Rochester

[NUMDS]

I was traditionally applying to economics schools. However, I came across WUSTL and Rochester's quantitative political science programs. However, I have not heard anyone talk about Rochester. They seem to have great placements and their adherence to formal methods and theory is great. Why aren't more people applying to it?

[poli90]

Rochester is seen as a highly specialized/boutique school. If you are really and exclusivly into quant methods, it may be a good place, but even then you are going to miss out on some of the breadth of the discipline. As quant methods solidify their position at the top of the discipline, its placement is going to stay strong. Departments want a few well trained methods people, and it has a reputation for doing the best training. However, for most people's purposes I doubt it is the best department. They also only accept a handful of students (5-6) each year.

[ladedodaday]

I was traditionally applying to economics schools. However, I came across WUSTL and Rochester's quantitative political science programs. However, I have not heard anyone talk about Rochester. They seem to have great placements and their adherence to formal methods and theory is great. Why aren't more people applying to it?

You answered your own question: Their adherence to formal methods and theory is great, but most people on this board aren't focusing on those limited areas of political science. If that's your thing, those are your places, but they seem to be very specialized. Personally, they don't have professors researching anything that interests me.

[catchermiscount]

I am currently a graduate student at Rochester, and I think a lot of what's been said in this (brief) thread is relatively accurate. People that apply to (and thrive at) Rochester are those interested in taking methods and formal theory very seriously. As a result, the department has been able to forge a brand name that is quite distinct, which reduces uncertainty in the job market, thus helping with placement.

Why so few applicants? For starters, due to the reasons listed above, a lot of students don't apply because they realize just what they'd be getting themselves into; thus there is a nice self-selection thing going on. Also, consider the applicant pool at Harvard or Yale or Stanford. A lot of the applicants are well-qualifed--more than they can accept, as per the rejection letters--but a lot of them have little business applying to a PhD program at a top 5 department. So why do they apply? Because of the name, they figure it's worth the $100 or so to fill out the application. Rochester probably has less of that going on, and even less than "peer" schools like WashU or the big publics in the midwest.

The first of these reasons-- self-selection -- leads to another phenomenon: among those that are admitted here, more accept offers than at most other places. People that apply here -- that is, crazy people like yours truly! -- know what they're getting into and, moreover, WANT to get into it. And yes, we're small. My cohort numbers five. The overall feel is quite close as a result.

And since I'm on the ol' soapbox, I will say that I feel that the substantive training is underrated here. At job talks or second year paper presentations or practice job talks, the questions aren't all about Greek letters most people don't care about. They're good questions aimed at getting deeper into substance. Very few people come here to become straight-up methodologists or straight-up formal theorists!

OK, enough of the advertisement. It's late in the game, clearly, but should any questions arise regarding Rochester, don't hesitate to shoot me an IM. And to those that have applied, good luck!