UTKBob

It's late and I'm worrying again, and this place has been awesome with guidance so far. To recap from a previous thread, I've received full funding to the University of Tennessee's PhD program in Political Science, which I am eternally grateful for. Here's what's keeping me up tonight. UTK isn't ranked. I know Tennessee is generally regarded as competitive among large state schools, and I have no delusions of grandeur here. Anecdotally, one of my undergraduate professors who went to the same program told me that because of budget cuts/time constraints, Tennessee doesn't bother with trying to improve their program rank. I don't know how true that is. I know literally nothing about the program. Here's my thing. I went to a small liberal arts college, and wouldn't mind teaching at one so long as it isn't stuck in the absolute middle of nowhere. But I'd like to have the possibility of working for a larger state school, just because of how awful the job market is. I'd even consider teaching at the high school level, like at a private school or a charter school of some sort. Basically, I'm flexible, and I know I won't be teaching at Yale, but what are my chances of finding gainful employment and NOT getting stuck in adjunct hell?

So I went back and looked at my transcript. I was actually wrong. Freshman year of college, I made a C in an Intermediate level Statistics class that I didn't care about AT ALL that graded on no curve. If I show any level of aptitude at all, I shouldn't have any trouble with social science, right? Is it common to work with TA's or professors outside of class? I was basically on a first name basis with my professors in undergrad, so I think I've forgotten how it actually works.

You two both answered the question I couldn't figure out how to ask. The professors at my undergrad loved me. There's two undergraduates history courses taught using two different papers I wrote. I know it doesn't always translate to a bigger, better school, but my teachers have always been there for that tiny bit of slack that - even if I didn't actually need it in the end - kept me from having a nervous breakdown. I guess it turns out that being neurotic helps after all, right? I mean, my GRE quant score was a 149. I'm a couple of points better than that, but they wouldn't have let me in if they were an overly mathy program. You guys really are lifesavers. It's June and here I am trying to figure out what to do if I fail out of grad school.

I'm not 100% sure I'm following.

Here's another question. My funding package stipulates I maintain a 3.5 to keep funding. That seems pretty standard. My question is this: do schools generally take that completely literally?

Thanks a ton for this. I had been looking for something like this, but obviously there's a lot stuff of very dubious quality attempting to get more clicks on the internet. I've also bought a book - aimed at undergrads and first year graduate students - to attempt to familiarize myself better with... stuff. I'd like to thank everyone else for your responses, though I don't have time to quote them all specifically. I just feel like I'm behind where I should be. I failed out of precalc in high school, and now these professors on the internet are saying I should have two years of Calculus with linear algebra before I even start? I looked up the requirements of my program online. They require three research methods classes, plus a research "tool" requirement, so basically four classes. That seems to me to be, thankfully, a little less number intensive than some other programs. Thoughts on that assumption?

Hey guys, I'm a new member seeking a little reassurance and guidance. I hope I'm not annoying, and I hope I'm not like a typical new member. Here's my situation. I've been accepted to, and funded at, the University of Tennessee-Knoxville for this fall, into the Political Science Ph.D. program. I am coming from a History BA program at a small, public Liberal Arts program in Virginia. I've been out of school for a year, after a brief flirtation with law firm life left me - at risk of sounding hilariously cliche - craving intellectual challenge again. Here's what I'm concerned about: my undergraduate program was not easy by a long shot. I had professors from public Ivy's who were entirely committed to being amazing, challenging professors. This wasn't a community college by any stretch. Even in this atmosphere, I had a 4.0 from fall 2010 until my graduation in 2013. However, a few problems. First, my actual political science background is limited to basic American government classes, two political theory classes, and a single comparative politics course. I made A's in these classes, but I somehow still feel woefully unprepared. My biggest concern is quantitative. I basically... Have little to no experience. A failed distance learning program in high school ruined my math confidence and I haven't truly tried since. I made a C in elementary statistics at college. However, I did make A's in both elementary Macro and Micro economics. Strangely, my focus is the car industry. I've written extensively about the correlation of industry and geopolitical power. I'm just worried that my a) switching of fields and relatively lax quantitative training will torpedo me from the get go. What I'm basically asking for here is advice on what I can do, on my own time this summer, to ensure I maintain the 3.5 gpa necessary to not flunk out of grad school... And honestly, some reassurance that I need to be here in the first place. I mean, they saw my transcript. They wouldn't have let me in if they were a super quantitative program, right?