New USNWR rankings

[BrunoPuntzJones]

I believe Tulane's graduate program shutdown was recent (post-hurricane).

[polisciphd]

This is correct, they are not accepting new grad students. The new rankings are based on surveys that were conducted before Katrina hit.

[DrRockso]

This is correct, they are not accepting new grad students. The new rankings are based on surveys that were conducted before Katrina hit.

That's still quite a few years back...I guess the department still exists, and was still awarding MAs and PhDs, but it still seems odd to have in the mix a graduate program that's been on hold for the past few years.

[sommelier]

I just find it hard to believe that Georgetown makes its way on to none of these lists. I realize the methodology of their ranking system might exclude them in some ways (publishing's by professors, high profile professors, etc.) but it seems inconceivable that they are left off of these lists. (I could also make this same argument about GW and American)

You can be involved with so much that pertains to your academic discipline in the DC area, which is why I find it hard to believe these rankings. Hypothetically, a simple part time research job at a think tank, PAC or lobbying firm in addition to a MA or PhD in Poli Sci (or Public Admin/Policy/Affaits) would seem to such a great boost to formal education and put you in such a better position to obtain quality employment. And grad school part time while holding down a full time job at a major government agency or policy group would seem be so much more valuable than a total classroom experience at some of these top ten ranked institutions.

Just my opinion.

[polisci]

A poli sci phd program primarily aims to train future political scientists. Georgetown isnt a great bet in that regard. What you describe isn't the world of political science; it's the world of policy jobs in DC. It's a different thing.

[sommelier]

So how would experience in the actual field of politics not benefit someone who has chosen a profession in which it is ones job to analyze, teach and research politics?

Would a 'political scientist' be best suited to never experience the actual realm of government and politics?

I do understand the difference in policy issues and political theory, all I am pointing out is that I simply believe a certain level of practical experience to be extremely beneficial in this discipline. And, where would one be able to acquire such real world skills better than DC?

I would make the argument that they are training future academic scholars, researchers and professors rather than superior political scientists.

I do realize the academic rigor and excellent program structure of the selected schools. I am simply playing advocate for a school that I believe to be great academically, and superior in location pertaining to all things political. After being out in the working world for a little while now, I realize the importance of refining the total package you have to offer and employer, rather than simply a quality education.

[natofone]

The bottom line is that these schools do not place well and do not have the top faculty in the discipline. I would also question the seriousness of any program that has a part-time option. A PhD in political science takes 5-6 years as it is full-time.

[sommelier]

And what is the basis of questioning the 'seriousness' of any part time academic program?

First of all, many people have to work in order to support a family, pay bills, etc.

Secondly, how could you view working in your field while studying in your field as a negative?

I believe it to be someones prerogative if they choose to take 7 or 8 years to complete a doctorate program. I think that it is very narrow minded to paint all part time options with the same brush.

I guess I am trying to evoke an argument as to why these rankings are not biased, and in favor of a dozen or so schools in all of their rankings. So far, I am not hearing it.

[Ferrero]

Biased across fields, I'm afraid, sommelier. Cash is exchanged and recouped in application fees by undergrads who just glance at the rankings. A flagship state school in Ann Arbor is not a better program than one in the mecca of American politics in D.C. Just isn't.

[natofone]

Essentially what you're saying is that the rankings should include a measure for location, but that isn't what they are designed to do. They are designed to measure the strength of a program based upon things like placement, funding, faculty, etc. Of course there are other factors involved when we make our decision to attend one school over another, but the rankings are not designed to measure things like that. Besides, being in DC does little to advance a methods person, theorist, comparativist, and (likely) an IR person. It might have some payoff for an americanist, but the field is more than just american politics.

In regards to work. Most good schools PAY their students to attend and you can always take out loans. If you have to work your way through a doctoral program, then it either isn't a good program or you got a terrible package. Top schools want people fully committed to this process. Peruse the websites of the top programs and see if any of them allow for part-time study. They don't.

