expatbayern

To my mind, the most obvious answers other than Harvard are Princeton, Stanford, and UCSD (I know David Lake's new research agenda has to do with global governance issues...), but don't sleep on Wisconsin--I'd put Martin, Pevehouse, and Copelovitch up there against any IPE group out there.

You could also go find the full survey (TRIPS) for lots of other info that may be of interest. I always got the sense that this question (top 5 MA programs) fell a little into "name the first 5 MA programs you can think of," though. Well, there's SFS, SIPA, SAIS, HKS, Fletcher...Wilson...Elliot... Not saying that those aren't the top 7 (nor that the remaining ones listed aren't the rest of the top 20), but don't put too much value on their relative ranks within that list. This will give you a good sense of what the most prominent programs are, then do your own research (and ask faculty) to build a rank order within them, since "better known" is not necessarily equal to "better quality."

"Top 10"=any program that appears in the top 15 slots of at least one ranking (NRC, USNWR, Hix, Schmidt/Chingos, etc.) "Top 25"=any program that appears in the top 40 of at least one ranking As to your question, it sounds like your desired field is both narrow enough and cross-disciplinary enough that our advice won't help you much--instead: 1. find journal articles/books similar to what you'd like to do 2. if the author is an post-doc/assistant professor, add the program where they got their PhD to your list 3. if the author is an associate/full professor, add the program they teach at to your list 4. look at works cited in or citing (1) 5. repeat (2) and (3)

I'd generally tell most of those interested in IR to stay far away from Chicago--Glaser's leaving, Snidal's leaving (and those are the only two who could have held together a committee between the disparate personalities/paradigms/turf wars between PS and Harris/etc.), neither one of Mearsheimer or Lipson really does anything I'd call IR research anymore, and Pape by himself does not a department make. But, if you have a very narrow terrorism focus, Pape + EBdM isn't a bad start (if you have broader ethnic conflict interests, note that Wilkinson is leaving as well, meaning that CP is almost as dead as IR), and the thing about Chicago is that although it is constantly losing good people, it tends to hire pretty well, so there'll be someone there, you just won't know who. Harris is pretty quant-intensive (especially its PhDs), but really, what are you looking to do in the way of terrorism research that isn't quant or formal? Unless you're a really experienced area studies type (arabic fluent?), I don't know how exciting you're going to seem to most strategy/policy think tanks without those skills. Otherwise, if the requirements are East Coast Poli Sci PhD with strengths in terrorism and qual security, I'd echo coach that Columbia or MIT is likely the place to be (add Yale if you do have those ethnic conflict/civil war interests).

Again, I don't know about the NYU program. I'd just reiterate that if you want to work at the UN, you're going to have to be selected for nomination by your home country's foreign ministry (a pretty competitive process in most countries). Depending on where that is, a degree from LSE, Sciences Po, the flagship university in your home country (or a specific civil service/foreign service school if there is one), etc. may be a lot more helpful than one from a US policy school. And since in some cases there may also be a difference between no debt (home country) and six-figure debt (US), it's really something to consider.

I think you need to specify a little more closely where you want to end up working. If it's a large US-based NGO, SIPA probably helps a lot (I don't know much about NYU's program). If you want to work for a European NGO or any type of IGO (such as any UN umbrella organization, where you would need nomination from your home country), a European degree might be more helpful (and would certainly be a lot less expensive). I won't make specific suggestions without knowing your languages/country preferences, but there are good programs out there in a number of EU countries.

Officially turned down UCSD and Wisconsin and accepted Rochester's offer.

Really? I found him no fun whatsoever in Rochester and Madison.

I took a couple of formal modeling courses and thought they helped--some quant methods definitely would as well. Make sure the people you want to work with are going to be there, though. Glaser is leaving and Snidal may as well. That makes the IR group Lipson, Mearsheimer, and Pape--fairly small and not covering large chunks of the subfield. That obviously doesn't matter as much for a one-year MA as for a PhD--I think John Mearsheimer could still supervise a good MA thesis and write a strong letter, for example.

I don't know if this is just trolling or what, but why is it in the Poli Sci forum? UPenn is not a strong program in political science, and the best publics are definitely better than some of the other privates you're listing. This should either be moved to some general talk forum or locked.

I'm turning down NYU and OSU today. I'm pretty certain at this point that I'm going to Rochester, so I will probably turn down UCSD and Wisconsin (and withdraw from waitlists at Harvard and Michigan) in the next week or so.

Applied after I was done--my MA thesis was my writing sample and all of my recommenders were from Chicago.

I think the MPP/MPA can definitely be helpful--just be thoughtful in your course choices and spin it well in your future SOPs. Most MPP/MPA programs have have some kind of econometrics/program analysis sequence that translates very well to a PhD (actually, essentially any econ or methods will) and depending on your focus in IR/CP, there may be good substantive coursework in development policy, conflict resolution, elections, etc.

