
alphazeta
Members-
Posts
88 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by alphazeta
-
What I've been told by faculty: None will matter much - certainly not as much as a bump to GPA or GRE. There may be a marginal impact for internships that are research intensive and directly related to your proposed course of study.
-
Well, I'm not exactly an expert but I'll weigh in with my opinions. As an initial observation, I'd suggest that there are multiple (and not entirely compatible) senses of the word "fit". First, there is fit from your perspective - Are there people in this department I could work with and could I pursue my research agenda successfully here? Second, there is fit from the admissions perspective - Does this applicant match the interests of our faculty and what we're looking for? Finally, there is some sort of objective "fit" concerning how tightly your interests and predispositions correlate. Ideally, the answers to the three sets of questions would be the same, but this is not necessarily so. You might be a poor admissions fit, but a good fit objectively and from your own perspective, or you might be a good fit from your perspective and the admissions perspective, but not from an objective perspective - and find out with tragic consequences (A friend of mine went to a graduate program - non polisci but the experience is applicable - prinicipally to work with Prof. X who appeared to be a great fit for him, but found out that Prof. X was a jerk and could not work with him). 1. How important is it to identify potential advisers who work in your region of study? This appears to be mostly an issue for comparativists, so I won't presume to answer, but I'd suggest that it depends on the region and the extent to which you're devoted to an in-depth study of the specifics of region X as opposed to broader thematic issues. 2.If you want to work in a relatively new or niche field, or want to innovate in an established field, how do you deal with the paucity of people who worked on your research interests? (How do you define who is "close enough" to those interests? Is pulling faculty from a different subfield who have taken your desired approach a smart call? I'm thinking mainly of approaches drawing from political psychology.) First of all, to be successful you need to be grounded in the broader methods and approaches of the field. Having advisors who are strong scholars even if they don't work specifically in that niche is very valuable, provided they aren't openly hostile to your proposed line of research/innovation. If you're doing something in a methodological niche, then bringing in people from other subfields is absolutely fine. Also, with an approach like political psychology that's interdisciplinary, you can draw on the expertise in other departments. Having someone working in your niche is definitely nice, but it's not necessary. If you're facing a choice between a strong program with no one doing your specific niche and a weak program with someone in your niche, pick the strong program. Reading on your own, working with people in other subfields/departments, summer training, etc. can make up for the deficiencies of not having someone in your niche. 3. If you have several different research interests, would you recommend emphasizing one over the others and letting your "fit" rest on that one set of interests? Going back to my earlier comment, this is essentially an admissions fit decision. I think it depends on how closely related the interests are. If your interests are medieval political thought and comparative political economy, then just pick one. I think trying to present both will make you seem unfocused - and I'm not aware of anyone who has successfully combined those two into a productive research agenda. On the other hand, if you have a way of linking your interests, it may be better to put them all out there. You might want to innovatively link two different areas of research, and if you can make a compelling case for doing that, I think it would be productive. 4. Pragmatically, how important is it for your future career that your adviser pull some weight in the field-- being famous, well-connected, well-published, etc? Generally speaking, at stronger departments, your advisor will tend to have more pull in the field - otherwise that person wouldn't be teaching at that school. There's a reason that top departments go after those top scholars, and you'll benefit in many ways from being associated with one. I guess the real question comes from comparatively rare cases where a very prominent scholar is at an otherwise little known school - I don't have a clear answer to this, but my general answer is that you should pick a department that is stronger overall - that big name might leave or turn out to be a jerk and you want solid training not just a star advisor. 5.
