Quigley

Ha! Exactly! I also have a few friends who keep saying (straight faced) "well, if you move to ______ or ______, how will your friends visit? You should go to ______ because it's only an 8 hour drive for us and it'd be really fun to visit there."

Logical order of priorities for school selection:

1. Ease and cost for back-home friends to come visit/go out for drinks once per year.
2. Quality and strengths of program.
3. Best possible training, advisors, and research opportunities for career in academics.

The Kaplan flash cards were helpful for me.  Of the 500, there were probably 380 or so that I didn't know.  I carried a small stack in my pocket wherever learned 10 per day.  If there were 1 or 2 that I had difficulty remembering, I added them to my stack for the following day. 
 
I scored a 165 on verbal.  Both times I took the test, there were definitely several words from the cards, but I would recommend using other sources as well. 

I think phdhope2013 is referencing this post:
 
http://www.poliscirumors.com/topic/hot-topics-in-ir

Really guys I don't think going to PSR/PSJR for advice is such a brilliant idea. I know I am not the one who should be lecturing on this considering my indecisiveness, but I've never gone there for advice (I came to Gradcafe). Take it from someone who has already written a proposal - you should only discuss this with your advisor and bounce ideas off of your cohort. If you are entering a US school, then you have TWO years to come up with a proposal, so no need to freak out! Plus, people on PSR/PSJR are just giving you really broad research areas, which does not help you much. Seriously, "global governance," "migration," "corruption," "human security," "nuclear proliferation," etc. are all too broad. A thesis needs to be narrow! You can't go to your advisor and say "I want to write on global governance." LOL. 

Going to graduate school is something that you should ENJOY. It seems as though people are going to graduate school focusing on all of the wrong things. Making your thesis marketable...seriously. Look at the key pieces in IR theory I can assure you they were not the "thing" to talk about when they were published. 

If you are looking at top 10-15 programs, then there are only 15 of them at most. You can definitely handle looking into their faculty without outsourcing this task

Best programs for people who don't want to do their own research. Ready, go . . .

Don't be daunted.  This is a huge decision and you should take your time and make sure you're choosing the best places for you.
 
I worked on my list on and off for well over a year.  When I finally narrowed my "short list" of 15 or so down to 7, I decided I wanted a couple more options and researched some other programs that I hadn't given a close enough look.  In October, I added two more schools at what I considered to be the last minute, for a total of 9 schools.
 
Guess which two schools I got into and which 7 rejected me???
 
Life works in strange ways sometimes.  Point being -- don't overlook anyplace.  Be thorough, deliberate, and keep an open mind.  Good luck!

I am surprised you are even debating with yourself. Oxford is probably as good as a top 20-25 in the US. I am saying this merely because I assume your eventual goal is to get a TT job in US. In Australia, Singapore, and New Zealand, perhaps Oxford is more respected than a top 20 program in UNews. I am not sure if folks in non-north American OECD countries necessarily appreciate the value of a PhD from a top 20 marginal on UNews.
 
There are six schools that did not accept you. Too bad they all made a stupid decision. At Oxford you are guaranteed with a really great cohort (because it is Oxford) and professors who have already liked you (I assume one or two letter writers of yours teach at Oxford). 
 
Okay, now let's turn to the grandma factor. A non-CHYMPS non-Ivy League school does not carry a brand that can "make your grandma happy". You are going to be in academia most of your life. However, you do have to interact, socialize, or run into people outside of the academia who have no idea that Madison, UCSD, and OSU have world's best PhD programs despite their much lower general university ranking. I hate pedigrees, but most of normal human beings judge people along those stupid lines. LSE and Oxford can give you satisfactory pedigrees to live with. I know you too may hate pedigrees. However, again, a lot of people love pedigrees. 

Brother (or sister?), go to one of the great schools to which you've been accepted.  Nice problem to have. 

Yes, I understand your stance on the issue and that a few people from non-top institutions still manage to get great jobs in academia. But, for most people, going to Emory will make job hunting inevitably difficult in academia. This is why I didn't even think about applying to non-top-notch schools, just like most of you here.
I am also often surprised by how so many people apply to non-HYPC Ivy-league poli sci programs, thinking that they are REALLY good, not to mention people always confuse politics with political science.

I'm sure for some, it's a matter of being paralyzed in the face of a major decision or waiting on the possibility that they'll get off the wait list at their top choice.  Some schools (e.g. Wisconsin), however, just held their visitations last weekend, which slows down the decision process for all of the other schools where their prospectives were accepted.
 
