staylite

I got both an admissions email from a POI as well as an automated "decision is updated on the portal" email. The latter had the actual offer letter. I would check that, and if it's not in yet, it's probably still processing or something.

General Interest Political Science Journals which turn out formal work: American Political Science Review, American Journal of Political Science, Quarterly Journal of Political Science Field Journals: Journal of Theoretical Politics, Social Choice and Welfare, Political analysis, Legislative Studies Quarterly Econ Field Journals: Games and Economic Behavior, Journal of Economic Theory, Economic Theory, Economics and Politics, Theoretical Economics, Public Choice Just look at faculty who publish formal theory and look at which journals they publish in. Other related terms "positive political theory" "positive political economy" "political economy" "political economics"

I was not referring to Chicago MAPSS (which I think is not in the Harris school) but rather to a Harris Public Policy PhD. Harris School does however have a number of other master's degrees, most notably the MACRM which Chris Blattman talks about here. It seems like you have strong sociological interests which I did not pick up in your original post. In that case, while I think the LSE EME would be helpful in any discipline, I would personally not be willing to shell out London living costs + LSE tuition unless you are sure you want to pursue an Econ PhD. The amount of debt you're tacking on - even with fellowships/fee reductions - just seems too prohibitive. If anything - and I'm not sure of the timing of this - you might apply to PhD programs this year and see where you get in. If you're happy with your acceptances, you don't have to worry about accepting your deferred EME admission. As to which field makes most sense to you, that will be up to you. I've tried to make the case for the programs I've mentioned, but I don't see any reason why not (besides application fees) to apply broadly and then figure out what happens after decisions come out. I also want to note that qualitative arguments are not absent from economics (or the other fields I've mentioned) - particularly in economic history and political economy. The best example of this would be Acemoglu and Robinson's work (see Economic Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy for example) which usually begins with case studies and then follows by developing a formal mathematical model. Are many economists disdainful of certain qualitative work? Sure, but at the end of the day, no matter how abstracted or mathematical a particular model is, it is always rooted in some qualitative or subjective observation of the world. What mathematics allows us to do is to precisely state which qualitative assumptions we make, and to show how that impacts our model.

My point was not to be dismissive of Sociology (which I have much respect for) but rather to point out that for most people interested in Political Economy, training and socialization within Econ/Public Policy/Political Science would likely be better. For one, I honestly doubt that there is any Sociology program equipped to teach the theoretical (and mathematical) foundations of PE. Compare courses, faculty, and seminars at one particular school across these disciplines, and you'll find a nontrivial amount of variation. Placement is also nontrivial. Econ graduates can and do place into Public Policy, Political Science, and Business Schools. Public Policy graduates can place in similar areas (and some, like David Autor placed in Econ). Recent Harris and Stanford GSB PE graduates have placed extremely well in Political Science. I'm unfamiliar as to whether it is common for Sociology grads to place into Econ/Public Policy/Political Science but I assume this is rare. That is not to say that the original poster should not consider sociology grad schools if that is their interest, but in terms of training (and possible industry options if the job market doesn't work) I'd argue that there are better options.

Are you more inclined to empirical or theoretical PE? Since you're considering the LSE EME, I assume it is the former. Here are some of my thoughts: LSE EME is the top Master's program in Econ for a reason. You will be grinding it out against other very bright people for ranks, and RA/Recommendations. If you're confident this might be the way to go, but I'd assume it is much better to be the star in a weaker program than it is to get a middling rank in EME. PE has a hard time placing in the Econ job market. Might be better to brand yourself (both in applications and in job market) as public or developmental econ. If you lean more towards the theoretical side, Northwestern Kellogg and Caltech are great choices. They also have a smattering of empiricists (Qian at MEDS, Caltech has experimental/neuroeconomics). Entrance difficulty for different PhD's (at least to my understanding) is Econ>= Top 5 Public Policy>Political Science>Sociology. Harris seems like a really good choice since they have both theorists and empiricists (they just got Scott Gehlbach!) and seem to be making big investments in PE. I've also heard they allocate one/two spots to the top performers in MAPSS. You might also want to consider other top 5 public policy, some applied econ programs. I know very little about Sociology programs but I assume that attending one will almost certainly block you out of Econ/PubPolicy/Polisci job markets. I'm also skeptical of the quantitative training and the attitudes faculty will have toward you. In Polisci, also consider Stanford GSB, Princeton, Columbia, NYU, Rochester, and WUSTL. Some have stronger/more PE faculty than others, but the training in each of these places should be solid. Be sure to look at placements though. Take my advice with a grain of salt though, I'm also applying to PE programs this fall.

