raptureonfire

Ah!  Well that is a totally different question altogether.  I'd hate to de-rail this thread, so why don't you PM me and I can try to help out

do it

You would suffer from what I call the double dagger. A low GPA and a low GRE score. Doubtful you even make it past the first lines of screening. It's possible to overcome one of the those deficiencies, unlikely with both. 

I'm headed to University of Maryland w/ full funding, assistant-ship, and summer fellowship.

Darn, there goes my naive hope that all of the regular posters on PSJR suddenly had an epiphany and decided to become decent, reasonably well-adjusted human beings that don't view moments of vulnerability (read: unemployment) as an excuse for blatant racism, misogyny, and outright cruelty. ah well, the dream was fun while it lasted 

The economic cost of a PhD is:
 
assume whatever you could make as a UG graduate (in US - 30-40k USD; if you are working in IBD more like 60 - 100k) x 5 = 150,000 - 500,000 to get the degree.
 
+ Psychic Cost of actually getting the degree (studying like a mad man, stress, etc)
 
+ The non-monetary cost to get one (delaying life, living somewhere you may not want to, etc)
 
The only reason to get one is if it will A.) Maximize your personal utility someway, B.) You want to be an academic, C.) A job absolutely requires it (IMF, WB, etc - and even then, you still maybe shouldnt do it because strong banking work exp can allow you to break in).
 
You are in an emerging economy in banking and that is the most exciting place to be these days. I personally would move to Asia/India if I had the opportunity. I would work atleast 3 years and think about either a MPA/ID from HKS, MBA or a PhD in Business/Econ or MAYBE poli sci (if that is what you are passionate about)

My two cents:
 
(1) It might be useful to consider getting a MA first to make up for your undergrad GPA, and more importantly, to figure out if a political science PhD is really for you. It also helps overcome points #2 and #3 in your post.
 
(2) I don't think work experience matters, well, at least it won't be used against you. Having "academic" RA experience might be nice, but not necessary.
 
(3) What about Mainland-Hong Kong politics excite you specifically? Given that it is difficult these days to only be an area specialist (and HK isn't really an "area" [think of areas such as the post-Soviet region, China, US]), you might want to think about the broader theoretical debates that fascinate you. From what I learn this application cycle, fit is hugely important. The mere fact that very few, if not none, study Hong Kong in American poli sci departments makes admission even more difficult. It is thus doubly important that you frame your puzzle in ways that are not only interesting, but relevant to broader political science debates.

Somewhere at least as well ranked. Most schools make their new hires from peer institutions and better ranked ones. 
 
Insanely stupid. Many schools have a policy against hiring their own PhDs. If your dream job is to work at South Carolina, read the CVs of their faculty (especially the junior ones) and look at where they went to school. How many of them have degrees from South Carolina? The most common schools are where you should be looking. My own quick scan showed that currently no members of the USC faculty received their doctorate there. The modal degree was from UNC. I also saw multiple graduates of Cornell, Indiana and Iowa.
 
 
Depends entirely on the research agenda you ultimately create for yourself.
 
Its going to hurt you applying to some schools. If you read the posts by BFB on Ohio State's admission's process, you'll note that the have to put the people they want to admit into a school wide competition for funding with a cut-point for undergrad GPA. You will be in trouble at schools that do that. Other schools give their department's an allotment of fellowships to give out to the applicants they want. At those schools, they will be able to weigh the later performance and make up their own mind. 
 
A better way to think about GRE scores is as a threshold. As far as I know, departments aren't admitting people because of stellar GREs but they will reject someone for poor ones. They all have some threshold. Once you get over that, how much you are over by is not a very big deal. Again, see posts by BFB for how he interprets GRE scores. Applying for a PhD program where departments are making in the ballpark of 10-30 offers is very different than applying to law schools where places make hundreds of offers and you can explain the majority of the variance in admissions using just LSAT and GPA.
 
Again, variable. Depends a lot on what you did with the time. Some places will not like it. If you used it productively and got some insights into what you want to work on, then can be a plus.
 
Hell if I know, but there are at least a few people posting on this forum who have been on admissions committee or three.

^ This.  Mostly this... in fact, 1000x this.  
 
Getting a political science PhD (both the process and the outcome) will likely bring less stability to your life, not more.  There are literally hundreds of unemployed PS PhDs who ARE willing to move anywhere for a job and theres no guarantee the a school in your desired geographic area will be hiring for your subfield within 5 years of you graduating.  
 
