Gary King often has little substantive overlap with his students (and they study just about everything you can think of), but they all have a desire to get the best possible statistical training. Or, I am reminded of two of my friends in political philosophy at Michigan State. One studied technology and Francis Bacon; the other studied the ancient Greeks. They had the same advisor, and the three of them happened to be united under the banner of Straussianism. To "fit" in a department, you need (1) at least one person on the faculty that can serve as an advisor; and (2) a desire to do the kind of work that the place is known for (e.g. it's better to tell Rochester that you like game theory than it is to tell them that you like thick description). What kind of potential advisor can help meet criterion (1)? You need somebody that (a) is in the same general field as you; and ( is sympathetic to the kind of methodological approaches you intend to employ. For (a), it varies by field. If you are a comparativist with a strong area-studies bent, then you will need somebody that studies the same area. Alternatively, if you are in public opinion, just about any behavioral Americanist can meet criterion (a). I am in international conflict, and my own (substantive) advisor and I do not really study anything all that similar---that is, we generally aren't involved in the same literatures. For (, it's trickier. You'll have to read would-be advisors' work to get a sense of what kind of work they do. That's really only a best guess as to how "sympathetic" they'll be---just because somebody does a lot of quantitative empirical work doesn't mean they're opposed to qualitative, formal, computational, or other approaches. These are bare minima, and discussing what makes a good advisor could comprise another thread. An advisor should be relatively established---at the very least, having a tenured person is a good idea just in terms of how the incentive curves overlap. A well-known advisor is helpful come placement time, but a very well-known but very old faculty member might be a detriment if you intend to do cutting-edge methodological or formal work. You, the applicant, should be thinking about both an advisor and the rough composition of a dissertation committee. That's generally less important to the adcom member reading your file. (2) is pretty simple. What kind of work do recent graduates do? What kind of methodological training does the department offer? Having even one qualitative methods class is a pretty strong signal that there will be people open to qualitative work, while it takes a relatively extensive sequence in either methods or formal theory to send a similar signal for those approaches. Some places are even a bit more nuanced: Stony Brook is known for political psychology, which in turn means that you can expect some training in scaling and other psychometric approaches. Generally, I agree with alphazeta in that it is better to think about departments than it is to think about fit. You will have to convince an adcom, not necessarily a would-be advisor, that you are a good fit. Your primary job is to show the adcom that you stand to gain a lot from their training (both substantive and methodological). That's the essence of fit.

Fit and competition problems are exacerbated by the fact that (1) China will likely be a hot topic in years to come; and (2) only a handful of American departments have devoted substantial resources to the topic. Moreover, many of the best places for Chinese politics (Harvard, Michigan, Stanford, etc.) are just really tough to get into generally. Selling yourself as a China specialist is tough. Along those lines, you may want to (1) think a little more broadly about east Asian studies; and (2) link yourself into broader topics in comparative politics (e.g. institutional features like, say, corruption). That would likely make you more attractive to schools that don't have a direct strength in Chinese politics but that are looking to coach up good comparativists. The usual, generic suggestions apply. Do you have experience with quantitative or formal approaches to the study of politics? Can your writing sample incorporate a simple model or basic data analysis (not that data on Chinese politics would be easy to come by!). I do have one friend that had a very strong profile applying from China, used that strong profile to gain acceptance to a master's program in political economy (specializing in China) at a top 5 department, took some methodological classes over the summer at ICPSR, and then parleyed all that experience into admission to a top 5 PhD program with a focus in Chinese politics. So, it is entirely possible to use time (and a little money on the master's front) to get more exposure to American-style political science and work toward your larger goal.

It depends on what you're selling. Were you planning on studying Montesquieu and Bacon? If so, then a 720Q is less of a problem. Were you planning on studying formal theory at Caltech? If so, then 720Q is a dagger in the heart. In general, a 1420 is good enough to gain entry to most programs---which is to say, it will get you over the initial hurdle.

Probably a tad premature for now. There's little utility in thinking about the move ahead until you figure out just how dissatisfied you are with your current surroundings. Further, if you decide that it is indeed best to transfer, then you'll likely want at least one letter from a faculty member at your current place. If you choose to transfer out this year, you have no chance of developing the strong ties required for good letters. Just what are you dissatisfied with, course-offering-wise? Most first-years spend the brunt of their time meeting basic methodological requirements and taking field seminars rather than taking electives. Is the training at your new home out of the ordinary?

