zzzzzz

Hey y'all,

A few things:

1) I would not stress too much about having an overly long writing sample. Mine was 25 pages single spaced and in smallish font because i felt i had to include everything, and i feel like had a good admissions cycle. several profs at the institution i will attending told me they enjoyed my sample, even though the application specifically requested a short one. so, yes you should try to stick to the requirements, but if you feel like you need to go a little bit over to keep the important stuff, i would do it.

2) GRE scores: try not to worry so much about combined scores - obviously you should aim to do the absolute best you can do, but I think 160+ in both categories is good target. for what its worth, I had a combined score of 327 and am attending a top five...so try not to stress out about breaking this 330 barrier (where did this idea come from, anyway?).

3) I've seen a lot of different advice about SOPs, and most people say that you should demonstrate that you can think like a political scientist. this is absolutely true, i think, but i think that it is even more important to write about what you know. only if you fully understand a topic will you clearly be able to discuss the merits and failures of an idea and how you would go about investigating it. i wrote about research i had already done - it was more sociology-y than related to political science, but i was able to clearly articulate my ideas and also convey passion.

bottom line: so yes, the details are important - make sure you get your recs in and send all of your scores and proofread and all of that, but i would worry most about conveying actual meaning.

hope this was more helpful than annoying!

Hey y'all,

A few things:

1) I would not stress too much about having an overly long writing sample. Mine was 25 pages single spaced and in smallish font because i felt i had to include everything, and i feel like had a good admissions cycle. several profs at the institution i will attending told me they enjoyed my sample, even though the application specifically requested a short one. so, yes you should try to stick to the requirements, but if you feel like you need to go a little bit over to keep the important stuff, i would do it.

2) GRE scores: try not to worry so much about combined scores - obviously you should aim to do the absolute best you can do, but I think 160+ in both categories is good target. for what its worth, I had a combined score of 327 and am attending a top five...so try not to stress out about breaking this 330 barrier (where did this idea come from, anyway?).

3) I've seen a lot of different advice about SOPs, and most people say that you should demonstrate that you can think like a political scientist. this is absolutely true, i think, but i think that it is even more important to write about what you know. only if you fully understand a topic will you clearly be able to discuss the merits and failures of an idea and how you would go about investigating it. i wrote about research i had already done - it was more sociology-y than related to political science, but i was able to clearly articulate my ideas and also convey passion.

bottom line: so yes, the details are important - make sure you get your recs in and send all of your scores and proofread and all of that, but i would worry most about conveying actual meaning.

hope this was more helpful than annoying!

Hey y'all,

A few things:

1) I would not stress too much about having an overly long writing sample. Mine was 25 pages single spaced and in smallish font because i felt i had to include everything, and i feel like had a good admissions cycle. several profs at the institution i will attending told me they enjoyed my sample, even though the application specifically requested a short one. so, yes you should try to stick to the requirements, but if you feel like you need to go a little bit over to keep the important stuff, i would do it.

2) GRE scores: try not to worry so much about combined scores - obviously you should aim to do the absolute best you can do, but I think 160+ in both categories is good target. for what its worth, I had a combined score of 327 and am attending a top five...so try not to stress out about breaking this 330 barrier (where did this idea come from, anyway?).

3) I've seen a lot of different advice about SOPs, and most people say that you should demonstrate that you can think like a political scientist. this is absolutely true, i think, but i think that it is even more important to write about what you know. only if you fully understand a topic will you clearly be able to discuss the merits and failures of an idea and how you would go about investigating it. i wrote about research i had already done - it was more sociology-y than related to political science, but i was able to clearly articulate my ideas and also convey passion.

bottom line: so yes, the details are important - make sure you get your recs in and send all of your scores and proofread and all of that, but i would worry most about conveying actual meaning.

hope this was more helpful than annoying!

Hey y'all,

A few things:

1) I would not stress too much about having an overly long writing sample. Mine was 25 pages single spaced and in smallish font because i felt i had to include everything, and i feel like had a good admissions cycle. several profs at the institution i will attending told me they enjoyed my sample, even though the application specifically requested a short one. so, yes you should try to stick to the requirements, but if you feel like you need to go a little bit over to keep the important stuff, i would do it.

2) GRE scores: try not to worry so much about combined scores - obviously you should aim to do the absolute best you can do, but I think 160+ in both categories is good target. for what its worth, I had a combined score of 327 and am attending a top five...so try not to stress out about breaking this 330 barrier (where did this idea come from, anyway?).