You have a law degree and an MBA, you have a greater probability of getting a middle class wage and stable job with either of those than with a PS PhD.  If your heart is set on teaching, you can potentially use those to teach at a community college (particularly the MBA).  Otherwise I'd recommend enrolling (now) as a post-bacc/grad student at-large at USC-Columbia or whatever PhD program is closest in their Intro PS grad seminar to a) find out if its what you REALLY want, b.) adjust to the realities of what an academic career would entail, c) develop clear research interests and determine if this is the right field for you, d) build relationships with prof who can potentially write you recommendations - because you will need to do ALL of those things before applying to a PhD program.  
 
You undergrad GPA is not the end of the world, nor is your age.  But before starting down this road you might want to re-evaluate whether it would allow you to achieve your desired outcome (because there might be a better, more effective way for you to reach these goals, (secondary teaching perhaps?)).  Perhaps you do want this badly enough, in which case, go for it, but recognize the potential costs, which are extremely high.  

For schools ranked outside the top 15-20, you need to narrow down two questions regarding the placements: (1) what's the time frame on them? A number of departments will show you aggregate stats from the past 10 years, but the market has gotten much tougher the past couple years.  How have their students done recently?  (2) what do the placement numbers look like within your subfield? And even more narrowly, how has your POI's last couple students performed?  Some lower ranked programs routinely place students well in certain subfields.  This boosts their overall numbers, but can be really misleading if you're headed their for something else.
 
Those points aside, my advice is always to take the funded offer.  It's not ideal, but you'll still have the option of looking around down the road if you feel like the school isn't competitive.  The last couple markets have been rough, and I don't think a top 50 provides you that much more security than a top 75.  Coming out with substantial debt is a nightmare scenario and should be avoided.

Heyo!
 
Welcome to the club - I'll be at UMD this fall!

It's not an easy decision to make, to be sure.
 
As a policy school, GWU is a leader.  As for its academic-focus ... well, I can only tell you what I know from multiple conversations with several of its professors.  There are some very strong faculty members at GWU, including Michael Barnett, Martha Finnemore, and Henry Hale.
 
I met with about 5 or 6 professors last summer/fall when discussing applying to the PhD program.  Each one of them essentially told me the same two things:
GWU is working hard to improve its standing in the academic world; Go to the best ranked program I could. So, take that for what it's worth.
 
Now, I suppose there are some exceptions.  What exactly do you want to study?  If you are at all interested in Russia/Eurasia, the Elliot School has an extremely strong program with IERES.  They have Henry Hale, of course.  But they also have PONARS, and I think they're only going to improve over the next year or two.  PONARS alone is reason to consider the school - again, in the case that you want to study Russia/Eurasia.
 
 
 
Between the two, I would probably choose Georgetown.  They are often ranked closely with each other; however, Georgetown's name carries with it significantly more prestige and recognition.
 
 
 
 
The NRC rankings seem to be relatively contentious; I'm honestly not sure what to make of them.  Particularly since you can rank schools by different criteria.  I definitely view GWU as a rising school, though I wouldn't be confident placing it in the top 25.  Not because it's not a top-quality school (I really believe it is), but because other schools have made longer, bigger investments in a curriculum for preparing academics (as opposed to policy experts).  But then again, what the heck do I know!
 
So, those are my thoughts

Go Straight if you can

Hi,
 
I saw a link on the Duck of Minerva blog today about this place and it seems to be a fantastic resource!  As chance would have it, I'm currently a PhD student in Psc at GW and in the spirit of providing information in what I remember to be a ridiculously difficult decision-making process, I thought I'd try to give as much information as I can.    Of course, this only reflects my own opinion/perception and should be taken with a grain of salt.  I certainly can't speak for everyone here.
 
I suppose I'd start by saying these are precisely the sorts of questions you should be asking yourself as you decide on a program....and I'm sure you'll get the chance to talk to faculty and students about them during admit days.  That said, here are some thoughts:
 
1.  Yes, I think GW is invested in improving its reputation, and when the new US News rankings come out, I wouldn't be surprised if GW bumps up a bit. 
 
