gradster

If you don't want to be an academic there is no point doing a PhD. Get a masters or a policy degree.

To weigh in on the HYP debate, again I second the notion that they are not the end all be all of political science. I would never advice someone to pay for a whole PhD or to go to school outside the top 30. However, Cornell is an great program, has a very good placement record, and is a nice working environment, and you should seriously consider going there. Now in defense of your tactless professor, I know it sucks to hear it, but I suspect he was trying to tell you that if you are dead set on going to HPY you need to boost your file somehow. That doesn't mean that you are not very smart and have a ton of potential, but maybe that it is not coming through in your file. I've read SOPs of people looking to apply to my program (people I know are very smart and could succeed at any program including HYP) and can immediately tell them their file won't get them into HYP or even a top 10 school. That is not a personal indictment of the person, it is trying to let them realistically know that their file isn't showing everything they are. And it's not because they haven't done anything remarkable, it's because their file doesn't reflect their quality and potential. In other words, your file doesn't do you justice. I will go out on a limb and say that your professor was trying to say this and he just has no tact and wasn't able to articulate this well (but it could be he is an ass). Now let's assume your professor is actually an ass and doesn't think you are HYP material (whatever that means). So what? What you have accomplished and done before graduate school is a poor predictor of how you will do once in graduate school. Some of the best undergraduate students can't handle graduate school, or lack the creativity it takes to do original work. Many students are just good at regurgitating stuff or can only be critical but cannot produce their own work. So go to Cornell and see if graduate school is for you. It's all a blank slate once you start and nothing you have done before graduate school will really be of any help in the academic job market (other than getting into a good program which you have already done). Remember, many of the HYP students drop out or never get jobs. And some students who barely got into a program rise to the challenge and get good jobs at the end. The good thing about the future, is that a lot of it is in your hands!

If you get into Harvard go there. Georgetown would be my last choice (it's not even a top 25 department). But assuming that Harvard is a no, then I would take UCSD over UCLA. It's not only better ranked and has better placement, but it is also much better in IR, but it is more quantitative than UCLA so that is something you should take into account. If they have recruitment visits go and pay close attention to relations between faculty and grads.

BIG issue here. Not all departments can offer you more. For example, at my school the stipends are set by the graduate school. Everyone gets the same exact funding and nothing you can do about it. At most you can try to ask for some guaranteed summer funding or stuff that doesn't cost money. However, at other schools the departments get a pot of money from the graduate school and are free to distribute it anyway they want. So there you can definitely ask for more money. However, they already decided how much to offer you and unless you have strong offers from other programs they are not likely to give you more. So before you haggle, find out what the deal is at each department, which ones give are open to negotiation and which ones are not, and go from there. Also, keep in mind that what has been the norm in the past might changing this year as budgets are shrinking.

Current grad here. Whatever you do, take some time to relax and have fun. To burn yourself out on reading and math because the first year of grad school is tough and you don't want to burn and crash. Internships are fine, but take some vacation time and have fun. I would advise most of you to do nothing and just enjoy life. It's about to get much more hectic.

The reason why the rejections come out later is because they are sent out by the graduate school (those are the school rules for all departments). So the department choses the admits and the graduate school office lets them notify the admits because they need to know early to organize the recruitment visit. However, the department doesn't send rejections, the graduate schools does. So all the departments send the graduate office their lists of rejected applicant and the graduate school administrators are responsible for notifying everyone (probably through the website). So doing the updating of all the departments takes a long time, as you can imagine, and why the lag between acceptances and rejections. Unfortunately, no news is bad news. Hope that clarifies it and it really not the department's decision to do it this way, but university rules.

Columbia has recently made a push to hire more formal IR people. Now they have Morelli and this year they hired Urpelainen. Both do IR and game theory. Other recent hires like Ting also add to the formal work. If you want more of statistical training, they have also beefed up that aspect, with Gelman and HIrano on board the students are very strong methods-wise these days (and placing very well). In addition you still have all the security folks around, so you really have the best of both worlds. I would also strongly recommend UCSD. They have Gartzke and Slantchev who are very strong in both theory and methods, and is a great program. NYU is also very good, much more in methods than in theory though, so if you do go there, take the train uptown and take classes at Columbia with the security folks.

