Applying to a methodologically divided department

[OnlyGodandAdComsCanJudgeMe]

Hi everyone:

I was hoping to get some opinions on the best strategy when applying to methodologically divided departments. After speaking with a current PhD student, he seemed to imply that the department is split and a lot of your research will depend on the professors you get grouped in with from the beginning (this is a top program). He went as far as to suggest there was an underlying resentment/hostility between faculty, which makes me second guess whether or not that's the place I want to be -- but I plan to apply regardless and I've also heard that other programs may have similar atmospheres. (I guess you don't truly know until you're there)

With that said, as an applicant, how important is it to be aware of these methodological splits? Can some of you help me navigate what types of splits there frequently are in programs and how that may influence the way an admissions committee views my application?

If it matters, I'll be applying to IR subfield.

Thanks for your help.

 

[cowgirlsdontcry]

4 minutes ago, OnlyGodandAdComsCanJudgeMe said:

Hi everyone:

I was hoping to get some opinions on the best strategy when applying to methodologically divided departments. After speaking with a current PhD student, he seemed to imply that the department is split and a lot of your research will depend on the professors you get grouped in with from the beginning (this is a top program). He went as far as to suggest there was an underlying resentment/hostility between faculty, which makes me second guess whether or not that's the place I want to be -- but I plan to apply regardless and I've also heard that other programs may have similar atmospheres. (I guess you don't truly know until you're there)

With that said, as an applicant, how important is it to be aware of these methodological splits? Can some of you help me navigate what types of splits there frequently are in programs and how that may influence the way an admissions committee views my application?

If it matters, I'll be applying to IR subfield.

Thanks for your help.

 

If there is an atmosphere of underlying resentment/hostility among faculty, it is going to create situations that make a gaining PhD untenable. I'm not going to mention names, but there is a well-known, highly-rated private university that did not approve an English dissertation for at least 5 years because of just such in-fighting. What a nightmare to become embroiled in! 

[OnlyGodandAdComsCanJudgeMe]

7 minutes ago, cowgirlsdontcry said:

If there is an atmosphere of underlying resentment/hostility among faculty, it is going to create situations that make a gaining PhD untenable. I'm not going to mention names, but there is a well-known, highly-rated private university that did not approve an English dissertation for at least 5 years because of just such in-fighting. What a nightmare to become embroiled in! 

I hear you and completely agree. If it's something I can see beforehand, I plan to do my best to avoid that situation altogether. Ultimately though, I'd like to understand the methodological differences. Looking in from the outside, I can understand some might prefer quantitative vs. qualitative analysis, some might have a stronger focus on formal models, but I want to know if there are specific schools of thought which can be applied? I'm just looking for some guidance in that regard so I can better distinguish it myself based on the faculty research interests, publications, etc. as I look into programs.

[guest56436]

There are divisions within all departments, not just methodological. I don't think it should be something that drives your decision about applying but it may be something to consider before accepting. Then again, it's extremely difficult to get a handle about these things from an outsider perspective.

Methodologically speaking, the only thing that should be driving your decision about applying is whether or not there are classes and professors that can training you in the X method you want to focus on. I.e. don't apply to a department that does have any formal theorists if that's what you want to do.

[guest56436]

1 hour ago, OnlyGodandAdComsCanJudgeMe said:

I hear you and completely agree. If it's something I can see beforehand, I plan to do my best to avoid that situation altogether. Ultimately though, I'd like to understand the methodological differences. Looking in from the outside, I can understand some might prefer quantitative vs. qualitative analysis, some might have a stronger focus on formal models, but I want to know if there are specific schools of thought which can be applied? I'm just looking for some guidance in that regard so I can better distinguish it myself based on the faculty research interests, publications, etc. as I look into programs.

These are broad generalizations.

Formal: Rochester, NYU, Stanford, Chicago.

Quant: Michigan, Stanford, MIT, Princeton.

There aren't many pure qualitative departments left. Most departments, including the ones above, have a mix. Some favor some types over others.

As far as I am concerned, everyone should be shooting for mixed methods (whether that is a combination of qual, formal, or quant). What should be driving you is what do I really want to focus on (and to be clear these categories, especially quant and qual can be broken down) and are my POIs doing that kind of work? Can I form a committee there that has people familiar with my specializations? Are there courses offered that are going to allow me to learn those skills?

Bottom line is that most top programs you will be able to get the bare minimum at the very least and some will be stronger in certain things than others. This isn't true at lower ranked departments though.

Edited September 27, 2017 by Comparativist