<p>so here's my query - others have brought up a similar point to some degree for other discplines. here goes...assuming one excels in a PhD program, publishes, and networks well with profs in the dept. as well as those outside of it doing similar research, how big of a deal is it that you go to a top 25 vs. top 10 phd program in poli sci in terms of long-term academic placement? first job, i know, is very hard to place at a top 25 school (tenure track, at least) if you don't have a name like harvard, princeton, stanford, or chicago behind your name. but 5-10 years into your career, does one who has gone to a top 25 school and has generally kicked ass up to that point have a decent shot at getting a tenure-track position at one of the top 25 schools? i might be in that position - i'm thinking about going to GWU for IR. it's a top 25 program in that subfield, and probably rising, and obviously fantastic for policy jobs, but in terms of academic jobs, it isn't princeton, etc. that being said, it seems it (and most other programs) only list placement for the last five years or so, which is basically where people go for their first jobs, which i'm less interested in than job prospects long-term. i'm trying to figure out if i should go, or wait a year, take some more grad-level IR classes, and reapply (and hopefully get into higher ranked programs that rejected me this year). i go back and forth over what to do. i any thoughts would be greatly appreciated. thanks.</p>
<p>The reality of the situation is that if you are going to get a tenured position at Harvard, Princeton ect. you are going to have to be doing some fantastic work in your field, not just publishing and "networking well". Tenured profs in Poli Sci at the top schools are usually there because they are the cream of the crop in their fields, not because they went to a particular school or studied under a particular prof.</p>
<p>5-10 years down the line, where you went for your Ph.D does not matter as much per se as your own work. It is possible to go to a non top 10 program and then eventually land a top job.</p>
<p>HOWEVER, the fact is, the reason why mostly only top 10 program graduates get good jobs is not because of the name of the program, but because the top 10 programs train you much better than a top 25, and because the students are generally "better". If you can do well coming out of GW, then you can get a good job. However, the fact is, GWU will not train you nearly as well as a Harvard or a Princeton.</p>
<p>One of the best comparativists alive today is Matthew Shugart, and he went to UCI.</p>
<p>Granted, that was when Arend Lijphart was there...</p>
<p>I think theres a valid point to be made that most profs who went to Harvard, Princeton et. al. for their PhD don,t end up back at Harvard and princeton because they went there, but simply because they were pretty talented in the first place. In reality though, the academic field isn't incestuous to the point that Harvard will employ a total shmuck just because he graduated from one of the Ivy's. As someone said above, 5-10 years down the road, your career will have little to do with where you actually went to school and alot more to do with how active you have been in your field and what you are publishing.</p>
<p>right, i get that to get a position at the harvards of the world, you have to be unbelievably good. but what i'm talking about is institution bias. i know in other social science fields, when you apply for a prof. position, they first read your school, then your advisors, then your research. i'm sure it's the same in poli sci. the question is, how much does not going to a top 10 program overshadow the other 2 parts? is it a deathblow (at least w/ regards to getting teaching positions at top 25 programs)?</p>
<p>It's pretty rough, if you talk to most PhDs and candidates. Especially since the market is so oversaturated right now...</p>
<p>But again, Matthew Shugart and Gary Cox here at UCSD didn't go to top 10 programs, and they're superstars (in poli sci...which is like being a superstar in the Djibouti National Games)</p>
<p>so it sounds like, if i want to place at a pretty decent school (ie top 25), it would be in my best interests to defer, take some PhD courses (i work at a university, so they'd be basically free), and reapply next year? the lack of coursework is, i think, the only main question mark top programs see in my application package, so this might take care of it.</p>
<p>honestly, i doubt lack of coursework is the reason why you didn't get into top programs. it's not really that important at all, and i know people in my top program who didn't do that much polisci coursework.</p>
<p>hmmm....well then, i honestly have no clue why i didn't get in. i have good grades from good schools (including a masters degree), very high GRE scores, very strong LORs, a clear and strong statement of purpose, and a few years of policy work experience. the one weakness i thought i had was minimal coursework in poli sci, and specifically, international politics (since i want to do IR).</p>
<p>You should also look at the highly ranked public research universities for political science PhD programs. They often have excellent placement for graduates.</p>
<p>Well for starters, almost everybody who applies to top programs have everything that you stated. I think where the problems usually are are in fit, PS, and recs. Do your research interests fit with the institutions you are applying to? </p>
<p>Are your recs strong because they are from big name people? Or because they are strong letters? You usually need both, and I dare say that the former is more important.</p>
<p>What does it mean that your PS is clear and strong? Do you have well defined interests? Do you know what being an academic is like? Do you show that in your statement? </p>
<p>Are your GRE scores at the very top? Math scores are much more important than verbal scores.</p>
<p>Even though your academic program is polisci light, what did you study in college? Studying economics or math is I dare say better than studying polisci. However, if you were an English major, then you are at a major disadvantage.</p>
<p>If you meet all those criteria, chances are you just ran into people who had much more impressive records everywhere you applied.</p>
<p>Stolper,</p>
<p>How are GRE math scores important for a Poli Sci PhD?</p>
<p>jmleadpipe,</p>
<p>Poli sci is very quant heavy these days at the top programs.</p>
<p>yep polisci is heavily quant.</p>
<p>plus, math scores are more indicative of "smartness" (however you interpret that) and problem solving and analytical skills moreso than verbal scores.</p>