Advice from an actual PhD

[ordinonuovo]

A little late, but just wanted to thank all the responses to the Northwestern/UCLA post: detroitfan,

tidefan, silencio, eve2008, and realist. They've all helped.

I've actually been waitlisted for funding at UCLA, and the letter from the dept said that even

if I don't get it, 'most' students that 'do well' can get

TA or RA posts starting their second year. I've asked students that I know at the dept for more

concrete info and will wait for reponses before making a decision(No way can I go through

5-7 years without the support, but 1 year is a can do).

And let's try to turn down the heat a bit here, the rhetorical edge of some of the posts is a lot

sharper(ouch!) than the actual differences in opinion would seem to suggest.

[gradphd]

"Are there very very good schools that I've left off, places like Northwestern, UNC, Binghamton, Houston, Rice, Stony Brook, Irvine, Indiana, Georgetown, Iowa, A+M, FSU, etc.?"

This is a minor point, but UNC's placement record is likely comparable to Ohio State, Wisconsin, and Emory. It would be rare but not unheard of for them to place at a very top school (Harvard, Berkeley, University of Michigan, Washington University). But they can place students at the other schools on that list--schools like Binghamton, FSU, A&M, Iowa, and so on. And, like other such schools, the reality is that many students aren't placed in two-twos (and that's true of even the very top schools).

http://www.unc.edu/depts/polisci/grad_placement.html

[PoliSciWS]

Honestly, folks, I think a lot of this speculation is fruitless. Placement isn't a matter of fate and it isn't something to worry about during the first 1-3 years of a program. If you're at a top tier institution, the undisputed top ~15ers, you're going to have a much better shot at a job simply by graduating from that program. We all know that, that's why we all shot for them. A few succeeded, the rest are in that group of good schools that don't have the name or legacy to secure your job for you. If you're not in an Ivy League program, or Stanford or Berkeley, you're going to have to work really hard to make up that difference. But it can be done, to a certain extent, especially shooting for jobs at lib arts colleges and some state schools. To compete with the folks from the top progs for a job, you're going to need a few publications and presentations under your belt and a couple very solid and respected references. If you excel at your work and come out of a UIUC, UNC, Duke, WUSTL, etc., most schools aren't going to chunk your app just because of your school. 

[kant's mistress]

Talk about the wait getting to us.

[iheartplato]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwMFcI71tuQ

[UndraftedFreeAgent]

PoliSciWS said:

Honestly, folks, I think a lot of this speculation is fruitless. Placement isn't a matter of fate and it isn't something to worry about during the first 1-3 years of a program. If you're at a top tier institution, the undisputed top ~15ers, you're going to have a much better shot at a job simply by graduating from that program. We all know that, that's why we all shot for them. A few succeeded, the rest are in that group of good schools that don't have the name or legacy to secure your job for you. If you're not in an Ivy League program, or Stanford or Berkeley, you're going to have to work really hard to make up that difference. But it can be done, to a certain extent, especially shooting for jobs at lib arts colleges and some state schools. To compete with the folks from the top progs for a job, you're going to need a few publications and presentations under your belt and a couple very solid and respected references. If you excel at your work and come out of a UIUC, UNC, Duke, WUSTL, etc., most schools aren't going to chunk your app just because of your school. 

Yeah, it is tempting to put the cart ahead of the horse at this point. Personally, I'm more interested in passing quals and building my skills as a teacher... because face it, that's what most of us will spend the majority of our time doing, if we're even fortunate enough to make it through the next 4 to 8 years of hazing and get some sort of position in academia. My longer term goal would be to become a professor students would actually look forward to having in class.

[realist]

Placement isn't a matter of fate and it isn't something to worry about during the first 1-3 years of a program.

I think that the first part of this sentence is true, but that the second part is very dangerous advice.

At the non-top-25 institution where I teach (and I make this distinction simply because too many of you seem to believe that I'm an elitist), the first thing that we tell our incoming PhD students is that they need to be worrying about placement from the very beginning of graduate school. Too many of our students arrive and believe that placement will "take care of itself," and that they can treat graduate school like college, just concentrating on passing their classes and quals. My colleagues and I cannot disagree more. From the very beginning of graduate school, students should be thinking about how best to make themselves attractive on the job market.

(1) Are they competent in methods but highly versed in substantive research?

