Advice from an actual PhD

[Sean]

I hope I can get into a top 25 program but that just seems more and more impossible at this moment.... :cry:

Now my goal is to become an out lier

[realist]

*Sigh*

The reason why I say unambiguous is because people disagree about lower ranked schools. Like you are right now. In the Hix rankings, for example, place UNC at 35 and Minnesota at 59, one behind NYU and 7 behind Duke. They put Irvine at 7 and Indiana at 8. This in no way ranks the general consensus about these schools' graduate programs.

I'm not really here to tell you what schools are the best. There is no real ranking system that does what you want; it's a combination of recent placement history (per capita), reputation, faculty reputation, school reputation, and what I understand from having been a graduate student for 5 years, a tenure track prof at a R1 school for 4, and knowing what my colleagues think. There is no way to summarize this information in a single ordinal scale. There are no hard and fast rules. Feel free to disagree with me, and then search for a ranking system out there that puts your school in the top 25.

What I attempt to do is describe what appears to be a natural cutoff point between schools that are "widely considered" to be top 25 schools. It's not based on anything other than my imperfect reading of the discipline.

If you want to consider Emory to be worse than Minnesota, you should feel free to do so. I can tell you for a fact, though, that whenever we look at job applicants, Minnesota is not given nearly the attention that Emory is. We even have a very active UMinn PhD (from the 1970s) on our committees. I guess that our faculty don't read the US News.

It's sad that so many of you focus on the silly rankings that I've come up with (with what I admitted was nothing close to a perfect system), rather than my advice about what to consider when looking at graduate school and how to be a good political scientist.

[ampersand]

I think the reason that so many of us are hung up on the Top-25 thing is that a lot of us are now being slapped with rejections from many of those schools, and we're desperate to convince ourselves that whatever other schools took us are still good schools that will give us good training that will land us tenure-track jobs. When faced with uncertainty, we want cold, hard numbers to reassure us.

[polisciapp]

It's sad that so many of you focus on the silly rankings that I've come up with (with what I admitted was nothing close to a perfect system), rather than my advice about what to consider when looking at graduate school and how to be a good political scientist.

Why is it sad to focus on the silly rankings? Your most important advice, I believe, had a little something to do with rankings:

So what sort of advice does this lead me to give? First off, above and beyond almost anything, you need to go to the best possible graduate school. It doesn't matter if you don't like Ann Arbor as much as Athens or Austin, graduate school matters tremendously for your future ability to get a job. At nearly every university or college, a PhD from Michigan will get your file looked at when applying for jobs. I know that this sounds harsh, but for most jobs, a job file from a school out of the top 25 won't even be considered. It will just go on the trash. Let this sink in.

As a corollary, you need to think long and hard about graduate school if you do not have the opportunity to go to a top one. You should understand that you may not have a good chance of landing a tenure track job. The one's available to you, moreover, will likely be at "directional institutions" (think Northern X State) or small, low-ranked liberal arts colleges in the middle of nowhere. Even there, you will be competing with Harvard and Berkeley PhDs for a job. It's hard. It's not as hard as English or History, but nevertheless it's really hard. You should know this and plan accordingly.

Do not choose graduate school based on who you "want to work with." Graduate students very seldom "work with" an adviser. If they do, this is *at best* as a second author, and even this is rare, and almost never enough to get you a job. This also assumes that your research interests don't change (RARE) and that your adviser is a nice and approachable person (OCCASIONAL). Remember, they are approachable during recruitment because you provide them with an unlimited supply of discount labor. They have their own worries and incentives, and these rarely align with yours.

Perhaps it is sad that rankings are given that much weight at all.

[lenin333]

I think people focus on the rankings because they don't want to face the reality that an obscure program isn't the dream ticket.

Frankly this process has really gotten me to realize that I don't want to do a PhD. Why should I perpetuate the bullshit? I am off to get an online MSc from University of London. Show me the dolla-bills!

[polisciphd]

And I have decided that I am going to go to my 20 something ranked school and rock the joint. And then let's see who won't hire me because I went to a school that may or may not be "acceptable" so that I can say "thank you very much, but now I get to reject you as#ho$es!"

[alanapsci]

I am very happy for those on this board that were accepted by "THE top 25 schools" that this professor has pointed out. And I truly wish them the best! But, some of us did not get accepted by a top 25 and will still be very proud of the degrees we get, including me, and who cares if it is from a number 40 or 50 on the rankings list... remember there are around 300+ programs in the US alone. Yes, if you want to teach at the top, then you better be at the top, but its not all about those Top 25. I just wanted to speak out to those who are not in a Top 25 to let you know that you are NOT a failure, as much as this board might make you feel. My professors have assured me that hard work and publications can and will get you noticed and with that you can make a pretty good living at a good university!

