George Mason as a rising program?

[doigetmyowntardis]

Hey all, long time lurker and new commenter. Since there is a threat about GWU in this light, I wanted to ask a similar question about George Mason just outside of DC.

 

I've been accepted there and a few other places that are higher ranked. However, when I asked more than half a dozen faculty at different places to name up-and-coming programs that will be strong academically in the near future, every one of them named GMU (as well as FSU, so congrats to those admits !).

 

Now, I have good (great) fit with multiple faculty and the package is good.  I'm not expecting it to be in the top 15-20 anytime in the near or even far future, but people have been telling me to consider it in the same tier as GW, Uva, UMD, etc., etc. because of the power behind the DC location and the amounts of money it has. 

 

I also don't know if this is a good way to gauge any program, but because their polisci is relatively new and their pub. policy/econ degrees are far more established, I was using those other programs as at least a general indicator of what the institution writ large is capable of .... and the placement for those degrees is awesome.

 

Anyway, does anyone have any thoughts?

[eponine997]

First, +1 on the pseudonym, love it!

 

Second, depends LARGELY on your goals, if you looking to go more policy-oriented, think-tank route - yes they are probably comparable.  But "being in DC and having money" don't necessarily correspond with good placement on the academic job market, for that look at or ask where specific schools have been placing candidates lately.  If GMU has little to no placement record for PS, that is something to consider because programs looking to hire might overlook it in favor of a more known quantity.  

 

Third, I would try to interject in the current thread comparing DC-area schools, you'll probably get more action there, though it might be telling that GMU is not already part of that comparison.  

 

Finally, And I would say this of any school about which one might ask this question ("but I hear its on the rise..."), Do you want to be a guinea pig?  Depending on your options, that might be what you are doing.  I'm not saying "don't" as much as I'm saying "realize this."  Rankings can change for a number of reasons, and while I don't necessarily have a great view over time, I can say with a fair amount of certainty that it is extremely difficult and time consuming for a school outside the top 20 to break into it.  Outside of the top 20, upswings and downswings can happen periodically, though probably not very substantially (as in jumping 10 places or more in a short period) and have to do with faculty coming and going, etc.  Picking a lower ranked school over a more highly ranked one hoping the former will improve might be a great idea for you if it is a better fit (beyond just one advisor) and the rankings are relatively close.  The greater the distance in rankings and similarity in fit, the greater the gamble you are taking by going with the lower program assuming (or hoping) it will "rise" when it has (most likely) an equal probability of stagnation or decline.  If you are choosing between a program ranked 50 and another ranked 25 - you should have a VERY GOOD reason for not going with the latter.  = my .02, TIFWIW

[ThisGuyRiteHere]

There is little to no info about placement on the website.

[raptureonfire]

Hey OP,

 

GMU has some very strong people - there's no doubt that the faculty are very good, and I wouldn't be surprised if GMU did rise up a little bit over the next few years.  I have really enjoyed interactions with quite a few of their professors (John Paden, particularly).  They have an up-and-coming Central Asia guy (McGlinchey) who is part of the PONARS network, so that's quite an accomplishment.  But, that said, I wouldn't stake any bets on the school as a whole becoming a powerhouse in political science.  "Up and coming" is one of those terms that sounds much more hopeful than it really is.  It's sort of like describing a house as "a fixer-upper".  Yeah, there's definitely potential, but there's no guarantee that it will ever realize that potential.

 

In terms of rankings and comparability ... I'm going to take what Eponine said and push it a bit further.  I don't think that GMU will ever get close to top 15-20; it's doubtful it will break the top 40, IMO.  It just doesn't have the prestige or momentum that you find at the top twenty schools.  GMU doesn't show up in the NRC rankings, and it's in the back 50 in the USNWR rankings.  In order to break even the top 30, it would have to slog past Brown, UVA, Georgetown, George Washington,etc. etc.  Furthermore, to get to the top 20, it would have to fight past UMD, Penn, Mich State, Emory, etc.  There's just no way that's going to happen.

