Overtherainbow

What I wound up doing, and recommend to anyone still looking for roommates or housing, is I joined a hosuing list-serv through the DOS website. Once you have your netID/ Cornell email, you just have request to join the list, and they approve you. I immediately started getting TONS of emails daily from people looking for roommates, sublets, trying to fill apartments, etc.

Like you, my biggest dilemma was finding roommates, because I knew I wanted to live with other Cornell grads. And I think a lot of incoming grads are using this list-serv to find roommates, as it feels safer than craigslist since it is exclusive to the Cornell community.

So pretty much I got a bunch of emails from people looking for housing, and I really liked the sound of this one place, and started emailing back and forth with the girl, and we really seemed to click. And lucky for me, she is finishing up undergrad at Ithaca College, so she was able to do all the legwork with seeing the place, nailing down the lease, etc. This was HUGE for me since I had no idea if I was going to be able to make it up there to look at apartments. So it all just kind of fell together perfectly! I also was able to find the perfect July sublet through the list-serv as well, within hours of sending my email (I got llike 20 responses of people looking for subletters!)!

So I highly recommend the DOS list-serv. It might not happen that quickly for everyone, but it definitely gets a lot of activity and I think it's a very helpful and less sketchy way to find roommates! You can find it here, scroll down to where it says Need a roommate ? Click here to join our List-Serv (type "join in the subject line. Only open to members of the Cornell Community):
http://dos.cornell.edu/ocho/Graduate-Professional-Students.cfm

Hope this helps! Good luck

Hey all,
I'm a current grad student-- just a quick note: Maplewood is overpriced and rather sterile (think hotel room type furniture, etc) and not as close as you would think.

Most of the grad students live downtown, in fall creek, or south hill-- I actually found a wonderful house on the edge of South Hill and downtown, and I absolutely love it.

I would also highly recommend having a car, but just because I don't bike and I'm lazy. But in the winter, it's especially nice, or for getting up the hill late at night after the buses stop.

As usual, these articles fail to acknowledge opportunities for PhD-level scientists outside the academy. We get DoE national labs, DoD labs, the NIH intramural program, NASA, NOAA, the NSA, FFRDCs, government contractors, nonprofit research institutes (e.g. WHOI), Big Pharma, technology startups, the energy industry (both traditional and alternative), the research labs of large for-profit companies (Intel, IBM, Microsoft), the Public Health Service Commissioned Corps, the military. Not everybody wants or needs to be a professor. PhDs are crucial to large parts of industry and government. The fact that there are more STEM PhDs than there are assistant professorships is a feature, not a bug.

One of my projects at work - a government contractor - has four PhDs working on it. These people didn't fail to get academic jobs. A couple of them were the pick of the litter. They came here by choice. They are happy here, they get to work on cool research, they avoid the race to tenure, and they make more money than they would in academia.

This sentence is just incredible:

"Many young Americans bright enough to do the math therefore conclude that instead of gambling 12 years on the small chance of becoming an assistant professor, they can invest that time in becoming a neurosurgeon, or a quarter of it in becoming a lawyer or a sixth in earning an MBA."

Ha. Hahaha. Do these authors know what the job prospects are these days for lawyers, and how much it costs to go to law school? What kind of oblivious person these days markets law school as a path away from penury and toward job security (of course, if you combine it with a STEM PhD, you can be a patent lawyer and have a relatively easy time getting a cushy job)? Do they realize that in order to be a neurosurgeon, you have to spend four years in med school at $50k/year, completely win the residency matching process - almost nobody's a shoe-in for a surgery residency - and then spend six years working 80+ hour weeks for pay of $40k/year, and maybe a couple more in a fellowship? Have they noticed that an MBA doesn't do much for most people unless it's from a highly competitive, expensive, top school? At least in a STEM PhD program they pay you while you get your PhD, even if not very much.

Also, with all due sympathy for the biomed folks, not every field of science expects you to spend half your life bouncing around postdocs.

"A prime symptom noted by all: a growing aversion of America’s top students — especially the native-born white males who once formed the backbone of the nation’s research and technical community — to enter scientific careers."

Oh noez, not the native-born white males, whatever shall we do...oh wait, in the modern world, the US scientific talent pool includes women, people of color, and immigrants. Now, in fairness, they say that top US students in general are avoiding scientific careers. But aren't they writing this article about how US students shouldn't go into scientific PhD programs? Shouldn't they approve? If they don't, have they ever considered that articles like this one might be playing a role?

