PoliSci 2007-2008 Cycle

[Canadianpolsci]

Overall rankings are meaningless anyway, because no one studies "political science" in general at the graduate level. No one is placed or published based on overall rankings, and they don't really do anything but help lay people get an idea of which schools are the leaders.

You know, I am actually going to disagree with this. I get your point, but I think that no matter how passionate you are about sub-field X, it is never clear, professionally and personally, what will happen down the line.

So I think that hedging one's bets sometimes and thinking about the overall school, including it's overall reputation, is legitimate.

[hoopz]

i dont know about some of you kids, but id be pretty happy to be accepted to my lowest ranked school right now... and if i knew this i would have applied to others much lower!

[AllFiredUp]

How do I know you are not Michael Sandel himself, "AllFiredUp"?

If you are: I would be reasonable fired up as well.

If I were a Harvard prof., I'd probably be HM with this handle. All Fired Up with my manliness!

[rising_star]

Frankly, sorry to say, job placement from "everything else" -- below top 15, aprox. -- is not good. So you are training to get a PhD, that is, to teach, but you will not likely get to do what you are trained for -- at least, not at a very attractive place.

I think there's a flaw in this logic. The idea of a "very attractive place" varies from one person to the next. Some jobs you could get less consideration for because you went to a big-name school and they think you'd use the job as a jumping-off point to get somewhere else. Sometimes your priorities change during and after the PhD. For instance, you may think you want to be at a R1 school teaching a 2-2 load and on the publish or perish track then realize that you'd be happier doing more teaching or more research, which would necessitate a change in what you think of as the right place for you. It's unfair to assume that everyone pursuing a PhD wants to teach at one of the top 10 programs in the field. If that is how everyone feels here, I'll slink away from the polisci forum with the final thought that that's completely unrealistic (like every Div I-A basketball player thinking they'll get to play in the NBA at the end of their collegiate career). Let's hope not everyone aspires to the exact same thing, otherwise there won't be anyone to teach political science at the state schools and "no names" so many of you have mentioned over in the undergrad stats topic.

[Canadianpolsci]

I think there's a flaw in this logic. The idea of a "very attractive place" varies from one person to the next. Some jobs you could get less consideration for because you went to a big-name school and they think you'd use the job as a jumping-off point to get somewhere else. Sometimes your priorities change during and after the PhD. For instance, you may think you want to be at a R1 school teaching a 2-2 load and on the publish or perish track then realize that you'd be happier doing more teaching or more research, which would necessitate a change in what you think of as the right place for you. It's unfair to assume that everyone pursuing a PhD wants to teach at one of the top 10 programs in the field. If that is how everyone feels here, I'll slink away from the polisci forum with the final thought that that's completely unrealistic (like every Div I-A basketball player thinking they'll get to play in the NBA at the end of their collegiate career). Let's hope not everyone aspires to the exact same thing, otherwise there won't be anyone to teach political science at the state schools and "no names" so many of you have mentioned over in the undergrad stats topic.

Sure you are right it varies. But a very large number of PhD don't get jobs and leave academia for the professional world. I think that, and not the rank of the school for those who do get jobs, is crucial. And it is a stark problem.

[crazypoligirl]

Does anyone have any idea of Brown's placement history for those focusing on American politics? I would appreciate any articles, links, etc. I was going to email the department but thought that I would ask here first! Thanks guys!

[Canadianpolsci]

Does anyone have any idea of Brown's placement history for those focusing on American politics? I would appreciate any articles, links, etc. I was going to email the department but thought that I would ask here first! Thanks guys!

Brown is a small department and is currently in the process of rebuilding, with special emphasis on international relations and policy studies (this would include some American politics).

Brown also now has the Program in Political Theory, which is heavily focused on its post-doctoral program.

I think frankly Brown's placement is so-so to OK, at best. I think it may improve alot in the next 5 years. It still carries some weight that it is an ivy school, but it is not quite at the top of the pile in political science generally nor in any of the sub-fields I do not think.

It would help to know what your other options are.

For overall quality of life and quality of school Brown is very nice -- that is something to take into account as well.

