Choosing a school

[audre.bored]

I know we are still in the middle of receiving admission decisions, but what factors are you guys using to whittle down your choices?  Is rank the end all, be all for you? Are you weighing  funding offers pretty heavily?  I've seen similar threads, but I'd like to get the views of people who share my academic field.

[toad1]

8 minutes ago, audre.bored said:

I know we are still in the middle of receiving admission decisions, but what factors are you guys using to whittle down your choices?  Is rank the end all, be all for you? Are you weighing  funding offers pretty heavily?  I've seen similar threads, but I'd like to get the views of people who share my academic field.

"Will I succeed here?" is a question I will keep in mind on my visits. This includes rank/placement, funding, geographic preferences, but also takes into account more abstract qualities like happiness and how well your personality fits into the university's culture. I heard over and over again throughout the application stage that universities take a "holistic" approach to admissions decisions -- I think we should similarly take a holistic approach to our decisions as well.

[guest56436]

1) Placement

2) Ranking

3) Potential adviser, and their personal placement

4) Funding (this includes how much service/TAing you have to do and availability of internal grants, not just dollar amount)

Nothing else really matters in my opinion. 

[toad1]

4 minutes ago, Comparativist said:

1) Placement

2) Ranking

3) Potential adviser, and their personal placement

4) Funding (this includes how much service/TAing you have to do and availability of internal grants, not just dollar amount)

Nothing else really matters in my opinion. 

That could be an appropriate approach with your personality, as maybe you're someone that could "bite the bullet" and deal with being in an incompatible environment for 6+ years, but I am absolutely certain there are people out there that need to very seriously consider abstract factors as well.

Tons of students drop out of graduate school before finishing. A while back my undergrad advisor sent me a Chronicle of Higher Ed article that stated approx. fifty percent of doctoral students drop out before finishing. I'm not sure what the current number is today, but I guarantee it's more than we'd like to think. If you don't take into account these abstract factors, I'd posit that your chances of being among those that drop out are drastically higher.

[hs2011]

15 minutes ago, toad1 said:

That could be an appropriate approach with your personality, as maybe you're someone that could "bite the bullet" and deal with being in an incompatible environment for 6+ years, but I am absolutely certain there are people out there that need to very seriously consider abstract factors as well.

Tons of students drop out of graduate school before finishing. A while back my undergrad advisor sent me a Chronicle of Higher Ed article that stated approx. fifty percent of doctoral students drop out before finishing. I'm not sure what the current number is today, but I guarantee it's more than we'd like to think. If you don't take into account these abstract factors, I'd posit that your chances of being among those that drop out are drastically higher.

Yep - this is what's been weighing on me the most, but also why I'm really looking forward to visits.  I've moved to totally new places for grad school and for jobs before and being happy where you are and with the people you're around/culture you're in is HUGELY important to success.  At least it is for me.  I do tend to be able to adapt well to new environments, but I know I can put up with a lot more frustrating late nights working if I'm happy and comfortable.

Obviously all of the other factors are very important, and probably more so, but if you're comparing similar programs, it's something to really consider in the decision.

Edited February 16, 2018 by hs2011

[guest56436]

 

12 minutes ago, hs2011 said:

Yep - this is what's been weighing on me the most, but also why I'm really looking forward to visits.  I've moved to totally new places for grad school and for jobs before and being happy where you are and with the people you're around/culture you're in is HUGELY important to success.  At least it is for me.  I do tend to be able to adapt well to new environments, but I know I can put up with a lot more frustrating late nights working if I'm happy and comfortable.

 

25 minutes ago, toad1 said:

That could be an appropriate approach with your personality, as maybe you're someone that could "bite the bullet" and deal with being in an incompatible environment for 6+ years, but I am absolutely certain there are people out there that need to very seriously consider abstract factors as well.

Tons of students drop out of graduate school before finishing. A while back my undergrad advisor sent me a Chronicle of Higher Ed article that stated approx. fifty percent of doctoral students drop out before finishing. I'm not sure what the current number is today, but I guarantee it's more than we'd like to think. If you don't take into account these abstract factors, I'd posit that your chances of being among those that drop out are drastically higher.

There's plenty of templates, you have to decide for yourself which one you want to use. It's a personal decision. However, I will tell you why I think my template is superior:

These things are completely unpredictable and unknown.

