What do we know? A gathering of data on various programs.

[saltlakecity2012]

So I thought this would probably be useful as people get ready to start visiting campuses. I'm hoping to get other people (including current grad students) to chime in regarding impressions of various departments from personal experience, letter writers' opinions, previous visits, or general word-of-mouth. Obviously everyone will have different types of information, as we all have different things we're interested in, but hopefully some of it will be universally useful. So here's an example for one of the schools I'm interested in:

Yale - great internal funding options, poor placement record among CHYMPS (and some others) although improving as changes made in 2006 start impacting the students on the job market today, access to schools in the tristate (NY, CT, NJ) area, stronger methods training given recent hires but has a pretty high rate of attrition for good faculty, relatively young senior faculty, heavy focus on comparative pol econ, strengths in Africa and Latin America

UCLA - strongest area is methodologically sophisticated comparativists, wide regional focus, relatively competitive environment, strong formal theorists

UCSD - excellent IR scholars and IR training, regional focuses primarily on Asia-Pacific and the Americas, department is on the way up, reputation for close engagement with faculty

Clearly somewhat sparse - there is more that I can and will add, but it's a beginning at the very least. I'll be visiting 2 schools next week and will add them at that point.

Edit: I should also add, I would like help debunking any commonly held myths about various graduate programs. So if there's anyone out there with friends currently at a program, or who went somewhere as an undergrad, or who is currently studying at a school, please contribute.

Edited March 2, 2012 by saltlakecity2012

[Soshiant]

Summarizing the programs in a few sentences sounds like a very productive exercise! What's everyone's impression of Chicago, Princeton, and Georgetown?

[ohsnap]

Summarizing the programs in a few sentences sounds like a very productive exercise! What's everyone's impression of Chicago, Princeton, and Georgetown?

Shouldn't someone who is omnipresent have at least an impression of all of these places? I kid, I kid, but I haven't visited anywhere except for Texas A&M and Baylor yet, so my additions will not help you out.

Texas A&M- claimed to have 100% TT placement of theorists, though some are at universities that I did not recognize. Fantastic funding is available and they really seem to prepare students to be socialized into the world of academia. Their American program seems especially strong.

Baylor-good placement at SLACs, and a great place to go if you enjoy theory. No matter what you major subfield is, you'll most likely experience it with a healthy infusion of normative theory. The training that you get as a teacher's apprentice and the teaching experience you get as a senior graduate student is valuable on the job market, especially at SLACs.

[kolja00]

Summarizing the programs in a few sentences sounds like a very productive exercise! What's everyone's impression of Chicago, Princeton, and Georgetown?

I'd say Chicago= good if you want to do Qual work. Not keeping up too much with where the field is going (econ/quant) yet they have some great placements over the years. Awesome for IR and Theory. Not sure if overall it is a top 10 program anymore (and I go here).

Edited March 4, 2012 by kolja00

[Bdeniso]

I'd say Chicago= good if you want to do Qual work. Not keeping up too much with where the field is going (econ/quant) yet they have some great placements over the years. Awesome for IR and Theory. Not sure if overall it is a top 10 program anymore (and I go here).

I think this is a very dangerous statement. There is a great deal one can learn from qualitative analysis and I think the field (especially IR) is moving quite too far towards quant only and towards and economics standards which has been increasingly shown to not be as sound as once thought. I think multi-methodological is still the best approach and the quant only approach many are going for today I believe is making the field not as strong as it can.

[kolja00]

I think this is a very dangerous statement. There is a great deal one can learn from qualitative analysis and I think the field (especially IR) is moving quite too far towards quant only and towards and economics standards which has been increasingly shown to not be as sound as once thought. I think multi-methodological is still the best approach and the quant only approach many are going for today I believe is making the field not as strong as it can.

Agreed that mixed methods is the best way, but Chicago doesnt even really do any Quant stuff which is hugely important for getting hired.

