catchermiscount

If it is so that the use of the GRE is to whittle down the applicant pool, then would setting One Hard Number that is relatively unchanging from year to year be the right move? Why not just chop off the bottom half or so, which would vary?

You should definitely apply to School ;-). Thanks for sorting A-Z in your spreadsheet prior to copying and pasting! :-)

YMMV. A few years into my program, I asked one of the faculty members that was on the admissions committee dumb enough to accept me just what it is that he looks for. "Letters, undergrad institution/courses/grades, GRE quant score." I was a little taken aback and asked if the SoP means anything to him. "No---why should it? Nobody knows what they want to study before they apply to grad school." One of the faculty members on the committee this year said something quite similar. Anyway, yeah, it's quite the crapshoot.

Comparative and IR are two distinct subfields. MSU political science proper has two IR people: Mike Colaresi (tenured) and Cristina Bodea (not yet tenured). Mohammed Ayoob does almost all of his teaching at James Madison College across campus and rarely visits South Kedzie Hall. In comparative, on the other hand, MSU has Eric Chang (tenured), Brian Silver (tenured), Michael Bratton (tenured, though I don't know if he's still actively engaged), Ani Sarkissian (untenured), and Jeff Conroy-Krutz (untenured), along with some people in related fields (Reggie Sheehan does comparative courts, and Paul Abramson dabbles in French/Israeli politics). That's a really big difference in faculty between comparative and IR. If we can get a better sense of what grantman wants to study, maybe there's more specific advice to be given.

The Essex program is generally well-regarded. It could certainly help to signal good background in statistical work.

Let's try and be precise here so that any confusion you're facing is minimized. A lack of funding might be a good justification to transfer. If you have a good justification, then any potential disadvantages you face as a transfer (whether they exist or not is anybody's guess) may be mitigated. This very much depends on the folks that are reading your file at a given school. At some departments, people may be more sympathetic to transfers than at others. But your chances are a function of other factors, such as your performance in graduate school. Brent is spot on here: the most important thing is to go to a place and work your ass off. THEN think about transferring.

As Penelope said, the big job is improving your file. Generally, this means (1) performing well in your training, and (2) getting good letters from somebody that's seen you at the graduate level. It's really tough to pull that off in a few months' time. It's also quite difficult to get good letters from your current department unless you're leaving for some good reason (e.g. the advisor thing or the family thing or something similar). Obviously these aren't necessary, but they make things easier. My department has about one transfer per cohort, which is probably a bit on the high side. Of them, about half were of the I-lost-my-advisor-at-my-old-department variety. The lack of funding probably makes things a bit easier from a purely political standpoint. It remains, however, that your biggest job at present is kicking lots of ass in your classes. You won't improve your stock without good graduate performance for at least a year.

C'mon, RWBG: clearly some of our most technically-inclined graduates qualify as "mainstream political scientists." I think everybody knows that ;-). I wonder what McKelvey made?!

We very much enjoyed Rush 2012. To any that are active or lurkers on here, thanks for visiting. We're looking forward to a very good bunch of Pleges (sik), where "good" here refers to some convex combination of academic talent and sociability.

Make sure to get some Spotted Cow when you're there.

I totally almost posted the "I know it when I see it" thing as well. Excellent taste, young man.

You said "annals," tee hee hee!

Is it new data? And clearly, everybody knows that the only rankings that matter are the short-lived President's Day rankings (aka The Ranking that Won't Matter or A Poor Attempt to Rank Political Science PhD Programs). That one day was a golden one for the discipline.

Definitely find good with the bad. Summarize your grammar/syntax issues with something like "Obviously the language is loose and needs work, but let's focus on concepts." If an idea is interesting, even if it isn't well-founded, say it's interesting. If the attempt to make a contribution is novel, say so. And then raise concerns with execution.

As noted, The Chicago reference is to Ethan BdM, who does excellent work on the subject. Consider Wisconsin (Kydd). Edited to add link.

All kinds---mostly the usual (poli sci) suspects but a few other places. I'll put all the sources in the write-up.

I have decided that I don't like any of the rankings and have spent about four hours getting data in one place. Bowling tonight, so analysis tomorrow with white-russian-induced hangover. Results sometime after that. Effing rankings. What a waste of human and financial capital. Has anybody actually looked at which variables they include in the NRC and which they don't? Irksome. Irksome irksome irksome. Really irksome.

It's possible to act on it. First, don't use the Hix rankings at all. Those are about faculty productivity, not graduate training. All they'll do is induce even more variability when it's not needed. Any given ranking is an attempt to tap into some unobserved, underlying "PhD program quality" dimension. They're all imperfect, and they're not even all that correlated anymore. I think TheRealist's point (and I hate speaking for him/her) is that "you know it when you see it." And let's be honest: while top 25 is arbitrary (24th versus 26th isn't all that much of a difference, indeed), departments (and their deans) worry a helluva lot about top 25 status, or top 20 status, or whatever. As an example, see Emory's site, which proudly trumpets their status as a top 20 political science department based on one placement measure. Emory is an excellent department that has undergone a lot of improvement lately, but I don't think many people would agree that it's a top 20 PhD program just yet. If you must use a ranking, the US News one stinks but is likely the best we have for these purposes in that it offers a sense of perception from within. Sure, it's cronyistic and all, and sure, taking the mean of an ordinal variable as the only statistic is dumb, but you get the idea. And I would probably guess that you could safely call the top 20 schools on that ranking "top 25 departments" for most individualized purposes (though again political philosophy brings its own problems due to departments like Johns Hopkins, Virginia, Notre Dame, and so on). So yeah, 25 might be an arbitrary cutoff point, but the general logic is just fine.

