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

[saltlakecity2012]

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

Wow! That's awesome, and not basing anything at all on PSJR is very good advice

[saltlakecity2012]

Also - I am officially driving myself completely insane, and therefore am going to do my best to go wherever I think I would be happiest and do the best work.

Done.

At least... done until 5 minutes from now, when, like an over-anxious squirrel, I change direction completely once again.

[Max Power]

Also - I am officially driving myself completely insane, and therefore am going to do my best to go wherever I think I would be happiest and do the best work.

Done.

At least... done until 5 minutes from now, when, like an over-anxious squirrel, I change direction completely once again.

this is probably a good idea. i've decided i can't possibly make up my mind until i finish going to the recruiting events so i'm just not thinking about (at least as much as possible) for the next several weeks

[3221]

Hey guys,

Here are responses by the Realist about various programs on a thread from last year (I think). Hope it is hopeful to get a little insider knowledge.

Here is a link to the thread:

"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.

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.

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."

Edited March 8, 2012 by 3221

[kolja00]

I'll regive my Chicago opinion. It seems very much the case that there is conflict within the department over the future path that they should take. It comes down to Theory vs. IR/American. At least in my discussion with professors and grad students, there is frustration that the theory people almost always refuse to hire or give tenure to anyone who does any semblance of quantitative study (along with other methodologies and views of the world). Chicago has only 4 IR professors and has not hired a new one despite many attempts since 1999, including a few this year that the IR faculty really wanted to get. In a really funny example, one year the IR faculty asked the theory people to make a list of IR people they would be ok with hiring and they came back with a list of feminist theorists and people who dont really even do IR. It really does seem that theory runs the ship which in many ways is at the expense of the other subfields. No doubt Chicago is a great place and I loved my time as an undergrad here, but I think the department is no where near where it used to be in terms of quality and training.

On a side note, it was kinda funny at the visit today to hear the professors talk about this and kinda lie about the true mood the department. But that is recruiting for you This also isn't meant to bash theory at all so I hope it doesnt come off that way.

I say all of this and yet I still definitely would go there. The IR people they do have are incredible and do amazing work and are amazingly nice people who are super smart. The above is just a frustration that me and my friends sometimes have.

Edited March 9, 2012 by kolja00

[AuldReekie]

I'll regive my Chicago opinion. It seems very much the case that there is conflict within the department over the future path that they should take. It comes down to Theory vs. IR/American. At least in my discussion with professors and grad students, there is frustration that the theory people almost always refuse to hire or give tenure to anyone who does any semblance of quantitative study (along with other methodologies and views of the world). Chicago has only 4 IR professors and has not hired a new one despite many attempts since 1999, including a few this year that the IR faculty really wanted to get. In a really funny example, one year the IR faculty asked the theory people to make a list of IR people they would be ok with hiring and they came back with a list of feminist theorists and people who dont really even do IR. It really does seem that theory runs the ship which in many ways is at the expense of the other subfields. No doubt Chicago is a great place and I loved my time as an undergrad here, but I think the department is no where near where it used to be in terms of quality and training.

On a side note, it was kinda funny at the visit today to hear the professors talk about this and kinda lie about the true mood the department. But that is recruiting for you This also isn't meant to bash theory at all so I hope it doesnt come off that way.

I say all of this and yet I still definitely would go there. The IR people they do have are incredible and do amazing work and are amazingly nice people who are super smart. The above is just a frustration that me and my friends sometimes have.

I'm only just beginning to narrow down and choose schools for next year, but I was a bit shocked at how few IR people Chicago have. You'd think they'd have more people, or do they rely on the fame/infamy (depending on your persuasion ) of Mearsheimer?

[kolja00]

I'm only just beginning to narrow down and choose schools for next year, but I was a bit shocked at how few IR people Chicago have. You'd think they'd have more people, or do they rely on the fame/infamy (depending on your persuasion ) of Mearsheimer?

I mean IR here IS Mearsheimer (and Pape who is his protegee). He places incredibly well and on top of that is an absolute blast to talk to. This year he is on leave and there have been only like 3 IR classes for undergrads which is sad. The department without him has been very empty.

