Fall 2010 applicants

[ladedodaday]

See: http://chronicle.com...l-in-the/44846/ --

"As things stand, I can only identify a few circumstances under which one might reasonably consider going to graduate school in the humanities:

• You are independently wealthy, and you have no need to earn a living for yourself or provide for anyone else.
• You come from that small class of well-connected people in academe who will be able to find a place for you somewhere.
• You can rely on a partner to provide all of the income and benefits needed by your household.
• You are earning a credential for a position that you already hold — such as a high-school teacher — and your employer is paying for it.

Those are the only people who can safely undertake doctoral education in the humanities. Everyone else who does so is taking an enormous personal risk the full consequences of which they cannot assess because they do not understand how the academic-labor system works and will not listen to people who try to tell them."

Think about the most famous political theorists or philosophers -- I can't think of any that didn't come from money. I think the facts are different in natural sciences and empirical social sciences, but otherwise I think the overwhelming majority of successful academics come from $$$. I actually think William James wrote an essay on this called "The PhD Octopus." Also cf. Dinesh D'Souza "Professor Moneybags" National Review (http://www.accessmyl...demics-get.html)

Wittgenstein, Russell, W.Wilson, W.James, etc. came from money; M.Nussbaum, R.Dworkin married into it.

Lev, I hope you're a troll because your argument is absurd.

A few quick points:

- Political science is not part of the humanities. It is a social science. It is largely empirical (apologies theorists!).

- This means that the Chronicle article is irrelevant.

- Even if it was relevant, the author is trying to convince people who are not independently wealthy people to not go to grad school, which implies that non-wealthy people are currently in grad schools.

- But even that doesn't matter, because most top political science schools give stipends, so finances aren't an issue.

- Your historic examples are silly and irrelevant. First, the sample is ridiculously small. Second, they are only from a sub-discipline of political science. Third, they are all from an era where few people went to college at all. There is no reason to believe political science programs have the same socioeconomic makeup as they did 50 years ago.

So, your argument is wrong because it misunderstands what political science is, cites irrelevant articles, and abuses history.

I can't believe I just took the time to respond to your post, but it struck me as absurd. It is like the critical thinking prompt for the GRE verbal section--so littered with errors that it is difficult to know where to start.

[lev calderon]

Lev, I hope you're a troll because your argument is absurd.

A few quick points:

- Political science is not part of the humanities. It is a social science. It is largely empirical (apologies theorists!).

- This means that the Chronicle article is irrelevant.

- Even if it was relevant, the author is trying to convince people who are not independently wealthy people to not go to grad school, which implies that non-wealthy people are currently in grad schools.

- But even that doesn't matter, because most top political science schools give stipends, so finances aren't an issue.

- Your historic examples are silly and irrelevant. First, the sample is ridiculously small. Second, they are only from a sub-discipline of political science. Third, they are all from an era where few people went to college at all. There is no reason to believe political science programs have the same socioeconomic makeup as they did 50 years ago.

So, your argument is wrong because it misunderstands what political science is, cites irrelevant articles, and abuses history.

I can't believe I just took the time to respond to your post, but it struck me as absurd. It is like the critical thinking prompt for the GRE verbal section--so littered with errors that it is difficult to know where to start.

I'm really not trying to debate anything. Several posters ask questions about whether one's chances are increased without fellowship or not and several posters are not doing empirical social sciences. Also, I think it is rather naive to discuss fellowship, admissions, etc. without not recognizing that our profession excludes many participants from entrance.

Now onto your claims.

1. "Political science is not part of the humanities. " Go read Plato and Aristotle.

2. Now read my post and re-read it. I spoke of political science in terms of its non-empirical elements; I would be the first to concede that my comments do not apply to empirical methods in political science, which is itself heavily dependent on mathematics and economics.

3. I also don't think political science is largely empirical. I kind of wish it was, but most PhDs in politics are focusing on American Government, Comparative, IR, Theory or Public Law, not methods or formal theory.

4. You also missed the point of my argument which did not focus on graduate admissions as much as the nature of the profession (e.g. professors). A lot of non-wealthy people are in graduate school, but how many of them place and stay as professors? Guess what -- not many.

5. " But even that doesn't matter, because most top political science schools give stipends, so finances aren't an issue." This is a non-argument (i) even 25k stipends does not cover one's finances, especially if one has a family (thanks for conceding that you've never held a real job and that you don't even think about graduate students who have to support families); (ii) I was making a comparison to the sciences where stipends for graduate students are much higher, and (iii) are you really so naive? Who do you think funds political science fellowships at top schools that allow students to go finance-free? . . . wealthy ivy-league alums and they want to see proxies for value-creation, i.e. Yale graduates teaching at elite schools not community colleges and a lot of that, in the long-run, will depend upon the wealth-creation or retention of graduates.

6. "Your historic examples are silly and irrelevant. First, the sample is ridiculously small. Second, they are only from a sub-discipline of political science. Third, they are all from an era where few people went to college at all. There is no reason to believe political science programs have the same socioeconomic makeup as they did 50 years ago."

