adaptations

If you've done well as an econ major you've already signaled that you are competent at math. Add to your existing courses a strong GRE quant section and you've got nothing to worry about. I certainly wouldn't stay an extra year or even semester to add math courses just for their signaling value.

I don't know anything about how the TOEFL is viewed, but those GRE scores shouldn't preclude you from too many schools (in any). Ideally the verbal score would be a few points higher for the top programs (I doubt they care much about a 4.5 versus a 5.0/5.5 AW), but all of your scores are solid, and the math score is great, so if the rest of your application looks good, you should be in the running.

First, your statement of purpose does not lock you into anything, so even if you did focus your SOP on just one area, you would still be free to research both throughout grad school. Second, I don't think mentioning both is a bad thing. Both are clearly security issues, so you could broadly frame your interests as security and then discuss each area as a a subset of your broader interest. Also, it seems plausible that your two areas actually have some overlap. Presumably, much of the discussion of why proliferation is bad, is that it increases the risk of terrorists acquiring nuclear materials. If you present the topics as somewhat overlapping, I think you will be well served by including both. Best of luck.

I applied to roughly the same number of programs that you are considering and it certainly did not hurt my chances (and I would argue it helped them). Having come out of MAPSS’ sister program (CIR), I'm a little surprised at the advice you received, given that advisers in CIR often suggested applying to 15+ programs. Most of your letters of recommendation will be submitted electronically, so your recommenders are unlikely to have a problem with sending that many letters (although you should be very respectful of their time and grateful for their assistance!). As for applying to programs in political science and psychology, I don’t think that shows you are “unserious” or that you don’t have a clear research agenda. Assuming your SOP clearly outlines your research focus and desired methodological approaches, studying political psychology from either discipline can make perfect sense. In my program, we have a number of people with psychology backgrounds and we have students doing PhDs in both Politics and Psychology who work with professors from both departments. Some of these students applied in both disciplines and had success getting into programs in each discipline, so it can certainly be done. Lastly, most applications only ask you to list a number of the other schools you are applying to (often allowing space for only 10), so most schools won't see your whole list or know the disciplines you are applying in. It probably helps to make sure the list you present is coherent, so that anyone looking at it can see the logic used to select the schools, but I don't think the decision to admit/reject is going to be based on how many schools you apply to or whether you also submitted applications in another related discipline. Best of luck, adapt.

twodrifters - I also recommend you read the following discussion: Although I don't think a 5+ year investment in a PhD with the hopes of getting a think tank job is "playing it safe", if your only concern in the probability that you get a job at a think tank in the next ten years, then maybe it is a good choice. I doubt that there aren't other viable paths to getting such a position that would likely be more lucrative along the way, while also exposing you to other lines of work. For example, attempting to build experience so that you have truly impressive professional credentials, plus a master's degree may be a possibility. Of course, the credentials would have to be quite impressive to secure a career-style position at a think tank, but the work required to achieve that may be commensurate with the work that will go into getting into and then completing a PhD program, not to mention you could likely be making a decent living along the way.

The previous poster's advice is spot on. Columbia and Chicago's programs are well known for feeding people into PhD programs, even if it isn't at those schools. Chicago has CIR and MAPSS, while Columbia has a range of program from Political Science to quantitative methods in the social sciences. There are many other master's programs that may serve you well, but be sure to examine their success at feeding into PhD programs. Getting to work with and know well-known professors will be a huge asset when applying to PhD programs, in addition to getting a much stronger GPA. If you're willing to spend the time and money, you should be able to get into some of these types of programs and then have a good shot at a PhD program down the road.

Njhasty: If I were in your shoes, I would start by taking a broader look at programs that matched my research interests (and not being afraid of considering specific schools because of their ranking or prestige). If you're willing to spend the next 5-7 years of your life studying politics, you should be willing to spend the next two months researching politics programs until you know exactly which ones you want to apply to. Then I would bust my butt and get the best darned GRE score I could. From there, I would apply to schools that have very good research matches, meaning they have a number of faculty working in your area of interest, and you think you would be able to receive the training and mentorship to succeed in your work. You have a strong gpa, and with a great SOP, LORs, and writing sample, anything can happen (particularly if you can get the GRE up to your projected range). I think you have a good range of schools, but I would also be willing to include higher ranked schools if they match well with your interests (once you get your GRE scores up). In addition to thinking about where you can get in, you should think about what your prospects on the job market will be in 5-7 years when you finish your PhD. If you're exclusively looking to be an academic, look very closely at placement records and consider whether the school places enough of its graduates in jobs that you would want. You should weigh your time invested in the PhD against the expected payoff at completion. Unless you think you're likely to get the type of job you want from a program you are considering, you probably shouldn't be going there (there are more productive ways to spend 5 years of your life, and other ways to improve your credentials and get into a program with a higher chance of becoming a professor, if that's your goal). I wish you the best of luck. -adapt

