eponine997

I'd highly advise against this. Websites, particularly if a graduate school has one deadline for ALL programs, can become overloaded, your internet might choose that night to be extra slow, etc. etc. Give yourself AT LEAST 1 business day before the deadline. Last year there was a program (very low on my list), I waited until the deadline and couldn't connect to the website, trying consistently for several hours - in the end I decided to save myself the $75. No regrets apart from having already sent them transcripts and GRE scores... but had it been my first choice I would have cried myself to sleep every night for a month.

Your scanned transcripts are just as official as electronic transcripts you send - which is to say unofficial. As long as the electronic transcripts indicate that they are clearly from the school and have your coursework, grades and other relevant notes in a readable format, it shouldn't be a problem. Any school that admits you will require your official (signed and sealed) transcripts before you matriculate, so there is no advantage to lying/altering/forging transcripts. (I know that's not what you're doing, but it is the reason why they won't care if it appears as "modified")

Also anecdotal, a friend of mine majored in philosophy and literature, after some RA work and professional (research related) experience, got into a number of good programs and then did very well on the job market. Similar, this friend also ended up with a strong focus on formal theory and methods. From what I gather (when coming from outside the discipline) you need to be able to tell a compelling story about how your previous experience led you to pursue a PS PhD, how that experience and background has shaped your research interests, and that you know enough about political science as a discipline to know what you are getting yourself into.

I went through a similar thing as to whether to apply in my second year of grad school or wait until after my thesis and degree were completed and I heard strong arguments from both sides. I'd reiterate the points Adapt made in the previous post, but also note some other considerations that may or may not apply in your case. The first is financial: yes there is the cost of the applications, but there is also the potential end of student loan deferment if you wait a year to apply. Waiting a year means you will need a way to support yourself financially (including potentially making student loan payments) for the year in between finishing your MPP and starting your PhD. Recognize that finding such a job may take several months... or you might get an offer the week after classes end... or you might have something already lined up. But its worth considering that if you choose to wait until this time next year you may be focused on the job hunt rather than focusing on putting together a strong application. Conversely, the second is the time you can spend on your application: can you articulate your research interests well? might you be able to better articulate these interests a year from now? does your current workload prevent you from spending the necessary time on your applications? No one knows this better than you, though you may not (as I mentioned in the first point) have a clear idea of how much time you will have to work on your applications at this time next year. As for time away from 'academia' (by the strictest definition), it may or may not strengthen your application depending on how you use it (and what your research interests and long-term goals are). If you look at the previous cycle thread, you'll see the occasional post from applicants who spent a year or two at a think tank or doing research of some kind (even if it wasn't hugely relevant to their specific interests). Several commented on how this experience gave them time to help articulate their research interests or the opportunity to network - I know this is not everyone and time is ultimately what you make of it, but this is something to consider. The other thing I would mention is that the application cycle is a bigger distraction than you might anticipate. Not just the applications themselves, but the time spent waiting for responses - it doesn't very easily facilitate getting other work done (on a thesis, on school work, on a job search, etc). Others may feel differently, this is just my .02. If you are concerned about the effect the publication will have on your application in the next cycle v. this one, mention that you have a paper under review in a peer reviewed journal in your SoP (or gently persuade one of your recommenders to bring it up in the LoR). At the very least it will send the signal that you recognize this as an important aspect of graduate school/academic life - how strong of a signal will probably depend on your audience. My general advice would echo what Adapt said with a caveat, apply this cycle unless you somehow think it would prohibit you (financially) from applying next cycle, if for some reason you don't anticipating having 1-2k to spend on applications at this time next year if you spend it now, go for which ever cycle you believe you will be able to put forth the strongest application with all the above considerations in mind. Good luck!

I honestly doubt most places would noticed. From what I've gathered some places weigh writing samples more heavily than others, some places weigh LoRs more heavily than others - and these are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Most important: Your letters should be written by people who know you well and can speak to your ability to succeed in grad school and contribute to the discipline (though in some cases your recommenders may come from outside the discipline). The "weight" of the recommender does come into play sometimes. For example if you are applying to program where one of your recommenders has friends/coauthors/etc or used to teach there, that can be helpful if the adcom knows or has heard of the person. However, you are pretty much always better off with a detailed letter from an unheard-of someone who knows you than a generic form letter from a "top dog" who taught you in a large intro class and barely knew you. Similarly the experience of the recommender can also give it more (or less) weight with the adcom, if the recommender has been teaching at an R1 for twenty years and says you are among the best students he/she has ever taught, that is more substantial than someone who is three years out of grad school saying you are "among the best..." etc, etc. = if you hunt around on this forum you'll see that advice almost word for word from our "resident faculty", I'd find the link myself but i'm lazy/should realistically be working on other things and the information itself is there. I heard similar advice myself from an almost-top-dog" who is also a DGS. These are really the things they'll be looking at, and adcoms usually realize you might be choosing your recommenders on any of the above criteria. I doubt anyone will say "well, gee, none of the recommenders specifically mentioned the writing sample, he must have had a terrible relationship with that instructor." Presumably, you are trying to showcase your best qualifications, the writing sample, to some degree, speaks on behalf of that instructor for how well you did in the class. In other words, you don't really need the professor to tell them what an amazing, insightful, paper you wrote, because they'll have the opportunity to read your amazing paper for themselves. Finally, if you are really losing sleep over it, many schools (not all) will allow you to submit more than three letters.

