U of Chicago Committee on International Relations M.A.

[bleistift]

I just received in the mail an acceptance to the M.A. program at University of Chicago for the Committee on International Relations. This comes as a rather big surprise to me as I'd applied as a Ph.D. candidate in History at Chicago, and I'd been rejected to all the Ph.D. programs I'd applied to.

So, as a history candidate I pretty much know next to nothing about IR or political science programs. Can anyone shed some light as to Chicago's prestige (in CIR), faculty, and most importantly, track record as to placement into top-tier Ph.D. programs?

(Disclaimer: I know there's already a thread on Chicago's MAPSS, but there was no information about CIR so I was hoping to get more specific information.)

[dudemaster]

Well I did my MA in that program and have so far been accepted for a PhD at Columbia, NYU, and UBC, as well as being waitlisted at Harvard, and I had friends there who have ended up at Harvard, NYU, Chicago, NYU, American, McGill and WashU, so I'd say pretty good.

[bleistift]

What did you think of the faculty? Were they helpful in trying to place you into PhD programs? Were they easily accessible? Were most of them from the political science department?

[dudemaster]

I'd say the faculty were hit and miss, some were very enthusiastic, others had a certain disdain for the MA students versus those in the PhD program. I've been out of school for a year and half so I did most of the PhD application work myself so I can't really comment on faculty helpfulness in that regard. In terms of faculty department you have a lot of latitude in choosing your courses. Mine were exclusively in PoliSci or the Harris School (public policy) but you can take courses in other fields such as history. I'm glad I went in the end but I was in it for the international relations so I don't know how useful it would be for a history student.

[bleistift]

Thanks dudemaster. International History is basically the history of IR, although naturally we tend to focus on a specific theme, time period, and/or countries. It's mostly archive research work and not a lot of theory or policy formulation. I'll have to pose that question for the program coordinators.

[Peter]

I know I've posted my thoughts on this before (maybe in the other Chicago MA thread?) but I was offered the position and said no. I got the feeling (even after the admitted student trip) that the purpose of the program was to serve as a fundraiser for the PhD. Also, while it is true that you COULD get into a big name school from a Chicago MA, you could also amass a great deal of debt and get into a school you could have been admitted to if you just did the MA at a cheap state school.

I'd only consider it if you wanted a PhD down the road in that subject field, likely. I opted to go to the no-name state school and have been accepted by four PhD programs, waitlisted at one, and waiting on another couple. It's hit or miss, and while I've been accepted in the top-25, I haven't been in the top 10, and I wasn't the type of applicant to focus all on the top 10 schools. However, it is likely that it will be EASIER to get into a program with the Chicago tag.

So, it's a gamble. Go to the admit weekend and see how you feel. They were notorious at Chicago for spending 99% of the trip talking about how wonderful they were and how you must be brilliant to be there (so ridiculous, my gosh) but if you can get past the egos that barely fit through the doorways then you might see something redemptive. But again, I opted no....and I have no loans...

[lousyreeds1]

I was accepted to Chicago's CIR Masters program with a half-tuition scholarship, and I'm trying to decide whether to take this or go work abroad for a year. The program is a good match for me - I like the focus on theory and the breadth of course options across disciplines. That said, I have a few hang ups and would love to have thoughts from others considering this program or perhaps someone who's done it in the past.

I guess first and foremost I want a better sense of how people find the quality of the teaching. Who in particular is willing to invest time and energy in MA students, and who considers them a distraction from their PhD candidates? I'm also a little worried about the ideological diversity. I know that Alexander Wendt left a few years ago, and I wonder if this was just for a higher-paying position or if he clashed with Mearsheimer et al. Are there any good constructivists left on staff?

I'm also wondering if one year is enough to achieve anything. I don't have a formal background in political theory, so I'd be starting with something of a disadvantage, and I worry that I'd be ready to do a serious piece of writing only -after- the program ended, if you know what I mean.

All that said, it's a great set of scholars at a great institution, and it's a very tempting offer. I'll go to the admitted students weekend in April and report back.

[bleistift]

Peter, thanks for posting your thoughts again; I didn't catch them in other threads.

lousyreeds, I definitely have the same concern about whether professors will invest time in the MA students. I'm not so much worried about the specific research interests of the faculty, however. As you said yourself, we'd only be there a year before we're out, hardly enough time to worry about ideological diversity. I don't know about you, but an MA program for me would be simply a means to an end -- acquiring LORs for the PhD level, where faculty research interests matter a lot more. If you have the same goal, you probably just need MA faculty that are willing to get to know you.

Btw, would you mind reporting back here about how the visit went? With no funding I'm almost positive I don't want to attend, and the $150 travel reimbursement barely covers half of airfare for me. But I'll probably "reactivate" my application for next year and hope for some funding. It'd be useful to hear what your thoughts are about the program.

[lousyreeds1]

Bleistift,

What you say is true - a goal would be to come out of this with close relationships with a few professors. And in a year, I would hope to emerge with a broad theoretical grounding as well. Like you say, there isn't enough time to carve out a political philosophy for myself. But I don't have a formal background in theory, and I want to make sure I'm not going down too specific a path too early. In the end you're probably right that I should be looking for how profs engage with students rather than what they're all about ideologically. I'll let you know how things seem after April 7.