Good program now or try for top schools later?

[barbazul]

I'll be facing a decision about a PhD program in the near future, and I thought I'd solicit advice from those who have experience with these things.

 

I'll be finishing my MPA this semester at a large state university, and I know that a PhD in Public Policy/Public Affairs/Political Science with a concentration in Policy is the next step for me (I'm posting this here because it's mostly tumbleweeds in the Government Affairs section). I haven't applied, but the school where I'm doing my MPA has already offered me full tuition and a GA position with a nice stipend for the PhD program here. They've also indicated that they'd be able to sweeten their initial offer.

 

I had planned on waiting for a couple of years after my MPA to apply for PhD programs because my wife is finishing her Master's. I have good enough stats (165 V 163 M 5.0 W, 3.94 undergrad GPA, 4.0 grad GPA) to compete at much higher ranked programs, but I highly doubt that anywhere would be willing to top the offer I've already got. I could wait two years, and I'm confident the offer would still be there as I applied to top programs too. I know that I want to research, but I want to leave the possibility of teaching open as well. 

 

So, a few questions:

 

1. How much of an advantage is it to have a PhD from a top 25 program vs a 50-100 ranked program, all else being equal?

 

2. At six years out of undergrad, is it reasonable to be in a hurry to start my PhD?

 

3. If I want to be a strong candidate for Public Policy/Public Affairs faculty positions, is there an advantage to doing a proper PhD in that field compared to a PhD in Political Science with a concentration in Policy?

 

4. All things considered, start a good program now or try for a top program later?

[Bubandis]

1. I've been told--over and over again--that there is a pretty big advantage. Institution prestige is one reason. Relatedly, in order to sustain and augment that prestige, the top programs seem to help get their students once on the job market much more so than lower ranked programs (which could all boil down to available resources, idk).

2.Seems reasonable to me.

3. I've been told by several public policy/admin faculty that it is much better to do your PhD in political science if you hope to become an academic. Basically, the argument centers around being qualified for the highest number of positions possible. Example: (from what I have been told), a PhD in Political Science with, say, concentrations in Public Policy, and, American (or whatever) is going to be able to apply to a larger set of open positions than someone who has their PhD exclusively in Public Policy.

4. I will mainly defer to others here, but, I think that if your prospective advisor seems enthusiastic, supportive and has a history of getting his/her students jobs after they finish, then it may be best to take the offer you have now. There are just too many unknowns in my opinion, to forego a great offer (I.e. Being a competitive applicant at top tier institutions doesn't guarantee anything).

[WhatAmIDoingNow]

1. I don't know what program you are currently at and what ranking system you are looking at, so I can't really provide a definitive answer.  What I have been told is you need to make sure that your research interests fit with faculty in the program and reach out to them for consulting on program fit and expectations.  One thing I would be concerned with is if this program places all these graduates in academic positions or in practice positions.  Because if you want academia, you need to go to a school that develops academics and not practitioners. 

 

2. There are good arguments to take a dip in the professional job market and to work straight through a PhD.  I took breaks between my bachelor, master, and phd application cycle.  My work made me far more competitive than my schooling and have given me more background on my research interests.

 

3. Most of the faculty in the PA schools I have applied to and worked with have a PhD in policy, admin, or affairs.  This is followed by economics and political science.  It really depends on what you are interested in research-wise and what faculty you want to work with.

 

4. If the program that gave you that offer provides you with the research opportunities you need, the support and advising to get you into the career you are shooting for. 

[rwillh11]

On the first point, given that there are only ~100 schools granting political science PhDs, you definitely wouldn't want to do a program ranked towards 100, especially given your solid stats. If its more towards a top-50 program, might be worth going for it. Look at the placement history of the program-if they seem to do a good job getting recent grads into tenure track positions, its probably worth going for it. If not, I'd look elsewhere. And don't assume you won't get into top programs, if there is a good fit, you would be really competitive. 

[fakeusername]

Your stats are way better than mine, and I've been accepted to two programs in the 40-50 range.  I wouldn't rule you out of being able to compete for a spot at a top 25 program.  Although maybe it's different for public policy PhD programs, I was uncomfortable with the placement records at almost every political science PhD outside of the top 50; initially I was going to apply to a few lower ranked programs, but my adviser recommended against it and I'm glad I took that advice.  Also, at the university where I am located now the public policy professors make more on average than the political science professors, and I guess this is to offset the price paid to get an MPA first (i.e., the same reason business professors make more in part because they paid for an MBA before the PhD).  That's just one thing to consider if you were undecided about which discipline to pursue, but of course my example is only from one university.

Edited February 6, 2015 by fakeusername

[MidwesternAloha]

4.  If you find $100 bill on the ground, do you pick it up right away or pass it by to see if there's $1,000 down the sidewalk?

