The Poll of Polls

[JordanJames]

I ran into an old friend the other day and it turned out he was also applying to poli sci phd programs also. He just emailed me this average of the rankings of different departments that he made when he was applying. I don't know how he filled in certain gaps  but I figured somebody on this board might get some use out of it.

Here are the rankings:

1. Harvard

1. Stanford

3. Princeton

4. Berkeley

5. Michigan

6. Duke

7. Wisconsin

8. WashU

8. Emory

[rollinson]

Do you know what rankings he used?

I found this one interesting:

http://www.politicalstudies.org/pdf/psr/hix.pdf

Three years old or so, so it might not be as up to date as one would like.

[JordanJames]

I'm not sure exactly but his email said "NRC, Schmidt and Chingos, US NEWS and blah blah blah." I have no idea what blah blah blah means.

[silencio1982]

very interesting. it will be fun to see how this list compares to the new NRC rankings (which are allegedly coming out in "late spring.") they feel pretty accurate to me, at least for the top 40 or 50... but that is mainly based on my own perception of the schools' quality. i am not too familiar with the poli sci programs at the bottom of the list with a few exceptions...

[spin]

I was cajoled in to paying for the US News rankings online; $15 for a month's access of information I already knew; moreover for poli sci rankings there's no detailed info.

While I generally mistrust rankings, I'll make the claim that the USNews grad rankings are credible because they rely 100% on peer evaluations (done by Chair's of other dept.s)

[JordanJames]

Do you know what rankings he used?

I found this one interesting:

http://www.politicalstudies.org/pdf/psr/hix.pdf

Three years old or so, so it might not be as up to date as one would like.

Those rankings are pretty interesting. As much as I'd love for it to be true, I doubt FSU deserves to be ranked higher than Michigan.

[spin]

Do you know what rankings he used?

I found this one interesting:

http://www.politicalstudies.org/pdf/psr/hix.pdf

Three years old or so, so it might not be as up to date as one would like.

I browsed through this ranking; from what I've gathered, the ranking is done via looking at the quantity of publications in Poli Sci Journals; I don't think this is the most 'valid' method. For example, no one in their right mind will argue that UMich is ranked 27th (while Michigan State is ranked 12th).

[grtgmeloser]

For all of the IR folks out there, here's a link to the 2006 peer-response rankings for IR that were published in Foreign Policy magazine. It's pretty interesting because it specifically ranks the IR programs (pg 26).

http://www.wm.edu/irtheoryandpractice/t ... t06-07.pdf

[sundaymonday]

Oh wow. thanks for this.

[Canadianpolsci]

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.

[JordanJames]

I agree, but US News does have break downs by subfield. They still don't really mean much, but if you're considering a couple of schools and 1 is ranked substantially higher than the other in all of the rankings, it does tell you something. General department rankings aren't going to mean as much for you as for those, like me, with holes in their apps who could find themselves anywhere on the reputation spectrum.

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.

[Canadianpolsci]

I agree, but US News does have break downs by subfield. T

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.

[silencio1982]

canadianpolisci... here they are. they only go up to 14.

US News Rankings - Political Theory - Ranked in 2005.

1. Harvard University (MA)

2. Princeton University (NJ)

3. University of Chicago

4. Yale University (CT)

5. University of California

[silencio1982]

I think the outdatedness of these rankings definitely matters- for instance, Clarissa Hayward left OSU for WashU and James Gibson is leaving Stanford to return to WashU.... just one example, but it points out another one of the many flaws of ranking systems...

[browneyedgirl]

Canadianpolsci said:

I think the outdatedness of these rankings definitely matters- for instance, Clarissa Hayward left OSU for WashU and James Gibson is leaving Stanford to return to WashU.... just one example, but it points out another one of the many flaws of ranking systems...

I absolutely agree with you on this. the schools that are "highest" or "best" are not always best for me, and it's been particularly hard to find people doing the sort of research I do. I find subfield rankings much more useful.

[Quarex]

Do you know what rankings he used?

I found this one interesting:

I went to add that one to my database, and realized halfway through that I already had it in there. I may have checked too many rankings.

Anyone else putting "Ammar from TheGradCafe.com's Buddy's rankings" into their database? Of course, he also missed U-Del and George Mason in addition to Brown, and likely others, so it is NOT FULLY EFFICIENT FOR MY NEEDS. Also, it puts my three choices thus far entirely too close together for the rankings to throw things off-balance. But it still gave me another field!

Everyone else check China's ARWU social sciences system? The London Times Higher Education Supplement's social sciences rankings? The customized ranking scale you can create to fit your criteria with phds.org? The school mascot? Proximity to Steak 'n' Shake?