packrat
-
Posts
90 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Reputation Activity
-
packrat got a reaction from ani11 in Faculty perspectives
Thank you so much for your response. I'd rather have candid feedback than no feedback, so will keep your points in mind.
Thanks also for your incredible and generous help on these forums. I think I can speak for all in saying that it's truly appreciated, and I will do my absolute best to pay it forward to other applicants in future years.
-
packrat got a reaction from smallworld in Think Tanks
I certainly wouldn't. Most of the top-tier think tanks in Washington require a Ph.D. for full research positions. And many of the top political appointees (especially in IR) are coming from those think tanks and have PhDs. Don't do a MPP unless you want to be a bureaucrat.
To answer the OP, I think it's somewhat taboo to admit, which is why nobody here is going to speak up. But on one of my visits to a T-5 program last week, this notion was openly discussed and there was a sense that working at a think tank would put your PhD to good use.
Not sure what else you're looking for in an answer here.
-
packrat got a reaction from TheGnome in Think Tanks
I certainly wouldn't. Most of the top-tier think tanks in Washington require a Ph.D. for full research positions. And many of the top political appointees (especially in IR) are coming from those think tanks and have PhDs. Don't do a MPP unless you want to be a bureaucrat.
To answer the OP, I think it's somewhat taboo to admit, which is why nobody here is going to speak up. But on one of my visits to a T-5 program last week, this notion was openly discussed and there was a sense that working at a think tank would put your PhD to good use.
Not sure what else you're looking for in an answer here.
-
packrat got a reaction from astreaux in Think Tanks
I certainly wouldn't. Most of the top-tier think tanks in Washington require a Ph.D. for full research positions. And many of the top political appointees (especially in IR) are coming from those think tanks and have PhDs. Don't do a MPP unless you want to be a bureaucrat.
To answer the OP, I think it's somewhat taboo to admit, which is why nobody here is going to speak up. But on one of my visits to a T-5 program last week, this notion was openly discussed and there was a sense that working at a think tank would put your PhD to good use.
Not sure what else you're looking for in an answer here.
-
packrat got a reaction from ajaxp91 in Think Tanks
I certainly wouldn't. Most of the top-tier think tanks in Washington require a Ph.D. for full research positions. And many of the top political appointees (especially in IR) are coming from those think tanks and have PhDs. Don't do a MPP unless you want to be a bureaucrat.
To answer the OP, I think it's somewhat taboo to admit, which is why nobody here is going to speak up. But on one of my visits to a T-5 program last week, this notion was openly discussed and there was a sense that working at a think tank would put your PhD to good use.
Not sure what else you're looking for in an answer here.
-
packrat got a reaction from cooperstreet in GPA and PhD admissions
Take a year or two off after you graduate and get some real research experience. Don't apply for a PhD unless you are absolutely certain that you LOVE research. Which is not the same as federal or NGO employment.
-
packrat reacted to sylark in Welcome to the 2013-2014 Cycle
I saw "Texas A&M" in my new unread email this afternoon, and thought, dread. I know this program has yet to send out rejections, so I knew it was the day of reckoning.
Well, I was wrong, it was an acceptance letter. I just now read it another time just to be sure. I literally can't believe this. I'm not even happy or excited yet, I am just in disbelief since this was my top dream program, and I never thought I had a chance. (Okay, it's starting to sink it, and thus, the happiness and excitement!)
Looking forward to meeting everyone else who is A&M-bound next Fall!
-
packrat got a reaction from Poli92 in Welcome to the 2013-2014 Cycle
At my undergrad (a T-3 public university), the average GPA was 3.2. At one of our peer public institutions it is a 3.1 I think.
In hindsight I wish I'd had my LOR writers stress that since I know a lot of people come from schools with borderline absurd grade inflation.
-
packrat reacted to cjalpha in Profiles and Results, SOPs, and Advice (Fall 2014)
PROFILE:
Type of Undergrad Institution: HYPSC
Major(s)/Minor(s): Engineering major with minors in applied mathematics, computer science, and statistics.
Undergrad GPA: 3.90
Type of Grad: NA
Grad GPA: NA
GRE: 170 V, 168 Q, 6 W
Any Special Courses: I took the graduate methods sequence and one substantive graduate course in American.
Letters of Recommendation: One from a very good methodologist who I've been working with for three years, another from the political science department chair with whom I've been working for a year, and the third from my thesis adviser in my home department.