(2) How does their research fit into broader intellectual debates in political science?

(3) How is their research relevant for the real world? (In other words, can they communicate their research to non-political scientists?)

(4) Do they have good preparation for classroom teaching?

(5) Has their classwork prepared them to teach a broad range of classes to undergraduates?

Remember, at my institution, we are not competing to produce tenure track scholars at Harvard and Stanford, we are trying to produce graduates who can get *any* teaching job at a regional liberal arts college or directional state university.

If you don't want a teaching job, this advice probably doesn't apply to you. But we don't have any students who do not want to be professors some day. And someone in a PhD program in political science who does not want to be a professor...honestly, I don't know why someone would choose a PhD program otherwise.

[anotherrealist]

I am also another PhD. I've resisted writing back to Realist but I need to chime in with another point of view.

Let me take on some of the claims Realist makes:

Realist: Only the best schools place students in academic jobs.

Fact: Your odds of getting a job are higher when your degree is from a higher ranked program. But you can get an excellent job from a middle tier program if you work hard and publish. And middle tier programs provide some nice opportunities that the top ranked programs don't. If you value things like helpful advisors, nurturing environments over competitive atmospheres, unpretentious folks who don't need to talk about Hobbes or postmaterialism at happy hour, and fellow graduate students who will answer your questions, coauthor with you, and share a pizza with you on Friday - the Top 50 program might be just right for you. I was accepted to a top 5 school and chose a program in the top 20 or 30. I have no regrets about that choice.

Realist: Advisers are fickle beings.

Fact: Some advisors are fickle. Many are terrific. One virtue of moving down the list from Yale or Chicago and choosing a MSU, UIUC, WUSTL, Vanderbilt or Indiana is that your advisor will give you the time of day. I had lunch with my advisor on a regular basis. We coauthored together. I could drop by his office with questions. He read paper drafts and gave comments. My advisor didn't just sign off on a dissertation. He made me a better scholar.

Realist: Graduate students are (1) essentially powerless and (2) extremely cheap labor.

Fact: I suspect this is less true as you move down the ranks. I think this is probably true at Harvard or Yale. It was not true at my Top 50 (but not Top 10) program. I worked with several different members of the faculty in graduate school. Some of these relationships led to coauthored papers. Some of these relationships came about when I sought out the professor to ask if they had work I could do for them (top down). Others were bottom up - where a class paper I wrote evolved into a conference paper with the faculty member as collaborator.

Realist: you need to go to the best possible graduate school.

Fact: You will benefit from going to a Top 50 program. Moving up the ranks helps but has diminishing returns. I think it is reasonable to consider quality of life and other such issues. Graduate school is often depressing. You will be stressed out. It will be nice during these times to have the things that make you happy (mountains to climb, waves to surf, good restaurants, whatever).

Realist: You should understand that you may not have a good chance of landing a tenure track job.

Fact: This is true. The job market is hard and stressful. A lot of factors are beyond your control. I wouldn't necessarily go to grad school at a program below the Top 50. If you only get in at a low ranked program, seriously consider transferring after the MA degree.

Realist: Do not choose graduate school based on who you "want to work with."

Fact: Do not choose a graduate school based on a desire to work with one person. This person might leave. Or be crazy. But it is reasonable to choose a program that has several people with research that interests you. You don't want to end up at a school where no one is well suited to advise your dissertation.

Realist: Graduate students very seldom "work with" an adviser.

Fact: Many advisors coauthor with students. It is reasonable to ask faculty if they coauthor with students and to look at their vitae to see if they have worked with students. Working with an advisor is usually a great experience. Not all experiences will produce dividends (research papers), but they always have rewards - learning new things, gaining skills, referrals to summer research work. The responsibility lies with you to seek out collaborative experiences in most cases.

Realist: Likewise, funding matters. My general advice is that outside of a top 40 institution, you should not go to graduate school unless you have a full ride and a stipend large enough to live on.

Fact: This is true. Look for at least five years of guaranteed funding. Ask about summer money.

Realist is right to say that grad school and the job market can be tough. But as others note, hard work is more important than institutional prestige. If work hard in graduate school and invest in producing research and gaining skills, it won't matter much where you got your degree. Your Ph.D. might not get you a Harvard job, but you can be competitive for most tenure track jobs. Get your work published. Write an interesting dissertation. This is the most important. One can easily search the websites of political science departments to see that smart, productive people from places in middle tier programs can get jobs at fine tenure track institutions. Average scholars from these places won't get top tier jobs, but an average scholar from Harvard might not either.

