Some suggestions on how to choose the right school for you

[shavasana]

This is specifically dedicated to my dear friend. He knows who he is and is probably lurking around on this thread.

It's just extra happiness of the cute animal variety for the rest of you.

yay panda!

[saltlakecity2012]

This is specifically dedicated to my dear friend. He knows who he is and is probably lurking around on this thread.

It's just extra happiness of the cute animal variety for the rest of you.

yay panda!

Oh.my.god.

[saltlakecity2012]

Back to the original purpose of this thread - check out the dissertation titles of current job market candidates. During the visiting days, talk to current students at varying stages of their studies, especially if the department seems to be changing. The perspective of someone in year 2 will be very different from the perspective of someone in year 6 in that case.

Ask about required courses. How many fields do you need to qualify in? Does the program do exams, or papers, or a combination? Is the training geared towards putting you ahead on the job market, or towards work in your particular area of focus? What are students' track records winning prestigious fellowships (not just NSF or SSRC - also think about topical fellowships or fellowships at research institutes/think tanks)?

How rigid is the program's structure? Do people do a lot of cross-subfield work, or are they encouraged to remain within a specific area? Do the faculty do interdisciplinary work? Are there excellent departments in other areas you're interested in? If not, does the school allow you to have faculty from other universities sit on your dissertation committee?

Does the university offer internal funding for research trips? If so, this can save you a lot of time and energy.

Just tossing ideas out there as they come.

[puddle]

Maybe I would have better ideas about how to pick between schools if I had more options to chose from. That being said, I think that creating a model that controlls for every possible aspect of program-fit would just drive you bat-shit crazy. You probably have a pretty good instinct about whether a program will be good for you academically (after all, you applied to the program and they accepted you... that covers most possibilities). After that, I reckon anything short of "a miserable city with petty insecure people and a stipend that won't cover my daily Cup-O-Noodles" is pretty darn good. Also, consider this: if you go to a school with great funding (one big reason to pick a top-ranked program & reputation-heavy school over a lower ranked/smaller and more specialized department) you have the opportunity to spend time in other departments or somewhere else in the world while you are completing/doing research for your dissertation.

Sure, there are a ton of questions about funding and track records and inter-department politics ... on the other hand, I occasionally think that I would go to graduate school at the bottom of a deep hole if it meant I could pursue a career in research and teaching.

Suggestion: when I was being recruited to undergraduate unis (for athletics), I picked the school that just "felt right" after a 2 day visit. It was highly ranked enough to be comprable to my other options and it had a certain je ne sais quois that drew me in. Though my time there was chaotic, imperfect, demanding, disillusioning, etc... I have NO regrets.

Hope this helps...

If not, this should:

[puddle]

Also. This is one of the many reasons Vancouver rocks:

And. This is why sea otters are wicked-cute:

[Jwnich1]

Maybe I would have better ideas about how to pick between schools if I had more options to chose from. That being said, I think that creating a model that controlls for every possible aspect of program-fit would just drive you bat-shit crazy. You probably have a pretty good instinct about whether a program will be good for you academically (after all, you applied to the program and they accepted you... that covers most possibilities). After that, I reckon anything short of "a miserable city with petty insecure people and a stipend that won't cover my daily Cup-O-Noodles" is pretty darn good. Also, consider this: if you go to a school with great funding (one big reason to pick a top-ranked program & reputation-heavy school over a lower ranked/smaller and more specialized department) you have the opportunity to spend time in other departments or somewhere else in the world while you are completing/doing research for your dissertation.

On a tangential note, can I borrow this for my dissertation defense? Something like:

"I therefore concluded with a 95% confidence level that this is the true model... But estimating it drove me bats***t so... I used this one instead!"

Would be wicked

[RWBG]

That being said, I think that creating a model that controlls for every possible aspect of program-fit would just drive you bat-shit crazy.

I feel the opposite; not modelling would drive me crazy. You can't include everything, but you can minimize the error term.

[saltlakecity2012]

Maybe I would have better ideas about how to pick between schools if I had more options to chose from. That being said, I think that creating a model that controlls for every possible aspect of program-fit would just drive you bat-shit crazy. You probably have a pretty good instinct about whether a program will be good for you academically (after all, you applied to the program and they accepted you... that covers most possibilities). After that, I reckon anything short of "a miserable city with petty insecure people and a stipend that won't cover my daily Cup-O-Noodles" is pretty darn good. Also, consider this: if you go to a school with great funding (one big reason to pick a top-ranked program & reputation-heavy school over a lower ranked/smaller and more specialized department) you have the opportunity to spend time in other departments or somewhere else in the world while you are completing/doing research for your dissertation.

Sure, there are a ton of questions about funding and track records and inter-department politics ... on the other hand, I occasionally think that I would go to graduate school at the bottom of a deep hole if it meant I could pursue a career in research and teaching.

Suggestion: when I was being recruited to undergraduate unis (for athletics), I picked the school that just "felt right" after a 2 day visit. It was highly ranked enough to be comprable to my other options and it had a certain je ne sais quois that drew me in. Though my time there was chaotic, imperfect, demanding, disillusioning, etc... I have NO regrets.

