wtncffts

The extent of competition really depends on the environment, and especially on such things as whether everyone is guaranteed funding or not. In many cases, it also depends on how big the program is; I find the smaller, the more collegial - and especially, as in my case, when nobody is really doing what you do, so the perception of future competition in the job market isn't there, at least directly and day-to-day. But something like checking out all the books is extremely silly and borderline psychopathic, not to mention ineffective, as in most library systems anyone can recall books, and unless someone is willing to pay huge fines or never take out another book again, will have to return them. I'm also curious as to why you're asking about Princeton specifically.

Um, is this supposed to be a response to something? Not that I don't agree with all your points; I think they're pretty spot on (ESPECIALLY PSJR - that site is so broken). Just wondering if this was meant to be in another thread.

Another good listing site is http://london.kijiji.ca I'm away from London June and some of July, but will be back by August. I can't make any promises now, but if you need someone to look at places for you, I'm pretty sure I can find the time. Although you'll have to tell me what kinds of features you're looking for...

I think that the topic can be approached from both sides, but since your background is in political science, it'd be more feasible and advantageous for you to continue on that path. I don't think the job markets are too much different (both equally crappy...). You also should think about what other interests you have, because you're going to have to adjust: 1) what specifically you want to study is probably going to change somewhat, and 2) your first couple years of coursework and exams is meant to provide a 'teaching' knowledge of at least a couple fields, so you have to think about whether you want to be doing comparative politics, IR, American govt, etc., or whatever the subfields in sociology are (sorry for my ignorance).

I go by my first name, and every fellow TA I know during both my MA and PhD did and does. I understand if you're the actual instructor of a course, regardless of whether you have a PhD or not, that there's legitimate reasons for creating 'distance' by, for instance, being referred to as Professor or Doctor (if applicable), but I frankly would find it bizarre for a TA to go by anything other than first name. And believe me, I'm an extremely deferential person - there's maybe 2 profs I interact with that I call by first name, every other I go by Prof., and that includes my supervisor!

Funnily enough, I was just reading this report a couple days ago: http://www.uwo.ca/sogs/Doctoral-Graduates-CanadianUniversities.pdf Specifically, looking at Appendix A.1 (page 35) suggests that the responses here are atypical, although a couple things: 1) this is Canadian data. Anecdotally, it's always seemed to me that in the US it's more typical of students to go through higher education without break or delay, so straight from high school to four years of undergrad, then straight to a doctoral program, which means they're in a PhD program at 22 or even 21 or younger. 2) the poll asks about starting grad school, while the report is giving age at start of doctoral program. Even then, though, a median age of 27 implies a median age for MA starts is still 25 or 26. EDIT: I responded in part b/c I thought I was also 'atypical' - but thinking about it, I was 23 at the start of my MA (turned 24 a few months in), though I was in undergrad for six years. I guess that's why I thought I was older than that!

I'd not be so quick to jump to conclusions. If you were nominated out of your university, that's a good indicator that you're at least competitive.

Well, it's something we'll all have to get used to, right? I mean, whether it's funding applications, postdocs, job applications (!), tenure decisions, publication decisions, waiting for someone else to make decisions about your abilities is pretty much the name of the game...

You don't want to pick two area specializations just for the sake of being different, though. Either you're going to be case-oriented, in which you have a region or country of interest and your job is to look for theoretically interesting puzzles which illuminate certain features of that case or contribute to the broader comparative theoretical discussion, or you're starting with an interest in a generic phenomenon and looking for cases which help to test theory, generate hypotheses, trace causal processes, etc. While the distinction can get fuzzy in practice, at least in theory there's a difference in methods and logic of argument between the two.

I know the term is used (though I think less and less commonly), but I dislike using PE as denoting the application of economic models to political puzzles - I'd be happy with it referring to, as you pointed out, a set of substantive concerns. I never refer to the use of formal models as PE, but as, in various uses, positive political theory, analytical politics, or rational choice analysis (similarly, I'd never call myself a political economist, but rational choice analyst, etc., are fine with me). To me, IPE is the study of international economic relationships, the difference between 'international economics' as a subfield of economics and IPE being the greater emphasis on political actors and processes in the latter.

To be fair, there's a wide diversity of students. Yes, there's the lazies, but there are always also a bunch of students who are engaged, smart, and eager to learn - which is a huge part of what makes teaching worth it, and where I get the most enjoyment.

I also received that e-mail, and from the people I've talked to (my supervisor and others), if it says 'faculty has endorsed your application...' it means yes, barring a final check of eligibility. Note it says "faculty", not department, and the link above, and what I've been told, suggests to me that all the substantive evaluation is done at the faculty level, so once it has been forwarded to SGPS it just means they have to ensure there are no technical issues with receiving the award. I do know people who didn't get the same congratulatory tone e-mail last Friday, unfortunately.

You need to do your own research.

