Helix

Ok so to tackle the substantive questions here:

(1) The degree designation *might* matter, depending on what you want to get your PhD in and how you sell your master's. If you want to do a PhD in public policy, for example, you would be significantly better off pursuing an MIA or MPA at SIPA than you would getting the Master's in Human Rights Studies in the general studies program at Columbia. One reason is that some PhD programs in policy fields (e.g. SAIS) want you to have the equivalent of their professional master's in order to apply. A second reason, which applies to really any PhD program you might want to apply for, is the possibility to make contacts that would be great recommenders to catapult you into a great program. I'm not familiar with your undergrad situation so I can't comment on how it would be viewed, but let's just say that your situation could only be improved by getting a stellar letter of rec from a well-known prof at a great school like Columbia or possibly even at LSE, in a reputable field. The last part is the kicker as the above posters noted--"human rights" is not generally considered reputable as a field academically (although if you want to work for UNDP or in a professional/policy setting you should be a-ok), but political science or sociology or history professors who teach on human rights related topics are another matter. Another point, though smaller, is that you degree should be something that you can market in a variety of contexts. For example, what would happen if you didn't get into law school or decided you didn't want to go? Would the MA in Human Rights Studies propel you down a path you want to go regardless? If not, I would say don't do it. As someone with a professional master's, I promise that you'll only feel it's worth it if there's added value to the degree above and beyond what you could be doing by getting a year of work experience or getting a certificate.

(2) Largely, see #1. A couple other points on this matter specifically though:
--It depends, like I said, on what you want to do. If you want to work for a think tank instead of Big Law, there's value to having a degree from a known entity (SAIS, Gtown, HKS, SIPA) beyond just your academics--employers will recognize the degree, recruit at the school, etc etc. And you can always market your specialty in human rights and concrete interests, and parlay those into a career you're happy with.
--Related to the other point I was making about your degree needing to apply in a variety of contexts: think about your long game in addition to the short one. What might you want to be doing when you're 50 years old? Is it absolutely human rights? Or could it be something a little more nuanced that intersects with human rights, but for which there would be value in knowing other things and having concrete skills? Not to beat up on the MPhil or MA options, but a professional master's at least certifies that you have any understanding of metrics and evaluation techniques, etc., that are really indispensable in a human rights career and go above and beyond knowing what the UDHR says and how to interpret it legally.

(3) This depends on your endgame. If you want to be doing a PhD/working in the nonprofit field/doing other things that aren't well known for their compensation packages, you should really think hard about your strategy for affording this and strongly consider the cost/benefit. Not just because debt is scary but because it can very literally limit your options and ability to do what you want in the immediate term (a friend of mine finished an MPP and a JD with aspirations of pursuing a nonprofit work but was so heavily in debt she had to take a big law job to pay the bills--it's not uncommon). I assume it's this concern that leads you to the 1-year programs in some part. Another option you should strongly consider if you want to go the law route for sure is targeting law schools with strong human rights programs and clinics (some even offer certificates and designated emphases that fulfill the kind of professional role I think you want the MA to). Law school is expensive anyway, but 3 years is plenty of time to invest in some great complementary education in human rights.

I respect your desire to get the best education you can with the best name you can--and it's definitely not a bad idea, particularly if you're setting your sights on working in an international context where name recognition can be particularly helpful. But the most helpful thing I think would be to lay out exactly what your ideal game plan is: if everything went your way, what kind of career would you want? Where do you want to be 10, 20, 30, 50 years down the road? Once you think through these in vague terms, I'd suggest going through to google the kinds of organizations you want to work for, find the people you want to be, and see what they did. Do they have a law degree or a master's? Check out the hiring guidelines at the organization--is a PhD necessary? Do they recruit at particular schools? Are 99% of their employees alums of the University of Kansas? LinkedIn is super helpful with this actually. The point is, when you have a lay of the land you'll be able to better evaluate how worth it $40k for a one-year master's is vs. 3 years in law school vs. a PhD for your career.

I agree with RWBG's point above--I don't think fine differences (1 vs. 2 people placed, 10 vs. 12) in this list is a huge deal. And I should've mentioned that the initial "data" on PSJR spans 2006-2010, as a side note. But I think there are other ways to interpret whether a school you're considering is passing muster using these initial numbers, and then continue to do more investigation on the "networking" aspect, which is really important.

For example, Wisconsin has placed no one at a top 25 in the last 5-6 years it seems. I see that as a huge red flag if getting a top 25 placement is your goal, because however small your cohort size is (theirs are not especially small) or however many individuals choose to go into non-academic work or relocate for a spouse, it's probably not ALL of them. If it is, I think that says something fundamental about what kind of program it is and what kinds of students it is going to attract. I don't mean this to be derogatory either: I spoke with a professor at one school I'm considering recently, and was told that their students as a group do NOT aim to get placements at R1s, they aim for SLACs and other schools that focus on teaching. That's not a bad aim in and of itself; it would be a potentially bad fit, though, if what you wanted was to go to an R1, for three reasons: (1) your school might now have a reputation as producing serious teachers more so than heavy-hitting researchers; (2) your professors may not have active connections with the kinds of places you would want to pursue for placement; and (3) your cohort and fellow students may have completely different aspirations, making it an awkward social fit.

