CarefreeWritingsontheWall
-
Posts
305 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by CarefreeWritingsontheWall
-
-
9 hours ago, selectionbias said:
Feeling super anxious about Yale! Anyone else thinks it's weird acceptances albeit informal going out over the weekend...hoping it's just some enthusiastic POIs courting their most desirable admits. Perhaps there will be more to come on Monday.
Also, did anyone note the post on the results page from a Religious Studies (Yale) candidate who claims he or she was "recommended" for admission but ultimately rejected by GSAS? Could be a troll or do folks think there's any truth to GSAS having more autonomy/oversight at certain institutions?
I haven't heard of this happening during the admissions process, but there are some odd processes where someone's DGS will ask their GSAS to terminate them and they just do it (without consultation with their advisors, or even the student). No matter where you go, it's important to shore up allies who will defend you if shit goes down.
-
I can't say anything about the department culture of either, but I have spent time in both cities/on both campuses and the vibe is very different. Ann Arbor is a sprawling suburb, with the university's main campus blurring in with the main town centre. That said, there are a lot of stores, really unique restaurants and some great coffee shops. Certainly a large university town than most other university towns (and Zingerman's sandwiches are worth the walk!). UMich has a very large state school type vibe, school sports are a big deal (especially football...tour the stadium it's intense) and the greek life is massive. It's hard to find a house on campus that isn't owned by a fraternity or sorority. The cons are the non-existence of a large, cheap grocery store on campus. There are plenty that are driving distance away (Whole Foods, Trader Joes, Meijer amongst others) but big box retailer shopping certainly required a vehicle to get to. I was there in the summer and found local transit pretty crappy as well - we wound up stranded at a Target when two buses didn't show. It's probably better when school is in session, but this was just my experience. Also, considering it's a university town the rent is also surprisingly expensive. It felt like I was paying to live in a New York suburb...
Columbia, on the other hand, is the big city experience. Morningside Heights (the area surrounding Columbia) is nice, and away from the tourist hot zones in Manhattan but it's still Manhattan so the energy is there. I really fell in love with New York as a city. It has such a great array of parks and squares, restaurants and cafés. Transit is really accessible snd the coverage is great. I never had to wait more than a few minutes to catch a train (though it is expensive relative to some other cities). The benefit of being in New York is that you also have the ability to escape campus and take a breather without going very far - not hard to find a new part of the city to explore or a new coffee shop to work out of. Columbia does have subsidized housing for graduate students as well, and the apartments are quite nice from what I've heard (but no singles unless you're married or have children I think?).
IR at both is comparable, though Columbia has lost a number of great professors in the last few years. They also didn't offer JU tenure, which means he'll be on the move. Michigan does sponsor ICPSR, so on top of their in house methods training they have a really powerful set of courses offered every year in the summer by faculty they bring in from all over the world. Re: post 5th year funding as well, there are ways to get it at different places if your department itself doesn't have it (Dean's fund, national level funding from SSRC, even your POI, research centres etc.) My sense is that with both of them, as with most top 10s, you won't have to worry.
-
Wandered back here after a long week, and thought I might post something for those looking for feedback on a bad application cycle. I was in the same boat the first time I applied out, though at the time I was applying to terminal MA programs. I struck out and opted for a 2 year MA at my alma matter. One of the most helpful things I did was debrief with a LOR writer who had been my top mentor throughout undergrad. We met a few days after I had received my final rejection. I didn't ask them to, but they emailed a few colleagues at schools I had applied to follow up on why I wasn't admitted. It was through that, and a very frank conversation about the status of my profile overall, that I really figured out where my weaknesses were. It was also a frank conversation about what I really wanted out of another program (and prompted me to switch my horizons from an MPA/MA program to a PhD). It was one way of getting better information on the status of my rejection than the blunt and generic rejection letters from programs themselves, and it was immensely helpful. I know not everyone is in this position, but I do recommend following up with mentors and LOR writers who are in the discipline for feedback. Some of my LOR writer's were blunter about my profile after the fact (surprisingly...could have used the advise in the first place). It certainly helped me prepare for a cycle that landed me in my current program and 4/8 acceptances. In retrospect, I do wish I had found a way to take time off in between my MA and my PhD (started this past September). I think I would feel far less burnt out. Time off really isn't the worse case scenario.
-
On 2/13/2017 at 2:19 PM, Monody said:
Well, I just asked (not at Columbia, but at PennState). Even though the answer may not be unbiased, I am nonetheless quite curious about their perspective in the case that I were to get an acceptance at MIT or Stanford and would have to decide between Columbia and one of them?
