Jump to content

HK2004

Members
  • Posts

    13
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Application Season
    Not Applicable
  • Program
    Political Science

Recent Profile Visitors

1,338 profile views

HK2004's Achievements

Decaf

Decaf (2/10)

4

Reputation

  1. I'm a little late to this. I had a really low GPA (about the same as yours) and got into a solid enough program even without doing a Masters afterward. So with the combination of an undergraduate thesis and good performance in an MA program, I'm willing to bet that you won't face too much of a problem with your grades alone. Graduate admissions chairs don't help with squat. The only thing they might be able to do is give you insight about "minimums": I know some schools post that they "require" a 3.0 undergrad average, so an admissions chair may be able to give you perspective on how stringent that is, and what that means for your application. But everyone says they do "holistic" readings of applications. Based on my experience applying, I actually have to say I do believe it. So about contacting POI's. Some profs are open to it, but it's really only best to do that if it is absolutely clear that this is a person you'll want to keep in touch with. That is, don't just email some prof who you think is gonna be on the AdCom and remember your name. So you're presumably IR/Conflict, right? If you're interested in a certain topic (e.g. civil wars), maybe email a prof whose work has really influenced yours and introduce yourself/tell them you're applying to their school/thank them for being a positive influence/briefly make a general mention of your interests, and that you hope to be in touch over the years. That's really all you can do, and chances are you'll at least get a sentence or two in response if you're a decent enough human being in your message. Worst case scenario, you've just networked with a good scholar, and if you keep in touch with them, it can help your professional acumen. At the end of the day, when it comes to contacting profs, it really just is about being genuine. Believe me, they can tell the difference between someone who's genuinely interested in their work who happens to also be applying to their school, and the person who wants to get into their school and read their CV to butter them up as a potential "in." There's no magic formula, really: in this field, everyone's really interested in their research, so naturally it only makes sense that the more relevant they are to your research (as opposed to their relevance to your dream school), the more likely it is that they'll respond positively to you reaching out. I've cold-emailed really big names at really big schools and have gotten nothing but warm replies from all of them, so just in my anecdotal experience I've never had any reason to feel like profs aren't open to being contacted so long as you're genuinely interested in what they do.
  2. Actually, knowing your preferred methodology can be important. Don't apologize for knowing where your interests lie. Like you said though, just don't let it allow you to disparage the work of others (which it sounds like you didn't, so there you go!). If you found faculty members of interest, then that's always a good sign. Great tip that really helped me a ton when I was searching: try to talk to people who know your field of interest! Academia's a small world. The schools you're talking about are powerhouses in Political Science, which means that these faculty you're referring to are likely going to be well-known in their sub-fields. If you're at an "unheard of LAC," then find a larger school nearby whose faculty seem to have compatible research interests. Email them and present your situation, tell them you're looking to make the most out of grad school choices, and see if they'd like to have an informational meeting. You'd be surprised how accessible professors can be (sometimes). Also don't discount profs at LAC's or smaller schools. Remember that in the context of the academic job market, these are still most likely people who came out of grad school with some sort of research agenda. They might also know people or at least know about their work. In terms of framing, if your interests are in a geographic area then don't lie about it. These are academics. They can draw connections. If your research question is good, they'll pay attention to your application. Also, don't forget that your statement has to line up with your experience: if you did RA work or wrote a paper focusing on the Middle East, you'd be insane not to at least include that theme in your statement. You're trying to sell yourself as a researcher who knows his s*it, not necessarily someone who's coming in with a theoretically groundbreaking dissertation prospectus (which is what the study of "generalizable phenomena" ultimately entails). If nothing else, I'd seriously consider at least using your geographic interests to illustrate the phenomenon you're interested in studying. Again, it'll signal that you've seriously thought about the question, and that you're not just some kid who read two articles in APSR and started tossing around ideas. But that's just my opinion; no one can give you gospel on what to do and what not to do. Hope that helps. You seem like you know what you're doing for the most part.
