Advice from an actual PhD (redux)

[soulgroove]

I love the advice and insights given by everyone here. Thanks so much.

Just a question for The Realist and others who have insights:

I'm embarking on a MPhil in Comparative Government in Oxford in Oct 2010.

How does a DPhil from Oxford compare to the Top 10/20/25 programmes that everyone seems to be tossing around?

In other words, can the advice about job placement with a PhD from Top 10/20/25 department be extrapolated to the British political science system (which includes Oxford)?

What about the Canadian schools? UofT and McGill?

[The Realist]

I love the advice and insights given by everyone here. Thanks so much.

Just a question for The Realist and others who have insights:

I'm embarking on a MPhil in Comparative Government in Oxford in Oct 2010.

How does a DPhil from Oxford compare to the Top 10/20/25 programmes that everyone seems to be tossing around?

In other words, can the advice about job placement with a PhD from Top 10/20/25 department be extrapolated to the British political science system (which includes Oxford)?

What about the Canadian schools? UofT and McGill?

This is a really difficult question. Are you looking to get a job in the United States? Because if so, British (and European more broadly) PhDs are on the whole not worth a lot. The exceptions are Oxford and Essex, but even though these schools can place people in the US, it's pretty rare. The same goes for Canadian PhDs.

Different story if you want a job in Canada or the UK, but I don't know enough about that to comment on it knowledgeably.

[soulgroove]

<br />This is a really difficult question. Are you looking to get a job in the United States? Because if so, British (and European more broadly) PhDs are on the whole not worth a lot. The exceptions are Oxford and Essex, but even though these schools can place people in the US, it's pretty rare. The same goes for Canadian PhDs.<br /><br />Different story if you want a job in Canada or the UK, but I don't know enough about that to comment on it knowledgeably.<br />

<br /><br /><br />

Hi there! Thanks for replying.

I am not necessary looking to get a job solely in the United States. I would be up for anywhere in Europe, Canada, and Asia, provided they are tenure-track and at a good respectable university.

I ask about the marketability and value of the Oxford DPhil in comparison to the Top10/20/25 in the U.S. because upon completion of the 2 year MPhil, I have the choice to spend an extra 2-3 years to complete the DPhil in Oxford, or apply to a Top10/20/25 in the U.S. which entails another 4-5 years.

I'm wondering whether how the opportunity costs would play out.

Any insights greatly appreciated!

[The Realist]

<br /><br /><br />

Hi there! Thanks for replying.

I am not necessary looking to get a job solely in the United States. I would be up for anywhere in Europe, Canada, and Asia, provided they are tenure-track and at a good respectable university.

I ask about the marketability and value of the Oxford DPhil in comparison to the Top10/20/25 in the U.S. because upon completion of the 2 year MPhil, I have the choice to spend an extra 2-3 years to complete the DPhil in Oxford, or apply to a Top10/20/25 in the U.S. which entails another 4-5 years.

I'm wondering whether how the opportunity costs would play out.

Any insights greatly appreciated!

I tend to believe that if you want at all to teach in the US, then the opportunity costs of going back to the US for two more years on the way to the PhD are absolutely worth it.

[curiousgeorge84]

What I meant by socioeconomic was not exactly parental salary. I was coming closer to life story. In the U.S. there are no national standards for education and schools are paid for by property taxes. If you come from a poor community, most likely you'll have a sub-par education. If given the circumstances, you excel and make yourself stand out despite the obstacles, then that should be taken into consideration. I believe in a nationalized school system like they have in Europe. That way, no affirmative action would be needed because everyone gets the same educational opportunities and the SATs could also be eliminated.

Curiousgeorge84- This is why race-based affirmative action was a bad idea to begin with and an even worse idea in this day and age when we have a black president. I'm glad to hear that you're opposed to it although I disagree with socioeconomic affirmative action as well. I'm not, however, opposed to taking one's "life story" into account in college admissions, which in many cases will result in socioeconomic affirmative action. When I say I'm opposed to socioeconomic affirmative action, I mean that I don't think parental salary taken by itself without context should be a considered factor as much as what the applicant has gone through themselves...