[irfannooruddin]

4.  If you find $100 bill on the ground, do you pick it up right away or pass it by to see if there's $1,000 down the sidewalk?

 

Well if there's a greater than 0.10 probability of finding the $1k, I pass it by and roll the dice on the big score, esp. if as the poster suggests, the $100 is still likely to be around when I get back.

[ughachugh]

Well if there's a greater than 0.10 probability of finding the $1k, I pass it by and roll the dice on the big score, esp. if as the poster suggests, the $100 is still likely to be around when I get back.

What about <0.10 probability? Top 10 now? Or try for top 5 next year? I realize that this is a somewhat ridiculous question but I have researched the job market and to put it succinctly...I am terrified.

[law2phd]

What about <0.10 probability? Top 10 now? Or try for top 5 next year? I realize that this is a somewhat ridiculous question but I have researched the job market and to put it succinctly...I am terrified.

 

I'm only an admitted student myself, but I would have to imagine that any T10 (and probably T15 or so) would provide adequate training for anyone with the motivation and talent to make TT.  The better job prospects of T5 schools are almost certainly due to the self-selection of superior students into those schools.  Since you are a constant in the equation, there shouldn't be a huge difference.

[rwillh11]

What about <0.10 probability? Top 10 now? Or try for top 5 next year? I realize that this is a somewhat ridiculous question but I have researched the job market and to put it succinctly...I am terrified.

There is so much noise in the rankings that anywhere in the top 10 is probably comprable to anywhere else in the top 10. They all have their own strengths and weaknesses. I mean, Harvard is Harvard, but the difference between Berkeley, Yale, MIT and Columbia is pretty marginal. I'm pretty sure reasonable arguments could be made for more or less any ordered ranking of those 4. No school places everyone at R1 TT positions; you are going to need to excel wherever you end up. But if you excel at a top 10 school, your odds of a good placement aren't so bad. 

[victorydance]

^ Not to mention one top 10 could be drastically better than another top 10 in certain areas or subfields. 

[barbazul]

This is quite enjoyable. Thank you, everyone, for your comments.

 

For what it's worth, I've decided to see if there's a proverbial $1000 bill down the road. After doing my own research of the job market, beyond simply getting a position worth the work of a PhD, I've grown a bit wary of placing myself at the mercy of the whole geographic roll of the dice. So I'm still planning on applying again in two years, but I'll have plenty of time to consider everything and improve my chances for one of those top schools.

[mseph]

This has been quite enjoyable to read, but I'm getting a bit of mixed messages. If I may, I want to post a relevant question to get some feedback. If I got an acceptance at a school ranked 40, then is it worth it to decline and wait a year? Will it be better to pass it by and look for the $1000? I'll just be transparent, the place I am seriously considering is Pitt, though I am also considering couple other places to some degree. For now, I am excited to start a PhD program at Pitt due to good fit and it seems the program provides solid methods training. I don't necessarily aspire to teach at R1, thought it would be nice, but I don't mind ending up at R2, Master's granting institutions, or elsewhere after graduating. Any advice?

[burneracct]

This has been quite enjoyable to read, but I'm getting a bit of mixed messages. If I may, I want to post a relevant question to get some feedback. If I got an acceptance at a school ranked 40, then is it worth it to decline and wait a year? Will it be better to pass it by and look for the $1000? I'll just be transparent, the place I am seriously considering is Pitt, though I am also considering couple other places to some degree. For now, I am excited to start a PhD program at Pitt due to good fit and it seems the program provides solid methods training. I don't necessarily aspire to teach at R1, thought it would be nice, but I don't mind ending up at R2, Master's granting institutions, or elsewhere after graduating. Any advice?

 

 

To take this from last to first:

 

1) You cannot necessarily assume that a top-40 PhD puts you in a position to get an R2 tenure-track job. The job market is increasingly competitive. A colleague of mine at an R2 was on their department's search committee this year. They got over 200 applications. A lot of them were advanced assistant professors now taking advantage of the fact that the job market is less terrible than any time since 2009 to move or negotiate outside offers. He mentioned a few names to me that I was very surprised to hear, including an assistant with over 1,000 citations already (you'd know their name if you studied the topic; one book, multiple top-three journal articles, several articles). Files also included recent PhDs/ABDs from top-10 schools.

 

The department ultimately offered the position to a top-40 ABD for a host of reasons, but you cannot assume this is a normal outcome.

 

2) Is the graduate department known for what you study? If you know any, ask other R1 professors or those who have a good publishing record about the program's reputation. Perhaps ask your letter writers. If not, seek out recent PhDs from the program in your subfield and ask how happy they were with the training and preparation they received.

