Abu Muqawama: Post
Abu Muqawama retains its autonomy and the views and beliefs expressed within the blog do not reflect those of CNAS. Abu Muqawama retains the right to delete comments that include words that incite violence; are predatory, hateful, or intended to intimidate or harass; or degrade people on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. In summary, don't be a jerk.
Ph.D.s for Dummies
I should have noted, when I first posted this, that Erin/Charlie and I first wrote this after getting a lot of requests of Twitter for advice on Ph.D. programs. After you read this post, be sure to read the excellent comments.
Disclaimer: this advice is geared toward individuals interested in conflict studies and national security -- with some applicability to the broader social sciences. Your mileage may vary. If you’re looking at getting a PhD in Comparative Literature or Bio-Physics, it should go without saying that you may not want to take career advice from a blog with a Lego insurgent as its avatar. For that matter, why the hell are you even reading this blog? Also, long-time readers remember we used to write this blog in the third person and use handles that protected our real identities. We have reverted back to that habit for this post because we wrote this post together, and because Erin started it with the whole Charlie business.
To begin, a few questions to ask yourself:
1. Why do I want a PhD? Do I need one? Is a master's degree or bachelor's degree sufficient for what I want to do?
2. What kind of training am I looking for? Or do I just want the credential?
3. Am I willing to spend money? How much?
4. What’s my time commitment?
But here’s the dirty secret about DC. Everybody wants to hire PhDs, but most people don’t know anything about them. They won’t read your dissertation, they aren’t going to call your advisor (thank goodness), and most won’t know until it’s too late whether you’ve actually been trained in anything useful. So if you just want the credential, stop reading now and just find the cheapest, quickest program and git ‘er done.
On the flip side, if you’re going this direction, why not go all-in? For one, the better the program, the better the financial support. (The only thing Charlie paid for her PhD was library fines.) Make the commitment, get the best training you can possibly find, and be a rockstar. Full-time programs don’t fit everyone’s circumstances, but be creative and think long-term.
Else, your options:
Full-time, full-on traditional American PhD program (likely Political Science)– this is what Charlie did and anyone who knows her knows she didn’t exactly enjoy it. Huge variety of programs from super-theoretical (Chicago), old-school guns and bombs (MIT, Columbia), to political economy driven (Stanford, Princeton). These programs typically require two years of full-time coursework.
Pros: state of the art training in research methods (quant / qual), world-class faculty, amazing resources (libraries, research funds), solid tuition assistance (often including stipends).
Cons: takes freaking forever (4-6 year full-time commitment), professors are training their replacements and are often hostile to / dismissive of policy work (preferring academic debates to real world ones). Worse still, they’ll spend 6 years convincing you that no, you don’t want to be a DASD; you’ll be failure if you never publish in the APSR.
Examples: Princeton, Columbia, Stanford, Michigan, Wisconsin, UCSD, Penn
Full-time, full on Policy School PhD program – similar to the above but with less disdain for working in DC. Most are better known for the masters programs and have relatively small PhD classes.
Pros: Oriented toward policy related research. Some have very good quant / econometrics training. Often located in and around major cities.
Cons: Many are overly narrow in their focus on security studies. Lots of combined classes with Masters students. Few options for rigorous qualitative research. Funding may be less robust than larger, traditional programs.
Examples: SAIS, Georgetown, George Mason, Harvard Kennedy School
2a) Part-time American PhD – these programs are mostly found in policy schools in and around DC. Sadly, just not that may options. George Mason and Georgetown come to mind.
Full-time UK PhD – this is what Abu Muqawama did. This experience really depends on your relationship with your advisor. People ask Abu Muqawama all the time about the Department of War Studies at King's College London, but honestly, the department or university matters less than the advisor. Abu Muqawama had completed an American-style master's degree at the American University of Beirut in Middle Eastern Studies and started some research on Hizballah in 2006 that he wanted to explore further. There was basically one dude on Earth he wanted to work with -- a guy named Yezid Sayigh, who did some of the first really serious work on Palestinian military organizations. Yezid happened to have just left Cambridge for the Department of War Studies in London, so Abu Muqawama went to London. Had Yezid been at the University of Fisheries and Mines in Northern Wales, he would have gone there.
Pros: If you already have a master's degree and have a subject you really want to work on for about three years, this is the program for you. This is basically one long supervised research project, so it appealed to Abu Muqawama, who admirers would describe as a "disciplined self-starter" and everyone else would describe as "a bit of a loner."
