<p>Can anyone tell me which universities have graduate programs in Political Science / Government that emphasize an objective, rigorous, and empirically accountable approach (i.e. more like Physics, less like the Sokal Affair)? The list will of course start with Rochester, and probably Carnegie-Mellon and Princetons Woodrow Wilson School, the latter because of the domination by economists. Dartmouth and Northwestern have innovative programs combining Math with Social Sciences that build on such frameworks as Game Theory and Social Network Theory, but those are undergraduate programs, and also they are not part of the Political Science establishment. Occasionally I come across some interesting work out of Columbia and Harvards Kennedy School, but I am not sure that they represent the main culture there. I am not interested in programs that call themselves rigorous just because they include a couple of baby Stat courses.</p>
<p>UC San Diego.</p>
<p>Oh my, there are so many, even well beyond the “USNews” list. Almost all of the best departments have strength across several fields but also a strong “core” of methods and other courses. You shouldn’t be put off by the fact that the faculty may include specialists who take a qualitative approach; when applying to grad school you need to look at the core programs and courses offered in your areas of interest, the faculty with whom you might most want to work; and (hard to find) placement success of the program. You also want to have a program with strong fellow-students. Some departments also have internal problems/conflicts that may be detrimental to students, and these may be related to differences in professional orientation or methodological approaches, or they may be more personalistic.</p>
<p>I’m a political scientist (with a quantitative/empirical focus – though not formal/math as such). If I were advising my son where to apply, it would depend in part on which field he was interested in (e.g., IR, American, methods, comparative, political thought, etc.) But here are the ones I would put up for his consideration – not in order. (BTW/ he attended Chicago, majored in econ, and took several polisci courses as well. He’s strong in math and enjoys stats and game theory.)</p>
<p>Again, not in order.</p>
<p>NYU, Stanford (maybe also Stanford Business School), WashU, Rochester, Harvard (Govt. or Kennedy School), UCLA, UCSD, Columbia, Duke.</p>
<p>I would also have him take a glance at UNC, Wisconsin, Yale, UMich, and a few others.</p>
<p>(For some students – but still strong PhD prospects – I’d also suggest several other good polisci departments including OhSU, MSU, UCBerkeley, Chicago, PennState, and a few others. I’m being pretty subjective here, based on what I know about some “issues” in some places.)</p>
<p>Thanks, Mackinaw and Ericmeng. I took a quick look at UCSD, since you both mentioned it, and I was pleasantly surprised, especially by its IR subfield, which was full of – economists! (Just kidding – a little.). I will revisit the UCSD website and also take a look at the other websites later.</p>
<p>Having a suite of good methods courses is an encouraging sign, but sometimes the methods approach is not really integrated into the work of the rest of the subfields, so graduate students fulfill the methods requirements just to get them over with, and then forget them immediately afterwards, much like the way many (not all) pre-meds forget their Calculus and Physics courses right after the finals, wondering why they had to take them in the first place. So I agree with Mackinaw – one has to look at the faculty and their publications to determine the true orientation, and that is a time-consuming process!</p>