[Soshiant]

I think this is a very dangerous statement. There is a great deal one can learn from qualitative analysis and I think the field (especially IR) is moving quite too far towards quant only and towards and economics standards which has been increasingly shown to not be as sound as once thought. I think multi-methodological is still the best approach and the quant only approach many are going for today I believe is making the field not as strong as it can.

I got to say I completely agree with Bdeniso. I find the direction of polisci in the US away from qualitative and textual inquiry to be unproductive in the long run and will hinder asking and answering of macro questions. I talked to a chair at Georgetown (which is where Im probably going come Fall) who told me that senior faculty at Georgetown have decided to emulate places like Cambridge and Oxford and reintroduce textual/interpretive study of politics as they rebuild the program which is frankly very encouraging to me. Chicago to me still has that sense of intellectualism that really sets it apart from other top places (Kolja- I would have loved to go there had i been accepted but my research interests were too specific). I do want to reiterate that I certainly value the importance of Game theory in IR and Quant methods in American and pol econ but I feel like there is an overexaggeration of the role of quant in study of politics to make the discipline seem more "scientific"!

What do you guys think of Princeton and its direction?

[bauhaus]

Ok,

Any info on Harvard PEG, Stanford and NYU would be welcome!

gabor

[adverbly]

I'd love to hear some thoughts on Wisconsin, Northwestern, and UPenn, if anyone has any!

[PSApplicant12]

So I can basically confirm my initial summary of UCSD. I'll try to add a few more things. Strongest areas are IR and Comparative - IR in particular. Faculty both from Poli Sci and IR/PS seem widely available to PhD students in Poli Sci. Definitely close engagement with faculty. Pretty stellar faculty if you're interested in IR or IPE - good people in CPE, too. Methods training isn't the best, but they just hired a formal theorist (as well as a bunch of other people), so that should be getting better.

Definitely seems like a nice place (friendly, build-you-up rather than break-you-down environment). It also seems, however, and I'd be happy for some other perspectives on this, that the students don't view it as a particularly great place to be. Everyone seemed really happy to live on the beach, etc., but there wasn't really a lot of discussion of "yeah, this is like the best place to do IR in the country" or "yeah, David Lake's my advisor and that's pretty awesome" or "yeah, i feel super confident about the job market bc people see us as an awesome program". Although there were some students who did make those points. I seemed to hear a fair amount of "yeah... I came here because I didn't have any better options".

I also have to note that a junior faculty member mentioned to me that if I were to go where the smartest students go, I would probably not end up at UCSD, which was somewhat terrifying.

But - I met some very smart, very interesting grad students working on very cool projects, and the faculty clearly know what's going on with the students. My impression is that if you want to do IR or IPE, you can't really do much better... the whole brand name of the school as a whole issue is somewhat irrelevant if you're studying with some of the top names in your field.

So overall I think it would be an amazing place to study, except for this very strange element of malcontent amongst the grad students (some of the grad students). I'm sure a lot of that stuff has to do with their relatively limited ability to compete for funding, but if you're considering UCSD and you think you could be persuaded to go there if the funding were comparable to your other offers, I have it on good authority that they are willing to negotiate to snag the best students. So negotiate.

Thanks, this is great info. I wasn't able to make the campus visit, did any other folks go? I'd be very interested to hear your thoughts.

[Helix]

Glad to help.

Also - was just browsing PSJR, and apparently 2012 placements for UCSD were really good - they placed a very high percentage of candidates and they went to pretty good schools (OSU, Wisconsin, GWU, William & Mary, Harvard).

Speaking of placement - does anyone have any info on Yale's placement record? They are very tight-lipped about it and apparently are doing just barely better than Princeton in terms of placing people (which is not saying much). I don't know, however, how much of that is about them not placing at R1s or them not placing at all. I have also been told by the university that students from this past year did better based on changes to the department from 5 or 6 years ago (time lag), so placement should be improving, but I'd be interested in other people's thoughts on this issue.

