adaptations

news2yous: I'll try my best to share some thoughts/guidance in response to your inquiries. First, given your background, I don't see any major red flags that would undermine your ability to apply to PhD programs in the next cycle. That said, I think one of the most important things to consider is why you want to earn your PhD. You've made it clear that you are focused on research, but are you hoping to continue in an academic career or work outside of academia? If you want to be an academic, then the PhD is a logical step in that direction. If you are more interested in policy or other non-academic work, then I would seriously consider other paths to develop your research skills and research opportunities. In my opinion, the PhD is rarely a worthwhile investment if you are not planning an academic career. There are very strong masters programs, ranging from those that focus on IR to the MPP programs which can develop your skills in a much more efficient manner. Now, on to some of your specific questions. I wouldn't worry too much about which subfield, IR or comparative, your research fits into. Much of the research being done in IR draws on comparative approaches and many comparative studies have IR implications. You will likely draw from both subfields and work with faculty in both, so I would probably frame your research as such. As for whether your courses have prepared you for a PhD program, so long as you can convincingly write a statement of purpose that expresses enough knowledge of the field and your research interests, having a limited number of official poli sci courses should not be a significant limitation. Taking additional courses in econ. will be viewed positively, but at most schools is not a requirement. Given your strong quantitative background the committee should recognize your ability to pick up an array of quantitative methods to supplement your focus on qualitative work (hopefully you can also support this with a strong GRE score). I partially addressed you question of whether to apply directly to a PhD or not, but here are some additional thoughts. I know there is significant disagreement about the pros and cons of entering a PhD straight out of undergrad. I believe you are well served by gaining experiences outside of school which will help you develop professional skills that you can apply in a PhD program and will give you the opportunity to try out other things, which can help you decide if the PhD is right for you. That said, plenty of people successfully enroll directly in PhD programs and do very well. The key is knowing it is what you really want to do! Regarding the value of earning a Masters, it can certainly be helpful for developing your research ideas and skills. Depending on where you earn your masters, it can provide you the opportunity to work with respected faculty, get letters of rec from leaders in the field, and build a stronger application. This is particularly true if your undergraduate institution was not top tier, or if you have some blemishes on your undergrad record that you would like to improve upon. I hope these thoughts are helpful to you. There are a lot of different ways to succeed in applying to PhD programs and to succeed once you're enrolled, so you just have to figure out what path is right for you. Good luck. ~ Adapt

As a frequent poster from previous cycles, I can confirm that last year we had the unfortunate circumstance of numerous false posts for a number of institutions. Columbia is just one example. Last year's Columbia acceptances were sent out mid February (the18th to be specific). Congratulations to everyone who received good news from Wisconsin, and best of luck to those of you in waiting!

This happened to me when I applied, although it was for a different school. I was just asked some clarifying questions about my application, the Professor gauged my interest in the program, and then the Professor spent a bit of the time selling me on the program (I was later admitted). At the very least, I would assume it means you're under serious consideration.

This is so true! Good luck to everyone applying.

I think it's important to remind yourself that your value and path through life don't hinge on getting accepted to a PhD program. At this point, having realistic Plan B options can be helpful so that you don't face a situation where you ask yourself "what else is there" if you happen to be rejected across the board. Also, if you face the unfortunate circumstance of being rejected across the board, it doesn't mean you won't be a great academic at a great institution in the future. The first time I applied I didn't receive a single funded PhD offer, and yet I was later accepted to a multitude of top programs. In many ways, I think I was more prepared and mentally ready for the challenge of earning a PhD thanks to being rejected initially and having more time to prepare and to really be confident with my decision to return to graduate school. I also echo many of Balderdash's suggestions. Prepare yourself for the knowledge that even if you are accepted to some/many great schools, you will probably still be rejected from at least one or more that you would have loved to attend. At the end of the day, you only get to attend one school, so don't stress over the schools that turn you down and instead be grateful for and get excited about the schools that accept you.

It seems to me that you have a good chance with or without the think tank or additional research experience. As Penelope Higgins noted, if you you can articulate your research ideas in a manner that is relevant and interesting to political scientists, that is all you are being asked to do in your application. You'll learn plenty about research methods once you're in a program (although it doesn't hurt to have more in advance). That said, the type of skills you'll be asked to develop in most quantitate/formal methods courses will not be enhanced by think tank style research. I would argue that any outside research is most likely to help you develop your research interests and general analytical skills, but will do little to develop your the quantitative methods you are worried about (but that's okay - that's what grad school is for).

Bauhaus - you are going to be competitive at most (all) of the schools you mentioned. There are no major red flags that would set you back, and there are plenty of strengths to focus on. Best of luck!

Unfortunately, I think the short answer is that there is no "pretty sure bet." Although it is not always the case, many of the schools that have lower rankings and might be perceived as "safer" also have less funding to offer, which creates a catch 22 of easier to get in, but you can't attend because they don't offer the $. If you're in the boat that an offer has to be funded for you to attend, you should be looking for programs with very good matches to your interests, that also guarantee funding, and are generally less selective than the top tier. If a school meets these three criteria it as close to a safe bet as you're going to find, but I still wouldn't be overly confident - there are so many unknowns that can play out in this process. Good luck!

Don't be freaking out. Obviously a 3.8 is better than a 3.6, but neither will shut you out of the application process. Certainly push to keep your GPA as strong as possible, as it's an important signal to the admissions committee, but don't overreact to a gpa that isn't a 4.0. Good luck!

