eponine997

According to the board, Binghamton's stipend is 33k!?!?!? WOW! That is like getting an NSF award... without all that bs paperwork. Until now I haven't seen anyone mention anything over 25k...

This might make more sense with context but I will spare you all the long convoluted back story. The chair of my MA program (whom I'm working with for the first time this term) heard I was waitlisted at a certain program (my #5 after rejection from my top 4). For that application, my advisor submitted a LoR two weeks after the deadline (which some programs are okay with, I guess) so my application was incomplete until that time. They sent their admission offers out literally the day before he submitted the letter. That was almost a month ago, the wait list email came this week but said I was unlikely to know for sure until "mid- to late-April." My current program chair is particularly sympathetic because of the bad run of luck I've had in my current program (everyone in my subfield go on leave during the same year I'm writing my thesis, lack of grad course offerings, etc.). She says "I can call them for you" and explain extenuating circumstances/give an endorsement/additional recommendation... I honestly don't know if this would change anything. Ultimately, if there is no funding, a phone call is unlikely to make it appear (they won't admit me/I wouldn't attend without it). In theory it could move me further up the waiting list... or it could make me look like that kid who runs to mommy and daddy to get what she wants when things don't go her way. Also, if I end up declining the offer anyway (which is still a possibility), I will feel pretty bad if someone made a call on my behalf. I've heard of recommenders calling POI's on behalf of applicants, but never really something like this. Would I be a total schmuck for letting her do this? Thoughts? (I guess I still managed to make that long and convoluted)

I started looking for jobs before I was even done with my applications, but that might be the definition of pessimism. I heard someone on another thread (who was in their second application cycle) say they made a list of all the things they could look forward to if they were not in school next year (if they stuck out again) - not a bad idea, though that person already has a job, so the list was stuff like "move into a bigger apartment because i wouldn't be able to afford that as a grad student."

Generally agreed, but I think the "need a final decision by 4/15" sometimes doesn't apply to wait-listed applicants. I got a wait list notification saying "it is unlikely I will have more info for you until until mid- to late-April." Which suggests they genuinely anticipate not knowing if a spot will be available until after they've heard "for sure" from everyone they extended initial offers to. Creates a tough gamble for the applicant in limbo (who might have to turn down other offers in the hopes that that one pans out), but I guess it happens. In that respect, it sounds plausible a school might not send out rejections until after they've gotten confirmations from their admitted class - though probability of admission at this point (when all acceptance notifications have gone out) is obviously lower.

I have heard nothing from Maryland, but I have just assumed the worst at this point.

I would agree (generally), but I wasn't asking what I/people should do, I was asking what people generally do and what others think. There's an argument to be made that it's useful to network with people/faculty at other programs, but at what point does that outweigh the courtesy of allowing someone else to attend? I've also heard the argument of going for the sake of comparison/to reinforce your decision. I assume there are probably other ways of looking at this. It could also be a matter of how you've picked your programs (applying to a wide range v. several schools of the same caliber). Also, congrats Yale folks!

This might be to close to the "what programs (where you've been admitted) have you ruled out" thread/question... but is anyone skipping a recruitment weekend? As in, you are so sure you're going to accept another offer instead that you wouldn't bother going to visit school X? Maybe it was your safety or something. Would you ever go to a recruitment weekend at a school you knew you weren't going to attend? I'm not asking for specific schools, just curious where people stand on this...

Interesting... though apparently no one shares that twisted sense of humor about Harvard or Princeton... There was that handful on the 19th. Perhaps they decentralize by subfield? Last year it looks like their offers were a few days a part, though it also looks like they did interviews last year... torture continues, someone please shoot me in the face...

Could be naive optimism on my part, but I am skeptical of admits that happen on a Saturday unless they are claimed or happen in a cluster... if I'm wrong, kudos to Georgetown & Yale

Go for it. Just because people haven't made "firm decisions" doesn't mean they haven't ruled out some options. It might be slow for a while, but it's not like there is any harm. It's an online forum, you're allowed to be a little irrational I think everyone here would understand.

Perhaps, but the cost of making the wrong decision in this case is pretty high (5-7 years of your life at a very low paying job that leaves you inappropriately-/over-qualified for many jobs). Congrats on FSU, they DO have a great placement record and some interesting IR/Comp people . You sound like you have a good head on your shoulders and have considered both the decision to attend and the outcome, which was really my main point. This really is one of the few places where we can vent, ramble, seek advice, and commiserate with people who are going through the same thing we are. Truthfully, I am trying to work out for myself whether to pursue a PhD now or build my resume doing other poli sci research and reapply when my application is stronger... rambling + feedback is helpful, and I'm hoping its at least worth thinking about for others.

