Michigan vs. Ohio State

[meredith27]

Hello,

 

Does anyone know if Michigan offers better grad student packages than OSU?  Also, why is Michigan higher ranked?

[pscwpv]

Michigan is a top 5 program, OSU is outside the top 10 but still a good place to end up, depending on what you want. Equally, unlike undergrad, the difference between a top 5 and a 15th ranked program is massive in terms of your chances of getting a TT job, top fellowships, external funding, etc. If you have the choice between OSU and Michigan, I would say there is essentially no reason to choose OSU. This year they claim to have admitted 4% of 400 applicants. It's known for having exceptional academics, training, and placement records. 

Funding wise, Michigan almost certainly offers more, though I'm sure there are people on this board who have been admitted to both who can tell you exactly what the difference is.

Michigan is historically a top program, part of the 'CHYMPS' acronym of top schools: Cal, Harvard, Yale, Michigan, Princeton, Stanford. This is by no means a definitive or even that useful of a list of top programs -- for instance, many people see Yale as struggling after many top academics left -- but it is a good general guide to the most prestigious programs. For instance, this blog has a network map of where the top 400 cited political scientists went to grad school and the edges represent where they then went to teach: https://alexandreafonso.me/2019/02/11/academic-hierarchies-in-us-political-science/

 

Edited February 13, 2019 by pscwpv

[oats]

Michigan is generally considered to be one of the strongest schools from a methods standpoint. OSU is no slouch in this department either. I would say that the above poster is not correct in saying there's no reason to go to OSU if you can go to Michigan. It largely depends on what your area of expertise is. If you're just generally interested in a certain subfield, then michigan is probably a safer bet.

If you have more specific interests then it's a different story. For example, you're interested in a specific methodological approach my impression is that Michigan has a better reputation in Bayesian methods while OSU has more robust computational methods.

The best advice I can give you is this though: Don't take advice on which school to attend from applicants. They are on the outside looking in and really do not have a very informed perspective to offer. Start talking to people in the discipline, specifically in your field.

[upsy]

2 hours ago, pscwpv said:

Michigan is a top 5 program, OSU is outside the top 10 but still a good place to end up, depending on what you want. Equally, unlike undergrad, the difference between a top 5 and a 15th ranked program is massive in terms of your chances of getting a TT job, top fellowships, external funding, etc. If you have the choice between OSU and Michigan, I would say there is essentially no reason to choose OSU. This year they claim to have admitted 4% of 400 applicants. It's known for having exceptional academics, training, and placement records. 

Funding wise, Michigan almost certainly offers more, though I'm sure there are people on this board who have been admitted to both who can tell you exactly what the difference is.

Michigan is historically a top program, part of the 'CHYMPS' acronym of top schools: Cal, Harvard, Yale, Michigan, Princeton, Stanford. This is by no means a definitive or even that useful of a list of top programs -- for instance, many people see Yale as struggling after many top academics left -- but it is a good general guide to the most prestigious programs. For instance, this blog has a network map of where the top 400 cited political scientists went to grad school and the edges represent where they then went to teach: https://alexandreafonso.me/2019/02/11/academic-hierarchies-in-us-political-science/

 

Thanks so much for sharing the blog post! It and the linked article are great. I'd seen similar studies but nothing anywhere near this recent.

 

Minor point: Is the CHYMPS acronym used in polisci grad apps? I'm familiar with it from undergrad apps, but there, the M is usually MIT and the C is usually Columbia (I've seen Caltech mentioned as well). Given polisci grad rankings, M=Michigan and C=Cal make more sense, though MIT and Columbia are definitely up there. Maybe it's just always a bit of an ambiguous term.

[Nickleby]

6 minutes ago, upsy said:

Thanks so much for sharing the blog post! It and the linked article are great. I'd seen similar studies but nothing anywhere near this recent.

