Choosing a Program

[thedoctorphd]

Hi all, 

 

I know that many of us have heard from departments, and therefore, I am wondering if anyone has started the process of deciding on a program.  Also, I know this is a bit early as some programs have yet to announce decisions and that there are still visit days to attend.  However, I am constantly weighing all of my options and playing out different scenarios in my head.  My current question is do I attend a top 10 school with some fit or a top 20 school with near perfect fit (please note that I do not have all of the information regarding the schools as I have yet to visit)?  I have read a ton online and many advise to go with the highest ranked program that one gets into.  However, my current undergraduate advisors really stress fit.  Any advice is appreciated and I would love to hear how you all are weighing your options and deciding on programs. 

 

Thanks!  

[puddle]

Here is what Macartan Humphreys told me when I was applying -- fit matters when you apply to schools. Once they have admitted you, they have decided that you are a good fit and you can rest assured that there will be people for you to work with.

After all, a school that has a lot of people that work in your area of interest may also already have a lot of graduate students who study those things. Profs may have too many students already. A top ranked school will probably couver a wider range of topics and have fewer students concentrated in any one area. Top 10s (if they are top schools across the board and not just specialized political science schools) will also have a lot of appealing additional resources (I.e. Research foundations and institutes) and other top ranked departments that you can work with (I.e. You might be able to get an econ MA or to work with a Prof in the history department).

Just my 2 cents.

[123321]

I agree with puddle. You should only consider going to the program of lower tier (i.e. top10 to top20 constitutes a difference in tier, imho) if it offers you much more financial support (free money, not TA/RA) so that you will have significantly more time for your own research and coursework.

 

When I was an applicant two years ago, I made quite a few friends during campus visits, and in the end most of us chose the highest ranked programs that admitted us, and it turned out that all programs make empty promises during recruitment. I'm not saying "fit" is less important. It's just that at this stage, there is no way you can know how that part of your grad school will work out, so pivot on indicators with less uncertainty.

 

And congrats!

[stolper]

I'm somebody who finished my PhD in a top 3 program. There is definitely a correct answer here. And the correct answer is that you should go to the program that is higher ranked and has a better placement record.

 

I will tell you right now. It is absolutely not worth it to go to a crappier program because of "fit" because

 

1) Better programs offer more opportunities

2) The goal is not to study under the faculty member that does exactly what you want to do. You want to be your own person. This means learning from other smart people who DO NOT do what you do. If you're trying to go to a program to work with one person and study just what they want to study, you're thinking about grad school and academia incorrectly.

3) And I can't emphasize this enough, there is about a 60% chance that you will end up specializing in and writing your dissertation about something that is different than what you think you want to do now. I came in as an IPE person and left as a methods person. 

 

So to put it bluntly, going to a lower ranked program because of something you think you want to do or someone you think you want to work with is a decision that you will most likely regret. Go to the best program, period.

[thedoctorphd]

Thank you all so much!  I appreciate the candid advice. 

[mseph]

I actually have a question about rankings, and I thought it may be relevant to this thread--since it comes into play when we choose programs. I noticed that different rankings sometimes rank schools differently, and I am sure I am not the only one who noticed it. US News may rank Program A higher than Program B, but NRC may rank it the otherwise. For example, US News ranks UPenn at 28 and Pitt at 40. But the NRC ranks Pitt significantly higher than UPenn. If you also look at the placement ranking, the study done (http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~gillum/rankings_paper.pdf), Wisconsin is ranked relatively lower than its actual ranking and prestige, and USC is right after Wisconsin. These two programs are very far separated in the US News rankings. Well, these are just examples I am listing, there are quite many other programs ranked differently under different rankings. So my question is, what would be your advice, then, when there are discrepancies between the rankings of programs we are considering? I hope those who are more experienced and knowledgeable can shed me some light and help me in making an important decision in my life. Thanks in advance-

Edited February 24, 2015 by visgiven

[law2phd]

I actually have a question about rankings, and I thought it may be relevant to this thread--since it comes into play when we choose programs. I noticed that different rankings sometimes rank schools differently, and I am sure I am not the only one who noticed it. US News may rank Program A higher than Program B, but NRC may rank it the otherwise. For example, US News ranks UPenn at 28 and Pitt at 40. But the NRC ranks Pitt significantly higher than UPenn. If you also look at the placement ranking, the study done (http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~gillum/rankings_paper.pdf), Wisconsin is ranked relatively lower than its actual ranking and prestige, and USC is right after Wisconsin. These two programs are very far separated in the US News rankings. Well, these are just examples I am listing, there are quite many other programs ranked differently under different rankings. So my question is, what would be your advice, then, when there are discrepancies between the rankings of programs we are considering? I hope those who are more experienced and knowledgeable can shed me some light and help me in making an important decision in my life. Thanks in advance-

 

If two prestige-whoring based ranking systems disagree as to how programs should be ranked (I suppose the NRC r-rankings could be characterized as something else, but not usnews or the s-rankings), it probably indicates that the schools are sufficiently indistinguishable from a prestige basis that you should make your decision based on something else.  I would recommend placement data or the congeniality of prospective advisors.

