westernpolitics Posted October 7, 2013 Posted October 7, 2013 Any thoughts on Yale's PhD program in political science? Is it as methodologically diverse as the program's website suggests?
GopherGrad Posted October 8, 2013 Posted October 8, 2013 Yale's program is fantastic. Nowhere is as methodologically diverse as it claims except Berkeley. Be prepared to accept R as your wife, mistress and personal chef. chaetzli and CGMJ 2
chaetzli Posted October 8, 2013 Posted October 8, 2013 Yale's program is fantastic. Nowhere is as methodologically diverse as it claims except Berkeley. Be prepared to accept R as your wife, mistress and personal chef. Word.
RWBG Posted October 8, 2013 Posted October 8, 2013 (edited) Well, some places are as methodologically diverse as claimed by making no claims whatsoever to be methodologically diverse. Also, do you have the code for getting R to generate a meal? Edited October 8, 2013 by RWBG
catchermiscount Posted October 9, 2013 Posted October 9, 2013 Well, some places are as methodologically diverse as claimed by making no claims whatsoever to be methodologically diverse. Also, do you have the code for getting R to generate a meal? I'm a bigger fan of being more methodologically diverse than expected by pretending to be completely methodologically bigoted. NOT NAMING NAMES HERE OK PEOPLE
RWBG Posted October 9, 2013 Posted October 9, 2013 I'm a bigger fan of being more methodologically diverse than expected by pretending to be completely methodologically bigoted. NOT NAMING NAMES HERE OK PEOPLE Apropos of nothing, there's an interesting discussion to be had on how being at whatever department you choose shapes your conception of the field. In my own experience, I've found it really easy to think of the range of things we do as largely representative of the field, and to think of the epistemological approach that dominates here as the approach of the field. However, then I hear from people at other programs, and I'm reminded of how different experiences in political science graduate programs can be, and how "methodological diversity" here means something entirely different than it would at another department.
catchermiscount Posted October 9, 2013 Posted October 9, 2013 Oh absolutely. Whenever I go to conferences, it takes me a second or two to readjust. It's obviously a more pronounced issue than it is at a full-service non-boutique, but I'd have to think it's an issue at all sorts of places. Personally, I have no idea why we keep going on about whether our methods comport with an old, old wooden ship from the Civil War era. Poli92 and RWBG 2
GopherGrad Posted October 9, 2013 Posted October 9, 2013 there's an interesting discussion to be had on how being at whatever department you choose shapes your conception of the field. Rather, HOW it shapes your conceptions. Well, some places are as methodologically diverse as claimed by making no claims whatsoever to be methodologically diverse. Fair.
GopherGrad Posted October 9, 2013 Posted October 9, 2013 GOPHER GRAD'S DOWNHOME R COOKBOOK As an appetizer, consider a zesty bruschetta with parsely and white pepper to punch up the basil: meetbinom<-function(appetizer,hearty){ K<-choptomatoes tempd<-onions,garlic for(k in 0:(n)){ K[k+1]<-k tempd[k+1]<-dbinom(k,n,p) } barplot(tempd,names.arg=K)} meetbinom(fry, bake) results<-NA pool<-c("Tomato","Onion","Basil","OliveOil","Salt") NumberOfSimulations<-100 for(i in 1:NumberOfBreadSlices){ sample<-sample(pool,size=3) results<-0 if(sum(sample=="parsley")>=1 | sum(sample=="whitepepper")>=1) results<-1 } table(results) On summer days, I find a pacific style seafood chowder gives you the energy to stare at Marx texts all day without leaving you feeling bloated: results<-NA pool<-c(rep("coconutmil",8),rep("fishstock",10),rep("currypaste",5)) NumberOfStirs<-100 for(i in 1:NumberOfStirs){ sample<-sample(pool,size=onegallon) results<-0 if(sum(sample=="Snapper")==2 & sum(sample=="Shrimp")==3 & sum(sample=="CrabinaCan")==0) results<-1 } table(results) For hearty fare, consider seared flank steak with roasted asparagus and a balsamic reduction: normprob<-function(F1=-shallots,T1=flank, F2=-1,T2=1,NPOINTS=1000,TITLE="",FNAME=""){ curve(asparagus,from=counter,to=oven,main=steak) x<-c(F2,seq(F2,T2,length.out=NPOINTS),T2) pan<-c(steak(EVOO)) y[1]<-0 y[NPOINTS+balsamic+orangerind]<-0 polygon(x,y,border=NULL,col=2) postscript(file=paste("norm",FNAME,".ps",sep="")) curve(dnorm,from=F1,to=T1,main=TITLE) x<-c(F2,seq(F2,T2,length.out=NPOINTS),T2) y<-c(dnorm(x)) y[1]<-0 y[NPOINTS+2]<-0 potato(x,y,border=CRISPY,interior=SOFT) dev.off() printto->plate Enjoy! Cesare, TheGnome, PoliSwede and 3 others 6
TheGnome Posted October 10, 2013 Posted October 10, 2013 I don't see any deserts here though. A meal without a dessert is like a coefficient without confidence intervals
AmericanQuant Posted October 17, 2013 Posted October 17, 2013 Any thoughts on Yale's PhD program in political science? Is it as methodologically diverse as the program's website suggests? That depends. What sorts of methodologies are you interested in? If you're looking to be a super-quant, I'd say that the other CHYMPS departments are all more diverse in terms of their quantitative methods (read: statistics) training than Yale. If you want to do Qualitative work, that might be a different story.
BFB Posted November 21, 2013 Posted November 21, 2013 Apropos of nothing, there's an interesting discussion to be had on how being at whatever department you choose shapes your conception of the field. In my own experience, I've found it really easy to think of the range of things we do as largely representative of the field, and to think of the epistemological approach that dominates here as the approach of the field. However, then I hear from people at other programs, and I'm reminded of how different experiences in political science graduate programs can be, and how "methodological diversity" here means something entirely different than it would at another department. Absolutely. I actually think that your exposure to the methods (or more accurately, ontologies) that you don't specialize in can be crucial: I've seen a lot of smart people give very narrow talks without having any idea that, from a different ontological perspective, their answers are disastrously bad. That's one of the reasons I like our program so much TheGnome 1
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now