 

Minor point: Is the CHYMPS acronym used in polisci grad apps? I'm familiar with it from undergrad apps, but there, the M is usually MIT and the C is usually Columbia (I've seen Caltech mentioned as well). Given polisci grad rankings, M=Michigan and C=Cal make more sense, though MIT and Columbia are definitely up there. Maybe it's just always a bit of an ambiguous term.

I'm pretty sure most people interpret it as C=Cal - for now - which I gathered just from noting answers to others' questions. That said, I don't know how long the acronym has been around (in the grad polisci setting), but there are plenty of years in the not-too-distant past when Columbia (more recent) and Chicago (less recent, but not so distant) each rivaled or outranked Cal in many if not all subfields. As for the undergrad meaning, it sure wouldn't make any sense if M=Michigan or C=Cal, but would certainly make sense if C=either Columbia or Chicago, and M=MIT.

[CactiCactus]

4 hours ago, pscwpv said:

Michigan is a top 5 program, OSU is outside the top 10 but still a good place to end up, depending on what you want. Equally, unlike undergrad, the difference between a top 5 and a 15th ranked program is massive in terms of your chances of getting a TT job, top fellowships, external funding, etc. If you have the choice between OSU and Michigan, I would say there is essentially no reason to choose OSU. This year they claim to have admitted 4% of 400 applicants. It's known for having exceptional academics, training, and placement records. 

Funding wise, Michigan almost certainly offers more, though I'm sure there are people on this board who have been admitted to both who can tell you exactly what the difference is.

Michigan is historically a top program, part of the 'CHYMPS' acronym of top schools: Cal, Harvard, Yale, Michigan, Princeton, Stanford. This is by no means a definitive or even that useful of a list of top programs -- for instance, many people see Yale as struggling after many top academics left -- but it is a good general guide to the most prestigious programs. For instance, this blog has a network map of where the top 400 cited political scientists went to grad school and the edges represent where they then went to teach: https://alexandreafonso.me/2019/02/11/academic-hierarchies-in-us-political-science/

 

That map is very interesting! Curious if you (or anyone else) has any more high-level thoughts on the results of it. It seems like Chicago's bubble is very big compared to its USNWR these days, whereas a school like UCSD that's in the top 10 now is pretty small. Is that because Chicago historically was very strong and it's slightly less so today? Obviously still an excellent program.

Looking at the recent placement record of both schools, it seems like UCSD is doing a bit better with tenure-track positions (although Chicago does have a lot of prestigious post-docs). I guess I'm just wondering people's thoughts on UCSD vs. Chicago, as the chart got me thinking. Perhaps I should just make my own thread...?

[pscwpv]

34 minutes ago, CactiCactus said:

That map is very interesting! Curious if you (or anyone else) has any more high-level thoughts on the results of it. It seems like Chicago's bubble is very big compared to its USNWR these days, whereas a school like UCSD that's in the top 10 now is pretty small. Is that because Chicago historically was very strong and it's slightly less so today? Obviously still an excellent program.

Looking at the recent placement record of both schools, it seems like UCSD is doing a bit better with tenure-track positions (although Chicago does have a lot of prestigious post-docs). I guess I'm just wondering people's thoughts on UCSD vs. Chicago, as the chart got me thinking. Perhaps I should just make my own thread...?

Yes, so the chart is lagged. It's about the 400 most cited political scientists, many of whom will obviously have received their degrees decades ago. As such, Chicago is bigger than it should be while Stanford and UCSD are both under-represented. My feeling is that Chicago's system favors a long PhD (6-7 years) plus a post-doc before placing in TT jobs, while UCSD favors a shorter PhD (5-6 years) -- probably partially due to funding -- and prefers to place people straight into TT jobs. Regardless, UCSD has placed more people in TT jobs than Chicago has over the previous decade. Chicago struggled and lost loads of top academics, but I think is pretty universally considered to be on a strong upswing.

