Disappointed in PS. Switching the field. Need advice.

[Joy929292]

Hello. I'm coming from abroad so sorry for any mistakes throughout the text. 

 

I've just finished my first semester in PS program and I'm very disappointed in my field, and in Political Science as a subject (on PHD level only). First of all, my undergrad degree is not in Political Science, though it is relatively close to it. I applied for PolSci phd programs all around America with the idea that this is my thing and this is what I want to do. But after my 1st semester I realized that what I want to do and what they study here is 2 completely different things, though my program is considered very good. Not from top-10, but very, very good.  

There are a lot of things I disagree with, I will put several for just to get an idea why I want to switch the field completely. Though the point of this text is not to show flaws and disadvantages of PolSci on phd level, but instead to ask an advice about switching the field.  You can skip this part if you want.

 

1. International relations. Especially the part where a lot of scholars study war causes (almost every aspect of this course). After passing this course I feel like IR is really, really dumb field to study and to do a research in. What has been done in this field for the last 20-40 years? Rational models of war causes, i.e. if costs < benefits from war = a leader goes to war. And that's it. All other models / theories were either rejected or were not match with reality completely. Scholars try to understand what underlying reasons cause wars when in fact there are a group of people who get direct benefits from wars and this is very, very obvious. But still, scholars try to pretend like "we don't know what exactly causes wars, let's do a ton of useless research". So hypocrite. And even if someone will assemble a complete model which will predict wars - will the world leaders listen to this person and stop doing wars? No way. They don't even care.

 

2. Professors don't even expect you to know what is going on around the world, the dates, the events, etc. (remember, I am in a good-rated school). Professors themselves sometimes don't even know that, for example, during Soviet era all other parties were banned. I'm not even talking about students who have very narrow scope. All we do is study theories, models, and other theoretical stuff which in 99% don't match the reality. 

 

Now you see why I disappointed in PolSci. I expected PHD program to be closer to real things, to events which are going on right now, to current world processes. I wanted to have hot discussions between professors and my peers during classes. But all I got is a bunch of theories which are produced by crazy people and we learning them and trying to find anything useful in them. I still respect PolSci and I love it, but I disrespect the way they teach us.

 

Now the main part. I want to switch my field to Computer Science. The reason for that is CS department in my university does real stuff. They do research which benefits people, they really produce things. Furthermore, I have a good background in CS, though I've never taken any classes. THeir website says that anybody who want to switch his graduate program to their one have to take several mandatory classes. Even if I take 2 classes every semester it will take 1-1.5 year. Now the question. Given that I hold an assistantship outside of my department, is it ok to take 2 classes in my dept (to stay inside the program) and 2 classes in CS every semester? What others will think? Will I have any problems, i,e., Director of Graduate studies will try to "fail" me to kick me out of the program because I decided to switch? Please, give any advice. I feel very nervous about it. 

Edited June 13, 2015 by Joy929292

[Eigen]

Unless your school is unusual, you dont "switch" fields in a PhD program.

You leave the current program, and apply fresh to the new one.

It's not like switching majors is in undergrad.

I'd also say it's unethical to have the PolSci department fund your prerequisites for CompSci. You'd be taking the spot and funding intended for a PhD student in political science, while not intending to finish or continue in either that program or that field.

[Joy929292]

Unless your school is unusual, you dont "switch" fields in a PhD program.

You leave the current program, and apply fresh to the new one.

It's not like switching majors is in undergrad.

I'd also say it's unethical to have the PolSci department fund your prerequisites for CompSci. You'd be taking the spot and funding intended for a PhD student in political science, while not intending to finish or continue in either that program or that field.

Yes, I mean changing the field, reapplying. Incorrect word used.

[ZajoncSays]

Maybe you should talk to people on the CS forum/board? This forum is for people who are interested in going in to political science, not leaving it...

Edited June 13, 2015 by ZajoncSays

[RWBG]

Rational models of war causes, i.e. if costs < benefits from war = a leader goes to war. 

Without touching the rest of what you wrote, it would be worth noting that the big lesson from the formal study of conflict is that the "costs<benefits from war" is not a persuasive explanation for why war breaks out, given that states can bargain and make concessions outside of fighting. Good luck with CS.

[law2phd]

It sounds as if you are fundamentally opposed to the social sciences in general, with the inherent limitations on macro-level theory building which come with the territory.  It also seems as if you thought you would be doing political history--which I assume you could actually do in a history department, but not (to any appreciable degree) in most contemporary political science departments.  As such, the only advice that a bunch of social science grad students (and undergraduates) can give you is to get out now.  The opportunity costs of leaving will never be lower than they are today.

 

As to what you should do afterward, I would advise speaking with people in the fields you are considering.  At length.  You certainly do not want to waste several more years in another academic discipline in which you have absolutely no interest.

Edited June 14, 2015 by law2phd

[bsharpe269]

I think you need to take some time off school to figure out your interests. You should have done your research on the field of political science before getting into your current program. If you had been reading papers in the field and were familiar with the research of the PIs in your program then you would know what your school specialized in.

