Poli92

Well, I suppose it's important to know your limitations.

For some reason I read this in Ron Swanson's voice.

Just to throw my 2 cents in, for the first question I don't get the impression that TMCB was suggesting that there is one, unanimously accepted, objective definition of the "real world". Instead, this lack poses considerable ontological and epistemological challenges for scholars. Based on how broadly defined this "real world" is, the nature and purpose of your work can vary widely. For your second question, I get the impression that you're trying to lead TMCB towards saying that the purpose of understanding and predicting is to affect change or to have some "real world" ramifications. Maybe that's the result of academic inquiry, but it doesn't have to be the purpose. It is quite possible, and I believe highly probable, that for many scholars understanding and predicting is intrinsically valuable and they don't particularly care what happens beyond that. It is perfectly fine to want to conduct inquiry for the sake of conducting inquiry. The same worth can be ascribed to wanting to engage in policy relevant research. This all depends on the guiding philosophy of the researcher, and no side should dismissively discount the other.

Oxfords. ...Ba-dum-tiss!

You are on quite the roll thus far! I hope your luck continues!! Congrats!!

Current Research: "I am a mathematical muddler specializing in metrical gibber, muddles of cognitive blintz, applications of macaroni chain theory, the life and works of Mo Fiorina and Edgar Rice Burroughs, and the epistemioincological development and literary exposition of the Wuffeauldian paradigm of post-rational research."

I'm not saying the A Wuffle and Bernard Grofman are the same person... I'm just saying I've never seen the two of them in the same room together.

Because of this I just checked out PSR for the first time... What has been seen cannot be unseen.

Noted!!

People had the same concerns when math and statistics became highly prevalent in economics. For my part, I don't think quantitative analysis is necessarily a good or bad thing. It's just another tool in the social scientist's toolbox. It becomes good or bad once it's applied, and the same can be said for qualitative methods. It all depends on being intentional about ensuring that your questions and your methodology are appropriate to one another. Quant tools just allow us to ask different questions.

The Gnome has a point. Political theory and formal theory have a lot less to do with each other than their names imply. Political theory has more to do with the history of political thought and the interpretation of modern happenings in the context of a classical theoretical framework. Formal theory has more to do with systematically proving or disproving certain hypotheses through sequences of reasonable conclusions and would be better described as formal logic (as it is in many departments) to avoid confusion. That being said, there are theorists who use rigorous formal logic and mathematical analysis to create links between classical philosophy and modern events. Voter behavior, supreme court rulings, and policy-making come to mind. Just don't expect every theorist to be interested in those sorts of things. Regardless, Zahar Berkut's first post still holds completely true.

I can't imagine how devastating that would be. Especially if you had already told your entire family and gotten totally hyped.

I think everyone here can be thankful that no one has yet experienced what's going on right now with MIT's materials science program's admissions. *knock on wood*

Thanks for your response! If someone were reaching out to you or your department, when would you say would be too early? I plan on writing my SOP's over the summer, and if I could find out beforehand if I'm wasting my time one one or another school because they don't have a need for someone with my interests, that would be ideal, because then I could focus more on the others. Would reaching out in the spring or early summer be unreasonable?

I'm curious how prospective students might get a feel for whether or not "Professor Snodgrass" has too many students working with him. I know that some programs provide info on the interests of its grad students and you could infer who students are likely working with, but many schools do not provide such information, and it's hard to be sure how many students a professor is willing to advise. Would this be the kind of thing that it would be appropriate to contact an administrator or POI about? Would that be too presumptuous?

Thank you both for your feedback! I appreciate the guidance that you two in particular, but this entire forum as well, provide. I attend a school where most poli sci students who choose to continue with their education opt towards either law or professional master's programs rather than going a more academic route. As a consequence, the advice that I often receive from faculty is to seek help from those in other programs, so this has been an extremely useful resource to me, as I am sure it has been to many others. Keep being awesome and good luck!!

I'm just curious to get a feel for who else out there isn't applying this cycle (for whatever reason) and what you're doing to prepare for when you eventually plan to apply (I'm assuming in the next couple years). Or, for those of you that are applying or already attending, what is your biggest 20/20 hindsight reflection on the years before you applied? Things you regret? Should've done more of? Should've done less of? This might be a big help to those of us for whom applications are still over the horizon! Also, things are getting much quieter around here now that most applications are sent out and I'm finding it hard to procrastinate...

Couldn't this just be solved using the Poisson binomial probability function? (assuming the success/failure outcomes of your applications are independent, which I would think would be the case). My stats work is rusty but I think I remember this being the way we approached probability of success among non-identical events.

In addition to TheGnome's post, if you do determine that you want to pursue a PhD, do you have an idea of what your specific research interest would be within IR? You seem to have a pronounced regional interest in the Middle East, and there is nothing wrong with that; however, if you decide to emphasize the Middle East as an area focus when you apply, it may not be received well at IR programs. I've gotten the impression from a few friends/professors that IR programs don't get terribly excited about those selling themselves as area specialists, as it can send the message that that person may not be willing to do some of the broader, phenomenon-focused research that is conducted in IR. That being said, you can always look at CP programs or interdisciplinary masters or doctoral programs in area studies if you're interested in pointedly studying the Middle East. Take this all with a grain of salt, because every adcom at every school will be different, and there are some in the field (Mark Tessler for example) that advocate a merge between IR and area studies. Food for thought.

Bingo! I feel like so much of the anxiety about not knowing enough about X simply comes from being around highly specialized individuals with disparate research interests. It's not that you couldn't figure X out, you're just more interested in Y.

How often do you get the impression that applicants have really thoroughly done their homework? Is it that much of a rarity?

I would say for now you should just narrow down exactly what it is you want to do. In order to figure that out, do a little more research on what people do with their Ph.D.'s and try to find what sounds like something you can see yourself doing. Applying to doctoral programs shouldn't be taken lightly and you should have a clear idea of what you hope to get out of your degree before you start thinking of which programs can get you to that point. For starters, talk to your professors about what they do and see if they can network you with political scientists who are working in other capacities.

The expectation of work experience will vary depending on the type of program. Different schools gear students towards different pursuits (professor vs. professional, teacher vs. researcher, etc.) and depending on the focus may want a particular type of experience. Georgetown, from what I've heard, gears a lot more toward careers in government or professional organizations, and may put more emphasis on relevant work experience beforehand. That being said, there are so many factors going into an application that just one factor (work experience in this case) will not likely be a deal breaker if there are other standout facets of your application. The question you may want to consider is whether you see yourself in a university setting as a professor or in more of a governmental/policy-making capacity. This will have a large impact on the types of programs you will want to apply to and you can then further investigate those programs' expectations.

Thank you both for your inputs, they were very helpful! I have to say that I agree with you. I guess my emphasis on pursuing training in mixed methods is something I should translate more into saying that I have an interest in being trained in a diverse range of methodological styles so that my applications will be shaped by the questions I am asking instead of by my proficiency (or lack there of) with particular styles. Maybe that would get me away from falling into the mixed methods abyss.

Thank you for your feedback! And yes, I do mean mixed methods as a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods. Could you possibly elaborate a little more on what you mean here? I understand how a mixed methodological study can be executed or interpreted poorly, but I guess I'm curious to hear more of your thoughts on this.