CarefreeWritingsontheWall

I had a failed application cycle right out of undergrad but to MPA/MPP programs. I realized ex-post that my SOP was a mess and that my interests laid in academia, not policy work. I also realized that my LOR writers were great people, but their letters may not have reflected my passions or given that much information about me and my potential as a PhD student. I was convinced to do an MA and the process of stepping back had me land on a very specific topic of interest. Specificity in a research agenda doesn't hurt you, but if there's one thing I've learned since started my PhD it's that some programs like a degree of malleability in incoming students. They like being able to shape how you see the world and the questions you're interested in (hence the value of coursework). They also want to make sure that your ontological and epistemological approach fits with theirs. American programs are very much dominated by the causal inference/potential outcomes ontology that fits broadly within a positivist approach to social science. Does your work lend itself to this perspective? This isn't to say that there aren't people working outside of these approaches at the schools you applied to, but if the wrong person was on admissions it can be a barrier. It's important to demonstrate a solid research agenda, as well as a sense of how you would pursue it, while balancing the general skills you would like to pick up and how you would apply those to a career in academia. On the LOR front, keep in touch with your letter writers. Have a discussion with them about this cycle. If you haven't already, have a conversation with them about what you want their letters to say about you. Some of your advisors may be able to stress your research interests better, while others can speak to your skills as a researcher and presenter. Have them contextualize how you did in their courses (if you took some with them), and the strength of your program overall relative to other departments. As you're coming from a state school and a European institution, it helps if they can contextualize what your grades mean. These are added details that can really help boost you independently of whether your advisors are known to American scholars or are active on the American conference scene.

If I'm remembering correctly, I had 5-6 individual meetings with different professors. In most cases, they were all people I had identified as potential advisors though there were also others I hadn't considered. I only had one bad meeting between the three visits, and it was because the POI was quite sick. At my first visit, they had so many people visiting and the number of faculty was small, so they did group meetings of 2-4 students with professors. At the other two schools, my one on one meetings scheduled for around 20 minutes each. I know some people asked to have meetings added to their schedule if they weren't initially meeting someone they were interested in working with. As for the other parts, each visit had 3-4 "group" sessions where all visiting prospective students heard about the program requirements, then there were subfield meetings, research centre meetings and methods discussions. All three visits had 2 dinners, one with current students (the night I arrived, my hosts arranged dinner with other current students or in town) and one with faculty and other prospective students. There were socials at bars with current students at all three visits as well, each scheduled for after dinner. Some had extra mixers littered between meetings. After every visit I pretty much slept for 12 hours and didn't move for an entire day - it was like being hungover but from information and people overload. As a random aside, at one visit a prospective student coming right out of undergrad got very drunk at an afternoon social at a bar, the continued to drink through the pre-dinner cocktail, then during dinner where he asked many inappropriate questions to faculty...a professor joked afterward that "what happens on visit day stays on visit day" but his reputation has since stuck even though he didn't choose to go there...Definitely mind your liquor, or politely decline.