[lenin333]

This is great advice from PhD's you know are real. See how it jibes with what Realist and Another Realist say.

http://orgtheory.wordpress.com/category/grad-school-rulz/

Additionally, this is one of my favorite sites.

[silencio1982]

thanks AnotherRealist and Lenin. very helpful!

and, thanks realist, for those tips. i do think the earlier you have your career goals in mind the better.

[alanapsci]

Thanks AnotherRealist and Lenin333... Great advice is great!

My question for AnotherRealist... I am thinking about taking my one and only offer (funded)--- from the University of Connecticut, but it is not in the Top 50 (It's 67 I think) I already have my MA. Should I decline and try again next year or just go with it??? :?

[opal32496]

Can Realist, AnotherRealist, etc. provide insight about the most productive way to spend the summer between yrs 1 and 2 of doctoral studies...? Have you heard anything about Michigan's quant camp, ICPSR? [http]. Are there other similar programs? Are these valuable to network with people from other schools (in addition to the additional technical training) and to diversify training and exposure, or is it better to purely stay at your department over the summer to involve yourself in an RA position, etc?

I'm interested to hear...

[Quarex]

My question for AnotherRealist... I am thinking about taking my one and only offer (funded)--- from the University of Connecticut, but it is not in the Top 50 (It's 67 I think) I already have my MA. Should I decline and try again next year or just go with it??? :?

The BIG NAMES are totally dodging these questions--likely because there is no good answer, and probably not even an acceptable answer, without knowing everything about the circumstances. Is your application going to be any stronger next year? If not, then it seems reasonable that this may well be the best chance you have, and you should take it. If so, then, well, it is harder.

Now, I have seen Connecticut's placement list, and it was not exactly hopeless. Not many schools I had heard of on the list, no, but still some places I would not mind being, either (not to mention that surely some of those other colleges are just regionally known instead of nationally known). Think of it this way: If you take everyone's advice to heart, and dedicate yourself to your research and studies like never before, odds are certainly better that you will be one of those fortunate people placed at a decent school.

Hmm, perhaps my unfunded "top-40" acceptance is a GREAT idea after all!

ICPSR

I can heartily recommend Michigan's ICPSR program, as that is where my dad doing doctoral research on a summer grant met my mom who was finishing up her master's degree. Thanks, Michigan's ICPSR program!

In more serious news, I suspect working constantly on your dissertation proposal, while presenting at conferences and publishing articles, is a good way to go in your first summer!

[detroitfan]

It's going to depend on the program you're in, but I wouldn't run the ICPSR or one of the EITMs until the summer of my second or third year. Having noted that, I thought the program I eventually went to was valuable for learning/networking/broadening my exposure to the discipline. The summer of my first year I managed to latch on to a senior faculty member and do some RA work. I thought it was pretty useful.

[FuzzyDunlop]

I am also another PhD. I've resisted writing back to Realist but I need to chime in with another point of view.

Maybe this discussion is no longer helpful, but let me just add that the opinions of these posters (and they certainly are opinions, not "facts") are really not that inconsistent with each other. What it boils down to is that most people attending lower ranked schools are making a mistake if the goal is a tenure track job with some degree of choice about where you end up geographically, but that doesn't mean that you are necessarily making a mistake. Just understand that you have to work that much harder. Things will not work out that well for most of your peers, but they might work out fine for you.

More generally in response to anotherrealist, I should add that I have found at my top ten school that there are plenty of great advisers willing to go above and beyond to help students and that I like my fellow grad students. I am thus skeptical of his or her claim that the quality of advisers and peers increases as you move down the rankings. This seems like an opinion that is ultimately pretty difficult to substantiate. Good people can be found everywhere. Its your job to forge those relationships, wherever you land.

Can Realist, AnotherRealist, etc. provide insight about the most productive way to spend the summer between yrs 1 and 2 of doctoral studies...? Have you heard anything about Michigan's quant camp, ICPSR? [http]. Are there other similar programs? Are these valuable to network with people from other schools (in addition to the additional technical training) and to diversify training and exposure, or is it better to purely stay at your department over the summer to involve yourself in an RA position, etc?

