next »

[gekko]

I'd like to give one recommendation that no one has yet: In order for a program to be a viable option in a humanities (or otherwise overflooded) field it has to be highly ranked AND funded. If you are choosing between one or the other, choice C of doing something else is the only option any reasonable person can take. How many more reasons do you need than those below:

-You have limited job prospects even with a top ranked program.

-Your income even if placed will not allow you to pay off debt in a reasonable time frame.

-Regardless of your advisor or other department menber's statement, you SHOULD take their denial of funding personally. Only actions are indicitive of one's thoughts, not words. (Especially coming from someone who has a vested interest in closing the deal.)

-Your program is likely not in a viable department if all students are not funded regardess of overall university brand name. (Every school has a "cash cow" or two to fund the programs they take seriously.)

I'm not trying to say anything negative about the OP at all, but IF you take this option, you are a fool. Someone needs to say this to you before you believe the BS of a corporate centered department trying to recruit you. You are ruining your finance and career simultatiously before either even have a chance to begin, and for very little pay off. There are several other options like waiting a year and/or doing something else entirely. 

Think of it this way: you're the Poindexter who gets to pay for the meal while some other guy is closing the deal. Get it? Don't be a sucker. Go to a top-ranked FUNDED program or don't go at all. (Or at least for now.) The fact that two or three people happened to get by doing this is absolutely no reason to do it yourself. People win the lottery as well. That doesn't change the fact that 90% of participants are toothless idiots with a mullet and wife beater. What have these graduates "accomplished"? Putting themselves severaly thousand in debt to get a 45k job after three more years of looking? Do you consider this an end goal to strive for?

Regarding the advisor who said he'd choose to attend his own department, what a great example of objective advice from a disinterested party! What do you expect him to say? That he actively admits people he is less interested insince the University at large won't fully fund his grad department but we still need to keep the lights on?

Do not do this. Do not do this. Do not under any circumstance do this. With all due respect to the current student, it is impossible for someone currently enrolled to have an adequate overview of the implications of their decision. There's no shortage of people at the barstool or racetrack that would be more than happy to have some company. That doesn't make it a good idea. You are not getting objective advice from ANYONE in the higher education system. They all have a vested interest either in recuriting you for profit or validating their own questionable decision.

[katherineparr]

Wow. The above is complete drivel.

[untenured]

Wow. The above is complete drivel.

Gekko offered us a detailed and organized post.  If you disagree, you might want to be more specific.

Untenured

[pamplemoose]

Really Gekko? I know for example that at Berkeley it is incredibly common to get outside funding, or at least most of the students I met when I visited had some kind of outside funding because they were not fully funded by the university.  (The situation has improved in recent years with their huge Travers donation.)   Berkeley is widely regarded as a top 5 department in our field, top 3 for certain subfields, but they do not fully fund all of their grad students.  I'm not sure about UCLA or UCSD.  And yes, academia is incredibly competitive and no, not everyone will get tenure-track jobs, but an offer at a top 3/5/10 program is nothing to sneeze at!

Also, although being an academic is hard everywhere, I don't think poli sci phds are in quite the same position as those in the humanities.

But anyway, to the OP, the best thing is to ask other students who were in this situation what they did and how they fared, how common it is to get funded in subsequent years, etc.  I'm sure they will be open with you about their experiences.  You might also defer a year and establish in-state residency...

I am almost 30K in debt from college and so I'm very glad I have good funding, but I would never have chosen to not go to a top program for undegrad in order to avoid incurring that debt.  Many people in your cohort will have debt of some sort for some reason, whether it be from a master's degree program or law school or from their bachelor's degree.  I think 15K is very stomachable, if that is indeed what you'll have to fork out for that first year.

[jonesey]

Also, although being an academic is hard everywhere, I don't think poli sci phds are in quite the same position as those in the humanities.

You're right; the market might actually be worse for Poly Sci grads.

[gekko]

Pamplemoose: yes, I top 3/5/10 program IS something to sneeze at if they want you to pay up to be there. I've declined to attent one myself three years and consider this the best choice I could have made, leading to a viable career in an outside area while a couple people I know in attendance at that program or others are drowning in debt with no job prospects and a sense of bitter passive aggresiveness at their department that is just pathetic.  By the way, the statements that "funding is sometimes available in later years" didn't pan out for these students. They use that pool to recurit others once they already have people who are obviously stupid enough to pay.