Still, neither of them, at the moment, seems to place many people at CHYMPS jobs. But that's also a symptom of the current market: wanna teach at HPS? better go to HPS and shine. Michigan/Yale/Cal are a bit more open but still mostly populated by people from CHYMPS with the occasional star from lower down. UCSD places very well, but like most places, its grads go to lower ranked schools to teach, while its faculty is overwhelmingly CHYMPS grads plus some older staff who went to Chicago/Columbia when they were stronger.  

To those above, in polisci, CHYMPS is certainly Cal and Michigan. MIT, Columbia and Chicago are all fantastic programs, but the traditional acronym doesn't include them.

[CactiCactus]

15 minutes ago, pscwpv said:

Yes, so the chart is lagged. It's about the 400 most cited political scientists, many of whom will obviously have received their degrees decades ago. As such, Chicago is bigger than it should be while Stanford and UCSD are both under-represented. My feeling is that Chicago's system favors a long PhD (6-7 years) plus a post-doc before placing in TT jobs, while UCSD favors a shorter PhD (5-6 years) -- probably partially due to funding -- and prefers to place people straight into TT jobs. Regardless, UCSD has placed more people in TT jobs than Chicago has over the previous decade. Chicago struggled and lost loads of top academics, but I think is pretty universally considered to be on a strong upswing.

Still, neither of them, at the moment, seems to place many people at CHYMPS jobs. But that's also a symptom of the current market: wanna teach at HPS? better go to HPS and shine. Michigan/Yale/Cal are a bit more open but still mostly populated by people from CHYMPS with the occasional star from lower down. UCSD places very well, but like most places, its grads go to lower ranked schools to teach, while its faculty is overwhelmingly CHYMPS grads plus some older staff who went to Chicago/Columbia when they were stronger.  

To those above, in polisci, CHYMPS is certainly Cal and Michigan. MIT, Columbia and Chicago are all fantastic programs, but the traditional acronym doesn't include them.

Thanks for your detailed response! Currently, my two best choices (in terms of rank) are UCSD and Chicago. It seems like a relative toss-up in a lot of ways from my perspective, but maybe I'm way off. Obviously very different climates, and the funding at Chicago is higher despite a lower cost of living, but I'm speaking more from a future prospects standpoint.

[Nickleby]

15 minutes ago, CactiCactus said:

Thanks for your detailed response! Currently, my two best choices (in terms of rank) are UCSD and Chicago. It seems like a relative toss-up in a lot of ways from my perspective, but maybe I'm way off. Obviously very different climates, and the funding at Chicago is higher despite a lower cost of living, but I'm speaking more from a future prospects standpoint.

Chicago has seen an extended slump, apparently (or as reported by many) partly/largely related to internal struggles between faculty that led to a lot of turnover. Also, for a stretch they had a chair who focused a lot on hiring theorists (or maybe more accurately "for some reason they were able to hire a lot of theorists for a period and were drained in other subfields") and they suffered in the area of keeping quant professors and attracting/grooming quant students. Well, we know which subfields the market has favored for some time now, so a natural consequence is that Chicago's placement has fallen in quality and quantity. I think pscwpv is probably correct that Chicago is on an upswing (at least trying to hire a lot of quants and non-theorists now), so I'd expect them to soon start placing better. One thing is fairly certain, with so much investment there, there's little threat they'll ever manage to fall out of the top 15, while this possibility is pretty real for a lot of the other schools that are sitting around 10-15. This is just one opinion on Chicago, of course, and I'm a degree removed. Regardless, great to be able to choose between two top schools, congratulations!

[sandmoon]

34 minutes ago, CactiCactus said:

Thanks for your detailed response! Currently, my two best choices (in terms of rank) are UCSD and Chicago. It seems like a relative toss-up in a lot of ways from my perspective, but maybe I'm way off. Obviously very different climates, and the funding at Chicago is higher despite a lower cost of living, but I'm speaking more from a future prospects standpoint.

Are you American or Comparative? Which is better probably depends on your region of interest too.