It seems strange to me to hold the visitation more than 2 months after students were accepted, especially considering that so many of us just want to have closure and start planning the next 5-6 years of our lives by this point in the process.  I guess it's really important to the faculty at Madison that prospectives see the campus when the temperature is in the high 30s instead of the mid 30s.
 

I'm sure for some, it's a matter of being paralyzed in the face of a major decision or waiting on the possibility that they'll get off the wait list at their top choice.  Some schools (e.g. Wisconsin), however, just held their visitations last weekend, which slows down the decision process for all of the other schools where their prospectives were accepted.
 
It seems strange to me to hold the visitation more than 2 months after students were accepted, especially considering that so many of us just want to have closure and start planning the next 5-6 years of our lives by this point in the process.  I guess it's really important to the faculty at Madison that prospectives see the campus when the temperature is in the high 30s instead of the mid 30s.
 

This is a very personal decision that will come down to you and your wife weighing and comparing your priorities.  For me, this is truly the only career where I can visualize myself being happy for the next 40-50 years without dejectedly crossing off the days until the weekend, my next vacation, retirement, etc, so despite the tradeoffs, this was an easy decision for me.
 
I was advised not to pursue this by one of my LOR writers who shares your concerns, but I decided that you only live once and I didn't want to look back in 10, 20, 30 years with the regret of knowing that I never tried.  I decided that I would apply far and wide and attend the program that would best prepare me to get a desirable job in the end.  But everybody's definition of a "desirable" job is different.  I realize going into this that not everybody lands a TT at Stanford.  I'd love to land at an R1 flagship or large, prestigious private school, but I would also be happy at a mid-tier LAC if that's where I end up.  But not everybody would.  I'll be attending a top-15 that's top 10 in my subfield and it's my hope that if I work hard, publish, etc, that I'll land somewhere afterwards.
 
In my opinion, there are worse things than getting paid a modest stipend to live in a fun town with a low cost of living and young demographic for the next 5 years while I become an expert in my field and earn a debt-free PhD.  I'm 5 years out of undergrad, divorced, living in a small city where it seems that everyone else is over 40, and I've spent the past 5 years working at desk jobs from 8-5 every day.  So the changes that my life will undergo this August are very attractive to me, despite the fact that I'll need to make some lifestyle changes to make ends meet.
 
My income will be cut in half for the next 5 years, but I feel that's a small price to pay for the benefits of a great education and a career that won't make me feel like I've wasted my life doing some insipid job that eats my soul.  I have a number of friends who have said "well that sounds fun, but it's going to take 5 years?? Don't you just want to work and make money?"  Sounds like a recipe for long-term happiness if I ever heard one...
 
If you truly think that living in a small town will make you and your wife miserable, then perhaps you should consider re-applying.  5-6 years is a long time to hate where you live.  It would be terrible to drop out of your program halfway through because you were so unhappy.  On the plus side, however, small towns often have a more favorable stipend-to-cost of living ratio (not always true of course - Minneapolis, Nashville, Austin, etc are all quite affordable).  And attending a strong program in an undesirable city for 5 years might mean that you can land a job in a desirable location for the balance of your career. 
 
Whatever you choose, I wish you the best of luck in your decision.  I'm sure you'll get a lot of opinions and advice from your friends and family but only you can know what is best for you.  Good luck!

As much as I would generally advise against attending without funding (in the absence of independent wealth), your Fulbright Fellowship does change things.  

If after a year, if funding seems unlikely, you can apply to transfer (assuming you do well academically and the lack of funding is based on the school's budget rather than your performance) and thus avoid going into debt.  Granted, from what I hear transferring can be a painful process, but at the end of the day you have to do what's best for you, not your program, advisor or classmates.  In that case OSU might be worth it.  Similarly, if your heart is set on some school you weren't guaranteed funding to, you can attend some place where you do have funding for a year, apply to transfer and hope they can guarantee you funding when you apply with one year of grad school under your belt.  
 
As for UW JSIS... LOVE the JSIS, but I've said before, it is a gamble if you are looking for an academic placement from a school with no placement record (if you are looking to go into gov/policy research/non-prof/etc, that is another story, because the JSIS DOES have a strong network there).  Their area studies program is particularly strong for Asia/China, there are also a sufficient number of security faculty there as well.  While I agree with almost everything UVaSpades said, I disagree on ruling it out for its interdisciplinary approach.  A three year program means one year of debt in your case (and honestly, funding for a term or two is not out of the question there since they sometimes offer positions to MA candidates, it just won't be guaranteed).  When people say avoid going into debt, it means avoid 100-200k for all 5 years, I think SOME debt is reasonable though obviously none would be preferred.  
 