Hope this helps...

I absolutely agree - you may have noticed by now that I'm a bit obsessive, and I like to be systematic, so I thought that I would put together a list of criteria and rate each school that I'm looking at (and all 5 of the schools I've been accepted to are serious options for me - there are 3 frontrunners but no one is out of the race) along those criteria, and then try to create an overall rating for each one so I could systematize my decision-making. I am definitely aware that I might show up on visiting days and absolutely hate or love some of the schools, but for now I'm trying to build up as much background as I can. Vibe is very important, but so are all the other things that I mentioned in the OP (at least, they are to me).

Edit: RWBG - we think alike.

Edited February 29, 2012 by saltlakecity2012

[Jwnich1]

I feel the opposite; not modelling would drive me crazy. You can't include everything, but you can minimize the error term.

As long as you use White's standard errors - ain't no way that error term is homoskedastic!

[puddle]

I feel the opposite; not modelling would drive me crazy. You can't include everything, but you can minimize the error term.

RWBG, you should read some of the newer work by Ted Miguel and company about the dangers of this kind of work. Basically, if you include absolutely everything in a survey or model, chances are you will see net results purely by chance. Trust me, I love a good model. The difference is that I had a Pre-Analysis plan (in this case, a pre-application plan) and this sort of discussion leans towards the "pick-and-choose" variables that yield the result I wanted in the first place. Juuuust saying.

In other news, drunk baby red pandas are so twee!

[RWBG]

RWBG, you should read some of the newer work by Ted Miguel and company about the dangers of this kind of work. Basically, if you include absolutely everything in a survey or model, chances are you will see net results purely by chance. Trust me, I love a good model. The difference is that I had a Pre-Analysis plan (in this case, a pre-application plan) and this sort of discussion leans towards the "pick-and-choose" variables that yield the result I wanted in the first place. Juuuust saying.

Well, I was kind of being facetious That being said, I think these discussions can be productive, and I think being conscious of the reasons why and why not you are choosing a school can make you conscious of when you are making decisions for the wrong reasons (e.g. external reputation can be a bad reason to choose a school), and can give you a sense of reasons that you were underweighting (close supervision, etc.). I think it's a bit different than having an overspecified model...

[Apill]

Regarding all these cute animal videos...I've noticed as my undergraduate career progressed, as I become more into academia and went further down the intellectual path, I became more lighthearted and funny. Like to offset the heavy stuff in my brain that was making me sort of more serious. Anyone experience a similar phenomenon?

[Jwnich1]

RWBG, you should read some of the newer work by Ted Miguel and company about the dangers of this kind of work. Basically, if you include absolutely everything in a survey or model, chances are you will see net results purely by chance. Trust me, I love a good model. The difference is that I had a Pre-Analysis plan (in this case, a pre-application plan) and this sort of discussion leans towards the "pick-and-choose" variables that yield the result I wanted in the first place. Juuuust saying.

On a serious note, Gary King has done a lot of work in this area too. His book "Unifying Political Methodology" has a good discussion on the dangers of "kitchen sink" variables.

[saltlakecity2012]

Regarding all these cute animal videos...I've noticed as my undergraduate career progressed, as I become more into academia and went further down the intellectual path, I became more lighthearted and funny. Like to offset the heavy stuff in my brain that was making me sort of more serious. Anyone experience a similar phenomenon?

I don't know if I'm any funnier to anyone other than myself, but I definitely take life less seriously, and my friends tell me that I am more ridiculous every day.

[puddle]

I am definetly not funnier but I did develop a more wry sense of humour (mostly driven by basic and thus amusing observations about the most mundane things happening at any given moment). Also, RWBG... you have schooled me. This is a perfect example of how I haven't gotten any funnier over the years. If I had a dime for every time someone said "I was joking" and then gave me THE LOOK (the one RWBG had when he/she read my comment), I would have at least enough money to bribe a few admissions committees.

Edited February 29, 2012 by meep

[Max Power]

On a serious note, Gary King has done a lot of work in this area too. His book "Unifying Political Methodology" has a good discussion on the dangers of "kitchen sink" variables.

i haven't read Gary King's book, but if people are interested in a shorter version, Chris Achen has a paper on "garbage-can regressions" that you can read here

[Ironheel!!]

Regarding all these cute animal videos...I've noticed as my undergraduate career progressed, as I become more into academia and went further down the intellectual path, I became more lighthearted and funny. Like to offset the heavy stuff in my brain that was making me sort of more serious. Anyone experience a similar phenomenon?

Well, its nice to see youre still lighthearted and its easier now that you have multiple acceptances! Congrats!

Edited February 29, 2012 by Ironheel!!

[Ironheel!!]

i haven't read Gary King's book, but if people are interested in a shorter version, Chris Achen has a paper on "garbage-can regressions" that you can read here

I'm in need of a methods refresher...