Research Experience: 3 year RA with aforementioned methodologist (with an R library to show for it), 1 year RA with a substantive professor constructing a data set and doing database programming, and my senior thesis in statistical learning.
Teaching Experience: None that I mentioned on any of my applications.
Subfield/Research Interests: Quantitative methods
Other: I spent my summers working as a data scientist in major tech companies.
RESULTS:
Acceptances($$ or no $$): Berkeley ($$$), Princeton ($$$), Michigan ($$), Stanford GSB ($$$), Stanford ($$), MIT ($$), Columbia ($$), Harvard ($$), Chicago Harris ($$)
Waitlists: None
Rejections: None
Pending: None
Going to: Undecided
LESSONS LEARNED:
1. Jumping fields is not so bad.
This one applies especially to future methods people. I had not taken any substantive courses in political science before I applied (even now, I've only taken one), and was legitimately worried that the admissions committees would refer my application to the statistics department. I took every possible opportunity in my application to show that I do read and think a lot about political science in my down time and that I am interested in statistical models because of how we can use them to learn about the political world, rather than for their own sake. That seems to have done the trick; one professor specifically mentioned that he could tell I cared about what is at stake in political science research.
2. Find a mentor.
This one applies more to the younger people. I was extremely lucky that my adviser took me under his wing while I was a sophomore. The work I did with him made me want to become a political scientist in the first place and it's impossible to overstate how much I've gotten out of this relationship - he has helped advise me on which courses might be interesting, introduced me to graduate students and the work that they do, and passed down many of the secrets tricks and intuitions of statistics which cannot be found in papers or textbooks. His presence definitely loomed large with the admissions committees as well; every person I have talked to has mentioned how influential it was to have someone they admired vouch for me.
3. Market forces make a difference.
There is a clear shortage of methodologists at the job market level, and I think this has trickled down to graduate admissions. Many professors I have talked to have specifically mentioned how difficult it is to find graduate students who are likely to choose methods as their primary subfield.
SOP: I'm happy to share via PM.
-
packrat reacted to (Political)ScienceRules in Welcome to the 2013-2014 Cycle
Happy to report that I've been offered a tenure-track position in my parents' basement!
-
packrat reacted to aecp in Welcome to the 2013-2014 Cycle
Carzola!
Remember the above from three weeks ago. It feels so good to tell you; "I told you so"! I am VERY happy for you! Congratulations!
Never believe the "8ball"! Lesson learned, I hope!
SUPER DELIGHTED FOR YOU!!!! Wishing you much success!
-
packrat reacted to Ella Simmons in Questions for Current T20 Students
I am definitely giving Michigan full consideration and am going to the flyout, but it seemed to have the lowest concentration of POIs for me--maybe I need to look at the faculty again. Perhaps when I visit we can have a lively chat about the program!
And, I will say, this is exactly the kind of thing that I would hope to get out of this thread and forum--information I hadn't considered, lists of professors I somehow missed. Thanks very much for your reply!
-
packrat reacted to RWBG in Questions for Current T20 Students
I mean, off the top of my head, amongst faculty you have Arthur Lupia, Don Kinder, Ted Brader, Nick Valentino, etc. W. Russel Neuman's also at Michigan, in a different department. That group has trained so many of the American political psychology types - also off the top of my head, Jamie Druckman, Adam Berinsky, Cindy Kam, Yanna Krupnikov. We also just placed a political psychology type at UNC this year. Lots of research areas I could see the argument for Yale or Berkeley over Michigan, but I can't see it for political psychology/American (although I am, admittedly, in a very different subfield).
-
packrat got a reaction from mooneyed in Welcome to the 2013-2014 Cycle
At my undergrad (a T-3 public university), the average GPA was 3.2. At one of our peer public institutions it is a 3.1 I think.
In hindsight I wish I'd had my LOR writers stress that since I know a lot of people come from schools with borderline absurd grade inflation.
-
packrat got a reaction from cane14 in Welcome to the 2013-2014 Cycle
Just found this gem on the results board:
MIT -- rejection
"Strange: Applied to Political Science Department, rejected from Strip Club Department via massive xxx.mit.edu blast email."
+1 for humor
-
packrat got a reaction from chaetzli in Range of funding for PoliSci Programs
LOL it is ridiculous how much lower cost of living is in New Haven from where I am now. Sweet Jesus. Welcome to inequality in America.
I am particularly glad the cost of T-Bone steak is going down. God forbid it doesn't.
