Fall 2010 Admission Results

[yellowshoes]

Hi all. I'm new to this board but in case people are interested, Wash U mailed out their decision letters this week, so those of us still waiting should hear something soon...

I'm afraid those of us still waiting may not like what we get. I think washu sent out emails to all those admitted or waitlisted earlier this week. Unless those were personal emails. But I doubt it.

[brouhaha]

Are you bicurious? The methodologies of UCSD and Minnesota are entirely incompatible.

I giggled at your username.

[APGradApplicant]

Actually, Mearshimer, since you asked, I'm actually gay , but I guess that's not very relevant to the boards here.

In what way do you think those two are incompatible?

[brewski]

True, though I wasn't told I was rejected, just that it's "unlikely" that I'll be admitted. Of course, I'm not holding out hope. Though I'm not complaining; I will be happy to be a master's student there and then to reapply with some shiny new LORs from Yale profs in 2 years.

Sorry, I didn't mean to rub in a rejection that, truth be told, hasn't actually officially occurred.

I think it's super encouraging that you've been referred to their M.A. program; it shows that there's great merit in your app, and I'd definitely be lucky if I got a similar endorsement, I just meant to say they seem to already be fairly along in their decisions process.

:-)

[Mearsheimer's Minion]

Actually, Mearshimer, since you asked, I'm actually gay , but I guess that's not very relevant to the boards here.

In what way do you think those two are incompatible?

If you go to UCSD, you become a rational choice theorists. You learn from the Lakes, Gartzkes, and Slantchevs of the world. If you go to Minnesota, you become a social constructivist. You learn from whoever gave Alexander Wendt's, umm, forefathers. Both are among the best at what they do, but they are day vs. night, penis vs. vagina, gay vs. straight, Mearsheimer* vs. Keohane different. It's hard to see how you could have them ranked 1 and 2 currently.**

*FTW.

**In other words, I do not believe I can express your preferences using a von Neumann and Morgenstern expected utility function.

[APGradApplicant]

Good to know, although political theory isn't my subfield. I'm in American politics. If you're saying that these outlooks extend into the way you are taught to approach research in general, then I guess I kind of understand what you're saying. But I don't know if you necesarilly meant that or whether you assumed I was interested in the theory subfield...

[Rory]

I've also contacted Yale's registrar and have a placement record from that master's program.

When you hear back about their placement record, do let us know...I'm really curious....

[backstreets]

I'm afraid those of us still waiting may not like what we get. I think washu sent out emails to all those admitted or waitlisted earlier this week. Unless those were personal emails. But I doubt it.

Maybe, but there were only 4 results posted, so you never know...

Not a single program to which I applied has told me anything. Really irksome.

[CrimsonBlue]

Yeah. But, Wisconsin is already a top program. Plus, even if you take poli sci courses at Yale, it wouldn't necessarily give you an advantage at the very top poli sci programs. Yale is not precisely regarded one of the best poli sci programs for its placement records. (Its placement records sucks compared to Harvard, Stanford, Michigan and Rochester.) Think like an economist in terms of considering opportunity costs. Yale is a great institution for undergrad, law and other graduate programs. But, it may not be what you think it is at some grad levels.

[Rory]

The program is small, but is increasing in size quickly. As such, the data are limited in raw number. However, this is from the DGS:

I do not have any exact figures -- our Registrar, Marianne Lyden (marianne.lyden@yale.edu) might have be able to help you with that. What I can say is that the majority of our students use the M.A. program as a springboard into PhD programs and that most of them seem to land, and land well. Having served on many graduate admissions committees over the years, I can tell you that having successfully completed an M.A. does confer an advantage. There is no better indication that someone can succeed in graduate school than that they have already done so.

The Registrar was not able to give me a complete placement record, since the info is voluntary, but nearly half of last year's graduates went on to top PhD programs.

Sounds very promising for you - although you should get more detail on what they consider "top programs" - could very well be Wisconsin-Madison!

