Canadianpolsci

I am going to learn to brake dance. Key skill for department mixers. A different kind of affirmative action. sababa

I will be doing a PhD in political science next year, but I have friends who went to SAIS, and a friend who has been accepted to KSG-Harvard. It occurs to me, as I am in contact with the SAIS grads now looking for jobs, that many people who do a MPP or M.A., etc., end up applying for jobs they did not envision when they entered the school. I have, therefore, a general question: if the MPP/MA is not for an absolutely clear career path, wouldn't Princeton and KSG beat SAIS and Georgetown, because of name recognition and cache? Chicago and Berkeley are also good schools, but not ranked quite as high as the four I listed first (or that was my impression). Georgetown and SAIS are usually the top to in rank for IR and policy issues. But I told my friend: if you get Harvard or Princeton, remember the name counts ALOT. Was my advice reasonable? That the name, the ivy league name, is in the long run very important as employers who don't know so much about the rankings see the ivy league name as the most solid of all basic credentials, etc... ?

My advice: LTRs either always last and never work, or they work but never last. Confused? You shouldn't be. Advice from a graduate admissions blog on your relationship, from people you never met, is bound to help you. My girlfriend and I have been in a long term relationship for 10 years. We have never met. But via her fan club mail address, Britney and I stay in touch. I fear sometimes I am just dating a woman (or man?) paid to write back to adoring fans. But even that is ok. What is the matter with lip-synced emotion? People stopped liking Milli Vanilli when they found out those two metrosexual 80s icons were faking. I still liked the music. An older, less lamo, black man was singing all their songs. But so what, it was the same stuff. This is how I feel about my correspondence with Britney. Good luck in grad school. If s/he dumps you, well, don't despair. One things for sure, you live in a college town, or a town with a college. Or a city, a big city. And you can get over the despair these blog posts. I did (to hell with you Britney. I see that purple forwarded-text email. I can see I'm not the only one...) Remember but Groucho Marx said -- he was an expert on grad school: "There are two secrets in this life -- hard work, and honesty. If you can fake both, you've pretty much got it made."

Embark emailed me. They actually offered me a job spam emailing millions of others. They read my many posts on this forum, liked what they saw, and signed me up. Next time you get an email with this phrasing: "Are you excited to go, hopefully, to a school near the top of your list with OK funding and where your spouse can get a job? Embark can help you do so effectively. Ready to get accepted or rejected with just one click? Ready to bite your nails? Hate the GRE? Embark is here!" not.

The verbal score is a touch low, just a touch. 680 would be fine, 700 just fine. The quant score. is great. I don't think your GREs hurt you. They were not the issue.

I appreciate the comments and advice, thanks. I think Harvard has a very serious edge placement-wise, in pol. science. That is what stands out. thanks again. and good luck to all.

OK gradcafe people. I need your help. I did really well with admissions, so I'm almost embarrassed to ask for advice about the following wonderful set of options. But still, I'm curious what people think. I want to study political theory with an emphasis on 19th century German thought, Rousseau, and early-modern thought. I have to choose between Harvard Government, and the Committee on Social Thought. Funding is good from both places and is more or less not the issue (there is a slight edge to Harvard, though). The main issue with Social Thought is it is not a traditional political science department, and my most likely goal is to apply to and hope to get a tenure track post as a pol. theorist in a political science department. There are wonderful people at Chicago, and, on the surface of it, a slightly better fit. But Harvard also has good people and fit. So, what do people think? I know it's hard to really give advice this specific, but I want to know what people think. Thanks in advance.

Toronto's political science department is excellent. York's is so-so, even by Canadian standards. York is a second rate school. Be warned.

the SOP jost posted was, again, way too personal. You inserted a poem (puke!). This is not the peace core. It is much closer to a cover letter for a job -- I mean, that is what you need to write.

I can confirm that my friend was admitted yesterday via email.

I will not give as detailed responses. I will just say that by far the largest problem with the statement is that it only very briefly describes the thesis you wrote, and then does not use that as a springboard to describe your FUTURE research project(s). What a strong statement needs from someone with an MA is a sort of mini thesis-proposal. You spend a lot of words saying you are interested in teaching, in culture, in travel. Buy ANYONE can say such things. Try to avoid saying things that are cliched like this. Teaching abroad is nice, but worth only, I think, 1-2 sentences tops. Put your research and your senior course/seminar learning, as well as your future research plans, in the center. This is academia not the peace core. Your SOP is not bad. But it is not great, in my opinion -- considering the many interesting things you have done, you could have presented it all better.