[Ferrero]

Essentially what you're saying is that the rankings should include a measure for location, but that isn't what they are designed to do. They are designed to measure the strength of a program based upon things like placement, funding, faculty, etc. Of course there are other factors involved when we make our decision to attend one school over another, but the rankings are not designed to measure things like that. Besides, being in DC does little to advance a methods person, theorist, comparativist, and (likely) an IR person. It might have some payoff for an americanist, but the field is more than just american politics.

In regards to work. Most good schools PAY their students to attend and you can always take out loans. If you have to work your way through a doctoral program, then it either isn't a good program or you got a terrible package. Top schools want people fully committed to this process. Peruse the websites of the top programs and see if any of them allow for part-time study. They don't.

And yet, you do not deny that U.S. News' rankings are a racket -- a ponzi scheme cash cow where programs pay-to-play. Shame on U.S. News.

[jackassjim]

And yet, you do not deny that U.S. News' rankings are a racket -- a ponzi scheme cash cow where programs pay-to-play. Shame on U.S. News.

Do you even know what a ponzi scheme is?

[Ferrero]

Yes: What they do.

[sommelier]

nato...

I do not really think specific location is what I was referring to as much as what that area has to offer. International relations majors would benefit just as much from working in NYC at the UN as they would in DC.

As for PhD programs paying their student to attend, I would rather work and participate in a program rather than just participate in a program due to the fact that being a professor is not my main goal.

I do agree that certain disciplines of Political Science might not benefit as much as others by a DC locations. However, I personally would much rather have professors that have actual political experience in any field of study.

I have heard of funding obstacles from DC area schools as well, so I am sure that this is a negative in terms of ranking. But would the quality of speakers and lectures available to the student body not trump something like this? Practically speaking.

It is not so much that I doubt that Yale, Harvard and Princeton have equal to or better programs of any one school (like G Town, GW) because I do believe that institutions such as those have an outstanding curriculum ... I just think that the methodology of that certain magazine has ulterior motives to its ranking system and the colleges it perennially favors.

[polisciphd]

nato...

I do not really think specific location is what I was referring to as much as what that area has to offer. International relations majors would benefit just as much from working in NYC at the UN as they would in DC.

As for PhD programs paying their student to attend, I would rather work and participate in a program rather than just participate in a program due to the fact that being a professor is not my main goal.

I do agree that certain disciplines of Political Science might not benefit as much as others by a DC locations. However, I personally would much rather have professors that have actual political experience in any field of study.

I have heard of funding obstacles from DC area schools as well, so I am sure that this is a negative in terms of ranking. But would the quality of speakers and lectures available to the student body not trump something like this? Practically speaking.

It is not so much that I doubt that Yale, Harvard and Princeton have equal to or better programs of any one school (like G Town, GW) because I do believe that institutions such as those have an outstanding curriculum ... I just think that the methodology of that certain magazine has ulterior motives to its ranking system and the colleges it perennially favors.

I think that the big issue here is that you guys are speaking about two very different animals. The schools within the beltway all have both International Affairs schools and political science departments. They share faculty, often share facilities, and very often skirt the line between what is "policy" vs. what is political science. If you want a career in a think tank or in a govt. agency, then you will be fine with a ph.d. from one of these schools, although in many instances you can do as well with a masters degree. (I have an MA from ESIA at GW).

The difficulty with these schools is that they often don't translate outside of the beltway, especially for departments that are more reliant on the use of non-qualitative methods. And most of the DC programs focus topically, as opposed to theoretically.

That being said, I decided to get out of DC to do my ph.d. because of what I perceived as a severe lack of theoretical or methodological basis for many of the policy decisions made by our fearless leaders. I specifically sought out programs that would allow me to prove what I had been arguing for to those same folks, especially considering I don't have 25 years of govt. experience to back up my opinions.

[Ferrero]

Perhaps. But if you are in a job interview and able to say that you can incorporate your D.C. experience into the classroom, that will give you a boost. Even if it is just little anecdotes like, "I once saw Obama on the red line" or "Yes, my advisor previously worked in the Bush administration". These "throwaway lines" give an air of authority not replicable if you say you did your graduate work at WUSTL -- which sounds more like a Fortune 500.

