Policy PhD vs Political Science PhD

[newb]

Hello everybody,

I'm interested in learning more about the greatest differences between a Policy PhD and a PhD in Political Science.

How do they differ? What are the pros and cons for each? Why did you go for one - and not the other?

Thanks for your help!

[APGradApplicant]

Newbie- It really depends where your interests lie. If there is (are) a paricular public policy area(s) (e.g. healthcare, welfare, education, military/defense, trade) that you know 100% for sure is (are) your primary interest(s) and you're not really looking to study political institutions or behavior more generally, then a policy PhD is probably for you. While you could certainly be a professor of public policy, especially if you go to a top program, my understanding is that many who get this degree end up working at policy think tanks or for the government at the state or federal level. That said, what I don't know is if you don't want to be a professor in the field, whether it makes sense to get a PhD rather than just a master's. I'm not really sure what the "payoff" is of doing the doctorate if you want to exercise one of the latter options I mentioned.

In the mean time, if you pursue a political science PhD from a strong program, then you'll of course be studying institutions and/or behavior in whatever subfield (American, comparative, or IR; theory is of course a different animal, but I'm guessing not an interest of yours anyhow if you're even asking about public policy) of poli sci in which you are interested. This means learning quantitative (and maybe qualitative, although this has become less and less stylish in poli sci) methods for conducting research as well as the latest literature in your areas of interest. Further, most everyone, with exceptions here or there, who earns this degree will be looking to get a professorship once they successfully defend their dissertation. As somebody who's going to be starting a poli sci PhD program this fall, I can tell you that while I'm sure some public policy issues will no doubt come up when I study Congress (my main interest), I'd be looking at it more in the context of how these policy initiatives are advanced/marketed by political parties, presidents, interest groups, etc. as opposed to studying the minute details of the policy and its implementation/effects once it's in place. Conversely, someone getting a policy PhD would almost definitely be focusing on the latter aspect, as the point is to become fluent in one or two (usually) specific policy areas.

If you're not sure but are eager to get started on grad school (although it probably would be nice to know which one you want), the best bet would probably be to apply to a political science PhD program that lets you take public policy as a major or minor subfield along with one of the more traditional ones (American complements PP well if you're looking to study a domestic policy area; IR or Comparative would be good picks if you're looking to study a foreign/international policy area). Places like TAMU, FSU, UT-Austin, some of the SUNY schools, and Vanderbilt (maybe?) are some examples of political science PhD programs that allow for a public policy concentration paired with a traditional subfield.

Again, in interest of full disclosure, I'm entering a strictly political science PhD program and really didn't think seriously about a policy PhD or taking public policy as a field were I to go to one of the programs that had that option, so I'm not incredibly familiar with the public policy stuff. That said, I have some friends in those types of programs and had the chance to hear about it a little when I was on some of my visits, so I hope this answer at least is a good primer as you further navigate what you want to do down the road...

Edited April 23, 2010 by APGradApplicant

[newb]

APGradApplicant,

Thank you very much for your detailed answer!!

Generally, I think I'd rather be interested in a Political Science degree - yet, I'm interested in Policy degrees that allow me to put an emphasis on PoliSci. This is because I would like to save about 1-2 years as I've found Policy degrees to be 1-2 years shorter than the usual time people need to finish their dissertations in PoliSci.

No offense, but I've heard that MPP's have a hard time competing with MA PoliSci grads when it comes to research oriented jobs at IFIs and IOs (my interest). Does this also hold true for Policy PhDs? How about PoliSci teaching positions? Is there a serious disadvantage for Policy graduates? Take a Policy graduate applying for a comparative position or IR position. I do see a great overlap here, esp. for Policy students who have taken a bunch of classes / taught in the PoliSci Dept. What do you think?

Edited April 23, 2010 by newb

[APGradApplicant]

Glad I could help! With respect to your follow-up questions, I believe that I would be doing you a disservice by trying to give you an informed answer, which is of course because I honestly don't know. With respect to this, I would try to seek out a professor at your undergraduate inst. in the field who you know to be generally "fair-minded" and neither partial nor hostile to public policy. They'd probably be able to give you a good answer on this kind of stuff, as well as on individual programs. Sorry I can't be of more help, although once again glad to hear that my initial reply was informative for you!

[catchermiscount]

If one future Rochesterian isn't quite sufficient, let's see if one current one can get us closer.

As a categorical point: don't pick a program because it's long or short. If you're feeling legitimate tensions between the kind of questions you'd like to ask and how you'd like to answer them, that's fine. If you're trying to orient yourself to a particular kind of job, that's fine. But, ultimately, it will probably be more important to you to find reward in your work than it is to start your job two years sooner or later.

The big question is: what kind of research do you want to engage in? Are you interested in academic journals (e.g. International Organization) or policy journals (e.g. Foreign Affairs)? That's a pretty big schism. Generally, working in the university setting in a political science department focuses more on the former. Working in the policy world (or at a handful of policy schools within universities) focuses more on the latter. So, as a first cut, read the last few issues of IO or other academic IR journals like International Studies Quarterly. Read all the articles -- even the ones that use a lot of technical jargon and whatnot. How do you feel about the questions they're asking and the arguments they're making? Could you see yourself doing that?

Taking public policy as a second field while working on an academic PhD in political science is indeed possible, and several of my colleagues at my previous program were public policy minors. Often these are coupled with a first field in American politics, since a lot of the academic public policy literature focuses on American institutions. A lot of this work is very theoretical in nature. So, go to the library and skim, say, Agendas and Instability in American Politics by Baumgartner and Jones. Could you see yourself utilizing a framework like theirs? Can you see the generality in the punctuated equilibrium approach?

