joseon4th

Type of Undergrad Institution: Private Research University Major(s)/Minor(s): History Undergrad GPA: 3.9 Type of Grad: International Affairs Policy Program Grad GPA: 3.6 GRE: 165V, 156Q, 5.0AW Research Experience: Limited to thesis & coursework for undergrad and grad programs Teaching Experience: TA during undergrad; 2 years public school teaching Subfield/Research Interests: International Relations - Security Other: Extensive travel experience and relevant professional experience RESULTS: Acceptances($$ or no $$): UCLA ($$), UC Davis ($$), UW-Seattle ($$) Waitlists: None Rejections: UC Berkeley, UCSD, Ohio State, U of Chicago, Northwestern Pending: None Going to: UCLA LESSONS LEARNED: 1. Going from a policy program to an academic PhD program is clearly not the norm; almost all prospective students I met at visitation weekends were coming either straight from undergrad or academic master's programs, or a profession. As became clear, being "not the norm" was generally not to my benefit. A faculty member from one of my non-admitted programs informed me that my background, SOP, and interview (I had a Skype interview) were all excellent, but other applicants with similar interests who had published/presented papers were perceived as less of a "risk" to admit. 2. Regarding the GRE: hated taking it and took it twice, with marginal improvement and a non-competitive Q score. However my scores got me into (or rather, did not impede my admittance to) my policy master's program, and it got me into UCLA, Davis, and UW, and it didn't preclude interviews with other top programs. This does not mean that a high Q score is unimportant, but it does mean you can choose what to focus on, and still get into a top-10 program. I chose to spend my limited resources on crafting the best SOP, writing sample, and resume (as in, time pursuing value-added internships) I could, rather than test prep. 3. Regarding the SOP: start early, edit often, re-write even more often, and get feedback from diverse sources. Rinse and repeat. I spent ~8 months working on mine, on and off, and had been thinking about it before then. Starting early gives you the luxury to work on it when you're "inspired," and ignore it when you're not. This skill will come in useful when writing a billion pages about [insert political science topic].

Judging by OP's posting style, I believe notcoazhrjc would be the first to encourage us to question the origin of their commentary.

Negatory.

Any UCLA admits receive further communication, e.g. regarding funding?

My immediate response to your query is this: English clearly is not your first language, and that no doubt comes across to adcoms. Political Science -- as with most Social Science -- is often thought of as a solely quantitative field. On this count, your GRE is superb and much, much higher than mine. But (and a big but), Political Scientists count for little unless they are able to communicate their numerical findings in a clear, concise, and easily understood manner (read: qualitative). Politics is a discipline built upon communication, and from just your most recent post, I would say that particular attention to your written manner, style, diction and grammar would benefit you greatly if the goal is advanced research at the highest levels of the discipline. This is by no means meant to discourage, only to provide an honest appraisal.

wb3060 and y92 -- thank you so much for your comments. At this point I plan to visit both. They are in a similar geographic area (at least the same coast) and both appeal in distinct ways. I certainly have a strong preference at this point for the higher ranked program, but I completely understand the idea of "greener on the other side" being a constant nag. Felt it in undergrad, and to an extent at my current master's program. reasonablepie - This might have been the most discerning comment I've seen on grad cafe for a long time. "I think a lot of grad student types have a tendency to want to do absolutely everything even when it hurts us, and sometimes it's okay to not do something." I will be weighing the funding, visitation costs/stipends provided, as well as correspondence with current students that I plan to reach out to. When I have a fuller picture of each program, I'll consider going to one or both at that point. All, thanks for making this process that much more manageable.

Thanks for the thoughts, especially regarding "making a good impression" versus "trying overly hard to make a false impression." I have a slightly different question, however you clearly have insight and I'd be curious as to your thoughts. I've received an offer from a top 10, and a top 15- 25. Both programs appeal to me based on location and general/specific fit. Clearly a top 10, is, well, the more "logical choice" at this juncture. I also think the top 10 offers the more ideal location and range of faculty specialties and areas of research focus. Would it still make sense to visit the rank 20-ish, or just the top 10 choice? tl;dr: is this just a silly question to ask?

Glad that I'm not alone in feeling simultaneously ecstatic and anticlimactic re: the UCLA email's lack of numbers (relating to, you know, how I will survive for 5 years)

Also claiming :)!!!

I have not, hopefully by COB. Waiting on that before replying about the visitation weekend.

Congrats all! Looking at IR.

Received an acceptance from UC Davis, notified via email. My first notification of any sort, so quite pleased. With all the focus on OSU -- for which I am still pending -- it was a pleasant surprise to hear from Davis "out of the blue," so to speak.

Although an unnecessarily third agreement, I have stated elsewhere that I usually interpret "optional essay" as a common sense "should do it" extra. If they don't read it, no problem. If they do, it's a bonus insight into what makes you unique. Also, if you've already written a version, that makes it a no-brainer.

Narrowed my spread down to 10; 4 in the top 10, 4 in 10-20, and 2 in 25-30. Anywhere between 7 to 15 seems reasonable depending on your time, money, and motivation. Aside from rank and fit, my main considerations were location and (perceived) department culture. Also, a desire not to receive just any offer, but rather a genuinely appealing and promising one. I've tried to approach it as a job hunt rather than a dream pursuit. I've actually enjoyed the process and feel excited about seeing how I measure up, but I'm also trying to be realistic about, say, a <10% admit rate, a 60% attrition rate,* tenure job availability, or prospects for decent post-doc appointments. * Statistics have not been verified. They do however seem on-point given late-night googling and obsessive-compulsive scrutinization of department websites.

Several programs either require a diversity statement or strongly recommend it. Alternatively, some ask for a Personal History vs Statement of Purpose, which likely amounts to them wanting to know similar, perhaps less-relevant-but-still-useful information. I interpreted even the "optional" descriptor as a "probably should do it." Any extra opportunity to showcase strengths and potential seems like a no-brainer. I also interpreted what diversity means rather broadly. As in, I don't think lacking "check-which-box" ethnic status, or having faced negligent socioeconomic adversity, necessarily discounts an applicant's own brand of diversity. (Just as having faced structural adversity should not discount historically underrepresented applicants' potential.) TL;DR: I used it as a chance to be slightly creative, e.g. to demonstrate certain unique experiences like international travel or professional experience that make me more multi-dimensional, albeit not in the conventional sense of "diverse."