victorydance

As far as the teaching component, I think I would do exponentially better in a seminar environment than a lecture environment.

Perhaps there is a degree of diminishing returns in my case, but I have the time. I took a year off after my undergrad so have ample time to do my applications. And I am also currently a research assistant so it's not like I am eschewing things to make it better. The reason why my SOP was/is taking so long is because political science SOPs expect you, in most cases, to have well defined research interests and to propose possible research questions in your SOP. I have very defined interests, and most of my previous research experience, my thesis, and courses were geared towards the investigation of something fairly specific so if I weave everything together well and present a coherent gap in the literature it will really make a difference. So the vast majority of my time has been spent on strengthening this section and finding the best way to identify a gap and propose good questions while also tying together a very targeted application.

Damn, I am pretty jealous. I would consider myself a good writer, but I have spent upwards of 25-30+ hours on my SOP already. Will probably spend at least half of that in the future. My field takes SOPs pretty seriously though.

I think it depends on how much time you spend on that month I guess. I just don't think it's something that can be done haphazardly. I also think that since you went through a masters program, you had already been through the process so that might have helped you quite a great deal. Not to mention you could probably use a lot of similar things that you did for your masters application SOP. I have been working on my SOP for a few months now and it is still not where I want it to be. I give it to a lot of people, especially profs, and they always have comments about how it can be better. Depends what works for you though. But I don't think only spending a month on a SOP and then submitting it is the best approach by any means.

There are plenty of threads to go through to get an idea what grad admission committees look for. However, a warning. If you think your SOP can just be done in a month and left alone, you are sorely mistaken. These things take months to revise and perfect.

This is actually completely incorrect.

I really doubt he is as special as he portrays himself to be. He has already been through a cycle and got declined. Even if his GRE was sub-par or poor, if he had actually published multiple papers and books (virtually unheard of for anyone without a Ph.D. in the field of political science) he would have got admitted easily. Especially considering he applied to universities of the calibre of the University of South Carolina. And when pressed about some of the more suspicious aspects of his self-portrayed profile, he of course hasn't replied to the thread which is odd considering he has replied to every thread he has created when prompted to do so. He is either completely delusional or outright lying about things.

Except that Kuwait isn't a 'third world country.' It is one of the most developed countries in the Middle East and has a HDI ranking that is in line with Central and East European countries. It has the 5th highest GDP per capita in the world. He doesn't have a Ph.D. from Kuwait, just a masters; there is a difference. I was just pointing out that perhaps getting a masters from the University of Cincinnati when he already has one in the same subject wouldn't really help him to wherever he is trying to go. That's why I asked for the clarification. I am also not American, so you can stop with the condescension jackass. It would appear that you are the one who is ignorant of other countries around the world, not I.

Yeah but are places like the University of Cincinnati and University of Nebraska really that much more reputable? -------- I would advise you to find out if you can even apply to certain programs. There are probably many out there that don't even allow you to apply to a second masters in the same subject. So be careful to check before applying to any program because they might just toss your application right off the bat. I don't personally get why anyone would do a second masters in the same subject, but all the power to you. There are also a few things that don't quite add up in your OP. How is is possible for someone who isn't at least a Ph.D. student or have a Ph.D. to get two papers and two books published? What kind of books exactly are we talking about here? I have never seen anyone with that extensive of publishing record coming out of a masters. Like cooper said, most professors don't even have that by the time they hit tenure. If you actually did have that kind of record from reputable publishing presses and journals, you would honestly be a shoe-in for any Ph.D. programs as long as your application was fairly well-rounded. I have never even heard of someone publishing a book from a university press before even being a doctoral student (well there were people like Guillermo O'Donnell, but that was decades ago). ------ As far as competitiveness goes, the programs you are targeting are not extremely competitive. As far as I can see, they are all middle ranked or so state schools and MA programs aren't terribly competitive to begin with compared to Ph.D. programs on average. It is impossible to say exactly, but I would be willing to bet if you applied to all those schools you would probably get in to at least 2 or 3 of them just on odds alone.

I am confused. If you have a master degree in political science, why would you applying for another one?

Since you don't care about research, just take the top 10 ranked CS schools and apply there. Which would be: Carnegie Mellon MIT Stanford Berkeley Illinois - Champaign Cornell UW Princeton UT - Austin Georgia Tech

Yes, but if someone enters social science or science grad school programs without a proper foundation of mathematical skills they will have a hard time being able to digest and master quantitative methods. i.e. You can't learn how to run before you learn how to walk. Sure, but in the field of political science, qualitative analysis is a dying breed. The norm of the field today is multi-methods and quant heavy methods. Admission committees don't weigh quant scores on the GRE as heavily for political philosophy majors as the other majors. Comparative can be just as quant heavy as any other sub-field of political science. Secondly, yes no one can make you use quant methods. But you won't publish in the top journals without at least multi-methods, and it is increasingly difficult for qualitative political scientists to get tenure-track jobs. So you may be forced to publish in lower-tier journals and may not find a TT job. Is that what you want? False equivalence. It's not the same. You may have never used algebra yet, but if you go deep enough into statistics you definitely will. For example, hypothesis testing is very algebra driven. ---------- I wouldn't worry too much about your quant score if you are intending on majoring in political philosophy. However, the verbal is still relevant. I don't particularly like the GRE either. I wish it wasn't used. But it is and I can understand why. Therefore I have studied for the last 4+ months and will continue to study for the next two months before taking it. It is what it is.