 

Now, if you are hoping to go into public policy, or perhaps you want to pursue a technical position in the international development field, GMU is really a great place to go.  As someone who works in the international development field, I can assure you that this is not a bad field to be in.  With a PhD and some field experience, you can expect starting salaries around $80K ranging up to $130K with more experience, and you could go travel/live in plenty of exciting (read: often dangerous) places.  So, if that's something you want to consider, I would definitely consider GMU.  As for placing GMU in the same tier as GWU or Georgetown ... I think that is a bit of a stretch, even in the policy/development world; however, that may be where the school is really rising.

 

But if you are looking for academic training, then I probably wouldn't place my bets on GMU.  Given how harsh the academic job market is, it's just not worth the time/investment.  Remember, the professors that I mentioned in this post got their PhDs from Harvard and Princeton, respectively.  THAT's how competitive things are.

[ThisGuyRiteHere]

Hey OP,

 

GMU has some very strong people - there's no doubt that the faculty are very good, and I wouldn't be surprised if GMU did rise up a little bit over the next few years.  I have really enjoyed interactions with quite a few of their professors (John Paden, particularly).  They have an up-and-coming Central Asia guy (McGlinchey) who is part of the PONARS network, so that's quite an accomplishment.  But, that said, I wouldn't stake any bets on the school as a whole becoming a powerhouse in political science.  "Up and coming" is one of those terms that sounds much more hopeful than it really is.  It's sort of like describing a house as "a fixer-upper".  Yeah, there's definitely potential, but there's no guarantee that it will ever realize that potential.

 

In terms of rankings and comparability ... I'm going to take what Eponine said and push it a bit further.  I don't think that GMU will ever get close to top 15-20; it's doubtful it will break the top 40, IMO.  It just doesn't have the prestige or momentum that you find at the top twenty schools.  GMU doesn't show up in the NRC rankings, and it's in the back 50 in the USNWR rankings.  In order to break even the top 30, it would have to slog past Brown, UVA, Georgetown, George Washington,etc. etc.  Furthermore, to get to the top 20, it would have to fight past UMD, Penn, Mich State, Emory, etc.  There's just no way that's going to happen.

 

Now, if you are hoping to go into public policy, or perhaps you want to pursue a technical position in the international development field, GMU is really a great place to go.  As someone who works in the international development field, I can assure you that this is not a bad field to be in.  With a PhD and some field experience, you can expect starting salaries around $80K ranging up to $130K with more experience, and you could go travel/live in plenty of exciting (read: often dangerous) places.  So, if that's something you want to consider, I would definitely consider GMU.  As for placing GMU in the same tier as GWU or Georgetown ... I think that is a bit of a stretch, even in the policy/development world; however, that may be where the school is really rising.

 

But if you are looking for academic training, then I probably wouldn't place my bets on GMU.  Given how harsh the academic job market is, it's just not worth the time/investment.  Remember, the professors that I mentioned in this post got their PhDs from Harvard and Princeton, respectively.  THAT's how competitive things are.

How would you recommend people to break in coming from a non-DC school to the international development field

[raptureonfire]

How would you recommend people to break in coming from a non-DC school to the international development field

Ah!  Well that is a totally different question altogether.  I'd hate to de-rail this thread, so why don't you PM me and I can try to help out

[Mnemonics2]

Hey OP,

 

GMU has some very strong people - there's no doubt that the faculty are very good, and I wouldn't be surprised if GMU did rise up a little bit over the next few years.  I have really enjoyed interactions with quite a few of their professors (John Paden, particularly).  They have an up-and-coming Central Asia guy (McGlinchey) who is part of the PONARS network, so that's quite an accomplishment.  But, that said, I wouldn't stake any bets on the school as a whole becoming a powerhouse in political science.  "Up and coming" is one of those terms that sounds much more hopeful than it really is.  It's sort of like describing a house as "a fixer-upper".  Yeah, there's definitely potential, but there's no guarantee that it will ever realize that potential.