Actually what I take away from this list is kind of the opposite of all of this, though. It's more about the lower half of "non-top-25s" who have been able to place people at top 25s in spite of the ranking of the school. Obviously some, probably large, component of your success in placement is you--the quality of your research, your ability to present yourself in a professional and serious manner, etc.--and not your school. To me this section is especially important for those with other considerations (for example, spouses, funding disparities) who are making difficult choices on the margins, or between top 15 and top 30 programs. Again, I would consider it to be a red flag if the program has never in its existence placed anyone at a school you might want to teach at, whether that's a top 25 or not, but on the whole if they have had even one experience with one success, it reinforces the point that a lot of the variables at play on the job market do not depend in their entirety on the school you choose.

Ok so to tackle the substantive questions here:

(1) The degree designation *might* matter, depending on what you want to get your PhD in and how you sell your master's. If you want to do a PhD in public policy, for example, you would be significantly better off pursuing an MIA or MPA at SIPA than you would getting the Master's in Human Rights Studies in the general studies program at Columbia. One reason is that some PhD programs in policy fields (e.g. SAIS) want you to have the equivalent of their professional master's in order to apply. A second reason, which applies to really any PhD program you might want to apply for, is the possibility to make contacts that would be great recommenders to catapult you into a great program. I'm not familiar with your undergrad situation so I can't comment on how it would be viewed, but let's just say that your situation could only be improved by getting a stellar letter of rec from a well-known prof at a great school like Columbia or possibly even at LSE, in a reputable field. The last part is the kicker as the above posters noted--"human rights" is not generally considered reputable as a field academically (although if you want to work for UNDP or in a professional/policy setting you should be a-ok), but political science or sociology or history professors who teach on human rights related topics are another matter. Another point, though smaller, is that you degree should be something that you can market in a variety of contexts. For example, what would happen if you didn't get into law school or decided you didn't want to go? Would the MA in Human Rights Studies propel you down a path you want to go regardless? If not, I would say don't do it. As someone with a professional master's, I promise that you'll only feel it's worth it if there's added value to the degree above and beyond what you could be doing by getting a year of work experience or getting a certificate.

(2) Largely, see #1. A couple other points on this matter specifically though:
--It depends, like I said, on what you want to do. If you want to work for a think tank instead of Big Law, there's value to having a degree from a known entity (SAIS, Gtown, HKS, SIPA) beyond just your academics--employers will recognize the degree, recruit at the school, etc etc. And you can always market your specialty in human rights and concrete interests, and parlay those into a career you're happy with.
--Related to the other point I was making about your degree needing to apply in a variety of contexts: think about your long game in addition to the short one. What might you want to be doing when you're 50 years old? Is it absolutely human rights? Or could it be something a little more nuanced that intersects with human rights, but for which there would be value in knowing other things and having concrete skills? Not to beat up on the MPhil or MA options, but a professional master's at least certifies that you have any understanding of metrics and evaluation techniques, etc., that are really indispensable in a human rights career and go above and beyond knowing what the UDHR says and how to interpret it legally.

(3) This depends on your endgame. If you want to be doing a PhD/working in the nonprofit field/doing other things that aren't well known for their compensation packages, you should really think hard about your strategy for affording this and strongly consider the cost/benefit. Not just because debt is scary but because it can very literally limit your options and ability to do what you want in the immediate term (a friend of mine finished an MPP and a JD with aspirations of pursuing a nonprofit work but was so heavily in debt she had to take a big law job to pay the bills--it's not uncommon). I assume it's this concern that leads you to the 1-year programs in some part. Another option you should strongly consider if you want to go the law route for sure is targeting law schools with strong human rights programs and clinics (some even offer certificates and designated emphases that fulfill the kind of professional role I think you want the MA to). Law school is expensive anyway, but 3 years is plenty of time to invest in some great complementary education in human rights.

I respect your desire to get the best education you can with the best name you can--and it's definitely not a bad idea, particularly if you're setting your sights on working in an international context where name recognition can be particularly helpful. But the most helpful thing I think would be to lay out exactly what your ideal game plan is: if everything went your way, what kind of career would you want? Where do you want to be 10, 20, 30, 50 years down the road? Once you think through these in vague terms, I'd suggest going through to google the kinds of organizations you want to work for, find the people you want to be, and see what they did. Do they have a law degree or a master's? Check out the hiring guidelines at the organization--is a PhD necessary? Do they recruit at particular schools? Are 99% of their employees alums of the University of Kansas? LinkedIn is super helpful with this actually. The point is, when you have a lay of the land you'll be able to better evaluate how worth it $40k for a one-year master's is vs. 3 years in law school vs. a PhD for your career.

I second brent09 on this: you need to figure out what your ultimate career goal is and investigate individual schools. Many PubPol PhDs don't enter academia; they go off to work for think tanks or to be economists at the World Bank. It all depends on what you want. I wouldn't say that one is necessarily more competitive than the other because in many cases, they aren't directly competing for jobs. There has been a small trend of late for PubPol PhDs to land polisci jobs (some of the HKS people and UCSD-IR/PS people have had good placements in this respect). But I wouldn't necessarily call that a norm--in some cases it reflects the fact that certain departments find experimental methods especially compelling as a relatively "new" direction for political science research (whereas in pubpol it's the gold standard already coming from economics). The other major reason is that if you wanted an academic position, there are actually very few policy schools in the United States. And if you take a look at their faculty rosters, they tend to overwhelmingly employ political scientists, area specialists, former practitioners, and economists--all of whom have somewhat more direct knowledge of their subject matter. I don't think you can necessarily make an objectively wrong choice--but choose wisely based on what you most want out of your career.

Less generally, though, if you're interested in environmental issues and security, you should pick the programs that are right for that, regardless of whether they are polisci or pubpol. I say this because environmental politics has traditionally been a bit of a niche area in political science that many departments do not address well--which presents challenges with the adcomm trying to figure out who you could possibly work with.