Heres why I think the GRE should is a Bad indicator of prospective students performance: 1- The Quant. Part of the exam isnt hard as many claim, however, since my major is among arts & humanities, why do I have to deal with such quant. Methods? If someone claims "you will do quant methods in statistics in your grad studies" im sorry to tell that I am already a grad student, took two statistics in social sciences & research scored B+ in both classes at the graduate level. And almost nothing in those classes were included in the exam, only very minimal type of questions. What has algebra and geometry to do with social sciences quantitave research methods for Gods sake? This is just so wrong it is completely laughable. The quant section isn't designed to really test your knowledge of math subjects, but rather your quantitative logic and reasoning skills. The actual level of math is high school level but the logic behind getting some of the answers can actually be quite complex. Ergo, they want to see how applicants fair in an identical environment and gauge them on that. Things like GPA are highly variable depending on where you did your undergrad, the GRE is a score that is the same for everyone. Of course, you can study and "inflate" your score but it is still the same measure for everyone. If you can't get above a 155 range on the quant section, how you expect your will fare when you want to learn how to do regression analysis or formal theory? Unless you are in political philosophy, most political science is quite quant heavy these days. The fact that you can't see the connection between algebra and learning mathematics and statistics is really troubling. Algebra is at the root of countless mathematical branches. Like seriously?

Any given cohort will have plenty of applicants who can compete for fellowship. Admission committees are aware that a few points difference past a certain point of GRE scores means absolutely nothing towards the potential of the student. While it could make a difference, you are much likelier to beat out others from your LORs, SOP, or writing samples than your GRE or GPA scores.

Both GRE and GPA are notorious for being "hoops" in the application process. Poor scores could toast your application, good scores will get you through the hoops, great scores won't give you much sway.

I would also suggest on applying to more schools this cycle. 4 isn't enough, especially when 3 of those are the only programs you *really* want to attend.

I agree it is a blurry line, especially for us because we don't know the intricate details of the situation, only you do. However, I think it's important to point out that you need to cut off all communication completely. That means no replies, no nothing. Think of the situation kind of like a bully, if they see you get annoyed or a rise out of their behaviour, it will continue. There is a chance that if you completely ignore him, he will stop. All I was really saying is that out of the possible scenarios - this is best case scenario. If it becomes clear that he isn't stopping if you cut off all communication completely, then you need to weight other options. I agree with the general sentiment that reaching out to someone outside of the department as a first step is probably the next best scenario. I don't know who that person would be, but you should find that out. The reason why I don't think going to your adviser as a first or primary course of action is because that really isn't his job and can actually complicate things more. As soon as you bring him into the situation then it becomes a greater web into your professional sphere. And yes, this is a workplace situation, but that doesn't necessarily mean that you need to get authorities/supervisors involved in it if it's not necessary. There are prejudices and things that complicate these matters that could make things more sticky for you, which isn't fair but it is the reality. So basically: cut off all contact, don't reply to his emails, don't acknowledge him whatsoever in person > see how he reacts > weight your options from there.

I wouldn't go to your adviser yet. As much as this is getting out of hand, it's probably best if you kept your personal life away from your professional life. Continue to ignore the emails. Don't say anything. If you see him, either ignore him or tell him to leave you alone. If it continues to escalate, then, yes you may have to do something about it. But as a general rule, try to resolve this conflict yourself (by cutting off all contact completely) beforehand before taking any measures that could make the situation worse for you professionally.

There is two things that I don't agree with in the OP. One - life is not a rat race. No one gets 'points' for doing things quickly. Being 25 and starting a Ph.D. is perfectly normal, and actually on the young side I imagine for the median of ages that enter into Ph.D. programs. The people that go straight to college-straight to Ph.D. I find really lack certain aspects of personality than others who didn't go that route. For one, people who are always in school lack general social skills because they spend so much time in independent studying situations. Secondly, they lack 'life experience.' They haven't done a lot of things, aren't well rounded people, and haven't just lived their lives. Not saying this is the case for everyone, but life isn't meant to be spent going to school 100% of your adult life. Secondly, this statement is the root of the problem: "I won't waste a year of my life." Taking a year off from school is not wasting a year of your life, quite the opposite in fact. Take the year off, decline the offer from Syracuse. Go travelling, get a job, do some things you have never done but always wanted to. Learn a language. Work on your applications so that they are the best you can possibly make them be. In other words, live your life for a year. You just spent the last 5 or 6 years in college, take a break for a second and smell the roses.

I would actually even further refine that: it's really only common for sciences. Sociology, economics, political science, and most anthropology programs don't encourage students to contact professors beforehand. The professors in these types of programs are very decentralized from the admission process. Basically, any time there is a lab + more centralized professor grant funds going to grad students, then you may need to make connections before applying. However, most social sciences are not like that. Maybe disciplines such as psychology and geography, but it certainly isn't the norm.

Location doesn't matter to me. The only two factors that really matter at the end of the day is research fit and reputation of the university. The other variables may come into play if you actually get accepted to some programs, but not in choosing them. As far as timeline goes, I already had my list of 15 universities sometime in June. It changes slightly throughout the process but it more or less stays relatively the same.

I don't get the point you are trying to make here. Are you aware that most masters programs are cash-cows?

^ Here it is: http://www.theacademicadviser.com/choosing-grad-school-programs/

I came across a blog post about this today...I'll see if I can find it.

I don't know, I don't think it's just about your SOP though. I think having a pretty targeted approach to your application can help a strong applicant pull away from the pack. For example, if an applicant knows the field and recent work done, has done an honours or masters thesis on a sub-topic, has done RA work in that topic, and can show that they can put forth researchable questions in their SOP, I think that is a positive not a negative. Especially if they are tying it directly to POIs that work in the department. This not may be relevant to everyone; for example, those who are switching fields or those who weren't super interested in something during their undergrad. But this is how I am approaching my applications. I think there are dozens upon dozens of applicants out there with general interests and stellar academic records. There aren't many who have become rudimentary-experts in a certain topic and want to pursue it further.