2017-2018 Application Cycle

[BobBobBob]

3 minutes ago, csantamir said:

Yup. I got rejected. No email, you have to check on the site.

hmm that's weird. Best of luck for your other schools!

[Sheldon2017]

17 minutes ago, csantamir said:

Yup. I got rejected. No email, you have to check on the site.

You mean the application dashboard? Mine says it is under review. I expect a rejection letter though!

Edited January 22, 2018 by Sheldon2017

[csantamir]

24 minutes ago, Sheldon2017 said:

You mean the application dashboard? Mine says it is under review. I expect a rejection letter though!

Yes. Good luck, hope you get in

[csantamir]

29 minutes ago, BobBobBob said:

hmm that's weird. Best of luck for your other schools!

Thank you!

[JMCrawfordNJ]

1 hour ago, styliane said:

My method was googling the author(s) of every interesting paper I've read for the past year and noting where they work.  (that being said: Michigan didn't make my list and probably should have, so like, Mistakes Were Made.)

Well yeah, basically I went through the entire department of each school, looking at their specializations. Any remotely related to what I felt I could benefit from I put into a list. Schools that had enough people that might be a fit, I went through all their CV's and looked for any interesting articles. Schools that had more than one person who had material I felt was engaging and might want to study under made the list. But I started out with schools that were recommended to me by letter writers. So out of the final list of 4 I came up with, two are ones that were recommended to me and thus have a bit more preference than the two that were not.

[ComparativeStreak]

Also claiming a GWU interview! First news of the cycle so I am very relieved. 

[buckinghamubadger]

So University of Washington apparently sent out interview requests today and I didn't get one. I'm wondering if I should be worried. I am unlikely to go to Washington because of funding reasons (living in Seattle on 20K a year does not sound fun), and I already have another offer at Missouri (with roughly the same funding to live in Columbia where my dollars would go about twice as far), but I'm worried that it could be indicative of bad news to come. If I can't get into Washington (where I am a good fit by the way) what chance do I have at Michigan, Princeton and WashU? 

It's probably irrational, as my professors in my MA program stressed to me that there is a lot of randomness in the process, but I can't help but feel a little worried. I'd happily go to Mizzou, but I hope to get other offers and see what else is on the table.

[deutsch1997bw]

5 minutes ago, buckinghamubadger said:

So University of Washington apparently sent out interview requests today and I didn't get one. I'm wondering if I should be worried. I am unlikely to go to Washington because of funding reasons (living in Seattle on 20K a year does not sound fun), and I already have another offer at Missouri (with roughly the same funding to live in Columbia where my dollars would go about twice as far), but I'm worried that it could be indicative of bad news to come. If I can't get into Washington (where I am a good fit by the way) what chance do I have at Michigan, Princeton and WashU? 

It's probably irrational, as my professors in my MA program stressed to me that there is a lot of randomness in the process, but I can't help but feel a little worried. I'd happily go to Mizzou, but I hope to get other offers and see what else is on the table.

I applied to Washington, too, and have yet to hear anything. My understanding (based on info from years past) is that some students aren't interviewed but still get in. It really is random. 

To provide some context, I had an interview with a top 15 program last week. I think it all comes down to fit. 

[Sheldon2017]

7 hours ago, sfirus93 said:

I claim an interview at U of AZ! Still suffering almost total nervous breakdown for longing so long without any parameter or implication for the result though.

Can you please tell us your sub-field? I've also applied to UA but haven't received any email yet.

[arctic_ice]

I've applied to the UW too and up to the moment have not heard from them.

[Albert01]

1 hour ago, Sheldon2017 said:

Can you please tell us your sub-field? I've also applied to UA but haven't received any email yet.

comparative politics and political theory

[Salve]

8 hours ago, sfirus93 said:

Out of mere curiosity, where exactly is this line that separates the 'top 20' from what are not? I mean, if we follow the US news ranking, Emory is #24 and NU is #23 while Upenn, WUSTL, UT and Cornell are #19 but can we affirm that the latter are the better than the former? If we follow the somewhat outdated NRC ranking which is posted on this thread, MIT is #21 while Illinois, Indiana, and TAMU which are out of T20 in US news ranking are in T20. I mean, I understand that Princeton or Yale would be firmly better than the most of the schools except the 'presitigious' few, but where would be the exact line between the 'worthy' school and not?

I was wondering about the same and found an answer on this forum. I think it makes sense (although still disputable):

Realist lists the schools about half page down, and here it is. He also later adds Northwestern to the list.