PROFILE: Type of Undergrad Institution: Lower-tier LAC Major(s)/Minor(s): International Affairs/German Studies (double-major) Undergrad GPA: 3.89 Type of Grad: 1-year MA at top-10 Grad GPA: 3.9 GRE: 720v 800q 5.5a Any Special Courses: 3 game theory courses (1 undergrad, 2 grad) Letters of Recommendation: 2 associates (both very well-known in the subfield), 1 post-doc (who was assistant at a top-25 by the time the letters were submitted) at MA institution Research Experience: BA and MA theses, 1 major conference presentation, no RA experience or publications Teaching Experience: none Research Interests: IPE, Institutional Design, Bargaining SOP: I don't know what I'm supposed to answer about this, if someone has specific questions, feel free to PM me Other: 1 year studying in Germany, German fluency RESULTS: Acceptances: NYU, Rochester, UCSD, Wisconsin, OSU, UWashington (Unfunded) Waitlists: Michigan, Harvard Rejections: Princeton, Yale, Chicago, Northwestern, WUSTL Pending: none What would you have done differently? Not much--I'm actually pretty certain (given certain private communications) I would have been accepted at a couple of the places I was waitlisted or rejected in a normal year, so maybe apply in a better year, but I'm pretty satisfied with my results. Updates: Michigan said they probably wouldn't make me an offer and I struck my name off of their wait list. Harvard says they probably will make an offer but that it won't be before April 15th. I have accepted Rochester's offer.

I had the NW reject online as well--wonder what took them so long? All right, now I've heard something from everywhere--I guess it's time to work on coming to a decision.

I'm going to push back against some of these suggestions. I agree you want to describe your interests in a coherent way, but I think it's totally fine to say they are cross-subfield. Essentially everyone does IR/CP or CP/IR--it's where both literatures are headed and I think admissions committees will respond well to SOPs that recognize that fact. Saying you want to look at a "second image reversed" question about how conflict impacts democracy is going to be really appealing to people in both subfields, particularly those who see it as an interesting twist on/counterpoint to a democratic peace literature that has nearly run its full course. And it's perfectly fine to say you have interests in theory as well and want to explore how they intersect with the substantive subfields. Yes, you need one person on the committee to really like you and push for you, but it's much easier for them to build a winning coalition behind your admission/funding if the theorists want you to come, too.

Oh, except if your ultimate goal is to get into Chicago, I don't know if CIR works. I was just talking with another member of my CIR cohort at UCSD's visit weekend. Both of us were unceremoniously rejected (but also both admitted to multiple places we were more excited about attending, so no real loss). That may just be something about this year, but who knows if next year will be better?

CIR worked out for me--I did my undergrad at a lower-ranked LAC, and I don't know how much weight my letters carried. At the end of a year at Chicago, I had all new letters, plus my MA Thesis as a writing sample (and it was definitely better than my BA Thesis). Plus I've shown I can hack it in grad school (and you'll be taking mostly PhD level coursework, in classes with the Poli Sci PhDs, unlike some terminal MA programs where you're totally segregated). One strength is a lot of flexibility. There are two required courses (IPE core and Security core), of which I opted out of one (they really don't care as long as you've got some rationale), and otherwise you're free to do whatever. I did half of my courses at the Harris School (boning up on formal and methods), others took courses at the Law School or GSB, while some stayed entirely in the Poli Sci department. Also good: in my experience, all the big names in the department are willing to supervise MA Theses and treat CIR students as basically equal to the PhD students. Make sure the folks you want to work with are still going to be around next year, though.

Yeah, I'd just suggest contacting the DGS and saying something like "I know this is a tight year in terms of funding, but I wondered if there was any possibly of flexibility in my package. I really like your program, but the offer just isn't in line with what I've received from other schools." Worst that can happen is you're told "no." If there's a particular professor who's trying hard to recruit you, you could also ask him/her whether the department has historically had any ability to match offers from other schools. He/she may offer to go to bat with the DGS for you (or even a Dean/Provost, if there's money available higher up).

I just declined the University of Washington's (unfunded) offer. I don't know if that opens up a new slot or not, but at the least, if anyone is considering taking one of these, it means one fewer person to compete with for assistantships in future years.

I just got an email admission from UW Seattle, but no guaranteed funding. They say they would evaluate for a TAship each quarter, but unlikely in first year. I will be turning this offer down shortly.

I was pretty unceremoniously rejected by the school I have my MA from, despite getting admits and wait lists from equal or better schools. Not too broken up about it--I probably wouldn't have gone back anyway, given the other places I'm in at.

I'm not going to turn down anywhere until I have official offers with full funding details, etc. from everywhere, but right now it's pretty unlikely that I'll go to OSU or NYU. I am strongly considering each of the other three where I've been admitted, but would probably choose Harvard or Michigan over them if I make it off the wait list.

I'm on wait lists at two top 5 programs--I wrote emails to both (Chair/DGS/Administrator, depending on who initially contacted me about the wait list) saying that I was honored to be considered so closely, very excited about the possibility of receiving an offer, that I currently had some options I was enthused about, but that their school would be my top choice if I received an offer. I asked for whatever information they could give me about the composition of the list, my place on it, the likelihood of making it off, etc. (without pressuring, said I understood if they couldn't disclose, but just wanted as much information as I could). One told me specifically how many people had been admitted in my particular subfield and how many would have to turn them down in order for me to get an offer; one didn't give any information but said that they appreciated my indication of my strong interest. Can't hurt, right?

Hopefully this doesn't come off sounding too snooty, but here was my experience with UWashington: I got one of the phone calls a couple weeks back, the professor said that I was one of their favorite IR applicants, and made it clear he was checking to see if I was actually interested in coming there. I honestly replied that I'd have to see where all I got in, funding packages, etc. before I knew, but that there were specific reasons I thought it was a good fit for me (plus it's close to my family). Then, I did not receive an offer when others did, which makes me wonder if I was unconvincing and they didn't think I had much chance of accepting an offer. However, I haven't received any communication bearing this out (and also haven't sought out information). I don't remember when the deadline there was--I submitted at the same time as all of my others, on about 12/14 (one day before the deadline for most of them)--but I know my file had been looked at closely a couple of weeks ago. Hope this helps.