CarefreeWritingsontheWall

It's definitely worth it to have it paid to a Canadian account and then move it as you need it. For reference, if I wire money from the US to a Canadian USD account, then convert it, I always get a better exchange rate. But there are tax forms and such involved with moving more than 10k to the US at a time. Also things to consider for direct applicants abroad. 

I'm a Canadian completing my PhD in the US; as such I don't expect to hear back from my institution about any results. I still keep checking my mailbox every day though. ?‍♀️

I'm a Canadian completing my PhD in the US; as such I don't expect to hear back from my institution about any results. I still keep checking my mailbox every day though. ?‍♀️

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 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.

If they were supportive of your transfer during the application process, I'm sure they'll be understanding and a simple thank you will suffice, maybe with some nice notes. 

On Rank, I would consider the relative position of people working in your subfield at the institution under consideration, not the department's rank overall. Some departments have incredibly strong faculty in one field (IR, CP, American, Theory etc) but not in others.
On Academic Fit, I would consider whether your epistemological outlook is aligned with potential PIs. Substantive topics aside, are people doing the kind of research you want to be doing (natural experiments, ethnography etc). Will advisors allow you to do the work you want to do, the way you want to do it or will they push you to become more like them (this you can get a good sense of from talking to them about your work, but also current graduate students). 
On Advising, I think you covered the bases. I would also consider whether your potential PI has an advising style that suits you. Some people are very hands off, and that doesn't work for everyone but this fits with engagement. It's worth it to ask current and previous students what their meeting schedule looked like, and whether they felt their advisors read the papers they send and offer useful feedback. You don't need a committee of three people who will read everything with a fine toothed comb, but it helps to have one. Also, ask yourself if your main advisor left, would you still want to go to that school. Faculty move a lot, and most are not in a position to bring students with them or continue chairing committees if they leave and you can't follow them. I know too many people to count who have lost their primary advisor to a move, and then felt stuck committee wise without their main mentor. This is somewhat related to the idea of not choosing a program to work with one specific person.
On the Cohort dynamic - ask about office space. Do places have it for graduate students; do you have to compete for it; is it a positive or negative work environment? This seems pedantic, but it can mean a lot for positive social and academic environments. It changed my grad school experience drastically when we got access to a building where all graduate students have dedicated offices (if they aren't working out of specific centres). I have two potential co-authored papers I doubt I would have in the mix if I wasn't working in such an environment. Your immediate cohort will only matter for the one to two years you are doing a lot of coursework, so it's worth it to consider the general climate amongst graduate students, and whether people are hostile or constructive in feedback and collaborative opportunities.
On money: I would add a few other points of consideration.
What is the cost of living in immediate area? Is rent so expensive it takes up your entire stipend? Will you need to commute to make ends meet if you can't get on campus housing? Is commuting easy (reliable transit, 15 min drive with no traffic) or difficult (no transit, heavy traffic/long drive)?  Is your stipend the same as everyone else? I.e. do students compete for better funding packages. This is surprisingly true for a number of programs, and it can generate hostility in cohorts if people are fighting for money. Is there accessible funding for sixth years? Do you have it guaranteed or is it competitive? Is there accessible funding for fieldwork or research protocols? I.e. how easy is it to ask for 5000 to run a survey or spend a month in an archive? Are those internal departmental options, NSF grants, research centres?  For RA work, what is the typical wage? Are RA/TA obligations built into your stipend or are they an addition to your stipend (i.e. if you TA for a semester, do you earn additional wages on top of your stipend or not - this varies a ton!) Are you responsible for any annual fees or health insurance, or are these included in your funding package? On location, I would also ask if it's a place you can see yourself living for at least 3 years, if not the entire duration of your program. Can you lead the life you want in the area the school is, with what kinds of housing is available to you etc? This is important for pet owners, as well as people looking to settle down or find a long term relationship in grad school. It's also true for people moving with partners or children. If the immediate location doesn't work, but a neighbouring city does, consider whether the commute is something you can handle (and afford). 
On partner groups, I would also consider whether centres regularly bring in post-docs or visiting professors. It's a great opportunity to collaborate with early career scholars, and bring in additional expertise. Minor thing, really, but it adds to the climate of collaboration and opportunities. Also consider whether there are research and social groups that can support you as well. I've gotten a lot out of a women and politics group we have in our department as it has fostered connections between female graduate students and female faculty I wouldn't normally interact with. Likewise for first generation scholars, or visible minorities, some departments have a lot of great opportunities to network with peers that can make the PhD process more manageable.
 