I have no interest in or knowledge of the field of political science although I would state that unless the field is much less difficult to be placed than the humanities it still isn't worth it. One could make the argument for a Finance Ph.D. or other professionably viable option since even if you don't land a faculty position you can utilize the training in some professional context. It is not my impression that this is the case for poli sci although if not, that's a different situation.

Regarding UC Berkeley or any other department, yes, I stand by my statement. That is not a viable department by simple deduction, as no department can be at the graduate level in my opinion that wants students to pay, regardless of rank. It simply isn't worth it at that point even if you are placed. (In fields with a high glut of applicants; I'm not saying don't get the Wharton MBA due to cost...) Just because a program is highly ranked and at a good university does not make it viable. Harvard's Ed.M. program, for example, contains all lecture classes over the course of a year and funds almost no one. It's obviously there to finance other aspects of the university as a whole. (It also has an admissions rate at around 50% or greater depending on the year, but I be they make everyone "feel" special for "getting into Harvard" even if for one of the fake cash cow programs.) Does it matter that this program along with Teachers College (one of Columbia's cash cows...) is ranked so highly?
You are being suckered by an effective marketing campaign if you attend.

If my comments seem harsh try to consider it as an indication of the severity of conviction in this statement coming from someone who has seen numerous individuals make significantly damaging life choices, not as disrespectful or dismissive of those considering these choices without adequate information. That's the point of asking in such a forum. I reiterate my comment that under no circumstances is the situation acceptable with zero hesitation in doing so.  If you think the comment is "drivel" you're probably trying to justify you're own practice of recuriting such individuals under questionable circumstances.

[katherineparr]

So let me see if I understand this:

1. You have "no interest in or knowledge of the field of political science" but you will make sweeping statements about the entire field, its job prospects, graduate program funding, and the viability of admissions offers.

2. Anyone who chooses to attend without a funding package at one of these schools is "stupid" "a fool" or a "Poindexter."

3. Academics run "an effective marketing campaign" to recruit students whom they intend only to exploit.

4. People who disagree are "trying to justify [their] own practice of recruiting such individuals under questionable circumstances."

OP, you've gotten rational advice from people familiar with your field, the UC system, and the rational choices involved in pursuing graduate study. You sound like you've got a solid head on your shoulders, so I'm sure you'll make a good choice.

[jackit]

I would call the graduate director and discuss your concerns. There may be money available that you don't know about. Or not.

As usual, larryC has it.  This is the thing to do.  Your concern will not be a surprise.  Hu will give you the story about how students in your situation have survived in the past -- hopefully.

Good luck!

[pamplemoose]

Also, although being an academic is hard everywhere, I don't think poli sci phds are in quite the same position as those in the humanities.

You're right; the market might actually be worse for Poly Sci grads.

I've heard the outlook *is* better, much better for poli sci grads, but I admit I am too new to all of this to have much of a clue about the academic job market.  That said, and I can't speak about theory, but for the other subfields, there are also viable careers outside of academia, in state and federal government, think tanks, NGOs, international organizations and the private sector (consulting, etc.).  With the way the discipline is going, many graduate with some serious quantitative skills.

Good luck with your decision, OP.

[gekko]

katherineparr:

1.) No, I have no knowledge of poli sci. I do, however, know that it is not nearly as lucrative or in demand as an overall field as many others that I would still say should not be entered without funding.

2.) Yes, anyone who chooses to attend a program without funding falls into the categories I mentioned. It is simply not a wise decision by any stretch of the imagination. When one asks "Should I jump off a bride?" a reasoned and measured response taking into account the benefits of this act is not appropriate.

3.) Yes, academic institutions do market themselves, selling a brand name like any other product. Not only are students occasionally exploited, but sevreral other members of the community. (Ever been an adjunct?) This is no different than any other corporation.

4.) I certainly think those in an academic forum have a vested interest in justifying not only their own decisions but the overall and inate "morality" of pursuit of life as an academic. Equating department members and institutions on a whole with that of a salesman of any other kind certainly shatters that pristine world view and self image.