The funny thing about admit weekends is that they are very much a social affair, despite the fact that most of us who study political science are introverts and like to read and write alone for extended periods of time. Overall, visits are what you make of them but I would not advise listening and not talking. Most visit weekends have a blend of group meetings (your entire subfield meets the subfield coordinator and hears about courses and pathways, most departments also offer a general discussion of methodology training opportunities, funding, teaching etc), one-on-one meetings, socials, mixers and dinners. The group meetings are of the sit and listen variety, but everything else is entirely driven by you. I went to 3 visits of the 4 places I was accepted. Every one on one meeting I had was a conversation driven by me and my questions. Every dinner was driven by questions from prospective students to current students. The socials were the same thing, on top of just meeting a lot of people. Professors asked me about my research occasionally, but it's not about them interviewing you, it's much more about you interviewing them. Of course this doesn't mean you're talking about their current research (though it's helpful to ask professors what they're currently working on as a starter question), but you should take the time to consider questions you have about the program, the university, department culture, student culture, advising relationships, co-authorship opportunities, funding opportunities, social life atmosphere, gender-relations between professors and students, living conditions (is there graduate housing), cost of living (is your stipend enough to live on or will you need to pick up a job), funding opportunities (is funding only for the academic year or does it include the summer), private sector opportunities (is the program honest about its placements outside of academia or have info on where graduates have landed outside of academia), planned departures (any professors you want to work with in the process of leaving? You would be surprised but I found out about at least 1 planned departure/in process move per visit), hiring committees/future hiring plans, maternity/paternity leave policies, childcare options on campus/in town, office space availability, research centres you might affiliate with, what do course requirements look like, how are generals structured, how much program attrition is there, does funding stop in year 4 or 5/are there 6th year funding options etc. I asked about most of these things on my visits and some of the answers were a bit startling (like a panel of professors laughing and having no answer when someone asked about what the maternity leave policy was if someone had a baby during the program...which happens for many people given the average political science grad student is between 25-30ish). Programs want to convince you to come, but they will also be honest about the tough questions. Why? Because you coming and being miserable or struggling doesn't help them/earn them any money (unless you're visiting places where you don't have full funding). Use the visit to get a picture of what it would be like for you to study there, and ask the tough questions. 5-7 years of your life in a particular place is a commitment. Social dynamics matter a great deal, both amongst your potential entering cohort, but also across cohorts and with faculty. The city and your living conditions can make things more stressful (especially if your stipend doesn't go far), or provide a welcome oasis. Consider whether the program is something that will work for your research agenda and your life; it should not be the case that you are working like a dog for a program and sacrificing doing the kind of work you want to do in order to meet the program's will.

UofT's MA is a research intensive 1 year program. You won't be TAing, as those positions are reserved for PhD students to help fund them. You're pretty unlikely to get departmental funding unless you apply through SSHRC. A year can be a way to pick up some valuable skills, but it's hard to build high quality relationships with faculty. That said, I know a few people who have used UofT's MA program as a stepping stone to PhD programs all over (including placements in Harvard's Gov department), or as a means to pick up some data analyst skills that placed them well in the private sector. In a way, you get what you put into it but it's a massive department. You might find yourself vying for the attention of your advisor, and living in a really expensive city with no funding (and thus, for most people, needing to work on top of a demanding 12 month program).

The poetry this year is unreal

The ability to handle rejection and outright hostility without taking it personally is a skill you will need to succeed in this field (and academia more broadly, perhaps life...). As a graduate student I didn't expect everyone to love my work, but I never expected people to outright tell me it was garbage. I didn't have thick enough skin for such comments at first, and it was a struggle to find my confidence pretty early on in my program. It's important to view comments on your work as separate from comments about yourself. It's hard not to take it personally. There is something to be said about coming in with pre-existing skills in combinatorics, probability theory, and programming (be it R and/or Stata, LaTex etc), but the capacity to deal with pretty destructive (as opposed to constructive) criticism is really important.

They were only announced in the last two weeks, though Imai and Davis have been deliberating with schools for over a year. Yes, confirmed in person and via twitter. https://twitter.com/GarySegura/status/958726445123203075

Davis and Imai are both leaving for Harvard (they're married). Christensen is moving to Columbia and Gilens to UCLA. It's a tough year.

Hey all. Hope you are braving the wave of admission results. It's been awhile since I commented but the mention of what it takes to get into Princeton caught my attention. There's a bit of a coincidental mass exodus occurring this year that could be affecting how people land -- especially in IR but potentially also in other fields. The Department is losing Davis, Imai, Christensen and Gilens to other schools (Harvard, Columbia and UCLA), along with Keohane's move to full emeritus status. Some of its merit and fit, but occasionally there are things occurring beyond your control. I know I was rejected from a number of schools because the person I intended to work with was leaving, or not actually taking on students (turns out I was admitted where they moved to though, so small plus).

Answer truthfully? They're basically allowing you an additional page where you can justify why you want to attend a PhD program.

