Peter

Crumpledpaper-- I just happened to check this forum again (I was a semi-frequent visitor during the last application cycle) and I thought I'd chime in. I also went to a no-name MA program and also have a bizarre topic. I found it worked out fine. I'd recommend starting up some email conversations with profs that you think might work well with you come October (it's too early now, they'll forget you come application cycle) and I'd attach your CV to the emails discretely if you think it will help. While I know your topic has a strong element of application, I'd downplay this in your actual, well, for lack of a better word, application. Meaning, don't let your topic sound like it should belong in the realm of public policy. As I think you know, such topics are considered "lower" than the science of politics. I'd also be clear about what you want to study in your SOP and how you've framed your research question. It still seems vague to me (though I know you had no intention of being specific on a cite like this). If you find your topic has no people currently studying it, then part of your SOP will be convincing readers that your topic really, really, actually, really belongs in the field of POLS. This can be tricky. You mentioned wanting to go to WashU. Who were you wanting to work with? Lee Epstein might be a good fit for you. There are a couple people there that study humanitarian issues, but they're more quantitative-oriented as I remember, so you should be prepared for that going in. Make sure there is a fit at all the dept's you apply to. If there's not, you're probably wasting your time and application fee. Your writing sample, to answer your question, can be anything you've written. Feel free to revise and edit (I did a bit). Ah, and make sure you check with depts about whether or not they'll transfer your MA credits. You don't want to be studying until you die, you know? Good luck! I don't check this cite often, but feel free to send a message if you have questions.

Yep---will be going for a PhD in Political Science.

Throwing rankings to the wind--- Accepted the offer at GW. All the best to you guys---

Agreed. Go to Stanford. And honestly, while the name brand school tag shouldn't exist, it does. I'm relatively certain you could submit nothing but a mediocre writing sample and the names of your recommenders, GRE, and the brand of your school will safely carry you to a PhD program. I wouldn't pay $ for Yale. I would wonder, however, why you're not getting an MA in POLS....

I've mentioned this before, but I did a terminal MA and then applied to PhD and I'm content with the options open to me. I can tell you that from my literally no-name state school there were four of us who applied from the terminal MA in POLS program to PhD programs. All of us were accepted somewhere. Three of us have funded offers, and it's likely the fourth person will have solid funding after the first year. We all had a range of GRE scores (we're looking at a range of around 1050-1370) and were admitted to a range of programs. Our tuition is about 3.5K a year (very cheap) our school is not in the slightest bit prestigious, but we worked hard, had solid GPA's and had professors who knew us well (small program= pretty detailed letters). SO, from this I can tell you the following---a terminal MA is, I think, absolutely not going to make you look like a slacker candidate. If you choose the right program, I think it could really help your application, and given that I think you've mentioned having an MA currently in something like criminal justice (?) I think showing commitment to the field is important. My BA was in English and without an MA or serious classes in POLS my chances of PhD acceptances were, of course, low. That said, I can tell you that a terminal MA will likely not shave off time to your PHD--which means you should know going into the terminal MA that you'll spend two years doing graduate work there only to have to complete the full MA/PhD combo elsewhere (this is what I've found). So I'd ask yourself whether you're ok with spending at least 7 years (MA +MA/PhD) in grad classes. I am honestly struggling to stomach this thought right now. I mean, seriously, why should I retake Comparative Democratization? And I really don't care much about retaking Am. Political Behavior and crunching more numbers for why people vote the way they do. Sorry, just a rant... Also, I'd think about your GRE scores (I'm not sure what yours are right now)--I'm finding these scores (to get into a "good funded program") are very important. Whatever you do next year, I'd spend serious time studying for these. While students in my program with lower scores found placement, the higher the score the better the placement, generally... As for the 100,000 debt---dude, that honestly seems really high. Granted, it will be easier to get into a "good" school coming from a "good" school, but you've got 10 years after graduation to pay back your loans, so if you've got 100,000 out (depending on your int. rate) that's going to be some pretty substantial monthly payments... just something to consider....IT IS A GAMBLE going to the state school option near you, and you need to work really hard there, but you can avoid piles of debt... Hope this helps.

Great, see you both there. Have any of you received updated schedules? I'm trying to figure out exactly when everything is done on Monday....

Jessetfan (or iheartplato or others) are you (still) going to be at the GWU open house next Monday?

Tidefan--- So where is the best coffee in DC? When I lived there I was never able to find the perfect coffee place.....

Also, and I know this sounds bizarre, but you might consider if you ever want to actually teach at one of the schools you're looking at. In other words, let's say you're considering Berkeley and Stanford. If Stanford offers more money but ultimately you'd like a shot at teaching there, I'd pick Berkeley for your PhD (and vice versa). Schools tend to walk this tight-rope of wanting to inbreed but not TOO much. In other words, I've found most programs will not (or don't generally want to) hire their own graduates....

