foosh

All admitted students are guaranteed 5 years of funding through fellowships and teaching/research assistantships. This includes fee remission (i.e. tuition is paid for you) and a stipend (~1800/mo for the average student). This differs from other programs, where a few students will receive funded slots, and the remaining will need to pay for themselves unless a funded slot opens up.

UC Davis is not hiring two more faculty. They hired one senior faculty, Matthew Shugart, from UCSD. The keyword here is quantitative. UCD has a very rigorous methods sequence that everyone (including theorists) must take during the first year. It is tough, and students have dropped out in the past because they couldn't handle it. You are encouraged to cut across the traditional subfields in your research. American politics is very strong (nationally ranked in the top 20) and comparative politics will be comparable in the next few years (if it isn't already). Generally the subfield pairings are american/methods, comparative/methods, or comparative/IR, although you are welcome to choose your own combination.

When is a free trip not worth it?

They want somebody with good GRE scores AND good ideas.

If you're aiming for a top-25 you want to break 700 because IR programs are shifting quantitative.

Rochester is good at training formal theorists, but not much else.

Since you're looking at schools in the UW range, take a look at UC Davis as well. In social networks and political communication, they have Bob Huckfeldt, Zeev Maoz, and Amber Boydstun. Lance Bennett is solid if you get into UW.

UC Davis is top 20 for American Politics and top 25 overall...given that the OP specified a top 20 school, it seems perfectly reasonable to include it on the list.

I can't emphasize how wrong this post is. I had well below a 2.7 and got into two top-25 schools both with fellowships and guaranteed funding for 5 years. Your personal statements and GRE scores go a long way in compensating for a bad GPA.

They have selected all students for admission and for the wait-list AFAIK. The acceptance rate was 5%.

Law school is not academia. Being a law professor is academia. Law school is a vocational school where lawyers train to become professionals.

I had well under a 2.7 and got into two top-25 schools straight out of undergrad. Never underestimate your statement of purpose, writing samples, and choosing good recommenders.

Agreed. I also haven't taken any political science courses but was admitted to 2 top-25 programs. The general consensus from professors I've talked to is that a ) graduate school curriculum is vastly different from undergrad and b ) if you're committed you'll have no trouble adapting.

Apparently you lack the ability to scroll up and read. This explains a lot. Yes, a professor teaching public law is teaching a subset of political theory. However, that does not mean they can comprehensively teach political theory; there is a big difference.

Yes, you are mistaken. You are thinking of law student curriculum, not political science curriculum. I believe this highlights why we must ask for your merits, because you seem to have a terrible misunderstanding of both law and political science. I already addressed this above. There are three reasons, and none of them include "just because they have a JD."

Your argument has no merit, so we are forced to find merit elsewhere.

No, that is a logical fallacy. Public law is a sub-field of the Political Theory sub-field. That does not mean that one who can teach public law can teach political theory. A implies B does not mean B implies A.

Actually, he'll be able to find it quickly (UC Berkeley is a main one) because schools tend to divide subfields into further sub-subfields to cater to a student's interest. However, you'll note that all the faculty are listed under the Political Theory subfield because it is a sub-subfield of the theory subfield. However, public law is not a subfield by itself, although it may be offered as a specialization at some universities.

He's quite correct, "Public Law" is not a subfield of Political Science. There are five subfields: comparative politics, international relations, political philosophy, American politics, and political methodology. The study of public law would fall under political philosophy, which is a broad field that requires a solid understanding of philosophy, history, and government. None of these are the focus of a JD, except perhaps minor overlap in government. Regardless, it is not substantial enough to say a JD prepares one as an expert in political philosophy. Generally, departments require mastery of two subfields to be qualified to teach (this is the bare minimum), and a JD prepares a student for a small fraction of a fraction of one subfield.

I don't blame you for misunderstanding the field of political science, as you are not a political scientist or a lawyer. We must all learn at some point, right? Public Law is not generally considered a subfield, as it falls under the field of Political Theory or Philosophy. Theory is a very broad subfield that requires substantial understanding of philosophy, history, and government, but not the law. Rather, it studies the effects of the law, effects of enforcement, and effects of different types of governments. It does not consider how to enact and enforce the law, or the language used in drafting legal documents. This is a critical distinction, as lawyers are trained for the latter. Unfortunately a JD does not adequately educate the student regarding the theoretical aspects of government, but rather the practical aspects that will enable the student to be a good lawyer. JDs that are hired on major university faculties tend to a ) also have a doctorate in Political Science or b ) have done substantial research in a subfield of Political Science or c ) are a law professor, which requires much more than a JD. If you would like to learn a bit more about the fields, I would suggest reading Wikipedia's entry on Political Science and see how it differs from the entry on laywers.

I believe this is where you misunderstand how research universities work, and what constitutes Political Science. Law-related/public law classes are not common in PS programs; if you want to study law you go to a law school. Also, it has only been verified that JDs can teach a small subset of classes on the fringe of Political Science, not that they can effectively teach core curriculum. In order to be an effective lecturer/professor, you must have the background in Political Science to teach the subject. Law school simply doesn't prepare you for this. When I was applying for my JD, I was repeatedly told by law professors to "go to law school to become a lawyer, and only a lawyer." This is because law school simply doesn't prepare a student beyond that profession. I don't see why this is nonsense- it is very true. Unless you took the initiative to study political science as a hobby, a JD does not have the skills necessary to be an effective teacher in the field. They simply lack depth and insight that is essential to teaching the subject. For similar reasons, you wouldn't get a nurse to do a doctor's job; the jobs overlap slightly, but a nurse simply doesn't have the skills necessary to diagnose and prescribe treatment for medical conditions. You'll probably call this a red herring, but in logic we call it parallel reasoning. I wish you best of luck in trying to change the system, but you won't have any support from lawyers or political scientists. This is simply because your idea is misguided and demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of why there is a separation of the two fields.

I don't think you understand the difference between legal research and academic research. The two are vastly different.

Any claim to the other UC Davis wait list?

You realize he's trolling all of you right? He misses the main point of every response people post and focuses on the definition of "professor" being to "profess" not to "research." Of course this is absurd, anybody knows that a professor's job is to primarily do academic research, followed by a duty to teach. I call troll.