victorydance

I am finished my applications, so if anyone wants to PM to see my SOP they can. I had trouble fitting everything into the 500 word limit. I found the American masters SOP a lot easier because they allowed longer ones. I basically had to cut out most of my research experience and just focus on my interests.

I have used duolingo. It's fine for a supplementary resource, but nothing more. You have to remember that learning a language needs to come from a number of sources, not just one type. Learning a language almost solely based on translating text is a fool's errand. Like I said, fine as a supplementary resource for a beginner. But really has no value beyond that.

Do you have any research experience?

The program's website.

Also, I forgot to add: Take a few hours and work your way around the linguistics portal on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Linguistics Learning a language is also about understanding how languages work. For example, before you start studying verbs in another language, you should learn how verbs work and their different types: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verb I mean, in English we don't use inflected verbs, but in Latin-based languages, they are everything: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflection

First of all, it doesn't matter if you are 6 or 100, learning a language isn't really dependent on age but rather how much work you put into it. Sure, growing up in an environment where you are exposed to multiple languages is definitely advantageous, however that is due to environment. Something I will get to later... Secondly, focus on one language at a time. Trying to learn multiple languages isn't efficient and what will probably happen is you will end up pitiful in multiple languages and probably forget most of what you learnt anyways. Now.... Use multiple sources. Yes, duolingo is fine for basic and supplemental, but it won't be effective for much more than that. Same goes for Rosetta Stone. You need to start reading in your target language, start with children's books, then move to news articles, then work your way to novels or other more complex texts. Start watching movies in targeted language, start with subtitles then move to no subtitles (you can also watch movies in English with other language subtitles). You also need to purchase or pirate a good grammar book as a reference guide. Does your university offer language courses? Take them? Is it possible to do a summer in a foreign country with your target language? Do it. Three avenues for learning languages, and harnessing all three is the best way to learn them: immersion (can be manufactured at home - but hard to do, better to spend extended periods of time in another country) + informal (independent studying) + formal (classroom or 1 on 1 formal language study). About informal studying: Depends on the language really (especially if in a different alphabet like Mandarin or Russian), if in a Latin alphabet, much easier to learn because the first step is to understand the alphabet. Second, and probably most important, step is to learn verbs + their conjugations. Verbs are like the skeletons of all languages, if you learn how to manipulate verbs, you can make sentences, if you don't know how, you can only say phrases which is useless. Start with basic verbs. For example, if studying Spanish you want to start with verbs like poder, comer, ir, tener, estar, ser, ect. First learn present tense verbs (yo, tu, el, nosotros, ellos), then move to future + past tense. After you have started to get these down, then you can move to infinitive + gerund + reflexive, ect. Then move on to other verbs (irregular verbs for example). Once you start learning a lot of verbs and how to manipulate them, then you can focus on building your vocabulary. One way of doing this is to download Anki, put in a crap load of words, then use them as flashcards. Also, if you are reading + watching media in your language, you should be picking up vocabulary + look up words you don't understand. Something else...you should work on everything, that means writing + comprehension + reading + speaking. It's all relative, when you are practising one, you are learning the other. Since you are looking for research proficiency, reading should be priority. However, if you can't speak or comprehend a language, then you simply don't know it. Sources: - Buy or pirate a good grammar book. - Download a reading pack off of the internet (PM if you don't know how to do this for free). - Duolingo or Rosetta Stone. - There are various websites available where you get skype/talk with people in their native language. - Find someone you know who speaks the language you want to learn and talk them often on facebook in that language. - Switch googlenews to target language and read a couple of articles a day. - Find a basic (and more intermediate) workbook from your library and do the questions. - See if your university has informal language immersion get togethers and attend them. - Utilize formal classes. - Try to spend a summer in a foreign country. You must be diligent if you actually want to learn a language, good luck.

What? Pointing out suggestions that are pretty much a waste of time isn't constructive?

The vast majority of relationships don't make it past a year. So not getting involved in one because you may move in X multiple years is not really very good reasoning. Remember also, having stable relationships is a skill in itself. If you spend most of your life never being in a relationship, what happens when you actually meet someone you do want to be involved with and have no relationship skills whatsoever? You will probably fail miserably. Just go out there with an open mind. If something happens, then it happens. If it doesn't work out, it doesn't work out.

UBC/U of T/McGill, political science.

What about Vanderbilt? Don't they have a good Spanish and Portuguese literature program?

Yes.

Maybe marginally, but I don't think that much. Depends on your discipline; mine doesn't really care about the AW, many don't. Although that being said, my quant wasn't superb and I am happy that I got the 6.0; I have strong verbal + writing scores so it sure doesn't hurt anyways. Honestly though, if you aren't breaking 160 on either quant or verbal, I would focus on those. There is severe diminishing returns to practising the AW; you just need to know what they want and the general structure/type of questions they ask. It's not something you can really improve much by practising it a lot and it is time consuming to do so.

Well, I wasn't actually talking about fellowships. Most schools award fellowships on GRE + GPA, which is fine. But at the end of the day, the most important thing is admittance into a program. Getting funding once you are in a grad program is actually easier than a lot of people make it out to be. Secondly, if you are only applying to mostly top programs, every student that is admitted gets partial-full funding anyways.