I also know of the director of the program in Political Theory, John Thomasi, is also is interesting in American political thought and some quantitative themes and topics in American politics (for example, Church-State relations, including the politics of school choice, welfare programs and Churches, other such themes). He is a very serious program builder, very friendly man, and I would really recommend you speak with him if you are going to visit, even if American politics not pol. theory is your thing.

Finally I would add something else about Brown that may or may not interest you: Brown is getting an influx of big money from former donors who are conservative in bent and are unhappy with how extraordinary liberal Brown has become (in comparison even to other ivy leagues, I mean). This is not my personal opinion (personally I don't know that much about Brown relative to other top private schools, etc.) But this is the word on the street regarding Brown alumni big-time gifts. Some of that money is going to political science and international affairs projects and professorships, including to the policy center there. This does not mean that these new centers and people are all right wing or anything -- indeed some of them are probably more middle to right wing, others are economic or policy moderates from Brookings, etc. Overall, the money is being used to bring in some centrists -- that is my feeling. Anyway, if you're open minded, you can benefit from this because it simply means Brown will have more money and more breadth and hopefully a better reputation.

Hope that helps.

[JordanJames]

Another comment about rankings: because people (including myself) do like looking at lists, numbers, etc., rankings are popular. But they are not like ranking of computer monitors, for at least one simple reason: you cannot just buy the monitor you like. They are also not like law school rankings as they cannot be easily tied to earnings, etc.

In short, graduate education is not easily quantifiable.

The single most important element of the rankings is obviously tiers. In each sub-field there are clearly a top-top-tier, a top-tier, and everything else.

Frankly, sorry to say, job placement from "everything else" -- below top 15, aprox. -- is not good. So you are training to get a PhD, that is, to teach, but you will not likely get to do what you are trained for -- at least, not at a very attractive place.

At this stage in the admissions cycle is ANYONE using rankings, detailed rankings, to determine their choices? When you can review professors in a program, placement (including by subfield), funding, and last but not least, whether you actually GOT IN, what are these rankings good for?

I suppose the only thing they are good for is convincing you that a school you like is just ranked TOO LOW to make it reasonable to choose it over better known schools. Obviously it is not the other way around. No one is finding on the rankings: 'Oh wow, Michigan doesn't suck! And hey, Yale is top ten!'

No, rankings are cheering us up, or reminding us of what we likely already know.

I agree with you, general rankings are only good for telling you that a school is ranked to low to choose over another school. Also, I agree that placement rankings (I only know of 1) are probably the only rankings anybody should consider. The other rankings are too subjective and broad, telling you nothing about how well the school competes on the academic job market. Some schools don't break down their placements, and knowing how they've competed in general against other schools helps. Also, it's odd, but amazingly, at around 15 I noticed a significant drop off in the placement records at schools a while back on the Chingos rankings, so your point is definently valid. But, I don't think that it means that students at schools lower than 15 won't be placed anywhere (or anywhere attractive), I just think they have to prove that they are capable of high level research. Obviously the students at the top schools are more likely to be the top students in the nation, and will therefore find the best placements because there is a fair presumption in their favor. Those of us not going to the top schools aren't as likely to find a great academic post afterwards, but there still is a good possibility of finding an acceptable tt track job.

I really hope that people reading this aren't offended, because I'm one of the people who won't be going to one of the top 15 schools. But, what canadianpolisci is saying is true to a certain extent, and we just have to deal with it. I thought about it this weekend, and having spent the last 7 years in school (undergrad and law school) not studying at all, not studying for the GRE, and not doing any independant research, what gives me the balls to say I deserve to be in a top school or that I should have an equal opportunity to to be placed. Some of us are smart enough, some of us aren't. Some of us have worked hard enough, some of us haven't. But most of us who didn't get in at a top school (no matter how brilliant we may be) didn't deserve to get in at the top schools for some reason, and don't deserve to have an equal opportunity at landing the top jobs. So yes, if you're not at a top 15 school you probably shouldn't be, and if you don't go to a top 15 school, then you're going to have to actually do somethig to prove that you deserve that tt position over the students that did go to those schools.

I don't place much weight on the U.S. News rankings because I'm assuming most of the people that have to fill out the surveys spend under 5 minutes thinking about it or hand them off to their assistant (if they are spending time on it, I would believe they are doing it strategically to make sure they are ranked higher than competing schools).