I'm in the same boat, and part of it is my own doing, while the other part of it is just the nature of the dating scene where I'm doing my PhD. I didn't think that much about it before attending, having shunned relationships during the second half of my MA in order to focus on getting into a PhD program, and during the end of my BA for the same reasons. When I got into the program I'm now attending, and I asked my MA advisor what he thought of it, he spent 30 seconds extolling the program's virtues before deadpanning and stating, "oh but the dating scene is super fucked up." (I will never forget this xD). Fast forward six months later to when I'm actually attending, and one of our Friday happy hours devolves into a number of women more senior in the program lamenting about how hard it is to date in the area. 99% of those that came into my program single (about half of us) have been most successful dating beyond the university and in surrounding cities. Only two couples are openly dating in the department (across cohorts), with only a handful of others dating individuals in other departments. Some have found Bumble a great way to meet people, others have just made social ties beyond the university. At 25, I'm left wondering what they're doing that I'm not. In all honesty, I was in love once and I was so blind at the time to a number of terrible attributes in my former boyfriend that I became very wary of letting myself fall head over heels again (this was a three year on again off again thing starting just before my BA and ending in my junior year). Pair that with a sexual assault by an athlete in my sophomore year of undergrad, and I'm one of the most flighty people when dating because I panic when a guy moves too fast. I've been torn to shreds by men for this and I've grown very comfortable being single as a result - a little too much so IMO. Emotionally I can't do one night stands or "casual dating" which I've found to be what most men my age are looking for. This leaves me wanting a relationship but often being too scared to let something progress to that point (or, like you, frequently finding myself liking people who don't reciprocate or aren't available). Despite all of this, I know I want a relationship. I want to get married and one day have children. So how do I square this circle? Part of it's confidence building and working through the traumas of my past relationships/encounters with men. I realized last year that I needed a counsellor to help me sort through these feelings, and other general issues, and it's been helping. Part of its being comfortable just being social. I know for me, that I will need to be friends first with a future partner. This often means I'm friend-zoned - especially since I naturally have a lot of male friends since I work in a male dominated discipline (and having a brother meant most of my friends growing up were also boys). On the plus side, however, they all look out for me when I have dated (with the running joke being now that my future boyfriend will have a lot of people to please). Having been in love before, and not being a visible minority, of course puts me in a different position than you. I know I'm capable of it. I know I want to be in that position again to trust someone that deeply. But I've also learned to be patient with myself and to not force myself to be "out and looking" when I'm not comfortable doing so just yet. This means I'm not the person going on a ton of dates, which I'm okay with most of the time. But some stretches are difficult - holidays in particular. My advice is just to be patient with yourself. Don't force it. Experiencing the let down of non-reciprocated feelings is normal and a part of this process. Seek social opportunities within your department but also at the university level (graduate student government type events are great for meeting other academics). Perhaps look into Bumble. Seek social opportunities outside of the university with friends. Strike up conversations but don't hold people to any sort of expectation. It will happen.

I got into more than one top 3 with a 152 in Q - significantly below the averages and thresholds posted on most program websites. Does your file need to compensate for that? Absolutely but it is possible.

I think you have a solid shot - your GRE scores are higher than mine by multiple points and I got into a top 3. What matters is selling your desire to do research and pick up the skills top 10 institutions offer.

In part, I agree with the doomsayers. As everyone has mentioned, the financial situation is a clear issue. Stipends beyond top 20 programs are hardly livable. If you pair completing your PhD with full time work, then you're looking at taking significantly longer to complete your degree and the added stress of trying to make ends meet. The tax bill obviously adds to that burden - and whether even top 10 programs will step in to top up stipends to compensate for the 10-15k loss in income that could arise is yet to be seen (and highly unlike when one thinks that even at Harvard, Princeton or Yale, that would look something like 10k extra for at least 2500 students - of which more would still go to taxes. Sigh). Obviously the financial and reputation based arguments side with the doomsayers. At the same time, you will have an uphill battle on the academic job market coming out of a smaller, less renowned institutions. The people you'll network with may not be as influential as others in the field. You'll undoubtedly have greater restrictions on funding and grant opportunities as well. This all sets up the potential to be at a significant disadvantage when you're on the market. That said, fit is everything. Attending a department where advisors actually seek to mentor and teach is crucial - and you won't always find that at some of the top programs. Personally, if I had accepted an offer at a program that looked less prestigious on paper (in terms of rankings and name value), I think I would be happier because my advisors would have an open door policy and be more accessible. Would my work be better? It's hard to say but I think I would feel more in control of what I'm doing than where I am (top-3). I was incredibly torn about my decision because I felt a much better connection with prospective advisors at two alternative programs. Now that I picked a program based on reputation instead of connections, it's up to me to break the barrier, or at least do the work I can to build relationships with some pretty inaccessible PIs. Mentorship in this field is everything and when you don't have it your work can become pretty miserable (and even then, the powerful influential people may not even have your back on the job market).

