balderdash

Congrats from another (lurking!) old-timer. Also, Wisco admits, feel free to PM me any questions.

Dunno about sage-like, but I am indeed hirsute. (Not every day one gets to utilize that adjective.)

RWBG for most likely to develop a predictive model for the likelihood of winning superlatives.

Totally not my area of expertise, but doesn't Obama have a 12-15% favorability lead over Romney, Santorum, and Newt in a head-to-head? People don't vote for people they don't like, which is perhaps why turnout for the primaries has been atrocious this cycle. And a drawn-out battle - which it is now sure to be - only helps the incumbent, no? Add to this that Obama's approval ratings generally are, for the first time in months, eeking back to positive, the economy is still growing at a not-spectacular-but-not-negligible rate, and the whole culture war bait made the GOP look ridiculous -- thank you, Rush. What is Romney's pitch going to be? "I am a conservative Christian with whom little of my base identifies"? "I will fix an economic problem that is rapidly disappearing based on my experience laying people off"? "I will be tougher on national security than the guy who was responsible* for the killing of Bin Laden"? I don't think any will fly with his constituency, much less independents. I mean, free of any normative judgment, what would we say the chances Obama is re-elected? I'd personally wager about 80%, barring some catastrophe. * Because I know there's a whole question of attributing the success of the mission, but voters generally tend to give the nod to the President, whether good or bad.

I posted it elsewhere, but I declined UCLA comparative with funding.

A few pages back, I complained (sorry!) about a review of a terrible book that I'm struggling to write. I just thought some people might get a laugh out of two sentences whose inclusion I'm seriously debating: "Rarely are such large hats hung on pegs so small." Also: "It is only with difficulty that the reader is able to find space for [book] in the scholarly debate." (Not to be a jerk... but seriously, it's horrid.)

I agree that really it's a complementary relationship. In the roughest of outlines: quants answer "littler" questions (not in a pejorative sense!) with great rigor, while quals go all meta but are more liable to err and allow their biases to creep in. Obviously, there are exceptions to both. But I think the conversation among those who mobilize divergent methods is really useful for shaping interests and ultimately reaping better research. That might be part of the reason why mixed methods analysis is up-and-coming.

Doesn't this sort of depend on the work you want to do? If you are applying for formal work, then yes, a 720Q and scant quant experience will be huge red flags. But if not, then I don't see why it would disadvantage you so long as your POIs and your personal statement have an explicitly qualitative focus. I'm a comparativist and I did only a year of intro stats. For someone who hasn't touched the stuff in 5 years, I'm actually pretty good at math/stats (I did multivariate calc at a local college when I was in high school) - but I applied to work with quals, at qual-heavy schools, because that's the research I want to do. So there's certainly no need to go tech up in statistical and formal modeling before applying for CP.

(And me.) Agreed.

Just wanted to tell everyone who is on UCLA's funding waitlist: I just turned down their (funded) offer. Hopefully someone on here gets it.

SOAS is massively heterodox, so while the training will be excellent, it won't necessarily endear you to American academics who disagree normatively and methodologically (think Chris Cramer). Cambridge is roughly the same, and there are few people who work on the political economy of Africa - the superstars are, like Ha-Joon Chang, focused on Asia. Oxford and LSE, however, are right where you want to be. The former has the CSAE and a vibrant Development Studies group, both of which have strong representation in the issues you've raised. LSE is massive, and has a number of groups/bodies that focus on the same. (I'd list the people at each institution, but honestly I think everyone reading this thread already knows who they are.)

Negative, Ghost Rider. Commence relaxation.

You know.

Well I of course agree with that, apologies if my words implied otherwise. The point is that the relevant people don't have the same conception of "status" as do non-scholars. (Edit: When I said "narrow, narrow subfield," I meant, for instance, CP or IR - and not "formal work on social capital in 1970s Tunisia" or whatever. Perhaps this is the source of the disagreement.)

Agreed on Penelope's ideas. Two additional points, however: First of all, my inclination is that most PhD programs won't be too interested in taking you on if you're not headed into academia. They want students who will land tenure-track jobs at elite schools, not ones who are going to "jump ship" and end up running an NGO. (This excludes the specialized PhDs, which are built for non-academic tracks.) Not necessarily fair, but understandable given their institutional interests. Second, you should really think hard about getting a PhD if that's the route you want to take. You're much better off taking a few internships/doing an MPP/MPA/MA before trying to land an entry-level analyst position with whatever think tank or NGO. The time commitment of a PhD is prohibitive (and not worth the trade-off for the title), and the type of training the doctorate gives you doesn't translate well for non-academic work. If you want research skills, there are easier, quicker, and better-remunerated ways to get them. These aren't hard-and-fast rules, obviously, but just make sure you've considered both fully before applying.