Canadianpolsci

This is an open forum. I do not intend to personally insult or put down anyone. I do not even know anyone here. I can see something about people if they list their acceptances, etc. But even then, I answer every post in a way I think would be useful for everyone. The reason why I and others on this board keep saying that top programs, top 10 programs, top 25 programs, are so important, is not because we are snobs. It is because we want tenure track positions as professors and are trying our best to study something we care about, and attain these very hard to attain positions, at some time in the future. If you are thrilled about your acceptances, that is excellent and I am happy for you (as happy as I can be, honestly, about the success of a near-perfect stranger.) But honestly, toughen up and lighten up. It's a open posting board about grad school admissions. What did you expect, cyber-hugs?

I really can't answer this question. I don't mean to lecture anyone on this forum. Actually I think what I say should be heartening to all, since the application PROCESS can be worked on by all, and everyone can improve. If I was in your situation, I would skip an MA in a 35th ranked school unless you are doing this simply to learn and for a small professional advantage. I would try to find a really impressive think tank job for 2 years. Or I would go to law school and then apply with a law degree to a PhD. Or I would try to go work for an important researcher in the field, taking time off, with the purpose of getting a letter.

Actually only the richest. Sparta, etc., was probably more competitive. They had more bloody blood sports, etc.

By the way, please do not judge me by my spelling and typos. Please...

I want to add something to this thread, but concerning the admissions process. I am going to make a generalization but I ask that you consider the general truth of this statement: MOST 21 year old university seniors, as well as most 22-27 year olds who are now apply to grad school after some time off working, or in a different MA, etc. (that is, 95% of applicants), MOST applicants to programs do not know the proper and professional way to apply. Basically, applications are similar to a job search, to job applications -- in as much as it is a very hard process and one that takes time to get the hang of. However, you have not time to learn; you have no experience. And you have little help. I have studied with at least a dozen extremely bright people in my field (political theory), who when they applied to grad schools had far less luck than they hoped for. I do not think these people's grades or intelligence was the problem. Mostly, they did not know how to apply, and they did not know at age 19 what you need to do throughout your BA to be able to apply. There are certain people who I know who are simply stars, who are the finest student in whatever class they take, every time, and who are universally praised with superlatives by people. These people do not need any tips. Then there are the rest of us. We need ALOT of help. The application has a HUGE number of aspects. Letters of reference cannot be acquired quickly; to get into a top ten program 3 profs must say you are pretty much as good as any sbudent they have ever had at this stage of your life (undergrad), AND usually these profs need to be people the committee members have heard of, or at schools that elicit respect regardless. GPAs cannot be kept above 3.7 easily and below 3.7 can hurt. GREs must be above 650, or it can hurt. Going to a school that is not ranked in the top 20 in the US, or about at that level but international, is a HUGE problem that requires enormous 3-4 year efforts to overcome (to get into a top 10 PhD program. Then, you have to write a statement of purpose that is extremely strong, appeals to a wide audience AND convinces subfield committee members you fit. Then you may have to have a writing sample, a very serious issue since you may in fact tick off people with your approach, and not even know it (and there are dozens of other issues). Then you have to figure out how to target specific people at specific schools in your application, to show fit. And you must weigh whether they will be deciding, if they are taking more students, if you might perhaps seem TOO narrow. You must do all this pretty much alone. Your professors are 45-60 years old, are extremely successful (in that they have a tenured post at your school), and will not really know how to apply. For, after all, when they applied it was much different. Your friends can only help so much. You have to do this, and you get basically one or two shots, tops. Most people simply don't have a clue. I have read statements from friends and been simply shocked. People say things like "I have a good start in political theory." Well, they are being honest. They consider it a life's work to understand much about political theory. But that phrase, "good start", is absolute POISON on a statement of purpose. Other people do not identify 3 profs by the end of third year who can write letters. They have a very serious problem. It goes on and on. Ask someone looking for a very good job in New York City how many resumes they've done, cover letters, drafts of CVs. This is not a game, this is a job search, and job searching is the toughest of all jobs. But over here in the ivory tower, people lay there cards on the table and "hope they get in." By and large there is little professionalism in application. I base this even on the applications I have seen of people who did get in. Sometimes they got in in spite of their application. Applying is a bloodsport. This is not a game, it is an extremely competitive process, which actually begins with undergraduate applications, in the most competitive and richest nation in the history of the human race. People should know this. They should realize, for example, that their 1000 word statement of purpose, if it does get them into a top ten school (if it helps I mean), is word for word the most important thing they may ever right, in terms of its impact on their own life.

Look, you were accepted into some of the very toughest programs in any field in the entire world. They like you. You cannot fake that level of achievement. Just relax. They picked you, and they will help you when you arrive to use your god-given gifts to succeed. They want you to succeed. The programs you are into only bet on winners. They think you are a winner and they'll help you to prove them right. Relax. Everyone gets nervous that they fooled everyone. Again, worst case scenario: you really did fool everyone. Well, then, you are one INCREDIBLE faker, one INCREDIBLE fraud. And to be honest, that level of fraud is even more impressive than straight up credentials. Here are to citations for you and all like you to check: 1) Groucho Marx's brilliant and profound line: "There are two secrets to this world -- hard work, and honesty. If you can fake those, you've got it made. 2)Machiavelli's chapter in the Discourses on Livy (his longer work, and his greatest) in which he explains that "it is a more glorious thing to succeed by fraud than by force." Either you had force (eg., your vitae and credentials overpowered them, deservedly so), or you had fraud (you are a fraud who fooled more than a half-dozen professors from each of Harvard and Stanford, and other places). Either way, what are you worried about? Take a cold shower and a glass of red wine. And one more thing: don't post any more such postings, please (no offense). There are lots of passionate people on this site now who've been rejected by many or even all of their top and less than top picks. Give them a break and spare them this whining and worrying. It's self-indulgent of you and that's the biggest sin of Ivy leaguers. Trust me, you'll be fine. See you at the Harvard admit visit (correct?)

