Some suggestions on how to choose the right school for you

[saltlakecity2012]

So I know that lots of people are still waiting to hear back from programs, but there are also lots of people on this forum that have heard good news from more than one school. I thought I'd start this thread so that people can share ideas on how to choose the right program - I know I would appreciate any suggestions!

Here are the basic things I've been suggested to consider, ranked in no particular order:

1. Funding - compare the stipend, but also compare the local living costs. Compare the teaching commitment required. Is their health insurance? If so, what are the details? Is there summer funding available? Is there an option to get a 6th year of funding if needed? Are there any conditions on retaining your funding package other than teaching?

2. Location - will you lose your mind (and thus be unable to complete your dissertation) if you commit to living in the school's area for at least 5 years?

3. Departmental training - will you get the best training for what you want to study? What type of courses are available in your area of interest? What is the typical curriculum for students in your subfield? Will you have the opportunity to take courses outside the department (econ, statistics, psych, sociology, area studies, language) if you need to? On the flip side - does your program have excellent training in one area and no focus on others that you might want to incorporate?

4. Ranking - I don't mean USNWR. I mean prestige within your field. Obviously USNWR rankings reflect some of that, but it really doesn't matter if Program X produces the best comparativists if you want to study political theory. Even if you want to study CP, your program may not have produced a single scholar focusing on your region of interest in the past several years. Probably a bad sign for you. Tips on this: ranking matters much more when you're looking at a difference between one tier and the next (i.e. top 1-10 schools vs. top 10-20 schools). Even then it can be a bit tricky. For example, one fellow grad cafe-er has elected to go to a program that is lower in the overall rankings for its subfield than another he got into, mainly (as far as I understand) because his area of interest is somewhat narrow and the lower ranked school has better people in it. So for the purposes of this ranking, it would score higher.

5. Departmental culture - is there a lot of collaboration amongst faculty? Is there a lot of collaboration of students with faculty? Is the department fiercely competitive (are fellowships competitive)? Does everyone wear birkenstocks all day long, and if so, how do you feel about birkenstocks? How is the department viewed in the field (for example, U Chicago and UC Berkeley are very different places)? Are faculty available to students even if they're not their advisees? Are students who have advanced to candidacy still around, or do they hide? Do poli sci students only hang out with poli sci students, or do they mingle with lesser kinds (I jest!)?

6. Departmental size - how large would your cohort be? How many students does the program have currently? How many faculty members? How many advisees per advisor? How many advisees do the people you're interested in have? Do you want a large, small, or medium-sized program? Do current grad students feel like they get lost?

7. Existing students and cohort - do you think that the people who will end up in the cohort for that school will be people you want to spend 5 years working with? Probably best evaluated during the visiting weekend. Also, get on the email list for your school if it's up on RWBG's thread. As for current and former students - how long does it take on average to complete the dissertation? What kind of awards to students win? What kind of funding do students get for research projects?

8. Placement - make sure you get placement numbers from the schools you're looking at, even if they don't offer them to you. They have them, and you want to see them. Don't just evaluate placement based on the percentage of job market candidates for that year that accepted offers, however. Obviously that is pretty important, so you will want to know the number of candidates for each year of placement data. But look deeper: what kind of schools do candidates get offers at? RU/VH? R1? R2? SLAC? Do most candidates go straight into tenure-track positions, or do a lot get lectureships, do post-docs, etc.? How many of its own students has the department hired in the past 5 years? If you can get this kind of data, which subfields and advisors tend to produce the most desirable candidates? It's all very well and good if UCLA is sending off lots of comparativists to excellent schools, but that's not as useful a signal if you're planning to do American politics. If (heaven forfend!) you are interested in non-academic career paths (don't let anyone bash you for this, btw), check out how people do in that world. Some programs that have less than awesome academic placement do very well here (NYU is a great example). Does the department have a placement director/advisor? What kind of career mentoring do students receive? Has placement been getting better or worse (obviously take into consideration the economic environment)?