I wonder what will happen to Chicago IR when he retires?

Edited March 9, 2012 by kolja00

[AuldReekie]

I mean IR here IS Mearsheimer (and Pape who is his protegee). He places incredibly well and on top of that is an absolute blast to talk to. This year he is on leave and there have been only like 3 IR classes for undergrads which is sad. The department without him has been very empty.

I wonder what will happen to Chicago IR when he retires?

Completely forgot about Pape, good scholarship though not so much my thing.

That's the worry, I would love to work with Mearsheimer, but he's getting a bit older now and the as you say the dept. would largely appear to be very dependent on him..

Have you decided where you're planning on going?

[kolja00]

Not yet. I'm waiting to hear back from the Princeton and Duke waitlists, but as of now I'm favoring Ohio State.

You??

Edited March 9, 2012 by kolja00

[AuldReekie]

Not yet. I'm waiting to hear back from the Princeton and Duke waitlists, but as of now I'm favoring Ohio State.

You??

I decided to apply next cycle instead. Didn't want to write my thesis at the same time as studying for GRE and applying, so I largely lurk . Hopefully looking to apply for IR (Theory, still trying to narrow down my interests into a coherent research idea).

Considering attending the ISA conference this June in Edinburgh, right on my doorstep! In the hope that it will enable me to better piece what I'd like to do in with existing scholarship.. if that makes sense?

Good luck with the waitlists, fingers crossed!

[kolja00]

Oh awesome! Good luck. Mearsheimer is the dude if you wanna study IR theory.

[Bdeniso]

Very interesting to hear that about Chicago, it was seen as the best place for IR (at least for people into International Security and Security Studies) not long ago, so it would be quite sad if it went down that path.

[kolja00]

Very interesting to hear that about Chicago, it was seen as the best place for IR (at least for people into International Security and Security Studies) not long ago, so it would be quite sad if it went down that path.

I still definitely think it is right up there with MIT and Columbia if you want to do Security Studies. I dont think many places offer a better committee than Mearsheimer, Pape, and Staniland (plus other people at the Harris school like bdm)

The reason I post this as an undergrad is that I'm just worried about the future of the department going forward. I want to see it continue being the place people go to to study security both at a grad and undergrad level because it is the best. Chicago used to be poli sci and I want it to get back to that.

Edited March 9, 2012 by kolja00

[Bdeniso]

I still definitely think it is right up there with MIT and Columbia if you want to do Security Studies. I dont think many places offer a better committee than Mearsheimer, Pape, and Staniland (plus other people at the Harris school like bdm)

The reason I post this as an undergrad is that I'm just worried about the future of the department going forward. I want to see it continue being the place people go to to study security both at a grad and undergrad level because it is the best. Chicago used to be poli sci and I want it to get back to that.

Yeah that is why chicago was my first choice. However, I talked with the ND DGS yesterday and she said she I am #1 on the IR waitlist and there hasnt been a year she was DGS that they didnt have at least one person off the waitlist so hopeful for that! I think with Desch there I will be quite happy with the IS offerings.

[Soshiant]

I'll regive my Chicago opinion. It seems very much the case that there is conflict within the department over the future path that they should take. It comes down to Theory vs. IR/American. At least in my discussion with professors and grad students, there is frustration that the theory people almost always refuse to hire or give tenure to anyone who does any semblance of quantitative study (along with other methodologies and views of the world). Chicago has only 4 IR professors and has not hired a new one despite many attempts since 1999, including a few this year that the IR faculty really wanted to get. In a really funny example, one year the IR faculty asked the theory people to make a list of IR people they would be ok with hiring and they came back with a list of feminist theorists and people who dont really even do IR. It really does seem that theory runs the ship which in many ways is at the expense of the other subfields. No doubt Chicago is a great place and I loved my time as an undergrad here, but I think the department is no where near where it used to be in terms of quality and training.

On a side note, it was kinda funny at the visit today to hear the professors talk about this and kinda lie about the true mood the department. But that is recruiting for you This also isn't meant to bash theory at all so I hope it doesnt come off that way.