Columbia might be a good fit for you, they have good China scholars but also great foreign policy people. We have students who do this kinds of work. UCSD will also be a great place for you. However when you say " Iam very interested in researching this vital relationship in regards to Foreign Policy, Trade Debt, Military History, Regional Concerns (Taiwan, N. Korea, Japan), Partnership in Humanitarian Intervention, Social Policy, Political Transformation, etc. all related to how the US and China will relate over the next 30 years." That sounds like too many things. Figure out which one or two aspects of the US China relationship you want to focus on and that may help you narrow down whether you want to pursue this as an IR or CP scholar (probably the first you list are more IR and the later are more CP). If you do want to purse this from an IR standpoint, you may want to link it to broader questions of international cooperation, or big power politics. I also think it's ok to say your work is at the juncture of two subfields (many departments like that--like Yale). Good luck!

This is common between Columbia and NYU and not frowned upon.

There is no shame in reapplying, many people do it every year, and have a massive advantage having gone through it all before. Your professors know how hard it is, especially this year. I would wait a few days until you hear for sure, you'd regret it if you email them now, and next week you say, oops never mind. A few days won't make a difference in any case. Just be candid, tell them you may have not written a perfect SOP but that you are committed to academia and will apply again. Also ask them for any advise they may give you on making your file stand out. Good luck:)

DONTDOIT I think your dislike of your department has shaped some of your views, but I do think that it's important for people know what they are getting in. However, I will have to respectfully disagree with you when you say that professors don't care. Most (not all) professors do care about the students and their research. Sure it's not the number one thing in their life, nor should it be. Part of learning to be an academic is learning to ride the bike without papa holding the back-seat, and you don't want to be cuddled or you will crash when you leave graduate school. Faculty do want a good cohort and they don't want to end up with graduates who won't be good participants in seminars/talks and who won't produce good research. That being said, not every program is right for everyone. So when you visit departments speak to as many different people as possible, especially in your subfield. It is very important to do this (and I agree not just the super enthusiastic ones). The reason why is because two people can have very different experiences at the same program. rlayla said above that a student emailed her, that would signal that they are the kind of the student the department wants you to see, and while often those graduates will also give you a lot of information (and usually honest about it), there may be others who have different experiences. Also the students that hated it and left are gone, so you already have a biased sample. So what you can do is pay lots of attention to the interaction between graduate students and faculty, the interaction among graduate students, and especially talk to the students that work with the faculty you want to work with (as many as you can). Look and see if the faculty you would want to work with publish with their students, and how much those students produce. Also, ask about placement. Don't let the schools say, we placed X, person at Harvard, and be impressed. Ask how many students were on the market this year (which is a hard year and probably more like what the future holds for many of us) and how many got jobs? In short, be prepared. Ask lots of questions to as many different people as you can, and above all be open minded. So many times people are all set in going to school X because of prestige or location, even if that is not the best department in their subfield (or sub-subfield) or even if the signs all show the place is a terrible place for graduate students (competitive, faculty don't care about grads, etc). So really try to find the department that is right for YOU.

Columbia has finished emailing all their admits

Yes, very possible Good luck everyone!

Both, they first meet by subfield and then plenary. It's a bit of a complicated process, but it works well. If you are interested in the details PM me. As to why schools don't just send out all the news at once, well each school works different, but I know at Columbia the rule is that the graduate school office sends out all the information. So once a department makes their decisions, they pass that on to the grad school office, and the grad school sends out letters (first they send out acceptances because you need all the paper work before April to decide). The department is given permission to contact admits because of recruitment visit and all that, but they are not really supposed to tell those that were not accepted. This is why these blogs were created. Basically no news is usually bad news when others have been admitted (especially because schools let admits know asap because they need to move fast to organize your travels for recruitment visit). But each school works different so this is really just advice for Columbia, although in general I find that most schools will have told all their admits by the end of February because they have to do their recruitment visits. Oh and as to the number of applications being down at Columbia, yes this year they were down a bit from last year, but they are still very many applications. They are also accepting less students than last year, hoping to bring a smaller class this year, so the odds are about the same as last year. Last, for those of you that are starting to panic, yes this year is bad, but all years a pretty hard. The chances of getting in to grad school are about 5% for top 10 programs. It is just very hard and competitive. If you don't get in, don't take it personal, and don't get down on yourself if you don't get into your top schools or any schools. If you decide to apply again next year, you will need to be very prepared, as next year applications are probably going to increase by a lot. After the admissions season is over I will post some advise for those of you that weren't lucky this year. But I wait because I'm hoping you will all get in somewhere

