Last Minute Decision Question

[bodywithoutorgans]

Hi All-

I have narrowed my choices down to two programs.

Program A is slightly higher ranked in my subfield (theory), is funded through a one-year fellowship and guaranteed TA-ships for years two-five. No guaranteed summer funding.

Program B is ranked less highly than A, but is still well-respected in the sub-field. I would receive a 1.5 year fellowship, guaranteed summer funding for 5 years, and guaranteed TA-ships for five years. the TAships pay more at Program B, and Program B is in a less expensive area.

Basically, the choice comes down to this: Higher ranked program with a smaller monetary offer vs. slightly lower ranked program with a significantly higher monetary offer.

My research interests are covered by faculty at both places.

Thanks very much for your help, GradCafe.

[orst11]

First congrats on such a great admission season.

Now onto the issue, while I think some people will simply say to go to the program where money doesn't seem to be an issue, I think what you need to consider is, will the money be enough to get you through at both places. I think when it comes to political theory, obviously ranking seems to be an extremely important factor, because the field is more competitive than other subfields. This ultimately means with comparing the two offers program B has to compensate somehow and they obviously are doing so with money.

Overall, Program B definitely has offered you a better package, but I think what you need to ask yourself now is where would you be more comfortable. I say this because you mentioned that both places have people working on your research interests and while this probably was a huge factor before it isn't a huge factor in deciding between the two now.

Have you taken a look at placement and such? Have you visited and felt more comfortable at one of the programs? Seriously you can now even look at some simple(well maybe not so simple) things like weather, safety, housing, etc. that weren't a huge issue when researching where you applied, and these maybe factors in comparing if there are differences.

As a person who chose a program much lower ranked than some of my options I would say consider the latter because they could have an effect on your ambition/sanity while you are in the program. Do you ultimately think you could be more productive in the field if you went to one program over another?

[bodywithoutorgans]

Thanks for the response. More considerations:

Weather and atmosphere definitely are not the same (Program A is in Southern CA and Program B is in the Midwest). Program A has a good deal more senior faculty in my sub-field than does Program B. So, contrary to my first post, there may be quality of life and future prospects issues at hand. To complicate things, though, Program A, which is giving me less $) is in a more expensive area, whereas program B (which is giving me more money) is in a cheaper area. Also, Program B, despite having less senior faculty, has had a better placement record recently than A.

So confusing!

[saltlakecity2012]

look at the placement in theory. like orst said, theory is highly competitive, so you want to be pretty careful about maximizing your future job options. if program b's overall placement is slightly better but not in theory, program a might be a better choice (purely along professional lines). also look at who your advisor would probably be at both places. if you visited and connected with potential advisors, which did you like better? where do you think you'd produce more creative and rigorous work?

good luck!!!

[orst11]

Yes, I understand a lot of this, as many others probably do as well, because we are picking schools based on where we think they will be when we do end up on the job market. I think maybe you will want to consider research productivity at each place like saltlake suggested. Often less senior faculty are more eager to take on students and this can help you, because you gain a lot more insight both with research and the profession as a whole. On the other hand, look at the connections you would gain from each place. Also, remember to look at the age of the department, meaning avg. age of senior faculty, because this can end up being a factor later down the line if it does take you longer than you hoped to finish your degree. Look at recent hires of the department and ponder on what they are bringing to the table that may be a factor in your decision. Truthfully, with political theory I would almost always say choose the better ranked program and this is coming from a person who loves the Midwest. Financially it may be tougher at the one now, but it may be better for you in the long run.

Either way you can do great work at either one just remember that. Good luck you will make the right decision for you.

Edited April 12, 2012 by orst11

[Soshiant]

I think it would be very helpful if you shared what the two schools actually are. so we can discuss our impressions of their trajectories down the road. Its hard to give productive advice using abstractions.

[bodywithoutorgans]

I think it would be very helpful if you shared what the two schools actually are. so we can discuss our impressions of their trajectories down the road. Its hard to give productive advice using abstractions.

UCLA is School A and U Minnesota is School B

Edited April 12, 2012 by bodywithoutorgans

[brent09]

^Exactly.