At some point we really should just "pin" one of these threads... or someone needs to make a thread called "before asking 'what are my chances!?!?'" No one, I repeat, no one on this forum can tell you your chances at any school (other than that you have a non-zero probability) unless they are on the ad com at said school or they read you SoP and letters. Have a look at the "Profiles/Results" threads from 2013 and 2012. Here you will see that people with similar GPAs to you got into top 10 programs. You can look at the results board and see people with GPAs and scores higher than yours who were rejected from middle- to low-ranked programs. Different programs weigh these factors (scores, GPA, pedigree, etc.) differently. Some will look more closely at your final two years rather than your overall GPA (and you'll see on the application where they ask for this), some will look at your major GPA, others will look at grades in relevant courses. Nearly every school will reject an applicant with perfect scores and grades if they cannot clearly express their research interest or their research interest don't fit well with any of the department's graduate faculty. As for "top 50? top 100? 100+" there is a thread elsewhere on the forum (non-discipline specific) asking people what their regrets were in the application cycle. An overwhelming number of people said they wished they'd applied to better schools (or not excluded schools because they thought they couldn't get in) because they got in at place they thought were "a reach." I know smart people with good scores, resumes, and grades who struck out because they only applied to 5 schools, and similarly, people on this forum who applied to 15ish schools and only got one or two acceptances (though I cannot speak to their intellect, credentials, etc.) and there is no way they could have known ahead of time which those would be. Sometimes you are paying that $100 application fee so you won't be left wondering 'what if...' later on. Find places you REALLY want to go, and don't apply to any place you wouldn't attend if accepted. Can the place help you achieve you intended outcome? Consider what you want: do you want to be a professor at an R1? at a small lib arts college? a junior college? or work at a think tank? or for the government? Look at recent placements and see if that is a reasonable expectation at schools to which you are considering applying. Is there someone there who can supervise your research or whose work really interests you who you could to learn from? If there isn't, then it's probably not a good place to apply. "Funding or not?" Don't go if you are not funded unless you are independently wealthy. A 5 year PhD program is a lot of debt, and does not lead to an extremely lucrative career that will facilitate paying back that debt very easily as, say, medical school does. Good luck

Have you considered talking directly with the programs? Particularly if you've already identified POIs at these particular schools (who may or may not be affiliated with both programs) and you have a clear idea of what you want to study. Why not send an email, "hi i am considering applying to your school/program, these are my interests, these are my long term goals, this is my background, however, I am unsure at which program I might be a better fit because after thoroughly research each program... blah blah blah" I would imagine no one can give you better advice on this than the people who are admitting/teaching/advising students in the programs. Though I would suggest that you a) demonstrate that you HAVE thoroughly researched each program and thought seriously about how you'd fit in (for example you don't want to say you've had one term of calculus and are unsure which to apply to when the PE program requires several math courses beyond the calc series or some other similarly obvious distinction that can be found the program website); and b ) don't take it personally if you don't get a response, profs are busy people and not all respond to prospective grad students (i.e. lack of response is not a good reason to rule out a program). **resisting the urge to make a "Rochester good" joke**

the Jackson School at the University of Washington immediately comes to mind since you seem to favor an interdisciplinary approach with an area-studies focus (China in particular) Also, for PhD programs in the U.S. you are not expected to have your dissertation proposal written upon acceptance. For a (approximately) 5-year program, the proposal completed after the second year. For admission they expect you to have a clear idea of what you want to study and how it fits into the discipline/program to which you are applying.