I think you'd probably have a better shot this time around with a master's that demonstrates a commitment to your area of interest more so than it sounds like your career path might have indicated. But after that I would say some of this is about researching individual schools and programs, and getting a list of those together that make sense for you and what you want to do. You'll want to evaluate their placement, whether it's academic or professional, and also the relative productivity and engagement of faculty who do work in your area of interest (I don't mean productivity like # of articles/citations necessarily, but more about whether these people are doing good scholarly work and getting it published, and that they're ideally at a productive place in their careers, not struggling for tenure or about to go emeritus).

In terms of specific programs, it depends on what you mean by climate/security issues (do you mean, for example, things like water crises? or do you mean more IR-style issues like negotiations over the Kyoto Protocol and the security implications of those relationships?) Resolving some of that ambiguity will be helpful in clarifying whether you might want to take a policy vs. polisci track. For policy, I would say, look into HKS (Calestous Juma, Meghan O'Sullivan, Robert Stavins); the Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton (they have a science/environmental policy track); and Pardee Rand for sure. For political science, maybe UCLA (Michael Ross, if you're into natural resource issues), MIT (they are really strong on security and are picking up Chris Warshaw, a recent Stanford PhD with an interest in environmental issues--and they also have the TPP program and DUSP, which have students and faculty doing environmental issues), and UWashington-Seattle (Peter May).

I second brent09 on this: you need to figure out what your ultimate career goal is and investigate individual schools. Many PubPol PhDs don't enter academia; they go off to work for think tanks or to be economists at the World Bank. It all depends on what you want. I wouldn't say that one is necessarily more competitive than the other because in many cases, they aren't directly competing for jobs. There has been a small trend of late for PubPol PhDs to land polisci jobs (some of the HKS people and UCSD-IR/PS people have had good placements in this respect). But I wouldn't necessarily call that a norm--in some cases it reflects the fact that certain departments find experimental methods especially compelling as a relatively "new" direction for political science research (whereas in pubpol it's the gold standard already coming from economics). The other major reason is that if you wanted an academic position, there are actually very few policy schools in the United States. And if you take a look at their faculty rosters, they tend to overwhelmingly employ political scientists, area specialists, former practitioners, and economists--all of whom have somewhat more direct knowledge of their subject matter. I don't think you can necessarily make an objectively wrong choice--but choose wisely based on what you most want out of your career.

Less generally, though, if you're interested in environmental issues and security, you should pick the programs that are right for that, regardless of whether they are polisci or pubpol. I say this because environmental politics has traditionally been a bit of a niche area in political science that many departments do not address well--which presents challenges with the adcomm trying to figure out who you could possibly work with.

I think you'd probably have a better shot this time around with a master's that demonstrates a commitment to your area of interest more so than it sounds like your career path might have indicated. But after that I would say some of this is about researching individual schools and programs, and getting a list of those together that make sense for you and what you want to do. You'll want to evaluate their placement, whether it's academic or professional, and also the relative productivity and engagement of faculty who do work in your area of interest (I don't mean productivity like # of articles/citations necessarily, but more about whether these people are doing good scholarly work and getting it published, and that they're ideally at a productive place in their careers, not struggling for tenure or about to go emeritus).

In terms of specific programs, it depends on what you mean by climate/security issues (do you mean, for example, things like water crises? or do you mean more IR-style issues like negotiations over the Kyoto Protocol and the security implications of those relationships?) Resolving some of that ambiguity will be helpful in clarifying whether you might want to take a policy vs. polisci track. For policy, I would say, look into HKS (Calestous Juma, Meghan O'Sullivan, Robert Stavins); the Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton (they have a science/environmental policy track); and Pardee Rand for sure. For political science, maybe UCLA (Michael Ross, if you're into natural resource issues), MIT (they are really strong on security and are picking up Chris Warshaw, a recent Stanford PhD with an interest in environmental issues--and they also have the TPP program and DUSP, which have students and faculty doing environmental issues), and UWashington-Seattle (Peter May).

I'll defer to someone else on the LSE question, but my sense is that it's a respectable name in the policy field if you ended up doing the degree and wanting to be employed in the US. The best way to figure this out, honestly, is to check out people whose jobs you'd want--see where they did their degrees (either by finding them on the organizations' websites or going through LinkedIn, with that neat feature to see where most employees got their degrees).

As to employ-ability after MAPSS-type degrees, it depends on what you want to do. If it's a job that one could reasonably do with a bachelor's but which has succumbed to educational inflation (the master's is more perfunctory than necessary), then it won't hurt you. What I will say is that you'd want to pretty heavily scrutinize what career resources would be available to you from these kinds of programs. I can't comment on Brandeis or Columbia, but UofC career resources is not among the most developed in the world, and also isn't as well targeted for professional employment vs. academic pursuits just generally speaking. Also, not sure about QMSS, but MAPSS students do a thesis in their 2nd/3rd quarters--that in and of itself is a pretty huge time-suck that will detract from a job search, and the thesis itself may not be a huge selling point depending on what kind of job you're looking for in the end. Just something else to consider.

I think one of the biggest things to remember about these kinds of degree is that they're not giving you a ton of skills necessarily; they're much more about signaling that you're a smart person who can do good work. The second biggest thing to consider about these degrees is that on the job market, they will not make up for a lack of experience. Often master's degree-required job postings will also come with caveats like "2-5 years of experience" or "5-7 years of experience" and without those in addition to the master's, you're in an uphill battle for employment--you've got the educational qualifications, but in some ways these make you more "expensive" to hire than if you only had a bachelors.

