Welcome to the 2014-15 Cycle

[fakeusername]

I was just curious. If you want to have that conversation (otherwise ignore below):

While nothing is deterministic, I made the decision to limit my applications to only certain programs because while we all have to be a touch crazy to pursue an academic political science career in the face of the base rates of success, I was skeptical that I am a large enough outlier to emerge from a low ranked program and obtain a job in academia. Kudos to those who have the (hopefully tempered) confidence that I did not.

 

While it is true that ranking is only roughly correlated with "successful academic careers," if you remove some measurement error by grouping universities by decile on most "academic success" rankings, the correlation is quite strong (I ran this analysis about 2 years ago on someone else's data but can't find my code, sorry). However, we are not really talking about "academic success" broadly - which tends to capture number and prestige of publications, awards, etc. of actual faculty and/or post-docs - and it is my understanding that the correlation is indeed quite low with regard to alma mater and employing institution in these rankings. Yet it is also my understanding that the correlation is actually quite high for placement (adjusting for program size) weighted by placement quality (defined however) and even higher for unweighted placement counts. Long story short, for getting your foot in the door by getting a job, it is my understanding that being in the T-30ish matters quite a bit. It seems this has changed modestly over the years, but I haven't seen enough reliable data or robustness checks on this to make feel confident in that claim.

 

What intrigues me is there is probably a fair amount of heteroskedasticity in the errors at the top and the bottom if you use the large, 100+ program samples that some papers looking at this do! Of course, we still get unbiased estimates of the parameter we care about!

 

Right, I do not doubt this significant correlation, and all of the aforementioned studies have also found such a relationship but with several notable exceptions of programs featuring much better placement than their rankings would suggest.  I should mention that for me this is really the most salient variable in deciding which program to attend: placement.  I applied to Binghamton because their placement is virtually 100%, and in my subfield they have consistently placed graduates at research universities; I chose not to apply to several much higher ranked programs because I was less impressed with their placement records (among other factors).  Ultimately, the best way for anyone to determine which program has the best placement for their goals is to compare the department's placement information personally.  All of the studies, for instance, [apparently, I could really read them more thoroughly] suffer from some major methodological flaws.  They compare placement rates for all departments, but fail to take into consider the various training offered by different departments.  Because the job prospects are much worse for political theorists, a department that focuses heavily on political theory will seem to have a much worse placement record than one without any theorists when it is possible that the former has an equal or better placement rate for, say, IR specialists; one has to control for this in any study, but it is just easier to compare the available website data.  Also, one of the studies ranks placement success based on the raw number of graduates placed in research universities.  Nevertheless, what should be more important is the rate of placement controlling for department size; a small department may place fewer candidates than a larger one, but still have a higher rate of placement.  Also, there are numerous other variables that are hard to account for.  At the research university that I currently attend, about half of the T and TT faculty come from programs outside the top 30.  Really looking into these programs and the CVs of others that graduated there around the same time, it becomes apparent that the less successful candidates either a) focused on topics for which there is less demand or b ) weren't trained as much in advanced methodology--in most cases both were true.

All I'm saying is that when considering the best placement it is wise to remember that ranking is but a partial proxy and even the quantitative studies on the matter have several shortcomings; one really needs to adopt a mixed-methods approach, so to speak.  I totally understand that academia is hyper competitive and that every edge counts, but political science still hasn't gotten nearly as bad as the humanities or even sociology ;~}.

Edited February 8, 2015 by fakeusername

[ARealDowner]

I'm actually very open to teaching at a LAC or other non-PhD granting program. Maybe it's because I come from one and I really appreciate the high quality of teaching and ability to interact more personally with students (to which I directly attribute my decision to follow this career path). It's possible I fall in love with the more high profile research that happens at a higher ranked institution and want to pursue that path, but as of now, I'm not opposed to a more teaching-oriented career.

That said, definitely want to be in academia. Don't think I'd want to pursue a government/think tank job.