I was in this boat last year actually (deciding between Princeton, UPenn, GWU and WashU). I think my perspective was a little different since I was less concerned with the overall ranking of the department/program, and far more concerned with the individual people I would be working with. My closest mentors said the decision was crystal clear, an absolute no contest but for me it wasn't immediately evident because GWU had amazing people I could work with, and their placement record in recent years has been fantastic. I also go along extremely well with everyone I met, as well as the graduate students. I also really loved DC.
I was torn, because I wanted to go somewhere where I could write the best dissertation, and that stemmed first and foremost from mentorship. I asked every professor I met with, no matter the institution, very blunt questions. Who was leaving. What was funding like for fieldwork, or research on top of the stipend. What was their hiring strategy. What was their long run plan as a department in terms of goals. What was it like for women in the department there. What was the teaching load like. What were courses like. What research opportunities were there out of coursework, as an RA, or as a co-author with faculty. I asked the same of current graduate students and I was told very honest, unbiased information about the state of affairs, and some other surprising details about hiring strategies (or lack thereof...). Four months in, everything they said is true (for better or worse).
Faculty genuinely don't want to "fool" you into picking their program because you're all the more likely to be miserable, less productive and reflect poorly on them if you find yourself in a situation you didn't expect. I did openly ask programs why I should pick them over a top 3 and they gave strong answers. Everyone was also open about why I shouldn't pick them (another good question to ask, albeit a blunt one).
I didn't decline offers until I was sure of where I wanted to go, which was admittedly quite close to the April 15th deadline but evident to me as soon as I was in the airport heading back after my last visit. Don't feel compelled to turn someone down. Consider your options carefully. Happy to talk more over PM as well.
-
On the issue of asking whether people will be staying - definitely ask current graduate students if they've heard anything. And definitely ask. I was told that people were coming (and did move) to places I was accepted that made them more appealing, and at others I was accepted where both primary faculty I hoped to work with were leaving or hoped to in the next year or so (and subsequently did). Despite choosing neither of those options, I've run into the same issue this year where up to three faculty members could be leaving by April, with two in particular being huge losses. There are always rumours, but they usually have grounding and there really is no better person to ask than the PI themselves.
- lalalalovesong and Gik
-
2
-
3 minutes ago, Monody said:
So what about the possibility that they notified AP, CP, and theory so far and DGP is currently having a break?
Quite realistic. I saw the DGS in the coffee room today (current Princeton student here). Cohorts are usually between 20-25 people here, with admits around 30-35 (could be higher? not sure).
-
On 1/22/2017 at 10:08 PM, BigTenPoliSci said:
The most memorable piece of advice I got about my first two years (the classwork portion): "If you're not reading in the shower, you're falling behind." I had an MA from a terminal masters track before I got here. i thought that experience was what PhD-track seminars and methods courses at a top 25 would be like. I was wrong. Until you are through comps, all you do is work. You mostly read, but you also write a bit (you'll write a whole lot more later). All of you on this forum will get through that process - this board is clearly biased towards better students - but don't think like I did that you'll be able to do anything else. I thought that I could do consulting jobs on the side. i tried to take on a couple of very small ones at first but quickly gave that up.
This. This 1000000x over.
Having finished a terminal MA, I thought I had a good sense of what a PhD at a top 10 would be like. Wrong. I work 72-80 hours a week and I'm still told by faculty that I'm not working hard enough. Sleeping 8 hours a night? How can I, shouldn't I be working? Everyone has told us that the department has us by the throat until after generals, and even then. If you work with specific faculty, they're no less understanding afterward when it comes to family commitments or personal lives. In a way I got a taste of it when I was helping my Mother grieve the loss of her father during my MA. Two weeks after the funeral, I commented that I had been up until 2AM on the phone with her. My advisor asked me why I was still dealing with the issue. It sounds heartless, but the attitude is that your prioritize your work over yourself if you really want to land that job. Personally, I'm looking to work outside the US job market, and I'm also open to public and private sector opportunities afterward so I feel less compelled to bend over backwards 100% of the time. It is incredibly important to find ways to carve out time for yourself though. If you don't, the insanity only gets worse and faculty will keep asking you for your time. Routine is crucial, as is keeping your research and your goals in mind.
- Erudite, BigTenPoliSci and resDQ
-
3
-
8 hours ago, Monody said:
Ive to say that sounds foremost interesting as I always assumed that the methodological training would be better at the undergraduate level in the US and second encouraging as this part will pose less of a hassle as the Econ courses that I am currently taking are quite intense in that regard. Thanks for the roundup.
I should note that I did my BA/MA outside of the US. More generally though, methods is a mixed bag at the undergraduate level. Most majors are required at least a year in methods, if only to expose students to diverse approaches, but it's not always required.