A lot of people told me that such questions weren't important. A grad student at a visit laughed when I asked about offices and said that surely I wouldn't pick a place based on whether I would have an office or not. Sure, my decision wouldn't hinge on that one factor but it's a question meant to probe the underlying social dynamics of a department that may not be immediately visible during a visit weekend. There is plenty to consider of course. Hope this helps.

On Rank, I would consider the relative position of people working in your subfield at the institution under consideration, not the department's rank overall. Some departments have incredibly strong faculty in one field (IR, CP, American, Theory etc) but not in others.
On Academic Fit, I would consider whether your epistemological outlook is aligned with potential PIs. Substantive topics aside, are people doing the kind of research you want to be doing (natural experiments, ethnography etc). Will advisors allow you to do the work you want to do, the way you want to do it or will they push you to become more like them (this you can get a good sense of from talking to them about your work, but also current graduate students). 
On Advising, I think you covered the bases. I would also consider whether your potential PI has an advising style that suits you. Some people are very hands off, and that doesn't work for everyone but this fits with engagement. It's worth it to ask current and previous students what their meeting schedule looked like, and whether they felt their advisors read the papers they send and offer useful feedback. You don't need a committee of three people who will read everything with a fine toothed comb, but it helps to have one. Also, ask yourself if your main advisor left, would you still want to go to that school. Faculty move a lot, and most are not in a position to bring students with them or continue chairing committees if they leave and you can't follow them. I know too many people to count who have lost their primary advisor to a move, and then felt stuck committee wise without their main mentor. This is somewhat related to the idea of not choosing a program to work with one specific person.
On the Cohort dynamic - ask about office space. Do places have it for graduate students; do you have to compete for it; is it a positive or negative work environment? This seems pedantic, but it can mean a lot for positive social and academic environments. It changed my grad school experience drastically when we got access to a building where all graduate students have dedicated offices (if they aren't working out of specific centres). I have two potential co-authored papers I doubt I would have in the mix if I wasn't working in such an environment. Your immediate cohort will only matter for the one to two years you are doing a lot of coursework, so it's worth it to consider the general climate amongst graduate students, and whether people are hostile or constructive in feedback and collaborative opportunities.
On money: I would add a few other points of consideration.
What is the cost of living in immediate area? Is rent so expensive it takes up your entire stipend? Will you need to commute to make ends meet if you can't get on campus housing? Is commuting easy (reliable transit, 15 min drive with no traffic) or difficult (no transit, heavy traffic/long drive)?  Is your stipend the same as everyone else? I.e. do students compete for better funding packages. This is surprisingly true for a number of programs, and it can generate hostility in cohorts if people are fighting for money. Is there accessible funding for sixth years? Do you have it guaranteed or is it competitive? Is there accessible funding for fieldwork or research protocols? I.e. how easy is it to ask for 5000 to run a survey or spend a month in an archive? Are those internal departmental options, NSF grants, research centres?  For RA work, what is the typical wage? Are RA/TA obligations built into your stipend or are they an addition to your stipend (i.e. if you TA for a semester, do you earn additional wages on top of your stipend or not - this varies a ton!) Are you responsible for any annual fees or health insurance, or are these included in your funding package? On location, I would also ask if it's a place you can see yourself living for at least 3 years, if not the entire duration of your program. Can you lead the life you want in the area the school is, with what kinds of housing is available to you etc? This is important for pet owners, as well as people looking to settle down or find a long term relationship in grad school. It's also true for people moving with partners or children. If the immediate location doesn't work, but a neighbouring city does, consider whether the commute is something you can handle (and afford). 
On partner groups, I would also consider whether centres regularly bring in post-docs or visiting professors. It's a great opportunity to collaborate with early career scholars, and bring in additional expertise. Minor thing, really, but it adds to the climate of collaboration and opportunities. Also consider whether there are research and social groups that can support you as well. I've gotten a lot out of a women and politics group we have in our department as it has fostered connections between female graduate students and female faculty I wouldn't normally interact with. Likewise for first generation scholars, or visible minorities, some departments have a lot of great opportunities to network with peers that can make the PhD process more manageable.
 