-
packrat reacted to goingtogeorgia in Soliciting application feedback
Thanks for the advice, packrat, and congrats on the admit! I think surprise admits are probably the very best kind.
Cupofnimbus, sorry to hear the feedback wasn't substantive. Did she simply acknowledge receipt of your email, or say it was a competitive year, etc.?
For those others thinking about asking for feedback, I just noticed that Bear had posted about this from a faculty perspective. Definitely worth a read:
-
packrat got a reaction from Orlien in Welcome to the 2013-2014 Cycle
Last week I got three rejections within an hour, all while at dinner with my parents.
It. Was. Rough.
-
packrat reacted to Orlien in Welcome to the 2013-2014 Cycle
Sorry about your cycle Good luck!
Also, I'd recommend Verzani's book, "Using R for Introductory Statistics". Quant and R go together like PB&J
-
packrat got a reaction from BigTenPoliSci in Discussion thread on placement
I don't know what anecdotal evidence you are working with here, but I've spent the past 7 years around a top-3 program and a top-10 program, and I can tell you that PhD students at both were working their a**es off. I've never heard any PhD student at a T-5 say they aren't working hard.
FWIW, I spoke to my POI at a T-3 yesterday, and she commented that in her opinion, outside of Stanford, there is not a big difference in job placement for any of the T-15 schools (at least in IR; I can't speak for other subfields). She said Stanford is really the only place that is consistently getting its graduates into reputable departments (though by looking here, you'll see that even at Stanford, they're scattered everywhere: http://politicalscience.stanford.edu/graduate-program/prospective-students/placement-record). She noted that especially within the top-5, besides Stanford it is a complete tossup vis-a-vis placement, with many factors coming into play that you cannot control as a prospective student (for example, what faculty will still be there 5 years later).
I was a little surprised by that, as I'd always heard Stanford, Harvard and Princeton named as the "must attends." She really didn't seem to think so, even as a Princeton faculty member.
Again, can't speak for other subfields, but I think the general consensus is that for the most part, the job market is out-of-your control and even if you're at Stanford, you need to be producing great research under committed faculty to even have a shot.
-
packrat got a reaction from IR IR IR PhD in Welcome to the 2013-2014 Cycle
Last week I got three rejections within an hour, all while at dinner with my parents.
It. Was. Rough.
-
packrat reacted to rchlm_618 in Welcome to the 2013-2014 Cycle
First acceptance with money! I'm feeling approximately a thousand percent better right about now.
-
packrat got a reaction from ajaxp91 in Discussion thread on placement
I don't know what anecdotal evidence you are working with here, but I've spent the past 7 years around a top-3 program and a top-10 program, and I can tell you that PhD students at both were working their a**es off. I've never heard any PhD student at a T-5 say they aren't working hard.
FWIW, I spoke to my POI at a T-3 yesterday, and she commented that in her opinion, outside of Stanford, there is not a big difference in job placement for any of the T-15 schools (at least in IR; I can't speak for other subfields). She said Stanford is really the only place that is consistently getting its graduates into reputable departments (though by looking here, you'll see that even at Stanford, they're scattered everywhere: http://politicalscience.stanford.edu/graduate-program/prospective-students/placement-record). She noted that especially within the top-5, besides Stanford it is a complete tossup vis-a-vis placement, with many factors coming into play that you cannot control as a prospective student (for example, what faculty will still be there 5 years later).
I was a little surprised by that, as I'd always heard Stanford, Harvard and Princeton named as the "must attends." She really didn't seem to think so, even as a Princeton faculty member.
Again, can't speak for other subfields, but I think the general consensus is that for the most part, the job market is out-of-your control and even if you're at Stanford, you need to be producing great research under committed faculty to even have a shot.
-
packrat got a reaction from cane14 in Welcome to the 2013-2014 Cycle
One of my gradcafe favorites.
Response to MIT rejection on the results page:
Everything about applying here was bizarre.
+1
-
packrat got a reaction from Poli92 in Welcome to the 2013-2014 Cycle
Well.
Happy to announce that, as someone on here mentioned earlier, hope dies last.
1st acceptance of the cycle. To Yale. Just sent up a prayer for everyone still waiting for good news.
Specifics: IR subfield. Received an email from Susan Hyde. I don't remember mentioning her in my SOP (though I've since changed computers so don't have it easily accessible to check!). My guess is that she's sending notifications out for all in the IR subfield.