Deciding between top programs

[veracious_star]

Realist/Penelope Higgins....I was wondering what you think of Berkeley's pol sci department?

[Penelope Higgins]

That question is too broad. What subfield/methods/type of work do you want to do?

Realist/Penelope Higgins....I was wondering what you think of Berkeley's pol sci department?

[veracious_star]

That question is too broad. What subfield/methods/type of work do you want to do?

Formal modelling in IR/Comparative....

How does NYU, Rochester, and some of the other well-known quantitative departments compare?

[Penelope Higgins]

Sorry, not my specialty; I'll leave it to someone more informed about the formal side of things to comment here. I'd rather do that than give you erroneous information.

Formal modelling in IR/Comparative....

How does NYU, Rochester, and some of the other well-known quantitative departments compare?

[ECpoli]

Here's the rundown among HYPS:

Harvard: big, disorganized department with faculty all over the place in their little centers and programs. Amazing resources but can be hard to get noticed. Their best grad students are among the best in the discipline. The middle- or low-level ones disappear. If you are going to be a superstar this is the best bet. Cambridge is by far the coolest place among the four.

Yale: smaller, much more organized. Currently experiencing something of a battle between people who believe that the most important thing is to be absolutely sure that your statistical estimates are correct and people who believe that the most important thing is to be interesting, original, and theoretically sophisticated, regardless of how you study what you study. Placement has been a problem in the past decade, at least relative to expectations and history. New Haven is obviously worse than Cambridge.

Princeton: larger than Yale if I am not mistaken. Some great students and the formal-quantitative pipeline has now been activated (check out this year's placement record). Many of the most arrogant professors in the discipline are here. Princeton is much, much less cool than either Cambridge or New Haven.

Stanford: smallest, most focused, arguably the best training. Placement is amazing, especially in comparative/IR. Palo Alto is sunny and warm when the East Coast is freezing and cloudy, but you will be a graduate student in a social science, so you are not the top of the social food chain. Nice place to live, but not cool like Cambridge.

Wondering if you can provide more insight about placement. Is there evidence that Havard and Stanford really do place much better than Yale and Princeton or is that just anecdotal?

I've also heard that Harvard has almost near perfect yield. Is this true? Is it assumed that Harvard students are really a cut above the rest and students at YPS didn't get into Harvard? Also, Harvard hasn't been courting me as much as other schools. Should I take that as a sign of things to come if I go there?

Edited February 28, 2011 by ECpoli

[ECpoli]

This is a pretty good rundown. I would add that like Yale Princeton, in CP and IR, is also a seriously divided place along methodological lines. Harvard is diverse but not divided - more of a big tent place where students can find a home regardless of their interests. Don't go to Stanford to do CP unless you want to do formal and/or quant work.

These are VERY different places if you are a theorist. Since you have not mentioned your subfield it is hard to provide any more information.

I'm not a theorist theorist but have many theoretical interests. I have some sense of the differences between HYP in terms of theory: Y and P seem pretty similar and H seems a bit all over the place. What are your impressions?

[gradstudent2011]

This is a pretty good rundown. I would add that like Yale Princeton, in CP and IR, is also a seriously divided place along methodological lines. Harvard is diverse but not divided - more of a big tent place where students can find a home regardless of their interests. Don't go to Stanford to do CP unless you want to do formal and/or quant work.

These are VERY different places if you are a theorist. Since you have not mentioned your subfield it is hard to provide any more information.

Thanks, this is really useful, and broadly confirms what I've been hearing from alums of these schools.

[The Realist]

Wondering if you can provide more insight about placement. Is there evidence that Havard and Stanford really do place much better than Yale and Princeton or is that just anecdotal?

I've also heard that Harvard has almost near perfect yield. Is this true? Is it assumed that Harvard students are really a cut above the rest and students at YPS didn't get into Harvard? Also, Harvard hasn't been courting me as much as other schools. Should I take that as a sign of things to come if I go there?

I don't think that there's any evidence that Harvard's placement record is better than the others'. The best Harvard students write their own tickets, but there is maybe one of these each year and they have a very large incoming class. So do the math about what happens to the rest. Stanford's incoming class is smaller, and the evidence of their placement record being superior is not anecdotal. If I'm not mistaken it's the only one of these schools that lists full placement histories on its website. (Could be wrong about that.)

No idea if Harvard has perfect yield, but it might. I don't think for one second that Harvard students are "really a cut above the rest" and that the others at other schools just didn't get in there. If you think that, stop, right now, both for your own sanity and for that of your colleagues.

[The Realist]

Formal modelling in IR/Comparative....

How does NYU, Rochester, and some of the other well-known quantitative departments compare?

Hard to say. You can get whatever training you want at Berkeley (see: Fearon). You cannot get the broad Berkeley training at NYU or Rochester.

