Advice from an actual PhD

[Canadianpolsci]

A strong letter in your dossier from a top Law and Courts scholar like Rogers Smith, Howard Gillman, Ken Kersch,or Shep Melnick will help you land a job even though Penn, USC and Boston College aren't "top departments."

MissingVandyCandy brings up an interesting issue: what if there is a star, or a real mover and shaker, and program X, but the program as a whole and school as a whole are more top 40 than top 25, let alone top 10?

Frankly, I think this is a very difficult strategy to follow. If you know this professor personally, perhaps it can work. But to put all your eggs in one basket is really quite a large gamble. I think the department you go to has to be above ALL not a place where there is "FIT", but where the SUPPORT you, where professors support your studies and will work hard, fight, to get you a job. After that, "fit" comes in.

It is wonderful if there is a super person you want to work with at a particular school. But you have to remember that personal relationships can be tricky things, that he or she may move or (god forbid) die, before you finish, etc. Then you have to look very closely at the placement successes of that professor.

I think this has to be done on a case by case basis. But I think going to a school without a strong overall reputation, AND depending on one person, is a very big risk.

[eve2008]

It's not that I am offended by your tone, or that my comment was directed only at you. But you sound surprising like a lawyer!

Lol. Almost was once.

Sorry if I overreacted. Sometimes boredom gets the better of me...

[eve2008]

So when I offer advice, it is NOT based on simply on the fact that I was admitted into school X. It is, rather, the advice which I RECEIVED from others, and which I estimate worked for me, to some degree, and would work for most others.

Think: "brain trust." And go build yourself one as best you can. That's the secret.

Yes! I completely agree. That is exactly what I meant to say. And it's true of just about any endeavor in life.

[Quarex]

I cannot wait to find out who the most well-regarded people in my field even are! I have read so many books by so many different people, with no real formal organization in place to tell me which of them are supposed to be revered and which reviled. It will be great once I find out someone I think an unequivocal genius is widely considered an irredeemable blatherskite.

CanadianPolSci, clearly part of the purpose of these very forums for us is to get a sort of less-intimate braintrust made up of our fellow posters. I have already discussed much of the advice heard here with others, and obviously brought up issues from others in these forums. Once you get about a thousand different pieces of advice, you can finally see that about 800 of them point in one direction, even if there did not seem to be a pattern initially.

Also, this is not related to anything, but I spent a lot of free time in my last week making a custom Google Maps array of every Political Science Ph.D. program in the U.S., with six or seven rankings listed in the descriptions for each school. Does this make me crazy, or just someone who likes projects? I plan on adding Public Policy programs to the map in the next few days, though I really do not want this to turn into a life's work.

[atlas]

Dear Realist,

I found your comments to be totally uncreative and unoriginal. Your whole argument is that you either go to a top 25 American school (or higher) or you shouldn't get a PhD at all in Political Science. What about the people who can't get in to such schools? Should they wash cars for a living? Wait tables? What if their dream is to get a PhD in Political Science?

So you go to a lesser school and you end up utilizing your PhD as an analyst or a news commentator....or teaching at a gasp.... less than 25 school. So what? Big deal! Do professors really make such high incomes anyway? Are high school/junior college teachers not getting by okay too? Also have you not heard about some of the big changes being made to the Federal student loan program? Where lenders can't charge you for more than 15% of your income for student loans anymore starting in 2009....no matter if you have a $200,000 or a $15,000 loan.

I'm sorry but your post made me quite angry. Your observations come from just one school. I didn't have any of your reported problems when I pursued two different master's degrees. My advisors were more than helpful most of the time! Plus there are thousands of universities all over the world!

I'm sorry but you came off very elitist to me in your post and I can't imagine why you felt the need to write to this forum with such a pessimistic outlook. Is it time to retire?

[atlas]

Oh pardon me....I just realized you haven't even gotten out of probation yet OP...you're still just an assistant professor.

Seriously, save it with your father knows best crap. I bet you're not even 30 years old.

[Sean]

it is only through this sort of debate can we discover the innermost arrogance and ignorance of the people who think themselves as highly educated.

[flyingwalrus]

Seriously, save it with your father knows best crap. I bet you're not even 30 years old.

I've received this very same advice from the faculty I know. I don't think realist means any offense by it. The only part of his/her argument that I think might be a little off is the list of top schools s/he posted, as I think a few of them really shouldn't be on there. That's a fairly minor quibble, though.