The Columbia faculty met today. News will most likely be coming to the admits early next week.

First, wait till the season is over. But if you do not get anything else then this the advise: -Find out what other students without funding do at Austin: are there teaching opportunities that would allow you to pay your way through, is funding in the future at all possible, other sources of income, etc. - The first year of your PhD you are getting a masters and you get the degree whether you continue or not, so going there for a year and getting your masters is worthwhile, and you may receive funding from them in the future or apply to transfer to other programs. - If you find out that there are no good ways to fund yourself there, then maybe a masters in a higher ranked school would help you get into programs with funding. Frankly, your stats are pretty good, so you should ask others to see your SOP and see what can be improved. Also, are you sure your letters are good? Maybe there is a red flag in one of the letters? I know you can't read your letters, but if you can always ask tell your letter writers that you didn't get into the schools you wanted and that if they honestly think you can do it and should give it another shot. If they are ambivalent that may signal they didn't write you a great letter, and you might want to get a letter from someone else (even its a non-academic letter). If they are enthusiastic ask them to read your SOP. For the SOP look at the most recent publications from profs in the schools you would like to go and see what they are doing now, and think of what avenues that are similar but not identical, you want to pursue. Best of luck.

Sorry for not keeping you posted on Columbia. The faculty has not met to make final decisions yet, but I think they will do so tomorrow or Friday. They will probably send out notices next week though I can't tell you for sure when. I will ask tomorrow and see if I can get more precise information for all of you. Good luck:)

Not to discourage you, but I am with the posts above. Being a graduate student I have seen first hand the hardships that theorists endure. It is incredibly hard and competitive, you need multiple publications to even get interviews and if you are lucky you will get a job that is very very far from your dream job. And that is the people that worked with the top people in theory, that networked,and are at top 10 departments. It often takes people 3-5 years to get a tenure track job after grad school. That being said, the humanities and interdisciplinary programs are not much different, and possibly worse. Interdisciplinary departments will put you at a huge disadvantage when you hit the job market, especially if your work ends up being that way and you can't convince any non-interdisciplinary department that you belong there. It might also be a shock to you even if you do get a job in a regular discipline and you will feel out of place. That being said, you should visit both places and get a feel for the departments and then decide. Also talk to the graduate students there, and ask lots of questions. It is also very important to be in a place that is collegial and supportive. I've heard horror stories of places where the students back-stab each other,etc. Graduate school is hard enough, I can't imagine having to deal with competitive people on top of that or an environment that is not nourishing. Knowing you are headed up a steep hill is an advantage for you at this stage. As someone else said, don't bury your head and pretend this won't the case when you come out on the job market. You need to be the best from the get go, work very hard, network a ton, present at conferences every chance you get, be aggressive and reach out to faculty in other departments, and above all work hard, even when you see other grads slacking. Good luck!

For econ post: Your stats are not that great. 650 v isn't great. no one cares about analytic. Your GPA, while good, is from a small unknown school, so it will be discounted (i.e. same GPA from Harvard counts more). Given how competitive things are, I would be surprised if you got into several top 10 programs, but you may get into one or two, probably the one or two that don't care about GRE scores as much. Also, having an econ background and doing IPE is going to help you. They don't have that many students applying for that and always want some. So you need to make your SOP really really good. For the political philosophy post; FIrst of all, not to be mean I'm just being picky,in political science we refer to it as political theory, not political philosophy, which is a subfield in philosophy departments. They usually have less numbers of theorists come in as they tend to be the smaller subfield in most schools. At the same time there are less applications for theory than other subfields so you end up with the same chances as someone doing something else. The problem for you is your GRE scores, pretty low for some of the top schools. However, I think theorists probably care less about GREs than other subfields and it will ultimately come down to how competitive the pool is and how strong your SOP is. Also your GRE is good but it depends what school you went to. If it's a top famous school your GPA looks better. Given that you have good letters and advice on your SOP your chances should be good.