[polisciphd]

Perhaps. But if you are in a job interview and able to say that you can incorporate your D.C. experience into the classroom, that will give you a boost. Even if it is just little anecdotes like, "I once saw Obama on the red line" or "Yes, my advisor previously worked in the Bush administration". These "throwaway lines" give an air of authority not replicable if you say you did your graduate work at WUSTL -- which sounds more like a Fortune 500.

While this may be the case if you are targeting gs 11 or 12 type jobs where your boss doesn't know anything about poli sci or the academic world, anyone who knows anything about poli sci knows that WUSTL is one of the strongest programs in the world and will look much more favorably on their degree than if you happen to see Barack and company eating at Ben's Chili Bowl.

And from your logic, don't get the degree, just camp out in front of the white house or the capitol building and make a list of all of the politicians coming and going, surely that will help in an academic or research job interview.

[natofone]

I think that Ferrero is joking.

[plisar]

Tidefan, Ferrero is a well established troll. The other one, I think is real.

[natofone]

If you don't want to be an academic, then don't get a PhD in political science.

[sommelier]

If you don't want to be an academic, then don't get a PhD in political science.

I find studying political science very intriguing and would love to have my PhD in this subject someday. I also believe that a PhD would provide a very good advancement track for think tank/PAC/lobbyist organizations. Also, it would provide opportunity to join academia at some point if desired.

I do see the difference between desired track.... academia versus private sector/consulting/ngo. My original ideas were simply a critique or disbelief that the 'top ranked' programs were as great as they purport, or if the top ten are really that far above programs lower down the list.

I know that I feel an education combined with practical, real world experience is better than a purely theoretical approach to learning. For myself, a program that offers a variety of academic opportunities as well as networking and experience is what I am looking for in a doctorate program.

A couple jokes aside... very good debate people.

[Ferrero]

Tidefan, Ferrero is a well established troll. The other one, I think is real.

How dare you. What a slur. If I were being unkind, I would say you are upset that you have been bamboozeled into enrolling at one of U.S. News' clientele. UCSD is more like a Breakers resort than a serious research university like Georgetown or GW. That's what I say.

[polisciphd]

How dare you. What a slur. If I were being unkind, I would say you are upset that you have been bamboozeled into enrolling at one of U.S. News' clientele. UCSD is more like a Breakers resort than a serious research university like Georgetown or GW. That's what I say.

Just go where you think you can have the best fit for you and don't worry about what anyone else says or thinks.

[natofone]

som - Have you looked into public policy PhD programs? There are some very competitive part-time ones (in DC and elsewhere). I believe that Harvard, Tufts, Princeton, Yale, Columbia, Chicago, JHU, Georgetown, American, GW, and many other universities have public policy schools. These programs will build skills that translate well into the public sector (game theory, stats, modeling, etc.) and there is also the option to teach, but they take only 3-4 years to complete. Political science is purely for future academics. Yes, some end up in other sectors, but that is commonly the result of failure in academics or a souring on the idea of being an academic.

The main difference is that political science and public policy look at issues and problems differently. Political scientists want to explain what causes, while scholars of public policy want to solve them. Take terrorism for example. Political scientists make causal inferences about the origins of terrorism (socioeconomic conditions, political structures, economic incentives, ethnic fragmentation, ideas, political entrepreneurship, etc.). Public policy scholars will examine counter-terrorism strategies that have been successful. Of course these aren't mutually exclusive worlds and each dabbles into the other, but they emphasize different parts of the equation.

Best of luck either way.

[sommelier]

Excellent descriptions and advice. Mostly everyone seems very well researched in all of these topics.

I am going to complete my MBA next year... I am already a year into the program, and I am committed to it due to the fact that I believe it to be one of the stronger graduate academic programs at UNLV. My undergrad is poli sci/econ, and that combined with the MBA I believe will be best suited for a public administration/affairs/policy doctorate program, if I get that far.

If everything goes accordingly, which it often does not, I will still be applying to DC area school regardless of USNWR rankings.