[realist]

I must admit that the response to my advice has been disheartening. Rest assured that I think that our system of PhD education in political science has deep flaws (I described certain aspects of it as "repugnant"), so I'm not sure what is elitist about this. Regardless of whether or not you like my advice, I hope that you all have come to accept three things.

(1) Tenure-track jobs are extremely hard to get. If you think applying for PhD admissions is disheartening, just wait.

(2) Some schools place better than others. There is a big discontinuity after about 20-25 in the rankings. This is simply a fact. Ignoring it does not make it go away, nor does complaining about elitism make you look smart.

(3) Faculty have different incentives than graduate students, and great advisers (Przeworski, Linz, D. Collier, R. Smith) are much less common than mediocre and disinterested ones. Do not count on your adviser to get you a job by writing you a great letter. (From having sat on numerous faculty hiring committees, I can tell you that this is not how it works.)

I wish you all the best luck. My hope is that you are all going into this process with your eyes wide open.

[yoon7724]

Dear Realist,

Thanks for your information. I just have one quesiton. As said, you seem to have some knowledge as to how the hiring committee usually works. So, could you shed some light on this matter so that I can prepare myself to be a more attractive candidate after my Ph.D.?

[realist]

Dear Realist,

Thanks for your information. I just have one quesiton. As said, you seem to have some knowledge as to how the hiring committee usually works. So, could you shed some light on this matter so that I can prepare myself to be a more attractive candidate after my Ph.D.?

Fair question. I have no information about how it works at small schools, but I can tell you what it's like at a large PhD granting institution. We sit down with somewhere between 80 and 120 files for every position. Each file includes a cover letter, CV, between 1 and 3 representative publications or papers, 3-4 letters of recommendations, a transcript, a teaching statement, a research statement, and occasionally additional material. All of this together runs between 100 and 200 pages per applicant. Our goal is to take this mass of information and weed out 2 or 3 candidates to interview.

To have a fair shot at even being considered, you need to have three very positive letters from three well-known scholars. Even then, that's not enough. You need to have evidence that you are able to produce: a forthcoming or at least "R+R" paper, a CV that includes multiple APSA presentations, and a vibrant, creative, and interesting research trajectory. Plus, you have to fit with the needs of the department. And there's no doubt that pedigree counts. We need evidence that you have been trained at the highest level, and are familiar with the most cutting-edge theories and methods. This information is, by and large, unobservable. The best way to find this out, though, is to look at where the candidate received his or her PhD. If we want someone who truly understands quantal response models, we'll be more likely to look at a Rochester, CalTech, or WashU PhD than a Berkeley PhD. If we want someone who truly understand Latin America, we'll be more likely to look at Berkeley.

Of course, if you are a star, it doesn't matter where you got your PhD. For this reason, pedigree really doesn't matter at all for senior hires. But at the junior level, pedigree is one measure--albeit imperfect--of the quality of a candidate's graduate training. Not many people are stars in graduate school.

A positive letter from a famous scholar is necessary, but by no means sufficient. Nearly every job candidate has a positive letter from a top scholar. Everyone can name 5-6 recent PhDs who worked with all the right people and had all the right letters, but who still had a very tough time on the market. Thus my claim: don't count on a letter from your adviser--even a glowing one--getting you that job you've always wanted.

[transcendentalist]

Realist, what incentive do you have to give unbiased advice, especially about which programs are of high quality overall or in specific areas?

[Canadianpolsci]

Realist, what incentive do you have to give unbiased advice, especially about which programs are of high quality overall or in specific areas?

What incentive does he have not to? Besides, the advice he gave was pretty universal and well known to any graduate student currently on the job market.

[yoon7724]

I tend to concur with canadianpolsci and realist. Advice from realist is simply what most, if not all, graduate students know to be true, true in the sense that that is how things are done in the real world. All of those who seem to have big disagreements with reliast so as to even imply the underlying motive of realist or others suspect must heed the difference between "is" and "ought"-although i am mindful of the fact that the fact-value distinction does not directly apply here. What I mean is that even the repugnant flaws of pol sci dept, as realist has admittied, are part of the ontological world into which we are boldly marching. Personally I do not like those flaws and wish things were different, but that's the world we are going to live in.

[transcendentalist]

What incentive does he have not to?

About the process and recommendations in general you are probably right but that is the reason for the clause "especially..." in my post. When it comes to "naming names" about programs? I don't know. S/he may have gone to one of the programs s/he is talking about. S/he may work for one. S/he may be recruiting people who post on this board. S/he may be competing to recruit people against another program s/he talks about.