What incentive does he have not to? Besides, the advice he gave was pretty universal and well known to any graduate student currently on the job market.

I think that a short and polite email to each of the professors who you have been in close contact with, plus the department chair or contact, is in order. And that is all. Look, its a personal and professional decision, and these are professors, experienced in these matters. Tell them it was a tough decision. Thank them for the generous offer. And that's that. Don't lose sleep over it. No one else will.

Then: Toronto is without doubt the better option.

In IR I have no clue about McGill. For a long time (in the 1950s-80s) McGill was considered the, I quote, "Harvard of Canada." Even then this, I think, more an insult to Canada than a compliment to McGill. But the point was that McGill was a elite top school. Today, this is no longer the case. U of Toronto has, for at least 10 years now, been far and away the best school in Canada, the best school for science, the best political science grad program by far, has the best medical school, and the best law school. It is a large public university, so some students prefer other schools in Canada. And really smart students still like to go to McGill (undergrads, I mean). But as a general matter of reputation, McGill is not all that high and you better really carefully consider their placement rate (which I don't know much about). Also, you should know that McGill may place some Canadian grads in Canadian schools. Canadian schools still have a slight bent towards hiring Canadian citizens as professors. So be sure to factor this in. McGill has some interesting people in political theory. Other than that, I don't know of its IR program. What is more serious, perhaps, is that, as a Canadian and a graduate of the University of Toronto, I have never once heard McGill touted as a place to study IR, ever.

Any thoughts from readers of this post-subject about the University of Chicago's Committee on Social Thought as a place to do a PhD with the intention of landing a job as a political theorist? I note here some key names: Robert Pippin (heads the department, and in 2003 turned down a joint appointment in Government and Philosophy at Harvard), Nathan Tarcov (cross-listed with political science), Daniel Allen (now half-time, the other half at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton), Leon Kass (half-time I think), plus political theorists in political science department one can study with. Chicago for political theory is ranked high and places pretty well indeed. But Social Thought is tougher to understand. Thoughts?

MissingVandyCandy brings up an interesting issue: what if there is a star, or a real mover and shaker, and program X, but the program as a whole and school as a whole are more top 40 than top 25, let alone top 10? Frankly, I think this is a very difficult strategy to follow. If you know this professor personally, perhaps it can work. But to put all your eggs in one basket is really quite a large gamble. I think the department you go to has to be above ALL not a place where there is "FIT", but where the SUPPORT you, where professors support your studies and will work hard, fight, to get you a job. After that, "fit" comes in. It is wonderful if there is a super person you want to work with at a particular school. But you have to remember that personal relationships can be tricky things, that he or she may move or (god forbid) die, before you finish, etc. Then you have to look very closely at the placement successes of that professor. I think this has to be done on a case by case basis. But I think going to a school without a strong overall reputation, AND depending on one person, is a very big risk.

I word about "qualifications" or lack-there-of to give any advice about admissions. I think I owe the admissions success I had to a large "brain trust" of friends (some of who are grad students or young professors, some of whom are lawyers, some of whom are into poetry) and my professors. I took advice from dozens of people, especially on my statement of purpose. These people have gone through application processes themselves and have also seen all of their friends do it. All together, I received countless tips, small and large, and some of them were decisively important, I think, for my making the final cut at the schools I was admitted to. So when I offer advice, it is NOT based on simply on the fact that I was admitted into school X. It is, rather, the advice which I RECEIVED from others, and which I estimate worked for me, to some degree, and would work for most others. Think: "brain trust." And go build yourself one as best you can. That's the secret.

