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."

It seems that a solo venture would be preferable from the adcom perspective for the aforementioned reasons. For what it's worth, from what I have gleaned, it seems likely many/most -- though not necessarily the type of applicant who posts on these forums -- will similarly be submitting a "regular" paper for their sample.

I'm finishing up my IR policy-oriented MA -- not quite an MPP but still considered a professional rather than academic degree -- and currently applying to Political Science PhD programs. Although you can certainly sell it in your SOP/LOR as a logical shift to not finish it, I'd argue for both personal and CV reasons, I'm in the camp that it can only help you to finish a degree. Also: In my case, I come from the humanities as an undergrad and like that my current program shows quantitative and analytical skills now shown through my BA.

I have indeed decided on MSFS -- best of all worlds in my book. (Still don't know what a "Hoya" is though.) A lot of people will be deciding in the next week so you should hear back soon, at least? Are you looking anywhere else? Best of luck!

For what it's worth to anyone who couldn't make the Fletcher/SAIS/MSFS open houses, here's a brief write-up of my entirely subjective and anecdotal observations. Fletcher: Faculty and alumni stressed the community aspect; lots of overt and enthusiastic school pride. There was an excellent Dean's discussion with Congresswoman Jane Harmon. The Security Studies program seems to be a strong suit of the program, especially with the new Dean, who is the former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO. The biggest negative aspect of Fletcher for me isn't necessarily the location (suburbs of Boston), but rather the campus-centric nature of the program and student body. Many of the Open House attendees were young professionals from D.C., who specifically stated the remote, "collegiate" feel of Fletcher to be a serious draw. In contrast, for people who are looking for a big career and/or geographic switch, I don't know if this is necessarily a positive. SAIS: The flashiest and best-marketed of the three East Coast open houses I attended. Very well put together, a strong student body support for the Open House (e.g. lots of students wearing SAIS's official blue t-shirt). Full disclaimer: it happened to be a gorgeous day, which put a positive spin on the urban Dupont campus, which I believe is spread around three buildings, about a block, block 1/2 from one another. To help deter the "massive" feel of the open house (there must have been upwards of 400 people, in contrast to Fletcher which seemed to be around 150~), SAIS offered lots of lunch programs with the individual concentrations, e.g. Security Studies or China Studies people ate together, and spoke to current students and faculty in a more informal setting. Fletcher did this as well, to an extent, but I think SAIS did it more effectively -- everyone just seemed a little more "upbeat," or energetic. Biggest negative is also its biggest positive for many people: incredibly structured curriculum, starting with the Econ and Quant requirements, but also including other components, like a capstone project or thesis paper. A clear positive, for me at least, was the location; great area, good vibes from the student body, and in general a very approachable urban school. (Unlike, IMO for example, Columbia.) MSFS: My whirlwind week of visits culminated at Georgetown. It's hard to discuss MSFS without comparing it to the prior two schools. It has some of the campus vibes of Fletcher, as well as the individualized feeling -- it only as ~100 entering students. It's also within a stone's throw of D.C. proper, although you have to take a bus to get to the Metro. (A big con.) An immediate aspect that set MSFS apart was we all went around introducing ourselves, to the entire visiting group. This process simultaneously illustrated both the caliber of admitted student and the potential friendships/relationships/networks that could be formed. I met a lot of interesting and intelligent (and friendly!) people at Fletcher and SAIS, but I felt like a got a glimpse of the entire (potential) MSFS '16 class in a relatively short space of time. MSFS didn't have a flashy "Dean's conversation" like SAIS/Fletcher. Their "guest star" was a recent MSFS alum, who although incredibly accomplished in her own right, isn't exactly a political-celebrity by any measure. In conclusion: Clearly each of the programs offers a strong faculty and curriculum, as well as alumni network. It seemed like Fletcher worked really hard to set itself apart as unique and flexible; SAIS sold itself through glitz and glamour; MSFS downplayed its strengths and at least seemed to offer a more frank discussion of its student support and experiences. As you can probably tell, I was most impressed by MSFS. I am set on going to a DC school, which in part helps cancel out Fletcher. I also feel like MSFS can be almost as flexible, course selection-wise, as Fletcher, yet offer a more intimate academic/professional training environment (e.g. classes capped at 16, mostly taught by working professionals). I really liked what SAIS showed, but I think MSFS provides the best of both worlds: immediate access to D.C. industry, and a rigorous academic program at a prestigious campus.

My offer of funding was also in my spam folder. Thanks to jct329 for pointing that out. Received full ride + generous stipend. IR/PS just made my decision process that much more difficult.

I'll give it a go even though I'm also just in the decision-making stage. I will say it's interesting how little attention MSFS gets on these boards. Then again its class size is 1/2 that of Fletcher MALD, and only a 1/4 the size of SAIS, so clearly there are less people in the program, in the first place, to talk about it. I know people at all of the programs except MSFS, so unfortunately I have heard great/mixed things about all the top programs BUT Georgetown. [Which lends it a bit of mystique, I suppose.] Seems to be a lot of similarities on the surface between Fletcher and MSFS. Both are small programs housed within a larger graduate & undergraduate campus. They both appear to be less quantitatively-demanding than SAIS and SIPA, which could be a Pro or Con depending. Quality of academics is comparable, with each school having globally-renown faculty and a diverse student body (~30-40% international student body). Each has high placement rates in the public and non-profit sectors, especially compared to SAIS. A seemingly big difference is in their curriculum. Fletcher makes a big to-do about the program's flexibility. MSFS only offers 4 concentrations, so to speak, but if you look at the courses offered and "sub-concentrations," there is a LOT of variety there; it just won't be categorized as specifically as it would be at Fletcher. Then there's the many subjective Pros & Cons: Location is a big one: I'm thrilled at the prospect of living in DC for the culture as much for the networking potential, whereas nothing about moving to the Boston suburbs excites me. Like I said, it's all subjective, unless we're talking Government internships during the semester (need to be in DC), for example, or taking classes at Harvard (need to be in Boston). Name and prestige factor? Depending whom you ask, Georgetown SFS is the top school for IR in the world. The entering class size is ~90, and if these boards are any indication (I'm not saying they are!), it's much more selective than Fletcher, and a little more selective than SAIS. The Georgetown name is world-famous and recognizable to the lay person; Fletcher/Tufts is not. Within the IR world however, both names are very well respected and boast excellent alumni networks. A "sense of community" seems to be a particularly tricky one to address. That seems to be Fletcher's biggest soundbite, on the boards and elsewhere. If there are any MSFS people around, I'd love to hear their thoughts on this, considering the program is one of the smallest (therefore suggesting individual/community focus ...) ?

Check your portal -- decisions are live! Excited to be accepted, no info on funding provided however.

Accepted to the DC campus! I seem to be the only non-IDEVer around... No word on funding yet either.

May I ask how you heard? Email/snail mail/online portal?

I received notice of admission to the MGPS program last night, though my status had changed much earlier in the day. Also no information of merit aid.