Honestly, though, if you aren't certain about the professional vs. academic track, I would say to spend a year or so trying out some ideas--see whether you enjoy working at a think tank or an aid agency, take some time to develop language skills and do field research at a job, etc. Two key reasons for this: (1) It will help you decide whether you really need a PhD to get the kind of career you want, or whether you want to continue on a professional track and could get by with a master's in the near term, and (2) it will make you a stronger candidate for either degree track. Once you've been working for a year or two, the significance of your undergraduate grades fades somewhat; if you then did a master's and really nailed it, those grades are then an even better approximation of your ability. Likewise, if you applied to an (American) MPP/professional master's with a few more years of experience, you are *much* more likely to get funding/get into a better program than if you go in with less.

The short answer to this question is almost always "no." Here's why: MPPs/MPAs/other forms of policy degrees tend to be sequestered in different schools or departments from their political science programs both practically/bureaucratically and methodologically/culturally. On the practical side, many schools that offer MPPs limit the amount of coursework that you can or should take in a political science department and instead expect you to take most of your courses with faculty for that policy school or program. Many of these faculty and the program itself are targeted toward master's students, which means that the faculty are not necessarily connected to more academic career lines (they themselves might be, but often in policy programs the professors are practitioners with teacher qualifications moreso than strict academics focused exclusively on the sorts of questions that a political science department would find universally acceptable). Not being able to take those classes or work with those professors limits you in the amount of help you can get in transitioning from the MPP to a PhD in something other than policy. It also means that their expertise is not really in getting people into PhD programs--it's in getting them jobs in policy careers (one hopes). Therefore you're not in a position to expect much from the career services end, necessarily.

On the more methodological/cultural side, I would say two things: policy programs can be hostile to academic language and deeper inquiry. This isn't meant to be insulting at all--if I am a policymaker, I *don't* just want to know how something might work in theory and spend a lot of time considering variously small degrees of measurement error or whether this use of IV is valid. My time is better spent thinking about how one might implement a program, and what the costs or benefits are, and what management challenges might arise, because sometimes you need to act *right now* and usually I can hire a PhD to interpret these kinds of technical materials if I need to. This situation, coupled with the fairly large course-sizes in professional master's programs, means that you won't necessarily be able to be socialized into political science language and academic inquiry. An additional issue arises in that the research being done in policy is somewhat different from that in political science--experimental design is all the rage in policy (coming from econ) and is of interest, but much newer to many political science departments, so depending on the program, you might not be getting material that will allow you to say with confidence in an SoP that so and so's foundational work on x raises interesting questions that have yet to be addressed by the literature on y, which you intend to address in z ways...

Having done a policy degree, what I will say is, think *very* carefully about this before you do it. The other practical factor is cost, since professional degrees are generally not cheap ventures. Then I would really consider what options you have, reasonably. If you decided you really wanted to do the policy master's route, my vote would be to strongly consider WWS (because it's prestigious and a free ride, and you get good interdisciplinary and methodological training) and SIPA (it's a good program with slightly fewer strict requirements, so you can take courses more easily in your department of interest).

If you know already that you want a polisci PhD, though, I would actually strongly second the previous suggestion and advise looking into MAPSS at the University of Chicago, some of the MSc's at LSE, and possibly the Columbia QMSS program instead. MAPSS is great and does give funding to some students. Both MAPSS and QMSS have been successful in placing students into PhD programs. And all of these are only 1 year--not great from a timing perspective, but better from the funding angle.

Ok so to tackle the substantive questions here:

(1) The degree designation *might* matter, depending on what you want to get your PhD in and how you sell your master's. If you want to do a PhD in public policy, for example, you would be significantly better off pursuing an MIA or MPA at SIPA than you would getting the Master's in Human Rights Studies in the general studies program at Columbia. One reason is that some PhD programs in policy fields (e.g. SAIS) want you to have the equivalent of their professional master's in order to apply. A second reason, which applies to really any PhD program you might want to apply for, is the possibility to make contacts that would be great recommenders to catapult you into a great program. I'm not familiar with your undergrad situation so I can't comment on how it would be viewed, but let's just say that your situation could only be improved by getting a stellar letter of rec from a well-known prof at a great school like Columbia or possibly even at LSE, in a reputable field. The last part is the kicker as the above posters noted--"human rights" is not generally considered reputable as a field academically (although if you want to work for UNDP or in a professional/policy setting you should be a-ok), but political science or sociology or history professors who teach on human rights related topics are another matter. Another point, though smaller, is that you degree should be something that you can market in a variety of contexts. For example, what would happen if you didn't get into law school or decided you didn't want to go? Would the MA in Human Rights Studies propel you down a path you want to go regardless? If not, I would say don't do it. As someone with a professional master's, I promise that you'll only feel it's worth it if there's added value to the degree above and beyond what you could be doing by getting a year of work experience or getting a certificate.

(2) Largely, see #1. A couple other points on this matter specifically though:
--It depends, like I said, on what you want to do. If you want to work for a think tank instead of Big Law, there's value to having a degree from a known entity (SAIS, Gtown, HKS, SIPA) beyond just your academics--employers will recognize the degree, recruit at the school, etc etc. And you can always market your specialty in human rights and concrete interests, and parlay those into a career you're happy with.
--Related to the other point I was making about your degree needing to apply in a variety of contexts: think about your long game in addition to the short one. What might you want to be doing when you're 50 years old? Is it absolutely human rights? Or could it be something a little more nuanced that intersects with human rights, but for which there would be value in knowing other things and having concrete skills? Not to beat up on the MPhil or MA options, but a professional master's at least certifies that you have any understanding of metrics and evaluation techniques, etc., that are really indispensable in a human rights career and go above and beyond knowing what the UDHR says and how to interpret it legally.