Taking that "low level" acceptance and running with it..... :mrgreen:

[JordanJames]

I am very happy for those on this board that were accepted by "THE top 25 schools" that this professor has pointed out. And I truly wish them the best! But, some of us did not get accepted by a top 25 and will still be very proud of the degrees we get, including me, and who cares if it is from a number 40 or 50 on the rankings list... remember there are around 300+ programs in the US alone. Yes, if you want to teach at the top, then you better be at the top, but its not all about those Top 25. I just wanted to speak out to those who are not in a Top 25 to let you know that you are NOT a failure, as much as this board might make you feel. My professors have assured me that hard work and publications can and will get you noticed and with that you can make a pretty good living at a good university!

Taking that "low level" acceptance and running with it..... :mrgreen:

In defense of the OP and some of the others who agree with him, nobody has said that if you are offerred a stipend at a school below the top 25 you shouldn't go. What people are saying is don't choose a school outside of the top 25 to go to a lower ranked school and don't pay to go to a lower ranked school. The OP was saying don't choose Florida State over UCSD because it's a better fit, or don't go $100,000 into debt to get a degree that probably won't land you a good job. You can find good jobs coming out of a school below the top 25, but the odds are stacked against you. I'm also going to 1 of those borderline schools, and I'm fine with that. I realize the odds are against me and others like me, but like I said before, anywhere in academia is better than the alternative for me. I'm gunning for a great placement, but I also realize that what he has said is correct. You shouldn't be depressed about going to a school outside the top 25, but you should also realize that competition for academic jobs is stiff, and there are fewer opportunities for those coming from schools that aren't in the top 25.

By the way, are there really 300+ PhD granting poli sci programs in the US? That seems like a lot.

[alanapsci]

Did a quick Google search ... 291, if you include international relations programs (many are pretty obscure programs!)

Well said and I do agree with exactly what you said Ammar!

[JordanJames]

Did a quick Google search ... 291, if you include international relations programs (many are pretty obscure programs!)

Wow! At least for those of us going to schools 25-50, there are 241 schools to look down on. God, why would anyone ever go to 1 of those schools? Don't they know that they'll never be able to find academic placement anywhere?

[alanapsci]

That is pretty funny....

[realist]

And I have decided that I am going to go to my 20 something ranked school and rock the joint. And then let's see who won't hire me because I went to a school that may or may not be "acceptable" so that I can say "thank you very much, but now I get to reject you as#who$es!"

I wish you the best of luck. Illinois has produced several very good scholars, and has some outstanding faculty.

[grtgmeloser]

And I have decided that I am going to go to my 20 something ranked school and rock the joint. And then let's see who won't hire me because I went to a school that may or may not be "acceptable" so that I can say "thank you very much, but now I get to reject you as#who$es!"

Hey Tidefan, congrats...but what is an asswhore?

[VaclavHavel]

OP:

Where can I find reliable sources for per capita placement? Googling just turns up departments' pages...

BTW, I'm a theorist, if that matters.

[VaclavHavel]

Actually, here is a resource, though it seems to have some methodological problems (the first link is a shorter summary of the study, while the second is the full study):

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/08/21/ranking

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/%7Ech ... _paper.pdf

[polisciapp]

OP:

Where can I find reliable sources for per capita placement? Googling just turns up departments' pages...

BTW, I'm a theorist, if that matters.

I know that political theory is perhaps the most difficult subfield from which to land a TT position.

[silencio1982]

I found this analysis of job outlook by subfield from APSA interesting:

http://www.apsanet.org/imgtest/EJobsWri ... 202006.pdf

[polisciphd]

Hey Tidefan, congrats...but what is an asswhore?

Yeah, got carried away with trying to hide what I was really saying and added in an extra consonant, was so flustered I couldn't even curse correctly...

[alegriapura]

Yeah, got carried away with trying to hide what I was really saying and added in an extra consonant, was so flustered I couldn't even curse correctly...

I like it. Maybe it will catch on.

[polisciphd]

alegriapura, I know you have gotten into some higher ranked schools, but are you planning on going to UIUC to visit? I am heading up on the 23rd to meet with the IR folks.

[iheartplato]

I like it. Maybe it will catch on.

i've already started using it--it's got a nice flow to it.

[polisciphd]

Man, yall are gonna get me in trouble.

[Quarex]

Gentlemen, Gentlewomen, please; we are all scholars here, let us not sink to endlessly discussing a profane typo. No matter how hilarious it may actually be.