Regarding the conversation a few pages back on whether "real world" experience matters, I will try to be clearer this time. It is a double edged sword. For some people it really helps. If your SOP signals you are committed to academia and know what you are getting into, having the experience will help you, you will likely be picked over someone coming straight from undergrad. BUT if your SOP does not signal that very clearly, it can hurt you, as they will think you really just want a career change and don't know what academia is really about. Especially this year, when schools are getting more of these type of applicaitons, it will be harder to sort the ones with real commitment from the ones without. It falls on you to show that, the committees only get a file and can't read minds. In general, whether coming straight from undergrad or not, it is important to show in your SOP that you are committed to academia and that you know what polisci is about. There are some very good applications that read more like promising history or sociology PhDs. Many people don't even know what the polisci subfields are or who they want to work with. If you don't show you belong in polisci, it doesn't matter if you have amazing experience or if you were the star undergrad, you won't get in.

My program has admitted people with law degrees before and it is not something that hurts someone (they were all from top 5 law schools so it probably helped them). I think that many people do value "real world" experience, but timing is working against you. This year there are many people applying to graduate school because they are suddenly unemployed or fear being unemployed soon. So schools will worry that your application to graduate school is driven by something other than a real desire to do polisci or that you even really know what polisci is. Also with law degrees the problem is that sometimes faculty worry that you just hate being a lawyer, and having paid your debt, you switch careers without really knowing what polisci or academia entails. If you can show schools convincingly in your SOP why you want to pursue a PhD, then the experience you have will probably help you. Good luck!

Convex, lots of people got wait listed by schools that were their backups (including me). Why? I cannot emphasize this enough, the process is very random. Very VERY random. Suppose you want to be in comparative politics and study africa. Well the faculty that do that work at school Y may be leaving, may be on leave this year (therefore not pushing to get you), or may have too many students right now and feels they could be without a new advisees for a year or two. Or the person reading your file happens to know one of your letter writers and if the letter is good you are in, even if probably another file was pretty much the same. The bottom line is that there are way more qualified candidates than there are spots for, and deciding who gets those spots will always involve a bunch of things that completely out of your hands and that are not personal or reflect on the quality of your file. Now if you apply to many schools and your file is good you increase your chances that the random factors will go your way somewhere. If you don't get in anywhere, it still could be that you are not presenting yourself well on paper (your not clear on what polisci is, what you want to do, etc) or one of your letters is not great, or that you had the real bad luck of not having the random factors go your way anywhere. Not to mention that lower ranked schools may pass on some of the best candidates assuming they will go to top 10 or 5 schools. All this is just to assure you that given all the randomness in the process you cannot predict future success or failure from one rejection.

this one!

Probably late February as usual. If I hear otherwise I'll post it on the blog. Good luck!

"While it's possible that this is WashU specific, my gut tells me that other school administrators have similar foresight." The problem is that all universities manage their budgets differently, so it's hard to tell. What you can see is the schools that have already implemented hiring freezes. If they have stopped departments from hiring faculty, you can bet they are looking for ways to cut spending, and reducing number of entering funded students is one way. At my school, in a meeting with the graduate school we were told that some departments will forego bringing in students or reduce the entering cohort size this year so they can keep funding their current students. So it not only varies by school but even within schools (some departments will cut cohorts some a little, some a lot, some none at all). Hopefully you applied broadly and that will increase your chances of getting in even if some schools you applied to are bringing in smaller classes. Last thing, even if the poliscirumors posts seem exaggerated, the info is coming from faculty and graduate students in political departments and there is not much reason to believe they are lying to you about their plans for entering class. Some departments may very well be cutting their classes by 60%. However, you are not likely to have many postings from departments where the entering class will be the same. So the scary posts, while possibly true, are not a representative sample.