I had at least four professors in undergrad who had never studied political science before embarking on their PhDs. The first majored in commerce and french literature, but found the business politics class he took the most interesting. The second was initially involved in musicology and event tech, then law school, then a PhD. The other two initially majored in physics. In each case they found their way into graduate school on a bit of a circuitous path. I say this to highlight that it's certainly possible, but it's important to know what you're getting into before you get there. I wouldn't write off an MA program just yet - though you might find yourself traveling a bit to do one that is both suited to preparing you for a doctoral program and also affordable. Take a look at the Canadian context. Programs tend to offer financial assistance, or at least teaching positions that cover the cost of tuition. While programs may not directly fund you, there is also the possibility of external scholarships. Take a look at UBC, McGill or The University of Toronto - all are renowned for filtering MA students into either the private sector or PhD programs. That said, and and I see that you've been told this, but pursuing a PhD in political science to climb the ranks of a university administration is not the reason you want to go to graduate school. I say this as someone who had someone in their MA cohort do this, and openly claim so. They walked away two weeks in, realizing that the academic pursuits weren't up their ally. This is a 5-7 year commitment for most people. If your heart isn't in it for the research, it can be very difficult , if not impossible, to stick it out. Take a look at top journals and recent work. Talk to current PhD students about their experiences at a number of institutions. Embarking on a PhD in Political Science is certainly not a "safe" path - so why the change now? What topics do you want to eat, breathe and explore for five years? Are you okay with delaying developments in your personal life and committing to 15 hours of seminar a week and at least another 40 hours of work and reading on top of that for the short term? Are you okay with the idea that your work will always be with you (and far from a 9-5pm job that gives you spare weekends?). Are you okay with living on a fellowship that has you earning less than 30k a year in most places?

My only advice is to be open to MA programs in other countries. This has nothing to do with your profile - which is very competitive - and much more about the nature of standalone MA programs in the United States. For the most part, the vast majority of research oriented universities do not offer standalone MA's in political science as PhD students earn one along the way (after they finish generals in most cases). Programs like Georgetown's SFS, or Johns Hopkin's SAIS are public policy degrees largely built for mid-career government employees or those involved with NGOs or IOs in some capacity (i.e. the average entrant has 5-6 years of work experience, if not more, in public policy related areas). Because most of these are Masters in Public Administration or Public Policy degrees, they're also shorter (on average). Many don't have thesis or major research paper requirements because you only have a year to complete your coursework and required exams. There are exceptions, such as the University of Chicago's security studies MA - but they're rare. If you're looking to really get your feet wet with research oriented MA programs that are like PhD programs, then MA's in Canada or even the UK can be very useful (as well as being significantly cheaper). I say this as someone who applied to a lot of American MPA and MPP programs without recognizing the difference, and unfortunately I struck out (I had no work experience at the time). Your work experience does help you though. Just be sure to thoroughly research the programs you're applying to in order to ensure they're what you're looking for.

I did not have a competitive Q score for my GRE and I got into two top 5 programs. You can compensate for low GRE Q scores with other things (pre-existing training in statistics/formal theory etc. - the math our field cares about but isn't tested at all on the GRE). Your grammar and writing skills will how in your SOP and writing sample. It also depends on the nature of your work. If you're a theorist, your Q score is hardly relevant to the bigger picture. This isn't to say that the GRE isn't an important component of your application - it's required, but your application is a holistic package.

I know of 3 people who are Yale law graduates currently attending either my program or some related department. It's certainly more common than you think.

As you're applying to public policy programs, you should post this in the government affairs sub-forum (http://forum.thegradcafe.com/forum/11-government-affairs/).