-
Advice on school preferences for Fulbright (Master in IR)
alphazeta replied to YaelRania's topic in Political Science Forum
When it comes to your chances, you can look at statistics for various programs to get some idea, though of course the statistics give you only a very limited picture. For Georgetown SFS, for example, about 25% of applicants are admitted with an average of 4 years of work experience, GRE Verbal scores in the 630-642 range, GRE Quant Scores in the 688-701 range, and GPA in the 3.63 - 3.70 range (see here). You said in your first post that your GPA is equivalent to a 4.0, but you're not sure if that's correct. In the US system, a 4.0 GPA is perfect grades -it means that you achieved the maximum possible grade in every course you took. If this is true for you, then what you have is equivalent to a 4.0, if not then the website led you astray. If it does turn out that your grades are equivalent to a 4.0, then that part of your record is very strong. You've also got what sound like very good language skills, but you are below the average for just about any program in terms of work experience. The GREs are another wildcard for you, which makes it hard to judge. Overall though, winning a Fullbright is a strong and prestigious signal. If you are successful in getting the Fullbright grant itself, then I think you have a very good chance at getting accepted to the schools that interest you. -
Advice on school preferences for Fulbright (Master in IR)
alphazeta replied to YaelRania's topic in Political Science Forum
It's hard to speak to your admissions chances with the information given, so I won't really try. Also, what areas of IR are you specifically interested in? There's a considerable difference between the good schools for, say, international development and international security. Generically, you might find it useful to have a look at the TRIP survey (go to page 66 for rankings of terminal M.A. programs). You'll notice that the list is dominated by private schools, but depending on your interests, you can find some publics that fit your niche. If your East coast preference isn't too strong, Berkeley's a good pick. UCSD (IRPS) is also a very strong school, especially for Asia/Latin America. If you're more interested in the East Coast, then I'd say the University of Pittsburgh (Graduate School of Public and International Affairs) is probably the strongest public program. The University of Kentucky (Patterson School of Diplomacy) is pretty good too, particularly for international organizations/international law, but you have to keep in mind that Lexington, KY is nothing like your big East Coast cities. In terms of IR specifically, I think Kentucky and Pitt probably are the strongest, and there are some advantages to pursuing an IR specific degree rather than focusing on IR in a public policy program, but since you've indicated a willingness to do that, I'd particularly consider the University of Maryland, George Mason (both have a DC-area location and some strong faculty working on IR), the University of Texas, the University of Wisconsin, and perhaps Texas A&M. N.B.: You might want to crosspost in the government affairs forum. -
Definitely not like SAIS/main campus. I'm not super familiar with the HKS-Government department dynamic, so I can't really comment on that - although I thought people played nicely between the two?
-
1430, Retake GRE for PhD Apps?
alphazeta replied to twenty-twelve's topic in Political Science Forum
I've certainly heard similarly that GRE is generally a cutoff, but you mentioned Berkeley, and I'd direct you to this quote from their website: "We do not have minimum score requirements for the GRE. However, due to the highly competitive applicant pool we receive each year, the average scores of admitted students are typically in the 80th percentile or higher on each of the three sections of the GRE General Test" (see here). A 720Q doesn't quite get you over that 80th percentile, so a retake may be in order, though not at the expense of other bits of your application. Spending a little time with a GRE book and adding a few points to that score would probably be a good thing. -
You might try the government affairs forum as you're more likely to find a current student there.
-
From the perspective of a student, the distinction between IRPS faculty and PS faculty is meaningless. A student in either program can have faculty from the other on his/her committee and can take classes in either. A number of people also even hold appointments in both programs, but the ones who don't work fluidly across the line. People at UCSD (other than the bean counters) don't make a distinction. The real difference between just the plain poli sci PhD and the joint PhD comes from funding and core requirements. For the core requirements, you can look at this link for IRPS or this page for poli sci. The two are different, but not that different. In terms of funding, the joint degree students get funded out of a different pool of money (I believe it all comes out of the IRPS budget), which I hear often translates to slightly better financial offers (though not necessarily).
-
1430, Retake GRE for PhD Apps?
