catchermiscount

Consider Emory. Carrie Wickham studies the Middle East; Richard Doner teachers a class on qualitative methods; all students funded. Not a "safety" but it might be a nice fit. Also, in the event that you do decide to include some other methods---seriously, why are you pidgeonholing yourself before you even start grad school?---they have some nice training along those lines.

Well dammit, you need to apply to Rochester, friend! We love us some violence and IR theory, and, MUCH MORE IMPORTANTLY, I need somebody to talk jazz with.

Ooooh oooh ooooh and then Wednesday Night Prayer Meeting came on the Pandora right after Peggy's Blue Starlight! Seriously, the most important thing anybody can tell prospective applicants or first year grad students: constructing and maintaining a good work playlist is the best thing you can do to maintain sanity and excellent work in the first year. That and buying and reading the Kennedy econometrics book.

I'm not convinced real analysis is better than having a meaningful collegiate experience, particularly in the last semester, which should be a celebration of one's intellectual curiosity through fun but challenging coursework and of the important friendships one has made in undergrad. I'm not preaching senioritis, but nothing's worse than a kid that's burned out before s/he even gets to math camp. And, in many cases, that means having a cocktail or eight with friends. If you're lucky, that spills into grad school as well---hopefully with a balanced social portfolio that included colleagues and non-work friends. So nope, not going to grant you that one, either. It can't be all work, and, importantly, if you make it all work, the work will suffer for it. I can only speak in my own case, but I find a drink or two twice a week and a good dose of YouTube good for the soul, which in turn is good for the political scientist in me. It can be anything: poetry, music, sports, crochet, watching Martha freaking Stewart, whatever. Maybe you and I need to find a few things we both find fun and use it as a starting point for our budding friendship---and, for the record, I don't think real analysis would be a good starting point along those lines. So, how about Charles Mingus? I bet you love Charles Mingus like I do. I'm working on a paper while grooving out to Peggy's Blue Starlight even as we speak. MAKE THE BOOTSTRAPS GO FASTER, CHARLIE!

If the question is: should I take real analysis or some substantively interesting senior-level poli sci class? I would recommend the latter every day of the week and twice on Sunday. Far better to get a sense of what kinds of conversations you'd like to enter or what kind of questions you'd like to ask. If you disagree, then I am sad for you, because it's a lot more fun to get the tools when you know what you'd like to use them on.

Many scholars who focus on civil war are not super duper technical, either. As but one example, Barbara Walter, who is one of the leading figures in several strands of the literature on civil wars, is not what one would call a super-techie person; she's super smart, has good ideas about civil wars, and then uses standard techniques as evidence of her arguments. Many other scholars in the literature are similar. What's more, I can tell you first hand that the data is generally so full of shit that one can't take it too too seriously anyway. So, learn the stats, yes, but don't think you have to become a convert to be successful.

A wise person at the desk next to mine made a post here once that was so full of horsesense that I steal it constantly. Peruse the journals and books that feature work that you really admire---subject, methods, etc. If they're currently assistant professors or young associates, you should add the school they attended to your list. If they're older associates or full professors, you should add the school they work at to your list. In your particular case, it really depends a lot on what kind of work you hope to do. If you are interested in doing case studies or other low-n analysis, I would agree with Cornell. If you're looking for good China people, then consider Michigan, Stanford, and Harvard. The Middle East is harder to pick around. For the interplay between domestic politics and IR, there are any number of directions you could consider. What kind of interplay? If you like to think about leadership broadly and abstractly, NYU and Rochester (apologies for the plug) would be good places. For more general quantitative domestic IR, you might consider the standard Peace Science-sort of places like Penn State, Rice, Illinois, etc. For public opinion's role in the course of international relations, consider Duke, Ohio State, or WashU. But really, it sounds more like you're interested in doing traditional IR, so the paragraph above might not apply directly.

See, I tried to be nice and all, but my officemate expat tends to take things to their logical conclusions with more vigor than I. He hadn't taken anything since high school; to offer even more information, I took two math classes in college and failed both. And yet here we are in the land of Math and Honey (and Snow) and, if I can speak for expatbayern, doing just fine indeed.