1. Provide counter-examples

2. Eh, I think we've established that empirical methods is the sub-discipline and the rest is humanities-like.

3. Your college argument is silly because those that did teach pre-1900s did not have PhDs or got PhDs from Germany; notwithstanding most of the great "American" college professors back then were imported from Europe.

4. Actually, I think there's reason to think PSCI programs are worse off -- as economics, methods, and empirical social science has dominated, traditional "government" programs have less value, cf. Coburn's NSF resolution.

You are incredibly obtuse. Read something.

[ladedodaday]

You are incredibly obtuse. Read something.

There is no reason for this discussion to clog up a perfectly good thread! I am sending you a response via PM. But, thanks for informing me that IR, Comparative, and American scholars don't do empirical work! That will save me a lot of time in grad school

Also, let's leave the personal attacks where they belong: on poliscijobrumors.com

Edited January 14, 2010 by great joy

[Ziz]

Argh let's move on!

[ladedodaday]

Argh let's move on!

Let's!

Has anyone (out of college) been doing work in preparation for grad school, like reading articles or studying calc/statistics?

[michal]

Let's!

Has anyone (out of college) been doing work in preparation for grad school, like reading articles or studying calc/statistics?

I have a research fellowship abroad that is political science-related, so I suppose that counts as preparation. But otherwise, nope Until I actually get an acceptance, it doesn't seem real enough to warrant actual preparation.

[polisciphd]

For all you guys who are going to be getting acceptances in the coming weeks, feel free to pose any and all questions you can think of. There are lots of us who have gone through this process and are currently in grad school that still peruse these boards. As far as the preparation question goes, do yourself a favor, relax, read a book for fun, play lots of video games. Don't worry about getting ready, the adcom felt that you could handle their program, or at least give a reasonable effort, so take it easy for a few months before the craziness begins.

[Ziz]

I've been brushing up on my Latin and French. However, neither of those have anything to do with my program, they just make me feel smart, so I am going to have to say I've done no prep yet!

[natofone]

We are now two weeks away from the date when schools started notifying their accepted applicants last year:

http://thegradcafe.com/survey/index.php?q=(political|government|politics)&t=a&pp=250&o=&p=6

uc-davis, emory, uiuc, michigan state, wisconsin, duke, ohio state all within the first week.

[poli90]

"Wittgenstein, Russell, W.Wilson, W.James, etc. came from money; M.Nussbaum, R.Dworkin married into it."

QED....

I suppose the first point to make is that the burden of proof is not on everyone else to provide "counterexamples" but for you to demonstrate that your sample of 6 philosophers, none of whom started their careers in the last 20 years, can reasonably be generalized to the statement that only rich people succeed in the humanities/complete Ivy League PhD programs. There is no point naming names (as if I had access to their tax returns), but most political theorist seems to have come from a stable middle class backgrounds. I do agree that there are significant barriers in academia for lower income people, but just as it is absurd to say family background has nothing to do with future success, it is equally absurd to say, without any actual evidence, that "there's an unmistakable reality that those at Harvard and its class of PhD programs are independently wealthy.

"I also don't think political science is largely empirical. I kind of wish it was, but most PhDs in politics are focusing on American Government, Comparative, IR, Theory or Public Law, not methods or formal theory."

Methods and formal theory are both non-empirical (that's why they call it formal theory...). Likewise with much normative political theory (although I would argue that there are always implied empirical issues, just as empirical research always assumes answers to certan normative questions. I don't really think the normative/empirical distinction is very strong or very tennable.). The issues developed in those areas only become fully empirical, in the general use of the term, once they are applied by Americanists, Comparativists, etc.

""Political science is not part of the humanities. " Go read Plato and Aristotle."

Heh...don't know if this even needs a comment. Quite simply, modern political scientists are not taking guidence from Plato and Aristotle. Do you really consider that an argument that you have "established that empirical methods is the sub-discipline and the rest is humanities-like"? Look, I am not a big fan of the idea that the social sciences should model the natural sciences. I much prefer the idea of a pluralistic field of Politics or Political Studies than the outmoded idea of Political Science. But really, I still know the sort of empirical research that is widespread in the discipline.

That said, I would certainly agree that the areas within Political Science departments that engage with Plato and Aristotle are taking part in the humanities or some sort of broadly conceived humanisitc discipline.

"Who do you think funds political science fellowships at top schools that allow students to go finance-free?"

Rich lawyers who did their undergrads there?

EDIT:

With all that said, also agree that this conversation is not very productive. As for the question of doing any prep for grad school, I will confess that I have been reading quite a lot of recent political theory and I'm in a Hegel reading group...I'm planning on taking it easy in the summer when travelling.

Edited January 14, 2010 by Foucault

[Stormy Waters]

In order of importance:

Presidential Management Fellow (declined); Law Fellow @ Oxford (declined).

I hope you didn't put these on your CV. Most professors think this as a very douchey thing to include on a CV.

[curufinwe]

damn, i have read how awesome many of u guys are and now its time to freak out, seeing how little safety schools i have

undergrad in business: 3.93 (valedictorian)

MA in polisci: 3.61

(both from the best schools in Turkey)

GRE: 690V (even THIS was hard to get for a foreign student ), 800Q, AW: 5.0

Toefl iBT: 117

SOP: i have no idea if it was strong or not, how can it be strong with a 500-words limit

LORs: 1 from a great professor, the others "will do".