Are you hoping to teach political science? If so, I don't believe you are likely to be offered a tenure track position, or anything higher than lecturer or visiting assistant professor without a PhD at a University or the majority of Liberal Arts Colleges. You are more likely to find a teaching position at a community college. Given the number of PhDs on the job market, even non-research colleges and universities can have their pick of well qualified PhD candidates, so a MA/JD is unlikely to make you competitive for such positions. If you want to get a better idea of where you would be competitive with a MA/JD look at the schools you'd be interested in working at and see where their faculty earned degrees and whether any of them have just MAs or JDs or if they all have PhDs. Good luck.

Definitely focus on your research. Grad schools are looking for a statement of (research) purpose, not a personal statement like undergrad, so be clear about what your interested in and show you have demonstrated potential to succeed(a couple schools also require a personal or diversity statement, but that is different than your statement of purpose). Having strong credentials post-undergrad can certainly offset a poor early academic record, so you have a shot. Good luck!

Kevin 1990 - Here are a couple additional thoughts. As was previously noted, the only way you will know whether you are competitive or not is to apply and see what happens. Your statistics are lower than average, but there are always some people who get in to top programs with numbers like yours. That said, I would also have a contingency plan in case you are not accepted. One point of confusion I had was whether you are hoping to go straight into a PhD program. I am assuming this to be the case, but when you say "program in international security" it could be an MA or MPP as well. Sticking with the assumption that you are shooting for a PhD program, a good contingency plan would be to add a few applications to masters programs that are known to be strong feeder programs to PhDs. Of course this can be a financial burden, but if doing an MA (and excelling in it) allows you to get into a top PhD program the investment may be worth it. As an example, I originally applied to PhD programs but did not receive funding and instead did a partially funded MA at U. of Chicago's CIR. The experience, connections, and credentials I gained while doing my MA helped me have a plethora of options when I reapplied. So my suggestion would be to apply to a handful of PhD programs and see what happens, but also apply to a few masters programs which will give you a strong backup option. On a side note, and just to voice a personal preference, I think it is a smart choice to take some time away from academia and work in the professional world before starting a PhD program, so you may want to consider that as another alternative. Best of luck,

aaron4848, I cannot speak to whether Think Tanks are more or less likely to hire foreigners, but I suspect there may be some truth to the visa issue that was mentioned previously (I'd be curious whether the problem persists even if you become more qualified). That said, once you have your masters, I suspect you will be competitive for Think Tank entry level positions, but they are still very competitive and I would not consider getting such a position to be a sure thing (at any point in your career). Having worked in DC for a number of years at both non-profit and private organizations, I will re-emphasize my previous point that earning a PhD with the goal of entering a Think Tank, without having ever experienced working at one, is a potentially disappointing proposition. If you happen to discover that a Think Tank isn't the place for you, then you would have likely spent those five years doing something else. Such jobs can be great, but they aren't for everyone, so I would recommend finding a way to try it first (interning perhaps) and then evaluate your next career steps after that. Good luck.

In my opinion, you should send the paper that best reflects your ability to conduct interesting and quality research. The subject matter is less important than signaling that you are prepared to write and research at a graduate level. So when considering the two options you have, I would submit the paper that reflects the type of research methods you hope to use (or develop) and is the most polished. Best of luck.

I recommend getting your foot in the door at a think tank after your MA. This serves a couple of purposes. First, it gives you valuable experience and will let you see what its like working at a think tank and experiencing the DC life. As was previously mentioned, it is highly unlikely you'll earn a senior position at a think tank without a PhD, or earning other impressive credentials, but working at a think tank for a couple years will help you see how they function (and hire) which will be valuable when planning the next steps in your career. More importantly, I think committing to a PhD program for 5 years with the goal of entering a think tank, but never having worked at one, is probably not a great choice. The time investment (and sacrificed potential earning) in getting the PhD is probably not worth it, unless you are 100% sure you know why you're getting it and that you'll be happy with the result (something I would argue is hard to know without having worked at a think tank first). Whatever you decide, best of luck with the process!