Anyways, when I posted the rankings and the thing my friend made I should have probably noted that I think it's all b.s., but I figured some people might like to use them.

[Canadianpolsci]

I agree with you, general rankings are only good for telling you that a school is ranked to low to choose over another school. Also, I agree that placement rankings (I only know of 1) are probably the only rankings anybody should consider. The other rankings are too subjective and broad, telling you nothing about how well the school competes on the academic job market.

Can you post, or link to, these placement rankings (at Chingos?)?

Also, Ammar I am actually less dour than you. I do not think people at top 15 schools usually truly "deserve" to be there. I don't wish to make any such generalization I find it unhelpful. I was not talking about justice but about facts, and the fact is getting tenure track positions is a blood sport. But still, excuse me for saying so, but I love to learn that's the main motive in all this, and the shrewd prudent pondering is really just out of fear that long term, tenure is the best way to keep on truckin and keep on learning -- but that it's so tough to get (heck, it's a job for life).

[crazypoligirl]

Brown is a small department and is currently in the process of rebuilding, with special emphasis on international relations and policy studies (this would include some American politics).

Brown also now has the Program in Political Theory, which is heavily focused on its post-doctoral program.

I think frankly Brown's placement is so-so to OK, at best. I think it may improve alot in the next 5 years. It still carries some weight that it is an ivy school, but it is not quite at the top of the pile in political science generally nor in any of the sub-fields I do not think.

It would help to know what your other options are.

For overall quality of life and quality of school Brown is very nice -- that is something to take into account as well.

I also know of the director of the program in Political Theory, John Thomasi, is also is interesting in American political thought and some quantitative themes and topics in American politics (for example, Church-State relations, including the politics of school choice, welfare programs and Churches, other such themes). He is a very serious program builder, very friendly man, and I would really recommend you speak with him if you are going to visit, even if American politics not pol. theory is your thing.

Finally I would add something else about Brown that may or may not interest you: Brown is getting an influx of big money from former donors who are conservative in bent and are unhappy with how extraordinary liberal Brown has become (in comparison even to other ivy leagues, I mean). This is not my personal opinion (personally I don't know that much about Brown relative to other top private schools, etc.) But this is the word on the street regarding Brown alumni big-time gifts. Some of that money is going to political science and international affairs projects and professorships, including to the policy center there. This does not mean that these new centers and people are all right wing or anything -- indeed some of them are probably more middle to right wing, others are economic or policy moderates from Brookings, etc. Overall, the money is being used to bring in some centrists -- that is my feeling. Anyway, if you're open minded, you can benefit from this because it simply means Brown will have more money and more breadth and hopefully a better reputation.

Hope that helps.

Thanks for your thoughts!

[sundaymonday]

I would say this is true in some cases, but I know that one of the students who was admitted to the top dept. that I work in was granted admission because his grandfather and father were very well-known in the field, so they assumed that this student "knew how to move." Pretty gross, huh? Sometimes it's not always about who deserves to get in and who works the hardest. Also, my scores and record aren't much different from most people applying to decent programs, but I believe I got into the ones that I did because I took a personal interest in the people I wanted to work with. When I didn't get called for an interview, I called myself and made appointments with them, or I saw them during their office hours. I read their work and prepared questions before meeting them, etc. I don't want to downplay all the hard work that I put into my academic career thus far, because I did work hard, but sometimes finding ways to differentiate yourself from the 300 other applicants can be just as important.

[sundaymonday]

I agree with you, general rankings are only good for telling you that a school is ranked to low to choose over another school. Also, I agree that placement rankings (I only know of 1) are probably the only rankings anybody should consider. The other rankings are too subjective and broad, telling you nothing about how well the school competes on the academic job market. Some schools don't break down their placements, and knowing how they've competed in general against other schools helps. Also, it's odd, but amazingly, at around 15 I noticed a significant drop off in the placement records at schools a while back on the Chingos rankings, so your point is definently valid. But, I don't think that it means that students at schools lower than 15 won't be placed anywhere (or anywhere attractive), I just think they have to prove that they are capable of high level research. Obviously the students at the top schools are more likely to be the top students in the nation, and will therefore find the best placements because there is a fair presumption in their favor. Those of us not going to the top schools aren't as likely to find a great academic post afterwards, but there still is a good possibility of finding an acceptable tt track job.