I did not go to ICPSR but my friends who went generally had good experiences. The value of these programs is that they help you learn methods. It might be nice to meet some other grad students or professors from other places, but networking in these venues (especially in the first couple years of school) is not that critical in the grand scheme of things. I can't remember which right now, but there is also an English university (Essex?) that runs a similar methods camp over the summer and there is CQRM that runs for a few weeks at Arizona State in January. For anybody who is not a theorist, learning methods is vital in this discipline. You can do that at your own university, at one of these institutes, or some combination thereof. The important thing is to do it. Anybody (non-theorists) reading this who was thinking that they might not learn methods in grad school because they don't like math or find the idea kind of a drag should do some serious reevaluation of that assumption.

As far as what to do in your first summer, its not a crucial decision either way. Stats camp is often a useful investment. If a good RA opportunity comes up that might lead to a better relationship with a potential adviser, that is definitely worth considering. Finally, if you are planning to do empirical research in other countries then going abroad for a stretch to poke around a bit and/or polish your language skills is not a bad idea either. One of the most difficult things about finding a good dissertation topic (in comparative at least) is that students often don't actually know enough empirically about the countries they are studying in order to really know what is an intriguing puzzle and what is not. In the end, just do something useful that also gives yourself a little break from the day-to-day grind of the school year.

My question for AnotherRealist... I am thinking about taking my one and only offer (funded)--- from the University of Connecticut, but it is not in the Top 50 (It's 67 I think) I already have my MA. Should I decline and try again next year or just go with it???

As Quarex noted, there is nobody who can really answer this question for you. Any value in waiting is dependent on whether you think your application will improve by next year. If that's not the case, then you should be deciding between going now or finding another career, and that decision has to be based on an honest assessment of whether you have the skills and determination to excel enough in this lower ranked program (to really, really be at the top) such that things will work out for you in the long run. You also will obviously want to take a closer look at the faculty and placement history in your subfield.

[UndraftedFreeAgent]

More generally in response to anotherrealist, I should add that I have found at my top ten school that there are plenty of great advisers willing to go above and beyond to help students and that I like my fellow grad students. I am thus skeptical of his or her claim that the quality of advisers and peers increases as you move down the rankings. This seems like an opinion that is ultimately pretty difficult to substantiate. Good people can be found everywhere. Its your job to forge those relationships, wherever you land.

Yeah, there are winners and losers at all levels, in terms of advisors. Professors are notorious for becoming self-absorbed and snooty, even at lower ranked schools. The trick seems to be to find an advisor you match well with personally, as well as professionally, and then give them a reason to care about your success. This starts with only coming to office hours to ask intelligent questions. If you have to ask a "dumb" question (I've asked more than my fair share), look to another grad student, as it won't matter as much if one of them thinks slightly less of your abilities.

The thing I've noticed in my experience, and this may not be true everywhere, is that the younger profs tend to be more engaged with their grad students. They're more likely to be conducting technically advanced research and will also have more projects going on at a given time in an attempt to beat the tenure clock. Younger profs also want to build a strong record of grad student advising, which could put them over the top in the hunt for tenure.

[alanapsci]

Thanks Quarex and fuzzydunlop!! I am at least glad to see Arizona State and U. Mass on the placement list for UConn!

[Quarex]

Thanks Quarex and fuzzydunlop!! I am at least glad to see Arizona State and U. Mass on the placement list for UConn!

Haha. Yeah, those schools made me think there was certainly hope as a Huskie! The schools that have never even successfully placed a student at another moderately-ranked program are the ones you really have to wonder about.

[jr77msu]

Could someone please comment regarding the choice between Michigan State's Political Science PhD program (American Politics major field, Public Policy minor field) or Indiana University's Joint PhD in Public Policy (American Politics in Political Science department, Public Policy in School of Environmental and Public Affairs)? I'm not concerned about both of these being questionable top 25 political science schools (though Michigan State's rankings could potentially place it in that category: ranked 17th in Chingos' & Schmidt's PS article for placement, 9th overall in a ten-year study for placing their PhD graduates in U.S. doctoral institutions, 22nd in US News for political science, and 16th in US News for american politics subfield). Indiana's Political Science is not as strong as Michigan State's but its Public Policy is top-notch (ranked 3rd overall in public affairs by US News though its strenghts are in environmental affairs, public financing, and public administration, not public policy analysis). The problem is that I feel either program would probably be a good fit for my particular research interests in terms of faculty support, cross-disciplinary opportunities, research methodology, etc.