This is just untrue. Good introductory formal classes will introduce all the real analysis topics necessary---suprema, infima, convergence, Rolle's theorem, intermediate and mean value theorems, and abstract treatments of functions and their properties. Good advanced formal classes will introduce more difficult topics as needed, particularly regarding correspondences and their characteristics. At departments that are not as formal-oriented, a basic seminar in formal theory---the standard required class at most departments---will not require such topics at all. You don't need real analysis to solve games, including games of incomplete and/or imperfect information. Just as most political scientists use canned packages in statistical software environments (Stata, R, SAS, SPSS, etc.) for their quantitative analysis, so too do many of them use formal models that are well understood and easy to solve even after minor modifications. You need the more powerful tools if you intend to make up games on the fly and need to, say, confirm the existence of an equilibrium in a game that has never been considered or offer some of its characteristics. For those of you interested in getting the facts straight, go check a game theory text like Osborne's introductory one. Is it hard? Yes, it's hard in that it's a different way of thinking about things than most of us are used to. And there are obviously more advanced texts that one uses as one progresses. But, it remains that it's quite doable and does not require a math degree. After all, we're all just interested in talking about politics, right?

As more and more applicants become more and more savvy about what to expect in grad school thanks to undergraduate curricula that include more and more exposure to articles that are more and more quantitative and/or formal, more and more people seem to think that more and more math is required to begin a program in political science. I agree with Realist and think this sentiment generally overstates the facts. To be sure, exposure to math is a good thing. In particular, if one wants to have any kind of understanding of what's going on in the basic regression context, one needs some familiarity---though certainly not mastery---of basic matrix algebra, probability theory, and differential calculus. If one intends to do any kind of formal theory, being able to construct proofs is the key skill, along with some familiarity of real analysis in n-dimensions. Computing skills are also quite useful. But, you will get exposure to all of this in grad school. Just as most people don't come in with theories that will alter the way that we think about politics, they don't come in with a complete toolkit to analyze political processes. Just breathe, kiddies. I am a student at one of the most rigorous departments in the discipline, and I hadn't heard of regression or game theory when I applied to grad school. I also disagree with the original sentiment, which seems to imply that, to be successful, one must use the bells and whistles for the sake of using the bells and whistles. While my own work relies on the bells and whistles heavily, a lot of excellent, systematic study of politics is still being produced that uses qualitative analysis, informal theoretical arguments, or very rudimentary quantitative techniques. Indeed, even basic formal models can be taken off the shelf and applied in a variety of ways. So, yes, the business is technical, but it's not technical for the sake of the technique. Don't get caught up in the scientism that some use to overcome their own pathologies on the state of the discipline. Now, go get drunk, or read something you like, or watch some YouTube videos. Or do all of those.

In terms of places with well-regarded training in qualitative work: Berkeley, Chicago, Cornell, Virginia, Emory, Johns Hopkins, and Syracuse come to mind off the top of my head. I know it's not what you're specifically interested in, but Ohio State, Minnesota, and George Washington are known for constructivist approaches in IR/comparative. Bear in mind, though, that if you're primarily interested in political theory, you'll be able to consider a far wider range of schools -- like, just about all of them. If you're planning on taking comparative as a first field and theory as a second field, you can still apply broadly, but will have to consider the availability of comparative faculty willing to chair qualitative dissertation committees. In terms of getting in: many of us got into top 25s with worse credentials than you have (assuming you get any kind of GRE score). So, along with good letters (good letters from unkonwn people can be so much better than a form letter from somebody known) and a convincing statement of purpose, you're good. And think about ways to frame your proposal in a smaller way; it's a good chance to mention a targeted, interested research agenda in your statement of purpose in your apps here. Comps: most places do these as essays in the substantive fields. As in: you'll have a certain number of questions and have a certain amount of time (anywhere from a day to a week) to write a certain number of pages. I consider those essays, but maybe you're viewing that as an exam. That said, the comparative advantage of a PhD in the US is training, and you should keep your mind open should you decide to come here to study. I'm not telling you to convert; it's just that the best response to uncertainty is adaptability. Not all quantoids are created equal, and observe that you don't have to be empirical to be rigorous.