(3) This depends on your endgame. If you want to be doing a PhD/working in the nonprofit field/doing other things that aren't well known for their compensation packages, you should really think hard about your strategy for affording this and strongly consider the cost/benefit. Not just because debt is scary but because it can very literally limit your options and ability to do what you want in the immediate term (a friend of mine finished an MPP and a JD with aspirations of pursuing a nonprofit work but was so heavily in debt she had to take a big law job to pay the bills--it's not uncommon). I assume it's this concern that leads you to the 1-year programs in some part. Another option you should strongly consider if you want to go the law route for sure is targeting law schools with strong human rights programs and clinics (some even offer certificates and designated emphases that fulfill the kind of professional role I think you want the MA to). Law school is expensive anyway, but 3 years is plenty of time to invest in some great complementary education in human rights.

I respect your desire to get the best education you can with the best name you can--and it's definitely not a bad idea, particularly if you're setting your sights on working in an international context where name recognition can be particularly helpful. But the most helpful thing I think would be to lay out exactly what your ideal game plan is: if everything went your way, what kind of career would you want? Where do you want to be 10, 20, 30, 50 years down the road? Once you think through these in vague terms, I'd suggest going through to google the kinds of organizations you want to work for, find the people you want to be, and see what they did. Do they have a law degree or a master's? Check out the hiring guidelines at the organization--is a PhD necessary? Do they recruit at particular schools? Are 99% of their employees alums of the University of Kansas? LinkedIn is super helpful with this actually. The point is, when you have a lay of the land you'll be able to better evaluate how worth it $40k for a one-year master's is vs. 3 years in law school vs. a PhD for your career.

I agree with RWBG's point above--I don't think fine differences (1 vs. 2 people placed, 10 vs. 12) in this list is a huge deal. And I should've mentioned that the initial "data" on PSJR spans 2006-2010, as a side note. But I think there are other ways to interpret whether a school you're considering is passing muster using these initial numbers, and then continue to do more investigation on the "networking" aspect, which is really important.

For example, Wisconsin has placed no one at a top 25 in the last 5-6 years it seems. I see that as a huge red flag if getting a top 25 placement is your goal, because however small your cohort size is (theirs are not especially small) or however many individuals choose to go into non-academic work or relocate for a spouse, it's probably not ALL of them. If it is, I think that says something fundamental about what kind of program it is and what kinds of students it is going to attract. I don't mean this to be derogatory either: I spoke with a professor at one school I'm considering recently, and was told that their students as a group do NOT aim to get placements at R1s, they aim for SLACs and other schools that focus on teaching. That's not a bad aim in and of itself; it would be a potentially bad fit, though, if what you wanted was to go to an R1, for three reasons: (1) your school might now have a reputation as producing serious teachers more so than heavy-hitting researchers; (2) your professors may not have active connections with the kinds of places you would want to pursue for placement; and (3) your cohort and fellow students may have completely different aspirations, making it an awkward social fit.

Actually what I take away from this list is kind of the opposite of all of this, though. It's more about the lower half of "non-top-25s" who have been able to place people at top 25s in spite of the ranking of the school. Obviously some, probably large, component of your success in placement is you--the quality of your research, your ability to present yourself in a professional and serious manner, etc.--and not your school. To me this section is especially important for those with other considerations (for example, spouses, funding disparities) who are making difficult choices on the margins, or between top 15 and top 30 programs. Again, I would consider it to be a red flag if the program has never in its existence placed anyone at a school you might want to teach at, whether that's a top 25 or not, but on the whole if they have had even one experience with one success, it reinforces the point that a lot of the variables at play on the job market do not depend in their entirety on the school you choose.

Found the list of names, here it is:

Last Name,First Name,PhD Institution,PhD Year,Employer
Adida,Claire L.,Stanford,2010,UCSD
Ansell,Ben W.,Harvard,2006,Minnesota
Arriola,Leonardo,Stanford,2008,UC-Berkeley
Bas,Muhammet,Rochester,2007,Harvard
Bassi,Anna,NYU,2010,UNC
Beber,Bernd,Columbia,2010,NYU
Beerbohm,Eric,Princeton,2008,Harvard
Bhavnani,Rikhil,Stanford,2010,Wisconsin
Blattman,Christopher,UC-Berkeley (Economics),2007,Yale
Blaydes,Lisa,UCLA,2008,Stanford
Bullock,John G.,Stanford,2007,Yale
Butler,Daniel,Stanford,2007,Yale
Campello,Daniella,UCLA,2008,Princeton
Chen,Jowei,Stanford,2009,Michigan
Christia,Fotini,Harvard (Public Policy),2008,MIT
Cramner,Skyler,UC-Davis,2007,UNC
Dancygier,Rafaela,Yale,2007,Princeton
De la O,Ana,MIT,2007,Yale
Debs,Alexandre,MIT (Economics),2007,Yale
Decanio,Samuel,Ohio State,2008,Yale
Dube,Oendrila,Harvard (Public Policy),2009,NYU
Dunning,Thad,UC-Berkeley,2006,Yale
Egan,Patrick J.,UC-Berkeley,2008,NYU
Eguia,Jon,Caltech,2007,NYU
Enns,Peter K.,UNC,2007,Cornell
Enos,Ryan,UCLA,2010,Harvard
Favretto,Katja,UCLA,2009,Wisconsin
Flores-Macias,Gustavo A.,Georgetown,2008,Cornell
Frazer,Michael L.,Princeton,2006,Harvard
Gingrich,Jane,UC-Berkeley,2007,Minnesota
Glynn,Adam,University of Washington (Statistics),2006,Harvard
Grimmer,Justin,Harvard,2010,Stanford
Gross,Justin H.,Carnegie Mellon (Statistics and Public Policy),2010,UNC
Hainmueller,Jens,Harvard,2009,MIT
Hyde,Susan,UCSD,2006,Yale
Johns,Leslie,NYU,2008,UCLA
Jordan,Stuart,Princeton,2007,Rochester
Jusko,Karen Long,Michigan,2008,Stanford
Kahl,Sigrun,Humboldt University,2006,Yale
Kasara,Kimuli,Stanford,2006,Columbia
Kastellec,Jonathan,Columbia,2009,Princeton
Kerner,Andrew,Emory,2009,Michigan
Klausen,Jimmy,UC-Berkeley,200?,Wisconsin
Kreps,Sarah,Georgetown,2007,Cornell
Lacina,Bethany,Stanford,2010,Rochester
Landemore,Helene,Harvard,2008,Yale
Lawrence,Adria,Chicago,2007,Yale
Lenz,Gabriel,Princeton,2006,MIT
Lerman,Amy,UC-Berkeley,2008,Princeton
Lindsay,Keisha,Chicago,2009,Wisconsin
Lipscy,Philip,Harvard,2008,Stanford
Lorentzen,Peter,Stanford (GSB),2007,UC-Berkeley
March,Andrew,Oxford,2006,Yale
Margalit,Yotam,Stanford,2009,Columbia
Markus,Stanislav,Harvard,2009,Chicago
Min,Brian,UCLA,2010,Michigan
Minozzi,William,Stanford (GSB),2006,NYU
Monteiro,Nuno,Chicago,2009,Yale
Moore,Ryan T.,Harvard,2008,WashU
Morrison,Kevin,Duke,2007,Cornell
Naoi,Megumi,Columbia,2006,UCSD
Narang,Viping,Harvard,2010,MIT
Ochoa,Pauline,Johns Hopkins,2006,Yale
Onoma,Ato Kwame,Northwestern,2006,Yale
Owens,Ryan,WashU,2008,Harvard
Pang,Xun,WashU,2010,Princeton
Park,Jong Hee,Washington,2007,Chicago
Patel,David Siddhartha,Stanford,2007,Cornell
Pepinsky,Thomas B.,Yale,2007,Cornell
Peress,Michael,Carnegie Mellon (Economics),2006,Rochester
Pevnick,Ryan,Virginia,2008,NYU
Platt,Matthew B.,Rochester,2008,Harvard
Post,Alison,Harvard,2009,UC-Berkeley
Potter,Philip B.K.,UCLA,2009,Michigan
Powell,Eleanor,Harvard,2009,Yale
Rehm,Philipp,Duke,2008,NYU
Ringe,Nils,Pittsburgh,2006,Wisconsin
Sagar,Rahul,Harvard,2007,Princeton
Saito,Jun,Yale,2006,Yale
Salmond,Rob,UCLA,2007,Michigan
Scacco,Alex,Columbia,2010,NYU
Schneider,Christina,University of Konstanz,2006,UCSD
Shapiro,Jacob N.,Stanford,2007,Princeton
Shimizu,Kay,Stanford,2007,Columbia
Sinclair,Betsy,Caltech,2007,Chicago
Singh,Prerna,Princeton,2009,Harvard
Skeaff,Christopher,Northwestern,2009,Michigan
Spirling,Arthur,Rochester,2008,Harvard
Staniland,Paul,MIT,2010,Chicago
Tahk,Alexander,Stanford,2010,Wisconsin
Thachil,Tariq,Cornell,2009,Yale
Tingley,Dustin,Princeton,2010,Harvard
Titiunik,Rocio,UC-Berkeley (Agricultural and Resource Economics),2009,Michigan
Trager,Robert F.,Columbia,2007,UCLA
Urpelainen,Johannes,Michigan,2009,Columbia
Von Stein,Jana,UCLA,2006,Michigan
Wallace,Jeremy,Stanford,2009,NYU
Watson,Sara,UC-Berkeley,2006,NYU
Weeks,Jessica,Stanford,2009,Cornell
Weiss,Jessica Chen,UCSD,2008,Yale
Winter,Yves,UC-Berkeley,2009,Minnesota
Yarhi-Milo,Keren,University of Pennsylvania,2009,Princeton
Zeisberg,Mariah,Princeton,2006,Michigan

If you dig back (in the search function) on PSJR you’ll find this listing of schools by their # of placements in top 20’s. There used to be an extended discussion of *who* exactly these people are who were placed, but it doesn’t appear to be there anymore. On Yale, I can tell you that one of the three is Tom Pepinsky (at Cornell).