2.  Yes, our placement is less than ideal. Why might this be the case? 
 
Generally, GW differs from other "top" phd programs in its work obligation.  PhD students (with very few exceptions) are required to either TA for roughly 60 students a semester or provide 20hrs/week of research work for faculty every semester of their tenure in the program.  These work loads are heavy and mean that by the time you have carved out half of your week to working for the faculty you have have little time to A: do your own coursework  and even less to B: work on your own research.  Unlike most programs, you won't get a year (or even semester) "off" here----(called a "fellowship year" at other places).  This costs the program quite a bit, though I'm not sure it recognizes this.  Our students don't publish as much as students at other top tier programs, largely because we simply have quite a bit less time to work on anything of our own.  This happens in the summer too.  Unlike programs that provide summer funding of a livable wage, GW pays only up to about 2,500 in summer funding (so you'll likely need a job on the side to pay those three months of DC rent) and all of that 2,500 iis tied to you coding/doing slave work/etc for faculty members (i.e. a RAship).   I didn't understand the value of having fellowship years when I started looking at PhD programs, but trust me, it's important.  And while you can learn A LOT from an RA gig, there are diminishing returns for each additional semester/summer you devote to that coding project (which is often in a completely different field than the one you work in)!
 
3.  The faculty are really fantastic here.  Sure, all departments have bad eggs, but I tend to think we have fewer here than the norm.  The profs at GW are thoughtful, creative, and interesting folks.  That's a big plus.
 
4.  GW isn't a "policy school."  I've heard this come up before, but I'm not sure why its circulating. Most students here plan to have an academic job at the end.  If they jump to the policy world it's likely more a reflection of them learning about outside options (due to living in a city with lots of think tank and policy jobs) and by the time you've been living at the poverty line long enough (grad student stipends), I guarentee you'd be interested in jumping to a livable wage too .
 
5. I don't regret my decision to come to GW.  That said, I think it's important that students make informed decisions.  If you were admitted to a place with stellar placement which doesnt' require work obligations every semester, you should look at it very seriously.  GW is a lovely place with lovely people, but if you can't get a job at the end of the day, all that loveliness isn't worth all that much.....
 
Good luck!

Is there any connection between age or work experience (or even prior graduate school completion) and attrition? My biased and completely unsupported notion is that the interests and ambitions of the college senior are more volitile and less informed* than those of older, more experienced candidates. If this is the case, simply signaling to candidates that work experience is valued would drop attrition. You could also consider asking a supplemental question or crafting the SoP prompt to have the candidate discuss why they believe they are a good fit for the grad student lifestyle.
 
*When I say "less informed" I'm less focused on whether the candidate has the passion or curiosity to remain animated by social puzzles. I'm more referring to understanding of work routines, work/life balance, family ambitions, whether one really wants to be a self-starter or an employee, etc. Some time ago, many top law programs started to notice that JD candidates that came in with work experience achieved more in their careers and were more satisfied as attorneys than students straight from undergrad. A lot of ink has been spilled musing, at least, that candidates with work experience 1) better understand how "being a lawyer" will affect their other interests and goals and 2) distinguish better between different types of legal careers and choose one that fits their life rather than chasing white-shoe salaries and prestige. As a result, some of the top programs explicitly list work experience as a desirable qualification. Some, like Northwestern, even require it.
 
There is a trope repeated to grad school applicants (doubtless it's at least partly undertrue) that schools want interesting researchers, not interesting people. Since we recognize that an applicant's interests are highly likely to change during the program, shifting the concept of who "fits" slightly away from research interests and toward temperment, personality and maturity might help.
 
Another hunch, put forward only partly out of self interest: pay grad students more. It probably doesn't even need to be much. Relatedly, require some counseling in money management for high-potential, low-income earners. I'm sure the faculty here remember this, but being broke is really stressful. If some job offer comes knocking when your checking account is showing double digits (and both those digits are behind the decimal) it's going to look sweeter. I'd be shocked if a meaningful portion of attrition wasn't influenced by a feeling of financial duress. Drawing an analogy again to law school, some programs have started providing some counseling on money and health management at the outset of the program.
 
Not only is graduate school stressful in a direct sense, the time and opportunity costs involved in completing it can have serious indirect effects on health, finances and relationships. The Methods series is hard enough without also feeling sick, poor and resented by your partner. Equipping students better to deal with these indirect stresses might go a long way to increasing completion rates.
 
 
The probability is one. In the case of every other elite program, there came a day or two in which the board clearly lit up with results and at least three or four regular posters claimed admits in this thread in short order. I would buy a hat so I could eat my hat if Harvard turns out to be any different.

Don't worry, I won't hold it against you.

I would stick with the "Too Awesome" hypothesis. 

