IRdreams

A lot of programs uses MAs as cash cows for the PhDs and the university in general. Thus, getting any funding is often lucky. When I did my admissions, I received an MA slot at Chicago who were willing to give me only a partial tuition waver and definitely no stipend. While I said thanks but no thanks due to substantially better PhD offers, I later found out that this was actually considered a very generous offer for this program. If I were not in it to win it (ie get a PhD and be poor for life), I would likely apply for PhD programs that offer terminal masters and leave after I had attained this degree. They are more likely to give more generous funding to PhD students and the debt load is substantially lower if non-existent at many of programs and all of the better programs.

Isn't the whole notion of a CV self-congratulatory? I mean they are designed to sell you and "your brand," which means touting you up a bit. It really is a catch 22 since on the one hand you are meant to sell yourself but on the other a culture of self-promotion is looked down upon.

It is common to say on CVs. You basically put the entry in like you would a normal fellowship or grant and then (declined). While this allows you to capture some of the prestige benefits, unfortunately, you do not get all of them would be my bet since there is likely networking effects as well. Also, whether the NSF "remembers" you as a past possible recipient if you don't actually take their money is questionable. I don't know for sure. But, your odds of recieving an award from them later in your career go up if you take their funds earlier. This is partially a quality effect. Quality applicants are likely to get both. However, a friend of mine works at the NSF and said that they actually do consider whether you've gotten their funds and preferentially favor you if you have.

Some schools treat foreign admissions as a cash cow for the school. Basically, you are paying a tax which then goes to fund US residents. Think of it as a grad school tariff. It sucks, but you can't begrudge them for trying to squeeze pennies where they can. The same thing was true when I spent time studying abroad in a foreign country. Another possibility, is that some schools that do not have a waitlist admit people with independent means. They figure well if they come free labor and extra money for the other students. It is possible you are in this situation. Then it is not the proliferation of unfunded programs, but rather changing norms around how to best use the waitlist.

Actually, the courses that you have proposed teaching are not in my purview so I do not find you to be competition. I work in security. The one ILaw paper I've written is about why ILaw might exist on paper but if it has any effect it is that states increasingly have become more brutal in war since its inception. This was a paper I would not have written had more security classes been available that semester. Furthermore, ILaw is one of the more marginalized areas of research in IR so working in it is often professional suicide. However, your failure to understand the general professional consensus that has been outlined here suggests that you wouldn't be competition anyways. Part of succeeding in life is recognizing the constraints that exist regardless of their legitimacy and strategically responding to them. By creating a thread whining to people who can't change the professional reality for at least another 20 years, what exactly do you hope to accomplish? (Don't answer that, it is rhetorical and I will no longer engage in this thread...as I said...there be trollz) This thread though is generally pointless, since you seem to fundamentally misunderstand what the business of political science is. You may disagree all you like, but numerous people on this thread have noted that teaching is rarely a priority goal and that research is our number one priority. For example, "best teacher" awards are often given to faculty before they are denied tenure as a CONSOLATION prize. So your premise that JDs are qualified to teach is all well in good, but it ignores the fundamental reality of the discipline that teaching is not particularly highly valued. This obviously varies somewhat by school with SLACs valuing teaching some more and in fact JDs who ALSO pursue PhDs are commonly found among SLAC departments. However, tenure is often difficult for JDs who have not had the research training that PhDs have had. Though what they write may be legitimate for their discipline, it can have problems being published in respected political science outlets because it does not meet the somewhat arbitrary norms of another discipline. It does not matter which discipline is better, these norms are nonetheless a reality that creates barriers to entry across disciplines. Finally, your general argument boils down to smart people can develop multiple competencies. This is probably true. The same people who can exceed at top graduate programs are likely the same people who can succeed at top law schools. In fact, there is a great deal of fungibility between admissions at these institutions. Again though, this ignores the reality that different degrees are perceived to signal different information and that this information is used in the tenure process. Furthermore, others have already noted this, but the mindset generated in each degree are very different with students taught to value different types of information and questions. This is part of professionalization. The result is that when people communicate across disciplinary divides they generally speak at cross-purposes. This thread is already 17 pages because of this communication divide. The fact though that almost none of my arguments are substantially different from those previously proffered suggests that by this point in time the thread really is beating a dead horse, so I really do believe my jpeg sums it up nicely.

If you haven't already, you might want to post this in the PoliSci forum since there will be more people there familiar with the institution.

Gawd...can a moderate close this thread already. This is a total waste of server resources. There be trollz here. And they're beating a dead horse.