[ARealDowner]

Right, I do not doubt this significant correlation, and all of the aforementioned studies have also found such a relationship but with several notable exceptions of programs featuring much better placement than their rankings would suggest. I should mention that for me this is really the most salient variable in deciding which program to attend: placement. I applied to Binghamton because their placement is virtually 100%, and in my subfield they have consistently placed graduates at research universities; I chose not to apply to several much higher ranked programs because I was less impressed with their placement records (among other factors). Ultimately, the best way for anyone to determine which program has the best placement for their goals is to compare the department's placement information personally. All of the studies, for instance, [apparently, I could really read them more thoroughly] suffer from some major methodological flaws. They compare placement rates for all departments, but fail to take into consider the various training offered by different departments. Because the job prospects are much worse for political theorists, a department that focuses heavily on political theory will seem to have a much worse placement record than one without any theorists when it is possible that the former has an equal or better placement rate for, say, IR specialists; one has to control for this in any study, but it is just easier to compare the available website data. Also, one of the studies ranks placement success based on the raw number of graduates placed in research universities. Nevertheless, what should be more important is the rate of placement controlling for department size; a small department may place fewer candidates than a larger one, but still have a higher rate of placement. Also, there are numerous other variables that are hard to account for. At the research university that I currently attend, about half of the T and TT faculty come from programs outside the top 30. Really looking into these programs and the CVs of others that graduated there around the same time, it becomes apparent that the less successful candidates either a) focused on topics for which there is less demand or b ) weren't trained as much in advanced methodology--in most cases both were true.

All I'm saying is that when considering the best placement it is wise to remember that ranking is but a partial proxy and even the quantitative studies on the matter have several shortcomings; one really needs to adopt a mixed-methods approach, so to speak. I totally understand that academia is hyper competitive and that every edge counts, but political science still hasn't gotten nearly as bad as the humanities or even sociology ;~}.

I want to make it known that I think this is a pretty sharp piece of analysis. I actually have done my own tweaking of some of the studies taking into account average program size as a control. If you're getting a lot of placements but you have 20+ admitted students in each cohort, I'd much rather be at a program that has slightly less placements but an average cohort size of 10, ceteris paribus. Other than faculty fit and feel, I'd say rate of placement is my biggest criteria, regardless of institution. Granted, given my goals stated above, that'd make more sense than for someone who wants to teach at a cutting edge research school. Desired outcome plays a huge role in decision making, obviously.

[fakeusername]

Desired outcome plays a huge role in decision making, obviously.

 

I think this says it all as succinctly as possible.  There are perhaps programs that are ill-suited for every goal for which a PhD is necessary or an advantage, but I think you would have to go pretty far down the list to start encountering them regularly.  

 

 

I'm actually very open to teaching at a LAC or other non-PhD granting program. Maybe it's because I come from one and I really appreciate the high quality of teaching and ability to interact more personally with students (to which I directly attribute my decision to follow this career path). It's possible I fall in love with the more high profile research that happens at a higher ranked institution and want to pursue that path, but as of now, I'm not opposed to a more teaching-oriented career.

That said, definitely want to be in academia. Don't think I'd want to pursue a government/think tank job.

 

This is a very composed and prudent outlook for the future.  Like many of us, I can be more pessimistic than warranted and as a result have forced myself to adopt a plan B in case it really becomes necessary (i.e., to avoid making 'academic' such a strong part of my identity that I would continually pursue non-TT positions to maintain it).  I'm actually sure I would be very happy teaching at a LAC and would greatly prefer that to non-academic alternatives, too.

Edited February 8, 2015 by fakeusername

[victorydance]

The way I look at it:

 

I am interested in research in the field of political science, ergo, getting a Ph.D. in political science is the most obvious path towards following that goal. Obviously academia is potentially the most comfortable occupation to do research in, but it's not easy to get into. If I end up as a senior policy analyst or working on research at an embassy so be it. 

 

For me, I don't subscribe to the mantra "only do a Ph.D. if you want to be an academic." 

 

I already have a passive income + a bunch of savings...doing a Ph.D. is more of a lifestyle choice for me because I am interested in research and political science. If I break into the field of academia, that's just gravy. 

[fakeusername]

The way I look at it:

 

I am interested in research in the field of political science, ergo, getting a Ph.D. in political science is the most obvious path towards following that goal. Obviously academia is potentially the most comfortable occupation to do research in, but it's not easy to get into. If I end up as a senior policy analyst or working on research at an embassy so be it. 

 

For me, I don't subscribe to the mantra "only do a Ph.D. if you want to be an academic." 

