zephyr

ah...my bad, misread your comment. i thought you were told they had been contacted. no worries...i might give them a ring tomorrow.

ah...but did she say whether all 25+ people were contacted already? seems like, according to those offered funding, only a very small number of people have been contacted up to this point. maybe they've only contacted the funded 8 thus far?

just out of curiousity - did you find out about this directly from the department, or from somebody else? just wondering if this is really true or not. in previous years, it seems like they admitted 30+ w/ funding in early march, so that basically nobody who didn't hear in the first batch got funding. maybe they wanted to have much more control over their funding this year?

the waiting does suck, but it takes a while to go through applications. for the people they are considering, you have to figure everyone on the committee reads through SOPs, LORs, writing samples, transcripts, and GRE scores pretty closely. though i certainly see no reason to not send out rejections via email sooner for those who committee has decided are definitely not getting into the program.

a massive number, huh. well, they usually have 600-700. still, i can't imagine they haven't sifted through a big chunk of the applications in order to admit their top 10 so far (the funded offers). my guess is they've already eliminated many applicants (maybe 300) in their initial run-through. they're probably going through the top 100-150 applicants left, and ranking them, with the top 70 or so left will be offered admission. based on the rankings, as funding becomes available (since i'm pretty sure most of those offered fellowships thus far have offers from higher-ranked places), they will go through these rankings to offer funding packages.

i've heard they're supposed to meet thursday and friday, but i'm not sure if this is true.

hmmm...very interesting info about endowment money. i'm still surprised they don't do better, given the number of political bigshots with degrees from georgetown. so, anybody know when we might hear from them? last i heard admissions was trying to do another round of decisions later this week. anybody have any idea as to how many of those given funded offers so far (2 per subfield so far, apparently) might turn them down? i suspect 50%, but probably more.

remember, the people reading these are looking for research proposals. considering the insane number of applicants, they want as many weed-out factors as possible, so the ability to explain the kind of research you are interested in, with some level of clarity, is the most important thing out of the SOP. i also think it plays a HUGE role in terms of getting you to the final selection round for each program - though at that point, all bets are off in terms of who gets in and who doesn't. in my opinion, you should spend at least 60% of your SOP talking about the kind of research you want to conduct, and maybe another 20% on how your academic/life experiences have helped you take interest in/pursue that area of research. i am pretty sure they will not seriously consider you if you do not spend most of the SOP talking about what you want to study with some specificity - not too much, because your interests will certainly change in grad school, but enough meat...so if you say you want to study state election behavior, nationalism in europe, or causes of war or terrorism, you better have some depth to it. let your passion come through, but do it in terms of why these issues you want to study are important to you. admittedly, i'm saying this as someone who has so far gone 0-6, but i'm positive i've made it to the final cuts in every program and just have been a little unlucky. i think the SOP is far more important than stats (assuming you've got a decent GPA and GRE scores). i'm pretty sure an applicant w/ a 3.5 and a 1450 GRE with a SOP that doesn't focus extensively on proposed research is far less likely to be admitted than an applicant w/ a 3.4, a 1300 GRE, and a detailed SOP.

i tend to agree w/ canadianpolisci in the fact that most people do not approach the process properly. BUT, i do think that once you get rid of people who don't have strong enough grades/scores/SOPs/LORs, the process can be a little random and flawed. i have to imagine that each top department goes from 300-600 applicants, down to 50-75 who they really like and want to admit. so some will get caught up in the numbers game. profs at the best department have warned me about this. and yes, i do think sometimes that not going to a top 10 undergrad school, or not knowing at an early stage that you wanted to study politics can screw you. doesn't have to, by any means, but it can. and it really shouldn't.

i think the general point is definitely true and should not be lost on people here - its not that you can't do really well from a non-top 25 (whatever that is) school, it's that it's much much harder to do so. that being said, i personally think what is and what isn't a top 25 school is kind of murky at times (besides the obvious places...i think it gets tricky once you get below number 10 or so, and i definitely think subfield matters big time for these places). but if your department consistently places graduates from your subfield in recognizable schools (maybe not places like stanford, berkeley, etc., but at least places like GWU, BU, indiana, UT, etc.), you're probably in a top 25 department. of course, the unsaid problem is getting into a top program. yes, i do think the cream usually rises to the top, but consider the fact that the best programs (the harvards, stanfords, columbias, etc.) probably have at least 50-100 people apply who almost certainly would get a slot in the program if there were enough places. every top place probably cuts 30-40 people they would take if possible. usually, the odds even out over enough schools, but not necessarily. so, even if you're good enough to get into a top 10 program (which should be everyone's goal, because we know those places probably train and place better than the others), you might get shut out. profs at the top places all warned me about this - they said i was highly qualified and they hoped they would get to work with me, but that the admissions numbers make it entirely unpredictable who gets in where.

bizzare about the money. considering some of the names they have there, plus their many famous alumni, you'd figure they'd have enough cash to keep their graduate programs, especially foreign service and government, running well.

its definitely not pretty. but in terms of those who actually show up, looks like there are 1/3 to 1/2 in each subfield who are funded. i still don't get why they don't fund more people. its supposed to be a top department (at least for some subfields). god knows g-town has money. plus, if there's one thing that school is known for, its politics. if they funded 12-20 people each year like most other top programs, no doubt they'd attract better students.