[gezzloume]

I love the advice and insights given by everyone here. Thanks so much.

Just a question for The Realist and others who have insights:

I'm embarking on a MPhil in Comparative Government in Oxford in Oct 2010.

How does a DPhil from Oxford compare to the Top 10/20/25 programmes that everyone seems to be tossing around?

In other words, can the advice about job placement with a PhD from Top 10/20/25 department be extrapolated to the British political science system (which includes Oxford)?

What about the Canadian schools? UofT and McGill?

I know for a fact that Canadian PhD's are the hardest in the world to get so they are technically worth the most. As long as you get a PhD from a top Canadian or US school your set for working in Canada and the US. UK degrees are worth alot in Europe and Canada but not so much in the US, however Masters degrees from Oxford are very popular among some of the most successful people in the world so you can't go wrong (at least in the present) from having one.

I think what's more important than your degree is what you do with it. So take the next couple of years to become as great as you can in your field and you'll do more than alright in life

Peace.

Edited May 3, 2010 by gezzloume

[Penelope Higgins]

Sorry to burst your bubble but this post is not true. You are not "set" for working in the US with a PhD from a top Canadian school. Maybe you should be, but the reality is that those who get PhDs from Canadian universities don't do well on the US job market.

I know for a fact that Canadian PhD's are the hardest in the world to get so they are technically worth the most. As long as you get a PhD from a top Canadian or US school your set for working in Canada and the US. UK degrees are worth alot in Europe and Canada but not so much in the US, however Masters degrees from Oxford are very popular among some of the most successful people in the world so you can't go wrong (at least in the present) from having one.

I think what's more important than your degree is what you do with it. So take the next couple of years to become as great as you can in your field and you'll do more than alright in life

Peace.

[APGradApplicant]

What I meant by socioeconomic was not exactly parental salary. I was coming closer to life story. In the U.S. there are no national standards for education and schools are paid for by property taxes. If you come from a poor community, most likely you'll have a sub-par education. If given the circumstances, you excel and make yourself stand out despite the obstacles, then that should be taken into consideration. I believe in a nationalized school system like they have in Europe. That way, no affirmative action would be needed because everyone gets the same educational opportunities and the SATs could also be eliminated.

I disagree with you on that point. Education is not listed in the enumerated powers of the constitution. The Founders clearly meant for it to be a local issue. This allows parents and teachers in each community to have a say in what they think is the best way to teach their children. Sadly, this is a point that seems to escape politicians in both parties. President Jimmy Carter created the bureaucratic nightmare that we call the Department of Education because he was looking to keep the teachers' unions at bay in light of a left-wing primary challenge from Massachusetts Senator Teddy Kennedy. Ronald Reagan vowed to abolish the department but then backed off of this promise once he saw that it might actually be a tough fight. Most recently, Bush II expanded the DOE's power by nearly doubling its budget and widened its scope by passing No Child Left Behind.

States and municipalities should serve as testing grounds for what works and what doesn't work. Further, we need to develop more charter schools and make sure that parents of smart and motivated children who are in failing schools be given vouchers that they can use to send their child to a stronger private school. Anyhow, the main point I'm making is that one size does NOT fit all and that the federal government sucks at doing anything- whether it's fighting misguided wars in the Middle East, securing our southern border from invasion by illegal immigrants, controlling "morals" by passing regulations on sexual behavior of consenting adults, or trying to "expand" the economy via a heavy-handed central bank that ends up hurting more than helping. As you can probably tell, I'm not a strong partisan for D's or R's. I just wish more people would listen to Ron Paul and realize what a mess politicians in BOTH parties make when they try to solve problems through centralization and intrusion...

Anyhow, I'm now onto a topic completely outside the scope of this thread, but I just couldn't help rant about that, as localized education is a pet issue of mine...