Yes, yes, and yes! To your first point: When I mentioned that, not worth going if you don't go to a top program, I was referring (almost specifically) to the advice given on this forum by "Realist" (who is currently a TT prof, link on page 1 of this thread). He and your professor are not wrong. You are absolutely right in thinking the academic job market is ridiculously competitive, and you have a better chance at getting a good job if you graduate from a top program. I think someone already referenced The Monkey Cage study of how 50 percent of tenure track jobs in poli sci are filled by grads from 11 programs. You are obviously an extremely well qualified applicant because results like that are certainly not the norm. (and on that note: Kudos! you have some happily tough decisions to make ) But you also mentioned you tailored your personal statement to each program (even if only 3-4 sentences), which suggests you looked at something that resembled fit. This is different than someone submitting the same SoP to every top 10 school because they have a 3.9 and 95-percentile GRE scores with an otherwise average CV as they could do when applying to undergrad institutions - which is more what I was referring to. To your second point, though I think someone already mentioned this, econ is a different field. The following is from Chris Blattman's (Columbia) blog - targeted at PhD program applicants, found here: http://chrisblattman.com/about/contact/gradschool/ "Economics applicants will ideally want to show A’s in all their maths (linear algebra, multivariate calculus, real analysis, statistics, etc.) There is hope for you if you don’t have these–I did not have the full range of maths and my math grades were not perfect–but I got in partly from luck I think. And admissions seem more competitive these days. Politics PhD applicants ought to have a clear statement of research interests. It helps to have a finished research product from your thesis or post-graduate work, though this is not essential. It helps us see how you think and judge your ability to think and produce. My understanding is that economics admissions committees are much less interested in this work, and may even ignore it, because they assume you haven’t even learned the basic tools of the trade yet. Which is true. Politics has less of a fixed methodological cost of entry, and is more heterogeneous, and so early work is a better indication of future work." Interesting, helpful, and in my mind, a good illustration of the differences. I was friendly with some of the econ PhD students as an undergrad, most of them had math degrees. The impression I got was that if you really liked econ, you were almost better off going the quantitative poli-sci route, and that econ grad study was more like math or physics. Though, if you look at Blattman, he is trained as an economist and employed as a political scientist so there is obviously LOTS of overlap... but from the sound of it, moreso at outcome than entry with grad school. Not a bad thought, but honestly, we all want to believe we will be that one superstar who will buck the trend, and perhaps one of us will. The truth is, this is unlikely. As much as I hate to say it The best response I have to this is to think seriously about outcome. Consider the worst possible, you are in an adjunct or JC instructor position for several years, the only TT position you can find is at Northeastern Nebraska State or University of Alaska at Nome (whatever your most undesirable location is) - will you still be happy? or will you only be happy if you are that rockstar scholar who goes from an unheard of program to the forefront of the field? If the latter is true, I would think long and hard about whether this is really a good idea for you. The fact is you are more likely to be placed at Stanford if you attended Harvard than if you attended UC Davis and more likely to be placed at Washington if you attended Cornell than if you attended Florida State. "A recent star grad from Amherst..." note this is single example and even the plural of anecdote is anecdotes, not data. What does getting a lot of attention mean? Job offers from Harvard and Princeton? or just several job offers from places similar to Amherst and a lot of citations of their work? It is possible to still do well at middle ranked programs, but the limits are worth acknowledging. One of my advisors made a very similar comment: "just make sure your dissertation/book project is awesome, if you have an awesome book project, that's what will get you a job" though he added, "there will be people from top programs who might have done less than you, who will get better job offers, and that happens." This isn't to say people at top programs don't deserve the jobs they get; they wouldn't have gotten into those programs to begin with if they weren't smart and willing to work hard, but being there is a much more substantial 'head start' than what you are suggesting. This all may seem completely contradictory to my original post which started this conversation, so I'll say this in conclusion. Fit matters when selecting where to apply (as they are probably more likely to accept you if you fit in well). That aside, once you are accepted (assuming you have a choice) you should picked the program that is most highly ranked (it doesn't matter if the weather sucks, if its a boring town, if your scholarly crush happens to be elsewhere (since it's common for productive faculty to move around, picking a program based on ONE advisor is generally not the best plan)) since that is what is most likely to get you a job at the end of it. And no matter what you say now, you will want a job when this is all over. It is one thing to have a great job in the field and think "gosh I really wish I'd followed my heart and written my dissertation about that topic that makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside!" but quite another to be miserably employed or not employed at all and have a cool project that took up 3-4 years of your life. I've rambled long enough...