[theoristo]

When I was an applicant two years ago, I made quite a few friends during campus visits, and in the end most of us chose the highest ranked programs that admitted us, and it turned out that all programs make empty promises during recruitment. I'm not saying "fit" is less important. It's just that at this stage, there is no way you can know how that part of your grad school will work out, so pivot on indicators with less uncertainty.

 

 

This point is really important. For some programs, as has been mentioned already, it will be impossible to make a definitive judgment based on ranking systems. Your decision, therefore, should take into account other factors like recent hires, faculty in other departments whose work might converge with your interests in some way, the receptivity of your POIs to your work, etc. For all the noise out there about the dominance of a small cadre of elite institutions in faculty hiring, I am one who still believes fit is an incredibly important downpayment on your academic career. Go where you grow! 

Edited February 24, 2015 by theoristo

[law2phd]

This point is really important. For some programs, as has been mentioned already, it will be impossible to make a definitive judgment based on ranking systems. Your decision, therefore, should take into account other factors like recent hires, faculty in other departments whose work might converge with your interests in some way, the receptivity of your POIs to your work, etc. For all the noise out there about the dominance of a small cadre of elite institutions in faculty hiring, I am one who still believes fit is an incredibly important downpayment on your academic career. Go where you grow! 

 

I think (subfield-substantive) fit can be overweighed.  As a professional academic, you will have to get used to being off on your own to some degree; you might end up the only person at a university in your specific subfield. If you can find supportive faculty members capable of mentoring you in the methodological toolkit you need for your research program, I think that would go a long way even if your specific research interests do not overlap much.

 

Any indication of program desirability can be manipulated by strategic behavior, but I would at least focus on schools that make a strong effort to make you seem welcomed.  I've received emails from ten or so POIs at schools to which I have been accepted, and some put forth a great deal more effort in the recruitment process, mentioning parts of my writing sample they liked (and why), specific examples of students who have worked under them on related research projects and how their careers turned out, providing examples of papers they have co-written with students on similar topics, etc.  They're likely overselling, but making the effort to oversell should at least be loosely correlated with making a strong effort on the department's behalf elsewhere.  These are the sorts of people I feel comfortable committing to work with for several years based on asymmetric information.

 

Edit: I didn't mean to suggest that professors are largely disingenuous in their correspondence.  I just wanted to point out that even if you (wisely) assume that the program may not be as ideal for you in every way as it can sometimes be presented, you will still get incredibly valuable information from interacting with POIs.  When I'm deciding who I want to work under, I at least want someone who takes the time to strongly signal that he would be a good mentor.

Edited February 25, 2015 by law2phd

[puddle]

Oh! Also don't forget that professors leave universities. One way to choose would be to imagine all of your potential PIs took jobs elsewhere and then to decide which school would have more resources & infrastructure to support you.

[saudiwin]

In the last two years I've been a PhD student, I think what I've learned about this whole question is that the PhD is a very individual process. Even placements can be very deceptive because they may differ depending on the field you choose to specialize in. I.e., your program may place some methods grads in great places, but its IR program is sub-par and struggles to do so. In addition, placement depends on the dissertation you choose to undertake. A well-done, relevant research program will probably get you a job even if you are at a lower-ranked school. On the other hand, having crappy research from a top school will still be a tough sell even if you have a name brand degree. Professors aren't idiots; they don't just hire people based on where they went to school. Let's just say there's a high correlation between where you went to school and the quality of research you do.

 

Second, its not just the ranking of the program, its the resources that the program offers. This is where the Ivies and other private schools can really out-do state colleges. Having a good bank of internal funding for research along with other internal opportunities is a huge boon to a grad student because its hard to establish your name in the field without a prior track record. As another poster mentioned, you may well change your ideas concerning what you want to research when you're in the program, but large and well-funded programs tend to have opportunities regardless of the direction you go in.

 

So can you go to a smaller program and still graduate and get a good job? Absolutely. Remember that there is a huge selection bias problem in evaluating graduate programs. The graduates of Harvard self-selected to apply and were further selected on some kind of hopefully meritocratic criteria. You cannot compare the outcomes of Harvard/Stanford/etc. v. lower-ranked schools because the students are not equal across programs. In other words, the reason they do so well is not just because they have more profs in more subfields, its also the training and talent they bring into the program, which is much harder to measure. (C'mon, fellow grad students, this is the basics of the fundamental problem of causal inference...)