9. Your persons of interest - does the department have at least 3 people you could see yourself working with? Even if they don't all have EVERYTHING you would want in an advisor, they should be very strong in at least 1 major area of your interest. If you want to do some crazy complicated project pulling from a bunch of different areas in poli sci (like me), does the department have the resources for you to do that? Are advisors known to be possessive, or are they encouraging of students who need to use other professors' expertise as well? Of the people you're interested in working with, how old are they? Are they scaling back their advising activities? Do they still teach? Are they planning to leave the university? Don't be afraid to ask them, or to ask current students. If they're close to retirement, do they actually actively advise, or are they resting on their laurels? What have their former advisees gone on to do? What kind of connections do they have (read their CVs and check out connections to academic and non-academic organizations - journals, research institutes, think tanks, government agencies, NGOs)? Ask their current advisees if they are available, friendly, enthusiastic about advising, approachable, helpful, or rather eternally busy, extremely formal, cranky about having to work with graduate students at all, intimidating, and unwilling to act collaboratively rather than critically towards their students.

10. Departmental future - is the department on its way up, on its way down, or likely to remain where it is? This depends on a number of factors, and is a very subjective measure based on some combination of the above. You probably don't want to be in a top 15 program that is only still top 15 because rankings lag instead of a slightly lower ranked program that is rocketing upwards and everyone knows it.

11. Vibe - self-explanatory. Visit!

12. I ran out of ideas. Anyone else?

Edit: obviously this amount of information errs on the side of over-preparedness. Sometimes one or two of these factors will weigh much more than the others, which simplifies things.

Edited February 28, 2012 by saltlakecity2012

[RWBG]

This is a good summary of many of the considerations I suspect people should take into account (and that I am considering myself). I also think you should be able to imagine a couple of different dissertation committees, so if one or two faculty members don't work out, you aren't out of luck.

An issue that I'll add (partly because it's one that's important to my decision) is to consider the advantages and disadvantages of diversity versus specialization. For instance, a department like Rochester is very specialized, and as a consequence it has a group of students and faculty that can discuss research on common terms (i.e. using math), and has research seminars, training, etc. that are directed towards those kinds of students (even with departments that aren't specialized in the same way, you may be weighing strength in your particular area versus strength in a broader subfield/political science in general). On the other hand, being exposed to a diversity of opinions, approaches, and interests can be really valuable (which can also make interdisciplinary opportunities important). See, for instance, this article:

http://www.nytimes.c...nce/08conv.html

You should also consider where you'll be left at a department if your interests change at all. If you're risk averse, even if you think your interests won't change, you should acknowledge that many people before you have thought the same thing but radically changed their interests during their Ph.D. I suspect that being in a Ph.D program will be a unique intellectual experience, and being exposed to a broad range of ideas may mean that the stuff that seemed most interesting as an undergrad may be trumped by new stuff you just discovered (or just became more familiar with). So that's another reason why it's worth considering the broad strength of a department outside your particular area of research.

Edited February 28, 2012 by RWBG

[orst11]

For many people, I think a significant other is drawn into the equation, so while the list definitely is good this is another thing to consider. The list could almost be doubled when you also consider picking up and moving them with you.

On another note saltlakecity2012, I personally love the edit.

[RWBG]

Oh one other thing; when considering placement, think about how much of the success (or lack thereof) is based on the quality of the students coming in, and how much is based on the department's training. Generally, you should be concerned with how much a department will increase your job marketability, not the success of the average student. However, this kind of thing is difficult to measure, so use with caution!

[Jwnich1]

For many people, I think a significant other is drawn into the equation, so while the list definitely is good this is another thing to consider. The list could almost be doubled when you also consider picking up and moving them with you.

On another note saltlakecity2012, I personally love the edit.

*the following is my opinion, take with shaker of salt*

Orst - not saying this is what you're suggesting - just throwing out a warning

I won't be liked for this: id say fight the urge - do NOT pick a school based on a significant other. Just don't kidlets.

I know this sounds harsh but this is too much of an important, life-altering investment that takes blood, sweat and lost treasure. If you hate your program, you're not going to get through it, or get through it sane....

If you two love each other, then you'll make it work.

