polsciguy88

https://pwb02mw.press.jhu.edu/title/demographics-and-demand-higher-education In short: Demographic changes do not favor the US university system *writ large.* Much of the university system was based on a model of growth, but economic growth in the current US economic system is not robust. Couple this with an aging population, there simply is not enough college-aged students for demand to remain even constant, which will drive much of the lower R2s and LACs out of business. Furthermore, because the US federal government guarantees a large number of student loans, universities have continually increased tuition as rates far higher than inflation. But these tuition dollars are NOT going to faculty, administration bureaucracies are essentially eating into university revenues at dangerous rates. Not sustainable. The reckoning was already on the horizon, coronavirus has just pushed it far quicker and far deeper than predicted. The job market for political science phds has contracted approximately 70% this year. This is not unusual, this is happening across most disciplines: https://www.sciencemag.org/careers/2020/10/amid-pandemic-us-faculty-job-openings-plummet This is obviously an atypical year...HOWEVER, it is incredibly unlikely that there will be a strong rebound for the reasons I already stated. Rather, you should expect the system to bottom-out because of online learning across many universities and colleges, there has been a lot of deferrals and withdrawals of students, placing an enormous amount of financial pressure on already hurting colleges and universities. It's not sustainable. Don't get a PhD. Do something else with your life. Start a business, whatever. Just don't get a PhD. The calculus used to be: if you can get into a top program and be a star (somewhat in your control), you can get a job. Now it's looking like nearly everyone has bleak prospects for getting a job (at all).

Depends on what you (subjectively) consider a 'positive contribution.' The academic market is collapsing. The bubble is bursting. Blowing smoke up people's asses, in my opinion, is not a positive contribution. No one should be applying to graduate programs in political science right now.

You are unlikely to find a job regardless of what subfield you choose.

It simply signals that you are capable of hitting 95th+ percentile on either dimension. None of your scores are 'low.'

There's an option to send both of your scores - do that.

You are making a false equivalence. Most industries do not require 5-7 years of intensive training in a highly exploitative system AND exhibit such an over-glut in the supply of labor. I repeat, once again, do not do a PhD in a social science or humanities. Doing so is, without a doubt, a foolish move at this juncture. You will do a lion's share of the teaching and grading, as well as all the grunt work of research, for other people that make upwards of 4-6 times as much as you do. Your graduate program does not give a crap about you, nor does the discipline. For your service you will be rewarded with an approximately 1% chance of attaining a job as a tenure-track professor. There are no jobs. The job market this year has approximately 20-30% of the number of available positions as last year. It's unlikely this is going to significantly change in the future, despite people being under the illusion that this is an exceptional year. The fact that programs are already starting to curtail programs that provide such exploitative benefits to them signals deep, deep, structural changes on the horizons. Structural changes that were already coming, but have been accelerated. Do not enter this collapsing ponzi and exploitative scheme.

If people can't see the writing on the wall, and do not forgo pursuing a PhD in the near future, you only have yourselves to blame. The fact that programs are closing admissions right now, despite the fact that it is a low-cost way of providing them extremely cheap and exploitative labor, should make you realize how deep the issues with academia are in the short, and long-term. The major demographic shift was already going to bring a reckoning. The pandemic has only accelerated the collapse of the pyramid scheme.

Don't do it.

I highly recommend you (and others) change the scope of your perspective. You shouldn't ask yourself how COVID is going to affect admissions - which at the end day, is a pointless exercise because you either get acceptances or you don't. You should be asking yourself why you want to enter into an industry that is essentially collapsing from the inside? You most certainly will not get a job. I'd highly recommend not getting a PhD.

I see a lot of people discussing the potential risks of non-disclosure, yet I have seen no one advise the OP to lie about anything in their application. There's a difference between not putting it all over your SOP and LORs that you got caught cheating/plagiarizing during your undergrad, and *lying* about it in your application. I don't recall many applications asking that question on the application - but I might not be remembering well so someone may correct me on that. If there's a box then click it. I just wouldn't mention it in my SOP or LORs, which is an entirely different thing than not disclosing it when asked.

Once again, you are stating completely false information. Departments do not run background checks on applicants during the admissions process. It only *may occur* by the graduate school when and if the accepted applicant accepts the position. And yes, stating false information matters - to suggest otherwise is ridiculous.