OP, my recommendation is to seek at least one piece of advice (preferably more) from those outside academia. Your questions may include some that follow in the event you do not land a position after your studies:

-How would you view an applicant with my training?

-Were I to be hired would this credential result in higher compensation or be just a "nice to have?"

-Would my lack of work experience over a multi-year time frame prove problematic or be excused by my studies?

-Would someone in my situation be given a chance to indicate their interest in the position or would I be tossed into the "not relevant" file by an HR rep for not meeting industry specific requirements?

I work in a field that does not require a particular educational background although there are some things that are "a plus." I must say that for the first year explaining away an MFA on every interview I attended was not a pleasant experience. I also had to pursue very low level work in an incidentally related industry for a year to even get to the interview stage. Do not underestimate the degree to which future employers will dismiss your notion that you have "transferable skills" and "can probably do this" since you got a Ph.D. They don't want to take your word that you can do something; they want to see that you already have done it or something very closely related.

While you're talking to these people, talk to a few academics who have left for whatever reason. (Lack of monetary reward, desire to choose location, etc.) Don't confine your search for advice to a group of people who by their very presence on an academic forum are predisposed to advise in this direction. You will not get objective and reasoned information from faculty advisors or current students. Read the "leaving academia" section of this forum in addition to the grad school life section. This will give you at least an idea of what you could be getting into later on.

In any case, I've made my opinion about as clear as possible. If you do decide to engage in what I would consider absurdly irrational behavior at least seek out the types of advice from non-academics mentioned above rather than making an emotive decision you may later regret. Keep in mind that taking my recommendation does not prevent the option of entering an academic setting under more favorable circumstances later on. Good luck in making an informed decision.

[untenured]

Two things:

1. Is OP gone?  OP, what have you decided to do and why?

2. Assuming that OP has received no other offers, could OP's optimal choice be to attend because the increased pay he/she receives over her/his lifetime as a result of the top 10 degree will exceed the cost and interest of tuition debt? (I'm just repeating my original question, but I would welcome your thoughts)

Untenured

[pembleton]

Here's another option. Lookin into all the options as above...go, crush everyone your first semester, then reapply to other programs. Get ONE fellowship offer and then play "play me or trade me" with the grad director. The most important thing here is the $$. Get to a place that will fund you. Lots of people have hangups about ranking -- but its the place that will mentor you (and pay you!) that will make the difference in the long run.

[marcus_welby]

I think it would be better to decline their offer and work for a year rather than enter the program without funding, and then to do what the poster suggests above.

If I had been a reference for the student and was then asked to write a second reference letter to Ph.D programs, only a few months after the student had entered a top Ph.D program (whether with funding or not), I think it would cause me to reconsider the student's commitment and motives.

From my own experience in a Ph.D program in political studies, those who entered with no funding or minimal funding did encounter more difficulty as they were typically out working at non academic part time jobs or doing research assistant work right from day one.  In some cases, they left campus at an early stage in the process to do so.  Some of these students also carried a sense of grievance towards the department, which also was not helpful to their progress.

This does not mean that having a good package of funding means one will always finish quickly or encounter no significant problems along the way.  It simply means that you as the student will have enough challenges to deal with while completing a Ph.D without trying to do so without the necessary resources.

[gekko]

Great points Marcus. To untenured, your second point about the pay increase for having attended a top-10 program is something worth bringing up, but not likely relevant unless one will pursue only academic positions no matter what. I don't see a big "spread" in salary for departments of greater vs lesser prestige. In many cases community colleges are more lucrative than many R1 opportunities, and certainly more than many SLACs for those in fields without professional opportunities.

Keep in mind that the years from 22 - 30 (I assume the OP is a recent traditional B.A. graduate) are the most important for securing one's future from a retirement savings standpoint. The future value of funds saved at an early stage in life with many more years available for compounding make a compelling argument to consider giving them up only under unusually exceptional circumstances. Couple this withe the fact that additional debt will be added in addition to the loss of these prime savings/planning years and you're in a situation where it's difficult to justify. I'm not saying there is nothing worth taking that large multi-year hit for, but just that graduate study in an academic field is not this thing.

[untenured]

Thanks, gekko.  This makes sense.  I would have guessed that the salary difference would be significant.  Looks like OP should bow out and look for some funding.

Untenured