[CactiCactus]

19 minutes ago, Nickleby said:

Chicago has seen an extended slump, apparently (or as reported by many) partly/largely related to internal struggles between faculty that led to a lot of turnover. Also, for a stretch they had a chair who focused a lot on hiring theorists (or maybe more accurately "for some reason they were able to hire a lot of theorists for a period and were drained in other subfields") and they suffered in the area of keeping quant professors and attracting/grooming quant students. Well, we know which subfields the market has favored for some time now, so a natural consequence is that Chicago's placement has fallen in quality and quantity. I think pscwpv is probably correct that Chicago is on an upswing (at least trying to hire a lot of quants and non-theorists now), so I'd expect them to soon start placing better. One thing is fairly certain, with so much investment there, there's little threat they'll ever manage to fall out of the top 15, while this possibility is pretty real for a lot of the other schools that are sitting around 10-15. This is just one opinion on Chicago, of course, and I'm a degree removed. Regardless, great to be able to choose between two top schools, congratulations!

Thanks very much! I definitely feel very fortunate. That definitely makes sense re: Chicago, and it’s great context to have. Wondering if you have any insight on UCSD’s trajectory too? Not to push my luck :)

8 minutes ago, sandmoon said:

Are you American or Comparative? Which is better probably depends on your region of interest too.

I’m sort of at the crossroads of CP and IR, and Latin America is my primary region of interest, with some European stuff sprinkled in. I did see that USWNR has UCSD at #4 for IR, which is fantastic. 

[Nickleby]

Just now, CactiCactus said:

Thanks very much! I definitely feel very fortunate. That definitely makes sense re: Chicago, and it’s great context to have. Wondering if you have any insight on UCSD’s trajectory too? Not to push my luck

I’m sort of at the crossroads of CP and IR, and Latin America is my primary region of interest, with some European stuff sprinkled in. I did see that USWNR has UCSD at #4 for IR, which is fantastic. 

Unfortunately, no, I don't know much about UCSD (except that, if you go there, I might advise you to look for housing in Hillcrest or Ocean Beach or somewhere nearer to downtown, rather than in LaJolla, but that's personal preference ? )

[Nickleby]

Yikes, I just noticed concerning news from Hillcrest. Maybe wait a few days to Google it?. Great neighborhood though.

[Nickleby]

Also just noticed we hijacked a Michigan v. OSU thread. Sorry OP!

 

[CactiCactus]

16 hours ago, Nickleby said:

Unfortunately, no, I don't know much about UCSD (except that, if you go there, I might advise you to look for housing in Hillcrest or Ocean Beach or somewhere nearer to downtown, rather than in LaJolla, but that's personal preference ? )

Thanks for the recs! I definitely will check those out if it ends up being my destination!

16 hours ago, Nickleby said:

Also just noticed we hijacked a Michigan v. OSU thread. Sorry OP!

 

Yep, whoops, sorry about that, OP!

[gradcafe71]

On 2/13/2019 at 9:43 AM, meredith27 said:

Hello,

 

Does anyone know if Michigan offers better grad student packages than OSU?  Also, why is Michigan higher ranked?

Hi OP. Current PhD student here. I was in this position during my application season. Several people have answered your second question, but not your first, so here's my best shot: 

Unless you have outside funding (think NSF), Michigan gives every admitted student a standard package. 

OSU's funding structure is a bit different. Unless it's changed in the past few years, the graduate school makes the funding decisions then sends them to the dept. If the graduate school thinks you are a competitive candidate, then, you'll likely receive a better offer than others in your admitted cohort. This, obviously, has its benefits and drawbacks. 

Additionally, the cost of living is pretty different between Columbus and Ann Arbor, so you'll have to take that into account as well if you find yourself in the position of making a decision between both places.

So the answer is, really, that it depends on what you receive from Ohio State if the funding offer is better. Feel free to message me if you have any additional questions.