 

On this point, a "top-40" program may not be known as such in your specific area. It could be top-25 or top-60, for example. I got my MA at a top-50 place that wasn't known for my subfield, and my PhD at a top-15 place that specialized in it. The difference was greater than the 35 places implied by looking at US News.

 

Probably the best example of subfield variation in rankings is Stony Brook. It ranks in the high 30s, but if you do political psychology, it's a top-five program.

 

3) The decision to improve your file and apply next year depends on your risk tolerance and your assessment of how much you can improve it. If you need to do something relatively simple like improve your GRE score, then it may be worth it. If it is taking a year to critically review the major literature in your subfield to better articulate your research interests and fit, then probably less so. People do this, but it's what you'd be doing in the field seminar your first year of grad school.

 

If you can stomach it, email the DGS at places you were rejected and get their feedback about why they rejected you. If their assessment seems nonspecific, then you have to at least think about the possibility that your letters were weak, which they cannot tell you anything about, legally. This is probably not the case, given four acceptances, but it is possible.

 

4) You have the option of transferring after a year or two in graduate school. This requires some sensitivity. Your professors—especially if they are senior—can be out of touch with your subfield and the discipline, and may have an inflated sense of their own place in it. If you can broach the subject diplomatically, great. If now, try to get letters from junior faculty who are up on the latest developments and realize how competitive the job market has become. I avoided this situation when I transferred by getting a letter from a professor I worked closely with in my second field, which I added to two of my undergraduate letter writers.

 

An example of how senior professors can be delusional: a top-25 program that was about as strong across subfields tried recruiting a member of my PhD cohort who had an offer from a CHYMPS school. A senior faculty member in his subfield said their faculty was on par with the CHYMPS program, citing the losses of senior professors who had left 10 and 15 years ago.

Edited March 12, 2015 by burneracct

[rwillh11]

This has been quite enjoyable to read, but I'm getting a bit of mixed messages. If I may, I want to post a relevant question to get some feedback. If I got an acceptance at a school ranked 40, then is it worth it to decline and wait a year? Will it be better to pass it by and look for the $1000? I'll just be transparent, the place I am seriously considering is Pitt, though I am also considering couple other places to some degree. For now, I am excited to start a PhD program at Pitt due to good fit and it seems the program provides solid methods training. I don't necessarily aspire to teach at R1, thought it would be nice, but I don't mind ending up at R2, Master's granting institutions, or elsewhere after graduating. Any advice?

What do you want to do at Pitt? They have some real strengths in comparative, in which the seem to place much better than ~40.

Also, do you think that you can spend the next year improving your portfolio, to have a good shot at getting into a top-15? If you think you can put yourself into a real good position to do that, and you don't think Pitt is great on fit, then you may want to consider it. 

[mseph]

Wow, thanks, your answer is really helpful. It seems you created the account to answer my question, so I truly appreciate. If you allow me to share my thoughts:

 

I am not assuming that T40 will secure TT at R2. I am highly aware of the job market being competitive, that even top schools produce adjuncts. And the school I am highly considering has a record of placing their graduates in both R1 and R2, but that's not always the case. What I meant by "R2, masters granting institutions, or elsewhere," is that my aspiration after obtaining a PhD isn't as specific or limited. Some people have higher standards and only want to teach at R1 or even top 10 or whatever their standards may be, but that's not the case with me. The reason I stated my aspiration is just to clarify what I want to do with the degree. 

 

My subfield is IR (or world politics at Pitt), and I only applied to programs when I saw that the IR is fairly strong in their program. Perhaps it's not the strongest subfield in each program I got accepted, but I don't think any of the schools I am considering are necessarily weak in IR. 

 

I can probably take a year to improve my GRE scores since it's not perfect, but as I am thinking now, I think my true weakness comes from undergrad GPA. Not sure what I can do about this, since my uGPA will be what it is... Not worried about my LoR though. 

 

Lastly, I am also aware of people transferring, but I think doing so just for a brand name is highly unethical. I understand things happen -- cases such as if someone sees that the department can't provide what he needs to pursue his research, all the professors start leaving, or personal reasons come up so that transferring is inevitable. But entering a program, planning only to improve my application and transfer for the sake of better name, that seems just too unethical for me. Starting a funded program means that the department trusts you will finish the program with them. Entering with a thought of transferring so I can aim higher will not happen in my life. I am still thinking whether I want to take a year off or not, but if I end up starting a PhD this fall, I will at least commit myself wherever I end up until I graduate (given that there is no surprise and things work out as I expect). I am not judging you, I am pretty sure you had your own reason for transferring. I am just spelling out my thoughts on entering a program with a plan of leaving it. 

 

These are some of my initial thoughts based on reading your advice, but it seems I will need more time to process your suggestions. Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this, it will def help me decide.