 

Don't make the same mistake again. In my opinion, you shouldn't jump into another PhD program that you know so little about. Why are you in graduate school.. what are your goals? Have you extensively read current CS literature? Are there specific subfields that interest you enough to spend 5+ years on a problem in one? Also, do you have research experience in CS already? If you don't have a couple years worth of CS research experience and if you aren't familiar with the literature then I think you should take some time off school and gain experience and explore you interest before starting a new program. Alot of what you will have to learn for CS is highly theoretical too. You will learn math, algorithms, logic.

[Joy929292]

I think you need to take some time off school to figure out your interests. You should have done your research on the field of political science before getting into your current program. If you had been reading papers in the field and were familiar with the research of the PIs in your program then you would know what your school specialized in.

 

Don't make the same mistake again. In my opinion, you shouldn't jump into another PhD program that you know so little about. Why are you in graduate school.. what are your goals? Have you extensively read current CS literature? Are there specific subfields that interest you enough to spend 5+ years on a problem in one? Also, do you have research experience in CS already? If you don't have a couple years worth of CS research experience and if you aren't familiar with the literature then I think you should take some time off school and gain experience and explore you interest before starting a new program. Alot of what you will have to learn for CS is highly theoretical too. You will learn math, algorithms, logic.

I agree. I read a bit of current CS research, not too much though. Some questions touch algorithms and optimization, for example, how to transfer data more effectively through network. An author can describe his theory / opinion in general terms and will not propose anything specific. But I feel like even this helps us a lot. One person describes the problem, another finds a way to implement a solution. But in PolSci how can we implement a solution? Ok, we know that crime victimization increases political activity (Bateson, 2013). So what? That's what I'm trying to say. Political science is just a good field for observation, but not for implementation and prediction. In politics money rules the world. So it means that the best thing you can do in PolSci is to study electoral and party behavior, because it will really benefit parties, when they know how to win votes. But that's it. IR is purely theoretical. What's left...Pol Economy is interesting, but again: how can we apply the knowledge we generate in this field? We simply can't because we have no power.

[Joy929292]

I know, it looks like I didn't think ahead before applying. And this is true. Many people are like me and did that mistake. That's why % of those who got PhD and % of those who was admitted is so drastically different. I expected grad school to be more qualitative and more applicable. I apologize if I offended somebody with my messages. I really like PS, but not when it comes to PhD obviously.

[rising_star]

It sounds like maybe you're more interested in public policy or public administration... That could be a route for you to pursue, as you could then have a more direct impact on people's lives and the policies that affect them.

[Joy929292]

It sounds like maybe you're more interested in public policy or public administration... That could be a route for you to pursue, as you could then have a more direct impact on people's lives and the policies that affect them.

In fact, my undergrad degree is public administration.

May be I just don't want to get a PhD. May be it's too much for me.

[rising_star]

If you don't love research, then getting a PhD isn't a good idea. That doesn't mean that it's too much for you. It just means that your interests lie elsewhere.

[Joy929292]

If you don't love research, then getting a PhD isn't a good idea. That doesn't mean that it's too much for you. It just means that your interests lie elsewhere.

By "too much" I mean amount of years I'm ready to devote to research. In general, I do love research

[Karoku_valentine]

I did my undergrad in Political Science and International Relations. Before finishing it, I realized that was not for me, but I could not switch majors (not possible in my country, you kind of have to start over). Then I did a Master in a "professional school" (which was not that professional, but they said they were), which was able to place students in good Poli Sci/IR programs. Now I am changing subjects and moving to Statistics. My biggest mistake was not doing it before.

 

I think you should get a job and decided if you really want to move to Computer Science. You studied Public Administration and yet you were not able to tell that Poli Sci/IR was theoretical until you started your PhD. Now you want to switch to a completely unrelated field which you have no knowledge about it either (you've never taken classes on CS). My advice would be to drop the the PhD and get a job. However, if you are not American, you should probably try to apply to a different program.

[cooperstreet]

 

1. International relations. Especially the part where a lot of scholars study war causes (almost every aspect of this course). After passing this course I feel like IR is really, really dumb field to study and to do a research in. What has been done in this field for the last 20-40 years? Rational models of war causes, i.e. if costs < benefits from war = a leader goes to war. And that's it. All other models / theories were either rejected or were not match with reality completely. Scholars try to understand what underlying reasons cause wars when in fact there are a group of people who get direct benefits from wars and this is very, very obvious. But still, scholars try to pretend like "we don't know what exactly causes wars, let's do a ton of useless research". So hypocrite. And even if someone will assemble a complete model which will predict wars - will the world leaders listen to this person and stop doing wars? No way. They don't even care.

 

No its not it, and please please whatever you do, don't mistake the limits of your understanding as the limits of everyone elses knowledge.

 

Furthermore, this:

"Scholars try to understand what underlying reasons cause wars when in fact there are a group of people who get direct benefits from wars and this is very, very obvious."

 

Doesn't make sense. People who choose to go to wars will benefit, but this is a proximate cause. There are other types of causes and they are worth studying.

[TakeruK]

By "too much" I mean amount of years I'm ready to devote to research. In general, I do love research

 

I think the main reason to get a PhD should be that you want to have a career in research (doesn't have to be in academia). So, I am a little confused here when you say the "amount of years devoted to research". Because the way I see it, the purpose of a PhD program is to prepare you for an entire career full of research! (Again, want to clarify that I don't mean research only in the academic sense).