brent09

I would avoid it if you're not a theorist or qual. Unless you could take classes at Harvard or MIT, but I'm not sure how that works. I like the idea of small programs generally, though. It's a selling point for me. Attention, funding, coauthorship... all plusses of smaller programs.

Call ten times a day! You paid to be considered, so call them til you get thru. Might be a bit hectic bc this weekend is the psci prospie weekend. But if they have a decision, just keep calling. Can't hurt.

JiIf anyone happens to be at PSU tonight, shoot me a PM and we'll grab a drink.

If anyone happens to be at PSU tonight, shoot me a PM and we'll grab a drink.

^ Just ask? Tenure isn't that awkward to ask about. As far as staying... a bit more awkward, but they'll understand. Just say, "And how do you like working here? See yourself staying for a while?" Of course nobody can assure you 100 percent that they're staying. If they get a job offer from Harvard, they'll consider leaving. But yea, I'd just ask.

I think we all have different perspectives on this. I applied across a range of schools (from Michigan to Georgia), and certainly only picked programs that would accord me the opportunity to pursue my interests. The "seriousness" of my consideration, though, is highly dependent -- and inextricably so! -- on the programs to which I am accepted. I would seriously consider Georgia if I were only admitted to the programs in the 30-50 range. Given that I was fortunate enough to be admitted higher, Georgia, Maryland and similar programs get dropped without much anxiety. The jellybeans are just my heuristic for assessing the probability that I would accept an offer. I can't be 100 percent sure, but if I wouldn't give the school at least one jellybean, I'm confident that I'm unlikely to choose that school in the end. The general point I make stands: don't hold offers just to do so. (And cut the OP some slack.) But by all means hold onto the offers you're seriously considering (for the right reasons).

This is a sticky issue. Obviously nobody should feel pressured to give up options until they're ready. On the other end, the OP is correct insofar as we shouldn't hold onto schools just because we can. I use a method that I call the jellybean test: You have 10 jellybeans to distribute amongst your offers, where more beans == higher preference. If a program doesn't get any jellybeans in the test, cut them loose. They're not in contention for your services. I've declined two offers this week, and will likely decline two more next week. I won't make a final decision about where to go until after visiting, but I know that I'm not (for example) going to Maryland under any circumstance, so I can (should?) decline that offer. In the strictly normative sense, we've earned the acceptances we've gotten, and have the right to hold onto those offers until April 15. But if you find yourself holding onto an offer because it's fun being wooed, because it makes you feel special or just because you can, then I would argue it's time to decline an offer or two and (potentially) let others in.

I wanted to post separately about the favorite Cinderella program on this thread: Vanderbilt. I'll preface this twice over. First, I was rejected from Vanderbilt, so it's possible that I'm allowing the sting of rejection color my analysis here. Second, however: a lot of this is based on discussions with faculty at several departments both before and after I applied. So hopefully it's pretty unbiased. It's hard to argue that Vandy isn't making moves. In a sense, it would be hard for them not to considering that they were in receivership a decade ago. They've made several great hires, particularly in American (Larry Bartels, anyone?). And they have money to throw around. That said, I'm afraid that some of their moves might hurt their reputation in the long run. There's a pretty consistent perception across faculty (with whom I've spoken) that Vandy has gotten a bit too big for their britches, as we say around home. I would be concerned that if they've gotten ahead of themselves, their reputation might not end up advancing as quickly as they expect. They have a few years to go, and need to bulk up the methods sequence, before they can really be a top program.

^ Agree 100% on UGa. Good catch.

I would agree with a lot of the above. 1. FSU is making big moves, and already offers top-tier methods training. American lags the other fields but they're working on that. 2. Houston is generally underrated; good methods, good training, but never breaks through the ranks 3. Binghamton is trying, and they do well with judicial. We'll see how they fare 4. WUSTL has the resources, and seems to see itself as have had great hires. They have solid placement and I wouldn't be surprised to see them burst into the top 10/15 soon. 5. North Texas: lots of good hires, the methods sequence is expanding, and they just got the APSR. Money isn't there, though, and they only fully fund one student at the moment. That will need to change if they're going to break out of the ~50s. Some I'm not so sure about: 1. Penn State: was moving quickly, but lost some good people as money dried up. I think they've stalled in some subfields (American in particular) 2. Stony Brook: they're two faculty away from dropping out of the top-20 in American, and with limited funds, I don't think they're going to be able to really bulk up the junior faculty enough to compensate.

^ Yea, that's tough. I think you just have to bite the bullet if the DGS doesn't ask. Which sounds terribly awkward to me... edit: To clarify, by 'bite the bullet' I mean you have to just bring it up, not accept a lower funding package. Like Megan says below.

^ I'm leading toward visiting Madison, still trying to decide. If I do, I look forward to meeting both of ya'!

