Wesson

OSU would indeed be a very good choice. UNC and Illinois strike me as the other strong choices among those where you've been accepted. OSU is large, diverse, and covers the range of both political behavior and methods very well. UNC also is large, has a great reputation, and has some outstanding senior scholars. Illinois is smaller (good or bad depending on one's tastes), but is quite deep in methods and behavior/political psychology. You can't really go wrong choosing from among those. Hopefully you'll be able to visit all three and see what clicks.

Minnesota has a very strong department with many excellent scholars. That said, their reputation in American is primarily in political behavior, and especially political psychology. If you're interested in political psych applications to the study of Congress, then you'd likely be in great shape. Otherwise, it still may well be that you'd be in great shape, but you probably should ask them questions about how they've done in the recent past in placing non-political psychology students and whether those who don't study political psychology are a priority.

Here's my post from a similar thread last week (keep in mind that it is indeed the case that departments differ): Most departments have a minimum size they hope to achieve for the incoming class. If you want at least 10 students in the class, you may make initial admission/funding offers to 20, recognizing that many of them will go elsewhere. People will move up from the waiting list when one of two things happen: 1) the list of possibles drops below 10 (i.e., 11+ of the original 20 notify the DGS that they are going elsewhere), or 2) the list of possibles for a subfield drops below the desired minimum (e.g., all but one admitted student in American decides to go elsewhere, and the department wants at least two students in American). This can take a while to sort itself out, mostly because risk-averse students often are slow to notify the DGS that they have ruled out a department. There can be a lot of action in the days leading up to decision day. Some DGSs will call or email you if things are looking promising, as in "it looks quite likely that we'll have a slot for you, but we won't know for sure for at least two more days. So, we encourage you to hold off on making a decision among your other schools until we get back to you."

Most departments have a minimum size they hope to achieve for the incoming class. If you want at least 10 students in the class, you may make initial admission/funding offers to 20, recognizing that many of them will go elsewhere. People will move up from the waiting list when one of two things happen: a) the list of possibles drops below 10 (i.e., 11+ of the original 20 notify the DGS that they are going elsewhere), or the list of possibles for a subfield drops below the desired minimum (e.g., all but one admitted student in American decides to go elsewhere, and the department wants at least two students in American). This can take a while to sort itself out, mostly because risk-averse students often are slow to notify the DGS that they have ruled out a department. There can be a lot of action in the days leading up to decision day. Some DGSs will call or email you if things are looking promising, as in "it looks quite likely that we'll have a slot for you, but we won't know for sure for at least two more days. So, we encourage you to hold off on making a decision among your other schools until we get back to you."

I don't really see it this way. First, I'm not sure it's a matter of broad vs. narrow interests. Instead, it's more about whether the faculty, including the admissions committee, perceive the applicant to be open-minded and interested in learning. Some SoPs read like the applicant thinks he or she already knows everything, and views the PhD program as a hoop to be jumped through rather than an opportunity for intellectual growth. Second, although some faculty probably do wish to "continue their own research through you," most prefer that you find your own path. If you do, you'll be a better, more innovative scholar. But faculty do gravitate toward students with research interests similar (i.e., related but not identical)to their own, and to students interested in learning more about how to do research. Third, keep in mind that you eventually have to face the matter of marketability. Your dissertation has to help you land a job. Some dissertations are quite narrow and/or quite dry, making it hard for their authors to find the right market niche. A good adviser will see this early on, and try to nudge the student in a more promising direction. One thing I would suggest is to try to put yourself in the shoes of the professor, the person who has been on the faculty 10, 20 or 30 years, and think about how the way you depict yourself will strike that person.

No one said that graduates of such a school would be completely disregarded for tenure-track positions. In my experience, someone from #27 can get a job at a PhD program ranked anywhere from around #20 on down, and can fare well when applying for positions at M.A.-level and good B.A.-level institutions. That said, 500 applicants sounds rather steep to me; I've not encountered that many when looking at applications at programs ranked in the 20-40 range. As to what motivates those 500, there is no single answer. Some apply to #27 as their safety school, some understand that with a degree from #27 they will be unlikely to be hired by top 20 PhD departments and they are just fine with that, some have never thought about it, and some have deluded themselves into thinking that they will be so special that Yale or Stanford or Princeton surely will want to hire them irrespective of where they earned the PhD.