Right there with you, Wemayet, (and with almost identical scores/MA GPA), know you're not alone. I'm honestly tempted to start that thread now (though i have "assumed" some rejections) because I'd be curious to know how people have made/will make use of their time between cycles or what they've done beyond retake tests and rewrite statements to strengthen their credentials. For some or another reason in an earlier posts, you struck me as someone with similar interests or background or something, but in any case, I have been rooting for you. Good luck.

For what its worth (we could argue this endlessly and still never have an answer).. from what I did hear from a POI (at a top program), part of the admissions process is forming tentative committees for applicants, "if we cannot form a committee for an applicant, we are unlikely to admit them." And he later tweeted about reviewing applications which suggests a) he was on the adcom or the processes at that program is decentralized to the point where profs review specific applicants who share their interests in some final round. When you see those 3.9s and great scores being rejected from places like Stanford on the results board, it isn't because Stanford had enough 4.0s and perfect 340s. I've seen a couple people on here who were given advice, something to the effect of "apply to top programs (because it isn't worth going otherwise) then determine "best fit" from the ones that accept you" and ended up striking out in the first round. From working on my MA thesis (currently), I can tell you it is rough being in a department where no one is interested in or seems to fully understand your research (the two most appropriate advisors took leave the same year). This would leave me deeply concerned with any program that didn't consider "fit" when reviewing applicants. As far as the stochastic nature of it, it is ABSOLUTELY possible that you were a great fit for a certain advisor or program but another applicant was a better fit or had a slightly more interesting/unique research interest or qualification. In that regard, there are probably a lot of great people who fit well and are rejected, but I would imagine every applicant admitted is probably a good fit (even if only by coincidence). You have a lot of great points, but i would be remiss if i didn't say that you are always better off considering fit on which programs to apply to than selecting programs based on something like geography, pedigree (at least exclusively), atmosphere, or football team . All my schools were chosen based on fit (where I could put together a committee of 3 or more (with rankings anywhere from 5 to 60-something)) and I am expecting an oh-for-nine strikeout at this point - but I just can't imagine selecting programs any other way... and would be interested/curious how others chose their programs if it was based on something else.

Runner12, if there is anyone whose advice we should take, it would be you (based on your acceptances). Though I am admittedly curious about your stats/general resume... if for no other reason than wondering who these mythical unicorns are who get into Columbia, Berkeley, NYU, MIT, Harvard... Care to share? Obviously you have nothing to be embarrassed about, though I'd understand if you'd rather not. From a couple people I know who are in top programs currently: One did not contact since her advisor told her not to waste her/their time because they were unlikely to be on the admissions committee anyway. Another contacted one at each school and people she heard back from seemed to have no correlation with where she was accepted. Professors encouraged me to contact, describing it as "how you get on their radar" or "set you apart" blah, blah, the usual reasons. On a nerdy political science note, I think you've got a good application for regression discontinuity design - since admission is likely to be weighted more heavily on other factors... but I digress... I contacted a couple for a Dec 1 deadline, they were well known people at mid-level programs and heard nothing (for other apps, I gave up). Though I had to contact another because I had a question regarding my current research and a dataset he'd worked on, and I mentioned BTW I plan on applying to your school's PhD program and your research/work was highly influential in deciding to apply there - I probably came across like a silly girl batting my eyelashes, something like "oh *****, I think you're so brilliant! you're the greatest thing since sliced bread..." (no, I didn't actually say it that way) BUT he was very kind with his reply. I doubt it will have any impact on my impending rejection from that school since it is a top program and I am no "runner12" so to speak Forgive the silliness/loopiness/awkwardness, its been a rough weekend...

Anyone claim the Yale admits yet? I'm assuming not since there hasn't been full page of congratulatory posts Anyone? Subfield? POI?

the ONLY reason to read PSJR is for humor. I'll visit that page when I am looking for a laugh... or when I need proof that highly educated people over the age of 25 can still act like 14-year-olds

You are not alone. Haven't heard anything either and I keep telling myself I'm prepared to strike out (0/9). I have started looking for jobs but silly MA coursework/thesis-writing has me too busy to actually apply for them. Depressing indeed.