alphazeta replied to twenty-twelve's topic in Political Science Forum
A 710 V is really quite good - that's something like the 98th percentile. On the other hand a 720 Q is rather poor - that's something like the 75th percentile, so in your case it's only real the quantitative section that you need to be worried about. I think boosting that 50-60 points could make a difference, especially if you want to do something that's quantitative. -
Accepted an offer for f11, but will apply elsewhere next year
alphazeta replied to Atua's topic in Political Science Forum
In my opinion, the specifics matter considerably here, but your reluctance to share them is perfectly understandable. Some general observations: 1) If you really dislike School X so much then why did you accept their offer? 2) Don't overestimate how much your application has changed. Winning a few awards at graduation is practically expected and is unlikely to change a committee's opinion. Winning a Critical Language scholarship or some such is similarly unlikely to have a large impact. Such things are far less meaty than your grades, scores, and recs, which you don't mention changing. You did mention developing your research interests further, so if you previously had a very inchoate and unfocused SOP, then maybe you will have an edge this year, but I would be EXTREMELY skeptical of any plan that involves essentially reapplying to the schools that didn't take you this time around. 3) It's a real slap in the face to your department to start applying to other schools almost immediately after arriving. They might not find out, and they might not care (if you leave, then they can offer your funding to someone else, etc.), but it definitely has the potential to burn bridges and it shows that you did not accept their offer in good faith. Obviously, people move to new programs, drop out of grad school, etc., but looking to move within weeks or months of arriving, that's just rude. Getting more specific, I'm assuming when you say that no one else works on the same region that you're a comparativist with few faculty to choose from to work with and a small set of course offerings in CP. Here's what I have to say about that (caveat: I'm not a CP person myself). 1) I know that many schools don't even offer graduate-level courses that focus on the politics of specific regions. Often CP courses focus more on general approaches and question (state vs. society, democratization, etc.). It's not generally necessary to take courses on your regional area of interest. 2) What kind of resources are available outside your department? Is there a policy school associated with your university where you could take some classes or find people to work with? Are their faculty in sister disciplines that have an interest in your region? Maybe a sociologist/anthropologist/historian who studies the countries/region that you want to work on? A friend of mine is a comparativist and has his dissertation co-chaired by a political scientist who works on a totally different region and a sociologist who works on the region, but not politics. Are there area studies programs at your university where you could find the appropriate people? 3) What's the region? Is it obscure? If you want to do politics of the Caribbean and you can't find a Caribbeanist but there are some Latin Americanists or maybe an Africanist who works on the same issues you want to look at in the Caribbean in an African context, that's probably good enough. Many people who work on less popular regions have worked with people who don't do the same region. If, on the other hand, you want to do China or the Middle East, there may be more of an advantage to working with people with the specific regional expertise. On the whole, I think your best plan is to wait things out and get the MA. It will make your application stronger when you apply to new programs and give you a chance to see if maybe this program does work for you. -
PhD in political scince with engineering background
alphazeta replied to Rohit1979's topic in Political Science Forum
Your chances without either political science experience or academic recommendations are near zero (IMHO). It sounds like you have the basic stats to be competitive for good programs in the future, though, so I would highly recommend a masters degree in political science or public policy. I think you would have a competitive chance at public policy programs in the US. They will value your practical experience and won't hold your lack of academic background against you. Depending on your financials, you could try for admission at top public policy programs, but you can also apply to some second-tier programs where merit scholarships may be available. In addition to strictly public policy programs, you might also consider some IR or area studies programs. Another good option would be a British taught masters degree in political science. Generally, those courses last only one year and are somewhat cheaper than American programs. Several are also specifically designed for students entering without a background in the field. I'd particularly consider an MSc from LSE in Comparative Politics (link). -
Anybody focusing on IR theory??
alphazeta replied to justanotherperson's topic in Political Science Forum
First, I'd caution that IR theory isn't really a distinctive specialization like international security or IPE. What are your substantive interests? What sort of problems and questions are you hoping to address? You'll probably do better to find faculty who have similar substantive interests. Second, most of the people who do significant work on IR theory as such are at top-10ish programs. That said, there are some departments/some faculty who are openly hostile to understanding IR through the clash of the -isms (realism, liberalism, constructivism, marxism, feminism, etc.). If your interests really are in the isms, then you wouldn't be happy at those departments. Some programs I would encourage you to look at in the general rankings range you specified are Cornell, Minnesota, Ohio State, Texas, the University of Pennsylvania, UVA, and Notre Dame. All of these are strong programs where you'll find faculty with an interest in IR theory and a receptiveness to the kind of work I take it you want to do. -
If your interest is in policy and public service, then once you finish your current masters degree I think you would be in a good position to spring right into something. Particularly for international development, a masters in international development should be a more than adequate background. I'd really suggest that you look for internships in between the years of your program and then try to find something with the UN or an NGO in NYC rather than jumping into what would be a third graduate degree. Once you're in a job, you can decide if a PhD in Poli Sci is really going to advance your objectives. Also, many employers will help you pay for part-time coursework, and something like a public policy degree from SIPA would probably be a good fit for you.
