dnexon
-
Posts
25 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by dnexon
-
-
So I decide to check on this website and... anyway, our process is almost done – the step I referenced is the penultimate stage before we start informally contacting admitted & waitlisted students.
"The tweets above are from the Georgetown IR subfield chair. He is the one who recommends the list of acceptances. He said he has done the recommendations to the DGS."
That's not how it works. While field chairs (at least this year) are automatically on the committee, all the PhD decisions are done by the field committees and then the whole committee together. I'm sure that some places might be more hierarchical. I've never thought to ask.
(anyway, if it helps anyone I'm signing off here but I'll try to check in on the thread that Bear used to post on) -
BTW, about Georgetown, I haven't heard yet so I'm assuming my application is rejected, per what everyone else has said already. But if that's the case, then why don't they just send out refusals? I find it a bit mistifying. My hopes aren't riding on my Georgetown application, but just wondering why admission committees work like this.
Have you still not received anything?
-
It would depend on the specifics of the case, but I imagine different schools have different systems and constraints.
-
Yeah that paper has been assigned in two different seminars at both Oklahoma State and here at Iowa. I will admit my first reading of it left me frustrated but after rereading it a few times I found myself referencing it more often! ha!
In truth, I'm pleased that it is being assigned. I know the article is dense, but I think we're right about the philosophy of science as (mis)applied to IR.
I have to say it is nice to have some faculty on here providing advice. I really wish I would have found this place a year ago when I was going through this process. I know for me, it was much easier going through it after my Masters compared to when I was navigating it after I finished undergrad.
I hope more come on. My sense is that more information is generally better for everyone. But a lot of what we offer boils down to anecdote, hearsay, and the product of our own biases. It would be nice if we spent more time systematically studying processes such as the so-called "job market" -- and if schools were more transparent such that we could gather better data about them.
-
Sure. No better or worse than any other reputation-based survey. At some point I'll post some thoughts on how I think this stuff should be parsed.
-
-
University of Maryland is also very strong.
The major difference is that Iowa is in the Peace Studies network, while GU and GWU are more aligned with Security Studies. Methodological convergence makes the differences less pronounced than they once were -- and there are people who straddle both communities -- but the two arenas remain, for lack of a better term, different "communities of discourse" and this has implications for where their modal placements go.
-
I'm not a neutral party here, but let me say that these are all strong programs. Now, having said that, you should remember that you are not locked into a subfield. You can go to UVA and do CP or GWU and IR. Also, although all four schools now provide a solid-to-excellent methodological foundation, the kind of IR or CP you would do at, say, Iowa, is very different from what you would do at GU or GWU. Not better or worse, just different. And that will have downstream influences on career trajectory.
-
I still haven't heard from them.
We've had serious SNAFUs with confirming rejections. In general, if you haven't heard from us, you're not in :-(.*
However, we've had a few additional admissions over the last few days, and that might be what this is referring to. Again, if you want info, feel free to email me <<dhn2 @ my school's email>>.
*Have I mentioned how much I don't enjoy this job? It isn't fun to tell interesting -- and often qualified -- students that they've been rejected.
-
Because they use different methodologies. I'd ignore NRC and use USNWR as a rough guide to the status hierarchy in the discipline.
-
I'm not sure I agree entirely. I think an MA at the LSE carries weight with some programs. But US institutions with strong political-science departments are more traditional "feeders" for US PhD programs.
-
Another quick point: if you aggregate what I, BFB, and Irfan have said you might recognize a pattern: it is very difficult for an applicant to predict the quality of letters. The assistant professor who worked closely with you might put ten minutes of effort into a form letter. That big name might write you a personalized letter of the sort that opens plenty of doors.
Yes, you should be smart about picking writers; you should not be afraid to have a frank discussion with professors and/or employers before making a final decision about who writes your letters. But you should also recognize that there's a lot about this process that you cannot control. And, to be honest, a lot of what stinks about this process -- lack of control, lots of rejections, being at the mercy of idiosyncratic evaluators, and so forth -- pretty much applies to the entirety of academic life.
