veracious_star

Formal modelling in IR/Comparative.... How does NYU, Rochester, and some of the other well-known quantitative departments compare?

Realist/Penelope Higgins....I was wondering what you think of Berkeley's pol sci department?

You are definitely bragging a bit, but you have every right to brag-- it is an amazing accomplishment! Congratulations!!! However keep in mind that the decision process at these institutions is not perfect (it's a game of incomplete info), so it does not necessarily mean that you are the best at political science, just the best at SIGNALLING that you have the potential to be good at political science. (These institutions get in wrong all the time--Harvard has a 50% retention rate--said Harvard prof). I definitely did not get into as good of schools as you (Granted I did not apply to most of the schools you did--only Harvard), but the beauty of the academy is that at it's essense it's about creativity and ideas and anyone with the proper training can compete. I think you have thrown the gauntlet down and I hope you are in my area...formal modelling in IR/Comparative because I look forward to competing with you !!!!!

Hi everyone, Congratulations to everyone who got in this year!!! In all this excitement, it is hard to make a rational decision as to what program to choose. I was wondering how other people are making the choice between smaller programs which allow for more time with faculty, lower dropout rates, and better placement results versus larger programs at bigger name schools which have more resources, more competition, and more opportunities for conferences. My feeling is smaller schools would be great if you have a good relationship with all the professors, but if by chance you don't get along with your advisor or they try to micromanage you -- it seems like it would quickly become hell. On the other hand, bigger schools there would be less attention and more chances of getting completely lost in the process, but you would also have more freedom in your research and more opportunties to do multidisciplinary work. Here is a link to the NRC placement article on how smaller schools have better placement: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/08/21/ranking .They also have a better score for student well-being. Also, I'm wondering how important it is having a well-known advisor within the subfield(he/she may not care about you, but would know the other major players in the field)? Do most political scientists do post-doc work, so school rankings rarely matter anyway?

Thanks! Uniqueness probably played a role. But, I pursued a different strategy for quantitative versus qualitative schools which may have backfired on me with regards to quant schools. For qualitative schools, I stressed my ability to do socio-political analysis and my knowledge of the current comparative literature. I really worked to show my ability in both qualitative and quantitative pol sci. They were not very focused applications (which I thought was a mistake, but maybe it turned out to be a strength). However, my quant apps were very focused (only quant skills) ... My quantitative SOP I tried to really push the boundary of pol sci by integrating algorithms. I also had different recommenders...(for qualitative schools more political scientists). I did not know what would work so I threw out a large net and tried to diversify the schools I was applying to and my strategy.... I completely know how you feel this year...I felt the exact same way last year....don't give up hope yet!!...but if you don't get in this year...it's not the end of the world, it's not even a very bad day!!....think about it...you are competing with people who have gone through this process and failed...so they have more experience, knowledge of the process, and time....it's not an equal playing field...so if you don't get in this year, trust me...it has nothing to do with your talent in pol sci....just with your ability to sell your talents...you can improve your "marketing" skills....in the meantime, get a new perspective, explore something new, and really think about why you want a PhD (even if it means that you may not find a decent job)...you may find that the linear path...is not always the shortest, best road to your dreams...Good Luck (really don't give up hope yet)!!!....All kinds of crazy things happen in grad admissions...

I really don't think fit matters. I was thinking that my best chance was at quatitative schools...but I pretty sure I have a (de facto rejection) from Rochester and Caltech (I put a ton of effort into those apps, i.e. crafted SOP, contacted professors at Rochester, Caltech). However, I actually got into Berkeley and Duke so far...I still have five schools to go....it seems that the process is totally idiosyncratic...I have no idea what to say...just don't give up hope...eventually someone will recognize your abilities. Last year, I applied to three schools and was rejected by all three, so there is definitely hope for next year (your app exponentially improves)....but don't give up yet...maybe you'll get in where you least expect it !!

True that. I kinda lost a little hope. It seems like from past years...they just do one round of admits....

Thanks for the suggestions !!!!!

