NYCBluenose

No Duke, or UNC, or Northwestern. I'll have a double of whatever you're having, SwitchInTime

In a similar vein, I'm really confused about George Washington. I got officially waitlisted, but on the results page, they say there is an open house where 35 are invited, 25-30 will be given offers, and the rest will be waitlisted. So I guess that means I'm on the waitlist for the waitlist (behind whoever gets invited but not given an offer initially)? Waitlist.Waitlist.

Same! Hope there's room for two of us

Congratulations! You're going to have a tough time choosing between so many great departments!

congrats on FSU, fakeusername! Just goes to show that you only need one, and it changes everything! On a different note, anyone claiming the UNC Chapel Hill admit?

According to Northwestern's website, they don't send out all their acceptances at the same time. So maybe there's some hope for us yet.

Ya Berkeley hurts... was a great fit as well (I could have seen myself happily working with at least 4 or 5 different profs). But hey, its an amazing program and I'm sure they got a LOT of strong applications. For people claiming Northwestern admits, could you tell us what subfield you're in? Really hoping they aren't done yet.

Woah, wasn't expecting Northwestern for another few weeks! Congrats, ZS!

Congrats Bubandis!! Great news, and it must be a huge relief!

congrats OSU acceptees! Great program!

those scores are obviously all very strong (similar profile to most of the people they'll probably admit), but won't get you in on their own. Your statement of purpose and fit with the department will be the deciding factor

Thanks Robes! I don't know if this is real or not (looking at past years on the results page, they seem to have accepted students directly via email, rather than following an open house), but it could be. I guess we'll find out more in the coming days

Hi Robes, Would you mind clarifying about your info on GWU? Did you call them? I'm applying there as well, and would be curious to hear. Thanks!!

Chin up AuldReekie! I'm sorry for the Emory news, but we've got a long way left to go! Best of luck with the rest of your apps!

Ya I know the job market in the UK isn't the best. But there were just a few potential advisors there that seemed close enough to my interests that it was worth a try. It's also a bit of an insurance policy, as I'm worried my profile be a bit too qualitative for U.S programs.

Finally finished all 11 apps to U.S programs. Now for two, much much longer ones (basically full research proposals) for British and French programs

Thanks for that, TheGnome! I remember you from last year. Where did you end up, if you don't mind me asking?

No publications, coming out of a year of non-academic work and an MA degree. That said, ARealDowner, I get the impression that the results page suffers from a bit of selection bias. For instance, if you look at accepted students who reported GRE scores, they are almost uniformly high to extremely high. I don't think I saw a single non-theorist with a quant score below 164. Now there's no question that many accepted students will have scores like 164/168, but certainly not all of them. For example, UCSD gives last years average test scores for admitted students as 164/160/5.0. Maybe the same process is at work with publications (or maybe I'm just deluding myself )

I know that psych is also very quantitative; I mentioned it to make the point that political science needs to learn from multiple related disciplines. When rational choice dominated the field, it was because poli sci looked almost exclusively to economics for inspiration (because their quantitative methods made them seem so scientific and credible). It's a huge advance that political scientists (and behavioral economists, for that matter) have since read some psychology literature; woops, the central tenants of rational choice are empirically massively problematic. I think the field could also learn valuable lessons from history and both quant and non-quant sociology. For that matter, I have nothing against economics either. But they made a historical mistake when they started pushing out qualitative and empirically-minded people, and ended up with dominant theories based on beautiful parsimonious models which didn't correspond even slightly to reality. Political science shouldn't repeat that mistake.

Just my two cents, but I think methodological attitudes like Cooperstreets' are really frustrating. You don't realize it, but the question 'why do you want to do a PhD in political science if you don't like math' is a deeply closed-minded and destructive one. I would never question that quantitative-oriented research is completely legitimate in political science. It is frustrating that many quant people are completely unable to return this respect. Time-series analysis and regression discontinuity designs are absolutely political science, but they are no more political science than process tracing or comparative historical case studies. Quant does not hold the monopoly on legitimate research. You mention APSR, and you're right: as a description of U.S political science as it is today, there is a heavy quant lean. But this is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If we tell incoming students that they have no value if they don't want to do massive quant methods and game theory sequences, then the discipline will lose its pluralism, a loss for all of us. I'd go further and say that there is a serious danger for any social science in falling in love with mathematical rigour to the exclusion of considerations brought forward by other disciplines like sociology, history, or psych (one that we actually seem to be doing a decent job of integrating). Look at how badly economics lost its way in the run up to the '08 crisis. Anyway, for the original poster, my advice would be to take an MA first. Those low marks will hurt, but you could make up that ground by ace-ing an MA degree. And it is sadly true that some programs will count you out for not having a strong math background; look for ones that have a more qualitative/heterodox profile, and especially look outside of the U.S, where there is much greater tolerance of qualitative approaches.

I wanted to steal a topic from Sociology, which they stole from who-knows-who: "As the new application cycle revs up, I find myself wondering how all of us who went through this last year are doing. Unfortunately, I find myself out of touch with some people that I kept up with at this time last year. Whether you're in a semester or quarter system, you've either already gone through midterms or are about to enter into midterm season. How are things going? Is your program everything you hoped and dreamed so far? Have you changed or kept your original research questions?" Figured it'd be nice to catch up, and might provide some light at the end of the tunnel for those of us in the middle of application season.

Applying to 14, after making the mistake of only applying to 7 last cycle. I know it's a little late to be giving this advice, but if anyone is hesitating about a few programs, go ahead and apply to as many feasible programs as you can. These cohorts are small and shrinking, and your chances will be better that way.

Me too. Terrifying! The first one's the hardest, though.

I wouldn't worry about it. At least at Sciences Po, lack of work experience definitely won't kill your app. To be honest, I doubt it would at American programs either (altho I've only applied to American PhDs, not terminal MAs). Almost everywhere there's a mix of people with work experience and those coming straight from undergrad. They mostly just want to see that you have a strong academic background. a clear idea of your academic interests and how they figure into your career plans.

It's a bit of a mix. Many of the French students are right out of undergrad because at Sci-Po, the bachelor and masters are really viewed as different stages of the same thing (almost nobody stops after their bachelor). That said, most of the international students had a year or two of work experience, if not more.