I am in the position of having a long term s.o. - so I know the urge to pick a program that makes things easy.. But I know if I were to do that and not choose one of the two I know are better for me, eventually I'd resent it. (and probably not find a job in my subfield, at least not right away).

Edited February 28, 2012 by Jwnich1

[hupr]

*the following is my opinion, take with shaker of salt*

Orst - not saying this is what you're suggesting - just throwing out a warning

I won't be liked for this: id say fight the urge - do NOT pick a school based on a significant other. Just don't kidlets.

I know this sounds harsh but this is too much of an important, life-altering investment that takes blood, sweat and lost treasure. If you hate your program, you're not going to get through it, or get through it sane....

If you two love each other, then you'll make it work.

I am in the position of having a long term s.o. - so I know the urge to pick a program that makes things easy.. But I know if I were to do that and not choose one of the two I know are better for me, eventually I'd resent it. (and probably not find a job in my subfield, at least not right away).

This may be fine if you're talking about your college sweetheart, but if you're married, this is terrible advice. If your spouse is really unhappy, then you will be too. And a miserable home life is not very conducive to succeeding in a graduate program. I'm not saying that spousal issues should be your first or only concern, but they do make a difference.

[Jwnich1]

This may be fine if you're talking about your college sweetheart, but if you're married, this is terrible advice. If your spouse is really unhappy, then you will be too. And a miserable home life is not very conducive to succeeding in a graduate program. I'm not saying that spousal issues should be your first or only concern, but they do make a difference.

I'm not saying to completely forget about all your commitments and flee. I do think however that picking the best program on merits is the best in the long run. It saves on tons of resentment later: the "if I'd onl gone to program X but I stayed for you" etc.

All I'm saying is that this is a huge undertaking and tough choices now might actually save marriages later. This is one point of view, I'm not trying to force others to agree or lecture. It's just the product of a lot of thought on this very issue...

[shavasana]

I have one question that my best friend told me to look out for that I never considered:

Are the grad students in these departments happy?

Now, I realized that parts of grad school suck. But it is something to consider whether the students find the program interesting, engaging and worth their while.

[grantman]

One thing I would add that has been somewhat alluded to but not addressed entirely is make sure those individuals who you would like to work with get along with one another and respect one another's opinion. If you later find out that your prospective dissertation committee contains individuals who cannot stand one another, then unfortunately you may have stepped into a political debate that has nothing to do with you.

The best way I feel to gauge this is by first asking the professors themselves if they like working with Professor's X, Y, and Z. I would attempt to confirm their opinion of one another based off what graduate student's think as well as what the secretaries think. Getting to know a departmental secretary really well will I think aid in your time at whatever university you decide to attend; they know the loopholes and they know who to talk to, so asking what their opinion is may give you some clues that you might not otherwise get from your visit about the status of the department.

Please feel free to refute any of my comments.

[Jwnich1]

One thing I would add that has been somewhat alluded to but not addressed entirely is make sure those individuals who you would like to work with get along with one another and respect one another's opinion. If you later find out that your prospective dissertation committee contains individuals who cannot stand one another, then unfortunately you may have stepped into a political debate that has nothing to do with you.

The best way I feel to gauge this is by first asking the professors themselves if they like working with Professor's X, Y, and Z. I would attempt to confirm their opinion of one another based off what graduate student's think as well as what the secretaries think. Getting to know a departmental secretary really well will I think aid in your time at whatever university you decide to attend; they know the loopholes and they know who to talk to, so asking what their opinion is may give you some clues that you might not otherwise get from your visit about the status of the department.

Please feel free to refute any of my comments.

Department admins / secretaries are probably the most powerful people around behind the scenes. I completely second this. When I was an undergrad, I got my bailed out of fairly serious trouble by a very sweet secretary in the department.

[Megan]

Department admins / secretaries are probably the most powerful people around behind the scenes. I completely second this. When I was an undergrad, I got my bailed out of fairly serious trouble by a very sweet secretary in the department.

I third this. Our administrator in undergrad RAN that department. Also a good thing to keep in mind when applying for jobs. Always, always always be nice to the secretary.