 

If you attend a less well-known program but work hard and are willing to teach yourself things that other grad students get in class and from faculty, then yes you can do it. I've met plenty of people who have. But its going to be up to be much more up to you and how you can make opportunities for yourself. If that challenge intimidates you, remember that there are jobs for Poli Sci PhDs outside the academy. You can get a PhD from a lower-ranked school and  have a very satisfying career doing really cool things even if you can't crack the tenure track door.

 

Feel free to PM me if you're making choices about "lower-ranked" programs.

[cooperstreet]

PhDs are hard. Choosing the highest ranked school makes it easier. That's an oversimplified version but you get the idea.

[ResearchFrontier]

Briefly about me: I’m enrolled in one of the top 10 programs and I took Ph.D. classes at another top 10 school when I was an undergraduate. In the last few years, I also visited several other schools and chatted with a lot of professors and students about this topic. I might repeat some of the things that have already been said by other people, but here are some of the things I learned.

 

In general, the ranking of a program matters enormously for several reasons. First, the best students are selected for and self-select into the most prestigious programs. To some extent it really is a self-fulfilling prophecy and no single individual can change that. Second, the top ranked programs offer the best opportunities for networking – they have a lot of prominent visitors from other universities that you can get in touch with. Third, how motivated and determined your peers are makes a big difference for how much you learn during your graduate studies and also how much you publish in later years, for example as coauthors. You will usually find a lot of highly motivated people at the top schools.

 

Note that although the top 10 programs probably offer a better training on average, individual professors can still be real disappointments and often programs outside of the top 10 also have great courses.

 

Fit matters, too, but here are some reasons why it usually doesn’t matter as much as ranking. Many people (if not most) change their research interests while they are going through the first few years of a Ph.D. program. You will learn completely new methodological tools and have a different perspective on political science research after your training. The type of questions you ask and you can possibly answer are likely to be very different from what you originally intended to do. The top 10 programs usually have a faculty that is diverse enough to make sure that you can follow your interests even if they change.

 

The ranking that I found to best represent the views of people in the discipline about the quality of different schools is the US News and World Report Ranking, maybe because it is based on the opinion of people in the discipline.

 

http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-humanities-schools/political-science-rankings

 

Another useful ranking is the placement ranking by Schmidt and Chingos that shows how successful individual universities are at placing job market candidates. The placement record is arguably the most important criterion for which program you might want to attend (it’s from 2007 though, so the information is a bit outdated and not 100% accurate in some cases).

 

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~gillum/rankings_paper.pdf

 

Generally, always check the placement record of a school before you begin your studies there. It might not be your main concern at the beginning of your training but it will be later when you look for a job. If a program is not transparent about its placements that is not a good sign.

 

The top 3: Harvard, Stanford, Princeton

 

These three programs are outstanding for a number of reasons. They have some of the very best scholars in the field. When those people are on your dissertation committee, their connections will make it easier for you to get a job. The reputation of these universities will also ensure that their graduates get a good job outside of academia if their academic career doesn’t work out. Also, as I said above, the best students usually self-select into these programs, meaning that their superior position is constantly reinforced (it’s nearly impossible to break this cycle). From my perspective, there would only be two good reasons not to go to one of these if admitted – personal reasons (if, for example, someone definitely wants to live close to family and friends) or if you have absolutely clear and focused research interests for which there is a much better faculty match at another program - ideally still a top 10 program.

 

The top 10 (excluding top 3): Berkeley, Michigan, Columbia, Yale, UCLA, Duke, MIT, UCSD

 

If you’re admitted to two or more of the top 10, I think that each of them is worth a visit. The difference between these programs is not as significant as between the top 3 and everything else. All of these universities have their good and bad sides. I think it makes most sense to make a choice among top 10 programs based on which professors appear to be the best supervisors, which departments make the best impression on you, and in which city you can imagine to spend the next 5-7 years of your life. In general, the reputation of all of these schools is great and if you go to any of these programs what will matter most is how productive you are as a researcher (i.e. publications in peer reviewed journals).

 

The top 20 programs:

 

In most of the top 20 programs you will find professors with a great publication record and many also offer a good methods training. However, when it comes to job applications, the top 3 experience a very strong positive bias and the top 10 (without the top 3) experience a strong positive bias. This doesn’t mean it’s impossible to get a job if you’re coming from a top 20 program but it is definitely harder, given the same quality of research. You might want to consider this when making your decision.