- You don't really know what a department's culture is like until you are in the program. All programs put on a 'show' during their admission events. Every department will tell you the environment is cordial.

- Your environment/happiness of course can be based on location, friends, ect. But you don't know who you are going to meet. You don't know which students are going to accept the offers. You don't know which friends you are going to meet when you get there. You don't know which students you are going to get along with, and which ones you are not.

- Location is highly dependent on your personal experience. This is why travelers have vastly different opinions of certain places they go to, because they are largely basing their opinion on how much did they enjoy their experience there. One could say, sure, I would never want to live in South Bend for 6 years, but most location decisions are usually not that cut and dry. 

What is known in the process? Ranking, funding, professors (kind of), and placement. Those also are the factors that are going to get you a job. 

So yes, there is no wrong template, but making significant decisions on unknown factors might not be the best idea. But again, it's up to you. 

[StrengthandHonor]

1 hour ago, toad1 said:

"Will I succeed here?" is a question I will keep in mind on my visits. 

 

1 hour ago, Comparativist said:

1) Placement

2) Ranking

3) Potential adviser, and their personal placement

4) Funding (this includes how much service/TAing you have to do and availability of internal grants, not just dollar amount)

Nothing else really matters in my opinion. 

These are quite correct. Your "Success" (getting a job in academia) will be a function of placement, program reputation, your advisor quality and placement, your dissertation quality and publications, your teaching experience, and intangibles.

Your dissertation quality and publications and your intangibles are a function of both program quality and personal happiness. 


Being in a well-ranked department with good faculty members will likely put you in the best position to succeed on the job market. Ranking is, more or less, a heuristic for program quality. And yes, I am aware that the rankings measure perception--but you will receive a job based on the perception of your education and dissertation quality, not on its actual quality. I am quite sure that there are poorly ranked programs where you can receive an equal education with higher ranked programs, but none of that will matter on the job market if everyone thinks your training was inferior. 

@Comparativist is correct in saying that you should emphasize measurables in this decision. You will not get very good picture of life in a city or a department during your visitation weekend. That being said, visitation weekend is a good opportunity to look for obvious red flags. One school I considered strongly (very well-ranked in my subfield) had graduate students who told me they were completely miserable and explicitly told me to accept other offers. Another school, it was obvious that I could not live even moderately comfortably on their stipend offer in the city (a judgment corroborated by graduate students). 

There are  some things you can rule out. If you suffer from terrible Seasonal Affective Disorder, you probably want to think about that before you go live in Chicago for 5-7 years. It's hard for program rank to overcome being unproductive for 3 months of the year. 




 

[toad1]

20 minutes ago, StrengthandHonor said:

There are  some things you can rule out. If you suffer from terrible Seasonal Affective Disorder, you probably want to think about that before you go live in Chicago for 5-7 years. It's hard for program rank to overcome being unproductive for 3 months of the year. 

Another thing I could add to this is for those of you with significant others. If you're fortunate to have one that is willing to relocate for you, the least you can do is include them in on the decision process and gain an awareness of the consequences the decision will have on their life. If you were accepted to two comparable schools, one in a big city where finding new work would be relatively easy and the other in an obscure town in the middle of nowhere, that's something to take into account for their sake. Having a supportive significant other is going to be important to your success and you don't need "rank absolutism" to instigate an underlying sense of resentment in the relationship.

I don't really disagree with anything @Comparativist said, other than the "nothing else really matters" bit.

[hs2011]

11 minutes ago, toad1 said:

I don't really disagree with anything @Comparativist said, other than the "nothing else really matters" bit.

Same here.  Especially if you have multiple schools with very similar rankings/stats and are similar on paper.  If you have one clear program that out-ranks the others in all/most areas, there you go. 

[ilyosha]

On 2/16/2018 at 1:40 PM, StrengthandHonor said:

Your "Success" (getting a job in academia) will be a function of placement, program reputation, your advisor quality and placement, your dissertation quality and publications, your teaching experience, and intangibles.

Your dissertation quality and publications and your intangibles are a function of both program quality and personal happiness. 