I would stick with the "Too Awesome" hypothesis. 

Hey progress
 
It all depends on what type of career that you are planning to have after you're done with your PhD. It sounds as if you want to go into academia? If so, publications and conference presentations are going to be extremely important. For example, one of my (former) professors in my MA program came from a program that is ranked around the 50-mark. He finished his PhD with 4 publications and had several job offers when he went out on the job market. He has now accepted a job offer from a PhD-granting institution and is moving on.
 
Now, if you're expecting to receive job offers from Yale, Harvard etc. you probably shouldn't attend either of those programs. Schools tend to place their PhD students at different tiers, and one can only do so much to improve your resume with publications. "Pedigree" will still matter a whole lot.
 
If you're able to visit all three of the schools, I'd definitely do that. Try to figure out where you will be able to co-author with faculty, receive funding for conferences, etc. Then see how the school that you're currently in love with stacks up against the others.
 
Good luck!

I agree with Lemeard, but I'm going to put it more bluntly.
 
You need to look at the placement results of both schools and ask whether the lower ranked school has a history of providing that result. If it doesn't, you don't go. Period.
 
Ranking is not everything with respect to prestige of placement. Prestige of placement is not everything with respect to happiness. But if your "ambition" maps on to a general sense of what most people see as "better" placement, and the schools you're talking about are 20 or more ranks apart (instead of half a dozen or something) you'd be sort of crazy to turn down the higher ranked offer. Being poor sucks, but live on raman a bit longer if that's what it takes.
 
Now, if the lower ranked school can realistically provide the placement you want and offers better fit and a higher standard of living, then it's a no brainer to take the lower ranked offer.

I'm not sure it's as much about the process being ill-suited to select talented candidates, as much as is it is about there being so many talented candidates that it's hard to separate them from each other.
 
Not saying that the process seems to be perfect (far from it), but I can understand that it's problematic to select the best 20 candidates from a pool of 300+ extremely talented applicants.
 
Edit: I posted a tombola many pages back. It still feels a bit like that

I don't think it means that they don't *care* about whether you attend, but it certainly means that they are less invested in you as a candidate than those to whom they did offer funding.  Of course, it also depends on the resources of the department.  Not being offered funding from a large department with big resources is a bad sign, but the same offer from a small department with limited resources might not be as meaningful.

Yea, I'm at a prominent nat'l security think tank. It is balls hard to get into one. It requires really being involved and having a strong academic background (though this is more shown through writing work), as well as patience with internships and TONS of networking. I won't pretend it is easy to get or to do - I didn't think I would make it into this world for a long while (and it'll kill me to leave it) - but it is possible and it really is one of the few (IR/comp) ways to be in the field without a PhD.
 
Edit: Feel free to PM me about anything.

To my mind, the phrase means: a job that could credibly be turned into a supporting point in a future application. 
 
I know a number of people who have ended up in entry level NGO work and with staff affiliations at university research centers (primarily after a MA though). Post undergrad, several people I know left the country for development/ ESL-teaching/Embassy jobs  - which is a good deal if you're a comparativist with the flexibility to pack up and go somewhere else for a year or two. (And if you're a comparativist, you're probably already planning on long stints doing fieldwork a few years down the line....right?)
 
I've seen this happen less, but there are probably some good research/fact checking/editorial jobs at current events-related magazines and journals. Although the top-tier jobs would probably entail competing with bloodthirsty journalism grads, they could be extremely valuable for honing writing, editing, and research skills.
 
 
Then there are the suggestions for entry level think tank and policy jobs, but -- and I could be wrong-- I think those tend to be lucky catches rather than something to plan on.  I know that a few other thread participants have referenced being in the policy world, so maybe they could weigh in.
 
Finally, you can always ditch the phd strategizing long-game, and find a job that seems cool. Maybe after a year or two in, say, marketing, you'll discover that poli sci was fun, but consumer behavior is more interesting.  
 
Hope this has been helpful.

What you're describing is the undergraduate approach to admissions.
 
Per my understanding, at the doctoral level, this isn't how it works.  Any time that an admission with funding is offered, that money has to be earmarked for that individual until he/she makes a decision.  That's why there is such a push to have students reject offers that they know they are not going to take - so that they free up that space for someone on the waitlist.  This is the reason that admissions trickle out over a period of months, and that people sit on waitlists seemingly forever.  The doctoral admissions program is a much more nuanced dance than undergraduate or masters.
 
Anyway, that's my understanding of it.