As a student from a methodologically divided department, I can reaffirm some of the things said here. My school has two cleavages: one methodological and the other generational. The old guard are predominantly qualitative scholars while the junior hires are people with strong applied methodological backgrounds. The power dynamics of this divide result in it generally not devolving into personal disputes. However, it does create odd effects such as multiple research colloquiums depending on methodological orientation. For example, at one IR seminar, the median age of faculty participation is substantially higher than the more quantitative research forum. The combined effect seems to place the junior faculty in a particularly precarious position. On the one hand, they are hired for being different than the department's culture and on the other hand they are pressured to adopt this culture. For example, one of the juniors was a race horse hire who the department brought in expecting this person to teach a sequence on formal theory. However, these same courses are not well received by the senior faculty who have the most voice in tenure decisions. A very prominent scholar even suggested to this professor that he design more nonmethods courses despite the department lacking someone with sufficient background to teach them if the junior does not. Thus, these divides can dramatically affect the training one receives because courses are viewed as part of the battleground between factions. This results in me partially disagreeing with P.H. about the effects these divides have on grad students. As a student who has more in common with the junior people, it was difficult for me to select a senior person to work with. My committees subsidiary members are all junior and therefore one has to wonder whether they will be there in the years to come. The debate about world view also strongly affects how syllabuses are constructed for the field seminars. The result is that the same seminar taught by a junior versus a senior are radically differnt. This adds to the pressure for preparing for qualifying exams since you essentially get one view of the field from one set of professors and another very different view from the other set, but either could write your exam questions. While this sounds like it might encourage the broadening of horizons, the end result is that some faculty focus on very parochial elements of the field in an attempt to develop a legion of the faithful rather than giving you a general contour of the field.

At least if you enrolling in a PhD, you should never pay. This is going to sound terrible, but it is often an admission choice that schools use when they don't have a waitlist (this was at least the case at MIT). So from that perspective, they're not really 100% behind you, which is not what you want going into a program regardless of the MASSIVE debt involved.

SWAMOS for IR folks.

At my school a package like this meant that you recieve a fellowship year your first year to ease you in. Then you teach for the next 3/4 years. Finally, during your dissertation year you get another fellowship year. Kind of like a dissertation completion fellowship just for being in the program.

I'm also curious about how long it takes the fastlane system to acknowledge the receipt of transcripts. My undergrad institution in Boston mailed out the transcript on 11/9 and has still not been logged into the system. I've double checked the addresses so I'm not sure what the deal is. I'm hoping it is just a massive inflow of transcripts meaning they haven't logged them yet.

I agree with a lot of the perspectives that have been offered here. Time off can be valuable if your are sorting through personal things. A lot of my friends in undergrad took a semester or year off to put their life in focus and came back to perform in and enjoy school more. However, I also recognize that, at least in PhD programs, there is a big fear of student's drifting away due to the long haul nature of the program. ABD's also tend to derive from the challenges of developing a book length project and the fetishization process that goes into it which again can result in students fading away from their programs while never officially dropping out. This may be less of a concern in a masters program because they tend to be shorter and the capstone work rigorous but less extensive. That being said, I'm reading a lot of dissatisfaction about your current school not just your current personal situation in your post. You mention a cutthroat environment and a lack of departmental support. This type of environment is good for some students but not necessarily for others. Programs thus tend to differentiate themselves. Some with the type of culture you mention and others with...a gentler approach. For example, two of the programs I was admitted to had radically different approaches to student interactions: one competitive and one cooperative. The schools purposely fostered these atmospheres; the former gave competitive financial aid and the latter ensured that students packages were equal. I chose the school that an adviser of mine called a "hug fest." I don't believe competition is the only way to foster intellectual and, I imagine, artistic development. Furthermore, both programs are considered top programs in my field so there is nothing about a school's culture that dictates its wider reputation. It could be you are reacting to the culture of your institution. From this perspective, if you can transfer it might be worth your while. Learning often best occurs when we are comfortable to explore, to make mistakes, and to be ourselves. Some people need a competitive environment to foster this process and others a supportive. You may be in the latter case.