-
On 1/20/2017 at 1:58 PM, Monody said:
Very enlightening and heartening response. Thank you very much. Maybe just to add, I think that the progress is field and probably path-dependent. For example, I would argue that the progress on this front in my area (intrastate conflict research) is far less than in IPE for example, at least from what Ive read in the recent years.
But coming back to my original question, what did you learn in your undergraduate method courses and what would you say is the average methodological knowledge they expect an undergraduate to have? Also in which program are you if I may ask?
Oh very true! But I wouldn't write off some of the more sophisticated research that say, Chris Blattman has produced on DDR programs in Liberia. It's coming, but I think less high profile. Have a friend ho is also applying in this area, and has delved into mixed methods research. There's a lot of there, I just don't think it's been considered "foundational" just yet. IPE has certainly exploited firm level data and product level data over the last 5-10 years, but even so. The top quant articles are really recent.
As an undergrad, I only took one methods class. I knew no coding, and never took statistics. I ran really basic correlations/t-tests in Excel in my undergraduate thesis at the request of my advisor, who then showed me the basics of Stata in the summer. I had a friend in economics help me with it too, but it was basically a mess. My MA is what gave me my methodological training - which is pretty average when it comes to what people are using in the field today. I did a general research design/methods course that gave a lay of the land covering interviews, surveys, formal theory, and a three week introduction to quant. The second was purely into to statistics, covering OLS/MLE, bootstrapping and MCMC simulation methods. Third course went into panel data with fixed and random effects, survival models, mediation analysis, quantile regressions, instrumental variables, regression discontinuity, SCM and matching, difference in difference, and nested analysis with process tracing. At ICPSR I did MLE and advanced regression analysis which covered corrections for nonlinear data, multiple imputation and a whole host of recent developments. Everything was oriented around applied concepts and coding. I saw the math, but was never expected to do it until I started my PhD this Fall.
I can't really speak to the average methodological knowledge someone coming out of a BA is expected to have. Amongst the people in my cohort who came in right from undergrad (or had been working between but had no pursued another degree), only one of them had touched R or Stata before and that was because they had chosen to use it for their senior thesis. Some had taken undergraduate courses in calculus, but only a few. Overall the program assumed a basic knowledge of univariate calculus and matrix algebra. Most of us couldn't remember how to do it tbh and I personally had never done it as I had never taken calculus, though I knew that the concepts were operating under the programs I had been taught to use. But I can't say whether or not this is in the norm amongst every program. When I interviewed elsewhere last year, it felt about the same. Talking to people starting methods programs elsewhere, it does seem like they assumed a lot of us since most other math camps reviewed univariate calculus and ours assumed we already knew it.
-
-
On 1/19/2017 at 0:28 AM, Monody said:
I dont really mean the heavy duty math as you call it. It is more the kind of stuff like: using an estimator with 200 observations that is known to be inconsistent with fewer than 500, assuming no auto-correlation in pooled models, using fixed effects plus a lagged dependent variable without clustered standard errors, not considering selection effects, using control variables that are determined in the model, etc. Then I usually look at the replication file and attempt to correct for those things just to find out that the results change and don't support the paper's argument anymore. I find that severely annoying and I think that a more in-depth training could alleviate these issues.
So, I just finished writing an exam on probability theory so perhaps I'm a little salty and burnt out from a hectic semester. I think there are two issues here. I've previously taken a 3 course methods sequence, and one month of ICPSR's summer program, so I came into my PhD with more than an average knowledge of how statistical methods are applied in the field. I've still been clobbered by the math, and the requirement that, for example, we know how to derive the variance of a standard normal bivariate distribution by hand... I think there is something to knowing the mechanics and math operating underneath the concepts. At the same time, knowing how to derive something cold certainly won't save you from poor model building. My previous training was much more oriented around applied causal analysis - meaning, for e.g. the week we learned about synthetic control methods and matching, we talked about hypothetical research questions, how this method could resolve endogeneity issues, and how to do it right (and for the right reasons). This is where standards in the field have changed the most, even in the last 5-10 years. The focus now is not only on using statistics, but using them well. Most every methods course at the graduate level will require you to replicate a previous paper at some point to demonstrate the issues you suggest (I was required to do it previously, and will again in this program). Publications today don't ride on a simple replication - the focus is on both correcting poorly developed models, but also expanding on them. I think of the Andrew Rose and Goldstein Rivers and Tomz debate on the impact of the WTO on trade flows papers as a good example of this in IR. It's hard to believe the field was okay with shoddy models, but in essence there weren't necessarily a lot of people capable of policing how statistics were used (in terms of reviewers). Now there are.