I really hope that people reading this aren't offended, because I'm one of the people who won't be going to one of the top 15 schools. But, what canadianpolisci is saying is true to a certain extent, and we just have to deal with it. I thought about it this weekend, and having spent the last 7 years in school (undergrad and law school) not studying at all, not studying for the GRE, and not doing any independant research, what gives me the balls to say I deserve to be in a top school or that I should have an equal opportunity to to be placed. Some of us are smart enough, some of us aren't. Some of us have worked hard enough, some of us haven't. But most of us who didn't get in at a top school (no matter how brilliant we may be) didn't deserve to get in at the top schools for some reason, and don't deserve to have an equal opportunity at landing the top jobs. So yes, if you're not at a top 15 school you probably shouldn't be, and if you don't go to a top 15 school, then you're going to have to actually do somethig to prove that you deserve that tt position over the students that did go to those schools.

I don't place much weight on the U.S. News rankings because I'm assuming most of the people that have to fill out the surveys spend under 5 minutes thinking about it or hand them off to their assistant (if they are spending time on it, I would believe they are doing it strategically to make sure they are ranked higher than competing schools).

Anyways, when I posted the rankings and the thing my friend made I should have probably noted that I think it's all b.s., but I figured some people might like to use them.

I would say this is true in some cases, but I know that one of the students who was admitted to the top dept. that I work in was granted admission because his grandfather and father were very well-known in the field, so they assumed that this student "knew how to move." Pretty gross, huh? Sometimes it's not always about who deserves to get in and who works the hardest. Also, my scores and record aren't much different from most people applying to decent programs, but I believe I got into the ones that I did because I took a personal interest in the people I wanted to work with. When I didn't get called for an interview, I called myself and made appointments with them, or I saw them during their office hours. I read their work and prepared questions before meeting them, etc. I don't want to downplay all the hard work that I put into my academic career thus far, because I did work hard, but sometimes finding ways to differentiate yourself from the 300 other applicants can be just as important.

[Canadianpolsci]

Can you post, or link to, these placement rankings (at Chingos?)?

...

Never mind: here is the article in PDF

http://www.gov.harvard.edu/student/chin ... _paper.pdf

[PoliSciWS]

Crazypoligirl: Something I am weighing re: my decision making is where I can get more personal faculty attention. I've been around small and large departments, and far prefer the personal attention of a smaller department. Moreover, the collegial environment was much better among students in the smaller department. Less competition, more genuine interest in one another's research. Also, where will you be able to stand out more? My hunch is that Brown, as a smaller program, and a "rebuilding" ivy, is going to be able to offer you some things that UT-Austin cannot. Not because UT isn't a good program, but because Brown is ivy, has $, and is serious about bolstering its status in the field. If you've got a fully-funded package, Brown offers a lot of plusses.

[Canadianpolsci]

Thanks for your thoughts. As far as my options, at this point I am in at Brown and UT Austin. I am an American politics focus, with an emphasis on racial politics. It seems that both schools have really great programs in this regard. I am particularly interested in African American and Latin American political behavior and participation.

I am really torn at this point, because as you stated Brown offers a great living situation. Really close to Boston and NYC without the ridiculous rent. I was considering the exchange program that they have with JHU, MIT, Harvard, Columbia, etc. It seems like even if the program wasn't able to offer me EVERYTHING, I would have other programs to borrow from. And of course, at the end of the day, Brown IS an Ivy. and it is fully funded, which I am sure is not the case at UT Austin (still haven't received my funding package yet)

UT Austin is higher "ranked" but they aren't able to offer other campuses to compensate for their program weaknesses, which I think is an important aspect of a program. Also, perhaps I am a bit biased because I went private for undergrad, but I think that funding opportunities are far more abundant in the private school world....

These are just my impressions, I am really hoping to get feedback from others, what do you all think?

Got to Brown. Hands down. And work really hard.

Look, you can use a Brown MA to transfer to another program if you in the end cannot locate a great advisor.

Skip Texas, and take advantage of Brown's growth and location. Those are my thoughts.