The Georgia example supports why I think looking past the top 25 to the top 40 to 50 can be reasonable. As to the matter of whether this is all too utilitarian, it's certainly true that one doesn't gravitate toward academia to become wealthy. But we do need to pay the bills, and for that we need to be employed. Thus, some concern with career makes sense. But even if one is only interested in academia for intellectual stimulation, keep in mind that you'll likely find a more vibrant intellectual environment at the 10th-ranked graduate program than the 63rd.

Of those who finish their PhDs, I'm not sure the unemployment rate in academia is that high, but it would be interesting to see data on it. I'm familiar with some programs in the 25-40 range that do pretty well at placing their students who finish. But that raises another point--two schools ranked near one another may have entirely different cultures and histories in terms of level of commitment to the graduate program. Personally, I would never advise someone interested in working in academia to receive a PhD from a department ranked below roughly 40-50, but one can fare reasonably well at many programs in the 26 to 40/50 range. As to where those who don't finish end up, they just move on to something else once they realize that a political science PhD is not for them. I've seen them go to political consulting, law school, administrative jobs in government, working for publishers, working for survey firms, etc.

I agree with most of the original post, but my experiences have been slightly different on a point or two. With that in mind, my two cents: First, be careful about becoming slaves to the numbers. Rankings do matter, but mostly because of what they represent (especially in terms of quality of training), not because of the rankings themselves. As a general rule, higher is better, but other factors also matter. In terms of choice of a graduate program, I would not allow differences of 5 to 10 spots to override your own assessments of fit. So, if you're choosing between #10 and #15, and #15 is the one that feels right to you, then don't go to #10 just because it is ranked higher. Conversely, if you're choosing between #10 and #35, and #35 is the one that feels right to you, then I would advise you to go to #10 unless you have some extraordinarily compelling reason not to do so. My sense of how rankings matter for your career is that the ranking of your graduate institution marks the approximate ceiling for where you can be placed. Thus, if your graduate department is ranked in the top ten, no department will be off limits to you, but if your department is ranked something like 20 to 25, it is highly unlikely that you'll be hired at a top 15 department. There are exceptions, of course, but don't expect that you can move up dramatically over time. As to experiences with your adviser, note that these vary quite a lot. A good adviser will spend as much time with you, within reason, as you need. For some students, that is 15 minutes a week, and for others it is three hours. But keep in mind, as noted in the original post, that the person you think will be your adviser when you apply to a program may not turn out to be the one. Ideally, you'll go to a program where at least a few people plausibly could be your adviser. That way, you'll have options if a) your interests evolve, you and Choice A don't hit it off, or c) Choice A retires, moves, etc.

UCSD has had several senior faculty leave in the last year or so--Cox, McCubbins, Poole. These things happen, and I have no idea how much, if any, influence the economy had. But it's just wrong to say that no one has left.

There are lots of points to note about political science salaries. In no particular order: 1. Entry-level salaries rise the fastest. Therefore, someone starting graduate school now can expect to do quite a lot better 6-8 years down the road than the 2009 cohort. As a rough guide, I'd say add $1,000 to $2,000 per additional year. 2. Most salaries are for the nine-month academic year. You often can supplement those with summer funding from grants, or "summer ninths" from your department, especially early in your career. 3. Most universities have pretty good retirement systems, which works out to added, tax-deferred pay. It's pretty common to have the university kick in an extra 8-12% over your salary, with that money put directly into mutual funds. And you can match it, again tax-deferred, from your salary. 4. Starting salaries do vary quite a lot by type of institution. This year, the very worst one probably would do for a tenure-track offer would be in the low 40s, and the very best could well approach 100k. A top 25 Ph.D. program in an affordable community (places like some of the Big Ten schools) would start assistants at around 70k this year. Lower-ranked Ph.D. programs in similar locales would be more in the range of 55-65. 5. You typically get some small pay raise each year, and raises of about 10% with tenure and promotion to associate, and again with promotion to full. 6. The way to get large raises (25-50%) is to remain marketable, and to draw offers from other universities. 7. Many tenured faculty, and especially full professors and endowed chairs, at top 25 programs are paid nine-month salaries over $100,000, and some are up over $200,000 (especially ones in areas with high costs of living, and ones who have had multiple outside offers). 8. One can earn small amounts of extra money by reviewing manuscripts for publishers ($200 is pretty common), and by publishing books. For a research-oriented book, you typically won't make much; $2,000 is a good showing. Textbooks can earn you much more, especially if they catch on. However, textbooks earn you zero scholarly credit, so they won't get you pay raises.