All I can say is, if you think someone in realist's position always has an incentive to be above-board and honest in an anonymous internet forum related to his or her profession, google the job market blog for American and Comparative politics. I'm not saying anything about realist specifically because I don't know him or her.

[realist]

About the process and recommendations in general you are probably right but that is the reason for the clause "especially..." in my post. When it comes to "naming names" about programs? I don't know. S/he may have gone to one of the programs s/he is talking about. S/he may work for one. S/he may be recruiting people who post on this board. S/he may be competing to recruit people against another program s/he talks about.

All I can say is, if you think someone in realist's position always has an incentive to be above-board and honest in an anonymous internet forum related to his or her profession, google the job market blog for American and Comparative politics. I'm not saying anything about realist specifically because I don't know him or her.

Suspicion is always prudent when people speak anonymously, but I can assure you that I have no ulterior motive here. I do not work for any of the top programs, and I am not involved in graduate student recruitment this year (on leave this semester). If anything, I'm shooting myself in the foot by encouraging people to think twice about a PhD at a program that (1) doesn't guarantee funding or (2) isn't one of the very best.

Naming names about programs? You'll note I specifically didn't do this, but then got repeated requests to do just that, so I gave a simple list of the best programs with repeated caveats about how hard it is to rank them and how many smart people are at other programs. I have never ranked programs in specific areas, but it's clearly true that Berkeley produces some of the best Latin Americanists, while the quantal response people overwhelmingly come from CalTech, Rochester, and WashU.

But really, think about this. What's more realistic?

--That the job market is easy, or that it's hard?

--That faculty advisers in PhD programs are always attentive to the demands of every single graduate student, or that they have their own lives, demands, and incentives?

--That the quality and reputation of a school matter for placement, or that they do not?

--That the top schools--who have the top scholars--produce a better overall environment for PhD training, or that there's no difference between the top schools and the rest?

[yoon7724]

Answering the list of questions realist put up above, hope the following truths may be of some help.

1) Men are selfish (or, self-loving).

2) Modern Ph.D.s from the States, which is a liberal capitalistic society, have to "compete" for jobs that are "scarce" to begin with and getting scarcer year after year.

3) 'More than often' good teachers/scholars, if you want to make that distinction, produce good students.

Now let us all do the math. Just one last thing:

4) As everything is in life, there are many encouragning exceptions to the established fiat. However, most of them rise to the top by knowing exactly where they are and then improving (and proving) their worth in their game, not by claiming their desert for recognition this early on. As the cliche goes, life is a marathon; don't get all grumpy now. You might as well save the energy because it is going to be a long one.

[Quarex]

All other things aside, it is important to separate one's revulsion for the world Realist is describing from Realist him/herself. That it took until page 6 for someone to finally post a wholly scathing diatribe in response astounded me, personally, and was a testament to how calmly our debates really do go here.

Now, could Realist have sugar-coated what he/she said more? Yes, but he is also not a motivational speaker or an encouraging friend, but rather someone who (assuming he is not just completely making all of this up, which would be great, but exceedingly unlikely) has a unique set of knowledges, insights, and experiences that qualify him/her to give advice on the subject. Attacking him/her is not going to make what he/she has already said suddenly more favorable to your own views.

Realist's impression that a degree from anywhere outside the top 25 is not really a degree that will get you anywhere in academia is the only fact laid out on the table that seems open to any reasoned debate; there are enough different subfields and specialities and conflicting opinions that notable exceptions are possible (and some have already come up). However, it is also silly to imply that you would be better off at 95th-Ranked-Tech than #1 Megaversity, even if the most prominent scholar in your field did just move to #95 to try to kick-start a rejuvenation of its program (though that would certainly help).

As said in Realist's last post, do we really find it hard to believe the things set out as advice? That the job market is hard? That better-ranked programs are good? Now, I have heard the competition for tenured positions was considerably less fierce about 30 (or maybe even 20) years ago. However, as we do not live in that world, but rather in one where cost-saving means fewer tenure positions, certainly it does not hurt to imagine that things are going to be more competitive than we might want to hope.

Ultimately, what this thread is most missing seems to be Realist's take on the best way to turn your chances around if saddled, due to circumstances or a lack of motivation or both, with an application poor enough to never get you where you need to go. If he/she is like most any other professor I have ever met, he/she knows (or even once was, though likely not) an excellent scholar who overcame a particularly underwhelming pre-graduate-school performance. How precisely a person turns his/her life around is certainly no set pattern, but every individual rags-to-riches story helps both motivate those of us who are not likely to get what we want this time around, and to guide us as to what we might still able to do to accomplish our dreams.

