I often get emails from European students who want to do a PhD "with me." So, let me try to explain how US PhD system and academic system work, so that you can make a more informed decision. ๐งต
1. First and foremost, in the US you do not apply to a professor but to a department!
2. Unlike in most other countries, in the US you go to grad SCHOOL, which means you must take 2-2.5 years of classes, take a (pointless) "comprehensive exam", before you actually start working on your PhD research.
3. Political science grad school is very heavy on "methods", which sadly only mains statistics in most cases. Much of your first three semesters you only do "methods" and basic intro courses (into sub-disciplines). Many students find this boring at best, demotivating at worst.
4. After that, you have a choice of "substantive courses", which often depends a lot on the faculty that teach in the program, so make sure you check that they research, and therefore teach, what you're interested in.
5. When you apply to grad school, your GPA and GRE decide not just whether you will be accepted, but even more important, whether and how much you will be funded. STUDY FOR YOUR GRE!
6. Now, to the most important point: US academia is an aristocracy rather than a meritocracy! ๐จ
7. In no other country that I have ever worked is the ranking of institutions so important as in the US. "Pedigree", i.e. the reputation/ranking of an institution, determines almost everything.
8. Consequently, for the vast majority of people, where you did your PhD determines where they could potentially get a job for the rest of their career.
9. If your PhD is not from an Ivy League school, you will not work at an Ivy League school. And you won't work at a wannabe Ivy either. In short, the top 25-35 schools are out -- including prestigious (selective) liberal arts colleges.
10. Yes, there are exceptions. They are, however, EXCEPTIONS. They confirm the rule rather than show that meritocracy does work.
11. In many ways, it does not even make sense to speak of US academia as a homogeneous system. The differences between the thousands of schools are too vast. Even within the R1 (research universities) the differences are beyond anything in most of Western Europe.
12. Harvard is not US academia! In fact, other US research universities are not even 80% or 50% of Harvard. They are completely different institutions!
13. Bringing it back to grad school, there are VAST differences in:
- how big your stipend is
- what the conditions are (teaching or not)
- how long it is for
14. These things, together with pedigree (which are, of course, closely related), are (almost) more important in choosing a grad school than whether you like a professor, the town, the department.
15. As said, the pedigree determines the rest of your career within the US (and, less so, abroad). But the money determines whether you will generate debt or not, whether you will have to work in summer, whether you can do field work, etc. etc.
16. In general, the rule is that you will not get a job at the same level of university as you did your PhD at -- assuming you even get an academic job, and it is a tenure track job, which are both increasingly rare.
17. In most cases, most of your time during the academic year will be focused on teaching. You will teach 1-2 small classes if you have pedigree, at least 2-2 bigger classes if you are at good R1, and up to 5-5 big classes if at smaller, lower ranked schools.
18. You can make very good money, but only small minority will. Starting salaries at smaller schools around here are ca. $45k and, again, that is for relatively good jobs (i.e. tenure track).
19. In short, do your research! Invest in your GRE and make sure you chose on the basis of right criteria: pedigree, stipend, professors, location.
20. If you do not aspire a career in the US, consider universities in Western Europe, particularly more international countries like NL and UK. They often have better conditions (compared to non-elite schools in US), less stats, and closer tie to prof. #TheEnd
โข โข โข
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Time for some movie recommendations/reviews again. I have been watching a lot and am a bit behind here.
Some absolute gems and a few disappointments.
Fatma ๐น๐ท
Turkish short series about a tormented cleaner who goes on a killing spree. Exceptional acting by lead actress in a highly intelligent, intense, and original series. 9/10
Black Crowes ๐ธ๐ฆ
Long Arabic series that is supposed to portray live in the ISIS Caliphate. Pathetic acting and dramatic music together with thin story makes this boring anti-ISIS propaganda. 4/10
1. Let me start by saying that I will not make a moral argument for tenure. Clearly, I support it, and think it is crucial for academia, but there is a moral question why some people have ob security and others do not (particularly in US context).
2. In the simplest terms, tenure means job protection. It means you have a "job for life" barring exceptional circumstances -- such as, your university/department goes bankrupt, you are involved in (serious) criminal activities.
It's time again. Some movie tips, mostly from Netflix US. I've got 20 movies and series, so ignore the next 20 Tweets if you are not into movies (or think I have shite taste ๐). Here are four of the best. ๐ฅ๐๏ธ๐ฌ๐ฝ๏ธ๐ฆ
The Sound of Metal 8/10
Metal drummer goes suddenly deaf and tries to deal with it. Gritty, original, powerful, and unexpected. On Amazon Prime.
Dead Man Down 7/10
Fairly classic, if elaborate, US revenge film but still quite entertaining. For when you just want some violence and don't want to think much.
Raw independent movie about two transgender sex workers showing the underbelly of Los Angeles. Incredible acting and cinematography. It was shot on 3 iPhones! ๐ฎ10/10
Below Zero
Excellent Spanish thriller about a prisoner transport that is ambushed but the plan is different than expected. Original twist to classic theme. 9/10
As expected, after being kicked out of EPP (finally), Orbรกn is trying to merge ECR and ID (under his leadership). This "Joint Declaration on the Future of the European Union" looks like important first step, but various parties of groups are (still) missing.
Ok, some quick thoughts:
1. A detail for most, perhaps, but the fact that the key unit is the "nation", not the "state", is very significant within the far right. It's quite interesting that state nationalists like FdI, RN and Vox have signed on to this.
2. There long has been schism between "ethnic nationalists", who prefer the "nation" (cultural), and "state nationalists, who prefer the "state" (political). They have long worked together but with tensions (FN-VB).