 

Important: This is just my opinion, based on what I have learned about the “political science world” in the past few years. Please don’t treat anything I say as the absolute truth, also take the opinion of other people into account, and make your own informed decision when you decide where to spend the next few years of your life.

[123321]

^ In the placement ranking by Schmidt and Chingos, Princeton is only #13. Not saying it's not a fantastic program, but is Princeton really on par with Harvard and Stanford for political science? Yes it has the Ivy name, but so do Yale and Columbia.

[victorydance]

Princeton is widely regarded as a top 3 political science department in the world. In fact, recent placements from Princeton are significantly better than Stanford. 

[rwillh11]

^ In the placement ranking by Schmidt and Chingos, Princeton is only #13. Not saying it's not a fantastic program, but is Princeton really on par with Harvard and Stanford for political science? Yes it has the Ivy name, but so do Yale and Columbia.

That data is 11 years old now. As someone trying to choose between Princeton and another top-10 (and 2 top 20s, depending upon who does the rankings), its interesting, but looking at Princeton's more recent placements, they definitely do a good deal better than 13th. Not to say they are a surefire top 3 or not, but definitely solidly top 10.

Edited March 6, 2015 by rwillh11

[fakeusername]

^ In the placement ranking by Schmidt and Chingos, Princeton is only #13. Not saying it's not a fantastic program, but is Princeton really on par with Harvard and Stanford for political science? Yes it has the Ivy name, but so do Yale and Columbia.

 

Be careful judging on those rankings papers alone.  As the poster above me just mentioned, those results are fairly outdated now.  For instance, MSU is ranked only a few places behind Princeton in ranking but their placement record in IR has been extremely poor in the last decade; it's still very competitive in AP.   In making a decision, get all the most recent placement data available and don't forget to take subfield strengths into consideration. 

[123321]

I have nothing against Princeton, just surprised to see its place (#13) in the 1990-2004 placement ranking posted by ResearchFrontier. Maybe its recent placements are indeed "significantly better than Stanford", I honestly don't know, but anyone interested in that can easily compare their post-2004 records.

[victorydance]

Stanford's recent placement record is actually quite poor:

 

https://politicalscience.stanford.edu/academics/graduate-programs/job-placement

 

Here is Princeton's:

 

http://www.princeton.edu/politics/graduate/placement/

Edited March 6, 2015 by victorydance

[AmericanQuant]

Stanford's recent placement record is actually quite poor:

 

https://politicalscience.stanford.edu/academics/graduate-programs/job-placement

 

Here is Princeton's:

 

http://www.princeton.edu/politics/graduate/placement/

 

Two things to bear in mind: 1) Stanford's placements page is missing a bunch of recent placements.  2) Stanford has much smaller grad student cohorts.

 

Some discussion on the first point here:

 

http://www.poliscirumors.com/topic/stanfords-placement-in-2013-2014-was-horrible/page/2

Edited March 9, 2015 by AmericanQuant

[David_King]

This is an exceptionally interesting and useful set of posts - following on ResearchFrontier's comments from March 4.  I'd only underscore that you need to think about subfields, too. If there's a terrific person who's taking PhD students at the 7th "best" school, that's better than a terrific person who's *not* taking on new PhD students at the 2nd best school.  All the top schools are in the business of producing the next generation of scholars - not necessarily the next generation of "teachers" - and be very clear about what your own preferences are in both dimensions.  Also pay attention to whether recent graduates have a track record of publishing with professors, because you want as much of that on your resume as possible.  Good luck everyone!

[slacktivist]

Another thing to consider about rankings: with very few exceptions, they are incredibly sticky. I didn't have much of an idea why until I spoke with a senior professor at another university about my possible options. He was concerned about a program due to its recent losses. The main person he brought up left in 2004.

 

A lot of senior faculty—faculty who serve on search committees—simply aren't plugged into what's happening on the personnel side of the discipline. If a school promises X new hires in the next few years you are in their program, it will take a long time before the program is thought of as stronger because of them (well, unless the new hire is Gary King or someone like that).

[irfannooruddin]

PhDs are hard. Choosing the highest ranked school makes it easier. That's an oversimplified version but you get the idea.

 

Bing. But with one caveat: rankings are at best categorical, not ordinal, no matter what the US News & World Report might want us to believe. So there's a difference between a top-tier program and the next rung and so on, but I wouldn't put much stock in the difference between #4 and #6.

[OurasInet]

Thanks to everyone who posted here. I'm currently in the process of choosing a program and the posts here will probably make it easier! I'm happy that some people who have more experience took some time to give helpful advice.

[ResearchFrontier]

I thought the content of this thread might be useful to some people who were admitted in this cycle and now have to make a decision. Hope everyone got into some of their favorite schools.