 

In terms of rankings and comparability ... I'm going to take what Eponine said and push it a bit further.  I don't think that GMU will ever get close to top 15-20; it's doubtful it will break the top 40, IMO.  It just doesn't have the prestige or momentum that you find at the top twenty schools.  GMU doesn't show up in the NRC rankings, and it's in the back 50 in the USNWR rankings.  In order to break even the top 30, it would have to slog past Brown, UVA, Georgetown, George Washington,etc. etc.  Furthermore, to get to the top 20, it would have to fight past UMD, Penn, Mich State, Emory, etc.  There's just no way that's going to happen.

 

Now, if you are hoping to go into public policy, or perhaps you want to pursue a technical position in the international development field, GMU is really a great place to go.  As someone who works in the international development field, I can assure you that this is not a bad field to be in.  With a PhD and some field experience, you can expect starting salaries around $80K ranging up to $130K with more experience, and you could go travel/live in plenty of exciting (read: often dangerous) places.  So, if that's something you want to consider, I would definitely consider GMU.  As for placing GMU in the same tier as GWU or Georgetown ... I think that is a bit of a stretch, even in the policy/development world; however, that may be where the school is really rising.

 

But if you are looking for academic training, then I probably wouldn't place my bets on GMU.  Given how harsh the academic job market is, it's just not worth the time/investment.  Remember, the professors that I mentioned in this post got their PhDs from Harvard and Princeton, respectively.  THAT's how competitive things are.

 

All great points. And very sobering ones too. That being said, I know that the polisci candidates at GMU (which is a new program by the way, which puts its small placement history and its relatively high rank for a new program into perspective) are being placed at their pre- and post-doc fellowships at Harvard, Princeton and places like USIP. I was given figures that NSF grants were awarded to more than 50% of one of their classes that are at the dissertation stage. So....this is all very confusing really. Not entirely sure how to read this.

[Robes]

Hi everyone,

 

I will resuscitate this topic as I am really interested to know more about this program, especially from current graduate students at GMU.

 

If more convenient, send me a private message.

 

Thanks

[notcoachrjc]

OP, I want to be on your side, but when I Googled "george mason political science placement," the top result was this thread. Their website doesn't seem to report anything, such as what the training (re:methods training) would be like.

 

Frankly, programs in/or around DC draw students from the government that intend to rotate right back into government after graduation and see less of a need for tenure-track placement. George Mason's low ranking and complete inability to report any placement speak to that.

 

Choosing a VERY low-ranked program over a program ranked around 25 is not suggested just because the fit is better. Some programs around the top 25 do place poorly, but many do not and have far better track records than a department that appears to have reaped a windfall in funding. Placement in pre or post-docs does not equate tenure track placement and "NSF grants were awarded to more than 50% of one of their classes that are at the dissertation stage" sounds like a very deceptive way of saying one person got some grant from the NSF. I'd look into other options.

[Robes]

OP, I want to be on your side, but when I Googled "george mason political science placement," the top result was this thread. Their website doesn't seem to report anything, such as what the training (re:methods training) would be like.

 

Frankly, programs in/or around DC draw students from the government that intend to rotate right back into government after graduation and see less of a need for tenure-track placement. George Mason's low ranking and complete inability to report any placement speak to that.

 

Choosing a VERY low-ranked program over a program ranked around 25 is not suggested just because the fit is better. Some programs around the top 25 do place poorly, but many do not and have far better track records than a department that appears to have reaped a windfall in funding. Placement in pre or post-docs does not equate tenure track placement and "NSF grants were awarded to more than 50% of one of their classes that are at the dissertation stage" sounds like a very deceptive way of saying one person got some grant from the NSF. I'd look into other options.