In that case, I would recommend going on the job market for history while applying to PoliSci programs at the same time (including funded MA programs in Canada). You are going to be at a disadvantage by having a PhD - admissions committees are risk-averse and have a limited amount of funding. Figure out exactly what it is you want to study and whether a program has scholars that can accommodate those goals. Talk to your letter writers and be frank about your situation and how they can best help you. If your adviser is willing to help and vouch for you, all the better - although I can imagine many advisers would be unwilling to do so. I would also be flexible about career opportunities. Look at different think tanks and organizations and see if they have research positions available (this is where your letter writers can potentially help). Even if you are convinced that this is the route to take, be open about your future. I've seen or heard of too many people spend 6 years of their life who end up without a job, or getting a job and hating academia. Either way, best of luck to you.

Even a good political science program will have people who strike out on the job market. Judging from your other thread, I think there would at least be some chance for you to get into a good program, but then what? From this thread and your other thread, it seems as if you have interests in Chinese FP and IR theory. Do you speak Chinese as of now? Better yet, do you speak it fluently? A good chunk of the China field today is done by native Chinese or ABCs. These are the people you will be fighting against on the job market. It's true that many of them end up going back to China, but many of the best get offers in the US as well. That's not to say non-Chinese can't study China - that would be ridiculous - but you do have to be realistic about your current skills and how ridiculously tough the job market is right now. What are your goals exactly? Furthermore, what does game theory have to do with Foreign Policy? Are you trying to go into formal modeling? When I hear people talk about studying Chinese Foreign Policy, I think of qualitative or quantitative work - not formal/game theory. Someone else in the thread mentioned Fearon - who very much does do applied formal stuff- but even the situations that arise in his work are relatively broad. Trying to learn Chinese and devote yourself to not just learning game theory but to actually justify your models is something that will take time. You might not even be interested in Chinese foreign policy by the time you're done with your studies - or game theory for that matter. One allegory comes to mind. There is the story of the Christian who came to be disillusioned with Christianity. He wanted to stay religious however, and ended up converting to Judaism. Then as the years passed, he was disenchanted, and went off to learn of Eastern religions. And so on, you get the idea. I'm not trying to be skeptical, but this is not a decision to be made lightly. You indicate that you did work at Columbia - reach out to people there and ask what they think. Ask them to reach out to the scholars you're interested in working with. I think it's great that you have these interests, and I wish you success, but I don't want you to six years later regret doing another PhD after your first one didn't seem to do the job.

If you don't mind me asking, why would you want to get a second PhD? Are you planning on leaving your history program? Getting a PhD should not be viewed as a fun learning experience. It's a 6 year commitment made explicitly to train and place academics. If you're attracted to topics within Political Science, why not continue to do so in your history program? There are some people like Hal Brands at SAIS with history doctorates that do topics considered to be of interest to PoliSci. It seems like you're coming from a qualitative background, and in my opinion, there would be little to no benefit spending 6 years just to do more of the same stuff you're already doing in a qualitatively oriented PoliSci program. There might be an argument to switching to PoliSci to learn quant skills, but there is no reason to do so unless, again, you suddenly want to do quantitative work. Even then, you can learn many of these skills on your own, and there seems no reason to spend 6 years doing so. The only way I see this not being a waste of time is if you don't like history anymore and plan to leave your current program, or you're independently rich and can afford to spend 6 years of your life. Either way, it sounds like a waste.