[LeftCoast]

I disagree with you on that point. Education is not listed in the enumerated powers of the constitution. The Founders clearly meant for it to be a local issue. This allows parents and teachers in each community to have a say in what they think is the best way to teach their children. Sadly, this is a point that seems to escape politicians in both parties. President Jimmy Carter created the bureaucratic nightmare that we call the Department of Education because he was looking to keep the teachers' unions at bay in light of a left-wing primary challenge from Massachusetts Senator Teddy Kennedy. Ronald Reagan vowed to abolish the department but then backed off of this promise once he saw that it might actually be a tough fight. Most recently, Bush II expanded the DOE's power by nearly doubling its budget and widened its scope by passing No Child Left Behind.

States and municipalities should serve as testing grounds for what works and what doesn't work. Further, we need to develop more charter schools and make sure that parents of smart and motivated children who are in failing schools be given vouchers that they can use to send their child to a stronger private school. Anyhow, the main point I'm making is that one size does NOT fit all and that the federal government sucks at doing anything- whether it's fighting misguided wars in the Middle East, securing our southern border from invasion by illegal immigrants, controlling "morals" by passing regulations on sexual behavior of consenting adults, or trying to "expand" the economy via a heavy-handed central bank that ends up hurting more than helping. As you can probably tell, I'm not a strong partisan for D's or R's. I just wish more people would listen to Ron Paul and realize what a mess politicians in BOTH parties make when they try to solve problems through centralization and intrusion...

Anyhow, I'm now onto a topic completely outside the scope of this thread, but I just couldn't help rant about that, as localized education is a pet issue of mine...

You should actually talk to an educator about the state of schools, actual results from charter schools etc...before you publicly post about the state of education....

[oasis]

I love the advice and insights given by everyone here. Thanks so much.

Just a question for The Realist and others who have insights:

I'm embarking on a MPhil in Comparative Government in Oxford in Oct 2010.

How does a DPhil from Oxford compare to the Top 10/20/25 programmes that everyone seems to be tossing around?

In other words, can the advice about job placement with a PhD from Top 10/20/25 department be extrapolated to the British political science system (which includes Oxford)?

What about the Canadian schools? UofT and McGill?

Is funding an issue? UK programs don't typically offer funding.

[soulgroove]

Sorry to burst your bubble but this post is not true. You are not "set" for working in the US with a PhD from a top Canadian school. Maybe you should be, but the reality is that those who get PhDs from Canadian universities don't do well on the US job market.

Hrm I wonder why is the case of a Canadian PhD not being competitive on the US job market. Implicit discrimination from anything non-US??

How would a Canadian PhD then fare in places like Asia or Europe?

When referring to Canadian PhD I'm looking at places like University of Toronto, McGill and UBC.

[soulgroove]

Is funding an issue? UK programs don't typically offer funding.

Yes funding is an issue. If Oxford didn't offer me funding to do the DPhil, I won't take it up and would rather take an offer in the US with funding instead. As it is, I'm self-funding the MPhil, pending the outcomes of certain scholarships that I'm applying to.

Seems like no one has any idea about the Europe/Asia job market as compared to the US job market eh?

I believe Europe/Asia has some decent universities with good pol sci departments while although not comparable to Top 10 in the US, they certainly can hold their own in one way or another. I'm thinking universities in UK (Oxford Cambridge LSE) and Asia (Singapore, Hong Kong, Korea, Japan).

Edited May 4, 2010 by soulgroove

[The Realist]

Hrm I wonder why is the case of a Canadian PhD not being competitive on the US job market. Implicit discrimination from anything non-US??

How would a Canadian PhD then fare in places like Asia or Europe?

When referring to Canadian PhD I'm looking at places like University of Toronto, McGill and UBC.

It's a question of the skill-set that most Canadian PhDs bring, which in most cases is not insufficient to compete with the majority of American applicants. Students tend not to have any quantitative training, and the qualitative training they have is usually post-positivist. The consequence is that Canadian PhDs are in competition with American PhDs only for jobs that are open to post-positivist scholars, and there are plenty of such scholars from American universities too...but the American PhDs tend to be better trained in standard qualitative and quantitative approaches as well as post-positivist research methods. So, the room for Canadian PhDs is pretty small.