Now, are those of us not doing so well right now going to end up getting our Ph.D.s from the #1 program, and tenured at the #2 program, with shoddy backgrounds? Not too likely. But I know one professor (or perhaps it is more appropriate to say I was born to one professor) who went from a bottom-rung "directional-state" undergraduate program, to a Princeton Ph.D., to tenure. And hey, I am not even asking for Princeton!

[transcendentalist]

I'm not attacking anyone. I'm asking questions everyone should be asking. Some of the posted information is obvious (and therefore we didn't need realist to tell us). Some of it may be more controversial. Is Northwestern any good? What departments can make you a good comparativist? Realist may not have started out stating this information but he did state it. When such information is given we should consider the expertise and the interest of the source, always.

Also what is a "quantal response person"?

[polisciapp]

Not that it's really relevant, but I feel compelled to chime in because realist's take on graduate school is eerily similar to the perspective many have on law school. That perspective is this: only go if you get into a top school. Generally, as far as law school goes, that is fairly good advice IF you want to get a certain type of job. That is, if you want to be a legal academic (usually top 5 law schools) or a lawyer in a large firm (usually top 25 law schools), then go to a top school. But there are many lawyers who do not do either of these things; indeed, most lawyers do not. I would bet the same holds true for academics--if you want to go to an R-1 institution, you had better have attended one yourself--and it most likely will have to be the best. Most people who get PhDs, likewise, do not go to HYPS et al. and most academics do not teach at R-1 institutions. The trade-off in academia is perhaps larger (because not having a prime job makes life economically difficult), but the analogy is there.

Also, the responses people have to this fact are generally the same. Most people have an "it won't be me attitude" or "I have to make the best with what I have." The latter person is resigned to working at a less-than-"prestigious" law firm or graduate school; and that is fine. This person will generally be content because their expectations are on par with reality. The former person deludes himself/herself into thinking that I can be the best because it's me. That's not true. I see lots of intelligent lawyers excluded from firms and clerkships based solely on the school they attended. This makes even less sense in law than graduate school since admission to law school is based almost entirely on the LSAT.

Like I said, this is just an observation; but it has made me think that maybe I shouldn't go to graduate school unless I get into HYPS et al. Or, at least, it makes me think very hard about where I will go. Is Emory better than Northwestern? Is Ohio State better than WashU?

One last note: the legal job market seems MUCH easier to break into once you attend a top school--you have your pick of city and firm. That does not seem to be true of academia--you have your pick of neither; you will be lucky to land an R-1 job.

[transcendentalist]

It is like advice that I have heard as well for Ph.D. programs. What is problematic is Realist's attempt to speak authoritatively from a categorically powerful position about matters that are contested among his or her peers. Realist's uncontroversial advice all begs the question: which programs are best, in general or in specific areas? That is why Realist quickly turned to discussing this. But that enters territory that is full of interstices of gray which is why Realist's peers do not have a single ranking scheme they all agree upon. Realist elides this problem by acting as though it's all obvious, and even showing impatience when his or her advice is not heeded instantly or questioned. Is Realist an expert on all areas of political science? Is one person really qualified to speak authoritatively about program rankings even if they are an expert? If so why doesn't the discipline see things as clearly as Realist does?

Realist is attempting to bypass debate among peers by turning to an audience that she or he knows is not equipped to challenge him. If political scientists do not challenge such expressions of dominance who will? These are matters of real importance to posters at this message board. It is conceivable that life decisions will be made based on what is posted here. We are all seeking maximum information on the issues and I applaud realist for (I am sure) sincerely wishing to provide some, but intention does not overcome these problems.

Even the title of this thread is problematic. An "Actual Ph.D." As if none of us has ever spoken to one! Realist takes the mantle of missionary visiting the benighted and expects gratitude in return for dispensed truth.

[transcendentalist]

Apparently a "quantal response person" is someone who uses a specific type of formal model sometimes used in international relations. Realist tells us where such scholars have tended to get their Ph.D.'s. Is heeding this advice the right decision if one wants to specialize in this application in IR? Does the advice take account of changes in these programs or different programs over the last several years? Does Realist know? Or is this just a way to stay behind changes in grad programs rather than ahead of them?

[Quarex]

Is Realist an expert on all areas of political science? Is one person really qualified to speak authoritatively about program rankings even if they are an expert? If so why doesn't the discipline see things as clearly as Realist does?