Cons: Abu Muqawama had done the majority of his language training and course work prior to matriculating. Since he's an area studies geek, he more or less had what he needed in terms of skills to complete his dissertation project. But he got next to nothing in terms of methodological training beyond that, so he has to partner with people like Charlie whenever he wants to apply quantitative methods to his research. Also, the great thing about U.S. programs is that you take enough course work to where, if you enter the academy, you can teach Political Science 101 in a pinch. If you get a history Ph.D. in the United States and specialize in 19th Century France, you have probably also taken enough graduate courses to where you could teach an introductory course covering stuff like, the English Industrial Revolution. This makes you more competitive than a UK-trained dude on the academic job market. Also, these programs can be really expensive for Americans and other non-Euros. Most people are self-funded. I got some generous assistance that helped pay for both my master's degree and Ph.D., but I was the exception.
Examples: Again, for a Ph.D., ignore the program. Pick an advisor you want to work with, contact that advisor, and ask that advisor if he or she would like to work with you.
A note on Master’s degrees: Charlie went straight through to a PhD program, skipping the MA. Abu Muqawama got his master's degree at American University of Beirut, which he loved, but mainly because he was just out of the U.S. Army and was basically a sponge, intellectually speaking. (He thought it was really cool -- and continues to think it is really cool -- that he could just walk into Tarif Khalidi's office hours and chat about the medieval Islamic world or about Beirut during the war.) He spent a lot of time on his Arabic and graduated a semester early so he could concentrate full-time on his language training. (He also learned French during this period, which has been really useful as a research language.) Perhaps then it’s not a surprise that neither of us are huge fans of the IR / Security Studies MA racket. Frankly, we just don’t think the training is that good. (If the training was good, maybe there’d be less demand for PhDs in Washington!) Look for MAs that give specific training – language + regional studies, focused research + analysis, or similar. Else, go to a PhD program for 2 years, complete your coursework, ask for the master’s, and get out of Dodge.
One thing I would add that's
One thing I would add that's particularly important for retiring military officers considering a Ph.D. to understand--for government work, where you got your Ph.D. matters less than that you have one. For college or university teaching, it matters greatly. So if for some bizarre reason, you really want to be a professor, don't look for the quickest or cheapest, but go for the glossiest name you can get into.
And while it's true that a Ph.D. requires 4-6 years, keep in mind that 2 to 2.5 years of that is course work, perhaps half a year to year to prepare for comprehensive exams and fulfill language requirements, and the rest is dissertation which is intended to be an original research contribution in your field.
I agree with most your
I agree with most your IR/security studies MA "racket" stance. I am about to finish one in the DC area and the training pales in comparison to what I received from the full-time PhD track history MA I completed in 2009. Like AM, I was a sponge-like student with my first degree, having just left the Army myself. I also received a year of solid TA experience from the history MA (enough to realize I didn’t want to be a history prof) as an added benefit.
The factory MA programs put almost no focus on research methodology or theory, there is little to no demand for original research, and the thesis requirements, or lack thereof, across the board, are a joke. For most, especially since so many are simultaneously working full-time jobs, the degrees are just a race to the finish line. That being said, they have become mandatory resume bullets for hiring or, at the very least, required stepping stones for future advancement, to many organizations in DC. On the plus side, the networking opportunities and perspectives gained from fellow student are nice, and many of the adjuncts are real pros as practitioners and are actually much better teachers than many profs solely working in the ivory tower.
The original post would have been a nice, basic, once over the world for me two years ago when I was moving to DC and weighing the PhD vice “MA and re-enter the work force” debate I was having.
"Policy" or "political
"Policy" or "political science" are not necessarily the best fields if you want to peddle expertise [unless it is accompanied by a stint in a policy-making shop in the USG] in a geographic region or global issue, even if the job is in policy advice. Anthropology and other degrees that include on-the-ground field work experience in their requirements are particularly valuable. [If this had been recognized earlier in the Afghansitan and Iraq ventures, it would have saved a lot of lives.] Today, most anthropologists deal with very relevant things like health and even land tenure systems that are important for much more than just development and refugee programs. In fact, nowadays, such graduates mix their post-PhD lives between academic/think tank work with project work in the field. Moreover, they have, for many decades, included urban as well as rural communities within the list of targets for study.