I agree. I know of some people who work, or who have worked, as political scientists while holding degrees in psychology or sociology. But no one springs to mind who has any kind of inter-disciplinary Ph.D. There probably are a few, but they're rare.

Actually, all three of those programs are excellent in both methods and political psychology. If Minnesota isn't funding you, that probably should rule them out. But all are top programs, especially in American political behavior. Have you visited them? This might be a "go with your gut" decision. It's not like you're going to make a bad pick when choosing among those three.

For people who were not admitted or were admitted without funding, I suggest that you consider applying to funded M.A. programs. Many mid-level public universities have these. In the Midwest, for instance, many of the MAC schools have such programs. You can get two years of funding to be a TA and work on your M.A. The benefits of doing this are 1) you can get a relatively quick and painless taste of graduate school, so you can find out if it really is for you; 2) you won't go deep into debt; 3) you can focus on getting a high GPA and on developing ties with faculty who can write letters for you, which will increase your odds when you apply again to Ph.D. programs; and 4) you can shave a bit of time off of the Ph.D. down the road. On #2, these programs tend not to pay nearly as well as the Ph.D. programs, but you're still getting free tuition and some sort of monthly stipend. On #4, coming in with the M.A. generally will only save you perhaps one semester, or maybe a tiny bit more, of coursework in the Ph.D. program. But that's something, plus you'll have a big leg up on the Ph.D. courses because you'll almost certainly take some in the Ph.D. program that are highly similar to ones you already had in your M.A. program. If you consider going this route, shop around and find out which programs have 1) faculty with ties to the Ph.D. programs that interest you, and 2) a track record for shipping their graduates off to get Ph.Ds.

What's your field? I have visited both departments. Rutgers was a bit odd because faculty in the different fields seemed to have almost no interaction with one another. But that shouldn't matter for the graduate student who is comfortable with the faculty in the subfield. The university is also a bit odd with the campuses spread around town. But that probably wouldn't matter much for you, except possibly when you have to make brief road trips for TA duty. Maryland didn't strike me as having the most pleasant faculty as a whole, although some were quite nice. But what I really noticed was how few faculty were around. I was told that they live all over the area, and many have other activities in D.C., so many only come to the department when they absolutely have to do so. That's not an ideal situation for graduate students.

Most schools make funding contingent on some sort of definition of "normal progress." That can include maintaining a GPA above some minimum, not having lingering incompletes, etc. Many UC-B students stay there for 8-12 years, so I'd guess that either the normal progress standard there isn't the most strict or that RA opportunities abound.

Frankly, I'd have to agree that the odds aren't great. Your GRE total is good, but the verbal obviously is a bit low. And the GPA is a red flag. You might have a shot if your letters and personal statement are really striking, but you're clearly gambling. If you're really set on going to graduate school next year, I'd recommend that you find yourself 5-6 programs ranked around #15-30 where you feel you'd be a good fit. Then send an email to their grad directors; include your stats, and say that you'd like to know if it's possible at this stage to still get an application in and be considered for next year. You may get some nibbles.

In which subfields are/are not the faculty contacting people?

Well, even if the others don't work out, you have Penn as a safety school.

Those of you who got in, what are your fields? What do you know about the place and what do you want to know?

No, I'm a retired graduate student.

In answer to the 2nd and 3rd of the original questions, yes, there is a good bit of coauthoring between faculty and graduate students at UIUC. I'm not sure how it compares with other places, but I'd guess UIUC is toward the high end. They have some information on it here: http://www.pol.uiuc.edu/research/grad_pubs.html . As to seminar size, substantive seminars seem to average around 8-12; some of the early courses in the methods sequence can be up toward 20.