Realist is attempting to bypass debate among peers by turning to an audience that she or he knows is not equipped to challenge him. If political scientists do not challenge such expressions of dominance who will? These are matters of real importance to posters at this message board. It is conceivable that life decisions will be made based on what is posted here. We are all seeking maximum information on the issues and I applaud realist for (I am sure) sincerely wishing to provide some, but intention does not overcome these problems.

Even the title of this thread is problematic. An "Actual Ph.D." As if none of us has ever spoken to one! Realist takes the mantle of missionary visiting the benighted and expects gratitude in return for dispensed truth.

Firstly, I was not referring to you when I mentioned attacking Realist, but rather the half-ad-hominem-half-just-angry posts by someone else on page 6. Your posts certainly raise interesting points.

The rankings are a difficult subject, as there are certainly lots of different ways to look at them, and perhaps giving any concrete examples of schools that were "the ones you had to attend" was bound to cause more problems than it was worth. But just as I said in my last post, it seems to go without saying that the quality of the academic experience, though hugely variable even beyond rankings, surely has a positive correlation with said rankings. The faculty at the lowest-ranked school in the country may well be, through coincidence or deed, a more rewarding group of people to study with than those at the highest-ranked. But with all the dizzying array of variables, including the "x" factor, that go into success after (and during) graduate school, it seems to make sense to try to get the bulk of the academic momentum on your side, rather than pushing against it*.

Obviously, I do understand your second point; I agreed that surely, when it came to discussing the feasibility of rankings and which schools or which professors or which anything is good/better/best, there is never going to be a definitive answer. Of course, most everyone else here seems to feel that as well, hence that being the focal point of the arguments sprawling across the pages.

Furthermore, it is important to question the accuracy and validity of advice dispensed in any circumstance, let alone mostly anonymously on the Internet. That said, Realist's original post is an insightful set of observations into the process, for the periods both during and after the Ph.D., which is essentially all he/she was trying to say (discussions about the "top 25" section evidently notwithstanding). The subsequent debate has gone farther afield. Realist also came here to post this likely not as an assertion of fact that should be instantly "stickied" and "closed," but to see what we had to say about it (despite being "frustrated" with the response, he/she is not frustrated that there was a response). Yes, from a "more enlightened" position--but is it any different than anyone with [x] years of experience in anything professing to someone with [x-y] numbers of experience that there are things the latter should know if trying to reach the same point? Particularly when phrased, as it was, that he/she just wished this knowledge had been around when the process began for him/her.

Regardless, I love this forum. Keep it up!

*This coming from one of those people who has spent his entire life "going against the grain," and looks forward to doing so in the future--but would still rather go against the grain in, say, an efficient modern farm, not in his fifth cousin's overgrown garden.

[rebelrita]

I get the impression that the assumption of the posters on this forum is that virtually all PhD poli sci applicants primary career goal is f.t. professorsip in academia. Am I reading too much into the comments? Of course, it seems a little nieve for us to think with all the PhDs in polisci that enter the job market each year, that most of the graduates can succeed with this career goal. 9esp since we poli sci folks are more disadvantaged than the other social sciences since the teaching slots are fewer). I have been advised not to be this nieve (especially since my background shuts me out of this possiblity unless I get more publications and boost my math GRE- then I may have a slim shot at entry to one of the top 25) .

My primary aim is to gain clout for publishing and to increase my potential for research opportunities, visiting lectureships abroad in scholar exchange programs and administering a non-profit. Therefore, I am focusing on the programs and profs closest to my research interests rather than name/status of school.

[kant's mistress]

It's really ludricrous to suggest that one must attend one of 20 programs (each of which only accept 20 people or less) to have a meaningful or successful (by any measure) career in this field.

In my experience, people who typically hide behind that kind of academic elitism are those who have spent their academic lives at the middle of the class, people who know not how to distinguish themselves intellectually outside of the rank of the institutional name on their degree, which they flaunt as a badge.

I say this as someone who has attended (by choice) both a graduate ivy (top 5) and a public research institution (top 50-whatever-ish, let's say).

Sure, the old guard in the ivory tower is more likely to hire from within their own pool. But seriously, if you are one of the people on this board who has spent the past month berating yourself for not getting into Princeton (whether you're coming from an ivy or a little-college-that-could), what are you really worried about?

Your education is what you make of it, and I'm actually very wary of political scientists, of all people, who would argue otherwise. If your career is motivated by your relative placement advantage, I can only imagine the leaps in logic you must be taking in your articles. I mean, good luck. You'll need it.