<p>In International Relations, the two main approach is rational-choice theory and the traditional method of area studies, case studies, and studying the -isms (liberalism, conservatism, etc). </p>
<p>What schools are good for each approach? For example, I know Rochester U, NYU, and Stanford are good for rational-choice theory and JHU and Harvard are good for the traditional approach. </p>
<p>Thanks</p>
<p>This conversation is only relevant at the graduate level. At the undergraduate level, you just need to learn the basic content and methods of the discipline. At the graduate level you can start focusing in on a particular school of thought.</p>
<p>That’s true of any major, not just international relations.</p>
<p>That’s actually not true. I am at NYU now and THE ONLY THING WE HAVE DONE is rational-choice theory and game theory. When my professor began teaching liberalism, conservatism, etc. he said other schools spend the entire year on it. We spent 1 day. Furthermore, while we are doing math, my friend at JHU has spent his freshman year reading Greek political theory</p>
<p>I would say that it’s important at the undergraduate level as well.</p>
<p>For example, I know that NYU teaches a lot of rational choice theory (quantitative politics) across many of its classes. Intro classes especially. </p>
<p>I also know that other schools DO NOT teach rational choice theory as much, in the same way or at all. I have plenty of friends in political science who do not encounter these things at all or if they do, very infrequently. Some schools only teach rational choice in a specific class only designed to teach rational choice. </p>
<p>However, at NYU, you learn rational choice theory in your respective classes and learn how to apply it to the specific area in question. </p>
<p>You already know NYU is excellent for rational choice (quantitative politics), so there’s no point in reiterating that. Just remember, NYU is host to Bueno de Mesquita.</p>
<p>Ha! lol @shadowzoid</p>
<p>Like I said, NYU teaches quantitative above and beyond that of most US undergraduate colleges. The department is entirely focused on it.</p>
<p>Ya, I understand that. But I dislike rational-choice theory because I find it hard to believe that historical background and cultural norms are negligible, and that political actors are “rational,” devoid of cognitive differences and personal ideals. But I’m not really here to debate rational-choice theory, but to find potential transfer schools.</p>
<p>The fact that you see a dichotomy between two approaches the discipline is one of the reasons that an undergrad has no business picking a program based on one approach or another. I don’t dispute that different UG programs may have different priorities. What I dispute is that those differences impact the purpose of the bachelor degree. From roughly 18 to 22 you go through a cognitive development process that sees you (hopefully) progress to higher levels of thought and understanding of knowledge. It’s the reason you start with a bachelor’s degree and don’t jump straight in to a master’s.</p>
<p>The differences in the two approaches was outlined by my professor. Second, what is the purpose of an undergraduate degree? To some it is to prepare them for the world, to others it is simply for the idealistic pursuit of knowledge. Perhaps learning the two different approaches don’t matter in the real world, in how I learn my masters, or in anything yet. Regardless, I reserve my undergraduate studies for unadultered sincere learning that is separate from any pursuit for professional advancement or practical skills.</p>