"It concerns me that so many of you are worried about "top 25" or not, and are apparently unaware of what is unambiguously a top 25 department.

Here's the best that I can tell of unambiguously top 25 political science PhD programs. These will show up in any list of top programs. Some rankings rank based on faculty productivity, which is not what you're looking for here: you want strength or "reputation" of department, a rather amorphous concept. Notice there are fewer than 25. That's because in any list, numbers 20-25 are really up for dispute. I've grouped them by "type" of school. These are in no way ranked, and I may have forgotten one or two.

IVY

Harvard

Yale

Princeton

Columbia

Cornell

 

IVY-LIKE PRIVATE (these schools, curiously, are often very technical)

Stanford

Chicago

MIT

Duke

NYU

Rochester

Emory

WashU

 

CALIFORNIA

Berkeley

UCLA

UCSD

 

BIG STATE

Michigan

Ohio State

Wisconsin

 

Are there very very good schools that I've left off, places like Northwestern, UNC, Binghamton, Houston, Rice, Stony Brook, Irvine, Indiana, Georgetown, Iowa, A+M, FSU, etc.? Absolutely. These schools sometimes do place students in good jobs. But it's rare, and you should understand this. I don't think that you should choose such lower ranked schools over any of unambiguous top 25s above. And I'm sure that you should not pay to go to graduate school in these other departments.

I hope this helps."

 

Also, keep in mind that he posted it back in 2008, but the general idea is still probably valid...

Edited January 23, 2018 by Salve
Add more info

[Coffee114]

Hello Everyone 

Going through the posts here eagerly waiting for results, I noticed some discussion around the colleges' admission portals 

Aren't the results usually emailed or are we notified on our application portal as well ? 

I have had a regular circuit of checking my mail Inbox/Spam as well as result page here.. 

[buckinghamubadger]

@Salve, I advise everyone not to get too caught up in the rankings. There are some great programs that are not listed: UNC, Washington,  Stony Brook, Brandeis, USC, Texas, just to name a few. People still get jobs from these departments. Heck, some people rank Brandeis as low as 80-something, but they still a place higher portion of their PhDs than UCLA. It is important to remember that the rankings are a short cut. It is the burden of the person applying to determine whether or not the program in question meets their standards. Don't let US News dictate what programs are right for you. Do your own research and decide whether or not these programs fit your goals. The hierarchy is real, but it's not the be-all-end-all that some will have you believe. There are people who graduate from Michigan or Harvard who don't get jobs and some people who graduate from North Texas or Illinois-Chicago who do. There's a clear top six. The top 10 or 20 or 25 or 30 seems to be something of a myth. Just make sure you're going somewhere that places people and do the best you can.

Edited January 23, 2018 by buckinghamubadger

[buckinghamubadger]

Two questions that may matter more than where you went to school are: what have you published and what have you taught?

[Albert01]

@buckinghamubadger I agree with you. I think that the reason why so many applicants lean so much on the rankings is that most of the info, including what to look for, is hardly availabe to them; as you mentioned, own research may remedy this, but given the time frame and the requirements that they face, the general tendency to look for the short-cuts is understandable.

 

 

 

[buckinghamubadger]

@sfirus93 I think you're absolutely right, and I think universities should make more of an effort to make this data more readily available. Nonetheless, I think looking at departments placement pages (which are admittedly flawed) will give you a better sense of how good the program is than the US News rankings 

[Salve]

@buckinghamubadger I agree with you. And I wish that rankings weren't as important as they seem to be. Heck, I'm not even from the US, so my university probably ranks 5000th, if not worse. But the post I was referring to did not cite US News rankings. And it was from a professor who sat on committees to hire professors at a non-top10 institution. Of course, it is possible that a person becomes a great scholar attending a formally lower ranked institution. Talent and, more importantly, grit count. But it is an uphill battle in a situation, when the deck is already stacked against us.

[deutsch1997bw]

Any possibility that we might hear from Emory, Texas, UNC, or Northwestern today? There was someone on here who supposedly interviewed at Emory last week, but all of his posts have been deleted from this thread. Weird.

Edited January 23, 2018 by deutsch1997bw

[toad1]

Just to add my two cents... I spoke with one graduate of a CHYMPS program who stressed the absolute need to attend a top 10 or preferably a top 5 program or else you will have a very difficult time getting a decent position after graduation. I then had conversations with three other graduates of "non-elite" schools (read: programs often ranked 20-50). These students said that, while rankings matter to some degree, what matters most is (1) fit and (2) where you will be able to publish your best research (because this is what will get you hired somewhere). Ironically, all three students at the "non-elite" schools have placed objectively better than the student from the CHYMPS school that told me going to one of their programs would be a waste of time and money. My takeaway is that the "only top 5/10/15/20/25/30" mentality is a fraud. Is it going to be easier to get a job coming out of Harvard than some school ranked over 50 if all else is equal? Obviously... but all else is never equal.