A lot of people told me that such questions weren't important. A grad student at a visit laughed when I asked about offices and said that surely I wouldn't pick a place based on whether I would have an office or not. Sure, my decision wouldn't hinge on that one factor but it's a question meant to probe the underlying social dynamics of a department that may not be immediately visible during a visit weekend. There is plenty to consider of course. Hope this helps.

On Rank, I would consider the relative position of people working in your subfield at the institution under consideration, not the department's rank overall. Some departments have incredibly strong faculty in one field (IR, CP, American, Theory etc) but not in others.
On Academic Fit, I would consider whether your epistemological outlook is aligned with potential PIs. Substantive topics aside, are people doing the kind of research you want to be doing (natural experiments, ethnography etc). Will advisors allow you to do the work you want to do, the way you want to do it or will they push you to become more like them (this you can get a good sense of from talking to them about your work, but also current graduate students). 
On Advising, I think you covered the bases. I would also consider whether your potential PI has an advising style that suits you. Some people are very hands off, and that doesn't work for everyone but this fits with engagement. It's worth it to ask current and previous students what their meeting schedule looked like, and whether they felt their advisors read the papers they send and offer useful feedback. You don't need a committee of three people who will read everything with a fine toothed comb, but it helps to have one. Also, ask yourself if your main advisor left, would you still want to go to that school. Faculty move a lot, and most are not in a position to bring students with them or continue chairing committees if they leave and you can't follow them. I know too many people to count who have lost their primary advisor to a move, and then felt stuck committee wise without their main mentor. This is somewhat related to the idea of not choosing a program to work with one specific person.
On the Cohort dynamic - ask about office space. Do places have it for graduate students; do you have to compete for it; is it a positive or negative work environment? This seems pedantic, but it can mean a lot for positive social and academic environments. It changed my grad school experience drastically when we got access to a building where all graduate students have dedicated offices (if they aren't working out of specific centres). I have two potential co-authored papers I doubt I would have in the mix if I wasn't working in such an environment. Your immediate cohort will only matter for the one to two years you are doing a lot of coursework, so it's worth it to consider the general climate amongst graduate students, and whether people are hostile or constructive in feedback and collaborative opportunities.
On money: I would add a few other points of consideration.
What is the cost of living in immediate area? Is rent so expensive it takes up your entire stipend? Will you need to commute to make ends meet if you can't get on campus housing? Is commuting easy (reliable transit, 15 min drive with no traffic) or difficult (no transit, heavy traffic/long drive)?  Is your stipend the same as everyone else? I.e. do students compete for better funding packages. This is surprisingly true for a number of programs, and it can generate hostility in cohorts if people are fighting for money. Is there accessible funding for sixth years? Do you have it guaranteed or is it competitive? Is there accessible funding for fieldwork or research protocols? I.e. how easy is it to ask for 5000 to run a survey or spend a month in an archive? Are those internal departmental options, NSF grants, research centres?  For RA work, what is the typical wage? Are RA/TA obligations built into your stipend or are they an addition to your stipend (i.e. if you TA for a semester, do you earn additional wages on top of your stipend or not - this varies a ton!) Are you responsible for any annual fees or health insurance, or are these included in your funding package? On location, I would also ask if it's a place you can see yourself living for at least 3 years, if not the entire duration of your program. Can you lead the life you want in the area the school is, with what kinds of housing is available to you etc? This is important for pet owners, as well as people looking to settle down or find a long term relationship in grad school. It's also true for people moving with partners or children. If the immediate location doesn't work, but a neighbouring city does, consider whether the commute is something you can handle (and afford). 
On partner groups, I would also consider whether centres regularly bring in post-docs or visiting professors. It's a great opportunity to collaborate with early career scholars, and bring in additional expertise. Minor thing, really, but it adds to the climate of collaboration and opportunities. Also consider whether there are research and social groups that can support you as well. I've gotten a lot out of a women and politics group we have in our department as it has fostered connections between female graduate students and female faculty I wouldn't normally interact with. Likewise for first generation scholars, or visible minorities, some departments have a lot of great opportunities to network with peers that can make the PhD process more manageable.
 
