TheGnome

I am 95% confident that your profile will be competitive everywhere 

I always assumed that SoPs are expected to be single spaced, and writing samples double spaced. 

The set of people studying electoral violence, etc. using behavioral game theory may be close to the nullset. I'm kind of curious about who you're thinking of working with. As to the question of American versus Comparative, it might be worthwhile to look at prelim/field requirements to see which field you would be most likely to fulfill the requirements for. I have one friend who studys Europe mostly, but is being trained as an Americanist because the courses listed under American are the kinds of things that he wants to do, except with Europe. However, as a general point, formal models of elections and electoral violence are fairly prominent in comparative politics, so my guess from your description is that comparative is the better fit.

I'm going to drift out of my lane for a bit to throw in two cents.
 
I work for an engineering consultancy.  Among our clients are colleges and universities. Many (read: most) of these institutions bench mark themselves against comparable institutions. This academic eyeballing is a way of keeping up with the Joneses although what is being compared doesn't always make sense to outsiders. From this practice, I'm inclined to believe questions like "Where else are you applying?" is a form of marketing research and not a cause for alarm. (For those of you who gain admission to schools that ask such questions, you could let the Powers That Be know the questions freak out applicants.)
 
IRT the specific situation framed by the OP, I ask, why not list the schools alphabetically, either by school name or by city/state?
 
@Loric, you've been in a bit of a tailspin the last week or so. How about giving yourself a break, cooling off for a while, and coming back strong when you've got it together again? (At the very least, stop digging yourself deeper into the holes you've started and stop giving guidance on matters that are beyond your expertise and your experience.)

Hello all, another lurker here
 
I've just sent in my earliest application, which is due 30th Nov. Will do the bunch of Dec 1s in next two days or so.
 
And just realized some programs changed the deadline since last time I've checked their websites, but fortunately all to a later date. So all is well.

GOPHER GRAD'S DOWNHOME R COOKBOOK
 
As an appetizer, consider a zesty bruschetta with parsely and white pepper to punch up the basil:
meetbinom<-function(appetizer,hearty){
    K<-choptomatoes
    tempd<-onions,garlic
    for(k in 0:(n)){
        K[k+1]<-k
        tempd[k+1]<-dbinom(k,n,p)    }
    barplot(tempd,names.arg=K)}
meetbinom(fry, bake)

results<-NA
pool<-c("Tomato","Onion","Basil","OliveOil","Salt")
NumberOfSimulations<-100
for(i in 1:NumberOfBreadSlices){
    sample<-sample(pool,size=3)
    results<-0
    if(sum(sample=="parsley")>=1 | sum(sample=="whitepepper")>=1) results<-1
}
table(results)
 
On summer days, I find a pacific style seafood chowder gives you the energy to stare at Marx texts all day without leaving you feeling bloated:
 
results<-NA
pool<-c(rep("coconutmil",8),rep("fishstock",10),rep("currypaste",5))
NumberOfStirs<-100
for(i in 1:NumberOfStirs){
    sample<-sample(pool,size=onegallon)
    results<-0
    if(sum(sample=="Snapper")==2 & sum(sample=="Shrimp")==3 & sum(sample=="CrabinaCan")==0) results<-1
}
table(results)
 
For hearty fare, consider seared flank steak with roasted asparagus and a balsamic reduction:
 
normprob<-function(F1=-shallots,T1=flank,
  F2=-1,T2=1,NPOINTS=1000,TITLE="",FNAME=""){
    curve(asparagus,from=counter,to=oven,main=steak)
    x<-c(F2,seq(F2,T2,length.out=NPOINTS),T2)
    pan<-c(steak(EVOO))
    y[1]<-0
    y[NPOINTS+balsamic+orangerind]<-0
    polygon(x,y,border=NULL,col=2)

    postscript(file=paste("norm",FNAME,".ps",sep=""))
    curve(dnorm,from=F1,to=T1,main=TITLE)
    x<-c(F2,seq(F2,T2,length.out=NPOINTS),T2)
    y<-c(dnorm(x))
    y[1]<-0
    y[NPOINTS+2]<-0
    potato(x,y,border=CRISPY,interior=SOFT)
    dev.off()
 
printto->plate
 
 
Enjoy!
 

Welcome! The more the merrier
 
I would encourage other lurkers to come out of the shadows as well. Anxiety is so much more tolerable when you have people to share it with. 

I've been lurking here for a few weeks while working on my applications, and just wanted to come out of the shadows to say 'hi'.

I am happy for you Loric, congratulations. I hope those acceptances worked out for you very well. As for your advice - I do not think it is as sound as you think it is. Don't get me wrong though, nobody's advice is the gold standard. The process has a colossal stochastic component to it, therefore your advice would be absolutely reliable only if you were in the admissions committee of every single polisci department. Further, the admission process can vary dramatically from school to school for the same field - so I am not even commenting on the additional error introduced by comparing across fields. This should ideally have a bit of a humbling effect on the participants of this forum, and we should be more used to speaking in probabilistic terms.
 