I say all of this and yet I still definitely would go there. The IR people they do have are incredible and do amazing work and are amazingly nice people who are super smart. The above is just a frustration that me and my friends sometimes have.

Its funny but this is the very reason Chicago was my first choice!!! Because of its culture of standing up for the theoretical and the normative! I dont say this because I have anything against math and the quant stuff (game theory is great) but I deeply believe that the study of politics Should be about the big picture and Qualitative analysis first and foremost. Do you happen to know what kind of theory the faculty are partial to though? you mentioned feminist theory? Do they believe in a plurality or like a specific tradition like critical or analytic/liberal?

On another note, as a former SAISer I have to say Mearsheimer Is awsome!

[Bdeniso]

Its funny but this is the very reason Chicago was my first choice!!! Because of its culture of standing up for the theoretical and the normative! I dont say this because I have anything against math and the quant stuff (game theory is great) but I deeply believe that the study of politics Should be about the big picture and Qualitative analysis first and foremost. Do you happen to know what kind of theory the faculty are partial to though? you mentioned feminist theory? Do they believe in a plurality or like a specific tradition like critical or analytic/liberal?

On another note, as a former SAISer I have to say Mearsheimer Is awsome!

Maybe theory and International Security people in IR can get along then haha. In IS, there is a reaction against the quantitative move of most of the rest of IR

[yinche]

Any info on the department mood/culture at Penn State (subfield IR)? I will appreciate it much!

[shavasana]

RE: Chicago

I had it from both Mearsheimer and Pape (who are both lovely and interesting to talk to, in my opinion) that they are very very seriously looking for more IR people, but likely the first hire would be an IR Theory guy, not necessarily security. It may have largely to do with departmental politics, but I got the sense that IR people were really really happy there despite having the small amount of IR faculty.

But I have to say that I was very very impressed with Chicago's faculty. They've done a ton of hiring on comparative in the last few years, and people are doing really interesting things. Faculty tend to do a lot more qual methods (Lisa Wedeen and post-modern ethnography, etc.) but it seems quant training is definitely there if one wants it. But grad students made it clear that you didn't want to be there if you wanted to do formal theory. Just a heads up.

For me, a positive of the visit was talking with profs when they weren't selling the program. A lot of them pushing me on my research ideas, and gave me a TON of ideas that I'd never thought of. So when they say "Chicago is about your ideas" you really should take that very seriously.

On a culture note, all of the grad students said that the department really doesn't have a hierarchy system. One told me about an argument he got into with JJM that was actually encouraged. Profs expected to be pushed on their ideas by their students, which I would consider a plus of the program.

A couple of other profs talked about the weaknesses of the program. It's definitely a sink or swim type of place, completely dependent on the student. From what I heard, profs were completely and totally available if you work hard/put in the time. If they perceive that you're slacking, you're just not gonna get that much attention. That really would also apply to coursework. They DON'T have a set curriculum, so you have the opportunity to take classes with a ton of faculty, but at the same time you can get lost if you don't engage with faculty.

Final thought: Even the grad student admitted (and seemed proud of) the fact that their department was "idiosyncratic" or "eccentric" (they said "weird" but I'll stick with my terms). The people there generally seemed to be doing sort of off the wall stuff, which may appeal to some people.

[midwest513]

Not to be a downer, but it definitely says something about a department when you try and hire a former PhD student (Alex Downes) and he decides not to come back. I do American Politics...but I'm pretty sure that he does security stuff.

Also..it seems that Harris does some quanty stuff to some extent at U-Chicago. At least in American Politics they have Shor, Howell, Berry, and Ashworth. Ethan Bueno DeMesquito does IR game theory over there as well I think.

[whattheydo]

On 3/10/2012 at 10:24 AM, midwest513 said:

Not to be a downer, but it definitely says something about a department when you try and hire a former PhD student (Alex Downes) and he decides not to come back. I do American Politics...but I'm pretty sure that he does security stuff.

This seems spurious (unless you have special knowledge of the considerations behind another's decision...?)