If, for instance, one wants to understand the outcome of Mubarak policies on the people of Egypt at the micro-level, look no further than the work of Asif Bayat and Salwa Ismail, and indeed, the whole host of scholars and students at AUC working on social and economic grassroots issues for many decades. I'd also add media studies. Re the media, the [online] journal, Arab Media and Society, also from AUC, is a key source. There is a lot more to the media than news and opinion programming which is probably less influential in peoples lives than other programs...to include drama.
More on the financing issue -
More on the financing issue - I find a lot of my undergrads don't understand that financing grad school is not necessarily similar to financing undergraduate education. If a US PhD program really wants you as a student and believes you have what it takes to succeed, they will give you full funding. If they don't, they don't and are probably planning to exploit you as cheap labor grading papers for enormous undergraduate courses for a couple of years before sending you on your way. I never, ever advise a student to accept an unfunded PhD offer from a US institution.
By contrast, as you note, if you go the British route or the US master's route, you're almost certainly going to pay out-of-pocket for it. I think it's also important to note that there's a prejudice against British doctorates in some US academic circles. If you're looking to go that route, be prepared to get lots of questions about methodological training and even awkward/rude comments about a DPhil not being equivalent to a PhD. As Metz points out, academics are total snobs about where people are trained, and some of our colleagues never miss a chance to condescend.
As someone wrapping up a
As someone wrapping up a Master's in International Affairs, I agree that the training offered by the coursework alone isn't likely to land you the dream job at CNAS that some security studies grad students might have in mind. Programs offering more specific training are a good route to distinguish you among the hoards of hot off the press Master's degrees being churned out these days. Aberrantly, my degree is an MS in International Affairs from a tech school that offers a focus in cyber security.
That said, I would add that even a generic IR/Security Studies MA whose coursework doesn't necessarily offer specialization can be leveraged by the "disciplined self-starter" Abu Muqawama type in a couple ways:
1) Many of us have a much clearer understanding of our interests and goals since our undergrad days, and this often includes a dedication to foreign language study. As a full-time grad student and US citizen, you are likely eligible to apply to some pretty terrific government-funded language programs such as the CLS, FLAS, and Boren Fellowship. Having received the CLS and currently on the Boren in Jordan (after being kicked out of Syria in April), I'd say you're only as competitive for these programs as your proof of dedication to the language comes across on paper. Planning early for how, when, and why these programs are right for you is appropriate even as you apply to grad schools.
2) I couldn't help but chuckle a little bit at the listed examples. Not all of us public school kids from the South are likely to be accepted to ANY of those places without beefing up our paper profile. Locking down a 4.0 GPA, even in a generic MA program, just might convince someone in admissions that our frat boy days in the big state school are well behind us (though not forgotten and relived on the occasional fall Saturday). While doing an MA just for your PhD application is a bit extreme and silly, the MA experience is an opportunity to augment your skills and refine your interests through language study, internships, and yes, even one-on-one conversations with bad ass professors, all of which can assist in applying to such well-endowed schools.
Where the rubber meets to
Where the rubber meets to road...So say someone of a mid-life age with a deep interest in IR/FP/policy theory/etc. but no current formal education in that direction decides that a PhD or a MA to PhD is the route they want to take for a more fulfilling career than IT is currently providing They find the program, gain acceptance and all that business, what are the long term prospects for a ballpark income range? Academia vs. think tank?
Reality dictates with mouths to feed and mortgage to pay, that some dreams stay as such or remain missed chances as a result of a listless youth, but should a realistic avenue be available for a mid stream change of direction, it would be nice knowing what is possible for long term prospects. Does a PhD allow someone a reasonable chance for a long term, livable wage? I don't mean to center on that but most of my other questions are answered above or elsewhere.
There exists certain realities in life when considering a career change and giving up a solid, steady income in a dreadfully boring industry for something of much greater personal interest, there is a point where the dreams of a satisfying career must also satisfy the realities of established family responsibility.
University of Phoenix has a
University of Phoenix has a Masters and PhD program for "Experts"--I guess for any subject under the sun. Bill Hillar was a PhD.
Well, I now feel as though I
Well, I now feel as though I made a bad life decision going to Denver U for Int. Security now (MA). Wooops.
"Not all of us public school
"Not all of us public school kids from the South are likely to be accepted to ANY of those places without beefing up our paper profile. Locking down a 4.0 GPA, even in a generic MA program, just might convince someone in admissions that our frat boy days in the big state school are well behind us (though not forgotten and relived on the occasional fall Saturday)." <---- You just described my career trajectory.