I don't know how much of a "feeder program" McMuffin was expecting CIR to be, but I don't know of another masters program that does as good a job of getting people into PhD programs in Political Science (specifically for those interested in IR and Comparative) as Chicago. It is true that CIR doesn't feed directly into Chicago's PhD program at a very high rate, but graduates do have a very high success rate of getting into top ranked PhD programs. I know it's only a one year snap-shot, but their admissions to top schools is a nice example ( http://cir.uchicago.edu/page/cir-glance ). I was in a different cohort, and our year also did very well and are attending a range of schools including; Harvard, Princeton, UCLA, Michigan, Wisconsin, Yale, etc.)

@McMuffin: Feel free to try again. I did a little housekeeping, should be good to go.

I'm a CIR alum and think highly of the program, particularly for its ability to prepare students to succeed in getting into and excelling in PhD programs. Rather than rehashing previous posts, check out my comments, and those from many other folks, in the following threads about getting the most of a masters and CIR specifically. I'll also re-mention that you should make the most of each opportunity you can - especially since you're only there 9 months. RA for a professor whose work you admire and who you think you might like to write a LOR, present at MPSA while you are in Chicago, think strategically about the courses you take and what they signal to admissions committees, etc. If you have further questions, feel free to PM me.

Are you on the waitlist for admission or the waitlist for funding? If you're on the funding waitlist, you can probably talk to the DGS and get a sense of where you stand. That said, there is often not much movement on the waitlist until closer to the final notification date. If you're on the admissions waitlist, you might be able to have a similar conversation, but I would suspect that it is very unlikely to to move from being on the admission waitlist to accepted with funding.

The last paragraph of my post addresses this question to some extent. In my case, I had virtually no contact with faculty or departments prior to applying (one exception due to contacting faculty for a research project I was already doing, but the contact was not regarding applying). I hope you find this helpful.

I don't think I would frame it this way if I were you. You should still feel very honored to be selected into a small and very talented pool of students who the department thinks has great potential! UCLA may not have the budget flexibility of some other schools, but that just means a little more uncertainty at this stage in the game. As someone pointed out, many schools fund all admitted students and then use a waitlist - assuming you can't afford the expense of graduate school on your own (nor would I ever advice paying for a PhD) essentially you are on a waitlist, but one with a relatively high probability of being promoted from waitlist to fully funded. UCLA is an excellent department, but one that is likely to admit a high number of students who also have offers at other top programs, which is likely to results in numerous funding slots being allocated to people originally waitlisted for funding. The somewhat competitive nature of UCLA's funding system is something to be aware of, but I have not heard of it causing the problems of fierce competition and every person for themselves attitude. It might create a bit more pressure than a school with completely equitable funding for all students, but assuming the program fits well for you, I wouldn't let the design of their funding system be much of a deterrence (I'm being optimistic and am hoping you'll get funding). Best of luck!

dec4rhapsody - I'm sorry to hear that this application cycle is not going well for you. The first thing I will note, is that there are plenty of examples of people who did not get in their first time (myself included) who then went on to be accepted to top institutions. I think the most important thing to reflect upon is the specific weaknesses of your application and the steps you can take to improve upon them. In previous posts, I have spoke of the benefits of receiving a MA as a means of further developing your research interests, building relationships with faculty, etc. To see my comments on how to get the most out of an MA, check this out. In your case, I think it will be important to focus on finishing strong in your program and taking the time to turn your thesis into a strong writing sample (don’t stop working on it just because you’ve graduated). You might also want to try to present it at a conference, and eventually get it published. Both processes provide good experience and also add another level of engagement with the poli sci community that you can put on your CV. I would also caution against under-valuing the importance of the letters of recommendation. Having LORs from people who can really speak to your excellence in political science (or specifically related methods) is a key component of the application. If your MA program has any faculty that are well known and that you have good relations with, be sure to have the provide you a LOR. In your situation I think you’re at a good place to seriously evaluate the importance of earning a PhD to your career path and the goals you have. For example, it is not foolish to focus on top 30 schools, assuming you are hoping to become an academic. (Yes – it is possible to get a job from lower ranked schools, but much harder). So, if you’re really committed to earning a PhD in poli sci, you have to find ways to strengthen your application. I’ve outlined a few possibilities, but in the long run – you may find that you need more mentoring, education, etc. It may sound unreasonable, but if you are really really committed, perhaps a related MA at a top program would allow you to build your credentials (of course, this may not be financially feasible for many people). The few that jump to mind are Columbia's MA in Quantitative Methods, or Chicago’s CIR for example. Lastly, you asked about the importance of contacting POIs prior to admissions. From what I know, this matters much more in the hard sciences or in programs where you will be working a lab directed by a POI. I have also heard that some of the smaller, and typically lower ranked, poli sci programs might be more open to corresponding with students prior to application, but in general I do not think contacting POIs is of much importance to the application process. You have to remember that there are only a few faculty on the admissions committee each year, so the chance that the faculty you are contacting is on the committee is slim (and very slim at the larger programs). Additionally, most faculty are exceptionally busy and can’t afford to take too much time to invest is potential students, who might get screened out by the committee anyway. I hope you find these thoughts helpful. Best of luck!