A lot of the academic public policy literature is getting more technical. A lot of the graduates of Stanford GSB have used formal theory---you might want to read anything by Michael Ting or Craig Volden as an example. Since formal theory is meant to be general, you might find some applications to IO/IFI questions. My officemate is very interested in those questions and (if I may speak for him) views them relatively formally, particularly utilizing bargaining theory.

Nonacademic policy analysis is something altogether different. So, look up faculty members at good policy places (SAIS, Georgetown, Wilson, KSG, Harris, etc.) in IO/IFI and look up their work. For example, SAIS appears to have a nice set of faculty in international finance: wouldn't you agree? Is that more what you see yourself doing? Observe that these are people that, like, actually matter in the world. Is relevance an issue to you? Also observe the mixed backgrounds: there are Economics PhDs, policy PhDs, an MBA (who also happened to be Secretary of the Treasury), polisci PhDs.

For a lot of people, the methods are an issue as well. Do you intend to make qualitative arguments, as is more common in policy work, or do you hope to use statistics and/or formal theory in your work? Personally, I don't think this should be a dealbreaker; picking up methods isn't all that hard. Political science can be relevant, and policy-relevant work can use statistics or formal theory.

In terms of getting an academic job in political science: the policy thing isn't necessarily a problem. Undergraduate political science majors are often pre-laws, and people that work on policy questions are more likely to teach pre-laws. But, in IR, it might be a bit different. Many IR students have second fields in comparative politics---they might focus on general issues like democratization or they might focus in on a region. Some do American politics to better understand the links between domestic politics and foreign policy decisionmaking. In general, having some methodological chops helps one get an academic job.

Wow, I typed a lot. So yeah. Get a better sense of what kind of job you want and research you want to do. Not all "research" is the same. Read some academic journals and some nonacademic journals. Refine your interests and the answer should become clear. Good luck.

[lorinho]

No offense, but I've heard that MPP's have a hard time competing with MA PoliSci grads when it comes to research oriented jobs at IFIs and IOs (my interest). Does this also hold true for Policy PhDs? How about PoliSci teaching positions? Is there a serious disadvantage for Policy graduates? Take a Policy graduate applying for a comparative position or IR position. I do see a great overlap here, esp. for Policy students who have taken a bunch of classes / taught in the PoliSci Dept. What do you think?

Well, if you take your observation and extrapolate, you have an explanation of the pattern. PolSci M.A. focus a lot on research, and therefore research jobs like them. However, if you were to go to a place that wanted more policy generation or analysis, you would probably see a slant towards MPP's. Similar with Policy Phd's vs. PolSci PhDs. there are departments that don't care what your degree is in, but what your research is in. However, in general, people who teach in PolSci programs have PolSci degrees, and Policy Programs would prefer Policy degrees. It is just a slightly different skill set. This is just my observation, however.

Oh, finally, if you are looking at the gov't (and even many NGO's) as a career path: 1) don't get a PhD, MA is plenty until late in the career, and 2) if you get one, it doesn't really matter whether it is a Policy or PoliSci Phd. As long as your research is on point, that is all they care about.

[Politicalgeek]

I have a MPP. Here is what I'd say, based on observations of my classmates' experiences in DC:

- If you decide you're primarily interested in policy, you should either get an MPP from a top school (I went to KSG) or a PhD in the field you're primarily interested in (i.e., for working for an IFI, I'd say economics; if you were interested in social policy I'd say sociology or education). Even most of the factulty of policy schools have these sorts of degrees, not policy degrees!

- In my experience, masters in poli sci have no advantage over MPPs in Washington. If anything, I think the MPP has a bit of a comparative advantage, because it's more practical, and agencies want people who know how to work in "the real world." But really, it's all about the skills you have to offer - can you do the kind of analysis they need? Write memos in the way they want them written? And so on. Whatever program you choose, make sure you will get the skills you need.

- Many of my classmates are now working for the WB, IDB, etc. Actually, I would not be surprised to learn the WB is the single larget employer of KSG grads in DC after the federal govt. A lot of them went through the Masters in Public Administration/International Development (MPA/ID) program which is extremely rigorous (Dani Roderick teaches their core econ class!). That might be a good program to look at. But even outside the MPA/ID, there are a lot of KSG alum (and, I'd guess, alum of other policy schools) working in the IFIs in DC.

- In general, I'd say that if you are interested in working in the practical policy arena, you should not get a PhD right out of school. You probably won't need it, and it may even hurt you on the job market (because your PhD makes you too expensive but you don't have the work experience to justify the costs). I actually would even work before getting a masters.

Hope this helps!

[newb]

Thank you guys for your response.

I've decided that I'd rather want to go for a PhD in Political Science. I don't want to rule out teaching (actually, I'm quite interested) and I do like research quite a bit. I figured that, once being sure about the MA vs PhD decision, it should be quite difficult for Policy PhDs to get teaching positions in PoliSci departments. On the other hand, I don't think that PoliSci PhDs necessarily have a harder time on the non-academic job-market than Policy PhDs do.

Thank you very much - your messages were extremely helpful!

All the best!

[gsams]

I do political science research in health care, but also study public policy. The program I am going into allows a major and a minor. I will have to decide which is which. Regardless, it will be a political science PhD which is a unique opportunity. My favorite thing about this is that it allows me to do what I love, but also allows me marketability on the job market. I think it is right to pick the Poli Sci idea. Just because you get a Poli Sci PhD does NOT meant that you can't work for think tanks. Several recent grads from my program have. Unless you are only wanting to focus on that work (without the academic side, which most interests me), you are far better off with the poli sci PhD in this regard. That's just my opinion and how I rationalized it.