If you dig back (in the search function) on PSJR you’ll find this listing of schools by their # of placements in top 20’s. There used to be an extended discussion of *who* exactly these people are who were placed, but it doesn’t appear to be there anymore. On Yale, I can tell you that one of the three is Tom Pepinsky (at Cornell).

Data: March 2011

School: # Placed in Top 20 departments

TOP20

1. Harvard 11

2. Princeton 7

3. Stanford 15

4. Michigan 2

5. Yale 3

6. UC-Berkeley 7

7. Columbia 5

8. UCSD 2

9. Duke 2

10. MIT 2

11. UCLA 8

12. Chicago 3

13. UNC 1

14. WashU 3

15. Rochester 3

16. Wisconsin 0

17. NYU 2

18. Ohio State 1

19. Minnesota 0

20. Cornell 1

REST

Caltech 2

Carnegie Mellon (Economics) 1

Carnegie Mellon (Statistics and Public Policy) 1

Emory 1

Georgetown 2

Harvard (Public Policy) 2

Humboldt University 1

Johns Hopkins 1

MIT (Economics) 1

Northwestern 2

Oxford 1

Pittsburgh 1

Stanford (GSB) 2

UC-Berkeley (Agricultural and Resource Economics) 1

UC-Berkeley (Economics) 1

UC-Davis 1

University of Konstanz 1

University of Pennsylvania 1

University of Washington (Statistics) 1

Virginia 1

[Helix]

Found the list of names, here it is:

Last Name,First Name,PhD Institution,PhD Year,Employer

Adida,Claire L.,Stanford,2010,UCSD

Ansell,Ben W.,Harvard,2006,Minnesota

Arriola,Leonardo,Stanford,2008,UC-Berkeley

Bas,Muhammet,Rochester,2007,Harvard

Bassi,Anna,NYU,2010,UNC

Beber,Bernd,Columbia,2010,NYU

Beerbohm,Eric,Princeton,2008,Harvard

Bhavnani,Rikhil,Stanford,2010,Wisconsin

Blattman,Christopher,UC-Berkeley (Economics),2007,Yale

Blaydes,Lisa,UCLA,2008,Stanford

Bullock,John G.,Stanford,2007,Yale

Butler,Daniel,Stanford,2007,Yale

Campello,Daniella,UCLA,2008,Princeton

Chen,Jowei,Stanford,2009,Michigan

Christia,Fotini,Harvard (Public Policy),2008,MIT

Cramner,Skyler,UC-Davis,2007,UNC

Dancygier,Rafaela,Yale,2007,Princeton

De la O,Ana,MIT,2007,Yale

Debs,Alexandre,MIT (Economics),2007,Yale

Decanio,Samuel,Ohio State,2008,Yale

Dube,Oendrila,Harvard (Public Policy),2009,NYU

Dunning,Thad,UC-Berkeley,2006,Yale

Egan,Patrick J.,UC-Berkeley,2008,NYU

Eguia,Jon,Caltech,2007,NYU

Enns,Peter K.,UNC,2007,Cornell

Enos,Ryan,UCLA,2010,Harvard

Favretto,Katja,UCLA,2009,Wisconsin

Flores-Macias,Gustavo A.,Georgetown,2008,Cornell

Frazer,Michael L.,Princeton,2006,Harvard

Gingrich,Jane,UC-Berkeley,2007,Minnesota

Glynn,Adam,University of Washington (Statistics),2006,Harvard

Grimmer,Justin,Harvard,2010,Stanford

Gross,Justin H.,Carnegie Mellon (Statistics and Public Policy),2010,UNC

Hainmueller,Jens,Harvard,2009,MIT

Hyde,Susan,UCSD,2006,Yale

Johns,Leslie,NYU,2008,UCLA

Jordan,Stuart,Princeton,2007,Rochester

Jusko,Karen Long,Michigan,2008,Stanford

Kahl,Sigrun,Humboldt University,2006,Yale

Kasara,Kimuli,Stanford,2006,Columbia

Kastellec,Jonathan,Columbia,2009,Princeton

Kerner,Andrew,Emory,2009,Michigan

Klausen,Jimmy,UC-Berkeley,200?,Wisconsin

Kreps,Sarah,Georgetown,2007,Cornell

Lacina,Bethany,Stanford,2010,Rochester

Landemore,Helene,Harvard,2008,Yale

Lawrence,Adria,Chicago,2007,Yale

Lenz,Gabriel,Princeton,2006,MIT

Lerman,Amy,UC-Berkeley,2008,Princeton

Lindsay,Keisha,Chicago,2009,Wisconsin

Lipscy,Philip,Harvard,2008,Stanford

Lorentzen,Peter,Stanford (GSB),2007,UC-Berkeley

March,Andrew,Oxford,2006,Yale

Margalit,Yotam,Stanford,2009,Columbia

Markus,Stanislav,Harvard,2009,Chicago

Min,Brian,UCLA,2010,Michigan

Minozzi,William,Stanford (GSB),2006,NYU

Monteiro,Nuno,Chicago,2009,Yale

Moore,Ryan T.,Harvard,2008,WashU

Morrison,Kevin,Duke,2007,Cornell

Naoi,Megumi,Columbia,2006,UCSD

Narang,Viping,Harvard,2010,MIT

Ochoa,Pauline,Johns Hopkins,2006,Yale

Onoma,Ato Kwame,Northwestern,2006,Yale

Owens,Ryan,WashU,2008,Harvard

Pang,Xun,WashU,2010,Princeton

Park,Jong Hee,Washington,2007,Chicago

Patel,David Siddhartha,Stanford,2007,Cornell

Pepinsky,Thomas B.,Yale,2007,Cornell

Peress,Michael,Carnegie Mellon (Economics),2006,Rochester

Pevnick,Ryan,Virginia,2008,NYU

Platt,Matthew B.,Rochester,2008,Harvard

Post,Alison,Harvard,2009,UC-Berkeley

Potter,Philip B.K.,UCLA,2009,Michigan

Powell,Eleanor,Harvard,2009,Yale

Rehm,Philipp,Duke,2008,NYU

Ringe,Nils,Pittsburgh,2006,Wisconsin

Sagar,Rahul,Harvard,2007,Princeton

Saito,Jun,Yale,2006,Yale

Salmond,Rob,UCLA,2007,Michigan

Scacco,Alex,Columbia,2010,NYU

Schneider,Christina,University of Konstanz,2006,UCSD

Shapiro,Jacob N.,Stanford,2007,Princeton

Shimizu,Kay,Stanford,2007,Columbia

Sinclair,Betsy,Caltech,2007,Chicago

Singh,Prerna,Princeton,2009,Harvard

Skeaff,Christopher,Northwestern,2009,Michigan

Spirling,Arthur,Rochester,2008,Harvard

Staniland,Paul,MIT,2010,Chicago

Tahk,Alexander,Stanford,2010,Wisconsin

Thachil,Tariq,Cornell,2009,Yale

Tingley,Dustin,Princeton,2010,Harvard

Titiunik,Rocio,UC-Berkeley (Agricultural and Resource Economics),2009,Michigan

Trager,Robert F.,Columbia,2007,UCLA

Urpelainen,Johannes,Michigan,2009,Columbia

Von Stein,Jana,UCLA,2006,Michigan

Wallace,Jeremy,Stanford,2009,NYU

Watson,Sara,UC-Berkeley,2006,NYU

Weeks,Jessica,Stanford,2009,Cornell

Weiss,Jessica Chen,UCSD,2008,Yale

Winter,Yves,UC-Berkeley,2009,Minnesota

Yarhi-Milo,Keren,University of Pennsylvania,2009,Princeton

Zeisberg,Mariah,Princeton,2006,Michigan

[Doorkeeper]

It might be beneficial to separate out that list based on subfield...

