Reputation from aecp - The GradCafe Forums

aecp reacted to ResearchFrontier in Choosing a Program March 6, 2015

Briefly about me: I’m enrolled in one of the top 10 programs and I took Ph.D. classes at another top 10 school when I was an undergraduate. In the last few years, I also visited several other schools and chatted with a lot of professors and students about this topic. I might repeat some of the things that have already been said by other people, but here are some of the things I learned.

In general, the ranking of a program matters enormously for several reasons. First, the best students are selected for and self-select into the most prestigious programs. To some extent it really is a self-fulfilling prophecy and no single individual can change that. Second, the top ranked programs offer the best opportunities for networking – they have a lot of prominent visitors from other universities that you can get in touch with. Third, how motivated and determined your peers are makes a big difference for how much you learn during your graduate studies and also how much you publish in later years, for example as coauthors. You will usually find a lot of highly motivated people at the top schools.

Note that although the top 10 programs probably offer a better training on average, individual professors can still be real disappointments and often programs outside of the top 10 also have great courses.

Fit matters, too, but here are some reasons why it usually doesn’t matter as much as ranking. Many people (if not most) change their research interests while they are going through the first few years of a Ph.D. program. You will learn completely new methodological tools and have a different perspective on political science research after your training. The type of questions you ask and you can possibly answer are likely to be very different from what you originally intended to do. The top 10 programs usually have a faculty that is diverse enough to make sure that you can follow your interests even if they change.

The ranking that I found to best represent the views of people in the discipline about the quality of different schools is the US News and World Report Ranking, maybe because it is based on the opinion of people in the discipline.

http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-humanities-schools/political-science-rankings

Another useful ranking is the placement ranking by Schmidt and Chingos that shows how successful individual universities are at placing job market candidates. The placement record is arguably the most important criterion for which program you might want to attend (it’s from 2007 though, so the information is a bit outdated and not 100% accurate in some cases).

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~gillum/rankings_paper.pdf

Generally, always check the placement record of a school before you begin your studies there. It might not be your main concern at the beginning of your training but it will be later when you look for a job. If a program is not transparent about its placements that is not a good sign.

The top 3: Harvard, Stanford, Princeton

These three programs are outstanding for a number of reasons. They have some of the very best scholars in the field. When those people are on your dissertation committee, their connections will make it easier for you to get a job. The reputation of these universities will also ensure that their graduates get a good job outside of academia if their academic career doesn’t work out. Also, as I said above, the best students usually self-select into these programs, meaning that their superior position is constantly reinforced (it’s nearly impossible to break this cycle). From my perspective, there would only be two good reasons not to go to one of these if admitted – personal reasons (if, for example, someone definitely wants to live close to family and friends) or if you have absolutely clear and focused research interests for which there is a much better faculty match at another program - ideally still a top 10 program.

The top 10 (excluding top 3): Berkeley, Michigan, Columbia, Yale, UCLA, Duke, MIT, UCSD

If you’re admitted to two or more of the top 10, I think that each of them is worth a visit. The difference between these programs is not as significant as between the top 3 and everything else. All of these universities have their good and bad sides. I think it makes most sense to make a choice among top 10 programs based on which professors appear to be the best supervisors, which departments make the best impression on you, and in which city you can imagine to spend the next 5-7 years of your life. In general, the reputation of all of these schools is great and if you go to any of these programs what will matter most is how productive you are as a researcher (i.e. publications in peer reviewed journals).

The top 20 programs:

In most of the top 20 programs you will find professors with a great publication record and many also offer a good methods training. However, when it comes to job applications, the top 3 experience a very strong positive bias and the top 10 (without the top 3) experience a strong positive bias. This doesn’t mean it’s impossible to get a job if you’re coming from a top 20 program but it is definitely harder, given the same quality of research. You might want to consider this when making your decision.

Important: This is just my opinion, based on what I have learned about the “political science world” in the past few years. Please don’t treat anything I say as the absolute truth, also take the opinion of other people into account, and make your own informed decision when you decide where to spend the next few years of your life.

aecp reacted to testingtesting in Faculty perspectives January 23, 2015

I obtained lower MA grades than I would have liked due to some life events and poor response to those events, but more importantly because I have bipolar disorder and did not realize or receive (some) treatment until after immediately after my MA. What do you recommend for situations where a problem that led to decreases in performance in the past has been somewhat addressed but could well affect the PhD experience, i.e. how should applicants and their letter-writers address this? My concern would be that by providing that context for the performance it might cause enormous concern by admissions over my ability to finish the program.

aecp reacted to deltaqsquared in Welcome to the 2013-2014 Cycle May 17, 2014

Just thought I'd check in again. After my initial application cycle came to a close in late March, I was contacted by UW if I was interested in going as a late admit to their Jackson School MAIS program. I jumped on the chance, and I am officially now admitted and moving to Seattle this coming August. Thank you everyone, for the support you've given me. And if anyone has any suggestions as to relocation tips, etc, I am all ears...

aecp reacted to pedanticsemantic in Deposits at two schools? April 7, 2014

NO - DO NOT DO THIS!!!! Trust me on this. I am a former admission officer at a Top 5 university. Programs actually do spot checks where they compare lists of enrollees, and if anyone is double deposited, they will rescind admission to both programs because it's considered an honor code violation. Just get in touch with the people to request an extension due to mitigating circumstances. It's really not worth it to have your offers taken away and your name on a blacklist at those universities. This really does happen, more times than you realize, and it's just awful. DO NOT DO IT.

aecp reacted to victorydance in High ranked masters vs. lower ranked PhD- What would you do? March 19, 2014

On average, LAC positions are less desirable. Considering that the vast majority of Ph.D. students are interested in research, positions that place more emphasis on teaching are in less demand than more research based positions, such as TT positions at research universities.