A lot of people told me that such questions weren't important. A grad student at a visit laughed when I asked about offices and said that surely I wouldn't pick a place based on whether I would have an office or not. Sure, my decision wouldn't hinge on that one factor but it's a question meant to probe the underlying social dynamics of a department that may not be immediately visible during a visit weekend. There is plenty to consider of course. Hope this helps.

Hey all. Saw the recent conversation about admission stats for OSU. Statistics wise, Princeton usually gets 500+ applications in a given year and admits ~40 people across 6 subfields (IR, CP, AP, Theory, Methods, Public Law) for an admission rate of 8% (less during years when it's higher). They aim for a cohort of 20ish but some are smaller (16) and some are larger (27) depending on the year. I suspect Harvard is similar, though they can have cohorts of 30. Just thought I'd pop this up here for perspective.
https://www.princeton.edu/politics/graduate/prospective/faqs/

Hey all. Saw the recent conversation about admission stats for OSU. Statistics wise, Princeton usually gets 500+ applications in a given year and admits ~40 people across 6 subfields (IR, CP, AP, Theory, Methods, Public Law) for an admission rate of 8% (less during years when it's higher). They aim for a cohort of 20ish but some are smaller (16) and some are larger (27) depending on the year. I suspect Harvard is similar, though they can have cohorts of 30. Just thought I'd pop this up here for perspective.
https://www.princeton.edu/politics/graduate/prospective/faqs/

It really depends on the program. As mentioned, some have a camp that is 1-2 weeks, some have a semester long class, some have both. 
For reference, Princeton does both - in addition to 2-3 months of paced review over the fundamentals of calculus and real analysis in the summer prior to starting. A friend at Cornell had a 10 day camp. Emory has a short camp and semester long course (math for social scientists). 
A number of programs also do intro to programming camps, though like math the timing and structure differs. If students are spending their first semester on the fundamentals of probability and causal inference, then sometimes the programming camp is at the start of their second term when they finally get to work with software. Alternatively, Harvard does their math and programming camp at the same time. I've heard more often than not of this mixed approach. It's not hard to find equivalent websites for other programs.
Google pulled up syllabi for math camps from the following institutions pretty easily:
UC-Berkeley
UMichigan
MIT 
Stanford (Justin Grimmers Github has everything from last summer)
UT-Austin
Pretty much all of them are not an all day affair - they can only hope you learn so much during such a short time (I personally forgot pretty much everything - I just didn't have the time to practice until we were manipulating equations during the semester). 
Hopefully this is helpful.  

To my knowledge Emory, OSU and GWU all have forms of interviews for shortlisted candidates in political science (at least this was the case when I applied 3 years ago). They either interview over the phone or skype (Emory or OSU), or by flying out their shortlist (GWU). After that, they send out their offers. When I talked to GWU faculty about this approach, they said it was their way of seeing prospective students before most schools have sent out offers let alone had admission days, while evaluating who fit best with their program before making final offers. That said, I have heard of people being waitlisted at all three without an interview, and in some cases getting offers when acceptances were low in a given year. 

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. 

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.

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. 

Zotero is an alternative article and citation management software that works well with LaTex. BibDesk is also useful for Mac users. 
Stats wise, R is where most of the discipline is focusing its training since it's free and open source. That said, a lot of people still use Stata. Knowing both is helpful so that you can move from one to the other. I haven't done a replication yet that had code published in R. Stata handles massive datasets well (100,000+ observation panel datasets in particular). If you're into web-scraping data and text as data work, Python is another coding language that is worth putting time into picking up, though there are ways to get R to do the same work. 
 
 

These are great points. I've heard about similar issues with the newer Macbook Pros, which is annoying because I am also most comfortable with Apple products having used them for so many years. Given the issues I've had with my older Macbook Pro, and the issues my friends are having, I think it might be worth acclimating to a new system. 
I'll definitely take a look into your other suggestions. Thank you so much!

Zotero is an alternative article and citation management software that works well with LaTex. BibDesk is also useful for Mac users. 
Stats wise, R is where most of the discipline is focusing its training since it's free and open source. That said, a lot of people still use Stata. Knowing both is helpful so that you can move from one to the other. I haven't done a replication yet that had code published in R. Stata handles massive datasets well (100,000+ observation panel datasets in particular). If you're into web-scraping data and text as data work, Python is another coding language that is worth putting time into picking up, though there are ways to get R to do the same work. 
 
 

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 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.

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). 

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. 

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).