I applied to about 15-18 schools and had applied before as well. This means I had one professor who submitted about 18 letters the first year and 15 letters another year. The professor was happy to do it and was excited that I got accepted to good schools and had good options. That said, make it as easy as possible for your professors and make sure to thank them for their effort.

I am currently enrolled in a PhD program and had applied to my school twice before. I had also been accepted to other programs previously and was still accepted again after turning down their previous offers. My suggestion - just be honest!

To me, this is not a question of job prospects or funding, but instead what you want to do with your life. They are very different programs and areas of interests. You should think seriously about what it is you are passionate about studying and researching and what it is you want to spend the next 5+ years of your life studying and then the field in which you want to work.

I'd say you have a shot, but it will take a very clear statement of purpose along with the other intangibles such as LORs. I'm curious what is HPT? Home Pregnancy Test? Heartland Poker Tour? Human Performance Technology? Oh... History of Political Thought... I'm glad I googled that one.

UCLA's visit days were March 10-11.

I would guess they have approximately 2,000 awards again this year. The ARRA funding was allocated for two years (FY 10/11) and as we saw, last year was the first year they began allocating ARRA funds, which accounts for the spike in number of awards. Assuming congress continues passing CRs, I don't believe we will see significant cuts to the GRFP funding (CRs are based on FY 10 benchmarks and there hasn't been much substantive action to cut GRFP style programs - yet). The program solicitation estimated 2,000 awards, and I don't see the funding being significantly changed from their estimate this year (I suspect next year will be back to pre-ARRA levels). So, if you're applying this year it should still be a good year to apply, since ARRA funding should still be flowing. Anyway - that's my best guess. Good luck.

You asked whether there is anything to loose by applying next year, and I think there actually is. First, you use another reapplication, which may be limited (I don't think this is a big loss - hopefully you won't be applying more than three times). More importantly, your application will have only improved marginally, which means you may get in somewhere, but the chance of significantly improving your choices is slim. So lets say that you do get a funded offer applying next year - of course you'll take it and you'll be on to your PhD. Congrats! There is nothing wrong with this, however, if you wait to significantly improve your application you are much more likely to have the best options possible. If you're going to put in the effort to enroll in an MA program, you might as well get the most out of it (also - I am not sure how schools would evaluate your application if you applied with the intention of quiting the MA, or if they would require you to complete the degree before enrolling. That's open to speculation). By waiting to apply, your application should be significantly better and with any luck you'll have numerous funded options, allowing you to choose what is really the best program for you. My argument is that by waiting another year, you maximize your return on the MA, while also positioning yourself to attend the best program possible. (I've been through this, so if you want more info PM me.) Edit - Harvard definitely has a three application maximum policy: "It is Graduate School policy that an individual may submit no more than three applications during the course of his or her academic career." http://www.gsas.harvard.edu/prospective_students/application_instructions_and_information.php

GopherGrad provides good advice. From my own experience, I think doing an RA with a respected professor was beneficial because it exposed me to the research process, helped me figure out what I wanted to do, and lead to a strong LOR. If you have the opportunity to present at a conference, it can be good experience and add to your CV. Also think about what type of research you want to do and make sure you select courses that will give you an edge, for example if you know you want to do formal/quant methods you should take some fields in those areas. Good luck.

Both actually.

That's fantastic - I am so psyched for you!

Yes - I received mine.

It sounds to me like you've already thought this through pretty well and have figured out exactly why the MA will help your cause. Given your strong GPA and test scores, my guess is that you accurately identified your weaknesses and that a strong showing in the MA will improve those areas. My personal experience involved going to U. of Chicago's CIR program, and then reapplying after completing the program (I would recommend completing the first year before reapplying). If you can afford to enroll in the MA, it can certainly strengthen your application and increase your chances for the future. I think an important question to ask yourself is, if you don't do the MA, what will you do in the meantime to improve your application? It is hard to improve LORs and your Poli. Sci. GPA if you're not in school.

Thank you. I feel very fortunate this year, especially since my fiance also has had wonderful success (he just got into Stanford this week!). As for the GW communication, it was a very nice email from the DGS notifying me (no mention of checking the website).

I can confirm the GW acceptance and funding.

Based on a quick google search, here's what I found on Harvard's website: http://www.gsas.harvard.edu/current_students/eligibility_for_housing_in_the_gsas_residence_halls.php "Rooms in the GSAS Residence Halls are designed for single-resident use only and cannot accommodate students with children. Married couples are eligible for housing only if both individuals are full-time, registered Harvard graduate students." My guess, and this is only a guess, is that if you had a civil union they would probably count that too, but given that your partner isn't a full-time student, that is a moot point. My partner and I have been looking at housing policies and health insurance at different schools and have found that most universities are quite progressive and that they are fully accommodating to LGBT students and families. Edit: "grad student life" isn't anything like undergrad, so I wouldn't worry about missing out on any sort of "campus community." You'll probably spend plenty of time with your fellow grad students without having to share a hallway with them.

Here's a quick response. Your GRE is just fine - no need to retake (mine is almost identical). Your GPA is okay, but may be on the lower side of the average class at top programs, but not a deal breaker. Lots will depend on LORs and your statement, etc. My suggestion is to apply for the PhDs if that's the route you know you want to pursue, and maybe a couple MA programs on the side (or to schools that consider you for the MA if you don't get into the PhD). Best of luck!