Of course, we're also coming to realize a lot of important issues with reliance on quantitative methods, and in some ways this comes from our field being a little behind others where statistics is the primary means of producing evidence. Consider Ai, Norton (2003) on problems with interaction terms in logit and probit models or Montgomery, Nyhan and Torres (2016) on conditioning on post treatment variables. There's another paper out there with a fantastic look at how a handful of countries in a large-N panel completely drive results due to the use of fixed effects. Any program with a thorough training in methods will have you see and talk about these things. They also need not come up in a methods class per se (I heard about the latter three in our IR seminar). Relying on substantive courses to highlight deficiencies in quantitative methods is also not a strong bet - we lucked out with a prof who is very concerned with these issues, but in other courses it was only ever raised as a cursory problem swept aside in favour of criticizing the underlying theories in papers. A good program will reinforce all of these issues, as will the diligent student. I should add this is no different for people pursuing processing tracing and interview methods, or people who are employed as faculty. I always thought it was weird that my MA advisor still went to methods workshops, but I see why now. There's always more to learn. It's part of what makes our field so dynamic, and this equally applies to survey, interview and archival research methods given the changing nature of technology and archival processes.
At the end of the day, what's most important is being able to walk away from a program with a strong capacity to ask interesting relevant questions, to develop logical and conceptually clear theories, and the capacity to test those theories as rigorously as possible with a combination of tactics best suited to the issue at hand. This relies on more than a knowledge of math or statistics. It also requires a thorough understanding of what it's like to be in areas experiencing the phenomena we're interested in. Field work, or even interviews with people who have been involved, are really important. If there's one piece of advice I can lay out here it's to not lose sight of the real people underlying what we see to explain.
- resDQ, lalalalovesong and panama
-
3
-
I disagree with a lot of what people have said here. While top 20 institutions in the US have leaned towards promoting training in quantitative methods, they are by no means the only form of methods training schools offer. They also aren't the only form of scholarly research political scientists are doing in North America. Just take a look at APSA's recent program from their 2016 meeting, or publications in top journals. A department's overall inclination also says nothing to the particular ontological and epistemological views faculty have. Every department is highly varied. Most will state their perspective on methods training on their website, detailing their required courses in methods as well as their overall disposition. Schools like GWU, UPenn or Cornell, for example, state that they are oriented towards a mixed methods approach on their websites. Usually you can find this information on a department's website in their mission statement or introduction, but it can become clearer in program guides. Take a look at those, and then hone in on the people you want to work with. Look for people who study what you substantively are interested in, but also the way you wish to study it.
The key thing to consider is that more methods will better equip you to tackle questions in the future, but you can't know everything perfectly. I do agree with the view that only focusing on qualitative methods will set you up for a world of hurt. Quantitative data analysis techniques (surveys, text analysis, network analysis etc.) can pair really well with qualitative methods (interviews, progress tracing, ethnographic approaches etc.). That said, if you only focus on quantitative methods, you're also setting yourself up to fail. If you throw a regression with stars into a slide but have no narrative or qualitative evidence for why your theory can explain the correlation you've found, your work also won't be published or believed in. There is give and take between both. The key is to trained in a way that won't restrict your research agenda, and that allows you to answer your research questions of interest in the best, more thorough, way possible.
-
Your core stats look ~average. Without knowing more about your research experience outside of courses, it's hard to say. You haven't provided a lot of information. As your GPA is below a 3.7-3.8, it would be worthwhile to rewrite your GRE. Given your math background, your Q score might throw people off.
-
9 hours ago, amripley said:
Your profile is impressive. Obviously admissions panels must take many factors into account, but I don't think you'll have any difficulty getting acceptances at most of the schools on your list. I'm surprised you're not considering McGill, UBC, or the Balsillie School in Waterloo -- they all have strong programs and faculty interested in your field.
I'm guess this is because they all require GRE scores? I think all three of these programs would offer competitive funding and a good fit, given your research interests. A number of the programs you listed don't have that many renowned faculty working on CP/IPE issues related to Turkey, or the middle east. Your profile looks great, but it's worth it to look into program fit, and to really sell yourself as an ideal student for prospective faculty at each program.
-
On 2016-12-14 at 3:06 AM, MyWay said:
It is a little bit off-topic but what about HKS and Gtown's SFS? I just realized that many professors at Harvard and Gtown whom I want to study with only hold positions in HKS and SFS (Tarek Masoud at Harvard, Joseph Sassoon at SFS, to name a few). Should I apply for the public policy PHD program at those schools or...?(And SFS doesn't even have a PHD program offering...)
Well, the division there is stronger. For HKS, I would recommend applying to the public policy PhD. While most departments will allow you to have one external person on your committee, it looks bad if you apply to a program asking to specifically work with people not in it (a bit like applying to Berkeley for political science and then asking to work with a bunch of economists). I realize I'm saying this after HKS' deadline, but it's important to know that PhD's in public policy are also quite different from traditional academic programs. Each school is a little bit different.
