2010Applicant

Congrats to those admitted to UNC! If you have any question about UNC, you can PM me (especially if you can't make the visitation weekend).

Hi Eyce22, Although there must be a lot to think about in your situation, I think one unfortunate fact that would nonetheless simplify your situation is that (allow me to be honest) your 3.2 GPA would very very unlikely get you into a good PhD program. If you look at the 'result search' page here at GradCafe, you'll notice that, say, with the top 25 political science program, very few people managed to be accepted with GPA<3.7 (regardless of which school you're from). And among those who did get in with GPA<3.7, a lot had undergone a master degree and did very well in it (which is exactly what you should do some time down the road if you're really interested.) 3.2 GPA isn't bad at all; it will get you a lot of jobs. But phd is really another story. As to what you should do now, whether and how you may apply for PhD later, etc. you can PM me. I also graduated from a top 20 school, worked in investment banking for a number of years, went back to study, and am also from China. I should be able to help you a bit.

I am applying for PhD and my research interest is in politics of financial regulations (mainly US). There are certainly some professors exactly specializing in this area. And then there are two other kinds of professors I am targeting, but I wonder if they would accept my research interest as close enough to their area: 1) Professors specializing in the politics of regulations; but looking at what they have written, each of them have covered a number of industries (electricity, pharmaceutical, accounting, etc) but not financials (as in banks and capital markets). 2) Professors specializing in IPE. (mine is more domestic.) 3) Actually one additional point. If I want to do my research as a comparative study between US and Canada, but none of these professors have looked into Canada, would that be a show-stopper? Should I apply to those political science departments where these professors are? Thanks.

violetwky: not at all. If I turn out enrolling into this program, I am still going to apply for Poli Sci Phd afterwards. It happens that the two potential advisors in Stanford's poli sci department, to which I applied for PhD previously, also belong to the EA dept, so I can do my master thesis under their supervision, and hopefully that would help quite a bit when I eventually apply for PhD (in poli sci) again. Of course, when I do that I can't bet on Stanford alone, which comes to the question of how other schools would perceive this EA master degree. That's why I would like to seek some opinions from this forum as to how good/reputable it is. dudoda: thanks for your input. 'Probably within top 10' isn't very good, I suppsoe... anyone else here thinks it's better than that?

Hi, it's my first post here. I am accepted by Stanford's east asia program (MA) but I have some really basic questions and would like to see if some of you may help me out a bit. I am totally clueless about this program because I didn't apply for it. I applied for Political Science PhD but was unsuccessful, and they passed my file to EA (I didn't even know that until yesterday). So: I. I know there is no EA ranking. But from all of you who are more familiar with the field, is Stanford considered a top 3 or at least a top 5? Just because it's Stanford I can't assume it's really good... 2. I didn't receive funding, but I see that some people do. Is the funding merit-based or need-based? 3. Most importantly, do you think this program is a good route towards PhD? Or is it more a cash cow program? Many thanks!!

I am also an international student at US completing a master degree. My field is Comparative Politics (China).

Yeah, but according to the Result Survey (a post on Feb 28th last year), the application deadline last year was Jan 30th. But this year's is Jan 15th. So I was hoping that perhaps replies would be given out earlier this year. Let's see... BTW, what's your field?

Anyone here applying for Political Science PhD? Heard anything yet?

I guess this differs among schools. Stanford asked me about financial matters as late as last Thursday, but by weekend I realized I am not among those who are accepted.

Wow, congratulations Carousel! Did you receive an email or did someone call you?

Hi Jsclar, I would like to ask you about your MIT interview. Does it seem that they have specific questions just for you, or is it true that all remaining applicants receive an interview. I haven't heard anything, so I would like to know whether I've effectively been rejected already. Thanks!

don't have a definite answer; but I guess you should look at Upenn. I doubt they have a formal concentration on the pol comm but they have quite a number of annenberg professors who also have appointments at the polisci dept.

Thanks Zahar. I think your argument makes sense. But then I also notice that the dept webpage says every year they take in 15-20 students. Then I go to the Graduate Student page and find that there are about 155 names there. Unless the dept has decided to shrink in recent years, it really seems they're taking forever to get the PhD.

Hi, I like the polisci program at Chicago very much and there are professors there who match my interests. But when I look at the cv of some of their phd students on the job market, it seems that they take like 7-10 years to complete the program. That's way too long for me. I understand that most people in most programs take 5-6 years. But then again, the sample of cv I look at is kind of small. Can anyone familiar with UChicago offer me some additional information? Thanks.