Yes, this is relatively common. EDIT: If you do go on an informal visit to see a school due to scheduling issues, (1) don't be a jerk about it, and (2) don't be a jerk when you get there. This is not directed at you but at the set of potential jerks out there.

Nope---I didn't have anything in mind, at least...

One question that doesn't get asked a lot (and that I think should be asked) is: what classes are being taught next year? Often thoes are already set. Who's teaching the required classes? Are there methods requirements? Philosophy? Theory? Which substantive classes are going to be around? Your development will be path-dependent, and the first year really establishes things. Believe it or not, for many people, the substantive interests so beautifully-articulated in the SoP and that seem so critical right now will be on the cutting-room floor in a few months' time. Openmindedness in the first year is critical. The first-year requirements professors are often the ones you'll get closest with fastest (both my first-year methods and theory professors are on my committee, for example). Good to know who they'll be.

This is based on experience from six rushes. Any example or issue I raise is from an actual event. (1) Don't be a jerk. I can tell you this because I am, in fact, a jerk. (2) Business casual is fine. If you want to add a blazer to your shirt and slacks, that's cool, but don't be a jerk about it. No shiny Ed Hardy shirts. (3) Ask if you can sit in a class or two. If you do, don't be a jerk in class. You're there to observe, not to interrupt. If the professor asks you a question or something, go ahead and participate, but don't be a jerk about it. An example on (3). Last year, we had a guy sit in our (highly technical) dynamic modeling class. He happened to sit in the dryest, hardest lecture of the year. So the professor proves a theorem on the board that has us all panting and trembling, and he writes out "for all" on the board in doing so. During break, the prospective student rocks up to the professor and is alike "Hey, why did you write out 'for all' instead of using the upside-down A? That would have been more rigorous.'" Don't be like that. That's jerky. (4) If you are a jerk when you are drunk, then do not drink too much. If you are fun when you are drunk (but not a fun jerk---there are fun jerks out there), wait until the faculty are gone and then rock the f**k out. (5) You can ask professors if they're happy at Department X, but don't be a jerk about it. Don't ask if they have a mortgage or anything. That's jerky. If they're unhappy, they'll say so in code. Don't press. (6) Don't be a jerk on academic grounds. Don't talk down to people. Don't tell people they *need* to read a paper or a book. Don't talk about your own research unless asked. Don't say you published unless it's a real journal. Like, a real journal. (7) Ask the students the hard questions, but don't be a jerk about it. Ask about their research to get a sense of the training. Don't feign being impressed, but don't get too critical. Ask what they're happy about, what they're unhappy about. Be discriminating-seeming but not critical. (8) Don't be a jerk about other schools you're considering. Not everything you see at Department X reminds you of something you might see on your pending visit at Department Y. You don't have to rattle off your list all the live-long day; that's jerky. You came to visit and learn more about Department X, so stick to that. (9) Don't be a jerk about stipends just yet. If you want to ask for more, visit day isn't the day to do it. That's really jerky. (10) Don't be a jerk with the other visitors. Don't probe them constantly. Don't seem indifferent. If you go to Department X, then these people will be your all-nighter buddies during problem sets; your comp stress empathizers; your idea-bouncers. Don't get that off on the wrong foot. (11) Seem like somebody that faculty and grad students will want to work with. The best way to do that is to avoid being a jerk. And no, your offer won't be revoked if you're a jerk. But impressions matter. They matter with potential advisors, with other grad cohortmates you might coauthor with, with older grad students that might offer well-timed advice. You may think you've made it (and you have, and your achievements should be celebrated), but you'll be a lowly first-year soon enough. It's going to be a lot of fun, and you might as well get the experience off on the right foot.

A bunch of us are hitting Frontera Grill (many of my friends pucker at the thought of the prices at Topolobampo). It promises to be wicked-awesome.

Now THAT looks good. Way to go on that one.

May I brag a little bit? It is out of character, at least. The girlfriend works until 9 tonight. Sucks. Don't want to go out to dinner that late (she has a huge audition on Friday so sleep cycle is very important at the moment). So, what to do. Clearly, the answer is an Arrested Development picnic. We will watch AD (ZOMG YES) while eating: Slow-roasted clover honey-infused bruschetta with fresh ricotta and extra buckwheat honey Honey pots de creme with mint (yes, honey was the theme) Fresh prosciutto and soprasetta with black grapes, leaf-wrapped Vache de Chalais, and bourbon-washed Pie D'Angloys. Strawberries and raspberries---some in Gran Manier with fresh whipped cream and some with sour cream and brown sugar. Yes, this is meant to be a recruitment tool. The Wegman's in Pittsford, NY rocks. And yes, this may be my last post for a while due to the fact that I will be getting gout after all this food (and accompanying wine). Others should share their plans, too---stop talking about work, dudes/ettes.