Data: March 2011
School: # Placed in Top 20 departments

TOP20
1. Harvard 11
2. Princeton 7
3. Stanford 15
4. Michigan 2
5. Yale 3
6. UC-Berkeley 7
7. Columbia 5
8. UCSD 2
9. Duke 2
10. MIT 2
11. UCLA 8
12. Chicago 3
13. UNC 1
14. WashU 3
15. Rochester 3
16. Wisconsin 0
17. NYU 2
18. Ohio State 1
19. Minnesota 0
20. Cornell 1


REST
Caltech 2
Carnegie Mellon (Economics) 1
Carnegie Mellon (Statistics and Public Policy) 1
Emory 1
Georgetown 2
Harvard (Public Policy) 2
Humboldt University 1
Johns Hopkins 1
MIT (Economics) 1
Northwestern 2
Oxford 1
Pittsburgh 1
Stanford (GSB) 2
UC-Berkeley (Agricultural and Resource Economics) 1
UC-Berkeley (Economics) 1
UC-Davis 1
University of Konstanz 1
University of Pennsylvania 1
University of Washington (Statistics) 1
Virginia 1

honestly i dont know how to make of this visiting weekend.. i like the fact that this program seems to be pretty laid-back. but i wasn't sure if this is because all the students we met are those who are just satisfied with this program..

this is a public school in a place where living expenses are relatively low. so i guess the meagernes of funding is acceptable.

after meeting with prof moser i was told that he is looking at around 30-35 students out of 50 something admits. that said, you might still have a good chance to get funded once spots are opened. however, after speaking with some other students who are currently unfunded, the program seems to waste people's time by not telling some admits that they are not funded. some are offered pretty decent pacakages somewhere else.

suggestion to the program: let your admits know whether or not they are funded at the begining. their time can also be very precious.

For the formal-modeling-averse, I recommend checking this out as a less scientific option for weighing programs: http://www.proconlists.com/

you should go something like this


Dear Princeton University,

Thank you for rejecting my application for the fall 2012 admission. While I assure you that your rejection letter was carefully reviewed by me, I regret to inform you that I am unable to accept your refusal to offer me admission to your department.

This year, I have been particularly fortunate in receiving an unusually large number of rejection letters. With such a varied and promising field of programs rejecting me, it is impossible for me to accept all rejections.
My rejection decisions take into account not only the universities’ prestige, but also the suitability of the department’s program to my personal interest. Hence, despite your university's outstanding qualifications and previous experiences in rejecting applicants, I find that your rejection does not meet my needs at this time. Therefore, I will join the ranks of graduate students in your department this fall. I look forward to seeing you then.

Best of luck in rejecting future applicants.

Sincerely,
Meep

I was lucky enough to get a University Fellowship, so funding will be more than adequate years 1 and 4. As for years 2, 3, and 5, I'll have to sort out some external monies. But on the whole, I believe I'll be headed to Madison with adequate finances.

When I got my acceptance back in January, I met with my boss/recommender, who does the work closest to what I want to do. He urged me to attend Madison irrespective of decisions from YPS. When I noted the funding differences, he agreed and told me to follow the money, but that "for serious qualitative Africanist work, even Princeton won't match the training and reputation of Madison." Anyway, the point is that while my little heart will regret the lack of opportunities to wear an orange bow-tie, truly the best option in the long run is the school to which I am headed. So I'm elated that it has worked out.

Congratulations to everyone who got admitted, and to those still waiting on some good news, I have some for you:

YOU ROCK!

That's why I continue to hang around. Crossing my fingers for something good for you all.

This is based on experience from six rushes. Any example or issue I raise is from an actual event.

(1) Don't be a jerk. I can tell you this because I am, in fact, a jerk.

(2) Business casual is fine. If you want to add a blazer to your shirt and slacks, that's cool, but don't be a jerk about it. No shiny Ed Hardy shirts.

(3) Ask if you can sit in a class or two. If you do, don't be a jerk in class. You're there to observe, not to interrupt. If the professor asks you a question or something, go ahead and participate, but don't be a jerk about it.

An example on (3). Last year, we had a guy sit in our (highly technical) dynamic modeling class. He happened to sit in the dryest, hardest lecture of the year. So the professor proves a theorem on the board that has us all panting and trembling, and he writes out "for all" on the board in doing so. During break, the prospective student rocks up to the professor and is alike "Hey, why did you write out 'for all' instead of using the upside-down A? That would have been more rigorous.'" Don't be like that. That's jerky.

(4) If you are a jerk when you are drunk, then do not drink too much. If you are fun when you are drunk (but not a fun jerk---there are fun jerks out there), wait until the faculty are gone and then rock the f**k out.

(5) You can ask professors if they're happy at Department X, but don't be a jerk about it. Don't ask if they have a mortgage or anything. That's jerky. If they're unhappy, they'll say so in code. Don't press.

(6) Don't be a jerk on academic grounds. Don't talk down to people. Don't tell people they *need* to read a paper or a book. Don't talk about your own research unless asked. Don't say you published unless it's a real journal. Like, a real journal.

(7) Ask the students the hard questions, but don't be a jerk about it. Ask about their research to get a sense of the training. Don't feign being impressed, but don't get too critical. Ask what they're happy about, what they're unhappy about. Be discriminating-seeming but not critical.

(8) Don't be a jerk about other schools you're considering. Not everything you see at Department X reminds you of something you might see on your pending visit at Department Y. You don't have to rattle off your list all the live-long day; that's jerky. You came to visit and learn more about Department X, so stick to that.

(9) Don't be a jerk about stipends just yet. If you want to ask for more, visit day isn't the day to do it. That's really jerky.

(10) Don't be a jerk with the other visitors. Don't probe them constantly. Don't seem indifferent. If you go to Department X, then these people will be your all-nighter buddies during problem sets; your comp stress empathizers; your idea-bouncers. Don't get that off on the wrong foot.

(11) Seem like somebody that faculty and grad students will want to work with. The best way to do that is to avoid being a jerk.

And no, your offer won't be revoked if you're a jerk. But impressions matter. They matter with potential advisors, with other grad cohortmates you might coauthor with, with older grad students that might offer well-timed advice. You may think you've made it (and you have, and your achievements should be celebrated), but you'll be a lowly first-year soon enough. It's going to be a lot of fun, and you might as well get the experience off on the right foot.