Rochester's placement is great. Berkeley's is far more uneven, and the modal Berkeley PhD is not a formal theorist. Don't know about NYU placement because I don't know class size.

I also don't know about the funding situation at Berkeley but that would play a central role in any decisions that I would make.

[wtncffts]

I think that Harvard yield thing, if true, has little to do with the quality of the applicants, but is probably an effect of the school's prestige and 'pull', as it were. Its resources make it such that it can and probably does match any offer, and most people, if given the choice, would choose Harvard over anywhere else. Even as prospective grad students who might be looking at other factors, it's hard not to be almost unconsciously swayed by the 'pedigree' of a Harvard degree, even as compared to Yale, Princeton, or Stanford.

[applying12010]

First of all, congrats!

It's true about the yield rate about Harvard. In my cohort, there are only two-three people who turned down the offer (I think for Stanford), out of 27 people admitted.

Realist is right on about the programs. PM me if you need more information -- it came down to Princeton and Harvard for me last year when I was choosing between schools.

Wondering if you can provide more insight about placement. Is there evidence that Havard and Stanford really do place much better than Yale and Princeton or is that just anecdotal?

I've also heard that Harvard has almost near perfect yield. Is this true? Is it assumed that Harvard students are really a cut above the rest and students at YPS didn't get into Harvard? Also, Harvard hasn't been courting me as much as other schools. Should I take that as a sign of things to come if I go there?

Edited March 1, 2011 by applying12010

[Charlie2010]

Harvard tends to get the highest yield. Because of this, they can be very selective in their admissions (since so many come). That means they mostly only accept and only get great people (or great fakers). Great people coming in means that at least some will be great coming out. But that doesn't necessarily mean the program itself made them any better, or that those people could not have done just as well had they gone anywhere else in the first tier. So if you're accepted there, don't just go because of the name, go because you're convinced they'll give you the training and mentorship you need.

[ddongari]

Here's the rundown among HYPS:

Harvard: big, disorganized department with faculty all over the place in their little centers and programs. Amazing resources but can be hard to get noticed. Their best grad students are among the best in the discipline. The middle- or low-level ones disappear. If you are going to be a superstar this is the best bet. Cambridge is by far the coolest place among the four.

Yale: smaller, much more organized. Currently experiencing something of a battle between people who believe that the most important thing is to be absolutely sure that your statistical estimates are correct and people who believe that the most important thing is to be interesting, original, and theoretically sophisticated, regardless of how you study what you study. Placement has been a problem in the past decade, at least relative to expectations and history. New Haven is obviously worse than Cambridge.

Princeton: larger than Yale if I am not mistaken. Some great students and the formal-quantitative pipeline has now been activated (check out this year's placement record). Many of the most arrogant professors in the discipline are here. Princeton is much, much less cool than either Cambridge or New Haven.

Stanford: smallest, most focused, arguably the best training. Placement is amazing, especially in comparative/IR. Palo Alto is sunny and warm when the East Coast is freezing and cloudy, but you will be a graduate student in a social science, so you are not the top of the social food chain. Nice place to live, but not cool like Cambridge.

The Realist: Thanks for this rundwown. Is there anyway you could do this for some other schools, say Berkeley, Michigan, Columbia, Chicago, NYU?

Edited March 1, 2011 by gariddong

[tracklt16]

What are your thoughts on Northwestern and UNC for IR?

[Regin]

Chicago is difficult for me to describe. It has experienced a wrenching departmental divide between the big-tent all-inclusive model and a narrower heterodox vision of what political science should be. The latter group has prevailed, and it is on a mission to stake a claim for that tradition within American political science departments. It's not clear that all of the graduate students whom they admit agree with this, or even understand it.

This information is so helpful for future applicants. Thanks very much, Realist. Would it be possible for you, or someone else familiar with Chicago, to define "narrower heterodox vision of what political science should be..." in just one or two sentences. Is this Chicago's generally qualitative approach or the fact that there are numerous hoops to jump through and that the program often takes many years to complete (which are things a current student mentioned to me), or something else altogether?

Regarding comparative at Chicago, they have made a number of hires in this past year. Do you see a gradual strengthening in comparative, or is this still up in the air? Thank you again.

Edited March 3, 2011 by Regin

[ddongari]

My knowledge of these schools is somewhat less complete, especially Columbia and NYU. But I can try.

Berkeley is a big department that has a big-tent approach to political science. There are lots of people here who do their own thing. Traditionally it has not been a place to go if you want to be on the cutting edge methodologically, but its best students are absolutely the most interesting and theoretically sophisticated students out there. Placement can be a problem for Berkeley students unless they can demonstrate that they are not head-in-the-clouds types. Funding may be a problem for future cohorts, but I don't know. I worry about the future of the UC system, especially its ability to retain junior and new associate faculty given the absurd housing prices in the Bay area. But if you've ever walked through downtown Berkeley, you know how phenomenally cool that place is.