If one future Rochesterian isn't quite sufficient, let's see if one current one can get us closer. As a categorical point: don't pick a program because it's long or short. If you're feeling legitimate tensions between the kind of questions you'd like to ask and how you'd like to answer them, that's fine. If you're trying to orient yourself to a particular kind of job, that's fine. But, ultimately, it will probably be more important to you to find reward in your work than it is to start your job two years sooner or later. The big question is: what kind of research do you want to engage in? Are you interested in academic journals (e.g. International Organization) or policy journals (e.g. Foreign Affairs)? That's a pretty big schism. Generally, working in the university setting in a political science department focuses more on the former. Working in the policy world (or at a handful of policy schools within universities) focuses more on the latter. So, as a first cut, read the last few issues of IO or other academic IR journals like International Studies Quarterly. Read all the articles -- even the ones that use a lot of technical jargon and whatnot. How do you feel about the questions they're asking and the arguments they're making? Could you see yourself doing that? Taking public policy as a second field while working on an academic PhD in political science is indeed possible, and several of my colleagues at my previous program were public policy minors. Often these are coupled with a first field in American politics, since a lot of the academic public policy literature focuses on American institutions. A lot of this work is very theoretical in nature. So, go to the library and skim, say, Agendas and Instability in American Politics by Baumgartner and Jones. Could you see yourself utilizing a framework like theirs? Can you see the generality in the punctuated equilibrium approach? A lot of the academic public policy literature is getting more technical. A lot of the graduates of Stanford GSB have used formal theory---you might want to read anything by Michael Ting or Craig Volden as an example. Since formal theory is meant to be general, you might find some applications to IO/IFI questions. My officemate is very interested in those questions and (if I may speak for him) views them relatively formally, particularly utilizing bargaining theory. Nonacademic policy analysis is something altogether different. So, look up faculty members at good policy places (SAIS, Georgetown, Wilson, KSG, Harris, etc.) in IO/IFI and look up their work. For example, SAIS appears to have a nice set of faculty in international finance: wouldn't you agree? Is that more what you see yourself doing? Observe that these are people that, like, actually matter in the world. Is relevance an issue to you? Also observe the mixed backgrounds: there are Economics PhDs, policy PhDs, an MBA (who also happened to be Secretary of the Treasury), polisci PhDs. For a lot of people, the methods are an issue as well. Do you intend to make qualitative arguments, as is more common in policy work, or do you hope to use statistics and/or formal theory in your work? Personally, I don't think this should be a dealbreaker; picking up methods isn't all that hard. Political science can be relevant, and policy-relevant work can use statistics or formal theory. In terms of getting an academic job in political science: the policy thing isn't necessarily a problem. Undergraduate political science majors are often pre-laws, and people that work on policy questions are more likely to teach pre-laws. But, in IR, it might be a bit different. Many IR students have second fields in comparative politics---they might focus on general issues like democratization or they might focus in on a region. Some do American politics to better understand the links between domestic politics and foreign policy decisionmaking. In general, having some methodological chops helps one get an academic job. Wow, I typed a lot. So yeah. Get a better sense of what kind of job you want and research you want to do. Not all "research" is the same. Read some academic journals and some nonacademic journals. Refine your interests and the answer should become clear. Good luck.

Based on what you've written, the JD seems like the smarter bet. Being passionate about the business is just about a necessary condition for success, and that passion is generally more about research and less about teaching. Indeed, getting a job at "any four year institution" is contingent upon performing well in your five years of graduate training, and your advisors will likely not be evaluating you on your capacity to teach. Backing up a step, getting into graduate school generally requires a thoughtful, persuasive statement of purpose, and good SoPs tend to be about preferred research questions rather than teaching goals. If, after thinking hard about these facts, you are still interested in the business, then maybe you're more passionate about it than you think. Skim some recent issues of the top all-field journals and see if you'd be interested in writing something like that. Or, look up the CVs of faculty at institutions you would one day like to work for and read their work. You might like what you read more than you'd expect! Good luck.

I am not sure if my experience is an exception, but perhaps I might be of some service. I will briefly discuss my long trip below. At 18: had one good semester of college at a very good (top of the second tier) public university, then got all Fs the second semester (except for jazz band of course). GPA there: 1.8 At 19: didn't tell the parents about the Fs; faked going to college for a year with forged transcripts and whatnot. GPA: Still 1.8. From 20-22: worked as an ice cream scooper for a summer and a semester; confessed to flunking out; transferred to a tier 3 midwestern Catholic university. One good semester; one semester with all Fs that were converted to Ws by a very kind dean; one other semester of all Fs converted to Ws due to the really kind dean. GPA: now somewhere in the 2.1 range. From 22-25: move to the south; after being rejected from the military, I enroll at a directional state university that only recently went to competitive admissions. Try to flunk out again; given reprieve. Finally get my act together and don't get a B after that. Final GPA: 3.3, but from the really bad school. So, I had no econ background; no math background save for the semester at Georgia Tech; no rigorous poli sci background (hadn't heard of regression or the APSR, AJPS, or JoP until grad school). GRE: 700 verbal, 800 math. Apply to 10 schools throughout the midwest ranking from as high as 3 to as low as 40 or so. Get into a master's program (unfunded) and a top 25 Big Ten school (though one that was moving down in the rankings). At 25: start the PhD program at said Big Ten school. Learn only possible advisor is taking an offer at another university. Spend two years preparing to transfer. At 27: Apply to 14 more places with more geographic mixing but much more targeted to what I want to study. Do OK -- get into about half maybe. Eventually transfer to my current home, Rochester. Very happy here. The point of the story is: the probabalistic nature of the admissions process can be to your advantage. A well-written SoP can be a saving grace, as can a good quantitative score on the GRE. If you have the option of getting letters from known people, that always helps. Top 10 or even Top 25 might not be probable. I am not talented, nor do I have any pedigree to help me, nor do I have any special skills. I am very, very lucky: somebody on the adcom at the place I got in the first time found something they liked amid all the stuff not to like (and there was plenty of it!). The posters before have every reason to voice cynicism, because the process is probabilistic even for the best applicants. But maybe you'll be lucky too. So apply broadly if you can; something good can come of it.