I would suggest that you pick 2-3 professors whose work is pertinent to your own and do the following:

1. ask for the contact information of some of their current advisees - if possible, in different stages of their studies - and get in touch with them either while you're there or via email. ASK THE STUDENTS if there's anything they would have wanted to know about the program that no one told them
2. ask them about their current projects, what phases they're at, and what (if anything) their students do to engage in their research
3. ask for some publications that were co-authored with students (probably just ask the point of contact for your subfield on that one)
4. ask about the department's success in bringing in research grants, and which projects are likely to bring students on board in the next year or so (obviously this won't be too relevant to you, as you won't have much of an opportunity to do things like that until after your first year or so, but it might give you an idea of how carefully the professors consider their students' research as well as their own)
5. ask about what the department prides itself on regarding the candidates it puts onto the market

I definitely share the goals PickMe! mentioned, but the livability of the environment is also really important to me. If you're choosing from a couple of or several similarly ranked schools, consider whether or not you'd be happy living in that environment for the next 5-7 years. Does the area offer the opportunity to engage in things (other than research ) that you love to do? I've definitely heard that happier grad students are more productive grad students. I think for me, personally, that's a big factor. Of course the questions to ask students that will give you an idea of whether or not you can be happy at that school will vary from person to person, but maybe just asking the current students to run you through what their lives look like holistically would be a good idea.

dec4rhapsody - I'm sorry to hear that this application cycle is not going well for you. The first thing I will note, is that there are plenty of examples of people who did not get in their first time (myself included) who then went on to be accepted to top institutions. I think the most important thing to reflect upon is the specific weaknesses of your application and the steps you can take to improve upon them.

In previous posts, I have spoke of the benefits of receiving a MA as a means of further developing your research interests, building relationships with faculty, etc. To see my comments on how to get the most out of an MA, check this out. In your case, I think it will be important to focus on finishing strong in your program and taking the time to turn your thesis into a strong writing sample (don’t stop working on it just because you’ve graduated). You might also want to try to present it at a conference, and eventually get it published. Both processes provide good experience and also add another level of engagement with the poli sci community that you can put on your CV.

I would also caution against under-valuing the importance of the letters of recommendation. Having LORs from people who can really speak to your excellence in political science (or specifically related methods) is a key component of the application. If your MA program has any faculty that are well known and that you have good relations with, be sure to have the provide you a LOR.

In your situation I think you’re at a good place to seriously evaluate the importance of earning a PhD to your career path and the goals you have. For example, it is not foolish to focus on top 30 schools, assuming you are hoping to become an academic. (Yes – it is possible to get a job from lower ranked schools, but much harder). So, if you’re really committed to earning a PhD in poli sci, you have to find ways to strengthen your application. I’ve outlined a few possibilities, but in the long run – you may find that you need more mentoring, education, etc. It may sound unreasonable, but if you are really really committed, perhaps a related MA at a top program would allow you to build your credentials (of course, this may not be financially feasible for many people). The few that jump to mind are Columbia's MA in Quantitative Methods, or Chicago’s CIR for example.


Lastly, you asked about the importance of contacting POIs prior to admissions. From what I know, this matters much more in the hard sciences or in programs where you will be working a lab directed by a POI. I have also heard that some of the smaller, and typically lower ranked, poli sci programs might be more open to corresponding with students prior to application, but in general I do not think contacting POIs is of much importance to the application process. You have to remember that there are only a few faculty on the admissions committee each year, so the chance that the faculty you are contacting is on the committee is slim (and very slim at the larger programs). Additionally, most faculty are exceptionally busy and can’t afford to take too much time to invest is potential students, who might get screened out by the committee anyway.

I hope you find these thoughts helpful. Best of luck!

May I brag a little bit? It is out of character, at least.

The girlfriend works until 9 tonight. Sucks. Don't want to go out to dinner that late (she has a huge audition on Friday so sleep cycle is very important at the moment). So, what to do.

Clearly, the answer is an Arrested Development picnic. We will watch AD (ZOMG YES) while eating:

Slow-roasted clover honey-infused bruschetta with fresh ricotta and extra buckwheat honey
Honey pots de creme with mint (yes, honey was the theme)
Fresh prosciutto and soprasetta with black grapes, leaf-wrapped Vache de Chalais, and bourbon-washed Pie D'Angloys.
Strawberries and raspberries---some in Gran Manier with fresh whipped cream and some with sour cream and brown sugar.

Yes, this is meant to be a recruitment tool. The Wegman's in Pittsford, NY rocks. And yes, this may be my last post for a while due to the fact that I will be getting gout after all this food (and accompanying wine).

Others should share their plans, too---stop talking about work, dudes/ettes.

Claiming a Minnesota acceptance. Weekends are officially no longer safe.

Claiming a Minnesota acceptance. Weekends are officially no longer safe.

Claiming a Minnesota acceptance. Weekends are officially no longer safe.

Steelers didn't play = I didn't watch.

I'm not an adcom so I can't say for sure, but the advice I've heard has kind of contradicted Wesson's:

(1) If you *only* like the school because of assistant faculty who were just recently hired, beware. As you note, they might leave for greener pastures and leave you up a creek. If they did only recently get a PhD and you're interested in their work, you should look to where they got their PhD instead potentially.

(2) If you're applying to a school because of a series of faculty that you like, and let's say of 3 folks of interest, one is an assistant, you can feel free to list them all by name, but make sure to list the professors in order of their rank (i.e., don't list the assistant professor as your first POI and then the tenured folks last).