The 3.5 means that your admission is more likely to be the product of a quirkster on the adcom. I would have killed for a 3.5 (long story), and I got into precisely one doctoral program after applying to schools ranked from 4 to 40. When I asked an adcom member as to why the heck I got in (I did not deserve to), she said it's because the only thing she looks at is the quantitative score on the GRE. Such simplistic admissions strategies are rare. If you finished strong, or if you performed well in your major classes, or if your grades are in part a product of taking rigorous classes over in the econ department, then you can make it work. You just have to sell intelligently. In particular, your statement must be more convincing than others. You have to make the adcom member believe that the bumps in the road have led to a reasonable approach to social science that has led you to consider interesting research questions. If you can do that, then the 3.5 looks a lot more like an interesting, rigorous undergraduate experience and a lot less like too-many-beers-at-the-ol'-fraternity-house-the-night-before-exams.

To echo expat (whoever the heck that guy is), I think you'll find that there is a bit of a "dead zone" for qualitative training between the very top schools and a a lower tier of schools. You certainly can get good training in qualitative methods at many top-15 type departments. You are also more likely to be able to find qualitative training at some departments ranked 40+. In the middle, however, are many departments that are actively trying to make names for themselves by virtue of offering good quantitative training and that expect nearly all their graduates to fit a mold that highlights that training. Places like, say, Florida State, Michigan State, or UC-Davis come to mind. Emory provides nice evidence of this kind of thing on their website; observe what pains they take to mention the six courses available in their quant sequence relative to the one qualitative methodology course available. This is typical of rising-type schools in this range. Generally, I would recommend staying open to expanding your methodological horizons. How many methods classes have you taken? Formal theory? Programming? Don't knock it 'til you've tried it---grad school should be a fun time where you experiment and learn what works best for you. Don't go in with those decisions already made, as you'll miss out on some of the fun. Just one man's opinion.

Having transferred myself, I would encourage you to think hard about this decision. In general, if you don't feel that you have a reasonable (not ideal, but reasonable) candidate to chair a committee, then you should consider transferring. A good chair can help address these "meet halfway" issues. You can feel free to IM me with the particular details of your case on that front. My sense from transferring was that the adcom was looking for a very good justification as to why I should leave my first department. They also wanted evidence that my time spent at the first department was fruitful, both in terms of shaping research questions and gaining methodological skills. Transferring can often cause political problems, so if you do decide to consider transferring, bear in mind that you may be able to upgrade, but that you may have to go to a school that is slightly lower-ranked than your first department but a better fit. You don't want to have to go back to your first department with your tail between your legs, so you'll have to be willing to apply broadly. Again, we can discuss that much in private.

Here is the link to the government affairs page! Good luck.

By IR, do you mean an academic PhD in political science with an interest in international relations, or do you mean a policy PhD with a more applied focus? If you're thinking about something that might involve an MPA, my sense is the latter. If so, there are other fora that should have better information for you. If not, just say the word and we'll all perk up and have a party and whatnot.

Some do data analysis, yes, and I did not mean to imply otherwise. MIT's comparative advantage in the area, however, remains in its traditional security studies group, where students learn very, very hands-on kind of things. If one checks the research link on their Security Studies Program's website, one sees International Security, Foreign Affairs, etc. These are typically thought of as traditional security studies outlets rather than mainstream journals---I love reading them, but at many places, they will not do much for tenure. Typically IR stuff is strictly game theoretic, yes. I don't know that anybody has, say, applied social choice theory to the behavior in international institutions. There are lots of fun things one can do---if you're interested in learning more, I'd recommend leafing through Osborne's Introduction to Game Theory, which is very readable and chatty enough to get a sense about applications.

I just don't come along MIT alums all that often in the kind of stuff that I read. Which recent alums did you have in mind? I could certainly be wrong.

A convincing statement of purpose is going to be key here, but I am not nearly as skeptical as some previous posters. Some places may balk, but other places would be excited at the chance to coach up somebody with (1) lots of technical training; (2) an 800Q; (3) actual practical experience that may have led to interesting research questions. Write a good statement, and apply broadly. Oh, and the job market sucks, but I would recommend worrying about that when you've gotten into a few places.

1) Sometimes collaborative, sometimes not. Typically papers have three coauthors or fewer. Problem sets in the first few years are often tackled collaboratively. 2) Any good PhD (acadmic) program pays for the degree and offers health benefits and an acceptable living stipend. 3) Either from outside sources (NSF), their (sometimes generous) university research accounts, or from other kinds of funding unique to my university.

