FWIW

also, some might be interested in this: https://sites.google.com/site/honestgraduatenumbers/

<p>UNC, hands-down. IPE faculty rock there....Oatley and Mosley come to mind. They&#39;ve also got Baumgartner and Huber there for some extra flair. Plus, I think they&#39;re ranked higher overall than the other schools and a cool network analysis course is often taught there over the summers (that attracts lots of phd students from around the country). My caveat would be that if you&#39;re going to need to do fieldwork with gov&#39;t officials for your dissertation, go to Maryland (location rocks as it&#39;s close to DC). Just my .02. Best thing to do is look up placement histories and see where the IPE graduates have placed. Pick the univ with the best placement for your subfield...assuming it is a funded offer.</p> <div id="myEventWatcherDiv" style="display:none;"> </div>

Hi Yinche, A good sign is whether or not there are faculty members who seem genuinely interested in your work and have given you clear signals they'd be willing to work with you. Does the program assign you to a mentor? If not, have other students in the program (who are unfunded) found faculty to be responsive to them? You don't want to sign up for a gig where you'll be the step-child, so to speak. Talk to unfunded students at the dept. and get their take. I don't know anything about Penn State or Illinois, so I can't say much there. Maryland and Indiana are both homes for people who do quantitative IR (Maryland especially). Maryland is know for it's "Michigan Mafia" (i.e. lots of profs who were educated at Michigan with a specific type of focus to IR) and I have a friend at Indiana who laments the lack of qualitative IR training there. Also, Indiana has this weird divide between Olstrom's dept and the rest of the IR dept (they seem pretty divided from what I've heard). If you're going to work with Olstrom, make sure she's willing to work with you before you pick this dept. just for this reason.

Happy to have helped. Good luck all!!!

Hmm. So I am no expert in all these depts. so take my advice with a grain of salt. I have a friend who studied at Michigan and really enjoyed it (and it's got a good reputation). My advice would be to read up on some of Jim Morrow's work. If you buy what he's selling, so to speak, that would be a good school for you. The dept isn't known as a diverse place (methodologically, theoretically, or otherwise) so you do want to make sure the type of IPE (and IR) they do there is the type you're interested in. But it sounds (from your brief note) that you are. So I'd run that direction. I also have a friend at UCLA, though, who seems equally happy, though that dept is rife with landmines between faculty members who don't get along. I don't know much about Wisconsin or Rochester. My advice would be to feel this stuff out at the campus visit! Good luck! And forgot to address your second question---your dept's reputation matters because one day you need a job. This means other depts need to think you're an attractive hire, and one way they gauge this is if you've been determined "attractive" by others (i.e. competitive external grants). Publications are another way you to make yourself look pretty. But grants and publications (and the ranking of your dept) seem to matter quite a bit on the job market.

Hmm. I'm not much help at giving an amount here. Instead, I'd think of it in the following way: Assume when you graduate you will make roughly $50K per year for at least the first few years. Some may make more, others less, but I'd imagine that's a fair average. You have 10 years (correct?) to pay off student loans...so divide out the cost you incur by those years and see what the monthly payments would be (plus interest). Budgets will be tight for the first years as an AP, so you shouldn't be thinking you'll be able to afford costly monthly loan payments. More importantly, I think, is to consider what being unfunded means in terms of your place in the dept. If this is a place that funds a good number of people, I'd worry that unfunded students would be given less faculty time, zero or few opportunities to TA or gain teaching experience, etc. This will vary by dept, but you don't want to go somewhere where you're not starting out equal with your classmates. It will make you stressed and it doesn't bode well for how seriously the dept will take you as a student. Again, this varies by dept, but it's something to feel out at the admit day. Don't go anywhere that doesn't really *really* want you there and will take seriously their role mentoring you. Hmmm. That depends on what type of IPE you want to do. If you find yourself interested in OEP types of IPE than UCSD is a clear pick. If you're more of a critical theorist in terms of IPE, UCSD would make you very, very unhappy. The journal Review of International Political Economy published a cool symposium of papers on the state of IPE in IR in 2009. It had articles from a variety of persuasions (Lake, Wade, Keohane (I think), Finnemore, and others). I'd check it out and see what style you prefer and look for where those scholars are. If nothing else, I found this to be a good review for comps down the line . But again, take seriously the different *types* of IPE in IR. A scholar named Thomas Oatley wrote a great piece "Reductionist Gamble" in IO with some fresh insights for IPE (he's at UNC Chapel Hill, I think). If you're interested in niche fields in IPE like intellectual property, then I'd steer you towards GW (Susan Sell is fantastic in this regard). Re: grants. If students get competitive grants this is a great signal that people OUTSIDE the dept think these students are doing competitive work and it sends a good signal that the dept helps students apply for these grants (writes good letters, reads draft applications, etc.). It also says something about the reputation of the dept to outsiders. This is important for you down the line.

Howdy, Years ago, I used The Grad Cafe to keep me sane through the long (LONG) application process and I thought perhaps I'd bounce back and see if I could provide any advice to people just starting out on the journey. This may not be useful at all, but I'll check back once a day or so for the next week if people do have questions. A bit about me: I'm currently ABD at a top-20 dept. with a major concentration in IR. I'm probably far less useful for theorists or Americanists, but I do work that crosses the border with comparative, so I may be able to help there too. A few pieces of advice I wish I'd had: 1. CHECK OUT THE PLACEMENT HISTORIES of the places you're considering. Now that I'm nearing the end of my grad student career this is becoming quite concerning to me. Some top-20's have better histories than others, and amazingly, some not-top-20s have better histories than top-20s. Depts should list this on their website (recent placements) and you should ABSOLUTELY ask about this on admit days. Beware of "token placements." All depts will have one or two students who have broken through the glass ceiling...and they will certainly tell you about them. Ask for the % of students that get tenure-track jobs their first year of being on the market. Ask for the negative cases (how many people on the market this year have not gotten an academic tenure track job?). These are hard questions for the dept, but important questions for you to ask. Also, ask about competitive grants (how many students in a given year get NSF, USIP, or Fulbright awards?) If students only rarely get these, that's a red flag. 2. Make sure the POI you are considering isn't an ass. After your first two years your life in these programs is contingent on the whims/graces/moods of your committee. Sure, you should look for substantive fit, but you also need to gauge general personality traits. Are they at least a bit socially adept? I've been very lucky in this regard, but I have friends who have not been... 3. Don't ever shoot yourself in the foot. You do this by being labeled early on in the program as arrogant. Don't upset the faculty (social capital is what gets you grants and good letters of rec down the line) and don't upset your fellow students. Learn to control your pride. 4. Ask about faculty-student co-authorship. Some programs don't do this and that hurts the ability of their grad students to get good publications on their CVs before they go on the market. Some depts do this as a rule, and that's good for you. Ask about co-authorships in each of the subfields. Americanists tend to co-author a lot more, as they work on quant articles that are conducive to these things. Some comparativists and IR scholars dont. Ask about this. 5. Get a good, collegial vibe from the dept you pick. You don't want to spend the next 6 years in the middle of a minefield. Make sure it's a friendly place. 6. DO NOT GO if you don't get funding (or have a really really really good chance of getting it in year 2). You can't sustain debt for this type of a degree. Reapply. I didn't get into ANY funded PhD programs in my first go-round (only consolation unfunded MAs). The next time, I focused a LOT more on the GREs, bumped my score 200 pts, and got into a handful of great depts. It sucks to have to go through this process again (I KNOW) but it isn't the end of the world. Of course, there is all the standard advice too (look at rankings, faculty "fit", etc. ) but this other stuff tends to fall through the cracks. And good luck!!!!