International security focused programs

[BruBru]

Hello everyone,

I am currently entering the process that most of you are completing in the next few months. I will be applying to political science PhD programs this fall with the goal of entering one in the fall of 2009. I am currently in the process of searching for programs that are "good fits." As most of you know, this is a challenging process that requires both determination and a lot of time. In order to speed up this process, I thought I would register (I read this board daily) and ask those with an interest in international security what schools I should be looking at.

The only two schools I have found that seem to have at least a limited focus on international security is Columbia and Georgetown. Anyone out there know of any other programs that seem to emphasize international security? Or any tips on sorting through schools in order to identify such programs?

[realist]

MIT is the obvious choice here.

[zephyr]

this is my area of interest. the thing you need to look for is both schools w/ strong reputations in international security, and people with interests in the regions you want to focus on. my thinking is that columbia, chicago, and MIT are the 3 best international security places - though, again, this all depends on what aspect of security you want to focus on, as well as what region. however, all 3 are insanely competitive. actually, all top programs (i'd say top 25 to top 50) accept somewhere between 6-20% of applicants, so getting in to any respectable program is pretty tough. stanford, harvard, ucsd, yale, and princeton are also outstanding. georgetown's not too shabby, either. again, figure out what exactly you want to do w/ security, figure out if there's a geographic region you're particularly interested in, and then look who trains the most scholars in that area.

[polisciphd]

I agree, MIT would be the top choice in my book, in large part because you can actually concentrate in security studies as a field, instead of doing it within IR as most other schools do. Columbia is up there too, they have some strong faculty in security studies. If you are right-leaning/conservative, you can't go wrong with Mearshimer at U Chicago. I am heading to Illinois in the fall, they are the only grad school in the top 25 that routinely offers more three or more graduate seminars on war, plus they inherited J. David Singer's Correlates of War project and they have ACDIS, a center for arms control and disarmament studies.

[thestarter]

I think it also depends on whether you plan to pursue an academic or policy career.

MIT is surely excellent for any future plans. WUSTL and Georgetown are pretty strong as well.

[BruBru]

Thank you all for such a quick reply. I plan to pursue an academic career, therefore an institution that is known for training researchers and teachers would be preferable to one that focuses on preparing you for a career in policy. As far as my area of interest is concerned, I am interested in examining the affects of changes in the environment on international security (eg climate change, water shortages, nature disasters, etc). Although currently I am doing work with several professors on the issue of post-Cold War arms control policy. Tidefan, thanks for the info on U Chicago... that is a school I will be exploring more in depth.

I will also be taking a good hard look at MIT... seeing how that is the obvious best choice. Thanks again for all of your help.

[polisciphd]

Sorry, think you misunderstood me. Mearshimer is at U Chicago, I am going to the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (UIUC)...

[lenin333]

It is interesting... Mearsheimer's article "Back to the Future" is in my opinion nutz. Maybe that is my post hoc observation. But advocating a Nuclearized Germany doesn't seem to be good IR.

[polisciphd]

I didn't say that I like him or that I think he is at all sane, what I said was that if you are right wing/conservative in nature, I myself are as liberal as they come and think that he is a nutjob, but that is just my politics talking.

[apolloapp]

As background, I'll be heading to Chicago in the fall to study security issues/IR. 'Tis a long and painful process, so start early!

Stanford, Columbia, and MIT are probably the top schools for studying security. From what friends and professors in other/similar programs tell me, Stanford is more focused on modeling and statistical approaches, while a degree from MIT may be more policy-focused. Keep in mind, also, that the classes for MIT's "security studies" field are very tightly focused on specific military concerns -- operations, etc. If that is your interest, go for it, but you may want to consider IR if not. Columbia has some great people but I've heard complaints that the political science department is too closely tied to SIPA (and thus more policy-oriented than many aiming for an academic political science career might like). My Columbia information is the least reliable, though.

Princeton is reportedly planning to put a lot of money into improving their security faculty, and they generally have gobs of money to throw around for their graduate students. Would certainly be worth applying and seeing what the deal is if/when you get in.