Hilarious! Sounds like something I would do. Got a call from a weird area code the other day, it was a prerecorded telemarketer... I didn't even get to irrationally (or rationally) yell at them and thanks, i now I know what area code to look for...

I did my undergrad at UW in the JSIS. Amazing undergraduate program and MA program. When looking at PhD options I talked to my old advisor who is a fairly important and in-the-know guy at JSIS. This is the first year they are offering a PhD through the Jackson School so you won't find much in the way of student satisfaction, feedback, or placement as there are currently no students in that program (all current grad students are MA or in other departments taking JSIS classes or working with JSIS faculty who are adjuncts in other departments). I do know from talking with my advisor that the intend to admit a VERY small number of students (less than 10). Potentially you might not have much of a cohort of students that share your interests (something I'm dealing with in my current program, but that's another story). For example, suppose you want to study Asia and security and you are in a cohort with a group of 5 students all focused on human rights in Latin America, it can make for a lonely experience and somewhere else on this forum a current TT Poli Sci Prof said "you need to surround yourself with the smartest possible group of students because you do most of your learning from them." Not to discourage you, but I would definitely consider this as some place like UMinn is likely to have a larger group with upper division students and a greater likelihood someone else will share your interests. Also to warn you, if you do decide to apply to JSIS and frame yourself as Middle East regional specialist you will probably have a better chance applying to the interdisciplinary Middle East Studies PhD program (assuming you are or are willing to become fluent in three languages (2 ME, 1 western)) as they don't want these programs competing over applicants (ie they are less likely to admit ME specialists to the JSIS PhD because of this other program). If your heart is set on the JSIS, I would frame yourself as an Asian-interest candidate since it will fall more in line with faculty/program interests. Hope that helps, good luck!

Thank you for this! I could hug you You're not the first person to say that, but it is certainly reassuring every time someone does. And thanks also for the input, it is definitely something I will consider.