3) I've seen a lot of different advice about SOPs, and most people say that you should demonstrate that you can think like a political scientist. this is absolutely true, i think, but i think that it is even more important to write about what you know. only if you fully understand a topic will you clearly be able to discuss the merits and failures of an idea and how you would go about investigating it. i wrote about research i had already done - it was more sociology-y than related to political science, but i was able to clearly articulate my ideas and also convey passion.

bottom line: so yes, the details are important - make sure you get your recs in and send all of your scores and proofread and all of that, but i would worry most about conveying actual meaning.

hope this was more helpful than annoying!

Must..........reach..............two hundred pages..........

Wouldn't it be lovely if that was the Harvard of the polisci world? And in Hawaii, people could even get leied during grad school

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... 

Browsing PSJR for help in making decisions. hot damn that forum is mean.

Browsing PSJR for help in making decisions. hot damn that forum is mean.

[Hopefully] happy Friday everyone!
 
The spreadsheet is updated again with my speculative analysis: http://wikisend.com/download/628112/Polisci PhD admit data.xlsx
 
It seems like we've probably heard the last from Michigan, MIT and UCSD (I assume that everyone who has applied has heard one way or another?).
 
I put Chicago, Columbia and NYU in the red: it seems like they're probably done with admits and wait-lists, and only rejections to come.
 
I'm holding out hope that there are some admits left for Berkeley and Stanford (based on last years' long notification periods and my desire to stave of disappointment), and put Duke back in the green since it seems they may be sending out a few more wait-lists  Notre Dame also probably has wait-lists left, if not more accepts. I know from calling UCLA that they have more decisions to make, and we're sure to see more admits from Northwestern and Yale (none have been claimed for Yale, right?). 
 
Any, maybe we'll hear from Harvard soon?
 
Good luck to all!

One of my advisors mentioned that MN gives a boost to Midwest/Great Lakes applicants because they know the weather won't present an extra attrition risk in those cases.

not too upset about MIT because it wasn't a great fit, but I'm just annoyed that the results page that was so lovely and green for some time has now taken on a much more ominous shade.

not too upset about MIT because it wasn't a great fit, but I'm just annoyed that the results page that was so lovely and green for some time has now taken on a much more ominous shade.

not too upset about MIT because it wasn't a great fit, but I'm just annoyed that the results page that was so lovely and green for some time has now taken on a much more ominous shade.

I will celebrate by re-reading my favorite seminal texts of the political sciences. I will celebrate by attending classes and earning A's, which I will celebrate by reading more seminal texts and I will celebrate the reading of those texts by writing insightfully about them in both a classroom assignment context and in personal notes for later projects.
 
Then I will celebrate by being offered a tenure track employment opportunity at the semi-elite university. I will then take myself to dinner at the Library, which is not a pithy name for a restuarant but an actual Library in which is stored seminal texts of the political science, which I will read over dinner. Then I will publish the thesis Chapter in the semi-elite journal and later stretch it into the book at the semi-elite press and my headstone shall read ALL HAIL GOPHERGRAD WHO ATE THE MOST PIE.
 
Also I will drink the rye whisky.

Claiming a UNC admit. Comparative

No it is not safe to assume this. If and when they decide to reject you, they'll send the letter. Admissions is like quantum physics. Until the decision takes a final form that you observe, i.e. a letter in your hand, and not your inference based on the unreliable information of a message board, it's an unknown.

Man, phone calls with POI's can be pretty awkward! Especially when they somehow magically call you the moment you step out of the shower/are asleep. Maybe we should start another thread with some intelligent questions to ask on calls/grad visits? I feel like I am opening my mouth and out comes "uh. I like school. How is school?"

Thanks everyone! I sounded pretty dumb on the phone. He asked me if I had any questions and I responded with "Thank you."

Thanks everyone! I sounded pretty dumb on the phone. He asked me if I had any questions and I responded with "Thank you."

Thanks everyone! I sounded pretty dumb on the phone. He asked me if I had any questions and I responded with "Thank you."

Thanks everyone! I sounded pretty dumb on the phone. He asked me if I had any questions and I responded with "Thank you."

Thanks everyone! I sounded pretty dumb on the phone. He asked me if I had any questions and I responded with "Thank you."

i find drinking at work helps...

have officially lost my mind. had to make a brief stop into the bar to calm down.