Do you think I give a fuck? The OP asked for opinions, I gave mine.

IMO you should actually read what people state. No department has the resources to do background checks on applicants. It's much too expensive and time-consuming. What your links point to is background checks may be done FOLLOWING acceptance, not while academic departments are reviewing applications and making acceptance offers. To suggest otherwise is completely incorrect.

This is completely false. There is absolutely zero chance of any school conducting ''background checks" on applicants prior to acceptance. Departments do not have the time nor the resources to conduct background checks on applicants.

Extremely important. There's been a thousand threads on this. You want at the very least 160+ on both verbal and quantitative sections. Ideally, you want 165+ when applying to top programs, but it's not necessary.

You seem to be operating under multiple assumptions, of which are not true, making the logic of your post strange to follow. You do realize you can take the test multiple times right? And that you only send the scores that you want to send (i.e. a university will have no idea if you did poorly on a past take)? You don't send your scores until you actually apply to the programs, so I don't understand why you ask the last question the way you do. Just take the test? If you don't do well, just take it again (or how many times you want). This is especially the case since you aren't applying to programs in the near term.

Assuming that it's no longer noted on your transcript, I would recommend completely avoiding any discussion of it if I were you. Admissions committee members often barely even look at transcripts, if at all. People also fail classes. Failing a class is not grounds for rejecting someone from admission to a grad program, particularly if their GPA is good overall. However, cheating in a class resulting in failing it is definitely grounds to instantly throw out your application. You discuss it in your SOP and get your letter writers to talk about it, and all of a sudden you have a target on your application for a committee that has way too many applications compared to open slots.

To me this seems more like an ethical concern rather one of the 'rules' per se. If I were you? I wouldn't take the SSHRC on the basis that I was taking funding that is given to individuals for the purposes of advancing their research and the opportunity to devote all their time and efforts to those pursuits. I personally don't think it's ethical to take funds - much less publicly funded ones - that are designed to support research when I am working full-time and merely finishing my PhD requirements. That's not to mention that you intend to use these funds to cover your own personal debts, which seems even more antithetical to what they are meant for. But evidently I am not you.

I don't see any reason why you would really need more than 8 or 16 GB. R, or whatever else, doesn't really need all that much RAM - less than most high-end computer games in fact. Unless you are doing big data stuff, the likelihood that you need more than 8 is low. I have 16 GB, but I rarely need that much, if ever.

I'm really confused at how anyone could make the claim that having to take online courses and virtually no scholarly community is seen as a positive opportunity? We are talking about your graduate training here. The thing that, indirectly, will help you become an independent scholar, publish, and hopefully get a TT job. Make no mistake, online learning is clearly inferior and this is especially true in a seminar setting. Not having the same access to professors, seminars, workshops, other academic activities, on-campus resources, ect, is another clearly inferior situation. Once again, the question should be whether this is a big deal to you, and what the associated costs (if any) there are for deferring. But to claim that this is an ''opportunity" is almost laughable.

I don't really understand some of the underlying logic of this post. You are 'losing an entire year.' Well, what exactly do you mean by this? It's not 'lost,' you are simply postponing the start/end date. More importantly, doctoral degrees are not to be 'rushed' or tried to be completed as fast as possible; the academic job market is too competitive for that to be any strategy. "Your cohort will move on without you." So what? What difference does it make? Next year's cohort will be your cohort. There's really nothing inherently special about any given 'cohort.' We should strip out all the noise. The question should be this: do you think having online instruction, as well as rather limited access to professors, and workshops/seminar series/outside speakers/ect, is highly detrimental to your development? If the answer is yes, and it's not difficult for you to defer, then I think it's a rather simple decision.

Yes, plenty. Undergraduate students, particularly good ones, receiving LORs from faculty at every single education institution in the US is the norm.

No. At least, not necessarily. It depends more the content of the LORs, and also, who is writing them.

"Sadly, I don’t think I’d get a good letter of rec from renowned faculty at either school since most undergrad research at both schools is working for other PhD students." That is his exact words. So yes, it is precisely what he wrote.

I'm sorry, but claiming that it's not possible, or unlikely, to be able to get good letters of recommendation at Berkeley or UCLA as an undergraduate is just so far from the truth, it's not even worth further discussion.