Please don't take this the wrong way, but I've always wondered about the attraction to security studies. And I would argue that security studies is the most popular and commonplace focus of IR students... Given that the people in the world who actually have the real data needed to make sound conclusions regarding military/security operations are actually very small in number, absolutely do not publish in peer-reviewed journals (think, would a general actually publically assert: "Currently, the U.S. has _______ nuclear weapons of the ______ variety. We keep them in bases in ___, ____, ____") and have very sheltered to no interaction w/the academic community, how can conclusions found in the security studies sect of POLS been anything more than a barrage of hypotheticals? In other words, from my observation, "bombs and rockets" people study lots and lots of scenarios of weapons/how people might respond to various hypothetical types of arsenals/the deterrence or provocation of weapons, etc. but they are forced to cite other academics to make their cases. These academics do not have access to any real data, and so an inbreeding of hypothetical-hypotheticals abounds. So, since those who actually have the data for this study are few and far between (and likely living in DC and not a college town), how can POLS provide worthwhile research when they're taking shots in the dark? To actually research security studies (using the real data, etc.) shouldn't these students do so from within the government? Can they get the correct data anywhere else?

As for UCSB, I have a few friends who are awaiting word still. I do know, however, that they have sent out some acceptances in either late Jan or early Feb, I believe. As for UCR, one friend has heard an acceptance (I think they heard about two weeks ago)--so I'd call. No insight into UMass....

Davis is about 16.5K for the academic year, w/good chances of funding in summer as well (I think around 3K for the summer) UW-Seattle is about 13-14K/academic year w/significantly lesser chances of summer funding GWU is looking at a funding package of about 18K/academic year....unsure about summer funding UVA I'd need to double-check on. Considering cost of living, Davis is the best offer financially. But I'm finding funding to be negotiable and a main factor to consider is how much of your funding comes with the required TA/RA stint and how much of it is fellowed.

I would add (though from my other comments on this forum this should come as no surprise), that prestige (which is really what landing that top-10 TT job is about) is a poor substitute for intelligence. Intelligence, in my mind, is the humble recognition that you have been gifted a functioning mind, and the application of that gift to the betterment of humanity. Being "left alone with your brilliance" is a sad excuse for that you could do with your life. Your degrees, your reading lists, your articles (I believe) should reflect your earnest desire to know and understand the world and then to take that knowledge and apply it. If you want to study, as I do, the politics of hunger, it is not enough to publish articles in the best journals (like they'd take them anyway). You should research, and you should research extremely well, but then you should take the next step (which is the harder one) and say, "very well, I believe X and Y to be root causes of the hunger problem. Understanding the real world in which we live, how can I take real steps to respond to this reality?" This next step is the embodiment of what true intelligence is. It is what happens when a person leaves the world of the theoretical (which is much easier, honestly, to navigate) and attempts the much harder step of application of the theory. This is what deeper intelligence is, or rather, this is, I believe, the ultimate goal of intelligence. In other words, the normal activities of an academic are only part of what we should be about, and we should not believe that simply publishing some articles in journals that 10 other people will read while sitting in the office of an Ivy league school makes us anything special. No, really, your brilliant theoretical thoughts are not enough. Squander is indeed one of the greatest tragedies. At this point it is worth checking out this site to see where Nobel prize winners were working when they won the award, i.e. what schools validated their research topics, etc. You'll notice an awful lot of not-Harvards on this list (gasp!): http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/list ... ities.html Additionally, it is always helpful to remember that many Nobel prize winners never even attended a "prestigious" school--- Einstein got his PhD from the Univ. of Zurich, Niels Bohr from Copenhagen Univ., etc. "Prestige" is a socially-constructed concept. It works only as long as people are willing to play by the rules of the game--or perhaps only until the one cave-dweller (sorry, it's just too easy), sees the light.

Ah, and as for the comment that you can take your MA and walk into a PhD ABD, that is absolutely false. To my great dismay I have learned that virtually all the "better" programs will make me retake all coursework (except methodology courses, which seem to transfer) at their dept. So, if you do the MA (I wish I knew this ahead of time), don't expect it to shave off time to PhD, except if you discover your dissertation topic along the way and can shave off time there. But you will be repeating virtually all of your graduate classes.

iheartplato-- Here are my thoughts, again, for what they're worth. 1. When I was in a similar situation a couple years ago a prof at a top 20 suggested I go to a lower-ranked program (if funded), do very well, and attempt the transfer. I have met one student via the recruitment weekends that was able to do this, but I think they actually transfered DOWN and not up in the rankings. While it can be done, I think it is very tricky and uncommon. 2. Many MA degrees do have later deadlines (again, I'd push for your cheap, in-state tuition local state univ.). I actually called up my state school in August and asked if I could just start the program in a couple weeks. I'd be careful about Columbia or other pricey MA's, whereas if you're willing to foot the bill there you might as well take Georgetown's offer. 3. My friend accepted an unfunded offer at Georgetown for a PhD in History. While she was not funded in year one, she excelled in her coursework and has been funded every year since. Her advice: plan to pay for the first year, but if you do well, they'll find the money to keep you. This is, however, a gamble. Good luck!