-
I know this is out of context... but I'm a big fan of you(r works)!!!
Just saying.
Don't worry, I won't hold it against you.
- raptureonfire and PoliSwede
-
2
-
I agree with the OSU mafia. A detailed letter that draws meaningful comparisons and speaks to a prospective student's strengths and weaknesses is terrific. Letters can also be extremely helpful when it comes to basic things... like reminding readers that an undergraduate institution does not have significant grade inflation.
I'm not sure about how best to approach the larger question. It isn't just that institutions weigh elements differently; individual committee members do as well. And, as Irfan pointed out on a different thread, the structure of fellowship allocation is different -- and in consequential ways -- across different schools.
That's why the basic line you'll hear from us is to get your GREs as high as possible, pick writers who will produce personalized and detailed recommendations that speak specifically to your academic potential, and signal your competency to acquire necessary skills -- such as statistical methods, formal theory, languages, etc.
-
I suppose that I'll add my .02 to the "clustering" discussion here. It is both true that (1) the process is very flawed and that (2) admissions often cluster around the same candidates at many schools. This shouldn't surprise anyone, though. Admissions committee work off of the same information. They deploy similar strategies for coping with the weaknesses of that information. And there's also external pressure to weight the same factors, e.g., GRE scores. It follows that those schools who look for the same kinds of candidates are likely to cluster.
Indeed, I've noticed that graduate admissions at my institution are often very sensitive to the particular individuals that sit on our subcommittees. Yet our pool still clusters -- just with a slightly different set of schools!
-
When can we expect GTown rejections?
Soonish. I kept a wall of rejections when I applied to grad school, but I'm not sure what the other good use of the official letter is.
-
Dear faculty,
If I am going to re-apply next year, what should I do differently? Rework my SOP and re-take the GREs obviously, but would it benefit me to take more math classes at my local community college? A political science graduate course at my local Ivy would be hard to pay for (and I already have three of them on my transcripts). Just wondering if staying in school (I work full time) would be a bonus, especially if it is an advanced undergraduate math course. Thanks.
Maths and stats classes -- if you do well -- are definitely a good signal. But I wouldn't put my life on hold with the idea of eventually pursuing a PhD. When you look at the odds of getting into a program (very low) and the state of the current job market (not quite depressing, but definitely a downer).... that suggests, at least, hedging your bets.
-
Quick note: Georgetown's remaining acceptances went out at COB yesterday.
Again, email me if you have any questions.
-
I honestly don't think I looked at that question even once. A lot of our applicants left it blank; others wrote in a set of top-5 departments; yet others wrote in a greater variety of departments. I don't care (though I accept the notion that some might).
AFAIK, that question exists so the bean-counters in the graduate school can use the answers to generate a set of "peer" institutions, i.e., where do people applying to us also apply? It is not a factor in admissions.
Here's how I read the files:
1) Get basic info: name, previous ed institutions, GPA, GRE scores (the latter two simply to ascertain if you're above the arbitrary thresholds established by our graduate school since that has implications for funding, as BFB has explained previously).
2) Read personal statement closely; skim writing sample if provided (OSU doesn't require one)
3) If statement is any good, and if "fit" is plausible, glance at letters to see if any flags pop up.
4) Next file.
In short, for me, it's all about the statement and/or writing sample if one was provided. Frankly I found letters of rec fairly uninformative for the obvious selection bias reasons.
As my list formed, I had pretty strong priors as to who I thought would get a lot of attention and whom I thought we'd have the inside track on. But that didn't bear on my decision at all, and an admit's "gettability" never came up at the admission committee meeting.
Interesting. We tend to place much more value on recommendations. For us, the statement of purpose is more a signal of "does this person have any idea what it means to do political science" -- as is the writing sample -- as the correlation between statement of purpose and PhD topic is, shall we say, loose.