[polisciguy]

This article about rankings (based on hiring of new faculty and placement records) is only up to 2002, but is food for thought--perhaps a much better ranking methodology: http://jhfowler.ucsd.edu/social_networks_in_political_science.pdf

Also, if you end up choosing Yale's MA program, you don't necessarily have to wait until your second year to re-apply--can you apply next December and see what happens--given that there's a huge stochastic component to the whole admissions process anyways. Good luck!

haha, that's true, though i imagine they have a good dose of ivy league elitism when it comes to top programs. if the rest of the decisions i receive dictate serious consideration of the yale option, i'll try to get them to be more specific about what "top" means to them. i'm inclined to believe it's top 10, though i could be wrong.

[Sanssouci]

Just got my second acceptance this morning from UCL - European Studies. Very happy, though pressure is now on as they want a response in a month.

[CrimsonBlue]

This article about rankings (based on hiring of new faculty and placement records) is only up to 2002, but is food for thought--perhaps a much better ranking methodology: http://jhfowler.ucsd.edu/social_networks_in_political_science.pdf

Also, if you end up choosing Yale's MA program, you don't necessarily have to wait until your second year to re-apply--can you apply next December and see what happens--given that there's a huge stochastic component to the whole admissions process anyways. Good luck!

Although it is a bit outdated, I like the paper. The job market is quite volatile for professors. But, looking at these past trends certainly helps to see the stability of each institution. Whether people like it or not, it seems Harvard is the big hub of political scientists!

[polisciguy]

Don't get me wrong, the schools do definitely matter--but the brightest and best students will for the most part end up getting the top jobs--regardless of which tier 1 program they go to (Michigan for example just hired someone from Emory and has one from WUSTL).

On 2/6/2010 at 11:39 AM, CrimsonBlue said:

Although it is a bit outdated, I like the paper. The job market is quite volatile for professors. But, looking at these past trends certainly helps to see the stability of each institution. Whether people like it or not, it seems Harvard is the big hub of political scientists!

[natofone]

This is very interesting. It makes me especially happy to see Wisconsin ranked #10 (my only acceptance so far) and Chicago #2 (a school I think I definitely have a shot at). Thanks for this!

Keep in mind that this article looks at 1960-2002 (i think - just glanced at it). You'll be going on the market in 2016 or 2017. This is a better article on placement (1990-2004): http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~chingos/rankings_paper.pdf

[fromark17]

On 2/6/2010 at 12:28 PM, natofone said:

Keep in mind that this article looks at 1960-2002 (i think - just glanced at it). You'll be going on the market in 2016 or 2017. This is a better article on placement (1990-2004): http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~chingos/rankings_paper.pdf

I actually used this paper and its rankings in helping decide which schools to apply to. It shows that the Ivies aren't quite as dominant as most rankings would have you believe, at least in terms of placement. Also, natofone is right. The rankings in the Fowler article seem a bit distorted since they evaluate data back to 1960. If you look at their rankings for 1993-2002, some schools have struggled with placements recently (Indiana, Wisconsin, Johns Hopkins, Syracuse) while others have improved (UCSD, Rochester, WashU, Rutgers, Stony Brook). The Schmidt/Chingos rankings reflect that, too. To my mind, placement and faculty citations are a better way to gauge a program's overall effectiveness than arbitrary rankings (read: US News).

[CrimsonBlue]

On 2/6/2010 at 11:46 AM, polisciguy said:

Don't get me wrong, the schools do definitely matter--but the brightest and best students will for the most part end up getting the top jobs--regardless of which tier 1 program they go to (Michigan for example just hired someone from Emory and has one from WUSTL).

Yes, I understand your stance on the issue and that a few people from non-top institutions still manage to get great jobs in academia. But, for most people, going to Emory will make job hunting inevitably difficult in academia. This is why I didn't even think about applying to non-top-notch schools, just like most of you here.