Generally, I would say that placement strictly dominates ranking, especially in theory. The only thing to watch for is the TYPE of placement. Some programs might boast higher placement, but they're placing people in the region where the school's brand is strongest. Some programs place well, but place more in SLACs than in others. If the placement at school B is still better, even with those considerations, then go to B.

As far as UCLA versus Minnesota go specifically, UCLA clearly has the better brand. But if MN is placing stronger in theory, then go to MN -- it's no pushover, a PhD from MN will serve you well. Besides, who wants to live in LA?

[saltlakecity2012]

one other note - make sure that if you choose MN bc its theory placement is better than UCLA's (I have no idea if that's true), you're 95% committed to theory. don't choose the lower-ranked school if you think you might end up wanting to do some stuff in comparative or american - although MN is an excellent school, so I don't think you'd be in a bad situation either way.

[orst11]

^Agree with saltlake and brent09 for this issue.

Both UMN and UCLA are household names. I think UMN definitely isn't quite at the same level UCLA is yet, but UMN's main competition comes from schools like WIsconsin, Illinois, etc. so basically they are on a different playing field.

I will add if you are going to dabble into or even thinking about working with political psych, UMN is a hard school to turn down. Just be warned to buy a pair of boots. Last time, I was in the TC they had over 2 feet of snow on the ground.

Ultimately, you have two good choices I don't think you would go wrong either way.

[aargauer]

Both UMN and UCLA are household names.

Irrelevant sidebar: I wanted to go to UMN badly (comparative / social policy - Jane Gingrich), and never considered UCLA. They blew me off. I was never rejected, never accepted. I received an email stating that I was under consideration after they had already sent out acceptances (I apparently failed to upload something). I called mid-to-late February and was told I would hear soon. Nothing. I then called (left voicemails), emailed (no responses), etc. Absolutely nothing. Gave up. Bizarre!

Just my own thoughts and observations -- entirely irrelevant I suppose. I write this because I am amazed that they could be so obnoxious / callous. Am no longer interested, and am going elsewhere. It should reflect poorly upon them.

Edited April 12, 2012 by aargauer

[Soshiant]

I assume from the two schools that you want to work in critical theory/critical race and pos-colonial theory for which both schools obv have many people you can work with. They are very comparable places as far as theory but maybe UCLA is a tad better, However although within the subfield they are quite similar, I think you should also look at overall departmental philosophy toward Theory. I know that UCLA and UCSD both focus so much on quant methods and core training that some theorists complain that they really cant delve into the material as much as they would like while they are taking coursework so that a PhD takes more than 6 years to complete simply because they dont have as strong foundation as they would like (and you would get at a more qual dept such as Northwestern). So my advice is to see which dept as a whole is more congenial to the study of theory and this prob goes to your personal impression. If you find the two dept to be on par on this point, then I would go to UCLA because it has a better location, weather, etc and you are gonna be stuck with your decision for the next 5-7 years.

Good luck!

[puddle]

UCLA has a great international reputation... okay... I did my UG there so I might be biased. Anyways, if you are in theory does UCLA's very strong Philosophy department not tip the scales slightly?

[action]

UMN has a serious dearth of tenured theory faculty right now, which leads me to suggest that UCLA might be more worthy of your consideration at this point. As far as I'm aware Joan Tronto is the only tenured faculty member in theory at UMN, so unless your interests intersect meaningfully with hers you'd probably be better off heading to UCLA (and you can't go wrong with McClure, Dienstag, Pagden, etc etc... the list goes on, I know). They have a very strong senior group at UCLA, even with Pateman retiring and Wolfenstein passing away (and I would assume this to mean they'll be hiring in theory sometime in the coming years as well?). All of UMN recent placements are likely still Mary Dietz/James Farr students, so it's difficult to say whether their recent placement record will be representative for the years coming.

That said, UMN has a really strong group of junior faculty, so assuming they get tenured it will likely be a great place to work within the next 10 years. It's just that UCLA seems like the better choice as of now (or at least thats my take -- you've likely visited both places so should have some sense of their relative strengths and weaknesses).