Fortunately I have little interest in getting placement at a top R1 political science department when I graduate, and so that is the reason I'm not worried about being near the top 25 cut-off. In fact, I may even find that I am more interested in a good LA college rather than an R1 since I could spend more time teaching. My main concern is what the job market in academia is like for political science versus public policy and the difference in quality between Michigan State's program and Indiana's program. Is Michigan State's better placement record an indication that the quality of the program is better? Would I be limiting myself by choosing public policy over political science (i.e. would there be less job opportunities for me)? If funding was better at one program than another, would that be an important factor? (MSU's funding package is quite good and provides full funding for 5 years; I'm still awaiting Indiana's funding package details... funding will probably be good but Michigan's will likely be better.) Does anyone have any thoughts?

[polisciphd]

Let's see, MSU = more money, better placement record, higher ranked, I'm guessing a lower cost of living (lansing vs. bloomington), bigger job market (americanist vs. public policy jobs)

Indiana = well, the campus is pretty

[jr77msu]

Tidefan... you couldn't be more right, haha. I think I let my own preference at this point (Michigan State) come through a little strong on my post by how I presented the information about the two programs, but I do think that the facts speak for themselves. Mainly I was just writing to see if anyone knew something about Michigan State that I should be aware of before I commit to their program instead of Indiana's or if there was some reason unbeknownst to me that could possibly sway me to Indiana's program. If anyone else wants to comment, feel free. I'm leaning towards Michigan State and if the campus visit goes well this Friday, I foresee accepting their offer over Indiana's.

[thebends1996]

billybob-I think it really boils down to where you'd rather teach: in a traditional political science department or a more policy centered school. I was accepted to the joint program last year, and I thought it was good, but wasn't completely enamored by it. The placement at Indiana is pretty decent. When I visited last year they placed all of their graduates and one person took a tenure track position at Syracuse. Now, for policy/public administration, this is, as I'm sure you know, a great placement. However, your chances are basically slim to none when it comes to a traditional school.

Now, if you are interested in a career outside of academia, I would seriously consider SPEA. That program has a really solid reputation in government, nonprofit, and research circles.

By the way, Bloomington is a really cheap place to live. I don't think there would be much of a difference between the two. You could easily find a 1 bedroom for 300-450. I would base your decision solely on your final career objective.

[jr77msu]

Thanks TheBends. I was told basically the same thing by a PoliSci Professor at the University where I'm finishing up a Master's in International Affairs. He said if you want to go outside of academia, a public policy degree from Indiana is hard to beat. If your intention is to go into academia, then Michigan State is likely the better fit. Since I do intend on becoming a professor and since I don't have any overriding desire to teach in a policy school, the odds are high of me accepting Michigan State's offer.

Update: I did accept Michigan State's offer.

[polisciapp]

Anotherrealist,

I am deciding between two similarly ranked schools (US News).

School 1 is by far the best place to live in terms of location and cost. The academics are good, but the placement is not as good as Schools 2.

School 2 places fairly well--or at least more consistently than school 1. But the location is less than desireable.

The rankings we are talking about are 25-30 in US News, a difference I view as negligible. I think my concern stems from the varying placement of school 1 v. 2. Should placement be my guide at all times? School 1 offers the most in the way of living if I need a break from studying--and seems to be the best place to live--but the program's past placement concerns me.

[Quarex]

As a brief resurrection of this thread, before letting it return to its watery grave:

I am officially going to be one of "those" people who goes to a low-ranked school (well, actually unranked, but considering Brown and a couple of other clearly-good-overall-schools are unranked, it did not worry me as much as it might have otherwise). And I turned down four middle-ranked schools to do it. Why? Because I am a contrarian. Well, not really; in fact, despite Delaware's absence from the rankings, there are several faculty there who seem well-regarded and certainly are excellent scholars (Muqtedar Khan alone is everywhere these days), and almost everyone there is him/herself from a top-25 school. But in any case, as I mentioned here earlier, my whole life has been an exercise in specifically not doing what is expected/suggested/etc., and I am the happiest person I know. I have this funny feeling that this is going to work out, too.

But if not, I will buy Realist a drink. With my unemployment check Hmm, "Doctor of Unemployment Studies."