I am also often surprised by how so many people apply to non-HYPC Ivy-league poli sci programs, thinking that they are REALLY good, not to mention people always confuse politics with political science.

[brouhaha]

Those articles are very interesting, but you all seem to be primarily interested in jobs in academia. While I am considering this, I am also thinking about working for a think tank. Do you think placement would be different in that regard?

[natofone]

Those articles are very interesting, but you all seem to be primarily interested in jobs in academia. While I am considering this, I am also thinking about working for a think tank. Do you think placement would be different in that regard?

I don't believe that those articles include a measure for non-academic work placements. Is it just that think tank work is a backup if you don't get an academic job, or that you specifically want to work for a think tank and are uninterested in academic work?

[curufinwe]

Though, isn't it weird that Chingos paper did not even include NYU and Brown in the rankings?

[readeatsleep]

On 2/6/2010 at 1:09 PM, CrimsonBlue said:

Yes, I understand your stance on the issue and that a few people from non-top institutions still manage to get great jobs in academia. But, for most people, going to Emory will make job hunting inevitably difficult in academia. This is why I didn't even think about applying to non-top-notch schools, just like most of you here.

I am also often surprised by how so many people apply to non-HYPC Ivy-league poli sci programs, thinking that they are REALLY good, not to mention people always confuse politics with political science.

But there are indeed really good schools that aren't ivy league, both in terms of instruction and placement. WUSTL and Northwestern, to name a couple. You should take a serious look at programs without dismissing them as 'not ivy' and therefore not worth your time. Princeton and Yale did not fair very well according to a few of these studies being linked to.

Although I completely agree with respect only applying to study at top notch schools - the job market is nasty and one should not expect to be an exception to general placement trends. I just don't think it's appropriate to refer to this tier as 'HYPC ivy league type' schools.

[natofone]

On 2/6/2010 at 2:02 PM, readeatsleep said:

but there are indeed really good schools that aren't ivy league, both in terms of instruction and placement. WUSTL and Northwestern, to name a few. You should take a serious look at programs without dismissing them as 'not ivy' and therefore not worth your time. Princeton and Yale did not fair very well according to a few of these studies being linked to.

You misread what CrimsonBlue wrote.

[brouhaha]

I don't believe that those articles include a measure for non-academic work placements. Is it just that think tank work is a backup if you don't get an academic job, or that you specifically want to work for a think tank and are uninterested in academic work?

Both appeal to me for different reasons and I believe I would be happy in either position.

[interista]

Maybe this is just limited to political theory, but it seems to me that subfield strength is infinitely more important than overall departmental strength in terms of placement. For instance, a graduate of Chicago is much more likely to get a job teaching theory at a top program than a graduate of Michigan or Stanford. If I were applying to study theory, I would choose Hopkins over MIT in a heartbeat, even though MIT is a "top 10" program and Hopkins is ranked 39th by US News.

[ridgey]

I am also often surprised by how so many people apply to non-HYPC Ivy-league poli sci programs, thinking that they are REALLY good, not to mention people always confuse politics with political science.

I don't interact with US poli-sci people beyond this board, so you're probably drawing on a broader range of experience. But, here at least, the discussion always seems to centre on which programmes are good for a given research agenda or methdological approach far more than Fancy U is good because it's Fancy U.

For myself, I aplied to three Ivy programmes in 2 different disciplines. (I think so, anyway - I actually couldn't name with any confidence all the memebers of the Ivy League). All of these applications were made on the basis of a match of my research interests with those of faculty and with the programme overall. I am fully aware that Penn is not particularly well ranked in poli sci nor Yale in public health. My way of characterising "good" programmes is very much centred on fit.

Of course, I will have the luxury of approaching the job market in more than one discipline, and there are considerable opportunities in the NGO sector for me as well. If I were limited to an academic career in poli sci, brand name might be more of a factor in my decision making.