  3. No one's responded yet? I figured I'd leave it alone if someone who knew more about it could answer. I'd used this analogy on a few other posts asking about rankings too, but based on my experience looking into and applying for PhD programs, it's a minefield. The question I always like to ask first is what you want to do with it. If academia, then this is a question for a professor (like one who you might have write a letter of recommendation, since you kind of need that). The reason I say that is because if it's anything like Political Science, there's certain schools which are just unquestioned "top" schools--where if you have to ask, it's probably not in that group. Then there's the group that I think most of us normal people fall into, which are the schools that may be lesser ranked ("lesser" by academia's standards, so outside the top 15 or so): those schools need to be well regarded within the specific area you plan on doing research. So for example, as an IR/Conflict prospective, I might be very interested in looking into Emory, though as a theorist... maybe not so much. These questions are best left to the professionals though. We could sit here and spitball all day about what we 'think'. If you're looking to go into non-academic work, based on what I know about policy in the U.S. I'd say it's more about the work experience/connections you make and less about the school itself. That is, unless you go to some powerhouse school (Harvard, Columbia, Stanford, Oxford, Cambridge...those major places that everyone drools over on a resume), focus on the experience you can get in the area you're interested in. Again, this might be an area where you'll have to ask current practitioners, both about the school recommendations but also about whether a PhD will do anything for you depending on your field of interest. Basically, what I'd say is that if you have to ask about it, you're at a point where "ranking" in principle won't make as much of a difference as the specific strengths the respective departments have. And in order to figure that part out, you gotta ask someone who's already a practicing professional in your field of interest.
  4. When in doubt, talk to current professors. Networks are so tight these days, that someone always knows someone. If you can get some ideas on the "who's who" in whatever your interests are, then you might be in a better position to make a decision. Other options are reading political science and finding what you like. When I applied, that's what I did: I remembered very distinctly about 7 or 8 programs from which authors of memorable works came from. It at least gave me a starting point for looking into schools. It's all about narrowing things down.
  5. Superfly, I'd definitely recommend talking to someone outside of an internet forum about this. What I'm hearing is that you're looking to get into a policy-type PhD program focused on development and diplomacy, and you'd like to tailor your studies in such a way as to both build upon and subsequently further your current career trajectory. The PhD in the U.S., from what I've gathered, can be a huge minefield if you're not careful. The best school for me may be a horrifically bad school for you. Off the top of my head, I'd point you towards looking into any school that's attached to a lot of professional institutions: major schools in metro areas like Georgetown and Tufts might be a good starting point. Other possibilities include a policy-focused degree program like Columbia's SIPA or JHU's SAIS, or even UCSD's IR/PS if you're into Pacific Studies. Like Lemeard said, your scores may prevent you from getting into a top program, but this isn't an area that I have any experience in (i.e. policy/practice-oriented PhD applications) so I just can't tell you for sure whether your professional background will help mitigate it. You just have to be really careful. That's my best advice. Talk to an academic, get in touch with a school's graduate coordinator...anything you can do to sift through the incredible diversity of programs out there. You don't want to get into a situation where you get into some big-name school only to find that they either don't do the research you want to do, or that they take a radically different approach than you wish to take. Especially since you seem to be coming in with enough background to really know what you're focusing on, I feel like that makes it all the more important to do your homework. Sorry I can't be of more help.
  6. Define reputable. Do you mean for getting into a career in academia? Or did you want to get back into the policy/diplomacy world? When you say 'below average scholar...bright professional future' that sort of signals that you're looking to stay away from the research end of things and keep on the practitioner track...is that accurate? I guess I'm wondering why you want the PhD; I ask mainly because given your stats, the best chance at admission you've got is to basically blow your Statement of Purpose out of the water. I think "purpose for the phD" is a good place to start before you can narrow down schools.