 

Thanks for this. You're right, GMU is low-ranked, however their program is pretty new (I know the first PhDs in Political Science were awarded last year), so this may explain the lack of placement records. However, I am not aware of any methodological training, unfortunately.

 

Aside from this, if I decide to enroll should I rule out any chance of a career in academia and just aim at government/policy/think tank jobs? 

[Bubandis]

"Ruling out" academic jobs is probably a bit unwarranted. However, regardless of where you attend, I think it is smart have a non-academic career plan in the back of your mind, should you strike out on the academic job market. And, since GMU is so close to DC, a non-academic route may be easier to pursue there, relative to most other places. But, if you want to be in academia, I say do what you need to while completing the PhD (wherever you go) to put yourself in the best position to attain that goal. If it doesn't pan out, then go to your plan B. Best of luck in making your decision!

Edited March 16, 2015 by Bubandis

[Robes]

Thanks Bubandis! What you say is pretty wise, and maybe a place like GMU would give me more opportunities than many others in terms of plan B. 

Anyway, I'm still waiting for other programs and waitlists, I'll make a decision at the very end of this cycle.. Meanwhile, it's always good to know your opinion on matters like this!

 

Best of luck for your waitlists!

 

 

Any contribution from current GMU students?

[law2phd]

It's hard enough for good programs to maintain that standing.  I would never count on a program's ranking increasing significantly between the time I matriculated and the time of dissertation defense.

 

Really, you should be looking at things the opposite way: if a few of GM's top people resign or are poached by better departments in the next five years, would you still feel confident in the quality of training provided there?

 

I know nothing about the department specifically, but based on what you've said in this thread, I don't feel that great about it.

Edited March 16, 2015 by law2phd

[Mnemonics2]

I am current.

 

Ok, so I haven't really thought out this advice (rushing downtown shortly), but I'll try and address a few things I saw here.

 

First, the point made above about a few top people leaving, etc. is actually not that relevant unless you have some very particular fit requirements. The reason for this (and a good thing to bear in mind!) is that the department of political science has just merged with the school of public policy to make a professional school, the School of Policy, Government and International Affairs (SPGIA). And so the faculty size has doubled (and that's only in terms of Polisci professors, with individuals like Jack Goldstone, Audrey Cronin, etc. now in the "department"), as have our resources and our course-taking options. I'd also point out that having faculty on hand in related areas (we have economists, etc. too) is super helpful - I encountered one at an event a while ago and now we've just published a purty decent article together (method stuff). Note that our methods training is actually exceptional when you consider the new setup.

 

Regarding placement and finding information, etc. there are two points that should be made. First, we just had a huge transformation, and a lot of the stuff that comes up with Google is old. That's to be expected, as it takes time for Google to index new stuff, etc., etc. Second, we are indeed a new program. Only a small handful of people have graduated. One has a TT job in New York. Another was never looking for academia anyway (they tend not to let those folk in so much now) and a couple who have just defended went out on the market. I heard their practice job talks for the interviews they had, but I don't know yet the result (I'm not close with them). We have another half dozen or so (first major cohort) in line to go on the market in 1-2 years.

 

Beyond that....a few things about GMU. First, the opportunities beyond academia are definitely more real feeling here than at another non-DC school, even those much higher in rank. There is also a bit more of an international crowd here. Second, an academic job is a very real possibility if (as is the case anywhere) you work towards it. You won't do TT research at Harvard perhaps, though it is worth noting that three people have done pre-/post-doc research there now, but the potential is there. Our people have started getting very reasonable gigs and I expect that to continue (knowing, as I do, the next candidates to come out). Also, the reception I've got regarding my affiliation with Mason at conferences, with editors, etc. has been resoundingly a good one.

 

Anyway.....AMA?

[Robes]

Hi Mnemonics, thank you very much for this! I'll be sending you a private message with more specific questions. Thanks a lot!