 

I already have a passive income + a bunch of savings...doing a Ph.D. is more of a lifestyle choice for me because I am interested in research and political science. If I break into the field of academia, that's just gravy. 

 

In some ways, I think the attitude of only getting a PhD to become an academic is self-defeating for the discipline (not necessarily on an individual level).  I've noticed quite a few PhDs in political science, especially with the methodological training, getting good and high-paying positions in the private-sector, government, research, etc., and the more graduates pursue this path the more academia has to compete to attract the best candidates.  Naturally, if all graduates are pushed into academia it drives wages down further and temporary positions will abound; essentially, political science will suffer the same fate as the humanities.  If instead departments better prepare graduates for multiple career paths, it will help those who are seeking alternatives without making them feel less accomplished while at the same time making life better for those who believe taking something of a pay cut is well worth the price of working in academia.  Everyone wins.

Edited February 8, 2015 by fakeusername

[testingtesting]

Do you have the data on Binghamton? As far as I can tell, no place (even Harvard) has near a 100% placement rate. Even ignoring the quality of the placements (e.g. Canisius College), and counting post-docs along with other research fellow positions, VAPs, etc., there were 16 placements from 2010-13, or 4 per year at Binghamton. Given a class of 47 and assuming on average 1/6 of those are on the job market, that's 7.83 people or ~51% placement. To get to 80% would require 1 in 10 students go on the job market in that period in a given year. Feasible but unlikely.

 

The way I look at it:

 

I am interested in research in the field of political science, ergo, getting a Ph.D. in political science is the most obvious path towards following that goal. Obviously academia is potentially the most comfortable occupation to do research in, but it's not easy to get into. If I end up as a senior policy analyst or working on research at an embassy so be it. 

 

For me, I don't subscribe to the mantra "only do a Ph.D. if you want to be an academic." 

 

I already have a passive income + a bunch of savings...doing a Ph.D. is more of a lifestyle choice for me because I am interested in research and political science. If I break into the field of academia, that's just gravy. 

 

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "academia is potentially the most comfortable occupation to do research in."  If anything, it is less comfortable compared to public policy careers prior to the exceedingly rare achievement of tenure. Additionally, the research of academia and policy analysis/embassy research are completely different along several dimensions.  There are huge differences in questions, methods, communication, end-goals, and even data sources between political science - as found in academic journals - and the policy research you are referring to. While an optimistic approach toward potential failure in achieving an academic career is terrific, it is crazy to think the research and writing itself is really that comparable. This is even the case of RAND, Brookings, and the CBO, and is particularly the case for anything in an embassy, politician's office, or consulting firm.

There are many paths to the policy research destination. I suspect a PhD in political science is not the most efficient nor really all that helpful for that path. Graduate education is necessary for these roles, but more often than not the PhD in political science offers little improvement over an economics MA or rigorous MPA/MPP, with the PhD in economics or public policy being more attractive than political science to others.
 

In some ways, I think the attitude of only getting a PhD to become an academic is self-defeating for the discipline (not necessarily on an individual level).  I've noticed quite a few PhDs in political science, especially with the methodological training, getting good and high-paying positions in the private-sector, government, research, etc., and the more graduates pursue this path the more academia has to compete to attract the best candidates.  Naturally, if all graduates are pushed into academia it drives wages down further and temporary positions will abound; essentially, political science will suffer the same fate as the humanities.  If instead departments better prepare graduates for multiple career paths, it will help those who are seeking alternatives without making them feel less accomplished while at the same time making life better for those who believe taking something of a pay cut is well worth the price of working in academia.  Everyone wins.

Not sure if trolling...

Edited February 8, 2015 by testingtesting

[fakeusername]

As I said, crunching the numbers alone in this case doesn't yield much information unless you really look into each individual case.  If you follow the links of the 47 you're counting as graduate students, you'll see that several have actually graduated and been placed; for others, you can just cross reference the names with the placement list to see you're double counting.  This also doesn't factor in attrition rate, which for PhDs as a whole is allegedly near 50%.  I find the best thing to do -- some departments have this information available, some I've had to ask for it, and others you can get if you know a student at the program -- is to get a list of dissertations from the department in question.  Simple: PhDs out compared with placements.  Also, most programs have some placements in smaller universities.  For instance, in the last few years Princeton has placed graduates in places like Texas Christian University, Eckerd College, and MIT.

