Poli92

No, I've got the same problem. Oddly enough, it also says now on my application that I applied for a different program from what I originally selected. I don't know how that happened, but it is a bit concerning. Either way, I know that last year American really strung along a lot of the applicants for several weeks, letting in the 'for sure' batch first and then parsing out the rest, mostly leading to rejections. It's an extremely frustrating approach. I guess we'll just see what happens.

Did any of you apply for the MA in International Econ? I haven't heard anything yet.

Just got the email. No luck.

That sounds pretty noncommittal.

Has anyone heard any whispers from admissions or anything about possible release dates?

2-3 weeks is nuts. That leaves a pretty narrow period for visits and decisions.

Yeah, I'm losing my mind. Complete silence from the four schools where I applied. Apparently I chose terribly.

I'm guessing the end of this week based on previous years' results.

All quiet on the Midwestern front.

My top choice is Yale Jackson's MA in Global Affairs. I'm not 100% sure what I want to do with the degree, so the extreme flexibility is nice. It's also a much cheaper area than DC, so whatever funding I do get will go much further. Finally, if I were to get my PhD, this would be my top choice school, so this could be a good opportunity to network with POI's.

I liked Hal Varian's intermediate Micro book.

In what specific capacity do you see yourself working? You mentioned "giving insight into the economy" at the Fed. Do you mean conducting research? Because if you want to work as a research economist for the Fed then you almost certainly need a PhD, and preferably from a well-ranked school. If that is the route, I would say you should take some math courses now and then just get your PhD. It will ultimately save you time and a lot of a money, and work experience will almost never equal a PhD. They're just apples and oranges skill sets. On the other hand, if you see yourself working on more of an administrative or policy side of econ, then there is a lot more flexibility in the degree possibilities, anything from a largely nonquantitative MPP to a PhD in econ or stats. That being said, you may look at MPP or MPA programs that either have flexible coursework or where you could do an emphasis in methods or something. 1) this would give you a chance to tech up, 2) many people at the lower end of econ qualifications are at the higher end of MPA/MPP qualifications, so you would probably have a shot at better schools than you would if you went for straight econ 3) Also, because of 2, you would likely also have better funding opportunities, TA's, etc. Upshot is, if you give us a clearer sense of how you would want to put the degree to work, we could give you a better sense of the degree to pursue.

Same.

Would you mind pm-ing a bit more about your background?

I appreciate the rationalizing lol

This. I have often wondered how much of an upward bias there is in GradCafe postings. Not saying that anyone is intentionally misrepresenting themselves (though it is possible), but I have to question how representative our sample really is when you consider that, by and large, the people who are going to be posting on here are the ones who actually did at least a little digging and found the forum, which may suggest a degree of preparedness for/interest in graduate study beyond that of the 1-200 students per school who applied on a whim and/or with little preparation. ETA: I got curious and checked on reported Yale and JHU Global/International Affairs admits for the past few years. The GradCafe median GPA, GRE Verbal, and GRE Quant for Yale were 3.83, 167, and 163.5 versus Yale's official medians for the last 3 years of 3.7, 162, and 157. For JHU the story was pretty similar with 3.685, 164, and 162 versus official IQRs of 3.47 - 3.77, 158-165, and 154-162. Clearly we're only getting the upper crust in those cases.

I haven't heard anything. *begins panicking*

I feel like these both assume that the application process is waaayyy more accurate than it actually is. There is a lot of subjectivity applied to very imperfect information about complicated applicants, which means that there will definitely be people who get in that shouldn't have and people that should've gotten in and didn't. This is why people leave, transfer, etc. Coming in feeling less qualified or deserving than other applicants is extremely common and often the offshoot of humility, which I would hardly say is a bad trait to start school with. Also, there is a huge difference between being a total mope b/c you feel un(der)qualified and feeling surprised/lucky to get into a reach school.

What do you want to study?

Wut?

I wanted to bump this and get a sense of what candidates straight out of undergrad need to have in their application package to make up for a lack of WE. Obviously, there is no exact cut-off or anything, but from anyone's experience, what has stood out in these profiles enough to get them into top programs. Cutting to the heart of it, I'm applying to MA programs this year straight out of undergrad, and I'm wondering if I have anywhere near a shot where I applied (you can see the schools in my signature). I majored in Econ (3.93) and Poli Sci (4.0) with a 3.9 overall GPA and my GRE scores were 163/162/4.5. I have done two internships, one congressional and one for a global non-profit. I have also studied abroad in MENA and LA. I am conversational in Spanish (though rusty) and beginner in Arabic and Portuguese, with in-country experience with the latter two. I also have a lot of independent and cooperative research experience, as well as multiple conference presentations and one single-authored publication in a regional student journal. Maybe I'm just torturing myself, but I can't help but be curious what you all think of this profile.

So what in particular are you each looking for in a program to help you get to the next step?

I don't think it would necessarily count against you by virtue of being a professional program and I certainly wouldn't consider it academia suicide. I think it has much more to do with what you do while you're in the program, i.e. balancing professional and academic pursuits. Seeking out any opportunities to present, co-author, do research, etc. can keep you competitive or even make you stand out for PhD applications. Any extra methods courses you can add on are also good. Definitely work to keep your GPA as high as possible though. That may seem like an obvious suggestion but it seems to be a trend that anything other than a near-perfect grad GPA can send some bad signals to PhD programs, especially if it doesn't show improvement from your UG GPA. UCSD's PhD program in Poli Sci is exceptional, especially for IR, so going there would also give you a great opportunity to network with future POI's. eta: Congrats on the acceptance by the way!

I think most of us on here get that admissions decision-making is pretty laden with idiosyncrasies and thus aren't going to look down on anyone who tries to make sense of application outcomes. I mean, to a large degree that's why we're all on here, right? To help each other figure out how the sausage is made. eta: And for the emotional support. Loads of that.

I know there have to be some of us. I came over from the poli sci forum and I can't decide whether I want to go towards poli sci or econ for a PhD so I want to do an MA while I'm figuring life out. Anyone else in this kind of boat?