-
2 hours ago, resDQ said:
just found a typo in my writing sample. Sent a copy of my SOP to a friend who is applying to PhD programs this year and found a glaring typo in a statement to a school where I was accepted (
). In retrospect, these aren't the kinds of things that destroy your chances of admission.
-
If they are listed as a faculty member for both the politics department and WWS, you're fine. Most of the department is cross-appointed, unlike HKS or Georgetown's SFS. It's much more like GWU's Elliott School.
On a side note: there is mingling, but in practice most politics PhD students will only occasionally audit a WWS course (some are half-term) and the public policy PhDs will only take a few core courses in the politics department. The MPAs/MPPs are largely people you only run into in housing or at more general-audience events, as they are restricted to WWS courses. Occasionally a Politics PhD will have a TA position in WWS as well.
-
On 2016-12-08 at 0:42 AM, Monody said:
Something Ive recently been interested - and maybe some of those who are currently in grad school can shine some light on it - is the taxable status of the stipends. What is the average range of tax in percentages you pay on your stipend and how much do you pay if are an international student since there are some tax treaties which apparently have to be considered. Thanks.
As an international student, I lose 14% of my fellowship to taxes. I have it set up that it's automatically deducted so that I won't have to pay when I file at the end of the year, though income earned as an RA/wages is exempt due to a tax treaty between my home country and the US. https://smartasset.com/taxes/income-taxes is a great website that can give you a sense of how much you will lose depending on where you attend. http://www.phdstipends.com/results can also give you a sense of how livable stipends are, and if there is variation in the packages offered from a given program (some do, some don't offer different things to different people).
re: committees meeting to review: I suspect those on committees will start reading applications after the deadline, but most won't formally meet until January, or later depending on when the fall term formally ends for them. Most have just finished meeting to determine job offers for the hiring cycle.
-
-
PROFILE:
Type of Undergrad Institution: Top 3 Canadian University
Major(s)/Minor(s): Joint Honours Political Science & History, Minor in Economics
Undergrad GPA: CGPA 3.76/4.0, Major GPA: 3.9/4.0
Type of Grad: Top 3 Canadian University, MA (IR Concentration, Methods minor)
Grad GPA: 3.9/4.0
GRE: First attempt (August 2013): V154/Q149/AW5 & Second Attempt (November 2015): V158/Q152/AW6
Any Special Courses: ICPSR + semester long course in regression analysis at my current institution.
Letters of Recommendation:- A tenured IR political science professor, known for six years. I also TAed for two of their classes.
- Associate professor. Senior thesis and MA supervisor for whom I’ve been an RA since the third year of my BA and am now TAing for this winter (known for 3.5 years at time of writing letters). Tenure track, well published despite being junior.
- Assistant tenure track professor who worked outside my field of interest (comparative developing focus) that I took an honours seminar with during my senior year of my BA. They’ve remained a mentor to me during my MA.
- If I could submit an additional letter, it was from a tenured history professor (DGS of his department) I met during the second year of my BA and with whom I did an independent study during my third year and worked closely with until my MA.
I intended to submit a fifth, from a methods professor, but they were expecting their first child in December so the timing didn’t work out.
I chose a variety of people who have mentored me in different ways, but who knew me best. I asked them to focus on different aspects of my profile: the first has seen me transition from a naïve freshman to a
wannabePhD student; the second has mentored and pushed my work intellectually and methodologically by supporting my training in quantitative methods, while also inspiring me to focus on my current area of interest and thus speak to my substantive interests and skills; the third is someone outside my field of interest who can comment on my work ethic and passion for the discipline, as well as contextualize the strengths of my BA and MA programs overall; the fourth I asked to speak to my preferred interdisciplinary approach to research, as well as the qualitative research work I’ve done. I also asked the second and fourth writers to stress that my GRE scores (V&Q) were not representative of my potential and highlight my additional training in methods relevant to the field and exposure to PhD level coursesResearch Experience: Senior thesis during BA and independent study course. MA thesis. RA work for 3.5 years, as well as outside work for a law professor.
Teaching Experience: Four TAships during my MA (1 per semester), mentorship of international students for 2 years during my BA.
Subfield/Research Interests: International Relations – IPE.
Other: External scholarship covering tuition from for 3 years. CGS-M SSHRC award for 2015-2016, and 4 other mid-range scholarships and research grants between both degrees.RESULTS:
Acceptances($$ or no $$): 4 acceptances, all with funding.
Waitlists: None
Rejections: Stanford, Columbia, Harvard, Georgetown
Pending: None
Going to: Happily decided.LESSONS LEARNED:
- It is absolutely amazing how far you can go in two years time. Two years ago I was writing a post in the 2014 government wrap-up affairs threads (see here: http://forum.thegradcafe.com/topic/53232-government-affairs-2014-wrap-up-final-decisions/#comment-1058121021) I was sitting there, one month before finishing my BA, facing rejections from every MPA program I applied to. I wasn’t ready to leave school yet but my confidence was crushed. What a turn around.
