wtncffts

Of course it doesn't mean you're not 'grad school material', whatever that means. You've been accepted to a graduate program; that says explicitly that you are grad school material. More than one acceptance won't make you more grad school material, and no acceptances doesn't mean you're not grad school material. Please, have confidence in yourself. Rejections, including from 'safety schools', come for all sorts of reasons, research fit being the most obvious.

Reading way too much into it, I think. In any case, all school administrations are bureaucratic.

I can't speak for anyone else, but all I expect is that programs and schools be complete, explicit, and transparent about admissions requirements and the process. I can certainly understand human mistakes, like sending the wrong e-mail to someone, e.g., sending accepts where rejects should have been sent. Although it's agony for the wrongly informed applicant, it's understandable that an admin person or even faculty might accidentally input the wrong address or press 'send' prematurely.

What I find unprofessional is not stating minimum requirements upfront, taking application fees when there's absolutely no chance of admittance, going through a whole admissions process without anyone noticing the 'ineligible' GPA, or else not informing the applicant that there may be a problem, offering acceptance in categorical language ('the admissions committee has recommended you to the graduate school...'), and then rescinding that acceptance later.

SOG25,

I think that the negative response on the part of some is due to your inquiries coming across as personally motivated and oblivious to counter-arguments. I'm not going to impute anything about your motivations, but I'll try to give my take as clearly as possible. First, let me say that I I don't know everything about poli sci depts; I have an MA (well, to be received in Feb, anyway) from a Canadian university but certainly don't claim extensive knowledge on the inner workings.

As people have been pointing out, there's the pragmatic argument. Like all disciplines, political science has an interest in perpetuating itself through the process of training and creating jobs for their own PhD students. Frankly, there are more than enough jobs for law school graduates as it is, while the academic job market is, as you know, very slim. Another thing to consider is the disparity in salary. Both of these go to the question of why, in fact, there are mostly PhDs than JDs on poli sci faculties.

Your more trenchant question is, I gather, not "Why is it this way?" but "Does it necessarily have to be this way?". I certainly don't think that ONLY PhDs are qualified to teach poli sci courses; I don't know anyone who does. As you know, JDs sometimes do teach courses with substantial legal aspects in poli sci departments. Often, eminent people (former politicians, diplomats, civil servants, etc.) also teach poli sci courses, many of whom, needless to say, don't have PhDs specifically in poli sci. And of course, Graduate Students, usually ABDs, often are given opportunities to teach their own courses (which is a part of the professional training I mentioned).

As others have, I simply have to dispute your premise that what a PhD student learns, say, doing American Politics, is the same as what a JD learns. Now, if you can point me to a syllabus of a course in law school which teaches the same material and in the same way as a graduate course in US Politics, I'd be happy to accept your argument. As you point out, law students learn Constitutional Law. They may learn Administrative Law and other kinds of law which are relevant to the political process. But, again as others have said, there is more to politics than law. Political parties, elections, electoral systems, social movements, political and voting behavior, decision-making, political psychology, political history, workings of legislative bodies, political culture, participation, socialization, interest groups, formal methods, and so on; none of these are integral parts of a law school education. To be sure, you may run into many of these areas in law courses; after all, law and politics are intertwined on many levels. Just so, many poli sci students will also deal with many questions of law and jurisprudence during their studies. But political scientists specialize in these areas, and we want to encourage that. Departments, and undergraduates, want to have the assurance that faculty have at least been exposed to these areas and are comfortable with them. Remember, as a teacher you would need to be able to handle inquiries of students adeptly, especially in an intro survey course which covers a lot of ground.

You may feel that you are capable of teaching poli sci courses, and that's fine. Perhaps your course of study in law school did expose you to all these areas and you have an extensive knowledge of the literature in each of them. I guarantee you that not every law graduate has. Comparatively, the best choice in most cases is to go with a specialist who's spent upwards of five or six years closely studying a given area than someone who is trained for a different profession but has some experience and education to bring to bear.

As to your point about the quality of teaching, you're right that "some professors are more concerned about their research than their students", so it isn't necessarily the case that good researchers make good teachers. It is also the case, though, that having a JD doesn't necessarily mean one is a good teacher. I would suggest, in fact, that it's probably the case that PhDs will, on average, be better teachers. First, I've found that the best teachers are those with the most passion for their subjects, and I think having studied one or two (or more) specific areas for years in grad school usually attests to such passion. Second, PhD programs almost always include both training for teaching ("Teaching Political Science" courses, for example) and concrete opportunities to teach, whether as a TA or with your own courses. Again, you may feel like you would be a good teacher, which is fine, but such 'individual consideration' is simply not a part of academia. Which brings me to my final point...