[Overtherainbow]

Poor Cornell, too.

Cohort size probably needs to be factored into this, though.

[puddle]

For better or worse, I just don't find this information that relevant. I guess it would be interesting if you could see the number of people brought in for an interview at different schools (and then somehow sub-divide them by area of study, number of other interviews, performance at the graduate level, external grants, number of publications, awards given for dissertation, scholarly network, spousal placement, etc.) What I am saying is that placement records need to be taken with a grain of salt and an eye for the many, many individual characteristics that a school cannot be held responsible for. For example, these raw counts do not say anything about the number of people that left the program early, entered the private sector, went into government, decided to start a family, realised that political science was not for them etc. etc. etc.

I also find this approach to chosing a graduate program overly deterministic (am I going to get down voted for saying this? mayyybee). Lets just say that there are 10 universities (or 20, or 30, or whatever) in the world at which you will receive comprable methods and substantive training, excellent funding, good supervision, etc. Now, one of those universities may have a better placement record than the others but that really says nothing about YOUR chances of placing well with a PhD from that school vs. any other comprable school. You control your own fate! Even if you do buy into the "placement record" method, you would have to know placements as a percent of graduates on the job market. Also, did 5 grads end up in a top 20 and the rest get no offers (this might indicate a sink-or-swim environment that allows some students to drown) or did 1 end up in a top 20 and the rest in top 100s or with job offers from NGOs etc.

The bottom line: there are tonnes of factors that would have to be figured into a "placement-based choice model". Do not let the above list determine your choice of Graduate School!

[puddle]

ps. did you guys notice that this: Saito,Jun,Yale,2006,Yale is the only case where someone got hired by the same university they graduated from? Apparently Harvard won't even hire people with Harvard Degrees (from what I hear... they only hire humanoid robots created in a lab at MIT)

[amblingnymph]

ps. did you guys notice that this: Saito,Jun,Yale,2006,Yale is the only case where someone got hired by the same university they graduated from? Apparently Harvard won't even hire people with Harvard Degrees (from what I hear... they only hire humanoid robots created in a lab at MIT)

"Perhaps then you should pursue a career in politics."

"I'm too socially awkward. I'd rather be a Professor of Politics."

Story of my life.

[RWBG]

For better or worse, I just don't find this information that relevant. I guess it would be interesting if you could see the number of people brought in for an interview at different schools (and then somehow sub-divide them by area of study, number of other interviews, performance at the graduate level, external grants, number of publications, awards given for dissertation, scholarly network, spousal placement, etc.) What I am saying is that placement records need to be taken with a grain of salt and an eye for the many, many individual characteristics that a school cannot be held responsible for. For example, these raw counts do not say anything about the number of people that left the program early, entered the private sector, went into government, decided to start a family, realised that political science was not for them etc. etc. etc.

I also find this approach to chosing a graduate program overly deterministic (am I going to get down voted for saying this? mayyybee). Lets just say that there are 10 universities (or 20, or 30, or whatever) in the world at which you will receive comprable methods and substantive training, excellent funding, good supervision, etc. Now, one of those universities may have a better placement record than the others but that really says nothing about YOUR chances of placing well with a PhD from that school vs. any other comprable school. You control your own fate! Even if you do buy into the "placement record" method, you would have to know placements as a percent of graduates on the job market. Also, did 5 grads end up in a top 20 and the rest get no offers (this might indicate a sink-or-swim environment that allows some students to drown) or did 1 end up in a top 20 and the rest in top 100s or with job offers from NGOs etc.

The bottom line: there are tonnes of factors that would have to be figured into a "placement-based choice model". Do not let the above list determine your choice of Graduate School!