The RAND Corporation has a
The RAND Corporation has a full-time public policy PhD. And you get to work at RAND. It does not suffer from your list of Policy School PhD program cons, although it certainly has some of its own.
The MA training might not
The MA training might not have been so great, but my diploma is in Latin...so I have that going for me.
If you take up an honest
If you take up an honest profession, work with your hands & help others, then you don't really need a PhD. CNAS, other think tanks are the biggest rackets. You guys don't produce anything and you don't much help others. So what's the point?
Excellent comments all
Excellent comments all around. A few additional points though:
a) If you really want to do politics academically, don't do Political Science in the US; do sociology or history or anthro Political science departments in the US are very rarely interested in "politics". More often than not they want you to improve a set of techniques that solve problems that other "technicians" have invented. They often look down their noses at political puzzles and problematics.
b) Most UK PhD programmes require an MA or MSc before you can enrol. If you want ESRC funding, a MRes (Master of Research) would actually give you a year of hardcore methods training, which would well qualify you for ESRC funding for a PhD (which is actually quite rich).
c) A lot of UK PhD programmes in politics (and other social science disciplines) offer some form of methods training in their first year but it really isn't comparable in intensity or formality (both in form and content) to the training provided in the US.
d) Rich universities in the UK (Oxford, Cambridge, LSE and lots of larger older universities outside London with huge natural science and engineering programmes) will have pretty good PhD funding.
Why did the duck cross the
Why did the duck cross the road?
To get to the other side.
Why does a person get more education?
To get down a career path.
If you do not need a PhD to get where you want to go, then don't spend the money. Just getting more alphabet soup is allowed. Most the time it is just about the employment requirements.
As a Georgetown IR Ph.D.
As a Georgetown IR Ph.D. student, I (a) found this post interesting and (b) have to say, in capital letters, that GEORGETOWN DOES NOT HAVE A PUBLIC POLICY SCHOOL and also OUR PH.D. IS NOT A PUBLIC POLICY PH.D.
Folks who think otherwise are invited to drop by our department for a chat with our faculty or our grad students. There are folks who do policy-relevant work, to be sure, and we value them. But our Ph.D. program is a traditional political science degree.
I agree with this thinking As
I agree with this thinking
As someone who is about to start the Public Policy and Public Administration PhD program at George Washington University later this month, I found this post to be very interesting. It reflected the decision tree I went through in making my choice. I am a former US military officer who has been working on space security policy issues with an NGO for the last 4 years. In looking at what I need to do to take the next step in my career, I decided the public policy PhD was the best choice for me, and GWU is one of the programs to offer a concentration in space policy. It also has a professor that I very much want to study under. As for funding, I am lucky enough to be able to use the post-9/11 GI Bill which should cover most of it.
As an undergrad working
As an undergrad working towards a BA in Global Affairs at Mason and looking at possibilities for PhD/MA programs, I can't thank you enough for this post. I keep hearing from the general public, "PhD programs are horrible, don't do it!", but this has restored my interest in pursuing one.
A few comments to several
A few comments to several posters. (Full disclosure...PhD in IR/Security)
Skippy...pay and stability sucks. Academic job market is horrible and unpredictable. USG and the think tanks they pay are hunkering down for budget cuts. I had a DIA job offer and it was yanked...not due to clearance, due to cancellation of the position. In the academic world pay suck sunless you are an IR god. Expect 45-65K to start at most universities and expect too spend a couple fo years as a Visiting Assistant Professor and moving your family aroudn the country until MAYBE you get a tenure-stream offer. USG and think tanks are better. GS 11-13 gets you 60-75K and fairly rapid step increases. Tanks are best, but as I mentioned, they are drying up. Mt advice to all my students is DO NOT DO IT. Only the ones who fight me and can not live without doing it should do so. Now if you are USG or retired military and being sent to do PhD, fine, it is a good credential that will pay off. Otherwise, be warned.
Laleh: While there are way too many programs that are insanely method heavy and spend too much time pushing the Rat Choice stuff there are still plenty of places that do good work. Do not malign the entire field.
Macalack...I think you got the wrong idea from this blog posting...almost everyone would still advise you to not do it. Please think long and hard before committing to this path and keep an open mind about leaving it after your MA. I love being a Prof but given the cost to my family and the chaotic career path I wish I would have walked with the MA.
