Midwestern

For inspiration: James Scott's Weapons of the Weak or Seeing Like a State. Brilliant. In terms of edited volumes: Katzenstein's Culture of National Security For examples of excellent thinking and concise writing: Martha Finnemore's Purpose of Intervention and Fearon's "Rationalist Explanations of War"

Hi Slacktivist-- For what it's worth, I got my BA at a CSU and now have funded offers at a variety of schools, one which is in the top 25. BUT, I had a 4.0 GPA and still needed to do an MA before I was admitted (I had no luck coming from a BA the first round of apps). The CSU card is a difficult one to overcome, but I ended up getting my MA on scholarship also through the CSUs, showed that I could cut it in grad classes, improved my GREs, and then was happy with the admissions results. So, my advice would be to make sure you apply to some back-up MAs. You don't have to go to some fancy, expensive school. Stay at the CSUs if you want. You'll just need to work really hard, pull a near-perfect GPA, take econ courses in the MA (I took several), and show you can cut it in the grad. environment. And solid, glowing rec letters really do matter, even if they're from profs that nobody has heard of... Good luck!

For what it's worth--I have a friend at GW who was unfunded year 1 but then got funding year 2. But it's risky. Lots of people don't end up with funding. Some of his colleagues are funded though (I think he said something like 6-7 per year) and their funding is guaranteed for five years. Probably best to take the offer where funding is certain. It's surprising, though, that so many people do take unfunded offers. He said his incoming class had like 20 students (only 7 were funded).

Hmm. Well, if you want to post your SOP, I'd be happy to add my .02 (as I bet others on this board would). I suppose that's the most concrete way we could possibly be of some help.

I've had two go-rounds (with much greater success in round two) but take any advice it for what it is worth: 1. Your SOP matters. Programs don't want to accept people who don't know what the PhD lifestyle is and who are therefore more likely to drop out (a wasted investment). Your SOP should clearly indicate that you're aware of what the PhD lifestyle is and that you're committed to it and a career in academia (at some point). The school gets a boost in ranking based on how well they place applicants as well, so you eventually teaching at a univ. is music to their ears.... 2. Be clear what your research question (for now) is. Be clear that you have researched the faculty and know that this particular program is a good fit for you. If your topic is not mainstream, make sure you're careful in your wording to not sound too far "out there." I emailed faculty at the schools before applying to make sure my non-mainstream topic would work, and was able to establish some good contacts (which served well in terms of admissions in a few of the cases). 3. Your GRE score is great. I'm not sure what part of that score is your Quant, but make sure your Quant is 700+. 4. Your rec. letters should ideally be from big timers, but if not (mine totally weren't), they do need to glow with praise and assurance that they're confident you'll FINISH and do well in the program. 5. Have taken at least one quant class and make sure your writing sample is more than a lit review. 6. You can contact departments once the application season is over (May) and ask them why you were rejected. Some will respond with helpful pointers. That's my .02. My first go-round I made lots of strategic blunders and was only admitted to MAs. My second go-round I was admitted to a handful of great PhD programs. Needless to say, I was the same person both times. Apparently strategy matters with these things. Good luck!

Good points, all. Since what I'm basically attracted to (besides DC, which would be a fantastic place to live) is the constructivism bent, I wondered if anyone had some insight here. It seems to me that having Finnemore (and many of her hires) at GW would make it a good place to go if you're interested in constructivist training. Any insight about this at GW? Programs you think would be better for constructivists?

Great. Thanks, all, for the feedback. Because I lean more towards the constructivist bent, I'm just trying to figure out how to factor in relative happiness w/the theoretical approaches of the departments while still considering their rankings. I'll never fit in with the Keohane kids-- (so no Martin for me), nor am I much of a sec. studies person (Kydd). There just aren't that many Finnemore and Sell variants out there who practice w/more of a constructivist bent, but I understand the concern w/overall GW ranking.

Realist, I just posted another thread probing what people thought of GW as a PhD program (if you want to focus on IR), but I'd appreciate your advice as well. It's not a top-20, but I've had quite a few profs tell me they think it is rising pretty fast in the rankings. What's your impression there? Thanks!

Thanks! I take it then, that if FUNDED at both you'd still choose Madison?

I'm interested in what people have heard about GW as a Phd program for IR concentrations. From what I've read on past-years threads, it looks like it's a pretty contentious debate. I've heard the critique that too many of their students end up in the policy world for their rankings to improve, but at the same time they've got a pretty fantastic faculty spread (Finnemore, Sell, Glaser, Goldgeir, Lebovic, Hale, to name a few). I know their funding is limited, but if it came down to a funded position at GW or a funded position at a school like Univ. of Wash or Wisconsin-Madison, what would you do? Do you think the rumors are true that GW is underrated and will move up the ladder quite a bit in the next decade or so? Thanks for your help!!!