Also, I only troll about a third of time.  I'm sure you can figure out when ;~}.

Edited February 8, 2015 by fakeusername

[Mike45]

You guys are making something very simple, complex. It is foolish to be concerned about the prospects of earning a job or not. I have followed this following maxim: There are steps that must be taken to achieve success, we all generally have those resources or some degree of access to them, combine those resources with your own fortitude. (i.e do what you need to do) and you'll reach the desired destination. It may not be a clear path, as it never is...but just enjoy the journey and as long as you build positive relationships, work hard, and put your best effort into your work then it will almost always work out!

[esotericish]

Emory is making some calls today. I was notified I was accepted!

[fakeusername]

Emory is making some calls today. I was notified I was accepted!

 

Congratulations! 

 

I applied there early because the app was free before Oct. 31, but I forgot to remind one of my Professors to send in an LOR so I guess it was discarded.  At least it wasn't a big loss, then :~P.

Edited February 8, 2015 by fakeusername

[testingtesting]

You guys are making something very simple, complex. It is foolish to be concerned about the prospects of earning a job or not. I have followed this following maxim: There are steps that must be taken to achieve success, we all generally have those resources or some degree of access to them, combine those resources with your own fortitude. (i.e do what you need to do) and you'll reach the desired destination. It may not be a clear path, as it never is...but just enjoy the journey and as long as you build positive relationships, work hard, and put your best effort into your work then it will almost always work out!

I think this is exactly what I have stressed is probably not the correct approach to this. This is because the model you offer isn't explains little variation: there are some steps that are often necessary (unless you're John Van Neumann or John Stuart Mill) but rarely sufficient to obtaining an academic career (presuming this is the goal of most on here). We really don't all have those resources - and I am absolutely certain that most of us will experience massive self-doubt throughout our PhDs because it will be clear that this is the case. Work ethic and the ability to grind are perhaps necessary, but as stated, not sufficient for the same reason I can never be in the NBA (alas...).

In line with this, I promised myself that if I did not receive full funding to the programs where I am offered admission I will not attend a program. This is not an issue of financial return, but moreso that it's improbable that if departments don't view your potential as high enough to warrant funding that you will beat out those who do receive funding for an academic position. Perhaps this is a bit of an overreaction, but let's be clear that it does not always work out...this is how people graduate with massive debt from a university and bleak financial prospects.

However, I think you ARE right about one thing: you have to just give it your best and that is all you can ask for...it's just being aware that your best might not be good enough that is the difficult part.

Edited February 8, 2015 by testingtesting

[ZajoncSays]

Would anyone be game for shifting this conversation to how people are going to be weighing the possible choices they have? Or why they are excited for the program/s they have gotten in to so far? Because it seems like a lot of people on this thread have a lot to be happy about and everyone should be proud of giving the admissions process a go in the first place.  

 

For instance, I'm planning on valuing placement in my subfield much higher than general placement. I'm also really interested in the quality of methods training (number of required methods courses/courses available), average time to degree, number of people in the department I could potentially work with, the TA/RA load, course requirements, and structure of qualifying exams. 

 

...and I may or may not have a large spreadsheet that I plan on filling in...

 

And do people have intangibles that they are looking at in addition to the overall strengths of the program? 

[victorydance]

I'm not sure what you mean by "academia is potentially the most comfortable occupation to do research in."  If anything, it is less comfortable compared to public policy careers prior to the exceedingly rare achievement of tenure. Additionally, the research of academia and policy analysis/embassy research are completely different along several dimensions.  There are huge differences in questions, methods, communication, end-goals, and even data sources between political science - as found in academic journals - and the policy research you are referring to. While an optimistic approach toward potential failure in achieving an academic career is terrific, it is crazy to think the research and writing itself is really that comparable. This is even the case of RAND, Brookings, and the CBO, and is particularly the case for anything in an embassy, politician's office, or consulting firm.

 

What I mean by comfortable is the comparable freedom academia affords an individual to conduct their own research, both what they intend to pursue and how they want to do it. A policy analyst on the other hand is more akin to a standard job where you are given tasks and expected to complete them. 

 

Research is a broad topic, but to suggest they aren't comparable is not honest IMO. You may be asking different questions and using different methods, but you can use a number of approaches that you learn in an academic setting in a number of different career paths. 