- When I started my MA I wasn’t certain that I wanted to apply for a PhD. At the end of my first year it was evident to me that I truly loved the academic lifestyle, something made even more concrete when I was able to take my work with me and travel for three of my four months off this past summer. I should note that I very, very, very, nearly didn’t apply when I was too busy to spend a month solid preparing to re-take my GREs in the Fall. My hesitation didn’t stem from doubt over whether or not I wanted to go, but whether or not my profile was competitive enough to get into American programs. I wound up writing the test and only doing moderately well again (during my first attempt my scores were crap because I experienced a power outage an hour in and had to sit for 30 minutes panicking over whether I had to restart). I followed through because I had a very inspirational discussion with letter writer #4 and found myself knowing that this is what I wanted and I wouldn’t know if I couldn’t get in if I didn’t try. Knowing that you want this is important and an MA can help you trial run – it’s effectively like the first 2 years of your PhD if it’s a longer, academically oriented program.
- I applied to programs that fit with my methodological and ontological focus with at least 2-3 people I could see myself working with. Each SOP was tailored to that program (explained more below). I learned a lot about my preferred approach to research, both theoretically and methodologically, in the last two years which was really important when I considered fit beyond whether there were POIs at a program who simply substantively studied what I studied.
-
I also found that there was a lot of great advice online: Chris Blattman’s blogs on how to write an SOP, as well as Dan Nexon’s posts on the Duck of Minerva with suggestions on program choice and SOP writing:
- http://chrisblattman.com/about/contact/gradschool/ (Scroll down to his “Words on Personal Statements)
- http://duckofminerva.com/2012/08/applying-for-phd-in-political-science.html
- Fit is important, but so is your network and I think this point is very underestimated by a number of people. I’m fortunate in that I’ve been able to work with a number of scholars who were trained in the US and who are still very much integrated into the US conference scene. Two of my letter writers have written extensively with a number of POIs across the 8 programs I applied to. This isn’t to say that everything can work out great because of connections alone, but I did feel more confident that my application would be taken seriously despite some pitfalls because of my network.
- The other side of this coin is that I know that my letter writers know me very well. They have seen me at my absolute best and worst. I trusted them to write detailed statements, and we also talked about what their letter would accomplish for my profile. This is a really important discussion to have. While it’s awkward to ask, they understand and if anything are assisted by you describing what you’re aiming to accomplish. Do not underestimate the value of building your network early and just being friendly. There's a difference between getting to know your professors vs. getting close to them only for a letter.
- Departmental issues can be a problem – do what you can to ascertain the state of the game when and if you visit. Talk to current students and POIs after you’ve been accepted. These people genuinely don’t want you to come to their program and be miserable because you’re all the more likely to drop out. In my experience, the best departments will be open about both their strengths and weaknesses, as well as impending departures. During visit days, be collegial and friendly with current grads and ask faculty the hard questions. What are their hiring strategies? What are the departments goals in the next 3-5 years? How many students does a faculty member typically sit on a dissertation committee for? How are TAships structured? Does the department sponsor social events for faculty and students? Are students encouraged to work together on problem sets? Do students compete for TAships and RAships? Is there conference funding? Are there research centers that would support your work? Is there office space for graduate students? Are PhD students allowed to take outside jobs on top of their funding packages? What is the housing situation like for graduate students on and around campus?
- Lastly, this process is expensive and taxing, but be prepared to invest in yourself – and view it in that respect! (Prices Expressed in Canadian Dollars:
- - GRE Prep (Round 1: Kaplan Online Course & Books, Round 2: Magoosh with Manhattan Prep Books/Flashcards & the Official Guide) - $1000
- - GRE Test Fee x2 - $500
- - Travel to write GRE x2 - $300
- - Application fees (Round 1: $250, Round 2: $1000) - $1250
-
- Grand Total: $3050 CAD on applications & related expenses.
- It’s pricey, but there’s a learning process involved. I learned a lot about myself during my first application cycle, and even more so this time around.
*I also very much recommend Magoosh and Manhattan Prep of all the test prep resources I got my hands on. I found the practice questions and tutorials to be the clearest, and most practical. Had I had more than two weeks to prepare, I know I could have mastered this test using these resources. I would also reiterate that spending time mastering this test is worthwhile but no more than 2 months of solid prep or you'll probably go crazy (I know I did). Writing it a second time has its benefits but given the costs, I really wish I hadn't experienced technical failures the first time (and in that case I really should have asked for money back to something but I didn't).