Wow, no ifs ands or buts about it. The OP misrepresented themselves in the application process. Whereas he/she could have explained themselves in a Statement of Purpose, and how they are now in a position to complete a program, not they have dug themselves into a hole hoping in the next 5-years they aren't discovered.

That's no way to live an academic life.

I'm sorry, but I see no grey area here. I can't imagine any school having "loopholes" to allow this sort of incident, and even if these did exist, to take advantage of them is highly unethical. My first thought jumps to Marc Hauser and I assure you he started his ethical impropriety off small. You are standing on a very slippery slope.

I would not simply turn it down, but definitely disclose this to them before starting. They may react strongly the way most people here have and they may see it the way I do which is in the grey area. Either way, it's better to know that reaction now than to risk them finding out and feeling really tricked.

Depending on the unknown details of your situation, I think the severity of your situation may vary. I, for one, did not send transcripts that did not directly contribute to an earned degree. Looking back on it, it would have only helped my application, but it didn't even occur to me that I should send them. It seems like you knew you should have sent them at the time and just made a poor decision. What is done is done and I think you should just do whatever you can to set the record straight.

When you tell them, make sure you explain the reasons you withdrew from the previous programs (obviously), why this program would be different, and reaffirm your enthusiasm about this program. Be respectful and demonstrate character, and then just hope for the best.

Good luck!

^ There's no way he hasn't somehow misled the school if he has not told them about this in any way. Typically you are required to provide transcripts from ALL post secondary institutions attended. If he failed to do so, he has failed to give information specifically asked for.

Maybe I'm just confused.. but omitting information is not the same as lying. Unless they specifically asked for this information and you failed to give it, there isn't a problem, right?

As an example, a personal problem left a blank spot on my CV for a good chunk of time. I never offered any explanation for this time in my applications, but if someone asked during interviews about it (some did, some didn't), I gave an honest answer. It depends very much on your own personal circumstances, but how did you handle the probably very long empty spot on your CV? Did you misrepresent what you were doing during that time, or did you simply not give an explanation unless asked?

I stick to ethical perspectives on this one, and say you should either own up about your 2 previous withdrawals to the program that admitted you, telling them everything and seeing what they tell you back, or decline admission altogether. You basically lied to them by presenting yourself as someone you are not 100%; this is true even if you are now an awesome student perfectly suited to their program. Trying to rationalize it or shift the blame onto someone else or onto some system--such as the National Student Clearinghouse or the adcomm's possible failure to check you out any more than they felt they needed to in the spirit of good faith in which many human affairs operate--is just a cop-out to sugar-coat the situation. All this may sound harsh, but what you did is bump out a qualified, honest candidate for whom this program is also a DREAM program and is also the ONLY one he/she applied to this year. For you to accept the offer of admission under the false pretext you presented disgraces the academic integrity that all the rest of us bust our tails for.

Academics do not tolerate academic dishonesty. When you signed your application you agreed that you answered all questions truthfully. Your lie will inevitably be outed, either by technology, which makes it easier to investigate when suspicions arise, or by gossip among academics in your field at conferences where grad students' names and faces are introduced to the field at large. If you aren't outed until after you receive the degree you can expect the university to rescind the degree, and to inform local press that it has done so, because universities like to pay lip service to preserving their integrity. Nothing pisses academics off more than cheating, and they derive a special satisfaction from flogging the dishonest in their midst. Only you can decide whether you want to invest in building a reputation in your field that can be destroyed at an inopportune time, perhaps not until you risk losing the respect of a spouse and children, the peers with whom you work, and your social community.
.

I'm not following why you all think it is pretentious to have fellowships that you applied for and won in your email signature? As much as the signature is about letting people know who you are, it's also meant to promote yourself and to let others know the credentials you bring to the table. Of course you don't put your entire CV in the signature, but something as substantial as an NSF Fellowship shouldn't be buried neither.

It is completely reasonable to ask these kinds of questions. I heard somewhere (but can't remember where, sorry!) that the dropout rate for PhD's is near 50%. Is it because they aren't smart and talented? Hell no! We all see everyday just how many smart and talented people never even make it in!

But after the first few years, many programs kind of have you direct yourself and lots of super talented people just can't make it work. They complete their coursework and not their disseration. (Obviously there are other, more complicated, reasons why people leave PhD programs as well).

