<p>I was wondering if when choosing PhD programs the best candidates pick their univeristies based on how they are ranked nationally (ie: US News National Universities Rankings) or on how that particular program ranks. If, for example, a university is ranked quite highly nationally, but has a poor reputation for a partiular program, would one expect the applicants to that program to be of a high or low calibre?</p>
<p>i think all admitted applicants to top overall schools are pretty top-notch. however, i think people are more likely to choose schools based on how good they are in their specific subspecialty...for example, columbia is top 15 for poli sci, but top 2-3 for IR w/in poli sci. there are also so many other factors that come into play (geography, funding).</p>
<p>Students tend to pick based on department caliber, not overall school caliber. The "overall" ranking is for undergrad, and it's totally irrelevant for graduate school.</p>
<p>Given programs of approximately equal quality, a candidate might choose based on overall ranking of the school, and that wouldn't be a terrible choice. Of course, it would be equally sensible to choose based on location or something else non-academic, if the two programs were basically equivalent otherwise.</p>
<p>fp06,</p>
<p>I'd actually put Columbia in the top 10 for poli sci overall, actually.</p>
<p>But I do think that most people think department first and school second. However, there is something to be said for going down a couple of notches department wise for a better overall school. While it may not get you a tenure-track position faster, it may help if at the end you decide to go private sector with the PhD instead. </p>
<p>But yeah, funding and geography matter quite a bit.</p>
<p>fair enough...what i meant basically was that it is stronger for a specific subspecialty than the overall department. which is what i think matters more...you not only want to go to the best dept. possible (assuming geography and funding are ok), but the strongest in your specific field, be that social psych, 19th century european history, comparitive politics, etc.</p>
<p>Oh, I should've been more clear. I wasn't getting on your case, just clarifying. </p>
<p>Yeah, you're right though. Every field is more and more specific these days...</p>
<p>it was understood...no worries.
i have to believe that strength of profs and broad subspecialties are much more important than overall department strength, esp. if you want to teach.</p>