To return to the question of personal motivation, I'm sorry if you feel your options are limited because of this, but you just have to accept that, in the eyes of the profession, you are less qualified than others. I imagine I know enough to be able to teach intro or even intermediate Canadian or American history just from the reading I've done within and without the classroom, but I fully accept that no history department would consider me for a faculty position, or at least that I'm inadequate in comparison to a history PhD (assuming I had a poli sci PhD, which, fingers crossed, I will have in a few years' time).

The whole problem with the apparent lackadaisical attitude towards rejects is that it is actually counterproductive, is it not? What exactly is involved in the whole 'wooing' process of admitted applicants? If this forum is any indication, many applicants are not going to make final decisions until they receive all, or most, of their notifications. The very fact of not sending rejections impedes the ability of admitted students to make decisions.

I've said this before here, but sometimes I think I'm just much less emotional than some of you, or else I'm a cynical realist. You're not rejecting a person, you're rejecting an offer made by a department in an institution. Your profs aren't family or friends; they're professionals doing a job. And, to be blunt, nobody here is special; there were students before you and there will be students after you. You're just passing through, a transaction and a student number. If you've gotten to know some of your profs, then I understand you may feel a little bad, but you don't owe anything in particular to a department or a school.

The whole problem with the apparent lackadaisical attitude towards rejects is that it is actually counterproductive, is it not? What exactly is involved in the whole 'wooing' process of admitted applicants? If this forum is any indication, many applicants are not going to make final decisions until they receive all, or most, of their notifications. The very fact of not sending rejections impedes the ability of admitted students to make decisions.

I'm railing against the genre more than the specific writer. It is quite obvious that school isn't for everyone. And it is for some people, but only to a certain level. And I do agree with StrangeLight that because someone decides that academia isn't for them does not make them deficient or a failure - they just figured out what works for them. But this whole genre of blogs about how awful grad school is just becomes so tedious when they repeat all the problems as if they were the only ones to suffer them, or as though all of us applying are ignorant rubes unaware of the risks. The fact that they are making so many complaints while being so happy with their new life is even more suspect. Every couple of days someone posts a blog telling everyone how it really is, but completely overlooking the fact that most of us applying are aware of the dangers of this path, and we need to find out if it is right for us or not, and the blog cannot be our only information in making that decision.

But even those who go to grad school and quit to become happy elsewhere are actually better off for having attended; they discovered it wasn't for them. The people who went and found the whole experience awful and soul-destroying can go on with their lives knowing that academia is not for them, and in fact the trials of a PhD program often makes them realize what really makes them happy and what is truly valuable to them. If nothing else, the attempt helps direct them towards future happiness. The Chef and the girl at the animal shelter both were still improved by the experience, because they were able to figure out what to do with their lives. These kind of blogs overlook this fact. And also want to offer a told-you-so to anyone who fails in grad school, even though the only way to truly know if it fits or if you will be one of the rare successes is to actually try.

Amen! Especially the last sentence: spot on.

Although I do think that such blog posts are well-intentioned. I think the writers are trying to give open and honest advice about grad school from their own experiences. I think what they are reacting against is their perception that grad applicants are pollyanish and naive, and need a 'hard dose' of reality. Perhaps many do. I mean, this forum, especially during this period, is all about celebrating the triumph of acceptance and sharing the agony of rejection, and so it can sometimes seem like we're all hopelessly unrealistic, as though by being accepted to grad school we've 'made it'. But I think most of us do know how hard it will be, that half of us won't even finish our programs, that perhaps three-quarters of us won't find tenure-track positions, etc. That doesn't mean it won't be worth it. The whole question "Should you go to graduate school?" is really not meant to be answered by anyone but ourselves; certainly "short answer: no" doesn't do much good.

Well, I'm going to repeat what I've said here before: there's absolutely no need to feel bad about rejecting a school. You're rejecting an institutional offer, not a person or people. Of course there's no 'hard feelings', unless you think a professional department within a large bureaucracy is actually an oversensitive, emo teenager or something. You had two acceptances, you would have had to reject one. It's not Sophie's Choice, for crying out loud.

I honestly don't know what you could do other than provide as much evidence as possible (course syllabi, work done, etc.) from those courses. But if they don't bite, I'd suggest just taking the course. You never know what you might learn, and even if you've gone through a lot of most of the material, there may be different perspectives and it's always good to brush up on the 'basics'. I wouldn't consider it wasting time; it's not like taking that one course is going to affect when you finally get that degree five, six, or however many years from now. And if it's all stuff you've seen before, it shouldn't take up much time in terms of studying.

Another blog about how horrible grad school is. How wonderful.

Did you guys know that the job market is bad? And that some people don't fit in? That you might have a shitty boss? You could feel overwhelmed and overworked? You might be making a mistake?