Yes. Assuming your life/family/financial situation allows you to do so. To be warned, depending on where you transfer, you may have to complete ALL the coursework/comps/etc again (hence my comment about what your life situation allows, might be a great idea if you are 24, but perhaps not so great at 34 - and part of that will come down to personal preference). That said, it would be impressive to defend your proposal by the end of your second year, and personally, I don't think I would if transferring was a strong possibility. There are good schools that don't necessarily place well (relative to their own ranking. this has to do with a number of factors, faculty support being one of them) and there are middle-ranked schools that have managed to place at peer institutions. See http://www.princeton.edu/~bschmidt/Papers/Schmidt-Chingos%20Rankings%20Paper.pdf for more details on placement-based rankings. Considering outcome is very smart approach. Keep in mind that schools, even middle-tier schools, in urban areas are highly sought after (usually due to lifestyle/spousal considerations). For example, Indiana is well-ranked, but if I have a working spouse, I might prefer a job (note: I said job, not grad program) at UofIllinois-Chicago (much lower ranked) due to its location. Look at the schools where you'd like to apply, how have their candidates placed (post-2008). Look at schools where you think you could be happy working, where did the current faculty get their PhDs (were many of them teaching somewhere else prior?).

I know of others who have struck out, despite publications. I've seen several rejections on the results board of people mentioning publications (and otherwise strong marks) in the comments. They are good subfield journals (easily falling within OP's description of "very reputable," but top journals would be APSR, AJPS, IO, Journal of Politics, World Politics. Don't misunderstand me, publishing in International Studies and/or Security Studies is a strong signal and pretty darn impressive for someone who has not yet attended grad school, but by no means would it make you a "sure thing" for acceptance.

To reiterate from previous comments: Apply to more than 5 schools (what Quigley said). Publications and prior experience with political science research (particularly if mentored by a poli sci professor) are generally positive signals. As for your professional experience, etc, you'll need to explain how it shaped your research interests and/or how it fits with the schools where you are applying (you'll want to have better reasons than "it's not worth getting a PhD unless I get one from a reputable institution" - and perhaps you do have reasons for those schools in particular, but you'll want to express that in your SoP. Most important, have clearly defined research interests. You should have questions you want to explore as a grad student. Have you considered getting a PhD in business or public policy? With your background and interest it might be more appropriate and certainly would not rule out placement into tenure-track job in political science if that is your end game (or for that matter, if you wanted to teach/research international tax policy it would be much more lucrative to do so in a business school). You might have a better chance at exploring these interests at a top school - something to consider. Going back to what Quigley said, your GPA does not make you a lost cause for a poli sci PhD, more likely, you would just need to make a compelling case for why you want to study poli sci, describe how your background helped develop your research interests, articulate what those interests are and how they fit at the schools where you are applying. As much as I get that you were looking for a therapeutic reassurance one way or the other - there is really only one way to find out what your chances are... (and even that doesn't always provide an accurate picture)

Sounds like a good plan to me, though before settling on an application strategy, I would recommend talking to your current profs/advisors (the people who do know your work best, already have PhDs, and have probably advised other students in the admissions process before) (I'd also assume these are the people who will be writing your LoR so you'll want them to be familiar with your app strategy and your research interest). Also, identify professors you'd like to work with at the schools where you are applying, ask them what interests they might have in your topic if you are concerned. Some people say this has no effect on admissions, you might get no response (don't take it personally if you don't), but you might also get rather rare sliver of wisdom that allows you to make the right adjustment to your application to convey a perfect fit. "Not hyper-important" true, but this shouldn't be confused with 'you can submit any political science paper and its unlikely anyone will look at it' (though some institutions may not, or it may only come into play if you are on the borderline between wait-list and admit, or between wait-list and reject - smart/qualified people get rejected from top programs, you can look at the Results page and see people with perfect GPAs and perfect GREs rejected from even middle-ranking programs, this is where fit matters). Again, my point wasn't that you should spend tons of time crafting custom research papers to demonstrate fit to each individual school you're applying to. My point was that 1) you should select a writing sample (polish it up, if necessary) that conveys your fit with a given program; 2) if you find yourself running out of papers and submitting a different writing sample to each program, you should probably rethink your application strategy (read: school selection) and focus on schools that ARE a good fit with your \emph{clearly defined} research interests. Yes, spend a fair chunk of time writing and rewriting your SoP (then get feedback from profs, other students, etc.). If you haven't had a chance to explore in any great depth the interests you plan on pursuing in a PhD program, talk about how the interest came about (developed from other research you've done, a specific paper, body of literature, etc.). Generally, it sounds like you are on the right track. The "hybrid approach" of poli sci and something else has worked extremely well for some people. I don't necessarily think either of you are taking the wrong approach. Mostly with my original post on this topic I was trying to emphasize that fit matters, and writing sample can convey fit (or the opposite of that). Also, I'll add: it is still early. If you haven't had a chance to explore or investigate what you plan on researching in a PhD program (a few people have mentioned this with formal theory/PE) ask one of your recent profs for some recommended readings. If you are a senior at a school that has a PhD program and coming from another discipline, ask if you can take the intro grad seminar in the fall.