Canadian PhDs are also rarely prepared properly to navigate the ins and outs of the US job market, so many do not know how it works, and fail to land interviews.

I will add that there are certainly some exceptions to these patterns, but as always, do not plan on being an exception.

My sense is that theorists from Canada can do a bit better.

[gezzloume]

Sorry to burst your bubble but this post is not true. You are not "set" for working in the US with a PhD from a top Canadian school. Maybe you should be, but the reality is that those who get PhDs from Canadian universities don't do well on the US job market.

Well I was speaking from actual statistics that were gathered on behalf of the Canadian government through Statistics Canada. Where did you say you got your information from??

Edited May 4, 2010 by gezzloume

[oasis]

Yes funding is an issue. If Oxford didn't offer me funding to do the DPhil, I won't take it up and would rather take an offer in the US with funding instead. As it is, I'm self-funding the MPhil, pending the outcomes of certain scholarships that I'm applying to.

Seems like no one has any idea about the Europe/Asia job market as compared to the US job market eh?

I believe Europe/Asia has some decent universities with good pol sci departments while although not comparable to Top 10 in the US, they certainly can hold their own in one way or another. I'm thinking universities in UK (Oxford Cambridge LSE) and Asia (Singapore, Hong Kong, Korea, Japan).

If you're willing to self-finance a masters program AND you're unsure about getting funding from Oxford for DPhil later, why Oxford MPhil now and not any of the usual US phd feeder programs like MAPSS, QMSS etc (or some policy masters) which could also get you a job?

Edited May 5, 2010 by oasis

[Penelope Higgins]

Name a single political scientist with a PhD from a Canadian university who has gotten a job at a top-10 US political science department in the last 10 years. I'll be surprised if you can come up with any; shocked if there are more than a handful. Are you sure that your data are specific to the political science discipline?

And where is my information from? Years of search committee work where I see files from Canadian PhDs that are not competitive with those from top American schools.

Well I was speaking from actual statistics that were gathered on behalf of the Canadian government through Statistics Canada. Where did you say you got your information from??

[soulgroove]

If you're willing to self-finance a masters program AND you're unsure about getting funding from Oxford for DPhil later, why Oxford MPhil now and not any of the usual US phd feeder programs like MAPSS, QMSS etc (or some policy masters) which could also get you a job?

By the time I decided to even apply for any Masters program last year, the US datelines were all near or passed and I was nowhere near taking the GRE. So I settled to apply for the MA programs with later datelines and no GRE requirement, UK+Canada (Oxford, LSE, UofT and McGill). All offered places for me without funding. After months of tiptoeing around a decision, finally settled on Oxford.

Eventually, after 2 years, I may not want to do a PhD. I may decide that academics is not for me and just get cracking to work.

Or I may get decide I do want a PhD. So hence me in this forum asking the placement prospects of a Oxford DPhil versus US Top 10/20/30 PhDs.

[HarrisonWinslow]

On 5/4/2010 at 7:18 AM, The Realist said:

It's a question of the skill-set....

My sense is that theorists from Canada can do a bit better.

I think it is true that, at least, Toronto does well with theorists. I cannot say how well they have done recently (hopefully better than most other programs...) but it is known for being an extremely impressive theory department (coupled with the philosophy department, damn!). For theorists looking, I would suggest this website--it was incredibly helpful when writing SoPs--(if you don't know it already): www.politicaltheoryprograms.info

From here it seems Toronto places well in the North America--now, not like HYPetc.--but still well considering the state of theory. The list below illustrates that it is a great degree if you want to stay in Canada, but there is some movement in the US from Toronto (not R1 Unis, more SLACs):

Alberta, BC, UBC, Calgary, Carleton, Georgia State, McGill, Northern Illinois, Ottawa, TAMU, Toronto, UT Austin, WashU, York, AND this year, a Toronto ABD got a VAP at Bowdoin.