-
For all the faculty:
I have a question about SOPs and stated fields of interest. So, my stated research interests are firmly in the comparative field. But much of my research experience and graduate coursework is on IR and diplomatic history.
Does this disconnect harm me? Its not like the IR/history topics I studied are unrelated to my stated interests--I am interested in studying the Middle East, and my past work has been on US policy toward the region.
Also, for people whose research interests are located on the border of two fields, does that harm them in the admissions process?
Thanks!
This a good question, but it doesn't have a straightforward answer other than YMMV. In general, background and prior studies matter as signals of future performance; students often shift their focus once in graduate school; the distinction between CG and IR is already pretty blurred. I'd think evidence of either language skills -- or the ability to acquire relevant languages -- would be more important than a shift from "US policy toward" to "the region itself." But so much of this process hinges on who happens to be reading your files in a given year that I'd be wary of generalizing.
-
Does anyone know the fields of the Georgetown admits?
Edit: Ah - all initial acceptances made at this point!
I should clarify: no, not all of our admits have been notified. When I say "wait list" I mean our "wait list" for funding. We do not have a "wait list" for admissions.
Indeed, most of those on our "wait list" for funding have not been notified yet. This should be rectified very shortly. I will make sure that I post here when I have confirmation that everyone has been notified. My apologies for the confusion.
Again, if you have any questions, feel free to email me.
-
These warnings all sound like par for the course. And no, I haven't been lurking for a long time. So, let's make this quick:
1) Yes, we've made our initial decisions;
2) As of this morning, not everyone on our wait list had been notified;
3) I oversee the process, but I don't directly make the decisions -- if you applied to us, there's a good chance that I've never seen your file;
4) As of now, I'm not in a position to tell you your status as it never works out well when I get ahead of our notification procedures; and
5) We've been working with some major adjustments to the way we do things this year, which is why everything is taking so #^!&* long. Sorry.
Feel free to contact me if you have specific questions.
PS: Thanks for the kind words -- I'll try to get the podcast process back up and running soon.
-
I totally buy into this (also, can we sound the 'faculty' alarm, once again?). Honestly, I started irrationally taking rejections seriously for a long time, but in the past few weeks shifted to thanking my lucky stars every single day for the great news I've been given. It's been an enormous relief.
Faculty alarm? Good idea. We eat brains.
-
really we can't take these admissions decisions so personally, as hard as that may be. as various posters have said, there could be multiple reasons why someone is waitlisted, accepted, or rejected for that matter... it's a complicated process and taking it personally only makes it harder and more frustrating....
me too, and I never thought twice about it... during the admissions process we are no more than a few stats and a stack of papers (an important stack of papers, of course, but a stack regardless). it's hard to get in the door, but what matters is how you perform once you're in.
I just want to reiterate this point. The admissions process is a bit of a "salami factory." Committees work in a low-information environment and have to reject most of their pool. Not only can't you take your status personally, but you should always choose the program you want to attend -- regardless of whether you were admitted in the first round or off of a wait list.
2020-2021 Application Thread
in Political Science Forum
Posted · Edited by dnexon
Want to underscore poliscipls plea but at a general level. If you know you're not going to go to one or more of the schools that accepted you, you should really decline the offer(s) ASAP. It benefits no one to hold off, and it generates some modicum of goodwill to be a 'good citizen' of the profession, i.e., to facilitate moving down the waitlist(s). Keep in mind that as an incoming PhD student, let alone a possible future academic, you're dealing with people are going to be your peers and colleagues.
(And we may not be talking about in terms of "the invisible college." I'm old enough to have interviewed, discussed the papers of, & helped out people who got accepted at Georgetown but went elsewhere – almost always for totally legit reasons; if you've dealt with me you may know that I'll tell prospective students to go elsewhere when it's in their interests to do so).