SOP: Don’t feel comfortable posting, but here is a rough idea of how I structured things: I had two baseline versions, one at ~500 words, another at ~1000 depending on the program’s word limit, written in LaTex. I introduced my research interest by discussing a puzzle that has motivated my current work and then expanded that into a potential dissertation on the topic. I transitioned to describing my research experience/educational background that had led me to this puzzle, as well as who I worked with in the last 6 years that inspired me to pursue this career path. I then moved to discuss why X university’s program could build on what I’ve learned to get me where I want to go – the academic career path. I stressed what I liked about every program I applied to, namely how it was structured, what my intended major/minor was, as well as something unique about it I was really drawn to, and how it fit with my interests. I also indicated potential POIs and how their work has proven influential to my current studies (beyond name dropping). I aimed to list at least three people per statement, if not more. When it came to the length difference, the first part about myself was the same and quite short - where I expanded if I had more than 500 words was on how I fit with their prospective program, and why their program was the best fit for what I want to do.
Personally, I didn’t like what the document turned out to be. I have a hard time writing up my CV let alone an SOP. I had three professors review it, and letter writer #2 edited several versions and gave me great comments. They were also very reassuring, despite my not liking how it read and more than willing to give me tips on how to write it. I also ensured that I sounded like myself in it, which in my previous round of applications was not the case after my supervisor edited it. I again agree with what others have said that it’s important to re-write it several times. The final version that I submitted was undoubtedly my best version.
-
Congrats to everyone on getting past December 1st! At this point last year I was panicky, a chronic insomniac and spending all of my free time finalizing my applications (as well as throwing together a handful of last minute ones). In retrospect, there are plenty of things I would have done differently. There are a lot of idiosyncratic factors about admission. I wouldn't view additional components to an application as a series of things that will give you a few additional points, or added percentage points to a probability of success. The application is a holistic process: it's about how everything comes together and one small thing won't be the cherry on top. I rolled my eyes at the extreme number of faculty who told me admission was a matter of luck - but some of it really is. I know I didn't get in based on my GRE/GPA alone. I also know I didn't get in just because I had LORs from well known scholars. It wasn't because of my quantitative training or writing sample alone either. It was about how those things came together to speak to my strengths and motivations, alongside a research agenda I'm really passionate about and how well I was equipped to do that.
The first time I applied to MPP/MA programs, I didn't get in anywhere I applied to. This was during my senior year of my BA. Luckily I had a fallback option that allowed me to complete an MA at my alma matter. In hindsight, there were many things wrong with my application, and surprisingly my mentors at the time didn't tell me. My SOP, for starters, was terrible. It barely articulately my research interests, it barely mentioned my research experience (senior thesis, RA work, and independent research work) and it had a muddled sense of what I wanted to get out of the program. I wrote a draft, my senior thesis advisor edited it, and it was about as stale as stale can be. Given that my advisor was a junior faculty member, this was surprising because they had a particular sense of what programs are really looking for (but then again, they only got into one of the 12 programs they applied to for their PhD...). My GRE score was also abysmal and I should have re-written it. I hadn't taken any statistics or math courses during my BA, though I had taken methods in political science and history. While I had great LORs, a strong writing sample, great research experience, and my CV was great, none of this was well translated to the committees where I applied.
The way you knit your strengths together matters, and for everyone this process is different, given that we're not all the same people. It's important to send strong signals, but also to differentiate yourself. Applications are really about proving that a program is the best fit for you, and that you are the best fit for a given program. This will be no different during job market applications, particularly on the academic job market. Applying two years later, I certainly had more experience as an RA/TA, and a much clearer sense of what I wanted to do research/career wise. Yet, at the heart of my application were largely the same experiences and statistics as my first set of applications. My LOR writers were also all the same people. Had I spent as much time as all of you on them, and applied more widely, I probably would have gotten into another program out my BA. International applicants do get admitted - half my PhD cohort are international students (myself included). Just over a third of us had never studied in the US prior to beginning the program.
Given that most of you have spent a great deal of time and effort on every component of your applications, trust in what you've accomplished, and in the narrative about yourself you've painted for committees. You are all amazing, hyper-qualified and dedicated people. The next 12 days (since December 15th is largely the final deadline for most US programs) will surely be busy editing the last bit of your materials and chasing after LOR writers. Make sure to take some time for yourselves and to take care of yourselves. This kind of stress and anxiety can do some really awful things to your body (been there time and time again). Revise but don't knit-pick. Accept what you've submitted when the deadline passes and look ahead to a new year of changes and transitions to new and great things.