Area of Interest: Comparative. Regime changes and democratization. Been focusing on Middle East so far. Also interested in Foreign Policy.

But then again, instead of being evil and competitive and wishing that u all fail to get in to the schools I also applied to, I will wish that u get into the even better schools, so that you will turn down the ones I applied to hehe

p.s.: I hope Brandeis, my ultimate safety school, wouldn't reject me after the Turkish-Israeli diplomatic spats lol

Edited January 17, 2010 by curufinwe

[Stormy Waters]

^ I'd be surprised if you are rejected by any of the programs you applied to.

[Stormy Waters]

Also, I'll post my stats in about a month... too paranoid to post them before hearing back from any schools.

[Waytooyoungtheorist]

Even though I am a few years away from (possibly) going through this process, I just wanted to pop in, revoke my lurker status, and wish everyone luck during this admission cycle. I wish each one of you the very best; well, even more so for the political theorists out there.

[Stormy Waters]

Even though I am a few years away from (possibly) going through this process, I just wanted to pop in, revoke my lurker status, and wish everyone luck during this admission cycle. I wish each one of you the very best; well, even more so for the political theorists out there.

You won't be wishing the other theorists good luck in a few years when you realizing that you are all fighting for the one remaining political theory job out there.

[Waytooyoungtheorist]

You won't be wishing the other theorists good luck in a few years when you realizing that you are all fighting for the one remaining political theory job out there.

That's why I'm wishing them luck

[interista]

I've been lurking on here for the past few weeks checking up on admissions results and figured I throw myself into the mix.

GPA: 3.5 from top 10 liberal arts college, 3.8 in major, 3.7 junior/senior GPA

Graduated with departmental honors in political science, minors in philosophy and sociology

Recs from major advisor (well-regarded political theorist), minor advisors

GRE: 800Q, 710V, 5.0W

Strong writing sample (awarded honors for senior thesis on Rawls' theory of justice)

I applied last year as an undergraduate and was admitted to a top-15 program with a small theory section but rejected at the other 5 places (admitted to MA programs at two of the schools). I ended up rejecting the offer since I wasn't sure if I wanted to do philosophy or poli sci as a grad student, but decided to reapply in poli sci for this coming fall. I have a stronger application this time around, and I think I have a decent shot at a top program as long as my GPA doesn't kill my chances (I'm hesitant to spend 5 years at anything but a top program given the dire job market in theory)

[curufinwe]

Has anyone heard anything like "you are one of our top applicants"? I haven't heard anything like that, but I've noticed that some people in other fields have. Should I be nervous?

i've never heard that happen, not in polisci at least. its really straight forward for us i guess, no interviews, no tips before hand... u apply, u get accepted or rejected. i like it ^^ and hey, if u start worrying, then we'll freak out as well. so relax

[rc47]

Has anyone heard anything like "you are one of our top applicants"? I haven't heard anything like that, but I've noticed that some people in other fields have. Should I be nervous?

No, try not to worry right now. Last year I got accepted at four of the top 10, all by e-mail around Feb 10. In the next three weeks I was rejected from 7 other schools, but I know people who were admitted during this period. No school contacted me before they gave me their final decision, and I think that was normal for most admits.

My best advice is to spend the next couple of weeks making sure that you have a solid back-up plan in case nothing works out. This will help pass the time and will make the whole process much easier for you if you don't get an offer that you like.

Good luck to everyone!

[ladedodaday]

Has anyone heard anything like "you are one of our top applicants"? I haven't heard anything like that, but I've noticed that some people in other fields have. Should I be nervous?

I have received an email saying something like that, but it doesn't seem to be normal, so I wouldn't worry. We'll hear soon enough!

[thatsnotmyname]

Hi everyone! Been lurking here for awhile, but only decided to start posting now that decisions are upon us! Me, in a nutshell:

Area: Comparative- South Asian economic and political development

Undergrad: Private liberal arts college, International Relations -3.97 GPA

Grad: Masters in International Relations- 3.92 GPA

GRE: Q-700+ V700+ A-4.5 (yikes!)

SOP solid, LORs solid

One publication in a small compartive journal

I really don't know what to make of all this- with the economy and budget cuts, things are rough, so I'm pretty nervous lol. Not to mention my writing score is freaking me out- I'm a good writer, I just don't know what happened that day

Best of luck to all! The decisions are already rolling in...how scary!

[SuddenlyParanoid]

H

Not to mention my writing score is freaking me out- I'm a good writer, I just don't know what happened that day

Best of luck to all! The decisions are already rolling in...how scary!

I wouldn't worry about the writing score. You have great grades which implies you can write good papers and all the adcoms are going to look at your SOP, and a lot of them are going to have your writing sample too.

[thatsnotmyname]

That's true SuddenlyParanoid...hoping for the best!

[LeftCoast]

Back to spend another season with all of the OCD potential PhD students. Applied late last year and had poor results. Putting myself through it all again this year.

Best of luck to all!