Consider Cambridge: there you can study Nietzsche with Raymond Geuss, and there are others who are interested in Oakeshott. Regarding Notre Dame and Review of Politics: I think it is a plus, a positive fact, that Cathrine Zuckert is at N. Dame and edits R. of Politics, for N. Dame theory students. They employ PhD students on staff, you have a good connection to the wider published world, and the journal puts Notre Dame on the map. That said, I think this is only an "extra bonus" type advantage. In other words, it is not a huge factor in any sense. Notre Dame in my opinion is a very solid program, with excellent people -- as well, there is breadth and a variety of approaches to theory represented in the department. In addition, N. Dame itself has some serious philosophy and theology folks, in addition to the theory profs there. However, you really must visit South Bend Indiana if you are thinking of going. Some people liked the place. Others have liked it less. I think Notre Dame is a good example of why the rankings are semi-bogus. It is by no means easy to get into, and it is a very serious academic school as a whole. It boasts Fred Dallymar, for instance, and even Alistair Macintyre -- who is a very famous moral philosopher. macintyre especially might be a factor in your decisions. He is quite mature in years already, but I believe he still teaches courses there. Notre Dame's placement rate seems to be a mixed bag. But I think you would have a very solid shot of landing a decent post, still. It is a small program which really supports its students. It can be compared, in terms of size and support, to Duke -- though admittedly Duke is a fair bit more "prestigious." Hope that helps.

I'm not a geologist, but I think I know why there are few responses: a)few geologists are on this site, b)you did not list the school names By the way, as a geologist, are you familiar with the work of Boaz Lazar, doing work in Marine/coral reef geophysics?

Well, all I can say is: Princeton's rejections was REALLY polite. The emailed me, and apologized for emailed and not writing -- saying they thought informality was excusable because of speed. Dude, that's a GREAT rejection. I mean, I really appreciated a FORM REJECTION EMAIL. Princeton is known for excellence in many areas. Here is another subject to add to the list.

Also, I don't subscribe at all to the theory "go big or go home" -- eg., top rated program X ,or no PhD. I discussed rankings solely in terms of placement. That is all. I do not buy the arguments for "quality of education" really, because there are always exceptions, always brilliant profs at less than famous schools. It's placement, that is the main thing. Jobs. And there are no silver bullets. It is just, IN GENERAL, statistically harder to get a job in a department not in the top X (be it top ten, or 25, etc). But this is only a GENERAL rule. I want to be clear on that: for me, the main argument in favor of going to a high ranked school over a lower one, and of concern with rankings, is job placement. Jesus, the rankings themselves are not useful except for this. I can GO TO THE LIBRARY AND READ THE SCHOLARSHIP OF PROFS AT EACH SCHOOL. I do not need US News to figure out the general quality of these programs. But as a Canadian I was shocked to learn that rankings of US schools, in the US, are EXTREMELY important in job placement. I did not know this until last year, now I do, and I think it's important info. Anyway congrats on Illinois. I don't know about the program but I would never meant to imply you or anyone else at any such program is doomed or even in bad shape in any way.

Well OK perhaps you are right. It was the best I could come up with. Maybe my law school idea is more reasonable (but then, I have no clue whether others would go to law school with the idea of applying to a phd afterward in mind). I am not sure what person X can do then.

What about Stathis Kalyvas? He does ethnic conflict, his work (that I have read) is outstanding, he is a rising star, and he is at the centre of Yale's new "initiative" on order, conflict, violence and fundraising. Ok, I added "fundraising", but that is really something to consider as they have a centre, will bring in people, etc. His profile is: http://www.yale.edu/polisci/people/skalyvas.html At Columbia there is Jervis, and others. Columbia for IR is maybe the best in the world. Very powerful and respected group of scholars in IR and IR theory there. If you can, visit, meet the people, the grad students. See the cities. For instance: you can decide if you prefer NYC or New Haven (I'm kidding). Reputation-wise I think its about even. Yale better name than Columbia overall, but Columbia is REALLY well known in IR. As a political theorist interested in IR and American politics, I can tell you that even I was thinking of Columbia in part to study with these razor sharp nuclear weapon strategy dudes. I was rejected from Columbia (I think in part because their theory people's interests do not match my own.) Anyway, its a tough decision but a wonderful set of IR programs. Congrats!

Sorry maybe the end of my last post, to "toughen up and lighten up", was too personal. I take that back. What I meant to say is that I, and others, are just frankly discussing a professional field, its training and the job market. That is all. I don't think there is any hugely new information on this board about the importance of a degree from a top school, etc. But I do apologize to you. It's very stressful, this application business, and you are right, as I have been successful, I have to be very careful to take into account the feelings of many others who have had many different types of experiences and outcomes. Again, I am trying to post things here that would be helpful to anyone. The hiring committees of schools where you will one day apply for positions are, I think, going to be much less nice and probably less fair in their reasoning than I am trying to be.