I just recently got a 6.0 on my writing section. Although I agree somewhat with julliet, I don't agree fully. This section isn't about writing, not sure why people would assume that just because it has essays. It's a measure of one's ability to quickly deconstruct a position or argument, make their own position, and back that position up logically. I don't really see how this exercise in any way goes against academic writing; it's just insanely simplified. Yes, it is a standard 5 paragraph essay, but the simple fact is the more you write = the better your score. It's been proven to be highly correlated with length and your score. So I would actually aim for approximately 7 paragraphs, depending on the question asked. You should be able to do at least 4 strong positive points. Then you can throw in a few counter points but mention how they don't really change the argument, in one paragraph + an intro and conclusion. A few techniques that make a big difference: 1) As mentioned before, length matters. 2) Try to throw in at least a couple GRE words that you have been studying. But of course only if they make sense to the context used. 3) Do a simple and quick edit for grammar and spelling at the end. No spelling or grammar mistakes = higher score. 4) Write analytically, not beautifully. The graders don't care if you are an English bravado or not; they only care about your main argument, and how your arguments tie to that argument. This is especially true for the analyze the argument section. Make sure everything you are writing ties back to your main thesis. 5) Make a clear, but not too strongly sided thesis in the introduction. 6) Use a couple real world examples, even if they don't fit perfectly. 7) At the beginning, read the question carefully, and make a list of pros and cons quickly. I think it's better just to drive straight into a couple of the middle paragraphs, then write the intro but to each their own. Follow those basic steps and you should get at least a 5 if English is your first language.

I have a 15.6', would never get anything smaller than that.

I would recommend you look for programs that are good for Southeast Asian studies instead of focusing on programs that have a focus on Myanmar. The reason is that Myanmar is a bit of a obscure country that not that many people heavily research. Confining your choices to those programs is kind of depleting your pool. Also, you may want to consider doing programs such as a MA in Southeast Asian Studies as a launchpad for learning Burmese and getting methodology requirements towards a research program. Many people effectively use these types of programs to launch into Ph.D. programs in political science.

Keep in mind there is some level of bias. Those with higher scores are more likely to report what they got on the GRE, while those with lower scores are not. I have also seen a level of sensationalism, not only here, but on other similar websites and forums regarding grad admissions, to overstate the qualifications you need to get into certain programs. This could stem from a number of sources: people got denied at places and tried to aid that disappointment by inflating the standards of these places, people want to make it seem like their applications are better than they actually are, people want to inflate their abilities because they got into a prestigious institution, people want deter others from applying to certain schools they are applying to, ect. A fairly good micro-example of this phenomenon, or somewhat related anyways, is that on this forum rarely if ever do people say they have average or bad letters of recommendation. It is almost always "my letters are strong or stellar" or something similar. Why? Because there is no actual concrete way of identifying this because there is no score to reference or GPA, or even the ability to post your SOP. So in other words, when people have the chance, they often inflate how good or how competitive something they are involved in is. ---------- That being said, your scores are a little on the low side. I would retake next summer or whenever you graduate to bump them up. But I will say this...too many people on this board spend too much time worrying about if they can get in to X or Y school, and not enough time actually applying there. At the end of the day you make the best application you possibly can and you see what happens. The worst case scenario is you don't get accepted, but life goes on.

"It’s my understanding that a CV “is a fairly detailed overview of your life’s accomplishments, especially those most relevant to the realm of academia” Correction: "A CV is a overview of your accomplishments that are only relevant to the realm of academia."

I think the problem, and I know many committees completely understand this, is there is diminishing effects of high scores on GRE after a certain point. There have been studies that have shown that GRE quant does actually correlate with grad student success, but only up to a certain point. Basically, as soon as you hit 163+ there is really no difference between two scores. Getting one or two extra questions out of 40 questions on a standardized test means nothing and committees are full aware of this. That being said, there is also the other side of the coin: bad GRE scores are enough to take you out of contention alone. I would say that anything under 158+ on either section is not good. That seems to be the cutoff (around the 80 percentile) that you need to hit before you are safe from being cut by your GRE alone. But after that, I would think they would weigh the more substantive portions of your profile when deciding the last few spots of a cohort. There is just so much more information in your SOP, LORs, and writing sample to make decisions on. ----- I also think a writing sample is a fairly standardized way of comparing applicants. There really aren't any inherent advantages/disadvantages to certain people with this portion of the application.

Dude, a 3.5+ isn't even that bad of a GPA. Especially considering you are just applying for MAs. I really wouldn't worry about it so much. I have a similar GPA and am only applying to top 20 US Ph.D. programs and a few top MA programs.

That's a pretty solid score. And the fact that you're applying to theory programs makes your quant score actually fairly good as opposed to average for the calibre of schools you are applying to. I wouldn't really bother to be honest.

I'd like to see the correlation between income and voting. Have only really seen the ages and geographic breakdown so far.

I wouldn't include the 4th one. If you had 4 who you did research with it would be a different matter. But having an extra one where you just took a class with him there really isn't much upside, it could probably hurt you at the end of the day.

Why would you need to be in an honours program to be involved in research?

It's one class, forget about it.