<p>
</p>
<p>In your example, the “kid” is asking a poorly phrased question. What the kid is really asking is "I’m kind of interested in political science, so what are several dozen colleges – of varying selectivities so I might be able to get into some of them – that I should put on an initial list for consideration.</p>
<p>What is so useful about the PhD productivity lists is that they, indeed, identify schools where political science departments stand out in some way (while perhaps or perhaps not standing out in other ways). The lists almost always include schools with a fairly wide range of selectivities, sizes, and geographic locations. In short, they produce a list of fifty or a hundred colleges that might well prove to be quite useful.</p>
<p>For example, suppose I’m a female, top 10% in my class, but not Williams, Duke, Dartmouth material from an admissions standpoint or, maybe I am, and I’m looking for a safe match. Suppose I’m interested in Anthropology. How many high school students (or their guidance counselors) would think Bryn Mawr? But, darn if Bryn Mawr doesn’t produce more Anthropology PhDs per graduate than any other college or university in the United States. Hmmm. Whether or not I plan to get a Ph.D. or run my daddy’s car dealersships after graduation, if I’m interested in studying Anthropology, I probably ought to check out Bryn Mawr. In point of fact, that student SHOULD consider Bryn Mawr to see if it meets her other criteria.</p>
<p>Nobody’s telling a student TO GO TO BRYN MAWR. It’s simply being highlighted as a college to put on the list for consideration, which is all anyone can expect from a “what colleges are good in…” question.</p>