I would look more closely at how the placement lists were constructed for USC and UVa (and ask the departments for a more comprehensive, post-2008 list).  UVa says "typical placements for the past 10 years..." which I would assume to mean, 'the best placements over the course of the past 10 years.'  USC on the other hand seems to be more comprehensive/specific, BUT, they mention current positions rather than initial placement.  If you look at their 2012 candidates, ALL are lecturers at USC - you could interpret this several ways: 1) they ALL struck out on the job market and had to take those positions for a year; 2) the list was not updated since this time last year (just before they graduated); 3) USC takes care of their graduates by giving them instructor positions until they find jobs.  I would ask for more detail if you base your decision on placement.  
 
Honestly, if it were me (and I applied to none of those schools), UVa, hands down.  

I have a few thoughts. 
 
The first is that these scenarios aren't that alarming to me, in part because they strike me as rare, but also in part because I don't see how much harm is done. If you prefer two or three other schools, why does it matter to you that you get into a fourth that you don't care about? Wouldn't you rather that funding go to someone who does want to go to school #4? I also have a hard time imagining what information I might glean here that would be adverse to an applicant's case. Maybe there are photos of applicants swinging naked from chandeliers somewhere in the vast depths of these forums, but if so I haven't found them. Even if I did, I'm after the best students we can get, period. If they also happen to be naked-chandelier-swingers, I don't really care.
 
That leads to my next point: I started posting here, in part, because I thought lurking was a bit underhanded, and not the right way to begin a long-term relationship with future colleagues. The fact that people know, unambiguously, that I'm here means that they can reveal whatever information they want to reveal. I've tried to make the case that openness generally benefits everyone involved, so I'd hope the end result would be more openness, if anything... but who knows. Short answer to the question, though: I don't see how I can unfairly or unethically gain access to information here, or use it to your disadvantage, if you know that I'm here.
 
That, in turn, raises the question of whether lurking is unethical. And here, I have to remind you that you're posting in an open forum. You choose anonymity (or not), you choose what to reveal (or not), with full knowledge that the entire world can read whatever you write. I don't agree with colleagues who read what's written here and choose not to reveal themselves... but I can't call their behavior unethical, either. By the same token, while I don't go snooping around people's Twitter feeds to see whether they've posted anything salacious or incriminating, I don't have much sympathy when they're called on to explain something that they posted for the entire world to see (see, e.g., the recent Steubenville trial).
 
I confess, I do have a significant interest in tracing information back to individual applicants. And yes, I've succeeded in doing so in a few cases in this forum this year. I'd also point out, though, that applicants have a significant interest in giving me information—far more so than most realize. You're concerned about something that you write coming back to haunt you because you think you're playing a strategic game against your schools' DGSes. That's generally not true. It's much more likely that you (collectively) and I are involved in a game against the Graduate School, in which our joint goal is to extract as much money as possible from them and get it into the hands of our admits: more money for you, and less money coming out of our Department budget. That's a game that I hope to be very, very good at, this year and in the future, and the more help I get from you, the more effectively I'm able to do it.

Let me start by discussing Ohio State and the University of Washington. Personally, I am of the mind that unless you are independently wealthy, it is never a good idea to do a PhD without funding. Ohio State is, indeed, an excellent program, and had you gotten funding there, I would recommend them in a heartbeat. But you did not, and you would have to incur a fair amount of debt by attending there, which would be difficult to recoup once you get a job. But TheMarketMan's point is a solid one, and you should look into the possibility of funding past your first couple of years. But unless it is basically guaranteed at that point, be wary.
 
WIth UW, it depends on what you want to do. If your interest is in political science and international relations theory, I'm not convinced that the Jackson School's PhD is for you due to its interdisciplinary approach. Since it is such a new program, there also will not be any sort of placement information, which makes it difficult to gauge what you should expect for return on investment, as it were (see ). But if your interest is in more traditional IR, I would probably stay away.
 