Welcome to life! These are issues everywhere you go. All the bitter ex-grad students want you to believe that grad school is the only place where things are hard like this, or these are the issues. Guess what, they aren't. These are realities in every field. Be aware of the pitfalls, but don't presume that every cranky poster with ablog account has some magical insight because they had a bad experience. Most of us have heard the speeches and been apprised of the risks. Ultimately we are going to give it a shot. I'd rather be an unemployed phd than some dick wondering how things could have been different if I had just given it a shot. Maybe I'll drop out in a year or less. Shit happens. But if we had everyone who had a bad experience in a given field write a blog, no one would want any job ever.

The whole problem with the apparent lackadaisical attitude towards rejects is that it is actually counterproductive, is it not? What exactly is involved in the whole 'wooing' process of admitted applicants? If this forum is any indication, many applicants are not going to make final decisions until they receive all, or most, of their notifications. The very fact of not sending rejections impedes the ability of admitted students to make decisions.

The whole problem with the apparent lackadaisical attitude towards rejects is that it is actually counterproductive, is it not? What exactly is involved in the whole 'wooing' process of admitted applicants? If this forum is any indication, many applicants are not going to make final decisions until they receive all, or most, of their notifications. The very fact of not sending rejections impedes the ability of admitted students to make decisions.

How many blogs like this are there? We all know it is hard, we all know the pitfalls, we all know the difficulty. Some people need to vent and tell everyone else how big of a mistake their decision is going to be despite being at a different program in a different field and a different person. Some are bitter at their choices.

I wish all these people would just man up and quit if they hate it so much. You read and write for a living in an air-conditioned building. You aren't working in a factory or on a construction site or in a nuclear reactor core. You could have it worse.

All right, I've accepted and going to Western Ontario! Thanks everyone for the camaraderie and commiseration. Will keep on the forum.

I've said this before here, but sometimes I think I'm just much less emotional than some of you, or else I'm a cynical realist. You're not rejecting a person, you're rejecting an offer made by a department in an institution. Your profs aren't family or friends; they're professionals doing a job. And, to be blunt, nobody here is special; there were students before you and there will be students after you. You're just passing through, a transaction and a student number. If you've gotten to know some of your profs, then I understand you may feel a little bad, but you don't owe anything in particular to a department or a school.

All right, I've accepted and going to Western Ontario! Thanks everyone for the camaraderie and commiseration. Will keep on the forum.

I can't say that I don't share some of that envy of the OP, but I also don't think anything he's said has been boastful or immodest. To the OP, though, are you already excluding Stanford and Columbia? Why so?

I can't speak for anyone else, but all I expect is that programs and schools be complete, explicit, and transparent about admissions requirements and the process. I can certainly understand human mistakes, like sending the wrong e-mail to someone, e.g., sending accepts where rejects should have been sent. Although it's agony for the wrongly informed applicant, it's understandable that an admin person or even faculty might accidentally input the wrong address or press 'send' prematurely.

What I find unprofessional is not stating minimum requirements upfront, taking application fees when there's absolutely no chance of admittance, going through a whole admissions process without anyone noticing the 'ineligible' GPA, or else not informing the applicant that there may be a problem, offering acceptance in categorical language ('the admissions committee has recommended you to the graduate school...'), and then rescinding that acceptance later.

I've said this before here, but sometimes I think I'm just much less emotional than some of you, or else I'm a cynical realist. You're not rejecting a person, you're rejecting an offer made by a department in an institution. Your profs aren't family or friends; they're professionals doing a job. And, to be blunt, nobody here is special; there were students before you and there will be students after you. You're just passing through, a transaction and a student number. If you've gotten to know some of your profs, then I understand you may feel a little bad, but you don't owe anything in particular to a department or a school.

Not saying it's an inappropriate comparison, but there is one big difference: you don't pay to apply for a job. If people had to pay $100 every time they applied for a job, it damn well better be the case that they notify you.

In response to the 'length of time' argument, I'd also suggest that it doesn't matter when you, specifically, submitted your application. Again, that was your choice. The deadline is what matters; I assume that, in general, schools don't even begin the application review process until the deadline has passed, and, as someone else said, they do have other duties besides.

God knows I've made my frustrations with the process clear in other various threads on this forum, but I don't buy some of the justification for the 'anger' here.

I'm sorry that you feel this way, but I think this anger is misplaced. Yes, they gave you advice, encouraged you, etc., but it was solely your decision to pursue graduate study. You're an adult and are responsible for your own decisions.

I'm sorry that you feel this way, but I think this anger is misplaced. Yes, they gave you advice, encouraged you, etc., but it was solely your decision to pursue graduate study. You're an adult and are responsible for your own decisions.