At my first recruitment trip I didn't push the issue of "will you be my adviser" to the profs I was most seriously interested in working with, but that was largely because a prof there had already let me know who my committee would consist of. So that made it easy, I suppose. At my second trip the school was less committal and a current student there advised I be blunt and ask if the one I had assumed would be my adviser (we'd only emailed a few times though) would be "committed to me and my topic." I was not gutsy enough to word it in this way, though I did ask, "Since I have a bizarre topic it is important for me to find a univ. that would be amenable to X topic. That said, would you be willing to work with me if I attended X univ?" I think that's a good/delicate way to ask the question and from the fervor of their response you should get a good idea about how seriously this prof/profs will support you.

During my MA I worked about 20 hrs/week and it WAS challenging to keep all the ducks in rows, but I was able to pull a 4.0 if I was willing to forgo some sleep, some social events, etc. So it IS possible. And heck, for most people, it's a necessity.

For what it's worth: BA: English/minor Spanish (unknown state school--they offered a full ride for four years) GPA: 4.0 (cumulative), summa cum laude Also studied Ancient Greek (year and a half), French and Latin (only a semester each), Spanish (many years, and studied in Spain) MA:Political Science (unknown state school--also, lots of scholarships) GPA: 4.0 (cumulative), summa cum laude GRE: 650v/720q/5.5AW White House intern, interned in the House of Reps, MA thesis in progress, have taught my own GE pols class for four quarters (picked my own books, wrote my own lectures, tests, etc. etc.) which was the first time this was allowed (to my knowledge) for a POLS class at my university. LORs were from nobody notable but from kind profs who knew me well. I think my SOP was solid. My topic was a problem. I study the politics of hunger. There are no professors who do this exactly. My advice: practice for the GRE (I actually ran out of time and just had to pick random answers for the last six questions on the quant. section), try to write an SOP that conveys that you understand what being a PhD student is about (you know how to do a research project, pick a research question, have the tenacity to see it through, etc.) and make sure you can detail one specific research interest. If you're super fragmented in your interests I'd pick one/maybe two and only focus on those. As for the name of your school, I applied to 9 undergrad schools (fortunately accepted to all, but took the full ride at a no-name school), turned down MAs at NYU and UChicago for a no=name school as well) and it worked for me. BUT, it will make it harder for you to get into a top-10 even if you excel in your classes,etc. Good luck and remember the PhD should be a means to an end. Your research should be a means to an end of actually helping the world (I think), so in light of that, take the process with a grain of salt and realize that a vote of confidence/or no confidence from a big name school really means (I think) very little. Accepted: Univ. of Washington, UVA, UCDavis, GWU Rejected: WashU, Harvard and NYU (I assume since I haven't heard anything), Chicago, UCSD Waitlisted: USC Waiting on: Georgetown

I know I've posted my thoughts on this before (maybe in the other Chicago MA thread?) but I was offered the position and said no. I got the feeling (even after the admitted student trip) that the purpose of the program was to serve as a fundraiser for the PhD. Also, while it is true that you COULD get into a big name school from a Chicago MA, you could also amass a great deal of debt and get into a school you could have been admitted to if you just did the MA at a cheap state school. I'd only consider it if you wanted a PhD down the road in that subject field, likely. I opted to go to the no-name state school and have been accepted by four PhD programs, waitlisted at one, and waiting on another couple. It's hit or miss, and while I've been accepted in the top-25, I haven't been in the top 10, and I wasn't the type of applicant to focus all on the top 10 schools. However, it is likely that it will be EASIER to get into a program with the Chicago tag. So, it's a gamble. Go to the admit weekend and see how you feel. They were notorious at Chicago for spending 99% of the trip talking about how wonderful they were and how you must be brilliant to be there (so ridiculous, my gosh) but if you can get past the egos that barely fit through the doorways then you might see something redemptive. But again, I opted no....and I have no loans...