That list of professorial positions by subfield was fascinating; thanks, Silencio. Now, of course, the missing data from that study is how many Ph.D.s of each type are awarded each year, or at least a percentile breakdown of general trends. It makes me feel like I should clearly focus on the American side of my comparative politics tendencies, so I can have the best chance at a job--but if there are twice as many American politics Ph.D.s as comparative politics Ph.D.s, then that may not be a good idea after all.

[gradster]

As a current grad in a top 10 program, I want to echo that being in a top school matters a lot.

I know many people think "the system is broken" but I was faced with the sad reality that it is not really as broken as it seems. Last year at Midwest, I went to several panels where students from non-top schools were presenting their work, and it was different from work others were doing. Consistently students from top programs were doing much better work. I think the reason this happens is that students at lowered ranked departments are not kept current. Those students often have no clue what the latest trends are or what is happening in their field. They often present papers engaging in debates that stopped 10 years ago, or make yet another criticism of an old theory or test someone else's theories. In top schools you are required to write every paper as a publishable quality paper, and you are surrounded by a cohort of incredible people who give you feedback, read your work, and challenge you. Faculty at top 25 schools are the editors and reviewers of top journals, so they know what is new and current, and they expect their students to be doing original work all the time. I'm sorry to say that if you don't go to a top school you just won't get the same type of training, and no matter how smart or hard you try, your work will most likely suffer for it. Yes, there are exceptions and yes there are some schools out there that are not in the top 25 and train their students well, but by and large that is not the case.

And last, but certainly not least, even if you do go to a top school that is NOT a guarantee that you will get a good or tenure track job. So think long and hard about graduate school even if you did get into a top program. Academic careers demand so much from people. You have no clue going in what you are getting into. You will have to many sacrifices, you will have to ask your partner to make sacrifices, you will have to postpone/forgo certain life plans, you will work on weekends and permanent overtime (there is no 9-5 in academia), you will most likely live in a place you would rather not, etc etc. So think long and hard about going to graduate school and know it is one challenging career you are seeking.

[zephyr]

As a current grad in a top 10 program, I want to echo that being in a top school matters a lot.

I know many people think "the system is broken" but I was faced with the sad reality that it is not really as broken as it seems. Last year at Midwest, I went to several panels where students from non-top schools were presenting their work, and it was different from work others were doing. Consistently students from top programs were doing much better work. I think the reason this happens is that students at lowered ranked departments are not kept current. Those students often have no clue what the latest trends are or what is happening in their field. They often present papers engaging in debates that stopped 10 years ago, or make yet another criticism of an old theory or test someone else's theories. In top schools you are required to write every paper as a publishable quality paper, and you are surrounded by a cohort of incredible people who give you feedback, read your work, and challenge you. Faculty at top 25 schools are the editors and reviewers of top journals, so they know what is new and current, and they expect their students to be doing original work all the time. I'm sorry to say that if you don't go to a top school you just won't get the same type of training, and no matter how smart or hard you try, your work will most likely suffer for it. Yes, there are exceptions and yes there are some schools out there that are not in the top 25 and train their students well, but by and large that is not the case.

And last, but certainly not least, even if you do go to a top school that is NOT a guarantee that you will get a good or tenure track job. So think long and hard about graduate school even if you did get into a top program. Academic careers demand so much from people. You have no clue going in what you are getting into. You will have to many sacrifices, you will have to ask your partner to make sacrifices, you will have to postpone/forgo certain life plans, you will work on weekends and permanent overtime (there is no 9-5 in academia), you will most likely live in a place you would rather not, etc etc. So think long and hard about going to graduate school and know it is one challenging career you are seeking.

i think the general point is definitely true and should not be lost on people here - its not that you can't do really well from a non-top 25 (whatever that is) school, it's that it's much much harder to do so. that being said, i personally think what is and what isn't a top 25 school is kind of murky at times (besides the obvious places...i think it gets tricky once you get below number 10 or so, and i definitely think subfield matters big time for these places). but if your department consistently places graduates from your subfield in recognizable schools (maybe not places like stanford, berkeley, etc., but at least places like GWU, BU, indiana, UT, etc.), you're probably in a top 25 department. of course, the unsaid problem is getting into a top program. yes, i do think the cream usually rises to the top, but consider the fact that the best programs (the harvards, stanfords, columbias, etc.) probably have at least 50-100 people apply who almost certainly would get a slot in the program if there were enough places. every top place probably cuts 30-40 people they would take if possible. usually, the odds even out over enough schools, but not necessarily. so, even if you're good enough to get into a top 10 program (which should be everyone's goal, because we know those places probably train and place better than the others), you might get shut out. profs at the top places all warned me about this - they said i was highly qualified and they hoped they would get to work with me, but that the admissions numbers make it entirely unpredictable who gets in where.