So, as always, go to the best program you can. But, unlike other sbfields, keep in mind that theory is less constrained by borders.

[oasis]

By the time I decided to even apply for any Masters program last year, the US datelines were all near or passed and I was nowhere near taking the GRE. So I settled to apply for the MA programs with later datelines and no GRE requirement, UK+Canada (Oxford, LSE, UofT and McGill). All offered places for me without funding. After months of tiptoeing around a decision, finally settled on Oxford.

Eventually, after 2 years, I may not want to do a PhD. I may decide that academics is not for me and just get cracking to work.

Or I may get decide I do want a PhD. So hence me in this forum asking the placement prospects of a Oxford DPhil versus US Top 10/20/30 PhDs.

Since you've already decided on your immediate path (MPhil), there's not much that would be different whether you intend to remain at Oxford or choose a US program, which is a decision 2 years away. In either case you would still have to do well in coursework, get good letters etc, and (assuming that you'll apply everywhere anyway) your eventual decision would be contingent on where you get accepted.

[oasis]

However, if you need advice on the immediate future and are willing to consider doing something else, I wait until scholarship decisions are out. If you get partial funding (enough to make it reasonably affordable, I'd say 50%) to do the MPhil, go for it. Otherwise reconsider. If you're paying big bucks, you should get your money's worth.

[lorinho]

Well I was speaking from actual statistics that were gathered on behalf of the Canadian government through Statistics Canada. Where did you say you got your information from??

Just a friendly tip here: I wouldn't get into it with Penelope. If you look back through old posts you will discover that not only is she one of the most well informed people on this board, she is also an active participant and an important resource. You can do it if you want, but ....

[soulgroove]

However, if you need advice on the immediate future and are willing to consider doing something else, I wait until scholarship decisions are out. If you get partial funding (enough to make it reasonably affordable, I'd say 50%) to do the MPhil, go for it. Otherwise reconsider. If you're paying big bucks, you should get your money's worth.

Thanks for the tip!

The problem is that Oxford (or rather all the programs offered to me) require a decision within a month. The Singaporean postgraduate scholarships that I'm applying for now don't hold their interviews until June/July. So I'm trying to make most of the situation by accepting Oxford first and hoping for the best on the scholarship front by applying for as many as I can. I'm hoping that with a "brand" like Oxford and with my good grades and extra curricular activities record, I can at least get a chance to be interviewed.

One of the problems that I potentially face, is justifying to potential scholarship award boards that sponsoring a person to study "politics" is worthwhile. Singaporeans are typically pragmatic and would rather fund potential engineers, scientists, or at most economics. I believe I would have a hard time justifying the value of a "politics" education vis-a-vis these other disciplines. Convincing myself is easy, but trying to convince others... not so easy.

Does anyone has any good argument justifying and convincing the value of a "politics" postgraduate education to an outsider who has no idea the passions of the world that we envision ourselves in? =))

[gezzloume]

Just a friendly tip here: I wouldn't get into it with Penelope. If you look back through old posts you will discover that not only is she one of the most well informed people on this board, she is also an active participant and an important resource. You can do it if you want, but ....

Well to be fair I was simply replying to the OP. Penelope took it upon herself to attack my knowledge of things. And just because I haven't had alot of posts on the website it doesn't mean I can't be better informed than her--which I am not claiming to be but I don't think you should claim she is more knowledgable than me either when you don't even know me!

Peace. (I actually mean that!)

[Penelope Higgins]

I didn't mean to attack anyone. My apologies. Now let's return to the original subject of the thread.

Well to be fair I was simply replying to the OP. Penelope took it upon herself to attack my knowledge of things. And just because I haven't had alot of posts on the website it doesn't mean I can't be better informed than her--which I am not claiming to be but I don't think you should claim she is more knowledgable than me either when you don't even know me!

Peace. (I actually mean that!)