-
I'm a little unclear on what your goals are. Am I correct in assuming you want to get a PhD in political science and then teach? Or are you interested in some sort of policy path? Your background certainly makes a PhD possible - and many people don't have much poli sci before grad school - but it will be important to show that you know what political science is all about and are actually interested in it as a part of your application. I notice that you're apparently in Buffalo right now (or will be?), so I have to ask: why are you limiting yourself to NYC? Even just broadening the next to include a 150 mile radius or so scoops in a lot more schools. As for what you do with the next two years, if you're confident as of this minute that you want to go on to a polisci PhD, then you should take whatever political science classes you can. If you're not interested in taking those classes, then you need to rethink your plan (if they're not available, that's another issue). As for political science PhD programs in New York, I believe you have identified everything within the city itself. Depending on your GRE (and obviously other factors), you have the potential to be competitive at Columbia and NYU, which are both excellent programs. Honestly, I have to advise against the New School if you're interested in an academic career. CUNY is a possibility, but has a checkered reputation. If you're willing to be a little further away, Princeton, SUNY-Stony Brook, and Rutgers are all promising possibilities.
-
Disclosure: I am affiliated with Georgetown I would go with Georgetown for the Middle East. Also, you indicated above that you're interested in a think thank or policy career. Through the SFS, Georgetown gives you truly incomparable resources for the policy world. In addition to the Middle East people within the department (Brumberg, Heydemann, Stephen King), you'll also have access to a strong cluster of people within the SFS (e.g., Byman), the Center for Contemporary Arab Studies (e.g.,Hudson, Seznec, and Shehata). If you're interested in religion, there's also the Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding as well as the Berkley Center for Religion, Peace, and World Affairs. Finally, if you need language training, Georgetown has a very good Persian (Farsi) department and a very good Arabic department. Georgetown has a genuinely enormous number of people across disciplines (including political science, history, anthropology, religious studies, economics) working on the Middle East and Iran, which will be a great resource for you. There are a few things, though, that should probably concern you. First, Georgetown is relatively weak in methods. Second, while Georgetown has a huge number of people doing the Middle East, internal politics can sometimes make it difficult for students in the Government Department to work with all of the available faculty, especially in the SFS. Georgetown students have also placed pretty well lately (TT placements in CP at UC-Irvine, American, and Ohio State in the last couple of years). Georgetown's overall rankings suffer, in my opinion, from the extreme weakness of its American Politics group, its weak quantitative methods offerings, and its somewhat unorthodox theory. IR and CP are clearly Georgetown's strengths (it's top 15ish in IR and only a little below that in CP).
-
What's your objective? Is this PhD preparation or are you interested solely in professional preparation? Either way you may find the MA rankings in the TRIP survey (page 66) useful. Frankly, regardless of your goals, I'd take Pitt GSPIA off the list, you'll notice it's not ranked in the top 25 of the survey linked and the faculty there simply aren't as strong. You also consider seriously the fact that Chicago is a 1 year program while Denver takes 2 years and think about which of those appeals to you. You said you got partial funding at Denver, but given its longer duration, I'm guessing that overall Denver will cost as much or more than Chicago. Assuming that's right, I would *definitely* go to Chicago if this is PhD prep. If you're interested in a policy career, it's a closer call but I would probably lean Chicago given its significantly greater overall prestige/resources, somewhat higher ranking, and stronger faculty. However, it's a simple fact that you will learn more in 2 years at Denver than 1 at Chicago, so it's not necessarily a clear cut choice.
-
For those here who are currently in grad school, what did you do with the summer before you started? For those planning to start in the fall, what are your plans? Earn money to live off of? Take a math class? Relax at home?
