Smaller Versus Larger Programs in Pol Sci

[veracious_star]

Hi everyone,

Congratulations to everyone who got in this year!!! In all this excitement, it is hard to make a rational decision as to what program to choose.

I was wondering how other people are making the choice between smaller programs which allow for more time with faculty, lower dropout rates, and better placement results versus larger programs at bigger name schools which have more resources, more competition, and more opportunities for conferences. My feeling is smaller schools would be great if you have a good relationship with all the professors, but if by chance you don't get along with your advisor or they try to micromanage you -- it seems like it would quickly become hell. On the other hand, bigger schools there would be less attention and more chances of getting completely lost in the process, but you would also have more freedom in your research and more opportunties to do multidisciplinary work.

Here is a link to the NRC placement article on how smaller schools have better placement: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/08/21/ranking .They also have a better score for student well-being.

Also, I'm wondering how important it is having a well-known advisor within the subfield(he/she may not care about you, but would know the other major players in the field)? Do most political scientists do post-doc work, so school rankings rarely matter anyway?

[fsmn36]

I was wondering how other people are making the choice between smaller programs which allow for more time with faculty, lower dropout rates, and better placement results versus larger programs at bigger name schools which have more resources, more competition, and more opportunities for conferences. My feeling is smaller schools would be great if you have a good relationship with all the professors, but if by chance you don't get along with your advisor or they try to micromanage you -- it seems like it would quickly become hell. On the other hand, bigger schools there would be less attention and more chances of getting completely lost in the process, but you would also have more freedom in your research and more opportunties to do multidisciplinary work.

I can't answer everything, but I can agree that yes, my smaller school always places and while you're not going to get placed at Harvard (at least not straight out), most do get placed in R1s or the teaching schools they want.

Also, I think small departments are just as likely to have opportunities for conferences. My school has at least 5 2nd years going to MPSA this year. Last year, one of the 1st years went to a conference after only 3 months in the department. And of course, all the upper years are pushing out conference papers like machines. I guess it depends on the focus of the small school. Ours is definitely on publishing and attending conferences.

(Small is subjective. We have 3 IR profs, 2 policy, and only 4 CP. American is our biggest field, but I feel, overall, in comparison to Harvard and Georgetown and such, we're much smaller.)

[slacktivist]

Larger programs may offer the opportunity for students to be affiliated with research institutes in their area of interest. This can provide the benefits of a smaller school (a clear path to building a professional network, resources available to a small pool of students, and increased contact with faculty of interest). I would have to think a situation like this would provide the best of both worlds to students.

[Charlie2010]

Post-docs are not nearly as standard in poli sci as in the natural sciences. In addition, they tend to go to the best students--those who placed well but want a year or two more to just do research, or those who are expected to be stars but may not have had good jobs in a particular niche available when they first went out. I would say roughly (very roughly) 1 in 6 of the PhD graduates from top-ten programs will do a post-doc before starting their first job.

From a top-ten perspective, I would say that hiring committees are a lot like admissions committees--overburdened and hoping to narrow the number of files they have to read closely. So they will always look at a file from a top-ten department (or one of the techy boutiques if they are looking for methods), and they will look at a file from someone who worked with a big shot they know of , and they will look at a file from someone who worked with someone more junior who they respect as a good judge because they know the person's work, or have talked at conferences, or went to grad school together. If you have none of that then you will need to have an impressive publication or something else to stand out and compel them to actually personally read and evaluate your research.

Of course, there are faculty at top schools who have been effusive too often about students that weren't all that good, and faculty who won't make the personal effort to promote good students. Then there is the question of whether they will offer good training and helpful supervision (although usually this goes together). An uninformed and short letter from, say, a Sam Huntington, will not help you as much as a detailed discussion of why your research is groundbreaking from a solid but less-famous associate prof.

[Charlie2010]

I didn't answer the original question directly, but I don't think you can just draw a sharp dichotomy between large and small programs.

An empirical approach here would be to look at the assistant professors at ten places you'd love to work at, and see where they came from. Then scale that by the size of the admitted classes at the small vs. large schools.

Or perhaps you should look at ten places that aren't your dream job, but would be acceptable, since that's where the typical PhD admit ends up.