Hmmm, I feel it would be imprudent to go into more detail of my personal experience with this (as my situation is atypical). I would stress that your level of fit at each school MAY be evaluated based on your writing sample (that is to say that it also may not). This doesn't necessarily mean that you should (in overly simplistic terms) submit a writing sample based on a constructivist approach just because the faculty at the institution of interest tend to favor that approach. Instead, if you notice your methodology or approach differs considerably from the faculty at that institution reconsider if it is some place you really want to spend the next 5 years of your life: will these people be interested in your research? enough so that they'd be willing to assist you on the academic job market? enough so that they'd be willing to coauthor with you? (etc.) Is there some other similarly ranked school where you are, in terms of methodology or approach, a better fit? To address your last point, yes, interest often do change in grad school (my interests certainly did with respect to my MA program). Adcoms know this. And you might be totally fine submitting a random writing sample and explaining your fit and/or your specific interests in your SoP (n=1 is not significant, so take my .02 FWIW). However, if your PhD-level interest differ considerably from what you wrote your MA thesis on or what you've done in the past, you'll want to tell a story in your SoP of why your interests shifted. "blah blah after examining this question with such-and-such approach, I realized the methodological limitations, which led me to explore X, which I would like to further study based on blah blah literature from POI at your institution" (but, obviously, don't say it like that). In my experience it won't help you if they think you are you telling them what they want to hear rather than what you truly want to study (e.g. "I want to study X and it makes sense for me to go to your institution because profs. A, B, and C also study X" when all your previous work has been related to Y.) To reiterate what I said before, rather than targeting your writing samples and SoPs to specific institutions and their faculty/approaches (though with SoPs you should do this, IMO) you should select the schools to which you apply based on fit (where you have common ground with faculty research interests/methods and can demonstrate this). If your interests are somewhat divided, then yes, use two writing samples and make larger adjustments on your SOP for each school or set of schools. As a frequent and reputable poster on this forum advised me: in some cases you will be trying to demonstrate your allegiance to a specific method or topic, other times you will be framing yourself as an area specialist. Don't misunderstand me. You MIGHT be fine with a generic poli sci writing sample unrelated to your interests that just demonstrates that you are brilliant. But in my mind, you are trying to get the adcom member interested with a hook "wow, this person has a really interesting idea that I think so-and-so in our dept would really be interested in..." The writing sample is an opportunity, you can bank on generic "brilliance" or you can use it to demonstrate your knowledge, interest and fit within the institution to which you are applying. I recommend the latter if possible.

Different programs have different length expectations. Some ask for 15-20 pages (or two shorter papers if you don't have anything that long), some ask for no more than 6 pages. For the programs with longer requirements, I used a seminar paper that was sort of okay in my opinion (good, not great) because it was the most recent, I didn't have enough of my thesis written to use chapters from that, and one of my recommenders encouraged me to use it. For programs with shorter requirements, I used my (then) crappy thesis introduction - funny enough this got me the best reaction (they specifically told me so) because it demonstrated fit both methodologically and topically with the program I was applying to by showing what sort of questions I was interested in and my knowledge of the relevant literature. It wasn't until after applications were submitted that my methods and research design became more sophisticated, and my introduction became more clear (so I was surprised a program commented on the quality of my writing sample when I thought it sucked), but such is life. If you can, try to pick a writing sample that demonstrates your fit within the program and your knowledge/interest in the topics you want to explore in graduate school. A friend of mine (who was not in school at the time of her applications, and not a poli sci major) actually wrote a paper on her own to use as her writing sample - it paid VERY high dividends for her. Some programs weigh the writing sample more heavily than others, but there is no reason not to give yourself every advantage possible.

I don't exactly what your background is brandnewtothis, but I would caution you to be careful before condemning yourself to retail. Have you considered looking for a research job? You might just be looking at spreadsheets or running reg y x, but that doesn't mean it can't open the door for better things. A friend of mine (with a humanities degree) took a job in social science research for two years, while doing so she found a prof at nearby (and highly ranked) university who was doing research closely related to her 9-to-5 work, she contacted him, discussed the possibility of grad school and asked if he had reading recommendations for exploring the topic further, which she then read and asked if she could be his research assistant (as a volunteer). She worked for him and his coauthor for about a year. After that she had two new strong letters, new research and more clearly defined interest to talk about in her SoP. This was good enough to get her into a top ten poli sci program. That is certainly not the norm, but a possibility. Don't think you ONLY have this either-or option of retail or go into debt for an MA, be creative. I wouldn't suggest exactly the path she took, but there are other options, combinations of coursework, research, volunteering and networking that could get you what you need without taking on massive amounts of debt. That said, CIR is a quality program, just make sure you utilize your time well if that's what you decide on - for a short program, the debt won't necessarily be the worst thing in the world.