[hupr]

I do think however that picking the best program on merits is the best in the long run. It saves on tons of resentment later: the "if I'd onl gone to program X but I stayed for you" etc.

This sort of resentment, I'm afraid, cuts both ways. Especially if you're asking your partner to make career sacrifices for your sake.

[Jwnich1]

This sort of resentment, I'm afraid, cuts both ways. Especially if you're asking your partner to make career sacrifices for your sake.

I completely agree with you there, but on the other hand - that's something you should discuss before embarking on the road to grad school. I know I wouldn't be happy compromising my choice becuase of a geographical tie and am lucky enough to have someone in my life who understands. I also know that if she wasn't so supportive, I may have considered other directions in life. (Not definite, it just would have given me pause for thought earlier in the process)

Edit:

My intent isn't to argue or spar, just present a point of view on picking a school. I recognize everyone's situation is different, and if you don't agree with me thats cool. I'm simply suggesting that careful thought on this issue is nessecary. Just as they always say picking a college for a HS boyfriend or girlfriend is a mistake, give careful consideration to whether picking a grad school on the same criteria makes sense.

Edited February 28, 2012 by Jwnich1

[puddle]

I have one question that my best friend told me to look out for that I never considered:

Are the grad students in these departments happy?

Now, I realized that parts of grad school suck. But it is something to consider whether the students find the program interesting, engaging and worth their while.

The most "unhappy" people in my department are the ones a. writing comps/quals or b. 6 ft deep in reading they have yet to complete. They are also the most out-spoken. Take "happiness" with a grain of salt. People have a tendency to complain, exaggerate, and emphasize the negative. Some people are also just not suited for graduate school!

[xfallonyerknees]

An issue that I'll add (partly because it's one that's important to my decision) is to consider the advantages and disadvantages of diversity versus specialization. For instance, a department like Rochester is very specialized, and as a consequence it has a group of students and faculty that can discuss research on common terms (i.e. using math), and has research seminars, training, etc. that are directed towards those kinds of students (even with departments that aren't specialized in the same way, you may be weighing strength in your particular area versus strength in a broader subfield/political science in general). On the other hand, being exposed to a diversity of opinions, approaches, and interests can be really valuable (which can also make interdisciplinary opportunities important). See, for instance, this article:

http://www.nytimes.c...nce/08conv.html

You should also consider where you'll be left at a department if your interests change at all. If you're risk averse, even if you think your interests won't change, you should acknowledge that many people before you have thought the same thing but radically changed their interests during their Ph.D. I suspect that being in a Ph.D program will be a unique intellectual experience, and being exposed to a broad range of ideas may mean that the stuff that seemed most interesting as an undergrad may be trumped by new stuff you just discovered (or just became more familiar with). So that's another reason why it's worth considering the broad strength of a department outside your particular area of research.

Have read off and on for a couple of years as a prospective (now current) student and just decided to create an account. I turned down an offer at Rochester in favor of a marginally lower ranked large state school for this very reason. I like the intellectual (and methodological) diversity of my current school and think it was a great choice.

[Jwnich1]

Have read off and on for a couple of years as a prospective (now current) student and just decided to create an account. I turned down an offer at Rochester in favor of a marginally lower ranked large state school for this very reason. I like the intellectual (and methodological) diversity of my current school and think it was a great choice.

Can you give us some insight in to your thought process? Did you decide that a unitary methodological approach was not attractive after visiting? - just curious about how current students resolve questions like this.

[saltlakecity2012]

Wow! I logged back on to grad cafe to find a lot of really excellent advice added on to this thread. Most of the things posted after the OP were things I had neglected to think about, so I think this thread will be very useful to me, and hopefully to others as well! Looking forward to hearing more thoughts.

Edit: I completely agree with RWBG's post about balancing strength in your specific area with intellectual diversity. I was browsing the website of one of the schools I've been admitted to at 3am or thereabouts, looking through the various research institutes, the websites of the cognitive science, sociology, international affairs, slavic studies, and econ departments, and I realized that while the political science department has perhaps fewer people doing exactly what I want to do (the various areas of it), the school overall (and the department as well) is such an amazing intellectual environment that I could find the academic resources I needed even if I had to go a bit further afield than intended.