Yes, if you are admitted, go to the visiting day. Email profs you are interested in, explain to them you need funding (once you meet them in person). Cross your fingers.

Since when is Duke an Ivy?

Here's a tip Ampersand: just read the article on which it was based. Bobos in Paradise...? The End of History and the Last Man? The Clash of Civilizations? Those and Putnam's books were all (I think) once single articles. Find the article, read it, and no one will ever be able to tell whether the knowledge you have is from the book or not. That is because these books have not only produced buzzwords, but most of what people know about them and remember is buzzwords. There was a French guy, who recently wrote a book about how to talk about books you hadn't read, how to fake it. This guy received a lot of press. He deserved none of it. Groucho Marx said it many years ago and he said it well (and if you reflect on the line you'll see its more complex than it seems:) "The two secret's in this life are hard work and honesty. If you can fake those, you've got it made."

I am in at Harvard and Duke. I am a pol. theorist but I have broad interests. I'd be excited to take classes with Robert Putnam at Harvard.

Succesful Oxford/Cambridge DPhil people have done well on the US job market, but you need famous adviser, to bridge the "Atlantic gap" so to speak. Tread carefully.

Very few offers of funding have been made. Go and visit and cross your fingers.

I have no inside knowledge. Call them, the staff are friendly (I was an undergrad there).

What is your subfield? Toronto takes a long time, even until April sometimes I think.

Princeton is all over. I repeat: over. Official rejection email from the Dean of A&S. Sorry to those who were holding their breath. Exhale. Onwards and Upwards...!

You may be right. Probably you are. On the other hand, you can read my statement differently: I have no doubt that the majority of Chinese and Japanese academics think Harvard is tops. PS -- what is the best place for middle eastern studies?

.

Listening to complex tales of undergrad odysseys good and bad re-enforces what I said: that rankings of schools, reputation, etc., is perhaps somewhat fair as criterion of judgment of a student, but there are always exceptions. Again, still: the job market doesn't like asterisks. That's the harsh truth. But I think people in programs that are lower ranked or what have you are better off knowing this and internalizing it. Fight on knowing the stakes! And remember: worst case, you can go to law school. No tragedy.

Actually they had a very good reason for excluding liberal arts colleges. For statistical reasons I cannot explain, they needed to deal with schools that were both granting and hiring PhDs. This allowed them to weigh the data as a network data pool or some such fancy thing. They have the matrices and equations in the paper, etc. Also, honesty, are there like super-star schools that specialize in feeding liberal arts collleges? Do people really think that the school rankings would change THAT much? Also, everyone knows that Amherst is haunted by poltergeist so you would not want to teach there. And also, after Amherst's weird binge-drinking neo-socialist arson accident...etc...all I am saying is, Amherst has actually reported 8-9 cases of cannibalization of assistant professors. It's the tenure process thing. To make associate you must really digest the competition.

Got to Brown. Hands down. And work really hard. Look, you can use a Brown MA to transfer to another program if you in the end cannot locate a great advisor. Skip Texas, and take advantage of Brown's growth and location. Those are my thoughts.

Never mind: here is the article in PDF http://www.gov.harvard.edu/student/chin ... _paper.pdf

Can you post, or link to, these placement rankings (at Chingos?)? Also, Ammar I am actually less dour than you. I do not think people at top 15 schools usually truly "deserve" to be there. I don't wish to make any such generalization I find it unhelpful. I was not talking about justice but about facts, and the fact is getting tenure track positions is a blood sport. But still, excuse me for saying so, but I love to learn that's the main motive in all this, and the shrewd prudent pondering is really just out of fear that long term, tenure is the best way to keep on truckin and keep on learning -- but that it's so tough to get (heck, it's a job for life).

I think Harvard is tops for China and Japan.

Brown is a small department and is currently in the process of rebuilding, with special emphasis on international relations and policy studies (this would include some American politics). Brown also now has the Program in Political Theory, which is heavily focused on its post-doctoral program. I think frankly Brown's placement is so-so to OK, at best. I think it may improve alot in the next 5 years. It still carries some weight that it is an ivy school, but it is not quite at the top of the pile in political science generally nor in any of the sub-fields I do not think. It would help to know what your other options are. For overall quality of life and quality of school Brown is very nice -- that is something to take into account as well. I also know of the director of the program in Political Theory, John Thomasi, is also is interesting in American political thought and some quantitative themes and topics in American politics (for example, Church-State relations, including the politics of school choice, welfare programs and Churches, other such themes). He is a very serious program builder, very friendly man, and I would really recommend you speak with him if you are going to visit, even if American politics not pol. theory is your thing. Finally I would add something else about Brown that may or may not interest you: Brown is getting an influx of big money from former donors who are conservative in bent and are unhappy with how extraordinary liberal Brown has become (in comparison even to other ivy leagues, I mean). This is not my personal opinion (personally I don't know that much about Brown relative to other top private schools, etc.) But this is the word on the street regarding Brown alumni big-time gifts. Some of that money is going to political science and international affairs projects and professorships, including to the policy center there. This does not mean that these new centers and people are all right wing or anything -- indeed some of them are probably more middle to right wing, others are economic or policy moderates from Brookings, etc. Overall, the money is being used to bring in some centrists -- that is my feeling. Anyway, if you're open minded, you can benefit from this because it simply means Brown will have more money and more breadth and hopefully a better reputation. Hope that helps.