 

 

 

There are many paths to the policy research destination. I suspect a PhD in political science is not the most efficient nor really all that helpful for that path. Graduate education is necessary for these roles, but more often than not the PhD in political science offers little improvement over an economics MA or rigorous MPA/MPP, with the PhD in economics or public policy being more attractive than political science to others.

 

I don't care about efficiency. My number one goal is to be involved in political science research, ergo, Ph.D. is the right path for me.

 

I also disagree with a Ph.D. in political science not being helpful. For one, people underestimate the amount of skills you can develop, for free, as a doctoral student in political science. I could take almost straight quantitative methods courses and programming courses besides the minimum survey courses in a doctoral program in political science. What makes someone attractive for any stream of occupation is the skills they have, not the certifications or diplomas they have. 

 

I mean by the time I finish my Ph.D. I will be proficient in three languages, be adequate in statistical analysis, have a good analytic mind, and be able to write better than 95% of the general population. There are plenty of things one can do with these skills outside of academia. 

 

Career isn't important to me, neither is making money. Political science research and being in an environment of learning is on the other hand, that's why I want to do a Ph.D. There are more reasons than being a professor (which would be fantastic) than going into a doctoral program IMO. 

[mb712]

Would anyone be game for shifting this conversation to how people are going to be weighing the possible choices they have? Or why they are excited for the program/s they have gotten in to so far? Because it seems like a lot of people on this thread have a lot to be happy about and everyone should be proud of giving the admissions process a go in the first place.

For instance, I'm planning on valuing placement in my subfield much higher than general placement. I'm also really interested in the quality of methods training (number of required methods courses/courses available), average time to degree, number of people in the department I could potentially work with, the TA/RA load, course requirements, and structure of qualifying exams.

...and I may or may not have a large spreadsheet that I plan on filling in...

And do people have intangibles that they are looking at in addition to the overall strengths of the program?

I'm game! Methods training is important to me as well, I have a significant amount compared to a good number of undergrads but I would really like to end my education with as much quant training as possible. Bring on the classes! I'm also looking forward to getting a feel on how accessible/welcome interdisciplinary work is, as political psychology is my desired domain. The TA/RA balance is something I also need to map out. Along those same lines, the amount of support/training given to TAs is important to me. I don't want to be in a situation where I'm not doing anybody any favors by blindly leading a class without some sort of guidance to start my first TA gig.

[bob123]

How old are you guys that neither career nor making money are important to you? Let me tell you, eventually it becomes important to you.

[mb712]

How old are you guys that neither career nor making money are important to you? Let me tell you, eventually it becomes important to you.

Looks like they're saying career and money aren't the two most important things to them. I don't see how that's a sign of a young age. It seems like a sign of different priorities.

[victorydance]

Looks like they're saying career and money aren't the two most important things to them. I don't see how that's a sign of a young age. It seems like a sign of different priorities.

 

Bingo.

[ARealDowner]

As to the discussion about choosing between programs, I'd like to add on top of what everyone else said that I'm also going to look for a program where the faculty are as accessible as possible, and co-publish with grad students on a regular basis. If University X has great brilliant people in what you want to do but your time and access with them are minimal, I feel like it's almost a waste.

Also, I hate to say it, but funding might end up playing a factor....I'm not gonna pick one school over another for minor differences, but I've got two offers right now that are essentially $10,000 a year apart...the prospect of a $50,000 difference over a five year period is pretty tough to completely ignore....

[fakeusername]

As to the discussion about choosing between programs, I'd like to add on top of what everyone else said that I'm also going to look for a program where the faculty are as accessible as possible, and co-publish with grad students on a regular basis. If University X has great brilliant people in what you want to do but your time and access with them are minimal, I feel like it's almost a waste.

Also, I hate to say it, but funding might end up playing a factor....I'm not gonna pick one school over another for minor differences, but I've got two offers right now that are essentially $10,000 a year apart...the prospect of a $50,000 difference over a five year period is pretty tough to completely ignore....

 

That's definitely something to consider.  Right now one of my offers is only 5k more than the others, which is enough to put that on the top of my list (though it also is at least as good a fit for me as the others if not more).  I would really only consider taking a substantially smaller offer if the program is significantly better.  All your acceptances are at first-rate programs though, so I think it makes sense to take the highest offer unless another really is too good of a match for your plans to pass up.