Also..it seems that Harris does some quanty stuff to some extent at U-Chicago. At least in American Politics they have Shor, Howell, Berry, and Ashworth. Ethan Bueno DeMesquito does IR game theory over there as well I think.

This is a good instinct. While Chicago has plenty of methodologically sophisticated faculty at home in the political science department (a fact overlooked on this board, perhaps because the same facutly are not IR scholars), including Betsy Sinclair of Caltech (who's publishing with Don Green) and Jong Hee Park of WashU (who teaches the Maximum Likelihood course), the Harris School -- quite naturally because of its technical orientation -- is also a great resource for training in quant methods. To this point, Chicago's workshop in political economy is hosted out of the Harris School. That workshop goes out of its way to focus on developing scholarship that utilizes (maybe even over-utilizes) quantitative research designs, including both applied statistics and formal theory.

And on the subject of workshops, Chicago's system is second to none (there are literally dozens of well-subsidized workshops that convene on a weekly basis) and they're an incredible resource. The various political science workshops -- Program in International Political Economy and Security (PIPES) (distinct from the straightforward PE workshop mentioned above), Program in International Security Policy (PISP), Comparative Politics, Political Theory, etc., etc., -- host scholars at the top of the field while also giving Chicago grad students an opportunity to present their work and receive (at times whithering) feedback.

In fact, I'd say it's only by attending one of these workshops that you can truly appreciate how rigorous the Chicago approach to political science is. That rigor (after controlling for the generous budgets, which allow the department to fly scholars in from the east and west coast) is probably why scholars make a point of presenting at Chicago. Off the top of my head I can say that scholars like Keohane, Fearon, Glaser and Buthe all presented in 2011, and that's focusing only on the IR subfield.

[Bdeniso]

To be fair, the

Not to be a downer, but it definitely says something about a department when you try and hire a former PhD student (Alex Downes) and he decides not to come back. I do American Politics...but I'm pretty sure that he does security stuff.

Also..it seems that Harris does some quanty stuff to some extent at U-Chicago. At least in American Politics they have Shor, Howell, Berry, and Ashworth. Ethan Bueno DeMesquito does IR game theory over there as well I think.

To be fair, the Downes situation is not so simple. He was applied and was offered to come to where I am currently am, but I won't get into why he didn't come here. II wouldn't be surprised if he just didn't want to be in DC or at a policy school, more so than just not at Chicago. Also, from what I understand, getting hired where you got your PhD from is not always the best looking in the community.

[Jean Jacques]

Does anyone have insights on the IR faculty and programs at the LSE and Oxbridge?

[RWBG]

I know the conversation has shifted a little bit from the posting of data about the specific schools, but I thought I'd give a thought or two about Michigan. I'd read some stuff on this board and heard rumors from others that the departmental culture was really competitive, and supervision wasn't that close, but my impressions while visiting were precisely the opposite. Everyone there seemed really, really friendly, and extremely invested in their students. Moreover, when talking to grad students, they often mentioned the accessibility of the faculty as one of the biggest strengths of the department. My impression is that the training there is really great, and there appears to be a departmental culture of emphasizing epistemic rigor in the work of faculty and students, irrespective of whether they're qual/quant/formal (for instance, amongst the formal types, there was a lot of self-conscious discussion about when models can be epistemically valuable). Personally, I really liked Michigan.

[saltlakecity2012]

I know the conversation has shifted a little bit from the posting of data about the specific schools, but I thought I'd give a thought or two about Michigan. I'd read some stuff on this board and heard rumors from others that the departmental culture was really competitive, and supervision wasn't that close, but my impressions while visiting were precisely the opposite. Everyone there seemed really, really friendly, and extremely invested in their students. Moreover, when talking to grad students, they often mentioned the accessibility of the faculty as one of the biggest strengths of the department. My impression is that the training there is really great, and there appears to be a departmental culture of emphasizing epistemic rigor in the work of faculty and students, irrespective of whether they're qual/quant/formal (for instance, amongst the formal types, there was a lot of self-conscious discussion about when models can be epistemically valuable). Personally, I really liked Michigan.

This.

[adenlee]

Anyone has ideas on Binghamton?