Zahar Berkut

I expect far fewer people will know about the school's sterling reputation in the States. Those who work regularly with Eastern Europe might, but that's a question you'll want to investigate in accordance with your future plans. You should also make sure that the reputation lives up to the quality of education you'd receive. Tons of Europeans still wish they could get their education in the US.

Well, it doesn't quite mean he's "gone"-- his courses may not be listed yet, or he may be on some sort of leave, or he may not be teaching this coming fall or year. In any case, I'll try to confirm what's up before I make my decision.

Agreed. Staniland looks to be teaching some interesting courses, but ethnic conflict is not one of my main interests, and I worry about putting all my hopes on Pape if I go-- even if Bombing to Win was one of the hallmarks of my undergrad education. The history selection should be good, especially Lipson's, but I want to maintain a stronger focus in political science (not IPE or IO). As for public policy... well, only if there's a damn good class.

You are quite right, and my reasons for emphasizing theory have more to do with my own academic interests than anything else--- though Chicago is completely deficient when it comes to my region of interest. I'd simply be choosing to take mostly security studies/IR theory courses there because that's what I love to study. Hence, my feeling that I might be locking myself down that path, for completely personal reasons. They have great faculty at Chicago, too-- though after looking at the expected course offerings for next year on the PS department's website, I have to wonder whether Mearshimer will be taking some sort of leave.

Thanks for the response. In a similar vein, do any IR people look to the TRIPS survey from William and Mary for guidance on IR programs? At first I considered it a very strong indicator, until I realized a huge chunk of the respondants came from Harvard and Columbia. Maybe that won't skew things too much, but since these are "reputation" rankings...

Also admitted, after applying directly to CIR. I only applied there and to another MA in regional studies, each chosen because they are strong, 1-year programs. I made the case that I wanted to enter to decide whether to continue on with the PhD. I'm having a tough time deciding between it and my regional studies program. Basically, I think that I'd enjoy the theory/academic classes more, but worry I'd already be making a de facto decision to continue on to a PhD (political science) just by virtue of choosing Chicago. This despite the fact that not everyone goes on to academia afterwards, and the fact that I won't "have" to take all those theory courses. There's a bit more to it than that, of course, but that's the first that comes to mind.

Are U.S. News rankings on grad programs/subfields considered to be credible?

Late update, but I got into Chicago's CIR (I applied directly), full funding. Very happy, but some tough decisions now. Assuming I get offered FLAS for the regional studies program I got into elsewhere, I'll need to weigh living expenses in Chicago versus their having a program more tailored to my potential academic interests. Then there's less time to continue improving language skills/potentially better career prospects with the regional studies MA if I for some reason choose not to go on to the PhD. Still, a good position to be in. Best of luck as everyone reaches their decision points.

I met Orwin once, and he's as personable as he is talented. One of the concerns raised by a friend considering applying for theory at Toronto is that too much would depend on just working with him, and he seems to be teaching a lighter load now. No idea about the retirement rumor, but as a rule there should be at least two professors in a department you'd like to study with, or at least others you'd be happy to work with should any shake-up's happen in the future. Fortune is a river, you know.

Columbia spells their equivalent program MARS, which gets points for creativity.

So it's not quite PoliSci, but I got into my area studies program! Stanford's 1 year REEES. Here's to, possibly, the first step on the path to the ivory tower.

I'm afraid to give any advice that's too specific here-- I hope there's someone who knows the best way to handle your feelings at your school that you can talk to, like a counselor. I know it sucks feeling like you need to go to someone, but you should remember that nobody is an island, and if someone pretends they don't need to talk to someone about their troubles once in a while, they're either lying or miserable. So in that sense you're actually quite normal. The other thing I want to say is the fact that you're able to understand yourself and your situation with such nuance reflects extremely well on you (it's more than a lot of people are willing or able to do). So does the fact that you've been thriving in a master's program and going on to doctoral studies after all you've gone through. In other words, it sounds like you'll be fine. You just need to talk this out with someone who understands and can advise you.

I'd also be happy to answer any questions about Medford or Tufts (though I was not myself an English major).

Hey, a fully-funded fellowship to China sounds pretty good! In any case, best of luck to a fellow IR nerd.

My gut says that any department with a strong focus on international norms/institutions should accommodate, either from a neoliberal or constructivist perspective-- off the top of my head I can't think of a huge number of faculty whose interests would directly overlap (I assume you're looking into political science programs). That said, Berkeley, Princeton, and Brown come to mind quickly as places that may be strong/interested in your research area, and Berkeley has the advantage of a top notch law school. You'll want to investigate individual faculty, though.