Hi Lenin--- For what it's worth here are my two cents: The SOP should be exceptionally dry--no idealism, not even much "why I care about political science" etc. Remember, from what I have observed POLS profs are neither creative nor exceptionally interesting in their writing. Yours should follow suit. I had to leave any former English major creativity at the door... I know many will disagree with this, but as a rule of thumb I think the readers want to see the following: 1. You understand what you're getting into with a PhD--- i.e. you understand the "plight" of the researcher, the challenges in the discipline, the struggle of identifying an appropritate research question and seeing it through, blah, blah, blah. This is the exceptionally dry part, and honestly is like paying homage to the readers' professions. OH well, I think it needs to be there. 2. You have a clear research question and design. How will you work on this at the PhD level? Have you worked on it at the MA/BA level? This should be a significant part of your SOP. Again, explain the process/trials/oh-the-life-of-an-academic-is-so-hard-and-is-reflected-in-my-tenacity-w/-working-w/-this project pursued as you've worked with this topic. 3. How can your work walk hand in hand with the university in question. Here's where you broaden the topic if necessary to fit with faculty interests, etc. Just thoughts...

Is anybody attending the open house in April? I heard I was an alternate for funding and I'm planning to go (I'd really be tempted to go if funding worked out....) Anybody have any insights into the "alternate funding" process? Anybody know what funding entails there or what the stipend is? I'll need to check.... Thanks!

Eve, I understand that graduate programs are risk-adverse. Certainly, if I were to be investing lots of money into a student (especially in a discipline like POLS, where very little of consequence has arisen in the past couple decades) I would want to know that they were the best candidate for the investment. My argument is, of course, with how "best candidate" is determined. Your points are well-taken--YES, this is how it is done. I disagree however that there is a direct correlation with quality of instruction/better students at the better schools. That may be be true as a whole, but I think there are enough exceptions to warrant serious reconsideration. Inbreeding has its downsides :wink: and the discipline could benefit from a bit more of an open-mind. The heavy hitting schools may have some nobel prize winners, but notice that many of those who win such awards did not THEMSELVES attend these top schools. Also, having big names at your school absolutely doesn't mean you'll work with them (hail the TA's), and the grade inflation at these places can be, at times, sickening. My public high school places lots of students at Ivy's (I myself applied to 9 schools and was fortunate to be admitted everywhere, tho', again, chose the fully funded state option) and equivalent and woe to the stories of hastily written papers from my Harvard friend who pulls A's with papers full of grammatical errors/content issues/etc. because her prof doesn't actually read them and because the parents pressure for good grades to the administration. Also, I disagree about loans. I've mentioned before I turned down an unfunded MA at Chicago for a literally no-name state school. I have no interest in funneling money into continuing a severely flawed cycle of buying admission to PHD programs. Seriously, if it has had reached the point where you have to PAY TO GET INTO A GOOD PHD PROGRAM (i.e. the hidden prereq of the expensive undergrad) then something has gone terribly wrong... And, frankly, some of the most important research academics need to conduct will require researchers to be mobile and able to take very low paying positions . I'd like a good part of my own research to take place in sub-Saharan Africa. Loans will tie my hands to more lucrative jobs/positions, and some fields/interests require a person to be debt free (or relatively) or the opportunity cost (to your own research) will be too high. Look at the writing sample, the SOP, read the LORs for character and scholarly potential, examine the student's record, and make your decision. The name of the school they attended should be left out.

Ammar--- I'm going to have to disagree with you 100%. As I've mentioned on this forum before, being awarded placement at a top (insert number here) school should neither be taken as an affirmation nor a rejection of your abilities/past performance/potential/etc. What you are forgetting are two very important pieces of information (at least--these are just what come to mind right now): 1. How well does your topic fit with the profs at the top X schools? 2. What is the name of the school/schools you attended for your BA/MA? (note: your term "good undergraduate" generally means expensive--something many people will opt out of for a cheaper school. The prof's may be just as intelligent, the research you perform just as good, etc., but the name is they key...) Neither of these two factors have anything to do with your objective ability/qualifications/etc. For example, my topic is extremely different. In fact, I consider myself fortunate to have been admitted ANYWHERE as I was, whereas I had to fight to even have my topic seen as belonging in the field of political science. There are no full time professors in the entire country which study my topic at any top 25 schools. Because I have been told that these forums are browsed by profs and I have yet to finish w/notifications, etc., I'll leave this at that. The point, however, is that if your topic is unusual it will be a hard sell no matter what your numbers are. As for the name of your school--I'm convinced that it is more important than most other aspects of your application. You get serious points for going to a big name school. And I think most people know they're buying the LOR with their tuition. Unknown state schools, while they can get you into a top 25, will be an extreme hurdle if you're looking for a top-10 PhD. But that simply means you opted not to take out massive loans or take loads of money from your parents--it doesn't mean you're a less effective researcher/scholar/academic/you name it.

Thanks for the info. That's what I like about this forum--people have different insights /info etc. and it's very helpful. Again, thanks.

Congrats on the GW admit! I'm not sure if you're comfortable sharing, but I wondered if they offered funding (or will they be announcing that later?) and also, is there going to be a campus visit (and are they paying for the travel, etc.?) Thanks!