Edited February 8, 2015 by fakeusername

[latinamericanIR]

Georgetown? Who wants to claim that?

[AuldReekie]

You've only got to look at PSR to see that the future is not necessarily rosy.  

[ColtonLong]

Georgetown? Who wants to claim that?

 

I want to know too because I was under the impression Georgetown wasn't releasing decisions until much later. 

[testingtesting]

Would anyone be game for shifting this conversation to how people are going to be weighing the possible choices they have? Or why they are excited for the program/s they have gotten in to so far? Because it seems like a lot of people on this thread have a lot to be happy about and everyone should be proud of giving the admissions process a go in the first place.  

 

For instance, I'm planning on valuing placement in my subfield much higher than general placement. I'm also really interested in the quality of methods training (number of required methods courses/courses available), average time to degree, number of people in the department I could potentially work with, the TA/RA load, course requirements, and structure of qualifying exams. 

 

...and I may or may not have a large spreadsheet that I plan on filling in...

 

And do people have intangibles that they are looking at in addition to the overall strengths of the program? 

People certainly have a lot to be happy or optimistic about! I'm not sure about being proud of applying, but whatever! I would direct you to the link I posted previously about various questions to think about for departments.

My criteria: (1) post-doc or assistant professor placement record in programs I consider somewhere I'd be willing to work, (2) faculty fit (all programs I consider are good fit, but some are PERFECT), (3)  years of fellowship offered, (4) statistical methods, (5) program reputation, (6) student opinions of the programs' focus/resources/faculty accessibility, (7) location of university, (8) are methods in department?, then a bunch of minor factors.

I think a way to approach 'methods quality' is not # of required methods courses, but to examine the papers from faculty teaching the courses and get a copy of the syllabus for the more advanced courses if possible (all departments approximately cover the GLM and perhaps quasi experimental methods, so the required sequences at top programs will rarely be enormously different [Rochester and NYU perhaps are exceptions]). I am more interested in whether departments offer more advanced statistical courses that are rarer due to needing critical mass for enrollments - Bayesian, machine learning, text analysis, etc. Additionally, I wouldn't limit yourself to the courses if you actually are interested in getting very advanced on methods - examine the papers of faculty you want to work with and be aware that they will refer you to appropriate resources if they are your advisor, although you will need to navigate the learning on your own or through an external program. Something I also consider is how much of the methods training is in the department or whether you are going to the econ department for applied econometrics vs. the statistics departments for applied statistics or statistical theory. It can be nice when the applications are politics and you're not stuck in a stats department for most of your classic, cloistered from the rest of your politics peers. Additionally, the methods focus can vary by sub discipline - are the methods courses taught by Americanists, Methodologists, or what? I am particularly interested in this question for formal theory, less so for the standard stat sequence, and more so for advanced stats courses. 

Additionally, at each program where I am accepted, I've gone through the CVs of POIs and marginally not-POIs and recorded how many times the faculty have published with those in their department (both students and faculty). I then plan to make this a key part of the discussion when I speak with POIs at visiting days. It should be noted that seniority of faculty will also determine the number - i.e. I expect assistant profs to have (1) fewer publications in general and (2) less publications with grad students. My variable of interest is a count, not a rate. EDIT: I would really suggest doing this...it's a way to keep faculty honest about their involvement with students.

Note also that program reputation only gets such a high mark because it partially determines what *future* faculty might be at the university. Faculty move at the junior and senior level, and if a department had their entire methods squad leave and the methods team looks meh right now, if you factor in program reputation (defined however you think is appropriate) it is likely that in the next 5-7 years they will fill those roles with someone decent.

Edited February 8, 2015 by testingtesting

[S7x]

How old are you guys that neither career nor making money are important to you? Let me tell you, eventually it becomes important to you.

As someone who's a bit older (27) with a family (wife and kid), I'd agree that eventually money becomes an issue. Even if I get some great offers, I still have to weigh the cost of putting off financial goals for another 5 plus years. And spending several more years attempting to find a TT position after that isn't feasible. Fortunately for me, I'm coming from a career field where a PhD is both beneficial and extremely valuable money wise. If I didn't have that to fall back on, I wouldn't even be considering this.