How would your potential advisors compare across the three schools? And if you're a regionalist (in your comparative interests), do any of the schools have larger research institutes around your area of interest? Also consider quality of life, though I'm not sure how you'll get hard data on that.

Ultimately it doesn't matter whether a JD is sufficient to qualify to be a law school professor. It would only underscore the fact that the standards of law school education do not require years of theoretical training or research skills related to a social scientific discipline. Nobody here (rightly) denies that political science departments may choose to allow JD's to teach undergraduate courses in law and the practice of government. They do-- my department had a JD teach constitutional law, and a course on international law probably had at least one professional school faculty member with only a JD (the PS department chose to award credit to the class). The reason they allow these classes, however, is to give undergrad's who have no plans to continue on to academia a chance to learn a bit about the real world, or to provide some knowledge for the many PS students who plan to go to law school. They do NOT regularly take on JD's as tenured faculty, and such cases when they do are always exceptions to the rule. The reason they do not is because political science does not merely seek to provide substantive facts about law, institutions, or political/legal ideas, but to understand their causes at a theoretical level and conduct research into the causes and empirical influence of those things. We have already established here that the PhD is a research degree, and political science departments do not exist solely to teach undergrads. It seems to me that the only argument you can make from this point is that the enterprise of political science is flawed, but I don't see how you can do that without challenging the basis of academic/social science departments in general, insofar as you wish to prove that the skills gained in a professional degree program like law school (even one with a respectable background in theoretical issues related to the professional field) deserves a permanent position in such a department. You would also need to concede that a master's or other professional degree program of sufficient rigor qualifies someone to be on social science department's faculty. And if that's the case, there would be no need to write a dissertation or stay on in a PhD program more than 3 years. Is that your argument? Because this amazing thread seems to either go around in circles or to devolve into fights over trivia. And just to be clear, I am only posting here for my own entertainment.

Glad to hear from you! I've noticed that history departments seem to have a more vibrant presence on Eastern European studies. There are of course plenty of political scientists, but to me they seem pretty compartmentalized at some major East European studies centers, and most work on institutions or voting. Even the security studies people tend to focus on Cold War history.

You may need to call directly to explain and discuss your concerns. That strikes me as very serious if you can't be sure how much funding you will receive until you've already committed to them.

Not to encourage wild speculation on your behalf, but are you willing to comment on how prevalent this view is among admissions committees? And thank you again for your candid discussion.

This needs to get copied and stickied to some general forum. Thank you!

How about we leave it at "if you have no means of control, it might as well be luck?"

Just to represent the region on these boards-- it looks like the last one of these threads is at least a year old. Feel free to introduce yourselves. I'm only applying to a very small number of terminal M.A. programs myself, special interest in regional politics. Currently living in Ukraine.

For future reference: do any PhD hopefuls know much about political psychology? By which I mean, are those applicants who express at least a side interest in it (as a part of their broader interest in a better established subfield) expected to have a certain undergraduate background in psych? Are there many programs with faculty working between political psychology and a subfield that is not American politics? Are there any risks associated with focusing too much on it? There's no rush for me personally-- but as I speculate in the long-term, I wonder if it would even be worth it to seek out programs that are strong in political psychology, let alone mention it too much in a personal statement. And if anyone happens to know a lot about this, could you comment on what programs are strong on variants within the field-- cognitive, social, moral, etc? I only found a few programs that seem to have a special focus on it-- Michigan maybe, Minnesota, U Washington. But that does not mean you need to go to this type of program to actually do work in the field, does it? My impression is it's still more important to choose a program on the basis of your main subfield.

If you do well on it, it will help. But I don't know if it will hurt if you don't do one at all, provided you can still demonstrate high academic potential and independent research ability. A friend of mine declined to do one, and she's already been admitted to some good schools this cycle. My advisers were those who frowned on the senior thesis, claiming that they've never seen one of really high quality, and maintaining the high opportunity costs of what you could be doing with your time as an undergrad. As for writing samples, you should have produced multiple 20 page+ papers as an undergrad, and you can do a 1-semester independent study if you really want something longer. Also note that you need to be very independently driven or have an unusually dedicated adviser to bring a thesis to fruition. Nor is it just a question of "enjoying" research-- it's a question of sticking to a topic for a year and regularly working on it using research skills/methodology you have only rudimentary training in, during your senior year of college, possibly with little guidance.