[sundaymonday]

Thanks for your thoughts. As far as my options, at this point I am in at Brown and UT Austin. I am an American politics focus, with an emphasis on racial politics. It seems that both schools have really great programs in this regard. I am particularly interested in African American and Latin American political behavior and participation.

I am really torn at this point, because as you stated Brown offers a great living situation. Really close to Boston and NYC without the ridiculous rent. I was considering the exchange program that they have with JHU, MIT, Harvard, Columbia, etc. It seems like even if the program wasn't able to offer me EVERYTHING, I would have other programs to borrow from. And of course, at the end of the day, Brown IS an Ivy. and it is fully funded, which I am sure is not the case at UT Austin (still haven't received my funding package yet)

UT Austin is higher "ranked" but they aren't able to offer other campuses to compensate for their program weaknesses, which I think is an important aspect of a program. Also, perhaps I am a bit biased because I went private for undergrad, but I think that funding opportunities are far more abundant in the private school world....

These are just my impressions, I am really hoping to get feedback from others, what do you all think?

Have you checked grad placement for either of these institutions? Not having investigated Austin's, and if it's between these two schools, my vote would be for Brown. They have an excellent package, and guaranteed summer $$ if you're fully funded.

[crazypoligirl]

Thanks everybody, you all are reaffirming my gut instinct. I am still waiting on a couple more programs, but seeing as Brown was my top pick to begin with (aside from UChicago), dare I say it??????.....PROVIDENCE HERE I COME!

[JordanJames]

Can you post, or link to, these placement rankings (at Chingos?)?

Also, Ammar I am actually less dour than you. I do not think people at top 15 schools usually truly "deserve" to be there. I don't wish to make any such generalization I find it unhelpful. I was not talking about justice but about facts, and the fact is getting tenure track positions is a blood sport. But still, excuse me for saying so, but I love to learn that's the main motive in all this, and the shrewd prudent pondering is really just out of fear that long term, tenure is the best way to keep on truckin and keep on learning -- but that it's so tough to get (heck, it's a job for life).

Here's the site: http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~chin ... _paper.pdf

Also, I have to disagree with you. There is a formula to making sure you get into a top school and we all know it. You may not get in at all of the schools, but you will get into at least 1 of them if you go to a good undergrad, do very well in your classes, score well on the GRE, and actively pursue research opportunities which will ultimately lead to good recommendations. The people at the best schools may not be the smartest or the most original, but they have taken the steps that show they are willing to and at least somewhat able to be a productive researcher. Some may not deserve to be there and are there, and some deserve to be there but aren't. But it is more likely that the person at Harvard is a better student than the person at Florida State. So like I said, I believe that the presumption in favor of the people at the top schools is a fair one. The formula for rebutting that presumption is also known to all of us: Impress your faculty and do some original research. that contributes substantially to the field. I don't think people at schools that aren't in the top 15 can't get jobs, I just think they have to do a little more work to find those jobs and make up for the deficiencies in their record or past performance that led to them not being accepted at the top schools.

And, as I've said before, these schools aren't infallible; mistakes are made, but they still are more often right than wrong. My comments do make a generalization, but I feel that it is a useful and accurate one. Those of us not accepted at the top schools shouldn't complain about the situation we're in or get angry, and instead just pay attention to the reality of the situation at hand: Those of us who are considering schools that aren't top schools have to realize that in order to succeed and get that tenure track job we'll have to be willing to do what it takes to rebut the presumption against us. I felt it was neccesary to state why I believe that this presumption against us isn't unfair.

I know that you were talking about the reality of the job market, but I felt like the tangent I went on was somewhat relavent.

Anyways, I hope I didn't depress or piss off anyone.

[JordanJames]

I would say this is true in some cases, but I know that one of the students who was admitted to the top dept. that I work in was granted admission because his grandfather and father were very well-known in the field, so they assumed that this student "knew how to move." Pretty gross, huh? Sometimes it's not always about who deserves to get in and who works the hardest. Also, my scores and record aren't much different from most people applying to decent programs, but I believe I got into the ones that I did because I took a personal interest in the people I wanted to work with. When I didn't get called for an interview, I called myself and made appointments with them, or I saw them during their office hours. I read their work and prepared questions before meeting them, etc. I don't want to downplay all the hard work that I put into my academic career thus far, because I did work hard, but sometimes finding ways to differentiate yourself from the 300 other applicants can be just as important.