Being in a well-ranked department with good faculty members will likely put you in the best position to succeed on the job market. Ranking is, more or less, a heuristic for program quality. And yes, I am aware that the rankings measure perception--but you will receive a job based on the perception of your education and dissertation quality, not on its actual quality. I am quite sure that there are poorly ranked programs where you can receive an equal education with higher ranked programs, but none of that will matter on the job market if everyone thinks your training was inferior.

So I am always curious exactly how this type of reasoning is supposed to apply in concrete cases. What is one supposed to make of (a) great subfield faculties in otherwise less well-ranked departments; (b) a strong level of confidence in your own abilities; (c) the fact that very prestigious departments function through the rigorous enforcement of certain norms and practices which can honestly be quite draining to anyone without a very particular type of attitude/character, and which serve little significant intellectual purpose. (I am totally committed to this latter proposition but you might as well just ignore it if you disagree.)

I'll just take the three cases I know best: Notre Dame, Brown, Johns Hopkins in political theory.

I know that there are some people on here who have been accepted to e.g. Brown and Michigan for theory. Would that person simply be incorrect to choose Brown over Michigan? Let's say (hypothetically) that person's biggest intellectual influence is Bonnie Honig and s/he really wants to go work with her; s/he has confidence that s/he is hard-working, driven and intelligent so can work on publishing consistently as a grad student even if that means overcoming whatever potential gap there may be in training or rigor; and perhaps Providence is a much better move because his/her SO will be significantly more comfortable in Providence.

What I guess I am asking is: Would a PhD from Brown perhaps lead to people being condescending to him/her, regardless of the merits of his/her individual candidacy? Or in even worse cases, even after getting a TT job? If so, would it ever be possible to return into the mainstream academic fold? Or would it be feasible to get good jobs in top universities in Canada, UK, Australia, etc?

Kinda long, so thanks to anyone who reads this! 

 

Edited February 17, 2018 by ilyosha

[swampyankee]

1 hour ago, ilyosha said:

(c) the fact that very prestigious departments function through the rigorous enforcement of certain norms and practices which can honestly be quite draining to anyone without a very particular type of attitude/character, and which serve little significant intellectual purpose. (I am totally committed to this latter proposition but you might as well just ignore it if you disagree.)

I know it's not your main point, but I definitely feel this. I have two offers from good public programs, and with each rejection I get from an elite private, a little piece of me smiles. I acknowledge the benefits that an elite program confers, but feel like I'd do better and be happier in a lower-pressure environment.

[StrengthandHonor]

On 2/17/2018 at 4:42 PM, ilyosha said:

What is one supposed to make of (a) great subfield faculties in otherwise less well-ranked departments; (b) a strong level of confidence in your own abilities; (c) the fact that very prestigious departments function through the rigorous enforcement of certain norms and practices which can honestly be quite draining to anyone without a very particular type of attitude/character, and which serve little significant intellectual purpose. (I am totally committed to this latter proposition but you might as well just ignore it if you disagree.)

I'll just take the three cases I know best: Notre Dame, Brown, Johns Hopkins in political theory.

 

A couple of thoughts here, in a different order:

(c) I am sympathetic, and it's true that some departmental cultures might not be productive for you. That's a decision and a call you have to make. 

(b) I think confidence has little to do with outcomes. A confident, talented scholar will have a better outcome from  Michigan than from Wayne State. Sure, departmental differences, living situation, etc. makes a difference, but those differences (I believe) are ones that help you decide between UNC and Wisconsin, or between Yale and Princeton. It's asking too much of "intangibles" to ask them to overcome large differences in program quality. 

(a) As a theorist, I am particularly sensitive to this point. My solution is to, broadly, just place those schools which have strong theory departments alongside other top schools--that is, if someone were to ask me (as a theorist) what the top 15 schools were, I'd list Northwestern and John Hopkins and Notre Dame, alongside the top 10-12 overall programs. Notre Dame's excellence in the theory subfield makes it a top program for theorists. Obviously, there's a balance between overall program strength and strength in subfield. 

I do want to make several additional points, however. I pointed out earlier that we  will all be hired (or not hired) on the basis of perception. Search committees will use heuristics to make their job easier in a high noise low signal environment. Among other heuristics, search committees will think about the overall reputation of your program, of whether they've heard of your work, of the reputation of your advisor and references, etc.--just as is the case in graduate school admissions. It's not fair. In applying to graduate school (and in applying for jobs), you may very well have candidates of identical quality from vastly different backgrounds. But the sad (yet understandable) truth is that in applying to grad school you'll have a better shot with LORs from well-known scholars and a degree from a top institution than a degree from a no-name place and unrecognizable LOR writers. The same is true in getting a job. 

