StudentForever

This is going to be a very blunt answer. I apologize if I sound rude. Even at an unranked school, statistics is very important. If you're struggling with the high-school level math on the GRE, you will have even greater difficulties with the math required for a graduate political science degree. Even if UNO doesn't emphasize much in the way of advanced statistics, you'll need the math knowledge to understand the works of authors in any of the subfields (except theory). Basically, I'm advising you think long and hard about whether a graduate degree in political science is feasible or desirable.

I definitely did nothing productive the summer before grad school. For the most part, I'd say it wasn't wasted time because you'll never have a vacation like that again. However, I was (and probably still am) relatively behind in terms of the stats knowledge necessary, so I would definitely spend a couple hours a day reading up on some of that math.

Agreed. The DC schools are great places to go if you want to work outside academia. However, they don't have a lot of street cred inside the ivory tower. Additionally, I know American Ph.D. students compete for funding, so not everybody has it. When you're living in a place with such a high cost of living, it's certainly not worth going there for a Ph.D. if you want to stay in academics.

I only know from my personal experience applying a few years ago. I applied to schools in the 15-50 range. The due dates for applications ranged from the middle of December to early February, and it wasn't in order of competitiveness (the least competitive was due first). I know at my top 20, applications are due before February but aren't reviewed until the first week in February. Basically, I wouldn't hang your hat on due dates indicating quality or competitiveness.

I attend a top-20 program in political science. The way admissions starts for my program is a simple cut at a specified number for GRE scores in both quantitative and verbal. To even be considered here, you need to score at least a 690 in math (lowest score of anybody's I've heard in the last several years). I have no doubt some programs are indeed moving away from standardized tests; however, I think the top-20 programs are going to be the last to do so as they have high application rates with really competitive applicants. They need some way to winnow down the field without expending resources. The way I studied for the GRE was inexpensive -- bought several GRE study books from Border's, read through all the books, did the practice questions, and took the practice exams. It really refreshed me on math as I hadn't taken a math course for 3 years. I really don't see a need for any student (especially a Harvard student...stereotype, I know) to go out and hire a private tutor. A month is plenty of time to study on your own. I think you simply jumped the gun and took the exam too early; I took it around Labor Day weekend. Relax, inhale some sweet oxygen, buy some study books, and buckle down.

As a current graduate student, here's my 2 cents. It really matters about what your final plans are. If you plan to do primarily research, I'd say ranking is more important in the long run. I really can't overstate how elitist this profession is. If your final destination is a directional or (S)LAC, I'd say go with the better fit. You'll enjoy grad school more.

I know it's too late for this post, but a notice to everyone else. Professors (including DGSs) read GradCafe. Giving out so much identifying information is not the best idea. Even though you've already heard from these schools, you need to remember you're making friends/enemies with people you'll work with and run into at conferences for the rest of your career. Basically, my advice is to be as concise as possible and give away as little information about yourself and your situation as possible.

As a grad student at a top 25, I highly suggest you NOT email the graduate coordinator. He or she is ridiculously busy this time of year and calls about wardrobe will not endear you to this person. I'd suggest calling the graduate secretary instead. As for what you should wear, it varies by school. Some tell you what to bring, others give you no clue. It's always better to be slightly overdressed. I'd say a polo and khakis or slacks for guys will suffice, nice pants and a button-down shirt or blouse for women. Depending on the weather where you're visiting, make sure you bring appropriate shoes. It sucks to walk in heels or loafers through slush.

At UIUC, 2009's class was about 10 students. It looks like it will be the same for next year. Our department is much better off financially than other departments or the university as a whole. It's all thanks to a great previous chair, a great current chair, and a DGS on top of things. So to applicants, don't freak. Anyone who gets in should still get the same funding package the rest of us have.

From my personal experience, I would make sure you get a solid idea of the methods focus of the program from the GRADUATE students, not from the professors. I knew nothing about methods coming into my program, was told I would get training from the department, and was then left to fend for myself. I don't necessarily blame the department (though I wish the expectations of the faculty aligned with what I had been told). Rather, I wish I had taken it upon myself to find out about the methods focus and expectations of the program. Ask the students where/what the focus is, then decide based off your previous experience whether or not you need more methods training before you get to a program.

Not going to lie -- I used the same SoP for every school to which I applied. I didn't even add a few sentences to personalize for the school. Never occurred to me and my advisors never mentioned it. Worked out for me. However, I don't know how much it would fly given today's more competitive market. I certainly don't think you need to write a different SoP for each to which you apply; however, I think your professor is right in saying adding a few sentences to personalize the statement wouldn't hurt. Good luck!

My writing sample was none too impressive, and I got into a top-20 program with similar GRE scores (except for the writing...I got a 6). I submitted a paper from a Congress class full of qualitative research (simply because that's all I was capable of at the time). Whatever you submit, I would just make sure it's quality writing, particularly becacuse your GRE writing score isn't fabulous. As long as the content is solid (no matter what the content is), I think you should be fine so long as the rest of your application is strong. Good luck!

There are plenty of people in my Ph.D. program whose undergraduate degrees aren't in political science and still came straight from undergrad to grad school. So, no, I don't think that would be a barrier. I would only look into a master's program if you think your GRE scores, LORs, and/or transcript won't get you into a Ph.D. program first or if you think you need the two years of a master's program before committing to a Ph.D. program -- either because you're not entirely sure about political science or because you need to bone up on it. Only you can know where you stand. What kind of master's program is an entirely different beast. I don't know what your subfield would be, and your subfield would largely determine which schools you should look at.

I double-majored in political science and history as an undergrad. Obviously I went with political science for graduate school. Political science at the undergraduate level has a a great deal of history involved (also sociology, economics, religion, psychology, etc). However, political science at the graduate level is an entirely different beast. A good portion of the history is removed. So, if in taking political science classes, the historical aspect is what peaked your interest, I don't know if political science at the graduate level would be the right direction to go. Perhaps a graduate degree in history focusing in political history would be a better idea. Let me know if I can be more specific. Good luck!

Tidefan is right on the money. Specifically for American, you need to look at the division of faculty between institutions and behavior. Schools (both professors and classes offered) tend to focus more on one than the other.

Obviously, job prospects depend on the subfield. In American, there are more job openings for institutionalists than behavioralists because there are so many more people studying behavior than institutions. I can't speak for IR or comparative. In addition, job prospects depend on what kind of institution you want to work at. It appears as though some schools have weathered the recession better than others. Most state schools seem to have been hard-hit; however, many top schools have also been hurt by investing too much of their endowments in the market (*cough Harvard cough*). Basically, what I'm saying is there are too many factors to give an overall good-or-bad answer.

I'd say your verbal score is quite good. However, I'd be worried about your quantitative score. Because of the level of math on the GRE, a 600 isn't a particularly strong score. Even if you don't want to focus on quantitative methods, most Ph.D. programs require you take a decent amount of quant methods. I think an admissions committee would assume you might not be able to handle the methods sequence in a program because of your quant score. However, only you know all the aspects of your admissions profile. Good luck!