If you're really questioning this, you have a few options.
1) Talk to people currently in PhD programs. Ask them what their days are like, if they think it was worth it, or if they have any regrets. Does their life sound like one you want? Also, since you're in the progress of choosing schools, you may find things that will be dealbreakers for you (For example, it is really important to me that English and Writing departments at my school get along; I've heard horror stories that made me scared to go to grad school at all! BUT, that is one of the things I'm taking into careful consideration as I choose a school.)
2) Talk to your profs or a mentor you have; someone you really trust. They should know you well enough to help you see if you are pysching yourself out or if you are bringing up things that may point to a different life path.
3) Look into the possibility of a deferrment for your top choice. For me, working outside of academia for a year was more than enough to show that this is my path.

And, most important, remember that you're allowed to make a mistake.

If you don't go this year and decide later that you want to, it isn't like all the things that got you in now will have disappear. And if you start a program and decide to leave, no one will come after you and poke you with sticks. Life is a journey. Let your life unfold. By all means, do your homework and trust your gut. But beyond that, do we really have any control?

Do people realize that when they ask you what other schools you are applying to, it is optional? You don't have to say. They have no way of knowing where or how many applications you are sending out unless you tell them.

Hi all, I don't know if this will concern everyone but here's my question -- How many papers (on average) do you guys expect to publish by the time you earn your PhD? I mean considering that we'll be busy taking classes, working as TA/RA, preparing for the qualifying exams and then working on the dissertation, when does one find time to publish papers.

I understand that people generally try to get two papers published out of their dissertation work. So is two the norm, or is it more than that.

Of course, more is always best. But what is expected?

I have interviews and acceptances from michigan, cornell, nyu, osu, and uva. but i was waitlisted at ohio u. weird, huh?

If you're not crazy about the program, I wouldn't go just because it's a PhD program. You'll be there for at least 5 years. Why waste the time just on the off chance that you'll like it more once you actually get there? Go with the MA. You clearly want to. Plus it's funded, so hopefully you won't be going into any debt. Apply to PhD programs afterward. Although it's not guaranteed that you'll get in, I'm sure that if you're smart about applying to a range of schools, and do well in the MA program, you'll be fine.

Same. I keep thinking it's weird when people talk about having done grad seminars and all this fancy stuff, and then I remember their schools have grad departments, and my liberals arts college does not.

I'll regive my Chicago opinion. It seems very much the case that there is conflict within the department over the future path that they should take. It comes down to Theory vs. IR/American. At least in my discussion with professors and grad students, there is frustration that the theory people almost always refuse to hire or give tenure to anyone who does any semblance of quantitative study (along with other methodologies and views of the world). Chicago has only 4 IR professors and has not hired a new one despite many attempts since 1999, including a few this year that the IR faculty really wanted to get. In a really funny example, one year the IR faculty asked the theory people to make a list of IR people they would be ok with hiring and they came back with a list of feminist theorists and people who dont really even do IR. It really does seem that theory runs the ship which in many ways is at the expense of the other subfields. No doubt Chicago is a great place and I loved my time as an undergrad here, but I think the department is no where near where it used to be in terms of quality and training.

On a side note, it was kinda funny at the visit today to hear the professors talk about this and kinda lie about the true mood the department. But that is recruiting for you This also isn't meant to bash theory at all so I hope it doesnt come off that way.

I say all of this and yet I still definitely would go there. The IR people they do have are incredible and do amazing work and are amazingly nice people who are super smart. The above is just a frustration that me and my friends sometimes have.

It's hard to get at the data (gradcafe does not publish more detailed posting statistics that include the time intervals of posting) but I suspect that most superlatives will be awarded to people who've been active since the present cycle began; let's say about since November. In which case, the model would probably look like:

pi =(xwi / Σwi) + Ɛi

Where pi is the probability any person i ∈ S (where S is the set of all posters who have posted in the past five months on the political science forum) has of winning a superlative, wi is the number of posts (in polisci) by any i∈S over the past 5 months, x is the total number of superlatives awarded, and Ɛ is the error term of the model. Thus, your probability of winning a superlative is your percentage share of total posts times the number of superlatives, with an error term allowing for some variation based on unmeasurable intangibles.