Now, comparing UVa and USC is a bit more apples to apples. I'm admittedly a UVa grad student, so my advice may be biased, which is something to keep in mind. I would say that from a substantive perspective, UVa is probably the better place to go to if your interest is grand(-ish) theories of international relations, due to the faculty we have that go in that direction. Your interest in China might lessen that comparative advantage, though we recently placed a doctoral candidate at Old Dominion, whose dissertation is on power dynamics and U.S.-China relations, so there's that.
 
When it comes to broader methods training, however, I think USC may have an advantage. UVa is still trying to put together a solid methods sequence, but it looks like USC already has one in place (though I can't find a course listing for USC, so I'm not sure how accurate that statement is). But this might be more of a temporary thing, I can't really say. USC also has their U.S-China Institute, which may provide an advantage for your type of interests, but again, I'm not familiar with how it works.
 
It's also worth your time to compare the job placements for the two universities:
 
http://politics.virginia.edu/phd_placement
http://dornsife.usc.edu/assets/sites/240/docs/POIR_Recent_Placement.pdf
 
I would argue that UVa is slightly better, though USC is by no means terrible. It's also worth considering that UVa has a reputation for better placement with liberal arts schools as well, if that's something you're interested in.
 
To summarize, I would definitely stay away from Ohio State and UW, unless funding manages to come through in the case of the former, or you decide that a traditional political science PhD is not for you and you're willing to gamble on the program (and lack of funding) in the case of the latter. Between UVa and USC, you have something of a difficult choice, though I would lean more towards the former. UVa is more highly ranked than USC (at least according to US New and World Reports), and almost certainly better for IR and security. But USC *might* be better in methods training (though UVa's catching up) and China-specific research (though UVa's definitely capable of producing China scholars and has done so in the recent past).

This is a very personal decision that will come down to you and your wife weighing and comparing your priorities.  For me, this is truly the only career where I can visualize myself being happy for the next 40-50 years without dejectedly crossing off the days until the weekend, my next vacation, retirement, etc, so despite the tradeoffs, this was an easy decision for me.
 
I was advised not to pursue this by one of my LOR writers who shares your concerns, but I decided that you only live once and I didn't want to look back in 10, 20, 30 years with the regret of knowing that I never tried.  I decided that I would apply far and wide and attend the program that would best prepare me to get a desirable job in the end.  But everybody's definition of a "desirable" job is different.  I realize going into this that not everybody lands a TT at Stanford.  I'd love to land at an R1 flagship or large, prestigious private school, but I would also be happy at a mid-tier LAC if that's where I end up.  But not everybody would.  I'll be attending a top-15 that's top 10 in my subfield and it's my hope that if I work hard, publish, etc, that I'll land somewhere afterwards.
 
In my opinion, there are worse things than getting paid a modest stipend to live in a fun town with a low cost of living and young demographic for the next 5 years while I become an expert in my field and earn a debt-free PhD.  I'm 5 years out of undergrad, divorced, living in a small city where it seems that everyone else is over 40, and I've spent the past 5 years working at desk jobs from 8-5 every day.  So the changes that my life will undergo this August are very attractive to me, despite the fact that I'll need to make some lifestyle changes to make ends meet.
 
My income will be cut in half for the next 5 years, but I feel that's a small price to pay for the benefits of a great education and a career that won't make me feel like I've wasted my life doing some insipid job that eats my soul.  I have a number of friends who have said "well that sounds fun, but it's going to take 5 years?? Don't you just want to work and make money?"  Sounds like a recipe for long-term happiness if I ever heard one...
 
If you truly think that living in a small town will make you and your wife miserable, then perhaps you should consider re-applying.  5-6 years is a long time to hate where you live.  It would be terrible to drop out of your program halfway through because you were so unhappy.  On the plus side, however, small towns often have a more favorable stipend-to-cost of living ratio (not always true of course - Minneapolis, Nashville, Austin, etc are all quite affordable).  And attending a strong program in an undesirable city for 5 years might mean that you can land a job in a desirable location for the balance of your career. 
 
Whatever you choose, I wish you the best of luck in your decision.  I'm sure you'll get a lot of opinions and advice from your friends and family but only you can know what is best for you.  Good luck!

This is a very personal decision that will come down to you and your wife weighing and comparing your priorities.  For me, this is truly the only career where I can visualize myself being happy for the next 40-50 years without dejectedly crossing off the days until the weekend, my next vacation, retirement, etc, so despite the tradeoffs, this was an easy decision for me.
 