1) It can get relatively technical. Formal and statistical analysis is used throughout the discipline, though some substantive areas are more technical than others. 2) Take more political science if you feel good about your training in probability and statistics. If you are so inclined, taking any proof-based courses or real analysis might help with preparing for formal work. 3) On a daily basis? MY DAD ASKS ME THE SAME THING. I work. Today, for example, will be spent finishing up a long constrained optimization problem for a formal paper I'm writing. Last week was spent programming for a monte carlo analysis for an estimator I've been working on. During classtime, much of the time is devoted to reading history or informal political science. What methods? Um, that's kind of a broad question. Some formal theory. Some statistics. Some programming. 4) Topics: I am in international relations, particularly international security. 5) Tenure track job at a good university, if only I weren't so stupid. You don't NEED a good background in political science. I was an English major, and I have friends that were math majors, economics majors, engineering majors, etc. The comment about asking good questions is true, but substantive training in your department is just as, if not more, important than technical training. Many math majors have gone on to ask pretty interesting questions---see for example some guy named Robert Axelrod. I also slightly disagree about the "under the hood" comment. It is good to know what is going on under there as much as possible (I certainly don't have anything close to a full understanding!), as it allows you to be a bit more flexible. Canned packages are nice, but they don't do everything.

In terms of formal security papers, the nice thing is that it's a relatively small cadre of people. Fearon's early work has popularized formal conflict stuff. Find his webpage here. Of particular note is the 1995 paper in IO, the 1994 paper in the APSR, and the 1997 JCR. His teacher was Robert Powell, whose list of papers you can find here. His 2006 piece in IO is well known, as his his book, In the Shadow of Power. In fact, In the Shadow of Power might be a nice starting point in terms of summer reading. From what I understand, Powell does not take on students at Berkeley. Another big name in the field is Branislav Slantchev of UCSD, whose work you can find here. Schelling's influence is obvious, particularly in the Power to Hurt paper. In terms of a reading list of books: Robert Powell, In the Shadow of Power Bruce Bueno de Mesquita and David Lalman, War and Reason BdM2S2, The Logic of Political Survival Andrew Kydd, Trust and Mistrust in International Relations Thomas Schelling, The Strategy of Conflict (not formal) Thomas Schelling, Arms and Influence (not formal) Those are all pretty fun to read. In my department we just had a class on formal models of conflict (along with some historical background); you can find the syllabus here. My favorite paper in that group is the mechanism design paper by Fey and Ramsay (yes, I'm a homer); find the paper here. You'd actually be surprised how little is out there that straddles. I'm finishing up my course paper for the aforementioned formal IR class. It's on the relationship between trade and war onset, and while I was able to find a PILE of empirical papers (see especially Erik Gartzke's The Capitalist Peace), I found almost NO theoretical papers. An exception is a signalling paper by James Morrow in 1994 or so (can't find the link---1994 JPR entitled "How Could Trade Affect Conflict?") I would recommend neither Ohio State (not for this kind of thing anyway---excellent IR group, but not necessarily in this vein) nor MIT (the security studies people there are kind of...well it's different). I would recommend considering places that offer the best possible technical training, as both formal IPE and formal security studies are getting rigorous at a very fast rate. Stanford, UCSD, Rochester, NYU, Princeton, and Wisconsin come immediately to mind. Wisconsin is still producing relatively qualitative students, but with the reshaping of their IR faculty (adding Lisa Martin and Andrew Kydd, getting Jon Pevehouse back, etc.), they have a lot of people in place for doing rigorous work that crosses IPE/security boundaries. Now, you might not have a lot of colleagues to talk to; my officemate here and I both considered Wisconsin and really liked the faculty, but it wasn't ideal in terms of the people we'd be taking classes with and coauthoring with. To make an actual list: Stanford UCSD (assuming the bloodbath is all the way over, which it appears to be) Rochester NYU Princeton Wisconsin Michigan Duke I'm sure there are some others, but these all would interface with what you've mentioned pretty well. And now that I've rambled on too long, back to my very crappy proof.

I had a similar experience and managed to transfer out. If you (or anybody else in a similar position) would like to discuss, feel free to PM me.

Develop hobbies! DEVELOP THEM SO HARD DO IT NOW! You're gonna need them come optimization-homework time.

Have some fun. Do some recreational reading. If so inclined, dabble with an introductory econometrics book (super basic stuff, like Wooldridge or Gujarati). Save some money. Establish friendships with cohortmates and advanced colleagues. Don't get too excited about your training before it starts---you can shore up weaknesses as they become apparent.

Run from the polarization literature, children! Run for your lives! Love, Some guy in IR

Bear in mind that some of their better candidates of late were beneficiaries of training from advisors that have since left Seattle. Gary Segura, now of Stanford, and Mike Ward, now of Duke, come to mind. Many of the good placements were in REP and quantitative IR.