I applied for special student (both Harvard and MIT) last year. I am also doing an MA in IR. Anyway, I don't know much about their admissions stat. My impression is that they are not as extremely competitive like the PhD programs. I think the most important thing is just whether you have a good reason to be a special student there. I was accepted by MIT but rejected by Harvard. I went to neither.

I guess not everyone is doing this because not everyone gets 800 in quant; and of those who do, a lot of them also performed really well in Verbal, so they don't bother to retake the test. You have to be like me, who got 800 in quant but did really badly in verbal, to want to retake the test for its verbal section only. I've never considered that some adcom people would frown upon an NS. To me, the logic is simple: 800 is good enough, why risk it? After all, the option is made available, so I think it is legitimate to use it.

That would actually be quite a good move, alphazeta; although as an international student, I still have to face a funding issue if admitted. But yes, I think I'll do just that. Thanks.

Thanks for the advice; but actually I've made an inquiry already and I'm told that it is a firm requirement. I agree; it's absurd.

and that being its IRPS School requires a GRE AW of 5.0 or above! My impression is that most people here agree that the AW score is quite irrelevant to the application. But apparently IRPS doesn't think so. My GRE verbal and quant are both at 94%, GPA at 4.0 from a top-5 school in the field, with a master thesis on Korean political economy. So I guess a reputable school like UCSD with 'Pacific Studies' as part of its name should be a good place to apply for. Yet, years of hard work and achievement are worthless just because I get a 4.0AW in GRE. Is is just me who think that this policy is not very intelligent?

Does anyone know if the same situation applies to UCSD's IR/PS School? I am an international student wanting to apply to IR/PS' PhD program. But as the OP says, if there is no funding, it's really a showstopper. And it's kind of ironic if their IR School is practically sending away its international candidates.

I did my test on Oct 20th and just got the results online. Verbal: est 710-800; actual score:164 (94%) (equivalent to 670) Quant: NS; I didn't do this part since I got 800 last time (94%). I am satisfied with the score. 670 is lower than the lower bound of 710 but that's fine. Last time I did my GRE was two years ago. My V score was only 490 (56%). English isn't my first language. A jump from 56% to 94% surely helps!

Can anyone help me on this one? I took the GRE a while ago with an 800 Quant and a very poorly-scored Verbal. So I'm going to retake it to improve my verbal section. But since I've already scored 800 in quant, there is no point of risking a lower score. I found that on the ETS site, it's written that: 'If no questions are answered for a specific measure (e.g., Verbal Reasoning), then you will receive a No Score (NS) for that measure.' I just want to confirm with someone that I can indeed skip the whole quant sections and get an NS, and this won't hurt my application in any case whatsoever. Thanks!

Hi Happy, I notice that there are really not that many masters-only programs in the US. Which U are you getting your masters from? And in general, can anyone suggest which are the best master-only programs, either here in the US or overseas? Thanks.

Same with me. I decided to go to Fletcher and was subsequently taken off the wait list by HKS. It's quite a surprise to me. I thought I had quite a good chance: GMAT 730, undergrad (econ) GPA 3.5 from one of the top 5 US universities, thesis supervised by a nobel laureate, masters with distinction from one of the top 5 b-schools, 10 years of experience in the private sector managing a fund with top 1% performance, published 7 papers, 3 excellent LORs and heavily involved in 2 charities. And it's not like I am switching drastically in career path: just from finance to financial policy/regulation. I hope I am not being over-confident, but I thought the MPA program (MPA2 is what I was applying) has like a 50% acceptance rate and it shouldn't be THAT difficult to get in. Luckily I still have Fletcher to fall back on. One person supposed to be familiar with admission told me that HKS may after all want people from the public sector or well-connected with the government, though I'm not sure if that is true.

You are certainly correct, but it wasn't really about the courses. After all, I did acknowledge that if you are really into the hardcore stuff, the MC-MPA always gives you the flexibility to take them. When I said the MC isn't rigorous, I mean the culture of the cohort. They are unlikely to spend a lot of time talking about quantitative policy analysis or any other theoretical stuff like the PEPM students. They have the option to do so to be sure, but as experienced mid-career officials with a lot of WC, they'll probably move beyond that.