Now, where does this come home? As a theorist currently in graduate school, I have to encourage my fellow theorists--nay, I beseech you!--think about the job market. I began regularly cruising the Chronicle's job postings and those on Higher Ed Jobs before I began graduate school. You'll notice, there are almost no positions out there that are hiring just political theorists. That is to say, you will be unlikely to get a job simply based on being a damn good political theorist. Of the many universities and colleges in the U.S., a relatively small proportion of them can support people who just do political theory. Many/most of the jobs require or state preference for theorists who can also teach Con Law, Methods, American Politics, etc. You will probably be hired as a swiss army knife, not as a full-time political theorist. If you are certain that you are in the top 5-10 political theory Ph.D. students in your year, perhaps you will be fine--but otherwise, you need to seek broad training in a variety of areas--because that's what the jobs require. 

One last word on perception and the job market: It is unlikely that your search committee will have more than 1 or 2 political theorists on it. It's quite likely, at many institutions, that if they're hiring a political theorist it's because their only one is retiring. Much more likely, your search committee will have Americanists and comparativists. Most people in our discipline (non-theorists) have little ability to accurately judge the quality of political theory work. Thus, the reliance on heuristics becomes even more pronounced. Also, many in our discipline don't know the names of top political theorists (or they might know just a handful of the biggest names). So to an even greater degree, decisions will not be made entirely on the basis of merit or real quality, but on perceived quality of your training, corroborated by LORs and publications. 

I have spoken to a number of well-known, tenured political theorists at top schools, and the near unanimous advice I've received follows these lines:
1. go to a school where you can produce AND PUBLISH quality research in your subfield
2. go to a school where you can learn and work outside of political theory (in other words, probably don't go somewhere with a solid theory program and low quality overall program).
3. If you have any ability or inclination, take methods  courses so you can contribute to quantitative research agendas, teach methods, and maybe coauthor (even if you don't do quant work on your own). 
4. Cultivate good relationships with well known figures. 
5. Practice telling non political theorists why your work is important. 


Sorry for the novel, and I hope it helps. It's  a killer decision--last year, I was choosing between theory boutique programs and some broader programs. There isn't any one-size-fits-all approach. I'm just trying to offer some things to think about. 


 

[DialecticalBiologist]

1) Overall Program Ranking

2) Subfield Ranking

3) Funding opportunities pre and post graduation

4) Flora/Fauna of local ecosystem

5) Relative, not absolute, age of faculty

6) ((Sum of Ranking of PhD Programs Attended by Faculty)/Total Number of Faculty)*2) + OR - number of delis (depending on the distribution)

7) Is there a Trader Joes? If yes, how big is the hot bar?

8) Will they pay me via Western Union? If not, will they deposit to my offshore bank account? (this money will be automatically re-routed to an on-shore bank account, so I'm not concerned about how this looks)

9) Summer funding? Competitive funding is preferred 

10) Teaching opportunities at local community college? Local preschools?

11) Is there a climate of success? Do they call themselves a family? Can I call my advisor dad?

Edited February 20, 2018 by DialecticalBiologist
added subfield ranking

[StrengthandHonor]

31 minutes ago, DialecticalBiologist said:

1) Overall Program Ranking

2) Subfield Ranking

3) Funding opportunities pre and post graduation

4) Flora/Fauna of local ecosystem

5) Relative, not absolute, age of faculty

6) ((Sum of Ranking of PhD Programs Attended by Faculty)/Total Number of Faculty)*2) + OR - number of delis (depending on the distribution)

7) Is there a Trader Joes? If yes, how big is the hot bar?

8) Will they pay me via Western Union? If not, will they deposit to my offshore bank account? (this money will be automatically re-routed to an on-shore bank account, so I'm not concerned about how this looks)

9) Summer funding? Competitive funding is preferred 

10) Teaching opportunities at local community college? Local preschools?

11) Is there a climate of success? Do they call themselves a family? Can I call my advisor dad?

12) Is there free coffee? 

