mwash

This is a thread between political scientists about whether political science legitimately counts as science. I doubt that there are any senators reading along, so there is no reason to dumb down the language if it means addressing this issue in a less rigorous way.

It's fitting that you mention Iraq. In the lead-up to war, a number of prominent realists, including Ken Waltz, John Mearsheimer, and Stephen Walt, warned that war with Iraq would be a serious mistake. Their beliefs were rooted in theory, broad qualitative empirical research, and case studies on Iraq. This "non-scientific" approach led to two generalizable and falsifiable claims: first, that sadistic leaders like Saddam could be deterred, and second, that offshore balancing is a promising strategy. Consider the money, human lives, and international legitimacy that our government would have saved if it listened to these IR scholars. It would be enough to compensate for the $9 million we get per year from the NSF, I would say. Of course, not all political science is done correctly, and there are very problematic qualitative studies that do not lead to sound policy prescriptions. But that is why political scientists need more funding from the NSF, so that we can arrive at more precise, empirically verified conclusions and train graduate students with the best scientific tools to conduct their qualitative and quantitative research.

Since when has qualitative, theoretical, and historical (empirical) work been unscientific?

yeah i find these rankings a little questionable. i have a hard time believing that chicago isn't a top 10 program.

I'm going to Berkeley.

i'd make that my second paragraph and simplify the language a little. i think in your first paragraph you should say what field you're interested in, mention why you want a PhD or MA, and then complement their school

congratulations man! great program. i'm nd but i've always loved that school too

wait jackassjim have you decided on michigan?

What's your subfield?

UCSD

Unwinding

Thanks for the advice. I think I'm leaning that way right now. But I was also wondering what factors are motivating your decisions. Maybe I should add to the list: preference of significant other, climate, and common interests with other grad students or professors.

For those trying to decide between schools in the top 10 or 15, what factors do you think are the most important: prestige, job placement, fit, quality of education, size of stipend, quality of life...? How are you making your decision and why?

Has anyone heard from MIT today, or should I count myself out?

Yeah I was expecting them to shell out money like Berkeley did.