Canadianpolsci

Sure you are right it varies. But a very large number of PhD don't get jobs and leave academia for the professional world. I think that, and not the rank of the school for those who do get jobs, is crucial. And it is a stark problem.

You know, I am actually going to disagree with this. I get your point, but I think that no matter how passionate you are about sub-field X, it is never clear, professionally and personally, what will happen down the line. So I think that hedging one's bets sometimes and thinking about the overall school, including it's overall reputation, is legitimate.

How do I know you are not Michael Sandel himself, "AllFiredUp"? If you are: I would be reasonable fired up as well.

Another comment about rankings: because people (including myself) do like looking at lists, numbers, etc., rankings are popular. But they are not like ranking of computer monitors, for at least one simple reason: you cannot just buy the monitor you like. They are also not like law school rankings as they cannot be easily tied to earnings, etc. In short, graduate education is not easily quantifiable. The single most important element of the rankings is obviously tiers. In each sub-field there are clearly a top-top-tier, a top-tier, and everything else. Frankly, sorry to say, job placement from "everything else" -- below top 15, aprox. -- is not good. So you are training to get a PhD, that is, to teach, but you will not likely get to do what you are trained for -- at least, not at a very attractive place. At this stage in the admissions cycle is ANYONE using rankings, detailed rankings, to determine their choices? When you can review professors in a program, placement (including by subfield), funding, and last but not least, whether you actually GOT IN, what are these rankings good for? I suppose the only thing they are good for is convincing you that a school you like is just ranked TOO LOW to make it reasonable to choose it over better known schools. Obviously it is not the other way around. No one is finding on the rankings: 'Oh wow, Michigan doesn't suck! And hey, Yale is top ten!' No, rankings are cheering us up, or reminding us of what we likely already know.

BA U of Toronto. MA Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Political Theory specialist. UGPA 3.87 MA-GPA 3.99 GRE v700 q710 writ6.0 a number of awards. one publication in a specialized journal. Accepts at: Harvard, Duke, Georgetown Rejected by: Princeton, Columbia, Yale, WUSTL Waiting on: Committee on Social Thought (U of Chicago)

Anyone here in pol. theory apply to Social Thought at Chicago?

The Harvard placement record looked solid to me. I think you should focus on one or two professors you can see supervising you. That, I think, is the key.

You have to have an MA from SAIS already. There is no direct entry. If you are asking, I doubt you are attending.

Does anyone have the US News listing of top schools for POL. THEORY? Could they post it? Online I can only view the top 4.

Yes, thanks, you are right on all counts. The rejection post is someone who didn't hear anything then -- as you said. But I would still say wait list decisions may be pending.

I find something rather stupid in these political science rankings, as a political theorist. The stupidity is they are not done by subfield. Graduate training is mostly in one or perhaps two related subfields, as are jobs one applies, generally speaking. Take political theory: there is no way Princeton is not in the top five, in terms of general opinion. In fact I'd say that basically Princeton and Harvard are considered the top for theory, and Chicago close behind. Duke is very strong but it is still (fairly or unfairly) not recognized as top 3 in pol. theory, or even top 5. Then, even in political theory, there are whole departments with almost no one doing the history of political thought. Take IR: Columbia is either #1 or at least in the top 3. Rochester does quantitative research almost exclusively. What is the point of ranking it along with all the rest? Then there is selectivity: Harvard and Princeton are simply the toughest, percentage wise. Yale and a few others comes close after with all about the same acceptance rates - 8-10%. In sum: the rankings of the department as a whole are the least useful for political theorists. And in IR, for instance, I think that IR people and IR profs know that, for example, Columbia is very close to the very top.

It seems, though we can't confirm for sure, that those admitted to Princeton received emails. We know others received emails stating a)rejected b)wait listed. I have not heard anything. I presume I was rejected. But I still have to say: isn't it odd that they emailed only SOME of the rejects so far? Does anyone else find that odd? Did the people who got personal rejections make it to the last cut or something? I am now going to say something that may give false hope to many people: I think that perhaps in a couple subfields (I know they split up decisions by subfield) there may be wait list decisions pending. Anyway.

So this means, if I have not got a "heads up via email" I was not accepted? BY THE WAY: DO THE SCHOOLS KNOW ABOUT THESE FORUMS? MAYBE THEY CAN STOP SENDING OUT REJECT LETTERS 3 WEEKS AFTER WE KNOW. COME ON IVY LEAGUES, GET WITH THE NEW TECHNOLOGY!

I am so eternally hurt. Sure I was admitted to Harvard Government. But I have a thin skin, and having typos in a posting about Princeton hurts so bad. So bad. Its horrriiiibuble. I mean, horrid, but horrid as in the way I just spelt that. Or is it spelled? Meanwhile I think I got waitlisted at Princeton. That is my feeling.

Well there are accepts at Princeton and I have not got one. But I cannot conclude I was rejected. I think we have to wait. I spoke personally Thursday morning with the Administrator of Graduate Studies and she said "early next week." I think I was probably rejected as I find it hard to believe they would draft an email to any student saying they got in, and not to ALL students who got in. Oh well. Maybe I am wait listed. I'll have to wait and see if I am given the option to wait and see what will be.

woops

I just spoke with the Graduate Studies Coordinator on the phone. She said that the final decisions are being made at the moment, and that decisions will be sent next week. She said she thinks it will be early next week.

Further update: decisions for all funded spots at Georgetown have officially been made.

Here are the Georgetown admissions stats from last year, to illustrate what I described just now: http://www1.georgetown.edu/departments/ ... rocedures/

Update on Georgetown: I checked again with an inside source. Those offered funded spots in political theory were notified already. All decisions concerning offers WITH funding (12-14, or 2-3 per sub-field), have been made; whether the individual professor who read applications in each subfield has emailed their picks is unknown, with the exception of the reader of theory applicants, who did email. Regarding Georgetown funding: there are only 12 or so funded offers made with money from the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences. But some other funding is also available which is administered by individual professors, who use grant money they have. Expect to hear very soon if you got in with funding. If you don't hear by the end of week, its not likely you got a funded spot.

I guess you are right we have to wait and see.

Political Science. Funding packages received at 3 top ten schools. Range: 21k-26k, for 5 years. Including summer stipends, and with 2-3 years of TAing included.

According to my friend whom I spoke with, this is exactly correct. The top 10-12 picks across sub-fields got emails. The rest, a sort of rolling pseudo-wait list thing, is going to start coming in waves soon.

The Georgetown admission is real. I know the person.

I can explain why this board is popular TO ME. I think these reasons are generally correct: -most or all schools switched to email notification of admitted people. That is new; even 3 years ago there was more snail mail. -schools have this habit of emailing admits, and then sending letters to rejects 2-3 weeks later. So this blog saves people from the extra 2-3 week idiotic wait to hear the inevitable. This was true for some schools. -the board is professionally done and there are hundreds of people on it -I was (likely) rejected at Columbia. How do I know? This board. -No matter who you are, waiting is no fun. I pass the time looking on this forum. -I found a lot of the advice given on this forum was so-so, but some was good. So I tried to give my own. For instance, about the GRE, or whether to call schools or not. Again, it was just to pass the time.