rollinson

Oops...double post of Silencio's link.

I graduated from the program a couple of years ago. Some thoughts: 1. As for selectivity, I'm not sure how it breaks down, but one thing you should consider is that the MAPSS program comprises all the social sciences: Anthropology, History (which isn't a SS, but whatever), Political Science, Psychology, and Sociology (and I think that's it). So, let's say they get 150-200 applications per those fields, accept around 20-50 students per field. That's not super selective, but it's not mincemeat either. Also, that will depend on field. Political Science had probably 12-15 students in it, but Anthro had I think double. Not sure how that affects your reasoning on the matter, but it might be something to consider. What I guess you might be trying to get at is how will this program affect you in graduate admissions in the future. Well, part of that is of course up to you--if you go and totally fuck up, then maybe not so well. But, if you play your cards right it can certainly help. I ended up being admitted to three PHD programs this try around, one with full funding. I know of MAPSS students who are now at various (HD, History, Pol Sci, Law) programs at the university now. I know of students who are at other universitites both prestigious (Princeton, Columbia, WashU) and I'm sure there are others who are at smaller unis or colleges as well. I think I mentioned this upriver: when I went for orientation, they said that of the students they were helping to apply to PHD programs (the department will write you a letter, penned by your preceptor and I think signed by the head of the department, although I'm not sure about that last part) pretty much all of them got into PHD programs and most with full funding. I would take that with a slight pinch of salt since they may have narrowed the list of applicants with their definition of "help" and the number cited (I think it was 29 of 32 who got full funding) was obviously lower than the total program (although, not all students enter the program looking to go on to a PHD and some change their minds while earning their Masters--indeed, when they had an info session about reapplying and a rather large number of students from my class showed up the director remarked "I thought we would have scared off more than this" or something to that effect). I'd say go for the visit (they'll compensate you and it should be somewhat nice in April in Chicago), take a look, and press them on placement records. Don't be put off by the gruff exterior of John McAloon: press him if you feel like you need something answered. 2. The Pros: You get to study at one of the great universities in the nation and have access to some fantastic professors. You get a year to basically work out what you want to study, which will help you hone a better Statement of Purpose (provided this was something you needed to do anyways). [The director told us that many of the people who wounds up in MAPSS were people who were thrown on the "smart kids who don't really know what they want to study" pile from the general application list in, say, Anthro.] If you play your cards right and/or get lucky you can get a rather big name to be one of your readers for your master's paper and with that a letter of recommendation. Having Nathan Tarcov or Robert Pape or someone like that writing you a letter generally doesn't hurt. You get to live in Chicago for at least a year; Chicago is really cool (although Hyde Park is kinda lame). 3. The Cons: Even if you have received a full scholarship, you need to pay for your living expenses and take out loans to do so. And if you haven't received that full scholarship, those costs only go up. It's a significant financial burden to accrue. There is probably some truth to the claim that MAPSS and MAPH (the humanities version) are there to stoke the coffers of the University (although I think it's more of a symbiosis since you can also get something out of it). You are not at the top of the graduate hiearchy: the PHD students are. If a class is overbooked, for instance, one way they may cut down the numbers is to take only PHD students (I had this happen with a class, although I didn't really care about the class, so no biggie). It's a one year program so it can feel very rushed--in a blink of an eye you'll be working on your master's paper proposal and trying to find an advisor (tip: try and think of that stuff beforehand and try and network as early as possible by going to visit profs you might want to work with and asking them questions). I would go, ask questions of the students, ask questions of the preceptors and the director, get a nice free meal with the current students, and then decide. It is a costly adventure, but it can pay off in the end if what you really want is to go to a PHD program. Of course, as I've mentioned, in part you'll get out of it what you put into it.

If I'm not mistaken, Northwestern is apparently very good for that sort of study. Also, if you're into editorships of journals, recent hire Mary Dietz brought the journal Political Theory with her to Northwestern.

http://www.themonkeycage.org/2008/02/post_64.html

By director, do you mean Chair of the Department or the Graduate Advisor? I'm going to email concerning my status, but I wanted to make sure I'm sending it to the right person.

FYI: The student/campus days for Pol Sci are this weekend. I'm not sure if that plays into this as well and if so how. For instance, if you're on the wait list would they offer you a chance to visit?

Do you know what rankings he used? I found this one interesting: http://www.politicalstudies.org/pdf/psr/hix.pdf Three years old or so, so it might not be as up to date as one would like.

Wow, that really sucks. Compliment (hey we want you for PHD) + punch in the stomach (ah, but no funding!) = bad. I take it they'll be contacting people soon though; so hopefully you won't have that long to wait to hear.

Hmmm... There's a thread in the History section about the paucity of politeness and consideration at UPENN; maybe it's an institution wide thing?

Was this someone you know in the department or do you get the impression that it's the beginning of their non-letter contacts to admits? Or do they only admit via snail mail? I'm confused and hungry, and there wolves after me...help!

As testament to how this whole process can get to your head, or perhaps merely to my own insanity: When I first read your suggestion, I glanced at it quickly. In this quick glance, I thought you said "in the shower with Elaine," which somehow put my brain into action debating the sexual prowess/abilities of the four main cast members. Thank you for that spur.

Sure, I anticipate a tersely written rejection.

That's fascinating actually. I don't know jack shit about their department: are they really that good in comparative and int'l relations (as compared to american and theory) or is that there are just that many people looking for those sub-fields in general? You definitely have a nontrivial better chance if you are an americanist or a theorist at getting in--if I'm not mistaken, something like 25 percent of American apps were accepted, compared to 9 for int'l relations. But a very low funding rate. Dang. Some people have remarked that GW is good with funding--any further details? I applied and looked at their site--looks like TA's from the department with uni fellowships, but the site didn't really go into good detail (like all our students receive X, or something along those lines).

Man, you people are all so serious: I just want to get a PHD so I can become a Professor and use my status and aura of wisdom to bed 18 year olds. Knowledge, smoledge!

No problem. I'm here to help.