Yeah, I see what you mean....I did not mean to imply that it was based on empirical reality...what pol economy articles really model institutions that exist?--you have to make elementary assumptions and lower complexity of the game or it becomes impossible for anyone to solve-- even a computer. Plus, that's probably what actual political actors do...Again, I've never taken a class in mech design and i'm not an economics student...but there seems to be a great deal of articles on mechanism design related to good provision, media/corportate funding, and, of course, in economics on auctions..... I guess I was suggesting that it can be used to model the formation of the state...though it hasn't really been used for that before....because the basic mathematically constructs for mechanism design fit well with the basic assumptions for formation of the state---essentially multiple player game (mutiple interest groups), Bayesian game (incomplete info), finite, and perhaps one player has the ability to structure the institutions of the state to procure their desired outcome....Here's how I think of mechanism design (i'm coming from a game theory perspective)....but i'm always interested to learn more...or for you to correct my wrong assumptions.... Essentially in game theory, there are solution concepts or rules for how to chose an optimum strategy given what the other players do. The most well known solution concept is the Nash Equilibirum (NE) concept. To have a NE, there has to be assumptions for rules, structure, payoffs to a game....... Since there can be multiple equilibria in a game which statisfies Nash Equilibirum requirement, so there is pure nash, mixed nash, Subgame Perfect Nash, Evolutionary Stable, Perfect...and the list goes on....In traditional game theory, backward induction gives you the Subgame Perfect equilibria. (So there is a equilibria which can be found by pure backward induction)....essentially the brilliance of mechanism design is that it opens the constraints of the game....so it gives players the ability to structure the rules, .i.e perhaps the number of rounds/incentive structure/etc, knowing their desired outcome/payoff, given the fact that they do not have a great deal of information about their opponent (only distribution of types). It allows you to study the optimal institutional framework (incentive structure) that leads to their preferred outcome... --I think there are more applications of mech design in pol sci, than in economics which it was originally created for....either way it is an exciting new way to look at the world...and i see more micro political economy papers structured this way.... --this conversation is making me worried about my chances at a political science Phd (this is kinda what I talked about it my SOP) .....

@Coachrjc Sorry if I offended anyone or came off overly competitive. Mostly, I was just sharing my apprehensions during this process of applying and any advice that I have. I hope that everyone feels comfortable to share their opinions in this forum. I had never heard of a "urinating contest" before...perhaps thats because I'm female or maybe just out of it...but it was a little mean to denigrate our conversation like that. We are definitely all mature enough to keep the conversation respectful and engaging. The very fact that we are discussing this is one of the things that bugs me a little bit about pol sci forums...often everything becomes a zero-sum game....either qualitative or quantitative...there is no room for both...we are all trying to feel better about our own preparation....however I think diversity is what makes pol sci better than economics is that there are a variety of approaches to answering political questions. (PS. Diversity is awesome...and zero-sum games always have a worse payoff for players than cooperative games in equilibrium-- hence there is a definite benefit to Kumbaya!!!). Every approach has it's own unique difficulties and strengths. Formulating good case studies to persuasively prove a general theory is ridiculously difficult thats why there are so few Theda Skocpols, Seymour Lipsets, Huntingtons, etc...There will always be a place for insightful, indepth qualitative analysis in political science. Saying that, I feel that some political scientists disregard mathematical approaches to understanding political actors and institutions and they sideline the conclusions of formal models and quantitative methods. I did my undergrad at a well-known school in pol sci and I often felt that quantitative approaches to understanding political phenomenon were ignored or marginalized. This should not happen either...there are merits to all aproaches and I hope that political sicentists in the future are better at integrating. @RWBG My understanding of mechanism design is quite meager as well, but I think its useful because often there are real world observations...so we see the equilibrium or we have a social optimal equilibirum...like coalition government with X policy for good provision....or Y dollars in campaign finance to candidate C...so how do you reach this equilibrium?...then they essentially work backwards with the consideration that players can make their own rules.... i.e. develop the rule structure that is optimal for a given player and figure out the earlier behavior of other players so that it is rational to reach this equilibrium...it would be interesting to study this in relation to the formation of states....it seems like a really exciting take on traditional game theory and really applicable to pol sci...I wish I could take a class in it...

Yeah, that's amazing to me. I could never get a perfect score in verbal. Everyone has their strengths and weaknesses and who really knows what exactly add coms are looking for. Good Luck to everyone ....I'm sure it will work out for everyone evenutally. @RWBG I found your analysis of creating a formal model quite interesting....I think there is a lot of truth to that...political intuition matters a lot and it definitely distinguishes good pol econ papers from bad ones.... Have you heard of mechanism design....I think that it is usually the way that microeconomists began creating formal models...I've never had the opportunity to take a class in it...but as I understand it...it's creating a model by starting with the equilibrium and working backwards (real-life backward induction)...I have found starting with the equilibrium and working backwards usually makes most pol econ papers much easier to understand.