Apologies for the typos...was
Apologies for the typos...was trying to dash this out quick.
What I don't understand is
What I don't understand is the lack of focus on studying overseas in the field of IR and security studies. I thought it was a no-brainer when I first applied for an Israeli MA in Middle Eastern Studies ... if you want to study an area it only makes sense to live where you study. During my undergraduate days I spent a couple semesters studying Arabic in Lebanon and I found my skills improved exponentially over what I had already picked up during two years of Arabic at a US university. The immersion is a unique experience that cannot be replicated at home.
I want to know why DC is so obsessed with conducting the study of other nations at home. I learned from my advisor at the last minute, after crafting all three essays and my research proposal, that I was ineligible for a Bored Fellowship because I was pursuing an Israeli MA with no ties to an American university despite being a perfect candidate (a Marine veteran with 2.5 years of Arabic). I have yet to apply for any DC jobs, but this entry focuses heavily on American institutions with the lone exception of the British degree, which is still quite close to home if your intention is to study the greater Middle East. I can't help but wonder if a year from now after graduation some snob at a DC think tank focusing on the region is going to send my application the way of the round filing cabinet and hire some kid who participated in the Ivy League 'circle jerk' and whose overseas experience is limited to that one summer semester (read: vacation) in undergrad where he spent his days skyping mommy and daddy and taking full advantage of the lowered drinking age.
Terrible news out of
Terrible news out of Afghanistan today. Politics aside, I'm tired of seeing this kind of thing.
lol, you go. I remember you
lol, you go. I remember you when you were in britain.
Meanwhile, in other news: Visualize me dancing across a hangarship-deck w mission accomplished banners and lots of Bunting. (read Zappas memoirs for that reference...)
http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/oslobomben/artikkel.php?artid=10089390
http://oyvindstrommen.be/2011/08/05/journalist-resource-so-whats-the-dea...
We got him.
I think Mr. Breivik seriously
I think Mr. Breivik seriously miscalculated the consequences of his acts. Should have gone someplace other than Oslo.
Comment by Fnord on August 6,
Comment by Fnord on August 6, 2011 - 11:13am
Witness the Stalinist mind at work. Someone doesn't speak with the crowd, ergo he must be railroaded and punished.
PhD for Dummies = Rent
PhD for Dummies = Rent Seeking for Hustlers.
It's over, BTW.
I liked this. It would have
I liked this. It would have been very helpful four years ago when I went from government to back to graduate school, and picked a US policy PhD program which ended up being a really bad idea. Luckily, I was able to quickly move to one of the option 1 schools with the (supposedly) policy-dismissive professors. I wouldn't describe the professors here as "often hostile" to policy ideas, rather their standards of evidence are pretty damn high. And, for me, this is a good thing. My previous skills (charm, connections, a reputation for being "really smart and hardworking") are just not good enough, and I have to work like a dog on being more careful and precise in my research, the way scientists do. It is not easy.
I still have a lot of contacts (and ongoing collaborators) in government, and when I work with them, I feel really good about myself because we speak the same (policy) language and they are impressed by my extra training and great school. Not so at my graduate program. From the very beginning, I felt like I was being kicked in the head. Frequently. But it was not for my failure to contribute to the latest debate on alliance formation or the duration of post-civil war peace spells or whatever. It was because I was not even close to providing credible evidence for the ideas I was proposing. Now that I have the (preliminary) skills to do that, I think there is actually a lot of opportunity here to advance new ideas in this field. It might be that individuals like Brian Weeden (above), might both get more out of and contribute more to IR/security in political science exactly because of their different experiences and understanding of how problems work in the real world. This is how ideas move forward, in political science and public policy. It might not be an easy change for the student or the field, but it would be challenging and welcome, for those who are not wedded to studying war and national security exclusively in DC.
For what it's worth, I have been lectured about how I will be a failure if I don't do certain things, but publishing in APSR was not one of them. In my case, it was about not wasting time, completing my program on schedule, and having realistic expectations about the difficulty of an academic job.
Good lord, Fnord, you're an
Good lord, Fnord, you're an evil little fucker. If only everyone in the Workers' Youth League was such a cowardly, pathetic petty tyrant - or at least was fated to wind up as one. I'd be taking up collections for Knight Commander Breivik tomorrow.