[Asaid]

Free coffee and nice office space are very important

[megabee]

1 hour ago, DialecticalBiologist said:

Can I call my advisor dad?

If you're brave enough, you can call anyone dad. 

[Dreamer109]

Mine was pretty involved. Thanks to the APSA, I found a list of every Ph. D. granting political science program in the country plus one or two they left off that I found thanks to US News and my professors.

I started off easy, getting rid of colleges I didn't want to attend for various reasons or ones I KNEW I was going to apply to. For instance, I was always going to apply to the Fletcher School and I would NEVER want to live in Arizona just because of the dry heat. Easy in, easy out. Some, I just did not want to live there for 6 years and even if the school was a decent fit, I know it would negatively effect my performance if I was in a less than ideal location. Some were too quantitative heavy. I'm cool with stats and, of course, use them in my research. But when campuses like Rutgers and Rochester boast their reputation on quantitative and math based research, I knew that wouldn't be a good place for me. I found a number of schools I knew would be good for me either through my own research or from faculty/cohort recommendations. I ended up with a short list of about 40.

After that I emailed a few professors asking if I would be a good fit for the school. Most were happy to tell me I would. Other were quick to tell me it wouldn't be a good idea. Duke, for instance, told me that the professors there and I didn't share interest. Yale also was quick to pass me back to Tufts/Fletcher School.

After a while I had a list of about 20. After that it was being pragmatic. I wanted a small list of schools that were my top schools and prestigious, a number of strong contenders, and two safety schools if I got rejected from the other eight. 

Edited February 20, 2018 by Dreamer109

[toad1]

3 hours ago, DialecticalBiologist said:

7) Is there a Trader Joes? If yes, how big is the hot bar?

Seconded

[unknow]

0 (precondition): Is the stipend livable? (no loans)

1. ranking

2. stipend (amount)

3. TA/not TA

4. Cost of Living

5. Do I want to live there?  (ie -- LA [culture] over Atlanta [much less])

6. Friends / Support System (where are my family and friends right now)

Right now, I have a school that wins on 0 and 2-6 that is a solid top 20 vs a school that wins on #1 that is a solid top 10.  I'm leaning towards the top 20.  Loans are hard to pay off on a professor's salary.

Edited February 20, 2018 by mccp77

[Frosty_McGee]

On ‎2‎/‎19‎/‎2018 at 6:20 PM, Dreamer109 said:

Mine was pretty involved. Thanks to the APSA, I found a list of every Ph. D. granting political science program in the country plus one or two they left off that I found thanks to US News and my professors.

I started off easy, getting rid of colleges I didn't want to attend for various reasons or ones I KNEW I was going to apply to. For instance, I was always going to apply to the Fletcher School and I would NEVER want to live in Arizona just because of the dry heat. Easy in, easy out. Some, I just did not want to live there for 6 years and even if the school was a decent fit, I know it would negatively effect my performance if I was in a less than ideal location. Some were too quantitative heavy. I'm cool with stats and, of course, use them in my research. But when campuses like Rutgers and Rochester boast their reputation on quantitative and math based research, I knew that wouldn't be a good place for me. I found a number of schools I knew would be good for me either through my own research or from faculty/cohort recommendations. I ended up with a short list of about 40.

After that I emailed a few professors asking if I would be a good fit for the school. Most were happy to tell me I would. Other were quick to tell me it wouldn't be a good idea. Duke, for instance, told me that the professors there and I didn't share interest. Yale also was quick to pass me back to Tufts/Fletcher School.

After a while I had a list of about 20. After that it was being pragmatic. I wanted a small list of schools that were my top schools and prestigious, a number of strong contenders, and two safety schools if I got rejected from the other eight. 

You just cold emailed professors at the school? how did you word your questions pertaining to "If I would be a good fit"?

[Dreamer109]

Some yes. I'm not known for my subtle touch to a fault. Others I had ins and recommendations. My letter writers helped get me in contact for others. Essentially, I cold emailed if I didn't have any other options and couldn't get the info somewhere else. Worked surprisingly well for some. Not so well for others.

[Stdrauss]

There are huge variations across faculty members in terms of their ability to place their students (even within the same department). This is extremely important. Look into people's CVs and see their placement records and ask them about their recent students during your visits.