[saltlakecity2012]

On the topic of kitchen sinks, I'm trying to rank the criteria we've listed by importance (for me, that is). That would probably be a good way to eliminate a few variables - figure out which ones are most important for you, and evaluate based on those.

[Jwnich1]

On the topic of kitchen sinks, I'm trying to rank the criteria we've listed by importance (for me, that is). That would probably be a good way to eliminate a few variables - figure out which ones are most important for you, and evaluate based on those.

I have a feeling that many top tier programs have more similarities than differences. I wouldn't be surprised in the least if we see much less variation across programs than we imagine when we actually get there. My gut feeling is that the major differences will be size, focus on methods, and location. Thoughts?

[Ironheel!!]

On the topic of kitchen sinks, I'm trying to rank the criteria we've listed by importance (for me, that is). That would probably be a good way to eliminate a few variables - figure out which ones are most important for you, and evaluate based on those.

There are lots of variables but the only thing that you can honestly control is you. You will make any program you attend as good as you want to. There will be ups and downs over the course of the next 5 years but you can hardly prepare for them by comparing everything that has been discussed in this thread. At the end of the day, you have options at some of the top schools in the field, you will have significant professional options in the near future (so long as you finish) and small inconveniences will appear just that, small, when you are writing your Diss. and looking for TT jobs. I think the best thing for anyone (myself included) is to feel comfortable in the space you will occupy for the next 5 years. Talk to faculty and students, and remember, we evolve and are shaped by the culture we inhabit, so you may feel differently about your list depending on the departments that you visit once you are there.

I saw edited for gibberish a ways back- I'm using that excuse for my last sentence!

Edited February 29, 2012 by Ironheel!!

[saltlakecity2012]

I have a feeling that many top tier programs have more similarities than differences. I wouldn't be surprised in the least if we see much less variation across programs than we imagine when we actually get there. My gut feeling is that the major differences will be size, focus on methods, and location. Thoughts?

The programs I'm looking at actually seem to be quite different, and they're all top 10. Funding packages are pretty different, although some of the schools have offered to increase their funding offers. Location is hugely different (LA vs. Ann Arbor, for example). Size is very different. The demographics of the departments are different. Some are huge, some more IR, some more CP, some more methods/pol econ. Some have very high profile professors in one area but not many in the others, blah, blah, blah. I'm also struggling with the fact that I would really like to go to School A (funding, location, brand name, overall intellectual environment, etc.), but School B has people in my region of interest while School A only has a couple, and one of them is going to Singapore! So I need to evaluate my attachment to my region of interest, and see whether since I want to do some cross-regional comparisons it's more important for me to go to a school that can get me good training in the other regions I want to study but don't have any background in.

Gah. I'm trying to remind myself that when differentiating between 2 top schools it is probably more important to choose based on "lifestyle" stuff...

Edit: Ironheel! - yes. I agree.

Edited February 29, 2012 by saltlakecity2012

[Jwnich1]

The programs I'm looking at actually seem to be quite different, and they're all top 10. Funding packages are pretty different, although some of the schools have offered to increase their funding offers. Location is hugely different (LA vs. Ann Arbor, for example). Size is very different. The demographics of the departments are different. Some are huge, some more IR, some more CP, some more methods/pol econ. Some have very high profile professors in one area but not many in the others, blah, blah, blah. I'm also struggling with the fact that I would really like to go to School A (funding, location, brand name, overall intellectual environment, etc.), but School B has people in my region of interest while School A only has a couple, and one of them is going to Singapore! So I need to evaluate my attachment to my region of interest, and see whether since I want to do some cross-regional comparisons it's more important for me to go to a school that can get me good training in the other regions I want to study but don't have any background in.

Gah. I'm trying to remind myself that when differentiating between 2 top schools it is probably more important to choose based on "lifestyle" stuff...

Edit: Ironheel! - yes. I agree.

Tthe gibberish edit was me - the dangers of posting before a cup of coffee!

It sounds like you've got quite a conundrum on your hands. It sounds like your idea of evaluating your attachment to your region of interest will be key. Personally, I tried to avoid any focus on (current) regional focus, because I know myself to be an academic magpie - I flit around the globe in terms of regional focus. (Today it's Iranian nuclear ambitions, last year it was N. Korea, before that it was applying rational choice models to conflict in the Middle East etc.)

Perhaps we're facing similar problems? I think I *should* go to one school, but the people at the other completely in synch with my interests, and I want to go just for them.

Best of luck with the choice!

Edited February 29, 2012 by Jwnich1

[Helix]

For the formal-modeling-averse, I recommend checking this out as a less scientific option for weighing programs: http://www.proconlists.com/

[brent09]

^ Ha.

At the end of the day, it's gonna be a gut thing. Trying to be super explicit (formally or otherwise) might help you to realize or consider things you weren't looking at before. But really, it's gonna come down to what your gut tells you. (Because no model will be able to convince you to do what doesn't feel right.)

For all the anxiety, I think that visiting and talking to people should generally leave you with a sense of what feels right. Trust your gut.