But - there is something very valuable about hardcore methodological training, whatever your methodology may be. If you train in formal theory and quant methods, you will be able to compete for jobs to teach classes that not every poli sci PhD can teach. If you focus on methodology as your primary subfield, you will also be able to collaborate with a wide range of scholars in political science, economics, sociology, etc., and be able to work on very different types of projects. It's true that grad school is about specialization in some ways, but you won't do most of your specializing through your first 2 years of coursework, you'll do it when reading for and writing your dissertation. Coursework is designed to make you a qualified teacher in your field, not an expert in a very narrow area within your subfield of choice. So choose a school where you have access to good advisors who can steer you in the right direction for your research questions, but where you also have access to rigorous training (in whatever area or way) that will help you in the job market.

Edited February 28, 2012 by saltlakecity2012

[ILYuna]

How do you find out about things like the departmental cultures / the collaboration between professors and students though?

[orst11]

.

Edited February 28, 2012 by orst11

[Jwnich1]

Wow! I logged back on to grad cafe to find a lot of really excellent advice added on to this thread. Most of the things posted after the OP were things I had neglected to think about, so I think this thread will be very useful to me, and hopefully to others as well! Looking forward to hearing more thoughts.

Edit: I completely agree with RWBG's post about balancing strength in your specific area with intellectual diversity. I was browsing the website of one of the schools I've been admitted to at 3am or thereabouts, looking through the various research institutes, the websites of the cognitive science, sociology, international affairs, slavic studies, and econ departments, and I realized that while the political science department has perhaps fewer people doing exactly what I want to do (the various areas of it), the school overall (and the department as well) is such an amazing intellectual environment that I could find the academic resources I needed even if I had to go a bit further afield than intended.

But - there is something very valuable about hardcore methodological training, whatever your methodology may be. If you train in formal theory and quant methods, you will be able to compete for jobs to teach classes that not every poli sci PhD can teach. If you focus on methodology as your primary subfield, you will also be able to collaborate with a wide range of scholars in political science, economics, sociology, etc., and be able to work on very different types of projects. It's true that grad school is about specialization in some ways, but you won't do most of your specializing through your first 2 years of coursework, you'll do it when reading for and writing your dissertation. Coursework is designed to make you a qualified teacher in your field, not an expert in a very narrow area within your subfield of choice. So choose a school where you have access to good advisors who can steer you in the right direction for your research questions, but where you also have access to rigorous training (in whatever area or way) that will help you in the job market.

Absolutely true. I think an important takeaway is that grad school needs to fit your goals in life. When I posted earlier this AM, I realize I was assuming an entire host of things. Only the individual can decide what they want to put in or take out of the experience and should plan accordingly. I think our discussion here can serve as a guide so that we can all go in to the process with our eyes open.

As an aside - I apologize if my views caused any consternation. If however, they have sparked some thought, and the constructive debate aids in anyones decision, then I'm glad.

@Saltlake - it certainly seems like you're taking everything in to account. The school you ultimately decide on is certainly going to benefit!

[saltlakecity2012]

How do you find out about things like the departmental cultures / the collaboration between professors and students though?

You ask. Ask current students, ask students from other departments, ask other accepted students, ask professors (probably more junior faculty than senior although I'm not sure on this), and ask recent graduates of the program if you can track them down. Look at placement records and then look placed people up on their new school's website and cold call them. Be extremely polite and grateful towards anyone who offers you information, and try not to frame your questions like this: "I've heard people in your department are assholes. Care to comment?"

Perhaps try this approach: "I would love to learn more about what you consider to be the greatest strengths, and perhaps some of the weaknesses, of the department as a whole. I am particularly interested in departmental culture." You can also ask specifically for papers co-authored by students and professors over the past few years, and particularly any with your potential advisors.