  7. Orlien, I was literally in the exact situation you're in. My advice is different from the other three posters here though, so obviously I'm not offering gospel. But it's noteworthy that my stats (both in PoliSci and overall) were far worse than yours: I graduated with a sub-3.0 GPA, got into a Top-30 program, and was offered a university fellowship at a 50-ish program. So it's not impossible, or maybe I was just lucky. What I can tell you is that it helped me to include it in my SOP, based on what I gathered from students/faculty at the school I accepted admission from. But I limited my mention of this to a single, tightly worded paragraph. I focused primarily on what I gained from Natural Science courses (e.g. scientific inquiry, research design, intellectual stimulation, work ethic, etc.), and framed it as "while I found myself drawn to the art of scientific inquiry, I learned the hard way that the natural sciences were not an area in which I could excel" (all of which is true!)... I also specifically referenced the grade discrepancy, and made mention of my motivation for taking natural science courses (to address concerns about my commitment to PoliSci). Again though, this was a single, small part of my SOP. I placed it within my SOP such that it wouldn't interfere with the main thrust of this document: in other words, I didn't harp on it, didn't try to explain it, just pointed it out and gave my brief thoughts on it, and moved on to focus on the rest of my experience/purpose. Basically, be honest, forthright, and concise about what you clearly (and rightfully) feel is an important anomaly to point out. I did also talk to my LOR writers about including it; I haven't read the recommendations so I don't know what they did, but you can never go wrong with that. Feel free to PM me if you wanted some more specifics.
  8. With job history, it tends to be where you're "officially" employed. So if this vacation you're taking is like a Sabbatical (e.g. your employer is basically allowing you a year/semester/length of time off), then you shouldn't have a problem writing in "[year]-present". Depending on the nature of your vacation, you might add a parenthetical note on your C.V. next to your current job that you're on sabbatical (e.g. "on sabbatical for 2013-2014") Hmm...with the address question, if it were me I'd put a permanent address and a current mailing address. That's how most job applications approach the issue, so I don't see why a C.V. should be any different.
  9. I'm pretty sure I've got about the same size as yours. We've got 8-10ish: 3 IR people that I know of, at least 1 theorist, and the rest are a mix of American and Comparative.
  10. Stats/Econ is the way to go. Philosophy will only really help you if you want to do Political Theory. A lot of the theoretical frameworks used in modern PoliSci (at least in the quant world, think rational choice and bargaining, etc.) are founded in Economics. There's a running joke that Political Scientists are just Economists minus 15 years. Also, don't underestimate how much the calc in Econ will help when taking the quant courses: again, especially if you're interested in more quanty stuff, Poli Sci is going to require some game theory--and a Methods major/minor means you'll be developing methods, not just using them. That's going to require comfort with econometrics beyond the 101 level. Stats is stats. Should be self explanatory. (Edit: wording)
  11. I second North Texas, they have an incredible peace science group. They aren't so great about funding though, unless you land a university fellowship. I just spent this cycle doing applications for IR/Peace Studies, so from the impressions I got maybe look into somewhere like Purdue or Iowa (though I'd put both well in the top 50 for this specific subfield). Florida State is also amazing, and WAY underranked for what they've done with their IR program (I think they're usually seen around 40). I'm also going to plug for SUNY Buffalo. They actually have a pretty solid group in IR/Peace studies, if you're trying to limit yourself to that tier of schools. Finally don't undersell yourself!!! My "stats" were way worse than yours in terms of grades and pubs, and I landed a top 30 school. Be confident, focus your statement (narrow that research interest down: you sound like you're all over the place), and go retake your GRE and blow it out of the water. Shoot for 90th percentile or above. Feel free to PM me if you want. Also, I'm sure you'll always get this so I won't press the point, but I have to say that in this tier you'll have to really find a dark horse school/advisor so you're competitive for placement. Even with me, I'm stressing about placement--and I'm lower T1/Upper T2 (depending on how you're ranking). My advice is that if you don't truly know what your subfield/interest will be yet, think long and hard before going to lower ranked schools. They can place, but only if you're tenacious enough to know what you want, find the right advisor/school, and take charge.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. See our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use