Somehow I don't recall Noam Chomsky having to go into hiding after 9/11. It might have happened. Maybe it did. I just don't remember it, that's all I'm sayin'.
Editorial comment would be
Editorial comment would be superfluous:
http://www.jta.org/news/article/2011/07/26/3088704/envoy-compares-terror...
JERUSALEM (JTA) -- Norway's ambassador to Israel drew distinctions between the Oslo and Utoya massacres and Palestinian terrorism.
Svein Sevje said in an Israeli newspaper interview Tuesday that while the Norwergian bomb and gun rampages that killed 76 people and Palestinian attacks should both be considered morally unacceptable, he wanted to "outline the similarity and the difference in the two cases."
Palestinians, the ambassador told Maariv, "are doing this because of a defined goal that is related to the Israeli occupation. There are elements of revenge against Israel and hatred of Israel. To this you can add the religious element to their actions."
"In the case of the terror attack in Norway, the murderer had an ideology that says that Norway, particularly the Labor Party, is forgoing Norwegian culture," Sevje said, referring to suspect Anders Breivik, a Christian nativist who is opently anti-Islam and anti-immigration.
Unlike European Union states, Norway has engaged Hamas and often been fiercely critical of Israel, to Jerusalem's dismay.
While Sevje voiced sympathy for Israeli terror victims, having experienced "the inferno" of such attacks during his posting, he saw little chance of Norway reviewing its Middle East policies.
"We Norwegians consider the occupation to be the cause of the terror against Israel," he said. "Those who believe this will not change their mind because of the attack in Oslo."
He added, "Can Israel and the Palestinians solve the problems without Hamas? I don't think so."
Great advice. People really
Great advice. People really need to think carefully before getting themselves into such a huge commitment!
I just want to throw in a couple other thoughts. You mentioned: "Huge variety of programs from super-theoretical (Chicago), old-school guns and bombs (MIT, Columbia), to political economy driven (Stanford, Princeton)." I'm not sure if these reputations hold true anymore. For example, Stanford's IR contingent is pretty security heavy (Jim Fearon, Ken Schultz, Scott Sagan). And, at most of the top programs like the ones you mentioned, even Chicago, you can't avoid rigorous quantitative training. Which brings me to my second point--people going into poli sci PhDs should recognize how much quantitative work is involved (unless you're a theorist I guess).
Last note--people should look at a school's placement record to see what type of people you'll be working with. If the placement record shows that virtually everybody goes down an academic route and you're looking for a policy heavy program, then you probably want to look elsewhere. Though, just because everyone in a certain program is going academia, doesn't mean that program wouldn't prepare you well for a policy position if you chose that route.
Good post, Andrew and
Good post, Andrew and Charlie. I would add a few other things:
1) Some of this is very American advice. Most other places don't have enough of a thinktank/beltway community to make the PHD -> think tank route very likely. In that case, it may be safer to anchor yourself in a regular academic poli sci (etc) department and do policy things from there... which in turn puts a premium on a PhD from a good research university, since it clearly enhances hiring prospects in a tight job market.
2) "professors are training their replacements and are often hostile to / dismissive of policy work" ...sadly, yes. It may also mean focusing on the less policy-oriented stuff pre-tenure, if the promotion committee isn't likely to place much value on policy work.
3) Don't assume that the content of PhD seminars at research-oriented departments will teach you anything about policy processes. It might even do the opposite: my immediate superior in one policy shop where I worked (who himself had a poli sci PhD) used to complain that it would take him a year or two to kick the excessive theoretical abstraction out of new poli sci grad school graduates.
3) Don't underestimate the value of using your PhD thesis research (and even MA thesis research) as a social networking tool which enables you to get to know the people you would like to work with. Since many senior folks are flattered by the attention from graduate students, you can get quick remarkable access, and establish networks that come in useful later.
4) The hybrid route (see #1) can be quite effective: PhD, university appointment, then double-dipping into policy world through working as a consultant, scholar-in-residence in a government department, and so forth. Picking up a security clearance along the way is nice too if you can do it, although national practice varies substantially on how long it remains active and under what conditions. It also means a stable core income, and the ability to pick-and-choose the projects you like/believe in.
Tom Barnett wrote a related
Tom Barnett wrote a related post a few months back that was pretty good: http://thomaspmbarnett.com/globlogization/2011/4/6/question-from-oxford-...
I want to add my thanks for
I want to add my thanks for this, and for the various additions via tweet.