I will be there for ALL THE FREE FOOD AND LIBATIONS. And if I have to act like a prospective to make you feel good, then so be it. I think most of my colleagues would rather have it that way anyway! ;-). Looking forward to seeing you guys. IF YOU WANT ME TO BE YOUR SPECIAL HOST LET ME KNOW AND I WILL DO ALL I CAN TO MAKE IT HAPPEN. But you'd better be awesome. Like, super awesome. And bring me a tshirt. I wear an XL.

I've been in contact with some of you, but let me open up to the board. I'm currently a first-year student at Rochester and would be happy to answer any questions you might have. Feel free to PM. Observe, too, that we were the only ones in the northeast to avoid the major snowstorms of the past few weeks, WOOT WOOT!

My current officemate once made a great suggestion on here. I don't know whether he thought it up or heard it from somebody else who's really smart, but here goes: Consider the political science scholarship that you like, particularly the work by people that are still active in the business. If they're assistant professors or youngish associate professors, find out where they got their PhDs, and add them to your list for consideration. If they're more advanced associates or fulls, add the places where they currently work to your list for consideration. That's a great way to get a good first cut.

Convex sets of utility imputations!

This is quite right, and I thank you for the clarification. I immediately thought about teaching consequences as well; just about all comparativists are asked to teach "Politics of <insert country or region here>," based on most university catalogs. But, do you feel the gap is smaller for new students than it is for older, more establish scholars like those you mentioned? I'm not asking argumentatively but rather as somebody that doesn't know. EDIT: is the gap "larger" not "smaller." God, it's early on a Monday.

I can't say that the best way to be marketable is to do precisely what you love, but I can say with certainty that the best way to be unmarketable is to really suck at something because you hate it. What's more, it is impossible to know what the market will look like in five years when you guys are on the market. That said, it has become the norm for Americanists to minor in methods---particularly those interested in working on behavior. Institutionalists often go formal; for example, WashU puts out great judicial people, and Rochester is known for Congress. Comparativists vary. This board has had a lot of good debate on the current state of comparative, but I tend to think that generalists have been underrepresented here relative to area studies people. Generalists are often quite technologically savvy or strong in formal. So, that much depends on what you want to study. Also, speaking as a person that knows a lot of comparativists: you don't have to learn a language to major OR minor in comparative. Many do, but some do not. If you are a comparative major without knowledge of another language, then it tends to be expected that you're strong in methods or formal. Comparative minors...you have to know the literature and pass a comp. The literature tends to be written in English. You do the math. IR? We're weird. Don't you be like me! YOU STAY JUST THE WAY YOU ARE! \melvin udall Coach PS: It is assumed for the purposes of this post that theorists will read Tocqueville and become American minors. For thoughts on the need for realistic assumptions, see Milton Friedman.

See this is going downhill again, what with the intellectualism and the worry and the comp-studying. If you're not hung over this morning, you just aren't getting it. Note that at certain levels of drunkenness one speaks in tongues, which (apparently) would help all you would-be comparativists. Based on who I've met in the business, it also makes for excellent close reading in the Straussian tradition.

You could always distract yourself and procrastinate like a graduate student would: GET INORDINATELY INEBRIATED!!!!! Streaking optional, kiddies. It's a bit nippy out there, especially if you're on the snowy eastern seaboard.

DELETE.

Now we're getting somewhere! Way to be helpful to our new friend, d00ds! Woot and double woot! High five here, high five there. High five everywhere.

Depends. Are they awesome? Do they like Das Boot? How about Designing Women?