[toad1]

Also, I don't completely understand why this conversation about rankings is happening now after we've applied to all of our schools and are waiting to hear back. Everyone needs to just sit back, relax, see where they get in, and if they are fortunate enough to get into more than one program, have the courage to objectively decide for yourself which program is best for you rather than just going off what US News is telling you (which is valid in its own right but also largely arbitrary in the grand scheme of things).

[not@prof_yet]

I'll admit that each professor I talked to (top 20 -- although I realize at this point in the discussion "top 20" may be nonexistent, but I digress) also stressed the importance of going to a top 20 and top 10/6 if possible. I think what makes these schools so strong and important to most people is the networking and spillover effects. Your advisers will know higher quality people and you'll theoretically be surrounded by higher quality faculty and peers, which should lead to higher quality research. I've been thinking it is just as much a signal of your quality as well. I think if you can get into a top 6, you'll probably be just as successful (on average) if you go to any other top 20 or whatever. 

 

I also think I heard that the higher the rank, typically the better your methodological training (especially quant), so that may be something else to consider (but that does not preclude having good ideas to use that training to test).

 

Maybe the best idea would be to go to the school where you think you have the best chance of being the top student (therefore you get the most funding and most attention from the best faculty). But I'm not sure...just talking and thinking.

 

 

[deutsch1997bw]

Anyone claiming the Emory admit?

[Hamb]

23 minutes ago, toad1 said:

Also, I don't completely understand why this conversation about rankings is happening now after we've applied to all of our schools and are waiting to hear back. Everyone needs to just sit back, relax, see where they get in, and if they are fortunate enough to get into more than one program, have the courage to objectively decide for yourself which program is best for you rather than just going off what US News is telling you (which is valid in its own right but also largely arbitrary in the grand scheme of things).

I think it's happening now because we're all playing through different scenarios in our head while we sit uncomfortably waiting to hear back. What if I get into these 3 schools? What about these other 2? I like x city more than y city, but the school in x is ranked 11 places lower than y. What if this other combo of schools lets me in?  How much should the work of Professor A mean to me over Professor B compared to the rankings?

It's natural at this point to gauge potential options, at least for me this type of discussion actually helps keep me sane. I'm jealous of those of you who can actually relax and not think about it though!

 

[StrengthandHonor]

I think the rankings issue is  still in-play, as many (hopefully, all) of you will be choosing Ph.D. programs to attend. That being said, here are a few thoughts:

1. Productivity matters. You will likely get a job based on your publications and the quality of your dissertation (as well as teaching effectiveness). So prestige/program quality makes a huge difference in the quality of your methodological training, in the quality of your peers, and the faculty around you. That being said, I have friends in CHYMPS programs that have "famous" advisors who hardly give them the time of day. Go to the department that you believe will enable you to write the best damn dissertation you possibly can. 

2. Letters of recommendation/connections from faculty members will be important. This is the same reason that students from higher ranked schools often do better in graduate school admissions. If you are choosing between two college seniors/two newly minted Ph.D.'s with similar profiles, you will (in that high noise, low signal environment) prefer the one who is recommended by a scholar you know, or whose work you know to be of high quality. So it's helpful to attend a program with well-connected, well-respected faculty. That being said, if you do truly excellent work at a lower ranked program, you can likely find at least one recommendation outside of your institution. 

3. Productivity is actually everything. Productivity is also affected by more things than we tend to think. Your environment and your happiness will affect the quality of your work. A student from Princeton may have a leg up, but if I'm happier living where I live and he hates living in NJ, then I'm going to produce better work, and I will take his job. So don't consign yourself to miserable living situations for the sake of rank. Be prepared to make lifestyle choices because few graduate programs are well-payed, but just be aware of the situation. If you have Seasonal Affective Disorder, you probably will not work up to your potential in Chicago. If the stipend is unreasonably low compared to cost of living, and you have to spend 5-7 years eating ramen in an unheated apartment, you probably won't do very good work either. 

So yeah. tl;dr, more than rankings, focus on what universities will give you the best training and the best shot at producing good scholarship. That is correlated (but not tightly) with the USNWR rankings.