Michigan is also a big department, but traditionally it has had much more of a normal science approach to how we study politics. This can be very good, but it can also encourage narrow and uninteresting work, and placement suffers accordingly. Interestingly, it's the opposite of the Berkeley placement problem. (This is not necessarily true for theory, which I do not know about.) Funding is not likely to be a problem for Michigan grad students, nor for the department, due to the way that Michigan finances higher education. I quite like Ann Arbor and you can live high on the hog there on a grad student stipend. But it's no Berkeley.

Chicago is difficult for me to describe. It has experienced a wrenching departmental divide between the big-tent all-inclusive model and a narrower heterodox vision of what political science should be. The latter group has prevailed, and it is on a mission to stake a claim for that tradition within American political science departments. It's not clear that all of the graduate students whom they admit agree with this, or even understand it. Chicago has hemorrhaged faculty, especially in comparative. Chicago faculty are not necessarily arrogant but many of them are just obnoxious. Placement historically has been great, but I get the nagging sense that many of these placements were advised by faculty who are no longer there (again, especially in comparative). Chicago is great if you like Italian beef, the Cubbies, and livable major cities.

Columbia and NYU I know less about. Here's what I do know: NYU is a bastion of positivism--economics-style political science research is the priority. Very close mentorship of students, but high variance in placement. Columbia is more of a standard department with a broad interests; nothing jumps out to me about it. There's a certain cachet about NYU and Columbia grad student life that many people like. Don't know anything about funding in either.

Truly awesome. Some of the information you shared is stuff that I've never heard from anyone before. It will definitely help me a lot in finalizing my decision. Thank you!

Edited March 3, 2011 by gariddong

[TheCreuset]

Realist,

Thanks for taking the time out of your schedule not only for this expatiation, but elsewhere on the forums too.

I hate to be the kid that tugs on your sleeve after witnessing you give a treat to somebody else, but I wonder if you could offer your opinions on a few more programs. Namely where do UCSD and UCLA fit into all this? MIT?

[tracklt16]

Hello Realist,

Tell me your thoughts on UNC and Northwestern for IR. Also are both schools in the top 15? Thanks

t

Again, these aren't my specialty, but I can try.

MIT is a medium-sized department with a bit of a divided personality. On one hand, recent hires at both the junior and senior level have been very methodologically advanced, at the cutting edge of contemporary political science research. On the other hand, they have this security studies identity as well, which is much more old-fashioned. I'm not sure if these people have a problem with one another, but in my experience at other places, both camps believe that what the other does is garbage. Placement from MIT is pretty good, but the standard accusation is that the quantoids are boring while the security studies people are hopelessly unscientific. MIT's in Cambridge, so it's a great grad student/young professional scene.

UCLA is a big department in a sprawling city. They train lots of grad students well, but they are a such a big department that many people get lost. Not much of a departmental culture of coming into the office for most faculty, although some do. The strength is comparative, and they used to have a security studies identity in IR, not sure how strong that is anymore. UCLA has a tough time retaining faculty because of all of the problems that Berkeley has, plus UCLA is a step down on the rankings latter so they lose people to better departments even if they don't care about housing prices or public university problems. LA is fantastic if you like LA, and if you don't, well, get used to sitting on the bus or waiting in traffic, because you'll do a lot of it.

UCSD is a smaller department, one with a strong departmental identity (contrast to UCLA) and a good placement record. They are very focused on contemporary political science so if you have heterodox interests this isn't a great place for you. All of the housing/COL/public uni problems of UCLA also show up at UCSD. UCSD faculty will tell you that the departures of Cox, McCubbins, and Poole isn't a huge loss, but it is...it's unclear how these guys could ever be replaced. Beware, many of the best faculty that you know are actually in the policy school (Gourevitch, Haggard, some others). My understanding is that La Jolla has pleasant weather all of the time, but I don't know if students get to live in La Jolla or have to live somewhere else. Some of the faculty surf before work, really.

[wtncffts]

Well, I don't want to pile on to The Realist for information, but can I just ask a general question. You talk about faculties which are split methodologically. In your experience, to what extent do these conflicts get personal? Because there would be a big difference, I would think, in the entire departmental atmosphere depending on whether these are 'agreeable disagreements' or devolve to the point of, say, colleagues not speaking to each other. I know this varies by dept. and you can only speak for some, but any thoughts would be great. I don't think this'll be an issue in the programs I'm considering, but it may be for others.

[repowoman]

After giving a very helpful review of HYP, Ms. Higgins mentioned that they were very different places for theory. Would anyone be able to give me a sense of what they look like for theory, and could you include Chicago in the mix, as well?