If I was a betting man, I would say yes. Good luck to everyone!

I can't speak to the availability of specific programs, other than my own experience. I did Chicago's CIR program, and knew a number of people who did MAPSS (which is good if you're not specifically interested in IR.Comparative). CIR, and I believe MAPSS, both offer funding, but the range of funding offers is quite broad. That said, they are both one year programs, so you can get through in a hurry and they have a strong reputation of placing students. The master's degree can certainly help position you to be a stronger PhD applicant. It gives you the opportunity to develop your research interests and skills. You will also write papers (and maybe a thesis) which can be your writing sample. You can also prove that you can cut it as a graduate student. Master's programs also give you a great opportunity to build relationships with faculty, which will help you get strong LORs. Of course, the strength of faculty in your program and their availability to masters students is very important. Earning a master's degree from a well respected university can also help you overcome other blemishes on your record - whether they be a low undergrad GPA or perhaps you attended a less-known undergraduate institution. Lastly, I think the value of earning an MA is highly dependent on what you put into it. The degree alone probably doesn't mean that much when applying to PhD programs; however, if you take full advantage of the program and have great LORs, do RA work, write a thesis (or other strong research paper), present at a conference, etc - then the MA can provide a great boost to your application.

I was inspired by Penelope Higgins' advice, and so I’ll share a few thoughts of my own to all of you who are fortunate enough to be selecting between different programs. First, I think P.H.’s advice should be heeded. I know it is easy to get hung up on the financial offers from schools, but remember that there are lots of graduate students at each program who are living on the stipend, so clearly it’s possible. Yes - everyone has their own financial situation and you don’t want finances to cause undue stress, but for most people (excluding special circumstances, such as families, credit card debt, etc) the stipends are sufficient. Secondly, I would recommend that you keep an open mind to the schools that admit you. You might have your heart set on a specific program, but meeting faculty and students, exploring the town/city, and getting a feel for the program can sometimes spark a surprising change of heart. Personally, I wish I would have visited more of the schools when I was considering where to attend - not because it would have changed my decision, but because it is helpful to see the different departments and weigh as many options as you can. It is also a unique opportunity to start networking with faculty (future hiring committees), and get to know all the people in your field (at a time when they are actually willing/happy to talk to you). Lastly, while I whole heartedly agree that the decision of where to attend should be primarily dependent on which program will provide you the best training, I would not completely omit personal factors. If there are two similar programs and you happen to significantly prefer one location over another, I don’t think it is unreasonable to consider such factors. (However, I suggest you read The Realist’s for a comprehensive analysis of the importance of selecting a top program.) Again – congratulations to everyone who has been admitted. Best of luck to those still in waiting. And a happy Valentines day to all.

Congratulations! You've got some great options.

Balderdash, if things don't work out at Princeton (and I hope they do for you), I would seriously consider Wisconsin. First, they have an excellent program and your training will prepare you to be competitive on the job market. Although $14k is a relatively small stipend, the cost of living makes it viable. I have a number of friends in the program who have afforded to have reasonably nice apartments and decent lifestyles on the stipend. Madison also happens to be a very cool town, which is often overlooked by those who are not familiar with it. Second, you've managed to secure two top ranked acceptances this year which reflects your competitive application; however, unless your portfolio would significantly change between now and next year there is a still a great deal of uncertainty about where you would be likely to get in. Waiting for a "better" offer when you already have a very good offer is a risky move, especially if you do not have concrete plans to enhance your application (ie. more classes, new LORs from well known professors, etc.). Best of luck with the remaining notices and with your decision.