brent09

I think you'd be surprised by the degree of parochialism amongst some in the discipline. There are plenty of faculty on hiring committees who will openly say that they prefer a political science Ph.D. over an even more highly-qualified Ph.D. from another discipline. I think this is probably typical in a lot of the more 'established' disciplines---communications, policy, international affairs, etc, are relatively newer and relied on interdisciplinary people from the start. This is changing, albeit slowly. And it isn't uniform across the discipline. If you can get a Ph.D. in communications from Stanford, you'll have a perfectly good shot at PSCI jobs if you play your cards right. But, ceteris paribus, you're better off in PSCI if you want to land in PSCI.

Yes, it's perfectly okay to ask. In fact, you absolutely should ask.

Sorry, IRtheorist. It's a pretty rough process, and one that folks sometimes go through multiple times. There's a steep learning curve involved, and a healthy dose of random error. Keep your head up and---better than staying positive---keep fighting. Those who really want to make this work eventually figure it out.

The offer is unusual in that it starts remarkably low and then increases sharply (up 30% each year for two years). That said, there are points to clarify: (a) Is tuition remitted? and (b)what sort of summer funding is typical, not just possible? and (c) (For your personal research) What is the cost of living near the university? The 20 hrs/week is typical, I wouldn't sweat that. It's an assistantship (either TA or RA, of which you'll do both), which nearly always takes less than 20 hours per week. If the offer is from UNT, feel free to PM me. I spent some time there.

I agree generally, but take some issue with this part. You're right that placement is mostly up to the student. But it's undeniable that some advisors do a better job of placing than others. It's not how 'famous' the advisor is, either. Some advisors are highly engaged---they make time to talk, they provide good and prompt feedback on research and market materials, they write good letters, put you in touch with the right people and lobby on your behalf. Advisors matter a lot on the market. A distant, hands-off, checked-out or otherwise unresponsive advisor can hurt your development as a scholar, and your chances when applying for positions. They can't make up for personal failings, but they matter.

I think it depends a lot on your file. If your GPA, research and/or letters are weak, sometimes you can get a MA/MS from, or else transfer out of, a lower-ranked school after you prove yourself. You can perform well in courses, get some research experience and get letters from people who have observed you in a graduate program. If you're funded, you can do so little cost. This strategy can be risky but can also work. If your biggest issue is GREs, then just prep more and retake. If you just didn't apply broadly enough, you can try again next year.

Yea, I tend to agree. And to clarify: I disagree with OP about the other details. Travel funding, summer funding, course offerings... these are not 'trivial.' This is a big decision, it contains multitudes.

I appreciate this, but the advice makes me nervous. It can easily motivate prospective students to go overboard in the hopes of gaining some advantage over their prospective cohort. Prospective students should not use research presentations as an opportunity to show off. In fact, prospies should not use any aspect of the visit weekend to show off. You have been admitted, and you can lock-down advisors in many better, more effective and more efficient ways. Here's my advice: 1. As in my first comment: if you feel compelled to show off, don't. 2. If you have a genuine question, ask away. 3. No matter how big the flaw you see, do not ask 'gotcha' questions. Deflating potential future colleagues won't help you. 4. Do not ask abstruse, technical questions that do not serve to clarify the research. ("Aren't you concerned about heteroskedasticity? What happens if you fit the model with random effects instead of fixed effects? Did you consider using probit instead of logit? [Yes, that happened once.]) 5. If you have ideas based off the presentation, write them down and talk them over with potential advisors during your one-on-ones or at social events that weekend. That gives you an opportunity to generate ideas, get to know faculty and build relationships. Good, thoughtful questions are great. I'm not advising anyone to be silent. But keep in mind that these people are your future colleagues (whether you attend the current department or not). Being a show-off almost never works out. Having one-on-one conversations with advisors will serve you better than asking brilliant questions during the visit weekend research presentations.

As a current grad student (and successful TT placement, for whatever that's worth), I would largely agree with OP. I don't think departments are nefariously deceptive, but they will want to present the best set of statistics they can. (I've never heard of a department failing a defense because the student did not land an academic position. That seems a bit apocryphal.) The OP is right, though, that a placement list can be deceptive. You'll want to know (a) how your subfield places, since even at top departments there can be wide variation across subfields; and (b) how your would-be advisors place students. You can also ask about completion rates, but from my limited experience, grad students who drop out do so for many reasons. At my department, I cannot think of a single attrition that stemmed from a systematic, departmental failure. This is not universal, though, so if attrition is very high it should give you pause. But also remember this: there's wide variation in placement across students. One or two strike-outs can dramatically lower a department's placement rate in a year. And people strike-out at Princeton and get R1 placements from Emory. You should weight a department's placement heavily---perhaps primarily---but it's not the only predictor of your career success.