I've been told by several pHarvard students focusing on security not to be lured by Harvard's name and funding -- their security faculty is small and, from what students there have told me, sort of marginalized.

Yale and Chicago are also good options for security studies, though I'd say Columbia and Stanford are probably slightly better (we're still talking top 5-10, probably). Yale's faculty in the area is very small and their star, Bruce Russett, will likely be retiring relatively soon, but if you're looking at nontraditional aspects of security Yale's related departments can't be beat and there are some promising young faculty coming up. Chicago and Yale both have a reputation for being more open to qualitative, area-studies type work than most of the other top political science departments, as well.

[sec_guy]

I think Columbia and MIT are by far the two top places for Security/IR.

Columbia has a wider faculty, and probably its average level is higher than MIT's. MIT seems to have a program focusing more on technical aspects of military operations than CU's.

I would not recommend JH (in the sense of SAIS) for a career in academia. Much better for policy (but you have to be happy dealing with some neo-cons)

[Leica]

I'm not sure whether this is something you'd be interested in, but St. Andrews (UK) has a strong International Security Studies program - http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/intrel/post ... study/iss/. That particular focus is offered as an MLitt, but as a PhD student you'd obviously have direct access to the program as well. The MLitt could be a backup amongst your applications next year. St. Andrews is a good school and seems to have a particular American appeal, so it might be worth looking into.

[BruBru]

Thank you all for all the help, I can not express strongly enough how much this is helping me in my search. That program at St. Andrews looks interesting... it does seem to be a good backup school. I would also love to life overseas for a while, thanks for sharing Leica.

[ordinonuovo]

Cornell is also a place you might want to look at, particularly if your regional focus is Asia and your

interest overlaps with non-traditional approaches to security.

[lousyreeds1]

Tidefan, I'm sorry, but I have to jump in here. Mearsheimer could not be farther from neoconservativism in his ideology. Perhaps you're confusing Mearsheimer with some old Chicagoans, Leo Strauss and Alan Bloom, who are associated with the origins of neoconservativism (though a lot of people totally absolve Strauss here). Mearsheimer's a true realist - to the extent that he advocates policy, he advocates acting in the narrow national interest as the only path to a stable international system. That means a focus on stability over humanitarian intervention, democracy promotion, etc (to simplify). He just published a controvertial volume arguing that America's support for Israel should be wholly reconsidered because it's fundamentally counter to our national interest - and you call him a neocon? In terms of right or left wing, it's true that the most prominent realists in government have tended to come from the Republican party (Kissinger, Scowcroft), but in the current debate it's a lot more complicated - there are plenty of "leftists" advocating a move away from democracy promotion, humanitarian intervention, etc. I'm sorry to be a little hot under the collar, but such a profound mischaracterization is in nobody's best interest.

[grtgmeloser]

Good catch on the Mearsheimer (mis)characterization. I might add that he is notable for promoting the "Offensive Realism" point of view, in contrast to someone like Jervis who seems to be located within the "Defensive Realism" tradition. Regardless, I've never read anything that places Mearsheimer in the group of neocons such as Perle, Wolfowitz, Feith, et al. In fact, Mearsheimer and Walt have been significant and early critics of the most recent Iraq War.

Tidefan, I'm still a huge fan of asswhore, so don't take this the wrong way.

[zephyr]

the thing is, the realist school of IR, while traditionally thought of as conservative, is finding a lot of commonality with progressive politics. its very weird, but that has definitely happened. realists argue against US intervention abroad (progressives would call this neo-imperialism) that ultimately results in negative responses to the US...as such, they were among the leading IR voices against the iraq war. offensive realism is a bit scary, but if you think about how the world is versus how you want it to be, its easy to see that some states do seem to securitize by going on the offense. this is definitely true of the bush doctrine. also similar to the (as bacevich would call it) economic imperialism of the clinton years. mearsheimer and schweller are the two main IR voices i've read taking the offensive realism point of view, while walt and van evera are two of the better known defensive realists.