[Jwnich1]

Jwnich1, I made that comment based on a number of things but really hupr hit it right on the head. I just really said it based on, being a person that has been in a long term relationship for over 5 years. I can tell you for certain I am not choosing a program based on them entirely, but trust me when you have been in a relationship for so long they definitely should play a role in the process. I do think if you are just thinking hey I am only going to pick a program without considering my SO, and you basically expect them to make all the sacrifices, you are selfish and truthfully I hope they leave you.

One thing, I thought could be added either way would be under training. Some people may want to consider the possibility of being able to do summer training at places like ICPSR, CQRM, etc. Some schools definititely have better connections here.

Whoa - did not mean to touch a nerve here. I'm not saying be a jerk about it - just make sure you look 5 steps ahead not just one. Decisions that look harder now may be better down the road. (as I said, avoiding resentment etc). Let's be calm, and not hope for anyone to leave anyone....

[saltlakecity2012]

Jwnich1, I made that comment based on a number of things but really hupr hit it right on the head. I just really said it based on, being a person that has been in a long term relationship for over 5 years. I can tell you for certain I am not choosing a program based on them entirely, but trust me when you have been in a relationship for so long they definitely should play a role in the process. I do think if you are just thinking hey I am only going to pick a program without considering my SO, and you basically expect them to make all the sacrifices, you are selfish and truthfully I hope they leave you.

Woah - this is totally out of line, and totally unacceptable grad cafe behavior. Jnwich was just providing an alternative viewpoint that will probably be just as, or more, useful to other people reading this than the conventional wisdom that you go wherever your partner goes. I hate to break it to you, but most relationships end - your career stays with you forever.

Of course, every individual (and couple) prioritizes differently. Some of the people on this forum care much more about staying with their partner, particularly if they're choosing from among a set of very similar options in terms of quality. Some people will not have the chance to choose amongst schools of similar quality, and it may in fact be a serious error to choose a school that is of much lower quality so you can stay with your s.o. Why? Because in 5 years you will be on the academic job market, and the chances of you being able to both get jobs at the same school or in the same area are slim to none. By each attending the best schools possible for you, you might have a better chance of being reunited at your first teaching position.

[RWBG]

But - there is something very valuable about hardcore methodological training, whatever your methodology may be. If you train in formal theory and quant methods, you will be able to compete for jobs to teach classes that not every poli sci PhD can teach. If you focus on methodology as your primary subfield, you will also be able to collaborate with a wide range of scholars in political science, economics, sociology, etc., and be able to work on very different types of projects. It's true that grad school is about specialization in some ways, but you won't do most of your specializing through your first 2 years of coursework, you'll do it when reading for and writing your dissertation. Coursework is designed to make you a qualified teacher in your field, not an expert in a very narrow area within your subfield of choice. So choose a school where you have access to good advisors who can steer you in the right direction for your research questions, but where you also have access to rigorous training (in whatever area or way) that will help you in the job market.

Certainly, as a prospective student interested in applied formal theory and methods, I agree with this. I also hope my comments weren't taken as "anti-Rochester" given that they're easily one of my favourite schools, and I think they've produced a ridiculous number of fantastic scholars. I'll add that in terms of rigorous training, people should also remember to consider the broad strengths of the school, as well as how easy it is to do interdepartmental work at a particular school.

[Ironheel!!]

Woah - this is totally out of line, and totally unacceptable grad cafe behavior. Jnwich was just providing an alternative viewpoint that will probably be just as, or more, useful to other people reading this than the conventional wisdom that you go wherever your partner goes. I hate to break it to you, but most relationships end - your career stays with you forever.

Of course, every individual (and couple) prioritizes differently. Some of the people on this forum care much more about staying with their partner, particularly if they're choosing from among a set of very similar options in terms of quality. Some people will not have the chance to choose amongst schools of similar quality, and it may in fact be a serious error to choose a school that is of much lower quality so you can stay with your s.o. Why? Because in 5 years you will be on the academic job market, and the chances of you being able to both get jobs at the same school or in the same area are slim to none. By each attending the best schools possible for you, you might have a better chance of being reunited at your first teaching position.

What a terrible thought, 2 political scientists together, ick! If youre smart, you'll head over to the Theatre Department, better looking women, and there is always a party!