US News Rankings Updated

[RWBG]

Thus ending the speculation! Overall not much change.

http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-humanities-schools/political-science-rankings

 

For comparison:
http://stevenliaotw.blogspot.ca/2009/04/2009-us-news-world-report-rankings.html

Edited March 12, 2013 by RWBG

[jasonkowk]

Stanford ranking 3rd?

[RWBG]

Stanford ranking 3rd?

Well, tied for second.

[PoliSwede]

Did they pull the new rankings? I visit the link and it says 2009.

 

Edit: Nevermind. I hit F5 and it shows results for 2013.

Edited March 12, 2013 by Lemeard

[RWBG]

My two cents on the update: I don't think most of the movement in the overall ranking represents much more than random variation.The jumps in ranking for OSU and NYU are probably well-earned and meaningful. However, some of the movement in subfield-specific rankings have been more dramatic (take a look at political methodology for example); those changes seem more interesting to me.

[raptureonfire]

GWU jumped up a bit, no?  That's good to see

[Littlej8]

Whelp this update is no help to me. Deciding between two programs and they are ranked exactly the same lol.

[BFB]

My two cents on the update: I don't think most of the movement in the overall ranking represents much more than random variation.The jumps in ranking for OSU and NYU are probably well-earned and meaningful. However, some of the movement in subfield-specific rankings have been more dramatic (take a look at political methodology for example); those changes seem more interesting to me.

 

Thanks for the kind words. 

 

Whelp this update is no help to me. Deciding between two programs and they are ranked exactly the same lol.

 

Two things. First, as RWBG points out, subfield rankings are more informative, and they can vary a lot. Second, my own inclination is to focus on fit, fit, fit, far more than rank... if the ranks are equal, all the more reason to focus on fit.

[PhDhopeful2013]

Thanks for the kind words.

Two things. First, as RWBG points out, subfield rankings are more informative, and they can vary a lot. Second, my own inclination is to focus on fit, fit, fit, far more than rank... if the ranks are equal, all the more reason to focus on fit.

What about when choosing between a prog ranked in the high 20's and one in the low 60's? both would be good for my interests and training. how much weight should the rank factor hold in the decision? seems like a significant differential to me, but I've also heard rankings don't matter much outside of the T15...

[Mnemonics2]

Two things. First, as RWBG points out, subfield rankings are more informative, and they can vary a lot. Second, my own inclination is to focus on fit, fit, fit, far more than rank... if the ranks are equal, all the more reason to focus on fit.

 

To echo PhDhopeful2013, there is clearly a gap in choosing between ranks and fit. If we're talking about #50 versus #5, then perhaps fit is slightly less important (which I'm cringing even saying that, trust me). But what is the cutoff?

 

Essentially, I am choosing between three programs. The best fit is ranked ~45. The others are ranked ~36. Does the rank difference matter there?

[Doorkeeper]

Big drops for UCSD in American and Comparative subfields. Drop for Berkeley in IR.  Boost for NYU in Methods. Drop for Rochester in Methods.  Boost for Hopkins in Theory (Overtaking Berkeley was surprising).

[BFB]

What about when choosing between a prog ranked in the high 20's and one in the low 60's? both would be good for my interests and training. how much weight should the rank factor hold in the decision? seems like a significant differential to me, but I've also heard rankings don't matter much outside of the T15...

 

 

To echo PhDhopeful2013, there is clearly a gap in choosing between ranks and fit. If we're talking about #50 versus #5, then perhaps fit is slightly less important (which I'm cringing even saying that, trust me). But what is the cutoff?

 

Essentially, I am choosing between three programs. The best fit is ranked ~45. The others are ranked ~36. Does the rank difference matter there?

 

I wish I had a magic formula, but I don't. 50 vs 5, or high 20s to low 60s, seems like a serious gap. It might still work—John Lewis Gaddis was at Ohio University in Athens for a while before going to Yale, for example, and if an aspiring history Ph.D. passed up the chance to study with him because he's at OU, that'd be a bad decision. But it's big. 45 vs 36 is... less big. 

[PoliSwede]

It strikes me as difficult, if not impossible, to determine whether one should attend a program based solely on rank. Especially if we're talking about programs within a specific range. As BFB said, there are excellent scholars and mentors at lower ranked programs who you would love to work with. Fit, rank, funding, placement record, departmental culture, and everything else(!) should be taken into account when someone makes their decision.

 

So I'm not saying that rank isn't important (I'm sure that we all agree that it is), but there are other things one should consider as well