Why not? Conflict resolution classes are offered in my community, and there is a particular professor I think I would like to study under.
AM (or anyone else): When you
AM (or anyone else):
When you get a second, would you mind listing a few other part-time PhD programs like King's? Thank you very much!
Great comments. I am a big
Great comments.
I am a big fan of the "trade school" MA programs (Fletcher, Korbel, SAIS), where students plan to actually use their degrees in government and private industry.
I also am a big fan of getting some BOG experience -- anywhere -- before transitioning from undergrad to grad. Exum represents the extreme case, but my mid-career students bring both maturity and experience to otherwise theory-dominated courses.
A very wise advisor talked me out of a PhD. In my case, the primary issue was age. I bless the day I ran into him. He was right; I don't need a PhD to be happy.
An interesting take on
An interesting take on things, and valuable for what it is worth.
The pity is that we are discussing 'PhD' 'training' and 'job' in the same discussion. There isn't a real way to corelate them intelligently. A PhD should be about education (ideally about contributing to the existing body of knowledge) rather than about training. Granted, one may need some methodological training in order to make a contribution, but that should be a necessary, but not sufficient, aspect of the process.
I suppose it goes without saying that I did my PhD at the LSE, since my first remarks to those who with a quants fetish is to remind them of what the late Hedley Bull said: "Thinking is also research." A focus on method, rather than product, seems a bit silly to me. Besides, if you want quants skills, you can get them in many different ways; a PhD is not the best route towards statistical brilliance, to be sure.
As for the idea that a PhD will get you a job, if this is your motivation, step away from the project immediately. Far from being a 'rent seeking strategy', there could not be a worse way to make money. A PhD, in purely economic terms, is a non-starter: what you put into it is not repaid in monetary terms. The opportunity cost alone kills any cost-benefit analysis. Even this kind of thinking ignores the 'externalities', the social costs (loneliness, isolation, self-doubt, etc.)
If 'bang for your buck' is what you are after, an MA/MS/MSc, MBA, MPA or a LLB/JD will 'pay off' far more handsomely and far more quickly than a PhD, regardless of where you go to obtain it.
In that sense, I would join in the chorus: do not do a PhD...unless you are a hopelessly romantic, academically minded 'geek' (like me) who enjoys the intellectual challenge--and intellectual rewards--inherent in the proposition.
I tend to agree with most of
I tend to agree with most of the comments reference the goals and desires for a PhD:
1. PhD is not for everyone. In fact, maybe 1-2% of people should consider going this route.
2. Academic positions in Political Science/International Relations are few and far between. While a PhD in Math/Engineering is useful to private industry, a PhD in Social Sciences is only good for teaching or working in the DC area, which explains the glut in social science PhDs.
3. Do NOT go for a PhD if you are thinking about a career advancement within the government. The intelligence agencies do not require it, nor do any other government agencies. The only jobs within the government that would require a PhD are scientist/engineering positions (think Lawrence Livermore labs).
4. The only jobs in the DC area that require a social science PhD are the FFRDCs (RAND, JHUAPL, Institute for Defense Analysis). Even these organizations are shying away from it, with the thought process that an MA/MS with work experience is much better than having a PhD.
5. I disagree completely with the MA "racket" discussed in the above post. The MA will not get you a job in the academic world, but it is more than enough for 99% of jobs in the DC area. The MA also sets you out from the pack, proving that you have a specific focus, as opposed to having a just a BA/BS. Finally, some programs (SAIS, Georgetown), are particularly rigorous...Far more than many PhD programs, and will provide a far better return on your investment.
OK, I get it -- the post and
OK, I get it -- the post and comments have been really interesting, and I understand it's probably a really bad idea to go for the PhD. I don't want to be a professor one day, I just want to do research and write policy papers.
To clarify, is a PhD necessary to have a decent career in think tank-ery and foreign policy research?
If not, then what kind of master's level degree gives the best training?
If "factory MAs" in international affairs are a racket and don't give you adequate training in research methods, original research, or much in-depth focus on a particular region, then what kind of degree -- short of a PhD -- does?
What I need is training in research methods and quantitative stuff, further expertise in my region, and an opportunity to do original research. (And many other things, I'm sure -- I don't deny I've got a lot to learn.) It seems like an MA in public policy, area studies, or political science would each give me one of those things, but not all of them together. Is that possible to do in a masters-level program?
Add your comment