This is missing the main point though. I imagine both gradcafe26 and others, including me and TMCB, welcome your advice. Please do not feel discouraged to share with us what you know and think. However, it is very important to sustain a friendly and helpful conversation for this forum to work the way it did in the past -I don't know how many- years. People who are applying to graduate schools are adults, whether they are applying straight from undergrad or not. There is a normative expectation that we treat each other as friends and peers. Therefore, condescending and patronizing attitudes are not very productive. An example to that is this: 
 
 
Obviously, if you want to continue this attitude, there are other, more fitting venues for you in our discipline as well. I would especially recommend this website: http://www.poliscirumors.com/

I've looked at attrition numbers a fair bit. We don't record age coming in, but impressionistically I don't see a clear relationship.
 
Since becoming DGS, I've realized that attrition is pretty multifaceted. Some people get stuck on a dissertation topic and go around in circles endlessly until their funding dries up. That's bad, when it happens, and we want to do what we can to avoid it—but it's not the main source of attrition. More often, people find that grad school didn't interest them as much as they thought, or another, irresistible opportunity arises, or a spouse has a career change, or family draws people elsewhere... in short, all sorts of stuff. When that kind of attrition happens, while it's regrettable, things are as they should be: we don't want to keep you in graduate school if it's the wrong thing for you to be doing. It's very much like Louis CK's take on divorce: there's no such thing as a bad divorce. It's not as though a happy couple was walking along and all of a sudden, bam!, they get divorced. If they split up, it's because they shouldn't be together, for whatever reason. Same principle applies to most attrition.
 
Edit: That said, I'm 100% on board with the "more money for graduate students" idea. Our Grad School came through on that front this year, happily enough. But here at least, we don't have much control over that.

I am happy for you Loric, congratulations. I hope those acceptances worked out for you very well. As for your advice - I do not think it is as sound as you think it is. Don't get me wrong though, nobody's advice is the gold standard. The process has a colossal stochastic component to it, therefore your advice would be absolutely reliable only if you were in the admissions committee of every single polisci department. Further, the admission process can vary dramatically from school to school for the same field - so I am not even commenting on the additional error introduced by comparing across fields. This should ideally have a bit of a humbling effect on the participants of this forum, and we should be more used to speaking in probabilistic terms.
 
This is missing the main point though. I imagine both gradcafe26 and others, including me and TMCB, welcome your advice. Please do not feel discouraged to share with us what you know and think. However, it is very important to sustain a friendly and helpful conversation for this forum to work the way it did in the past -I don't know how many- years. People who are applying to graduate schools are adults, whether they are applying straight from undergrad or not. There is a normative expectation that we treat each other as friends and peers. Therefore, condescending and patronizing attitudes are not very productive. An example to that is this: 
 
 
Obviously, if you want to continue this attitude, there are other, more fitting venues for you in our discipline as well. I would especially recommend this website: http://www.poliscirumors.com/

I am applying very broadly, so if the question is  asked on the application form, I've been listing peer institutions. In cases where the school is the lowest ranked one, I ignored the question as it is optional. Of course, I am just an applicant, so what do I know? If I were applying to UNC, I wouldn't even bother with the list because I would feel guilty about giving their secretary more work to do, since that is who you are emailing, correct? 

Overall, I don't think it matters. I am fairly sure adcom members, once they read your SoP and see your GRE scores, will be able to easily figure out which other schools you are applying to. I wouldn't worry about this issue at all. 

I did not mean it to be taken too seriously, but I guess my point was to give a sample of schools that you are applying to - one or two higher ranked, X, and one or two lower ranked.
 
 
Loric, cut people some slack will you. No offense, but your tone sounds a bit accusatory. Anyone can have any set of reasons to consider which schools to apply, and can rank them in any way they like in their minds. If you have a suggestion for our friend here, I believe there are more amicable ways to drop your nuggets of wisdom.
 
Also, this issue is not nearly as important as much of the comments on this thread suggest.

I did not mean it to be taken too seriously, but I guess my point was to give a sample of schools that you are applying to - one or two higher ranked, X, and one or two lower ranked.
 
 
Loric, cut people some slack will you. No offense, but your tone sounds a bit accusatory. Anyone can have any set of reasons to consider which schools to apply, and can rank them in any way they like in their minds. If you have a suggestion for our friend here, I believe there are more amicable ways to drop your nuggets of wisdom.
 
Also, this issue is not nearly as important as much of the comments on this thread suggest.