I was advised not to pursue this by one of my LOR writers who shares your concerns, but I decided that you only live once and I didn't want to look back in 10, 20, 30 years with the regret of knowing that I never tried.  I decided that I would apply far and wide and attend the program that would best prepare me to get a desirable job in the end.  But everybody's definition of a "desirable" job is different.  I realize going into this that not everybody lands a TT at Stanford.  I'd love to land at an R1 flagship or large, prestigious private school, but I would also be happy at a mid-tier LAC if that's where I end up.  But not everybody would.  I'll be attending a top-15 that's top 10 in my subfield and it's my hope that if I work hard, publish, etc, that I'll land somewhere afterwards.
 
In my opinion, there are worse things than getting paid a modest stipend to live in a fun town with a low cost of living and young demographic for the next 5 years while I become an expert in my field and earn a debt-free PhD.  I'm 5 years out of undergrad, divorced, living in a small city where it seems that everyone else is over 40, and I've spent the past 5 years working at desk jobs from 8-5 every day.  So the changes that my life will undergo this August are very attractive to me, despite the fact that I'll need to make some lifestyle changes to make ends meet.
 
My income will be cut in half for the next 5 years, but I feel that's a small price to pay for the benefits of a great education and a career that won't make me feel like I've wasted my life doing some insipid job that eats my soul.  I have a number of friends who have said "well that sounds fun, but it's going to take 5 years?? Don't you just want to work and make money?"  Sounds like a recipe for long-term happiness if I ever heard one...
 
If you truly think that living in a small town will make you and your wife miserable, then perhaps you should consider re-applying.  5-6 years is a long time to hate where you live.  It would be terrible to drop out of your program halfway through because you were so unhappy.  On the plus side, however, small towns often have a more favorable stipend-to-cost of living ratio (not always true of course - Minneapolis, Nashville, Austin, etc are all quite affordable).  And attending a strong program in an undesirable city for 5 years might mean that you can land a job in a desirable location for the balance of your career. 
 
Whatever you choose, I wish you the best of luck in your decision.  I'm sure you'll get a lot of opinions and advice from your friends and family but only you can know what is best for you.  Good luck!

I would with agree with Tess as well…
 
Take some intro classes from a bunch of different disciplines and figure out what you really like. Keep an open mind while you’re doing it, too. You might take some Political Science courses, and find out it's not your cup of tea. College/life will be MUCH more enjoyable if you like what you are doing. I have friends that ended up with a degree in accounting because they didn’t know what else to do; and although they have a secure job at the end, their college academic experience was miserable (and I’m worried about their level of satisfaction they're getting out of their career). Don’t be too concerned right away if there is a job or a career at the other end—that will eventually work out. If you do not want to pursue a graduate degree at the end, that’s okay, there are still plenty of skills learned and demonstrated by an undergraduate degree in PS. My advice would be to work hard and focus on your education, learning, and figuring out your interests. Have fun too.
 
If you find out that your passion is in academics or political science, that’s awesome… It’s a varied field, and there are a variety routes to take.
 
As a high school senior, you have time to figure this sort of thing out. Talk it over with your advisor; see if you can get a summer internship, figure out some books you can read on the subject, etcetera. But at this stage, you don’t need to fully commit to a career, (you honestly don't need to be fully committed to a major either, most people end up switching them anyway. But I reckon it's a good thing to start thing about)... 
 
As far as your actual questions—reading, writing, and critical thinking skills are a must. And those skills only improve by doing them, so read and write often about a variety of subjects. Some of the sub-disciplines in political science require math, statistics, and things like that. For example, the primary skills and kind of thinking needed for political theory/philosophy are slightly different from formal methodology or comparative politics. That is another reason to take several introductory courses to figure out where your interests are.
 
My day to day is filled with reading, writing, research, and discussion. As far as specific deadlines, projects, and assignments—that depends on the course, professor, and the goals of the school's academic department. For example, I attend a small-ish  university-- the nature of which facilitates a large amount of class-discussion, and room for individual essays (ave class size is around 13). For larger universities, you may end up in a lecture hall with 200 other students, and you end up with a scan-tron exam. (Keep this sort of thing in mind during your college-search... there are benefits to both-- consider what will work best for you). 
 
My biggest challenge was taking a course that focused on economics. The reading was very dry, and the topic did not keep my interest. Honestly, I could care less about uncovering and analyzing subtle trends in the financial market. But that’s just me… you can tell by other posts on this forum that they are all about it. There’s enough room in Political Science for all of us. That’s kind of why I like it. There’s no one-way to look at politics; it’s a field that is constantly changing, and it is a subject that requires multiple points of view— I think that’s part of the appeal, especially for those of us pursuing an academic-route. 
 
