New USNWR rankings

[natofone]

The DC schools rank very high in public policy degree programs (MPP and PhD in PP).

[sonnyday]

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.

Wow, interesting comment. I don't think a school is any less "serious" because they allow working students access to higher education. Your statement sounds elitist as if you are questioning the type of students they attract as being less serious. Part-time work is perfectly fine for an MA. And last I heard, USNWR ranked graduate schools, not strictly Ph.D programs.

IMO, it shouldn't matter whether a school is to train professors/researchers or government analysts/policymakers. The rigors of the program should still be access at how well they do there job in providing which ever one their specialty is. Its a little unfair that research institutions are simply ranked higher. I think most know that GW and Georgetown are great at producing high-paying, high-producing policymakers and the like. Why should they have a lower ranking because they don't tend to become professors? If anything, the USNWR rankings should be ranked separately for both field and theory schools.

[sonnyday]

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.

I completely agree with your second paragraph, except I think the two overlap more than you think. And IMO, they should be overlapping more, as the clear distinctions between the two (to the point where people in these two groups don't even associate with each other or read each others work) is a severe disadvantage to our society. I seek to understand the causes of phenomenon for the specific purpose of finding solutions to them, whether that's through teaching or consulting or doing more research at a think tank. Actually, many political scientists do both at points in their careers. Like sommelier said, this leads to much more enriching knowledge.

But to the bolded sentence: It sounds a little insulting. As if the policy world is for failed academics or those who weren't good enough for academia (implying a hierarchy of sorts). In some cases that may be true, but I also think academia has a certain cushioning to it that allows those who don't want to get their hands dirty to mill around and debate semantics or create repeated spin-offs of old research without really trying to contribute to society. They both have their noble and low points.