@Hopefulfall12gradstudent I think your question is essentially how do you signal to the admission committee that you can make it through your methods courses? it depends on how rigorous the program and the qualifications of the other candidates... Rochester, NYU prefer a strong quant prep and they get many more mathematically strong candidates...Columbia, Georgetown on the other hand does not really mention anything of the sort. I did not get the feeling there is any interest in quant methods (probably just need statistics)....and then there are schools in the middle...Princeton, MIT, Harvard, Berkeley,etc...where I think they look for both.... I am still convinced a good quant GRE score 760+ will signal quantitative ability probably better than a few math courses. But if you have the choice, between economics and math.....at the undergrad level, def take math over economics. Even economics applicants are told to take mathematics over economics at the undergrad level. I sort of feel that pol sci is moving in that direction. It's just a less hazy signal of quantitative ability (even though economics courses may be more directly applicable in the long run).

I often think that people overestimate the importance of mathematics in pol sci. Of course for economics, an extensive math background is pretty much mandatory. But for pol sci...it seems like "fit /interests" matter a lot more. My apprehension is that most pol sci schools do not have profs exploring my area of interest. I could really only find strong fits at Rochester, Caltech. For those two programs, I will definitely be competing with other people who finished my master's program in mathematics. There are many people with an even more extensive math background than me (I, at least, know two applying to Caltech). On a side note, I don't know if I would encourage other political scientists to jump into mathematics. I actually had little interest in math as an undergrad and only applied for a masters in math because of the suggestion of my dissertation advisor who thought it would be a great idea if I wanted to get into Political Economy. I spent many hours studying to catch up with the other students in my math program and at first it was pretty much hell. Mathematicans approach problems from a completely different perspective...the whole program I spent learning how to think like a mathematican...how to set-up proofs, algorithms, think in black and white....after that I'm not really sure how applicable pure mathematics is to political science...even in game theory, the open problems have little obvious or direct application...(most people overestimate the connection...you don't even think in the same way) Anyway by the end of the progam, I learned to really enjoy mathematics for mathematics itself...(writing a proof can be surprisingly exhilerating!!...Yes I'm a nerd on the inside )...but if you are truely interested in pol sci...there is no real need for entensive mathematics...other than maybe as a signalling mechanism...but you can do that in other ways such as a high Quant score, a quantitative dissertation, etc..... all the proofs/models I have ever seen in pol sci or pol econ. papers may not be very neat, but are pretty straight forward...a couple strong econ, methods, modelling, basic game theory courses is really all you need (if you have any further problems with proofs,etc when writing papers...in reality there are a lot of mathematicans out there to help...make friends).... Just keeping it real....Mathematics actually detracted my ability to write, especially write a nuanced political analysis, and I had a hard time writing an effective SOP which could relate to pol sci professors (even though I did my undergrad in Pol Sci)....Math confused what I thought my interests really were... the only reason that you should take a tremendous amount of math is if you want to push the boundary in game theory for political science...(then you need at least a good three years of post-grad work in mathematics to catch up...and once you catch up, a brilliant new idea)..... Taking advanced economics is good enough...most pol econ models are based on economic models that already exist....most of the best political economists in my opinion, i.e. Persson, Tabellini, Levy, Prat....all got their PhD's in economics.... At this point in the process, everyone wishes they were stronger in one way or another, but if you have the time to prepare...I think there are better places to spend that time, than writing proofs...just my thoughts....

Sorry I forgot to say......My feeling is that math courses probably do not matter, unless you want to do formal modeling. Just do well on your quantitative GRE for more qualitative areas. There are probably lots of people like me who have a strong math background who are applying for formal modelling. My guess is that some professors like that and others don't care if you can count. Good Luck !!!! and that's great that you are starting so early. Just get good recs from well-known people in pol sci and math won't matter at all.......

I probably do not fit any norm. I did my undergrad in international relations and my masters in mathematics. I never took real analysis or differencial equations, so I just learned that math on the side as I did higher levels of mathematics. I am totally out there and now I think that I may have been TOO FAR out there for pol sci schools....my SOP was on how I want to work on integrating pol sci (particularly IR), algorithms and game theory to create dynamic simulation models of political processes (this was also the topic of my master's dissertation in mathematics).... ---I'm considering just applying next year for a Phd in Economics...if I don't get in anywhere MATH Survey Poli Sci Subfield: Comparative/IR Math Courses Taken: Undergrad: Multivariable Calc, Linear Algebra, Theory of Algorithms Statistics, Econometrics Graduate level: Algorthms and Computations (Math for Computer Science), Discrete Mathematics and Complexity, Topology, Game Theory, Games of Incomplete Information, Disseration in Mathematics, Graduate-level Political Economy (Economics Department), Schools Accepted: Schools Rejected: Schools Waitlisted: So far I have not heard from any schools yet...I applied to Duke, Caltech, Rochester.... (a total of nine)....I am kinda starting to panic a little...I now wish I picked a more traditional part of pol sci to study.....