Whether it is 'easier' to get an LAC position is hard to quantify. Some people from even the highest ranked universities place in LACs. For example, last year two Harvard Ph.D. students placed in LACs. That being said, not all LACs are equal of course. Colleges like Swathmore, Amherst, Williams, ect. can provide a pretty nice standard of living for their professors, especially the fact that you live a much less demanding and stressful life compared to someone in an R1.

I have never really understood the whole pretentiousness of Ph.D. students, like somehow if you can't nail an R1 TT job you are a failure. Sometimes, some people fit in more in a less demanding environment, and some people really just like teaching. On the flip side, Ph.D. programs open up a lot of possibilities in the private and public sectors as research trained people are always in demand. For example, getting hired as a high-level policy analyst for the government would be a fantastic job and is only really possible by attaining a Ph.D. in some discipline within the social sciences.

Ph.D. programs may be more geared towards training people for academia. But the world has changed, research skills are highly regarded in the marketplace and there just isn't enough TT positions to go around.

aecp reacted to MiroslavBass in Welcome to the 2013-2014 Cycle March 19, 2014

claim LSU acceptance.
They said, no assistanship is available for me, but they nominated me to Graduate School
Tuition Award. It covers all the tuition fees, but I do not know whether it provides monthy stipend or not. How do you think?

aecp reacted to cjalpha in Profiles and Results, SOPs, and Advice (Fall 2014) March 7, 2014

PROFILE:
Type of Undergrad Institution: HYPSC
Major(s)/Minor(s): Engineering major with minors in applied mathematics, computer science, and statistics.
Undergrad GPA: 3.90
Type of Grad: NA
Grad GPA: NA
GRE: 170 V, 168 Q, 6 W
Any Special Courses: I took the graduate methods sequence and one substantive graduate course in American.
Letters of Recommendation: One from a very good methodologist who I've been working with for three years, another from the political science department chair with whom I've been working for a year, and the third from my thesis adviser in my home department.
Research Experience: 3 year RA with aforementioned methodologist (with an R library to show for it), 1 year RA with a substantive professor constructing a data set and doing database programming, and my senior thesis in statistical learning.

Teaching Experience: None that I mentioned on any of my applications.
Subfield/Research Interests: Quantitative methods
Other: I spent my summers working as a data scientist in major tech companies.

RESULTS:
Acceptances($$ or no $$): Berkeley ($$$), Princeton ($$$), Michigan ($$), Stanford GSB ($$$), Stanford ($$), MIT ($$), Columbia ($$), Harvard ($$), Chicago Harris ($$)
Waitlists: None
Rejections: None
Pending: None
Going to: Undecided

LESSONS LEARNED:

1. Jumping fields is not so bad.
This one applies especially to future methods people. I had not taken any substantive courses in political science before I applied (even now, I've only taken one), and was legitimately worried that the admissions committees would refer my application to the statistics department. I took every possible opportunity in my application to show that I do read and think a lot about political science in my down time and that I am interested in statistical models because of how we can use them to learn about the political world, rather than for their own sake. That seems to have done the trick; one professor specifically mentioned that he could tell I cared about what is at stake in political science research.

2. Find a mentor.
This one applies more to the younger people. I was extremely lucky that my adviser took me under his wing while I was a sophomore. The work I did with him made me want to become a political scientist in the first place and it's impossible to overstate how much I've gotten out of this relationship - he has helped advise me on which courses might be interesting, introduced me to graduate students and the work that they do, and passed down many of the secrets tricks and intuitions of statistics which cannot be found in papers or textbooks. His presence definitely loomed large with the admissions committees as well; every person I have talked to has mentioned how influential it was to have someone they admired vouch for me.

3. Market forces make a difference.
There is a clear shortage of methodologists at the job market level, and I think this has trickled down to graduate admissions. Many professors I have talked to have specifically mentioned how difficult it is to find graduate students who are likely to choose methods as their primary subfield.

SOP: I'm happy to share via PM.

aecp reacted to cjalpha in Welcome to the 2013-2014 Cycle March 5, 2014

Yahoo, Harvard is out!

aecp reacted to Orlien in Welcome to the 2013-2014 Cycle March 5, 2014

I claim a Harvard

And this marks the end of my cycle. It's truly been a wild ride. Thanks, Gradcafe, for making it a little more bearable.

Good luck to everyone still waiting for results, and to everyone on waitlist.

I hope to see you guys at admit weekends