I did not mean it to be taken too seriously, but I guess my point was to give a sample of schools that you are applying to - one or two higher ranked, X, and one or two lower ranked.
 
 
Loric, cut people some slack will you. No offense, but your tone sounds a bit accusatory. Anyone can have any set of reasons to consider which schools to apply, and can rank them in any way they like in their minds. If you have a suggestion for our friend here, I believe there are more amicable ways to drop your nuggets of wisdom.
 
Also, this issue is not nearly as important as much of the comments on this thread suggest.

I don't think having "set foot" on the campuses plays a very big role when it comes to earning your Ph.D. The campus could look like a nuclear site, but as long as it has the faculty and resources you need to accomplish your academic/career goals, then it doesn't matter. You can learn this information without travelling to the university physically - and in fact, a good portion of future Ph.D. students make the decision without first visiting.

I am happy for you Loric, congratulations. I hope those acceptances worked out for you very well. As for your advice - I do not think it is as sound as you think it is. Don't get me wrong though, nobody's advice is the gold standard. The process has a colossal stochastic component to it, therefore your advice would be absolutely reliable only if you were in the admissions committee of every single polisci department. Further, the admission process can vary dramatically from school to school for the same field - so I am not even commenting on the additional error introduced by comparing across fields. This should ideally have a bit of a humbling effect on the participants of this forum, and we should be more used to speaking in probabilistic terms.
 
This is missing the main point though. I imagine both gradcafe26 and others, including me and TMCB, welcome your advice. Please do not feel discouraged to share with us what you know and think. However, it is very important to sustain a friendly and helpful conversation for this forum to work the way it did in the past -I don't know how many- years. People who are applying to graduate schools are adults, whether they are applying straight from undergrad or not. There is a normative expectation that we treat each other as friends and peers. Therefore, condescending and patronizing attitudes are not very productive. An example to that is this: 
 
 
Obviously, if you want to continue this attitude, there are other, more fitting venues for you in our discipline as well. I would especially recommend this website: http://www.poliscirumors.com/

I am happy for you Loric, congratulations. I hope those acceptances worked out for you very well. As for your advice - I do not think it is as sound as you think it is. Don't get me wrong though, nobody's advice is the gold standard. The process has a colossal stochastic component to it, therefore your advice would be absolutely reliable only if you were in the admissions committee of every single polisci department. Further, the admission process can vary dramatically from school to school for the same field - so I am not even commenting on the additional error introduced by comparing across fields. This should ideally have a bit of a humbling effect on the participants of this forum, and we should be more used to speaking in probabilistic terms.
 
This is missing the main point though. I imagine both gradcafe26 and others, including me and TMCB, welcome your advice. Please do not feel discouraged to share with us what you know and think. However, it is very important to sustain a friendly and helpful conversation for this forum to work the way it did in the past -I don't know how many- years. People who are applying to graduate schools are adults, whether they are applying straight from undergrad or not. There is a normative expectation that we treat each other as friends and peers. Therefore, condescending and patronizing attitudes are not very productive. An example to that is this: 
 
 
Obviously, if you want to continue this attitude, there are other, more fitting venues for you in our discipline as well. I would especially recommend this website: http://www.poliscirumors.com/

I did not mean it to be taken too seriously, but I guess my point was to give a sample of schools that you are applying to - one or two higher ranked, X, and one or two lower ranked.
 
 
Loric, cut people some slack will you. No offense, but your tone sounds a bit accusatory. Anyone can have any set of reasons to consider which schools to apply, and can rank them in any way they like in their minds. If you have a suggestion for our friend here, I believe there are more amicable ways to drop your nuggets of wisdom.
 
Also, this issue is not nearly as important as much of the comments on this thread suggest.

I don't think what you said about sianover's Q score is necessarily true cooper, unless you have insider knowledge on the admissions process in every one of those schools.
 
Sianover, 158 in Q is not a plus, and you can reasonably expect that to hurt your chances at top programs.There is always the possibility that your file will be weeded out in some places if they have a high GRE cutoff, and if they are very serious about it. However a quick search in the gradcafe forums will reveal that people have been accepted at top institutions with similar GRE scores pretty much every year. If you have a solo peer-reviewed publication, good letters, and a well written SOP, there is no reason why those should not compensate for the low Q score.
 
A last note - Farhad Karzami is an emeritus professor. I am definitely not the authority on this, but I think it is not a great idea to drop an emeritus prof name in your SoP as your primary person of interest. 

Absolutely. I actually think that your exposure to the methods (or more accurately, ontologies) that you don't specialize in can be crucial: I've seen a lot of smart people give very narrow talks without having any idea that, from a different ontological perspective, their answers are disastrously bad. That's one of the reasons I like our program so much 

And by the way: Best of fortune to everyone in the 2013-14 cycle.