There's really no "perfect fit" regardless of how you present yourself. And besides, at many top departments, faculty are large enough and diverse enough that they can cover lots of interests. Here's my take more generally: 1. Fit can lead to rejection if the department doesn't think it can help you in your career goals. "Poor fit" typically means one of three things: (a) Nobody here does work in your field; (b) Your interests are so specific that nobody here can help you; or (c) Your interests don't fit in the discipline or evince inflexibility At most top departments, (a) is fairly unlikely. Problem (b) can happen if you choose departments poorly or define yourself too narrowly. If you apply to my department talking about studying the politics of Chinese environmentalism, you might be declined because nobody here does work related to that. The solution is to (i) pitch yourself more broadly as a comparativist with interests in environmental politics, and/or (ii) be more selective in where you apply. Of the three, problem (c) is most common. If your interests aren't really in political science ("I want to study the gap between protestant ethic and Catholic social teaching..." or "the history of race relations in the U.S." or "organization theory in the U.S. military"), committees may conclude that you might fit better in another field. If you seem dogmatic and inflexible, like only wanting to use Bayesian statistics or only the realist perspective in IR or only the Straussian approach, a committee might justifiably conclude that you're not open-minded enough to make it in academia. Avoiding fit problems is more important than proving good fit. Committees want to know that you have genuine interests in political science, but also that you're flexible and willing to engage in many methods and theoretical approaches. Your research focus should evolve as you develop as a scholar. (That doesn't mean you want to be scattershot, e.g., "I want to study American public opinion and post-Soviet political culture and the definition of progress in Francis Bacon's canon and..." Some specificity is necessary.) 2. You can help a lot by guarding against common problems in applications. Make sure you have three good letters; make sure your writing sample is good, well-written, organized and addresses an interesting question. Be sure that your SOP doesn't have errors---common errors or more serious ones, like misidentifying the research interests of a POI you list. A good GPA and GRE profile helps, obviously. So, tl;dr: Avoid fit problems by relating your research to the broader discipline, and by not coming off as a dogmatist. But focus most of your energy on strengthening the rest of the application, since most rejections don't stem from 'fit' problems anyway.

I would want an intro-level Game Theory course offered in-department, preferably two. But my impression of formal---not being a formal theorist, mind you---is that there isn't typically a long sequence of formal theory courses in any department. In statistics, there are many methods of inference, many types of models, many algorithmic approaches to estimation; so there are many courses that one might want to take. In formal theory, the method is largely the same even as the models become more complex. (With perhaps the exception of an ABM/computational estimation course?) A couple of formal courses is sufficient to set you on your way.

Just adding to the wonderful advice above: 1. Do not be shy. If your likely advisor is close to retirement, confirm with him/her that s/he isn't leaving. Ask potential advisors about their placements, not just the department's placements. Ask about mentorship style, coauthorship preferences, upcoming leaves. These may seem rude, but this is your next half-decade and potentially your career. Leave nothing to chance. 2. There will probably be free alcohol. Have fun, but don't go nuts. You will be remembered, and this is a small discipline. 3. Do not be an ass. Do not brag about admissions, don't bring up GREs, don't try to show off by asking esoteric questions at graduate student sample research presentations. Do not try to lecture graduate students about DW Nominate scores or how Polity IV measures are flawed. (Yes, that has happened where I attend.) You have been admitted, so any temptation you have to show how smart you are---pause and reconsider. 4. Try to get away for a bit and collect your thoughts. Trust your gut. I went into the visits 95 percent convinced I wanted to go to one department, and totally changed after the visits. I felt at home at one place, and icky at my favorite. Trust that feeling. ETA: Even if you don't fancy yourself a methodologist, ask about methods training. Unless you're going into theory (which you should reconsider...), you need solid methods training. Any department that talks about exporting training to other departments, or has methods courses unconvered, should cause some hesitation.

It's a strange and random process. If you haven't heard from everywhere, then stay strong and don't let the pessimism take over. If you have, then do three things: 1. Realize that this isn't a judgement on you or your quality as a person, researcher or intellectual; 2. Consider whether the Ph.D. is the best path; and if so, 3. Shore up the application and try again. I can speak from experience---you can come back from rejections to a good program and then (eventually) a good academic job.

Rankings are a constant debate. They need to be a factor in the decision, but should not be the sole or even primary choice. There's considerable uncertainty in the rankings: Is Duke universally better than UNC? No. If you fit better at UNC, go to Chapel Hill. But one should know that programs in the 30-60 range will convey disadvantages on the job market. It's easy to sell oneself on fit, on an exceptional placement from a low-ranked program, or on one's own exceptional effort and intellect. But in expectation, a 30-60 ranked program will not place one in a top job. I treated rankings as a way to cluster and cull programs. The rankings should not dictate choices, but one can use them to target schools that convey the best chances for one's preferred career.

Technically, as noted above, majority is 50% + 1. Writing in a paper that democracy is about "51%" is gonna get you dinged since there is often a large gap between 50% + 1 vote (i.e., 50.00000001%) and 51.00[...]%.