It sounds like you have your preferred trajectory worked out. Key now is to secure the relationships for good LORs and pull up your GPA as much as you can. MPPs are different but are certainly more practical when it comes to securing a job in public service. They'll give you the tools for policy memos, as well as networking. I wouldn't immediately shy away from them if you want to secure a job in government (UK or elsewhere). Be wary of what quantitative methods modules are at Oxbridge and LSE: most will give you the intuition or logic of statistics, but require very little by way of formal applications. I know many people who took "statistics" but never had to code a single thing...a far cry from the methods that make you marketable in the public section, or even the private. Not having done a thesis or independent research might be a hit to your record for a more academic oriented path. But these are just my opinions. I thought I wanted to go into policy myself, but I was very invested in the academic side - so much so, MPP programs rejected me because I had no external work experience upon applications because all my experience was in research, not policy so I landed in MA/PhD programs well. I think your case is a bit of the reverse. MPPs like the Balsillie school are good, but don't necessarily compare to policy programs in the US in terms of rigour or networking opportunities. That said, an MPP/MPA can be a bit more like an MBA in terms of value added. They also don't tend to take people straight out of undergrad.

The one thing to bear in mind is that if your preference is to do a PhD, and you intend to apply to US programs after completing your MPhil, you might have a rough go of things. Top US PhD programs don't like that the Oxbridge system doesn't teach any (if at all) formal or statistical methods, especially in the applied sense. This isn't to say it's impossible, but you might find it a sharp adjustment to your research, with the requirement that you pick up a lot of math that Oxbridge won't require you to even glance at. If your long term goal is to work in public service, an MPhil will likely suffice. You might want to look into MPA or MPP programs as well. Certain Canadian universities are well connected to many of the programs you applied in the sense that graduates from McGill, for instance, don't tend to have issues getting into LSE or Oxford.

For real? In a way, sure, but in many ways definitely not. The benefit of being trained in quantitative methods as a political science is that you can run statistics and you have an in depth knowledge of the substance you're explaining (or at least you should...). Plenty of places are looking for this paired set of expertise, especially consulting. It means you can look beyond numbers and actually speak to the human and political elements of whatever you're analyzing, especially if you're doing project impact evaluations of any kind, be it for an environmental engineering firm, law firm, NGO, the World Bank...you name it - all of these places are interested in RCTs and project evaluations that can speak to the impact of their activities, or predicted impact, especially if it's a policy evaluation or vetting prior to approval. Having had a number of friends land in these positions, it's worth it to recognize that it's not a terrible option though your "research agenda" will be entirely driven by the mandate of wherever you wind up working. Also, I wouldn't discount what many methodologists do as "pseudo" computer science. Most everyone I know who is prioritizing training in quantitative methods winds up in courses in a computer science department...

I can speak to McGill's PhD program if people are curious. The program isn't inherently designed to churn people out onto the academic job market. Students get out of it what they put in, and it's highly dependent on who you're working with. Most faculty will only be more demanding if you're self-motivated. Placement record is pretty good for those who pursued an academic job in North America upon completion, but most students don't pursue an R1 type research position. Many are happy to move on to positions at the college level, as well as the public and private sector. It is true that placement right out of McGill into tenure track positions is also thin (with most working their way to higher ranking positions in time) - but particular faculty place their students well.

Definitely true - though the odd year does happen where you get 5 extra people in a big cohort. I would actually argue that Harvard and Princeton's incoming cohorts are amongst the largest at 25-30, and 20-25 each, though GWU is roughly the same now that I'm thinking about it. Most programs want a smaller cohort if only so that they can tailor their mentoring without losing track of students -- at least this is what I was told, both by people at programs with small cohorts, and by people at my current institution where I'm a member of a large cohort (in the sense that I was warned I should be networking more so that I don't fall through the cracks and wind up without a close mentor...which happens apparently x_x)

I don't think it is - if departments view it as an issue, they certainly would never accept undergraduates that finished their program into their graduate programs. Another 5-6 years at a university gives you ample time to branch out and work with completely different people. You're also transitioning from working on a general BA, to a specific research topic within your PhD. The key will be to demonstrate that you've worked with new and old faculty, as well as branched out -- i.e. by the end of your degree, hopefully you've networked at conferences and established ties (and potentially joint research projects) with faculty at different universities. It's more common than you think (there are people in my cohort who did their BA at the same institution. I did a BA and an MA at the same institution as well and while some of the people I worked with during my MA were the same faculty I took courses with as an undergrad, the dynamic changes when you're a graduate student.