I had an undergrad gpa of 2.8 (from a reasonably well-rank state school) but with some decent research on my resume. I found a nearby MA program that admitted me, with an assistantship that offered partial tuition and a stipend. The MA program is no where near close to "ranked," but the professors I am working with are fairly impressed with my work so far (GPA in the 3.8 neighborhood) and I've improved my GRE scores from 500V/740Q/5.0 (for MA admission) to 163(650)V/161(770)Q/5.0 (this month). Yesterday I still had a professor (highly reputable, from my undergrad school) tell me that i had pretty much no hope at a Ph.D program (or at least one that would allow me to get a job upon completion) and my academic life was ruined at age 20 due to my low GPA. Basically - I should give up. He had some extremely valid points. I recognize my options are give up and take a low-end job (there isn't much you can do with a poli sci degree in this job market), apply to very low end programs who don't have anyone specializing in what I want to study where I most likely wouldn't be funded and where I'd have only a minuscule chance of obtaining a tenure-track position upon completion, or applying to yet another terminal masters program (expecting no funding), take more credits to continue boosting my GPA, only to potentially still face rejection after another two years and 100k in tuition/expenses. For a lot of you, these are the options. There is no magic that will make your GPA completely irrelevant when you are up against candidates who have great GPAs, plus advanced degrees, plus great scores and resumes. Ultimately, I still plan on applying for 10+ programs, recognizing that that is around $1500 when you include transcripts, etc for what will most likely be 8 rejections, at least. I am paying for piece of mind: I will never wonder "what if i had applied to..." In summary, I am still planning to fight like helI. If ever you have to ask the question "what is it going to take..." you probably won't like the answer, because the answer rarely offers an easy solution. If you want to get into a Ph.D program directly from undergrad with a 3.0ish or below and make it happen within a year, it's really clear what you need: excellent GRE scores - these are achieved by studying A LOT, taking prep courses, buying the books, learning the vocab, strategizing, doing 4 hour practice tests, etc (this takes up a lot of time); Strong writing samples - ask for help, get advice from anyone reasonably well qualified to offer it, even someone who can proof read for general grammar/spelling, but don't be afraid to approach professors or current grad students (even if none had to overcome weak GPAs or similar) - worst-case they tell you "no" and you move on to ask the next person; SOP - ask for help, talk to your current/former professors, even if you've never met one-on-one with them before, if your school has a graduate program (even if its not where you are applying) find out who has been on the admissions committee and ask what they look for, there are tons of posts on this forum for writing a great SOP, utilize it; Letters of Rec - asking for help in other areas pays off here, when you express interest in pursuing graduate study to a current professor it gives them the opportunity to get to know you beyond whatever classroom work you've done - your motives, your interests, etc. At this point its unlikely you'll be able to complete an elaborate research project, get something published, land an RA position, etc. before the application deadlines. If you've been out of school for some time it obviously becomes more complicated and is hugely different depending on what you are applying for: MPH approach will be different than MS in Comp Sci which would be different from Ph.D in Sociology. Make sure you've illustrated your interest in the field (in reality, not just on your SOP) which might be easier if your ideal grad program is closer to a professional degree in a field where you have some work experience rather than an academic degree where you have a tenure-track job in mind. But for example a friend of mine majored in literature and three years after graduation decided to go for a Ph.D in poli sci. She approached a professor at a nearby school with a specialty closely related to the public policy analysis she was doing for her work (9-5 job at a research firm) and asked for some general direction, he recommended a book on method, which she read and then she offered to help with his research in exchange for a letter of rec (since she didn't have any poli sci references as an undergrad), she worked as a volunteer RA for him for about a year. She had to write a research paper on her own, since she didn't have any poli-sci related work from undergrad. That is a lot of work and she was only trying to overcome an "interest gap," but the same method and rules apply if you suddenly decided after several years of work that you want to go to grad school when you had a weak undergrad performance that didn't matter for your initial path. If you are retaking classes, doing post-bac work, retaking the GRE, etc you are doing all the right things. I had another friend rejected from the same pharmacy school twice even though she had a strong GPA, research resume, and had been working as a phram tech for two years. She had to retake the PCATs twice, and redo some pre-reqs before being accepted. If you want it bad enough, this is what you'll do. The only secret back door that I can seem to find is working your butt off through a masters program (or similar extra coursework) that will strengthen your credentials, allow you to build relationships with professors who can advise you and write your recs, open up new opportunities in the way of research/teaching assistantships, increase the quality of your writing portfolio, etc. You can obviously apply without having taken these steps, and doing so might save you a lot of time and money if your resume/SOP/writing sample/LoR happen to be better than you think. But no matter what you do you have to prepare yourself for rejection. If you plan on pursuing a career in research/tenure-track position you will have to deal with rejection a lot in the way of grant applications and publication submissions (grad school admission will hardly be the end of the line). I suppose the other obvious point is appropriately selecting which programs you apply to and for that there is no true reference as it will vary so much by program and research interest. Highly qualified candidates get rejected by their "safety schools" because their safety schools have a hundred other candidates who would kill to attend and they can recognize from the application that the applicant sees them as a "safety." Passionately express interest in whatever programs you apply to, familiarize yourself the the grad faculty, read their publications, etc. That's the advice I've put together based on asking LOTS of people, reading others accounts, etc. the bottom line is that there isn't a magical trick that will cause the admissions committee to ignore your GPA; you will probably have to do more than what it would have taken get a better GPA as an undergrad to make up for it. Is this unfortunate? absolutely. I read on one of these forums or blogs lately that grad school/academia is only recommended for people who honestly couldn't seem themselves being happy doing anything else. Personally, I want this badly enough that I'm willing to subject myself to extra years of schooling before entering a Ph.D program at a high cost with a high probability of failure of ever reaching my end-game. I honestly wish I wanted it less. That being said. I love this thread. I'm glad I'm not the only one feeling this and that there does seem to be some light at the end of the tunnel.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. They reversed their decision to reject, rather than reversed their decision to admit. I'm curious if you know of this happening in specific programs or at specific schools. I have seen on some admissions pages "decisions are final," "having [external] funding won't help you," etc. which implies they will not reverse a rejection. I'm wondering which admissions approach is more typical.

This may be more appropriate for the admissions-related forums but does anyone have any knowledge or experience of admissions committees reversing their decision (to reject an applicant) after the applicant was awarded the NSF GRF? I've heard of this happening at Stanford, though it probably also depends on the department (in this case it was social science). Based on where else the applicant was accepted, she was more than qualified to attend. And I know we've all heard that grad schools can form several classes of highly qualified applicants from the huge pool of applications they receive in a given year. I'm just curious if anyone knows of cases at any other schools.

Yeah, you're fine. NO program will reject you based on those scores. Focus on relationship-building with people to write you letters of rec and writing a quality SOP. History and IR care most about your verbal score and yours puts you in the 95th percentile (at least) which will get you through the GRE cut at any school - I don't think any program expects applicants to ace it.