Got an offer but not sure if it is a good fit, as I am interested in methods and there is a bunch of stuff online saying it might not be the best place to get such training. However, this information is several years old. People also say to just pick classes at the Econ dept, but not sure if an Econ prof will just welcome any polisci grad with open arms in their class. So, how does it compare to other top 20 programs?
UCSD methods training
-
It compares favorably. You will get solid methods training, comparable to most top 10 or 20 programs, with the exception of a few that actively train methodologists.
They are also running a search for CP with someone who can teach causal inference at the moment, FYI.
-
Also, keep in mind, methods training is not limited to coursework. Your dissertation research will inevitably push you to develop or refine your methods skills. So if you have strong opportunity to work with a good advisor at UCSD, then you should also consider that.
-
Methods training is what you make of it. If you read and truly understand all of the materials assigned in just about any program’s quant sequence, you will probably have a better understanding of methods than most political scientists.
Unless you want to be a pure methodologist, I wouldn’t pick a program based on methods training. Just take your department’s sequence, look for opportunities to audit or take courses in Econ or stats, do an independent study in a methods topic of your interest, and actually read econometrics and methods research. If you do this, you’ll have a far better understanding of methods than any sequence would offer.
-
Methods training is what you make of it. If you read and truly understand all of the materials assigned in just about any program’s quant sequence, you will probably have a better understanding of methods than most political scientists.
Unless you want to be a pure methodologist, I wouldn’t pick a program based on methods training. Just take your department’s sequence, look for opportunities to audit or take courses in Econ or stats, do an independent study in a methods topic of your interest, and actually read econometrics and methods research. If you do this, you’ll have a far better understanding of methods than any sequence would offer.Also, sometimes just taking advanced stats and learning more and more models has diminishing returns. At this point, your training should be focused on robustness and quality research design, not fancy models.
-
Methods training is what you make of it. If you read and truly understand all of the materials assigned in just about any program’s quant sequence, you will probably have a better understanding of methods than most political scientists.
Unless you want to be a pure methodologist, I wouldn’t pick a program based on methods training. Just take your department’s sequence, look for opportunities to audit or take courses in Econ or stats, do an independent study in a methods topic of your interest, and actually read econometrics and methods research. If you do this, you’ll have a far better understanding of methods than any sequence would offer.Also, sometimes just taking advanced stats and learning more and more models has diminishing returns. At this point, your training should be focused on robustness and quality research design, not fancy models.
Some programs also throw a lot at students very quickly, and this leads to many poorly-trained grads who know very little but think they know a lot.
-
Being a top 10 program, it’s going to be better than top 20 programs.
Got an offer but not sure if it is a good fit, as I am interested in methods and there is a bunch of stuff online saying it might not be the best place to get such training. However, this information is several years old. People also say to just pick classes at the Econ dept, but not sure if an Econ prof will just welcome any polisci grad with open arms in their class. So, how does it compare to other top 20 programs?
-
All of these grad program threads can be summed up by the point that you people are making too much out of minor distinctions. At the end of the day, all that matters is the broad category of status/opportunities and the input (you).
You're not getting 'trained' by a program and the material you learn is not dependent on the handful of courses you take or the profs you encounter at the schools.
The very top schools have the most access to top scholars/networks/prestige, but splitting hairs over the differences is a waste of time. At that point it's more about where you want to live/what works for you.