I agree with this. The broader divisions in placement are important (the reputation of the school you go to will effect your success), but fine differences between schools could easily be just random statistical variation in quality of incoming students, market conditions, and the idiosyncracies of hiring committees. People also go into private practice (voluntarily), return to universities in their home countries, etc. Finally, some schools have extremely high variance in placement (e.g. UCLA) which is something else that should be factored in.

[saltlakecity2012]

Thanks, meep, for providing a different perspective on this. I definitely agree that being an idiot at Stanford means you're unlikely to get a good job while being a genius at Virginia means you very probably will, but when search committees are looking for candidates to invite for interviews, they look at schools that have good placement records. Obviously this is a somewhat tautological way of going about things, and candidates from schools other than the top 10s get good jobs - it's just a little bit harder for candidates from less well-respected programs to get their names out there. After all, a lot of placement is about networking - your advisor calls up member of search committee at School X because s/he went to School X, and bam! you're on a plane to School X.

[puddle]

Thanks, meep, for providing a different perspective on this. I definitely agree that being an idiot at Stanford means you're unlikely to get a good job while being a genius at Virginia means you very probably will, but when search committees are looking for candidates to invite for interviews, they look at schools that have good placement records. Obviously this is a somewhat tautological way of going about things, and candidates from schools other than the top 10s get good jobs - it's just a little bit harder for candidates from less well-respected programs to get their names out there. After all, a lot of placement is about networking - your advisor calls up member of search committee at School X because s/he went to School X, and bam! you're on a plane to School X.

I certainly don't disagree, however; I was suggesting that the differences (however substantial they appear in this format) between topranked schools with great reputations might be explained by a bunch of factors that are not shown in a list of placements.

In unrelated news... if placement is about networking as you argue here, then should we not chose the schools based on the employment and scholastic history of our potential advisors? So... instead of looking at where people leaving School X placed, we could take a look at where people working at School X came from. Yale's not looking so bad now, eh?

[Helix]

I certainly don't disagree, however; I was suggesting that the differences (however substantial they appear in this format) between topranked schools with great reputations might be explained by a bunch of factors that are not shown in a list of placements.

In unrelated news... if placement is about networking as you argue here, then should we not chose the schools based on the employment and scholastic history of our potential advisors? So... instead of looking at where people leaving School X placed, we could take a look at where people working at School X came from. Yale's not looking so bad now, eh?

I agree with RWBG's point above--I don't think fine differences (1 vs. 2 people placed, 10 vs. 12) in this list is a huge deal. And I should've mentioned that the initial "data" on PSJR spans 2006-2010, as a side note. But I think there are other ways to interpret whether a school you're considering is passing muster using these initial numbers, and then continue to do more investigation on the "networking" aspect, which is really important.

For example, Wisconsin has placed no one at a top 25 in the last 5-6 years it seems. I see that as a huge red flag if getting a top 25 placement is your goal, because however small your cohort size is (theirs are not especially small) or however many individuals choose to go into non-academic work or relocate for a spouse, it's probably not ALL of them. If it is, I think that says something fundamental about what kind of program it is and what kinds of students it is going to attract. I don't mean this to be derogatory either: I spoke with a professor at one school I'm considering recently, and was told that their students as a group do NOT aim to get placements at R1s, they aim for SLACs and other schools that focus on teaching. That's not a bad aim in and of itself; it would be a potentially bad fit, though, if what you wanted was to go to an R1, for three reasons: (1) your school might now have a reputation as producing serious teachers more so than heavy-hitting researchers; (2) your professors may not have active connections with the kinds of places you would want to pursue for placement; and (3) your cohort and fellow students may have completely different aspirations, making it an awkward social fit.