Yeah, then there is that situation, and that is very unfair.

But I'd like to note that your taking a personal interest in the research of people you would like to work with proves something to them that maybe some of us didn't. That is work that some weren't as willing to do.

[zephyr]

placement is probably the best measure of a program's success. however, placement for what? general poli sci dept. placement is okay, but only if you go to a program that is about the same in all subfields. you really need to see how a department places in terms of subfield. then, there's another issue, program size. even the best programs (well, maybe not stanford, their placement record is sick) don't always place everyone in "top 15" departments every year. but, because many of them are bigger, they'll probably place at least a few in such places, while smaller departments may only have 2 people finish a year who both may place pretty similar to the majority of a top department's class. also, what about subspecialty? if your department excels in American election issues, Asia-Pacific rim trade policy, or international security, that should mean more than just having a top American, Comparative, or IR subfield. finally, who's at your department and what are trends like? it might be better to go to a department generally thought of in the 20's that's rising, versus one in the teens that's falling. also, If you get to work with 2 or 3 really top people who everyone recognizes as such, that's going to be really important. remember, some top professors chose good departments that may be outside the top 15 for a variety of reasons - geography (spouse's job, family, love the area, etc.), mix of faculty (they just might like the folks in the department much more), academic freedom (they can produce what they want at their own pace). so, basically, i think there are a lot of factors in play regarding placement. subfield placement, subspecialty placement, professors you get to work with...these all matter big time. i mean, if you get to go to a top 15 department for your subfield/subspecialty, you're probably in better shape come placement time. but what comprises a top 15 place is a bit more complex than most rankings seem to indicate. and i think its very very hard to really do a study that tells you all this.

[nina gorman]

Thanks poster, Sundaymonday for the CUNy info. I checked an e-mail address I don't use much and tforgot I had given them -here I found one from a Jessica Landis at CUNY saying that I too am on the waitlist (e-mail came in on 2/25). Do you know anything about their waitlist? Thanks. nina

[Peter]

Ammar--- I'm going to have to disagree with you 100%. As I've mentioned on this forum before, being awarded placement at a top (insert number here) school should neither be taken as an affirmation nor a rejection of your abilities/past performance/potential/etc.

What you are forgetting are two very important pieces of information (at least--these are just what come to mind right now):

1. How well does your topic fit with the profs at the top X schools?

2. What is the name of the school/schools you attended for your BA/MA? (note: your term "good undergraduate" generally means expensive--something many people will opt out of for a cheaper school. The prof's may be just as intelligent, the research you perform just as good, etc., but the name is they key...)

Neither of these two factors have anything to do with your objective ability/qualifications/etc.

For example, my topic is extremely different. In fact, I consider myself fortunate to have been admitted ANYWHERE as I was, whereas I had to fight to even have my topic seen as belonging in the field of political science. There are no full time professors in the entire country which study my topic at any top 25 schools. Because I have been told that these forums are browsed by profs and I have yet to finish w/notifications, etc., I'll leave this at that. The point, however, is that if your topic is unusual it will be a hard sell no matter what your numbers are.

As for the name of your school--I'm convinced that it is more important than most other aspects of your application. You get serious points for going to a big name school. And I think most people know they're buying the LOR with their tuition. Unknown state schools, while they can get you into a top 25, will be an extreme hurdle if you're looking for a top-10 PhD. But that simply means you opted not to take out massive loans or take loads of money from your parents--it doesn't mean you're a less effective researcher/scholar/academic/you name it.

[JordanJames]

Ammar--- I'm going to have to disagree with you 100%. As I've mentioned on this forum before, being awarded placement at a top (insert number here) school should neither be taken as an affirmation nor a rejection of your abilities/past performance/potential/etc.

What you are forgetting are two very important pieces of information (at least--these are just what come to mind right now):

1. How well does your topic fit with the profs at the top X schools?

2. What is the name of the school/schools you attended for your BA/MA? (note: your term "good undergraduate" generally means expensive--something many people will opt out of for a cheaper school. The prof's may be just as intelligent, the research you perform just as good, etc., but the name is they key...)

Neither of these two factors have anything to do with your objective ability/qualifications/etc.