Well, that depends on how you see yourself as a scholar. It seems the OP wants to be an area specialist, so he's inherently going to be studying particular cases out of prior interest. Of course, that doesn't mean he's absolved of having to justify case selection, but the burden is more in terms of whether the particular phenomenon he's analysing is theoretically interesting in that case, either for case-specific or more general reasons (i.e., that there's a congruence b/w the case and the phenomenon that makes it worth studying in some fashion). Although I'm not an area specialist, I don't think it's illegitimate, and produces a lot of material from which large-N comparativists like me can draw. I do agree, though, that India and North Africa as your two regional specializations is odd, certainly not a combination you see often.

I'm glad you're more at ease with it. I'm also from Vancouver, born and raised, went to Montreal for my MA and am now in Ontario. I do still miss Vancouver all the time, but in the grand scheme of things, four or five years elsewhere is nothing, and as everyone else said, Calgary is a great city. Calgary-Vancouver is relatively close anyway, so you can probably visit pretty frequently (I've been able to go home twice a year for the last four or five, but that's across Canada!). Plus, you'll be so busy during the semester you'll barely have time to think about anything other than work...

I'm all for giving honest advice, and in many ways I believe the whole graduate school/academia world needs more transparency and a lot of hard thinking about its foundations. But I do agree with the last sentiment expressed. It can get tired to feel constantly put upon, and I know when you're at that stage, like many are here, when you've just gone through this frustrating and anxious application process and have just made a huge, exciting, life-changing decision that you don't want to hear that your choice was a wrong one, or that you're naive or stupid to be doing what you're doing (at least that's the underlying tone I get from most of these kinds of articles). I don't exactly know where to draw that line between giving constructive advice and being patronizing, but it's often trespassed, IMO.

Already a thread for this: But should be in the next couple weeks. Hopefully.

I'm not exactly sure of the context in which you'd be saying "I'm a doctoral student...", but I'd just be completely honest and say "I've been admitted and will start a PhD program at X this fall", perhaps without the first part if that's too long. Though I can't really see it happening, if you made it sound like you already actually there someone could ask questions about the school, program, someone they might happen to know there, etc., and you'd have to backtrack, which is never very comfortable.

Maybe I was a bit snippy. But I don't think this is a cultural difference thing. As I read it, this boils down to you taking funding (from wherever it comes) to attend one school, which is a contract: they allow you to enroll, give you funding, and thus expect you to go through their program. Why do you think schools even take graduate students? Out of generosity? They give you resources and expect you to 'represent' their name by graduating and doing good research, etc. The fact that you have no intention of graduating and, especially, that your plan is to keep the whole thing covert until the 'last minute', is dishonesty universally. As some have said, if you can arrange this in an open and transparent way where both schools know what you're doing, great.

Yes, I would first try to contact the profs you were closest with in undergrad, you might be surprised at how much they remember. You can help this by providing as much information as possible about what courses you took, what you did in those courses, etc.

Seriously, it's clear from all your responses that you have no intention of genuinely soliciting advice. We've all said the same thing, and you dismiss it out of hand and call us 'moralistic'. What you really need to do is create another profile and then post a response to yourself, because that's the only way you're going to get any validation for what you've clearly already decided.

Don't know anything about the programs, and obviously haven't had the experience you have, but I'd be somewhat wary of judging the rigour of a program just from a visit and talking to some people. There are all sorts of reasons why department cultures might differ, and just because the students seem 'relaxed and happy' I don't think you should necessarily assume that the program is less demanding or not as serious. I think perhaps a better indicator are any 'hard' facts you can find: placement records, course syllabi, looking at any available exams, etc. Plus, since you voice your doubts, you should also consider what kind of environment is more likely to be to your ultimate benefit, in terms of a conducive environment in which you'll actually finish your degree. Doing a PhD is 90 percent motivation and emotional perseverance/stability, which to me depends a lot on the prevailing atmosphere. Everyone who's there has the intelligence to be there. Not suggesting any particular choice here, just a couple things to think about.

I'm also confused. Is it just a matter of price? As in booking return UK - Rio via NY is cheaper than one-way UK-Rio via NY, then Rio to NY?

1) Yes, your advisor matters, not only in actual help with research, but just as someone to talk to about problems and about academia, and with networking. Whether they're "hands off" really depends on the particular student and advisor. 2) At least in my experience, it's not really common that there are actual courses specifically on one's own research, since research projects are generally very narrow and graduate courses aren't as extensive as undergraduate (again, in the places that I've been): fewer (or no) special topics courses, for instance. In my program, the courses are mainly meant to serve as the basis for comp exams, so they're essentially survey courses meant to 'certify' students to teach a subfield. 3) Double yes - initiative and ability/motivation to research is really, in the end, ALL that's important. What'll get you through isn't intelligence but sheer hard work and determination, and your own desire or willingness to seek out the knowledge you need to progress.

So, here's another one for you: http://www.slate.com/articles/life/culturebox/2013/04/there_are_no_academic_jobs_and_getting_a_ph_d_will_make_you_into_a_horrible.html Thoughts? Although my initial instinct is always to be annoyed at such articles, I do think they're valuable. You really do have to know what you're getting into, or at least what the potential (and very possible) downsides are. Though I'm always irked by the generalizations that are made (e.g., "you won't have any friends outside academia", "you'll be an emotional trainwreck"): these seem to me to be highly individually idiosyncratic.