Just had this conversation this morning, actually. Impression I get is that the only real leverage you have is more funding elsewhere, preferably at a comparable institution. Movement will depend on the department, how much money they have, and how much they want you. I've gotten a bump for at least $4k+ this cycle, but I doubt many (if any) other schools would make a similar shift. (Given that the program is lower-ranked than my others, I don't think I could leverage it for more elsewhere.) Then again, I really suck at asking for more money. I guess it doesn't hurt to ask, worst they can say is no. But the better the competing offer, the more likely you are to get a bump. As far as how to negotiate -- sounds like you just tell the DGS how much you've been offered, and ask if there's any way they can make up some of the difference. Worked for my advisor, apparently.

I would tend to agree. I doubt one paper presentation would make any difference, but it might serve as a nice reminder that you exist, make them take another look at your file. Couldn't hurt.

Advice from my advisor this morning: Send an e-mail to your primary contact and/or DGS informing them that (a.) You are declining the offer; (b.) Thanking them for the offer; and (c.) Indicating that, if they need it, you can submit a hard copy by postal service (some might need that for their records). If they want more information (like where you're going or why you're turning them down) or if they want to try to change your mind, they can ask/make their case. edit: effing emoticons.

PSU - Feb 24-27 UT March 1-2 UC Irvine March 1-3 UChicago March 8-9 UCLA March 8-10 UNC - Mar 15-17 Michigan March 15-17 Wisconsin March 22-24 WUSTL - Mar 23-24 Rochester March 25-27 Minnesota March 26 FSU March 29th-31st Stanford April 9-10

^ That must be some coverage. I don't use healthcare enough to make up the difference. But maybe some would.

Tough to say, guess it depends on the plan. WUSTL says the expected fee for health is $600/yr (the school pays 90%). Of course, that might not be the value of the plan they would include if trying to beef up the total value of the financial package. So maybe just guess 500-1000I per annum?

^True. And I might get flak for this, but how does the department maintain such high rankings? I would think that the funding situation would put UW-M at a competitive disadvantage vis-à-vis other top programs, which would theoretically lead to UW-M's admitted pool bleeding top talent to other schools. Over time, surely that would negatively impact placement and rankings, right? (Granted, rankings tend to lag, and maybe my assumptions about prospective student behavior are totally off-base.) No doubt UW-M has top-tier faculty. Maybe that's the difference.

Got the same letter. I was actually a bit frustrated that the packet did not include any firm offer, just an "at least this much" offer. Every other program has made a firm offer, conditional only on being awarded a fellowship (à la PSU). I agree that this seems insufficient. You can live on less than you think -- I have been for the past two years! -- but it would be difficult to maintain a decent social life, fund any of your own travels, or manage any significant expenses (car payment, insurance, car repairs). And I was flabbergasted that they expected for students to pay $1k+ per year in fees. They also can't guarantee summer funding, which would effectively mean needing to leave Madison for the summer, which presents its own challenges. Nothing against the department, it's not their fault. But $11.5k (only going up to $13k for ABDs) just isn't close to being competitive. Many of their admittees will be offered twice as much at other (similarly well-ranked) programs. Not to mention that many could be tempted by much larger stipends at lower-ranked institutions. You don't make decisions based on stipends alone, but when you're considering strong programs -- as many UW-M admittees will be! -- the UW-M offer is going to be hard to sell.

^ For that matter, you could also randomly sample graduate students and incorporate their perceptions about their home institutions, other institutions, etc. Very democratic. Would be highly imperfect, but it would represent an extra dimension for prospective students to consider.

That makes sense. Are they paying for it?

I've had a lot of communication with most, actually. I get a lot of e-mails from faculty, updates on funding, and of course e-mails from coordinators about visiting the schools. And I've talked on the phone with people at every program just to ask questions, et ceters. UMd has been completely silent since the first phone call, though. Not a peep from any faculty, no information on if there's a visit weekend, no firm funding letter. Think that's more the anomaly though...

Anyone, on some off chance, know if old US News rankings are available? Seems like it could be useful to track the dynamics of rankings (and USNWR seems as good as any). But other than going to the library and digging out archived copies of the magazine, I'm not finding a way to get my hands on that data. Ideas?

This is why having a close relationship with advisors in your field is important. Certain schools have reputations that exceed their overall ranking -- like Rochester, NYU and WUSTL for methods/formal or UVA, BC and ND in theory. Similarly, a fairly high ranked program like MIT would likely struggle to place a Straussian theorist (assuming that they admitted one). No single ranking methodology really captures those dynamics. The best bet, then, is to: 1. Discuss your interests with your advisors and figure out which programs have the best reputations in that area. 2. Look at program placement records, find the students they've placed and see where graduates in your field end up. That's the advice I've gotten, and it seems solid. It takes a lot of work tracking down people from all the programs you're considering, looking at their CVs and all that. But hopefully it's more fruitful than relying on simple USNWR, NRC or Hix rankings.