-
Agreed with the first set of comments. Your research statement should provide a clear agenda of what you intend to do, and why a particular program offers you the best fit (i.e. specify people you intend to work with). I would also add that it's worth highlighting how particular programs are the best fit for you. By this I mean actively refer to a program's structure and how it benefits your long term goals. E.g. UofT: your MA will there would be a research intensive year, focusing on the academic side since there are no TAships available to MA students. McGill's MA program amounts to the first 2 years of a PhD as your coursework is integrated with their PhD program, preparing you for the academic rigors, while also giving you the opportunity to have a lot of teaching experience (they primarily fund students through TAships), and RA opportunities abound. Best of luck!
-
15 hours ago, rimbaldienne said:
Thank you for your advices. It's really helpful :-)
Regarding my GPA : my CGPA is 3.48. I constantly get 3.4 GPA per semester until the last one where I ended up with 3.6. So instead of a "stark degeneration" it's more like a progression, a positiv one. I guess because my english is not that great I was a little confusing in my first post. Sorry about that ;-)
Also I didn't take fewer classes during my Bachelor and I didn't attend CEGEP. I am french, from France, I spend a year in Law school in France before I get into a political science degree in Canada (Montreal). I am just used to take 6 courses per semester and summer class. That's the reason why I am completing my degree a semester early. I don't know if I should empahis this in my SOP but It's certainly have an impact on my grades and I don't want the committee to miss that fact. At the same time, I also worked as a research assistant, get involved at my university, doing an internship in a top research institution. It's a lot, that's why I would like to underline the fact I get eveything done in a short amount of time. But again, I don't Know if it's red flag for an admission committee to get a student who graduate early.
About the LOR : is it a bad thing to get a LOR from a visiting researcher at my university who's not a professor ? Or I have to stick with an LOR from Professor ?
By "research agenda" do you mean that I have to give the subject of my thesis, the method i plan to use or I should just mention my area of interest ? I don't want to miss my chance to be a good fit by being too specific.
Finally, I only aim an academically oriented MA. My first goal is to get into UBC. Then comes McGill and UdeM. Toronto is horribly expensive for an international student, there is no founding. Plus I think it's out of touch for me.
Again thank you for your advice and sorry for my english.
No worries. Just wanted to be clear that it wasn't your CGPA that was bouncing around. It is a little low, but with how busy you've been in terms of completing 6 courses at a time it's evident that you expedited the process. I would explain why you chose to take a higher than normal course load - 6 courses on top of extra-curriculars and RA work is certainly extreme (power to you!). UBC, McGill and UdeM all offer great academically oriented MAs. It will still be important to show them that you want to do academic research since your profile (at first glance) seems suited to both MPP/MPA and MA programs.
This is why I mentioned the importance of having a more concrete research agenda. You should give a general sense of what you're interested in (your subfield of interest, and specific topics within that: e.g. IR, nuclear proliferation, or IR/CPE and ethnic conflict in region X). Because MAs are short, being specific doesn't hurt you - especially if you can point to particular faculty that work on similar topics with a similar approach to the one you want to take or have done before. Methodologically, you don't need to speak to how you intend to specifically answer a research question, but it's worth it to show that you appeal to a department's particular ontological bend (quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods focus etc.). By this, I mean it wouldn't be a good idea to apply to McGill only wanting to do comparative historical analysis and process tracing unless the particular people you want to work with predominantly take this approach in their own work. I wouldn't say that being too specific hurts your chances at being a good fit. A strong SOP will highlight how a candidate fits within the department more broadly, and how they are the ideal student for faculty members A, B and C. I hope this makes sense? At least in talking to people when I did my MA that were on admissions committees, this is what they told me (Canadian here). You should highlight why a particular program is also perfect for you and what you like about it (e.g. McGill has an MRP track that allows you to focus on taking a greater number of courses vs. a thesis track that allows you to focus on research and only requires you to take 5 classes over two years. McGill also funds students by offering them TAships every semester, where as UofT doesn't offer TAships to MA students at all).
When it comes to LORs, a visiting researcher that knows you better than a professor isn't a bad choice. I would say to select the person who knows you and your work best. You can always balance out their rank with other professors since you're expected to have more than one LOR per application.
-
The government affairs forum will be able to answer your questions as they're the subforum on gradcafe related to MPA/MPP/PhD in Public Policy programs.
Welcome to the 2016-17 cycle!
in Political Science Forum
Posted
It does seem strange that a department wouldn't have profiles approved prior to issuing the informal notice, but it might be that they assume no trouble, and leave it to them to update the website. Most departments also have a confirmation of the number of people they're allowed to accept long before they send out emails. Seems like someone must have made a huge mistake to issue a change into the admissions cycle...
Two years ago IHEID had a massive technical error where they sent out automated acceptance emails to many people, only to have to rescind them two hours later. I was on the receiving end of that pair of emails sadly, though luckily I woke up to both. It's certainly a bizarre bureaucracy at every institution.