[Penelope Higgins]

Take this all with a grain of salt, since I am not a theorist:

Princeton: big happy theory group where all the faculty get along very well, but DON'T go there unless you want to do analytical-liberal work. If you do want to do that sort of work, Princeton is the best place around to do it. Lots of community among the theory faculty and grad students, but there are so many students that one can slip through the cracks a bit.

Harvard: very diverse theory group, very strong in a variety of areas, great placement record. Less community than Princeton in part because of the faculty diversity, but all seem to get along quite well. If you work with Tuck or Rosenblum, and impress them, you'll do well on the job market. Don't go to Harvard to work with Sandel. He doesn't work with grad students.

Yale: serious divides among the theorists, which (according to some reports) spill over into personal interactions and tensions on dissertation committees. Lots of brilliant individual faculty, but a less coherent theory group, and theory has a less significant profile in the department. Placement suffers compared to H and P.

Chicago: was a very contentious group in the recent past, has seen some turnover (especially younger hires) and seems to produce interesting students. I don't have a good sense of the placement of Chicago theory grads. A great place traditionally to do theory, trains students well. Has suffered since Iris Marion Young passed away. Strong ties between theory and other subfields; placement record not so great.

After giving a very helpful review of HYP, Ms. Higgins mentioned that they were very different places for theory. Would anyone be able to give me a sense of what they look like for theory, and could you include Chicago in the mix, as well?

[Penelope Higgins]

Perhaps The Realist will chime in, but in my experience this varies widely empirically. Sometimes disagreements are purely intellectual; sometimes they turn personal. To the extent that departments can balkanize and have disagreeing parties operate in separate spheres, the atmosphere is better - thus one sees separate speaker series and grad student workshops divided by methods approaches. My hunch is that things get truly contentious as the stakes rise; this means that individual grad students are almost never directly affected, but curriculum and hiring decisions are where things can get ugly.

As an incoming grad student this is almost never an issue - it has not been anywhere I have spent time - but in putting together a dissertation committee it is worth figuring out what the relationships among the faculty members are like. This can be hard to do, but it is worth getting a handle on.

Well, I don't want to pile on to The Realist for information, but can I just ask a general question. You talk about faculties which are split methodologically. In your experience, to what extent do these conflicts get personal? Because there would be a big difference, I would think, in the entire departmental atmosphere depending on whether these are 'agreeable disagreements' or devolve to the point of, say, colleagues not speaking to each other. I know this varies by dept. and you can only speak for some, but any thoughts would be great. I don't think this'll be an issue in the programs I'm considering, but it may be for others.

[repowoman]

Just wanted to thank you, Penelope Higgins, for giving me the info on the different departments for theory. Given that Yale has had difficulty with theory placements over the past few years, would you put it on par with Chicago placement history? Or is Chicago still a step down from HYP with regard to placement?

[appli2011]

I'm thrilled to be in at HYP but now really have no idea how to pick.

Anybody else in at these schools have an insight on the criteria you're using to decide / thoughts on the various programs / introductions?

Hi, you said you once took an MA program. Could you tell me where it is? Since I'm thinking about taking MA program first and then apply for Phd programs. Could you give me some suggestions?

[ECpoli]

Take this all with a grain of salt, since I am not a theorist:

Princeton: big happy theory group where all the faculty get along very well, but DON'T go there unless you want to do analytical-liberal work. If you do want to do that sort of work, Princeton is the best place around to do it. Lots of community among the theory faculty and grad students, but there are so many students that one can slip through the cracks a bit.

Harvard: very diverse theory group, very strong in a variety of areas, great placement record. Less community than Princeton in part because of the faculty diversity, but all seem to get along quite well. If you work with Tuck or Rosenblum, and impress them, you'll do well on the job market. Don't go to Harvard to work with Sandel. He doesn't work with grad students.

Yale: serious divides among the theorists, which (according to some reports) spill over into personal interactions and tensions on dissertation committees. Lots of brilliant individual faculty, but a less coherent theory group, and theory has a less significant profile in the department. Placement suffers compared to H and P.

Chicago: was a very contentious group in the recent past, has seen some turnover (especially younger hires) and seems to produce interesting students. I don't have a good sense of the placement of Chicago theory grads. A great place traditionally to do theory, trains students well. Has suffered since Iris Marion Young passed away. Strong ties between theory and other subfields; placement record not so great.

Whats the evidence that Yale theory places so much worse than Harvard and Princeton theory.

Also, it seems that Yale and Princeton are much more similar in theory than Harvard. Harvard seems much more history of philosophy/normative while Yale and Princeton seem much more related to history of modern political ideology, democratic theory, constitutional theory.

Anyways, this doesn't matter too much to me as I'll be working in comparative politics mostly.

Edited March 11, 2011 by ECpoli