-
Caveat: I'm just a lowly undergrad, so take this all with a great of salt: First of all, I presume you're doing an MA because there's some deficiency in your file at the moment that prevents you from taking a shot at the PhD programs you're interested in. Obviously, then, remedying that deficiency has to be your top priority. If the issue is poor undergrad grades, then focus on getting a 4.0 in the masters. If you're looking to improve LORs because your undergrad was a while ago or you didn't really get to know the professors there, then focus on making the connections to get those letters (obviously, these aren't mutually exclusive). To address your specific questions: I've been told (and I believe) that publications won't do much for you. Certainly, a published article is another good signal of your strengths as an applicant, but the fact of the matter is that you're almost certainly not going to get published in the APSR and publications in lower-tier journals aren't terribly impressive. An article published in the Northeast State Tech Review of Politics isn't going to impress anyone more than a really awesome writing sample will. If an opportunity to publish something comes up, you should obviously take it, but I wouldn't focus on trying to publish. However, you should also keep an eye open for the (relatively rare) opportunity to collaborate with a professor on an article. As for extracurriculars, I've been told that no one really cares what you're up to. If it's ridiculously impressive, that might help, but PhD admissions are not like college admissions where you want to show that you're well-rounded, involved in community service, etc. The committee cares about one thing: your capacity to do graduate work and then eventually contribute interesting work as a scholar - that's not going to come through very strongly from what you do outside of school in most cases. Now, based on what I've heard from people over the years (and my UG school runs some extremely popular masters programs), here are some specific recommendations: 1) If at all possible, get experience as an RA with any professor who will have you and does work even tangentially related to your own interests. This person need not necessarily even be a political scientist, depending on your interests you might do work with an economist, sociologist, etc. Obviously, a political scientist is preferable, but any kind of RA experience is very good. 2) Focus on methods training rather than substantive coursework. Many terminal masters programs encourage students to focus on substantive and policy-relevant classes, but the more productive thing to do with your two years is get trained in appropriate methods. Depending on your interests that might mean statistics/econometrics, languages, game theory, etc. Take as much of this as possible. Not only will it help you down the road, it will also signal a serious interest in research. Again, you shouldn't feel too constrained by your department. If the rules allow, it might be productive to take some coursework in other departments, like economics. 3) Make it clear to faculty from day 1 that your goal is a PhD and ask for their help and advice. 4) Don't waste the summer. Do something productive with it, like a summer language program, research with a professor, or a summer stats program. 5) Network. 6) Go to every single talk/program held by the department. If the speaker teaches at a school you're interested in or does work you find interesting, try to meet them and talk to them.
-
UC Davis v. Claremont Graduate University
alphazeta replied to cslamsat's topic in Political Science Forum
You're going to need to be more specific about your field and interests before we can give intelligent input. -
I think this is spot on. Be honest with yourself, what would you do in a year off, particularly given that its already March? If you have some high-quality private sector opportunity, that's one thing, but otherwise you might find yourself just working a cruddy, boring job that does nothing to improve your situation. Spending more time learning and studying at Northeastern will prep you better for good programs, and it gives you the opportunity to find out if you actually can/want to handle graduate school.
-
Well, you can have a look at their placements here. It's certainly not a jaw-dropping placement record, but they've put some people into TT jobs at decent schools.
-
Political Science - Fall 2011 Cycle
alphazeta replied to adaptations's topic in Political Science Forum
It looks like there are a bunch of Chicago rejects up on the board now. Is anyone else still waiting for one? I haven't heard anything and I find it really annoying. -
Political Science - Fall 2011 Cycle
alphazeta replied to adaptations's topic in Political Science Forum
This is my assumption. It looks like that's what they've done in years past. It looks like, though, those decisions have typically come out in the first week of March, so I anticipate hearing soon. -
Political Science - Fall 2011 Cycle
alphazeta replied to adaptations's topic in Political Science Forum
I must say, though I was sad to be rejected at Princeton, I admire the fact that they had the decency to email out the rejections promptly. -
Political Science - Fall 2011 Cycle
alphazeta replied to adaptations's topic in Political Science Forum
Looking at previous years, it seems like most schools send out the accepts over a day or two and after that, with rare exceptions, only rejections come out. I just heard good news today from Columbia, which apparently notified a number of people on Friday, so it seems like it's still possible to get in a few days down the road. For schools that issued acceptances over a week ago, I wouldn't get your hopes up. I'm writing off the schools that sent out acceptances >10 days ago.