[sec_guy]

if the original poster is interested in security studies programs in EU, he/she should absolutely consider the London King's College War Studies Department

[ordinonuovo]

There is a lot that is true with the old adage that 'extremes meet at the other end(or at least that

is what we say in Korea)'. I remember Kissinger saying at a meeting that wasn't opened up to

reporters that he thought the neo-conservatives were basically 'Trostkyists at heart," that sought

for democracy across the world, like the old revolutionaries called for 'world revolution.'

The throwback realist castigating the modern crusaders.. something to see..

He did give the neo-cons credit for good 'analysis' of world affairs though...

[jenna1212]

wow at labelling Mearsheimer a neocon lol :shock:

Neoconservatism isn't a monolith either; there are many shades in that camp as well.

[Peter]

Please don't take this the wrong way, but I've always wondered about the attraction to security studies. And I would argue that security studies is the most popular and commonplace focus of IR students...

Given that the people in the world who actually have the real data needed to make sound conclusions regarding military/security operations are actually very small in number, absolutely do not publish in peer-reviewed journals (think, would a general actually publically assert: "Currently, the U.S. has _______ nuclear weapons of the ______ variety. We keep them in bases in ___, ____, ____") and have very sheltered to no interaction w/the academic community, how can conclusions found in the security studies sect of POLS been anything more than a barrage of hypotheticals?

In other words, from my observation, "bombs and rockets" people study lots and lots of scenarios of weapons/how people might respond to various hypothetical types of arsenals/the deterrence or provocation of weapons, etc. but they are forced to cite other academics to make their cases. These academics do not have access to any real data, and so an inbreeding of hypothetical-hypotheticals abounds.

So, since those who actually have the data for this study are few and far between (and likely living in DC and not a college town), how can POLS provide worthwhile research when they're taking shots in the dark? To actually research security studies (using the real data, etc.) shouldn't these students do so from within the government? Can they get the correct data anywhere else?

[polisciphd]

I apologize for a making a gross generalization regarding Mr. Chicago and conservativism, I kind of lump him in with all the other hawk nutjobs in the maybe if I come up with enough stupid ideas one of them will make me famous policy influencing world.

[flyers29]

Please don't take this the wrong way, but I've always wondered about the attraction to security studies. And I would argue that security studies is the most popular and commonplace focus of IR students...

Given that the people in the world who actually have the real data needed to make sound conclusions regarding military/security operations are actually very small in number, absolutely do not publish in peer-reviewed journals (think, would a general actually publically assert: "Currently, the U.S. has _______ nuclear weapons of the ______ variety. We keep them in bases in ___, ____, ____") and have very sheltered to no interaction w/the academic community, how can conclusions found in the security studies sect of POLS been anything more than a barrage of hypotheticals?

In other words, from my observation, "bombs and rockets" people study lots and lots of scenarios of weapons/how people might respond to various hypothetical types of arsenals/the deterrence or provocation of weapons, etc. but they are forced to cite other academics to make their cases. These academics do not have access to any real data, and so an inbreeding of hypothetical-hypotheticals abounds.

So, since those who actually have the data for this study are few and far between (and likely living in DC and not a college town), how can POLS provide worthwhile research when they're taking shots in the dark? To actually research security studies (using the real data, etc.) shouldn't these students do so from within the government? Can they get the correct data anywhere else?

I can't speak to why it's a seemingly popular subject, but how much have you read in the field, exactly? Firstly, the classic "where are your troops and may I count them" question you posed can be answered in a few minutes with Google. The number of airplanes/tanks/ships we have and specific characteristics about them isn't some state secret, and the government puts out plenty of its own academic research (via war colleges, officials working in and out of think tanks, etc) to provide this information to academia. So to answer your question, such data is readily available to those who seek it.

Even so, you're only describing a small part of the field. It's not like security scholars sit around a table "Dr. Strangelove"-style and fantasize about how to start another war; in fact, there's a lot of dry theory involved in how states act within the international system to meet their own national interests, or even a lot of crossover with how economics, cultural aspects, etc affect the security realm. Much like other fields of IR, you can really fit security into almost anything.