Actually what I take away from this list is kind of the opposite of all of this, though. It's more about the lower half of "non-top-25s" who have been able to place people at top 25s in spite of the ranking of the school. Obviously some, probably large, component of your success in placement is you--the quality of your research, your ability to present yourself in a professional and serious manner, etc.--and not your school. To me this section is especially important for those with other considerations (for example, spouses, funding disparities) who are making difficult choices on the margins, or between top 15 and top 30 programs. Again, I would consider it to be a red flag if the program has never in its existence placed anyone at a school you might want to teach at, whether that's a top 25 or not, but on the whole if they have had even one experience with one success, it reinforces the point that a lot of the variables at play on the job market do not depend in their entirety on the school you choose.

[RWBG]

Sure, but I suspec

I think you're right. I think it's a combination of training, reputation of scholars already placed in the market produced by that school, and the network your advisor has. So this becomes a more long-term issue - choose your advisor carefully, and don't go to School X to work with Amazing Professor Y unless Professor Y has told you that s/he is interested in working with you. Otherwise you may find yourself a few years down the line relying on the connections of someone who may be so busy with advisees that s/he can't remember your name or subfield when you go on the job market.

I also think that the whole "it depends on you" argument is definitely true, but take a look at what we've all just been through. If you're in at a top 25 program (or a few of those), then you're already among the best of the best. But even at this level things are somewhat arbitrary - how do you whittle down to 20 candidates from 100 that all have near perfect scores, GPAs, etc.? How do you pick two or three people to interview for an AP position from the 20 coming out on the market that year who do what you are looking for? When you get out onto the job market, you're still among the best of the best, but all of a sudden your competitors are almost guaranteed to share your credentials. So if meep and I go to Yale, we will probably be competing with Harvard and Columbia PhDs for most of the jobs we interview for, and they will also have amazing advisors, excellent training, and good networks. And separating yourself from the rest of the pack when the rest of the pack is comparably brilliant and motivated could be more challenging than expected.

If there is one thing I will say is unambiguously true, it's that the best thing you can do to get a great job is publish.

Sure, but I suspect if you're at a top 10 school, your school's brand name is not going to be pivotal (maybe with Harvard...).

As a side note, I think it's a idea to get a list of students placed by your potential advisors, either by asking them or finding out through subtler means. This will give you both an idea of subfield placement, and of course, your potential advisor's connections.

Also, re: Wisconsin, at least if you're in IR/IPE I think it's really difficult to estimate future placements based on numbers from the past 5-6 years. Lisa Martin's students placed well when she was at Harvard, and I think you have a group there that's rising in stature (especially with IO moving there later this year).

[saltlakecity2012]

Sure, but I suspec

Sure, but I suspect if you're at a top 10 school, your school's brand name is not going to be pivotal (maybe with Harvard...).

As a side note, I think it's a idea to get a list of students placed by your potential advisors, either by asking them or finding out through subtler means. This will give you both an idea of subfield placement, and of course, your potential advisor's connections.

Also, re: Wisconsin, at least if you're in IR/IPE I think it's really difficult to estimate future placements based on numbers from the past 5-6 years. Lisa Martin's students placed well when she was at Harvard, and I think you have a group there that's rising in stature (especially with IO moving there later this year).

Yes, I totally agree about seeing where people get placed by potential advisors.

And about the school's brand name thing - that's exactly what I was saying. Once you're at the highest level of competition (not the same as the highest level of excellence always), you're competing with everyone else who is also at that highest level of competition.

[RWBG]

ps. did you guys notice that this: Saito,Jun,Yale,2006,Yale is the only case where someone got hired by the same university they graduated from? Apparently Harvard won't even hire people with Harvard Degrees (from what I hear... they only hire humanoid robots created in a lab at MIT)

I think departments don't like to hire people from their own school because it makes it seem like that candidate couldn't get a comparable job without the departmental leg up.

[hiphopopotamus]

Having been at Yale as an undergrad a few years ago, from just a limited set of grad students who I knew, two went on to Harvard KSG, one's at GW, one's at the Maxwell School at Syracuse, one is at Northwestern, and one will be starting at Duke next fall. All these were just in comparative. So don't base any decisions off of crap data from PSJR