interesting...i still haven't heard yet. but i'm almost positive the department doesn't do waitlists. maybe i'm wrong and those of us who haven't heard yet are on a waitlist, but i doubt it. i just don't see why they wouldn't have contacted us by now with that info if it were the case.

i suspect they mailed out rejection letters last friday, explaining why everyone seemed to get them on monday. as for those of us who haven't heard anything yet, the letters probably got tied up in the mail somehow. i doubt we're waitlisted or anything along those lines, because i'm pretty sure the department would have notified us about this earlier.

haven't gotten a rejection letter yet, either and i'm maybe 500 miles from cambridge. though i want to hope that means a waitlist, i highly doubt they wouldn't notify people about being on a waitlist (if they even have one) by now. my understanding is they accept about 20-30 for 12-15 spots. the department is literally a perfect fit for me, but i'm not holding my breath.

hmmm....well, besides the difficulty of getting to dc for people outside the area, how does one even go about this? if they haven't decided on your file yet, how exactly do you just go and visit? or do you mean visit immediately AFTER you get admitted (if you get admitted)?

well, the real question is, how many funded offers were given out so far. if they only emailed 10-20 people w/ funding offers, everyone still being considered for admissions probably still has a chance of getting funded. they give out very few funded offers, so they are very careful to not give many people offers initially, and a lot of people they do give money to turn them down (they frequently have equal or better offers from better schools) - most programs get 30-45% of their admits to accept, and i suspect georgetown is much lower. if they emailed 30-40 people with funding offers, yeah, then i'm pretty sure they're done. so how many offers have been made up to this point is really key.

totally agree that it may take a while, but i also suspect most, if not all, the people who were offered funding at g-town have offers at really top places, such as harvard and stanford. they might still want to visit, but in some cases, they might not. you got an offer from g-town, right? was it a personal email or a mass email? i've heard they've only contacted 10-12 people so far, and i suspect the majority of those will turn down the offers at some point. hence, the funding waves.

anyone know if all funded offers from g-town have gone out yet? my impression is they emailed a very small set of people who got funding offers, but given that many of them will turn down these offers, they do funding admissions in waves. i could be wrong (and anyone who hasn't heard anything yet won't be offered funding), but since they only fund about 8-10 of the incoming 25 or so, i'd imagine they have to do funding in waves to make sure they don't offer more fellowships than they really can.

placement is probably the best measure of a program's success. however, placement for what? general poli sci dept. placement is okay, but only if you go to a program that is about the same in all subfields. you really need to see how a department places in terms of subfield. then, there's another issue, program size. even the best programs (well, maybe not stanford, their placement record is sick) don't always place everyone in "top 15" departments every year. but, because many of them are bigger, they'll probably place at least a few in such places, while smaller departments may only have 2 people finish a year who both may place pretty similar to the majority of a top department's class. also, what about subspecialty? if your department excels in American election issues, Asia-Pacific rim trade policy, or international security, that should mean more than just having a top American, Comparative, or IR subfield. finally, who's at your department and what are trends like? it might be better to go to a department generally thought of in the 20's that's rising, versus one in the teens that's falling. also, If you get to work with 2 or 3 really top people who everyone recognizes as such, that's going to be really important. remember, some top professors chose good departments that may be outside the top 15 for a variety of reasons - geography (spouse's job, family, love the area, etc.), mix of faculty (they just might like the folks in the department much more), academic freedom (they can produce what they want at their own pace). so, basically, i think there are a lot of factors in play regarding placement. subfield placement, subspecialty placement, professors you get to work with...these all matter big time. i mean, if you get to go to a top 15 department for your subfield/subspecialty, you're probably in better shape come placement time. but what comprises a top 15 place is a bit more complex than most rankings seem to indicate. and i think its very very hard to really do a study that tells you all this.

right...they're picky in terms of what they'll take, but it doesn't have to be a MA from SAIS. i talked this through with them a few months ago. so...anybody have thoughts on their PhD program? they seem to have some damn impressive faculty there. and their theory and history PhD track sounds the same (in terms of what you study) as any other top PhD program. thoughts?

or a masters from a comparable institute. they're supposed to meet in the next week or two to do admits. anybody have thoughts on them? obviously great for policy work, but what about academic stuff?

anyone know much about the SAIS hopkins PhD program?

i'm assuming the rejection posted is there because the person didn't get an acceptance email. no other mention of rejection emails on the results page that i saw. i'm pretty sure they're done. don't sweat it...i mean, you've got harvard. some of us have nothing.

had a 3.4 in undergrad in an obscenely hard science major from a top 50 school. had a 3.8 in a policy program at a top 3 masters program. worked in policy for 5 years. took 5 phd poli sci courses at a top 25 dept. and got an A in every course. basically, any policy course i've ever taken, the worst i've done is an A-. had a well-defined research proposal that literally fit perfectly with 6 of my 8 schools in terms of what their profs really did well in. very high GRE scores (90-95 percentile on all sections). plus strong LORs, albeit from no famous profs. the only thing i can think of is to go back in time and major in IR or econ in undergrad. damn 18-year-old version of me...wtf was he thinking??? i'm going to go bash my head on my kitchen wall for an hour now.