Oh, and no matter what you end up doing, I’d suggest taking foreign language… Only positive things can come from that. As a side-note: my language courses in college were exponentially better and more helpful than the ones I took in high school.
 
Good luck in your college search!

my initial reaction would be to follow the funding!  and while your away, make a point of it to maintain your networks in DC.  If the program really only takes you three semesters, then your time away will not even be substantial.... debt avoidance FTW!!

I think it depends on how much you have in the bank, and how much debt you are willing to incur.  I have friends that will spend the rest of their lives paying off their student loan debt from UG and grad school.  They have told me that they will be in their 40's - 50's before it is paid off.  They are afraid that they will never own their own home or be able to provide themselves a significant retirement.  
 
Not in your field, but I've watched people dig themselves unbelieveable financial holes.  I would sit down and figure out what the acutal cost would be to attend Elliott and how long it would take to pay that off, underestimating the amount you would earn after...just to stay on the safe side.  If that make your stomach turn, then I would opt for Marquette and make the most of networking during the summers and at conferences.  If, on the other hand, you can manage the debt well then you should go for Elliott.  Is there any chance your current employer could adjust your schedule so that you could attend Elliott part time while still working?
 
Best of luck to you!

Ah, you're so cute and earnest and full of zest for life.
 
First things first, PhDs are generally for academic tracks. The career you're aiming for will probably require a Master's, especially since you don't have a polisci/IR background. There are professional PhDs and programs in Public Policy that mix academics and professional training, particularly in DC and the UK, but you probably don't want to start there.
 
Second, the path to the top of Think Tank Mountain has been abandoned in favor of barista jobs by better (wo)men than you or I. Truly high supply and low demand. Getting recruited out of school is hard. Often times you get a string of unpaid internships and making the transition to getting paid is harder. Debt, debt, low income, more debt, jump off Brooklyn Bridge.
 
Some advice:
 
1) Look at some think tanks, NGOs, government positions that you think you might want in 5-10 years. Study the CVs of the people in those positions. There are a lot of acomplished, ecclectic people, but look for trends.
 
2) HUSTLE. Email those people and organizations. Get informational interviews about the day-to-day work like and the paths these people took to get where they are. Ask smart questions and be humble. Stay in touch. Use this info to determine if you really want this career.
 
3) Go to the best MA program you can get into, BUT: a) preference those in NY or DC (see #4) and b ) take scholarships if offered. Do NOT go to a school that seems ill-suited to set you up in meeting your goals!
 
4) HUSTLE. Attend lots of conferences and happy hours and events. Press the flesh (but don't be a suck up), get more informational interviews and stay in touch with all those people. To the well-networked go the spoils!
 
Edit: God, I HATE that stupid smiley in sunglasses. Has anyone ever used it on purpose or was it just created to annoy people that like lists?

I agree with the other two that PhD in political science doesn't sound like what you're looking for. If your interest is 'something international and humanitarian', what I think is best for you is to go work for a relevant NGO right after your graduation. Even though you're in neuroscience now, your cv looks like you won't have any problem getting a job in this area. After a few years of work, you can apply to one of these excellent IR or policy schools for masters: Georgetown, Harvard Kennedy, Tufts Fletcher, Columbia SIPA, Johns Hopkins SAIS, etc. Note that these are all professional schools, which means you won't gain much from the program if you don't have any working experience. When you're into your second year of the program, you would be in a good position to judge whether to go for a policy school PhD (presumably from the same school) or go back to the field in a more senior position. Professional schools and academics aren't totally mutually exclusive, but public policy/IR phd programs (IR as in that from IR schools (like studying peace negotiation at Fletcher), not IR from political science department) usually admit very few people each year, and they're often kind of looked down upon by other academic fields as not 'academic' enough, but you shouldn't care much about that if your interest leans towards the practical. my 2c.

I'm so tired of hearing this!  Because that's where they have strong programs in my field that match my interests!  Duh!

That's actually not true. If you weren't good enough, you wouldn't be on the wait list at all.
 
It may or may not mean that you're a lower priority for the Department than people who were accepted outright: as I've discussed above, some programs can't control funding as much as they'd like, and as you've just noted, fit is a huge deal. But it definitely doesn't mean you're not good enough.