I personally love reading these books because they compliment my neurotic side. That being said, the advice they give does tend to be mostly of the intuitive nature. My hypothesis is that by reinforcing one's intuition they are designed to ease neurotic energy. Anywho...Getting what you came for is okay. I wouldn't buy it but did pull it from a library and thought it was little better than most. If you're school doesn't have it you should be able to ILL. I actually like the About.com grad school stuff written by Tara something. If you're going to get intuitive advice, you might as well get it for free. If you're a woman, I would strongly recommend NOT getting Ms Mentor's Impeccable Advice for Women in Academia. I was given a copy by a junior faculty and while the thought was nice the books is written like Dear Abby with less substance. I've heard good things about From Student to Scholar: A Candid Guide to Becoming a Professor by Cahn but haven't read it myself. Might be worth checking out a google books copy if one exists...the Amazon reviews are all very positive and the book topics are ones that I would expect to be in more substantive treatment of the subject. However...at the end of the day your best resource for surviving grad school will be the older students who have been there before. In my department, I've been offered tons of advice and insight as well as materials for studying for comps...much more detailed and tailored to the idiosyncrasies of your department which no book can capture and which greatly affect one's phd trajectory.

I was wondering about the grading process on comprehensive exams. My school gives several gradations of grades on comps. Is this the norm? Beyond passing do "pass plus" types of grades affect standing within the department, job search, or fellowship applications? Or should this be viewed simply as a hurdle to overcome and forgot? If the latter is true, what function do these additional gradations have? Are they merely ego boosting/deflating devices? Thanks for any thoughts that may be shared.

Did anyone else get admitted to this program after specifically declining to be considered for it?

I got my CIRS consolation prize with a 1/3 scholarship. I checked the "Do Not Consider Me for a Masters" box on the application; just reject me instead. How inappropriate would it be to not turn in a form for a program I specifically said I wouldn't consider? I don't want to pay the postage on the principle of the matter. Can I just email? And does anyone know who I'd email?

My sister had a W or two on her transcript and she is now a second year student at Yale. You're 99% fine.

I echo the need to be very concise about your research interests in the application. Selling too many to a school in your SOP will look unfocused and is the singe leading cause of MA admission offers instead of PhD admission offers. So do your research about where you can to do both, but write about one in your application to these schools. I will note that it might be more difficult for you to gain admission than average because of strange overlap in interests. My interests for example border on comparative and IR, but I applied to mostly IR programs. While I've been successful, I probably would have been more successful if I had sold my self as a comparativist rather than IR person. Unfortunately, political science departments are not quite ready to handle ecumenical interests in various subfields and this hurts us in the "does this kid fit us?" portion of the review process.

.

I think if you are hesitant about going into a PhD for personal reasons, then that is a reason to reject it. However, if the professional concern is your only one, I think you might be over estimating the "overskilled" pigeonholing effect in the sciences. My parents are both PhD scientists working for Hewlett Packard. Both have held management positions and advance technical positions. If anything, a PhD in this environment made them more competitive because everyone in an engineering firm has some base level of technical skills, but the PhDs always were leaps and bounds ahead in this area. In all of the management positions my parents have applied for or held, technical skills were highly valued. Though this emphasis drops off towards the upper-upper level management subsection. An MBA would likely be a good choice as well and if this is your route, then the BS->MS->MBA is probably a good chioce. However, the PhD may actually open up similar doors and will not have the added costs associated with this track.

That's kinda where I'm leaning. I've been admitted to two very good programs and some others as well. However, I had a Professor at my undergrad has nothing to do with my application belittle my work and my worth by saying "I've done nothing of distinction" and claimed this was the reason why I got rejected at some other places so its left me a little bit mystified and upset. I was considering this conversations not so much from the perspective of reapplying, but from the perspective of I want to see what my weaknesses were this time around because they might apply when I'm on the job market for Academia. If I know what they are, I will be more able to address them before that time.

I definitely have preferred schools that made me feel more welcome there. One of the stranger acceptance letters I got was actually very nonchalant about the whole thing. The tone of the letter was more of a "just tell us when you plan to say no" rather than a "we you think you should really come here." I was equally surprised that the less prestigious the school the less actively I have been courted. I think it will likely have some impact on my decision, though it helps that some of the schools that are not courting me are in less than desirable locations (read very high murder rates and costs of living when compared to other large metropolitan areas). But then again, I'm also the girl who went to the school who sent her the poster as well and haven't regretted the inviting atmosphere I found at undergrad for one moment.

As far as top programs, I generally look to placement rankings as a sign of this within my field. I don't know how much research on placement has been for other fields, but these rankings were a good way to determine a top program. For example, the percentage of those placed within a predetermined short time period fell off dramatically after around 15. While I think having an advisor you can work with is very important, I know that placement options are bleak at many institutions who had advisors with interests more closely aligned to mine. Unfortunately, I will not be working with them because grad school does have a component of "who you know" and "whose acolyte are you" that affects the politics of publication and hiring. These effects strongly support going to a "top program" however that be defined by discipline and subfield.

It also depends on the year. Rumor is Chicago was less willing to accept their own students this year in Political Science, while in past years they have been rather generous with their alums.