For example, my topic is extremely different. In fact, I consider myself fortunate to have been admitted ANYWHERE as I was, whereas I had to fight to even have my topic seen as belonging in the field of political science. There are no full time professors in the entire country which study my topic at any top 25 schools. Because I have been told that these forums are browsed by profs and I have yet to finish w/notifications, etc., I'll leave this at that. The point, however, is that if your topic is unusual it will be a hard sell no matter what your numbers are.

As for the name of your school--I'm convinced that it is more important than most other aspects of your application. You get serious points for going to a big name school. And I think most people know they're buying the LOR with their tuition. Unknown state schools, while they can get you into a top 25, will be an extreme hurdle if you're looking for a top-10 PhD. But that simply means you opted not to take out massive loans or take loads of money from your parents--it doesn't mean you're a less effective researcher/scholar/academic/you name it.[/quote/]

I think a circumstance like yours is fairly unusual, and in that situation, you're probably right. But, many of the people at top state schools around the country are doing wonderful research. When I say a good school, I don't think that necessarily means Harvard or Yale, but also Michigan, Illinois, Texas, Wisconsin, Berkley, UCLA, Washingon, Rutgers, Florida and the many state schools with good reputations. Also, there are good schools (not great) that give out substantial amounts of financial aid. Looking at some of the CVs at top schools, there seem to be a lot of grad students at Ivy-ish schools without Ivy League BAs. If you go to the top state school in your state, you still have a great chance of being accepted at a very good graduate school if you get the grades and do everything else you need to do.

And yes, there are people who get in because of their connections, but most get in because they deserve to get in. In the end, all I'm saying is that lets give these people who get in at the top schools their due. They weren't chosen at random, they're not just lucky, they haven't just been handed a tenure track position in the future because their application smelled nicer, they worked for what they have and most of them deserve it. That also means that most of the rest of us weren't just unlucky.

I think I'm just as capable as anybody, and I think that I will be successful in grad school, so I'm not putting myself and the others like me down. I'm just saying we can't attribue our acceptances and rejections merely to luck. While there is an element of luck, most of us end up where our records place us.

By the way, if profs and adcoms really do read these posts, I'm screwed.

Also, I haven't heard back from the majority of my schools, so if I do get in at one of these schools, disregard everything I've said and go back to the theory that they're just drawing names from a hat.

[rtrm]

One bit about Chingos' et. al. placement-based rankings:

Some professors harshly criticized their method because the rankings were based only on placement in PhD granting institutions. The critics questioned why placement in prestigious Liberal Arts Colleges or top Masters-olny universities was not included in the mix.

I do think that this is a fair critique. If upon finishing my PhD I get a good job offer from a top ranked Liberal Arts College such as, for example, Amherst College, why should my placement not be consider to be as good as being placed in any other PhD granting institution?

I personally would love to find a job in a PhD granting department but wouldn't turn down a good offer from non-PhD programs.

[Canadianpolsci]

One bit about Chingos' et. al. placement-based rankings:

Some professors harshly criticized their method because the rankings were based only on placement in PhD granting institutions. The critics questioned why placement in prestigious Liberal Arts Colleges or top Masters-olny universities was not included in the mix.

I do think that this is a fair critique. If upon finishing my PhD I get a good job offer from a top ranked Liberal Arts College such as, for example, Amherst College, why should my placement not be consider to be as good as being placed in any other PhD granting institution?

I personally would love to find a job in a PhD granting department but wouldn't turn down a good offer from non-PhD programs.

Actually they had a very good reason for excluding liberal arts colleges. For statistical reasons I cannot explain, they needed to deal with schools that were both granting and hiring PhDs. This allowed them to weigh the data as a network data pool or some such fancy thing.

They have the matrices and equations in the paper, etc.

Also, honesty, are there like super-star schools that specialize in feeding liberal arts collleges? Do people really think that the school rankings would change THAT much?

Also, everyone knows that Amherst is haunted by poltergeist so you would not want to teach there. And also, after Amherst's weird binge-drinking neo-socialist arson accident...etc...all I am saying is, Amherst has actually reported 8-9 cases of cannibalization of assistant professors. It's the tenure process thing. To make associate you must really digest the competition.