Edit: I'll try to think of ways to improve the model. We have data on reputation points, so maybe adjusting pi using some weighting of the number of standard deviations above or below the reputation mean that person is might serve as a proxy variable for "forum impact".

Hi everyone,
I've been lurking this forum quite constantly but silently over the last month or so. And this forum has been a huge help this past month, as I awaited decisions, wondered when acceptances were coming out, and dealt with rejections when they came out. I honestly learnt more from this forum, about different universities, how they make decisions and about what it takes to get in, than I had learnt before. I also really appreciate the spirit of mutual support on the forum as everyone goes through the whole tense cycle together, as I really benefited from that when dealing with rejections and preparing for the worst, and I only feel bad that I was so silent through the process and was unable to contribute anything helpful myself.
Given all the information and insights I have gained from this forum I did want to make one more request for some more insights from this forum, namely what are people's thoughts on the PhD program at Brandeis, that is what are the strengths and the weaknesses that one should keep in mind?

Thanks again for your advice. I totally understand that reputation matters, I just was under the impression that what matters most is reputation within political science, as opposed to externally. It sounds like you're saying that fellowships are a good signal of the reputation of that department to other political science departments, in which case I would completely understand the value.

A couple of added notes I forgot about: the article above also talks about using tools that are "easily understood." I don't really think that's a fair critique; if social scientists can explain their evidence and how the methods work, then I think you can use methods that are, themselves, not broadly understood. Economists have been doing it for a long time, and probably have more influence on policy than political scientists.

Also, @McMuffin, stats work certainly does not assume rationality. There's been a fair work done that is actually meant to test hypotheses that contradict rational choice; see, for instance, work done to test theories of bounded rationality. Moreover, rationality as it is described by formal theorists is far less narrow than most people assume; it basically just means that people will try to do what they view as in their interest. It also is not a requirement that all formal work be based on rationality assumptions; see, for instance, some of the work being done by Arthur Lupia that engages with work in neuroscience, or a lot of work done in complex systems modelling.

Finally, on normative work, I don't have that much of an opinion, except to say that I think you can divide positive work from its normative implications. Also, from what little I know of normative theory, sometimes concepts of welfare analysis derived from economics can be useful in structuring one's thought (e.g. I think Rawls has utility curves in one of his books?). I think John Roemer does some stuff on normative formal theory? In any event, I certainly don't think normative work should be dominated by statistics

Great topic, wordshadow!

A nice article on this: http://www.uvm.edu/~dguber/POLS293/articles/smith.pdf

I'm definitely inclined towards the qualitative side of this discussion, although of course both methods are important. I believe the name for rebellion against the current quantitative trend in political science is called "Perestroika" --http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perestroika_Movement_(political_science) I'm not sure how much success it is having and would love to hear more about the current state of the debate.

So this has been discussed in various tidbits throughout forum posts for this application cycle, but nowhere in any real systematic detail. Here, young torch-holders of both methodological camps (and for those quirky mixed-methods people like myself), is your thread to hash out pros-cons of each methodological approach. The back and forth can perhaps lead to a more nuanced debate and generate answers more telling than the polarizing cliches of "obviously quantitative is superior as most departments/jobs which hire look for quantitative/statistical sorts of skills", or "qualitative is superior because it provides a narrative left un-captured by dry empiricist analysis" or the diplomatic, timeless answer of "it depends." Or perhaps these cliches capture it all...

I believe it is pretty evident that this really is a matter of individual preference and the nature of the questions one wants to investigate and ask. I think it also evident that which method one thinks works for them does not work and should not work for everyone. Furthermore, it definitely seems to me to be the case that the field largely preferences quantitative over qualitative methodology in general in an attempt to 'be scientific.'

But the question becomes why did you personally choose your methodological route? Are you more mathematically-inclined? Do you do whichever route you do because that is the predominant route employed by the schools you want to go to and you just absorb whichever approach your department has? Does choosing a more qualitative of a path over a quantitative path really disadvantage you that much in the job market outside academia? Does this debate really matter? Will it matter twenty years down the road? What are the dilemmas each approach (including mixed methods) encounters?

Someone in results said they called Harvard and rejections are in the mail. Oh what fun! But the person also mentioned that Harvard dips into their rejection pile to fill their numbers, if necessary. So therefore everybody that's in at Harvard needs to turn Harvard down.

I'm looking at you jsclar. I'll give you a bottle of Remy for it!