victorydance

First of all, on a basic level your writing is fine; especially for a second language. However, I really think you need to work on your transitions. Both from sentence to sentence, and paragraph transitions. Your writing is "choppy." I'll copy and paste your SOP and bold what I am talking about to show you what I mean: I never truly understood the meaning of multiculturalism until I found myself riding the subway in New York City. Ferdinand Braudel’s idea of an Economie-Monde deeply delved into me while I was walking across the New York Harbor for the first time. To me, a prospective Historian born and raised in Cocoyoc, the vitality of those experiences is both intellectually and aesthetically appealing. Moreover, they create an overwhelming urge to be a part of the world that produced them. Nevertheless, my interest in the in the Dual MA/MSc in International and World History does not only arise from the yearning to reenact those experiences. My academic interest comes from two realms. First, I have a keen interest in the relationship between geographical space, politics and History; Specifically, how the Roman Mediterranean, the Spanish colonization of the Americas or the nineteenth century’s Empires have modified the world’s geographical organization, the world’s balance of power and the global economical affairs. Second, I have an acute interest in Post colonialism. In particular, the postcolonial nations’ political developments in South Asia, Northern Africa and Latin America. In consequence, to attend a Masters program that intrinsically integrates the latter interests is an utterly important step in my academic development. Regarding my Undergraduate education, it is in my best interest to point out the following aspects: First, that the History Department at Universidad Iberoamericana has its intellectual foundation within the Critical Theory: Colonial and Postcolonial studies constitute essential guidelines in our Core Curriculum. Hence, my academic’s formation keystones were the analysis of cultural representations, discursive constructs and their relationship with the geographical spaces that produced them. Furthermore, I partook in Professor Cristina Torales’ research project regarding commercial and scientific relationships between Europe, the Philippines and the New Spain, throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Specifically, I researched Jose Antonio Alzate’s astronomic and botanical work and its reception at the French Academy of Sciences as well as at the Royal Botanical Garden of Madrid. My research produced an article that contributed to a self-published book that compiled other undergrads’ articles on the New Spain’s transatlantic scientific and commercial relations. One of my most important academic achievements was being selected as a speaker at the 2014 History Forum at Universidad Iberoamericana. There, I will have present my final dissertation on the biopolitical measures during India’s State of Emergency between 1975 and 1977. Because I was in the top 1% of my class, my University granted me the opportunity to study abroad. During the spring of 2013, I attended Fordham University in New York. I was able to obtain a 3.08 GPA, while facing a complete different curriculum framework and most importantly, a different society, culture and language. However, the horizons, the knowledge, skills and mindset that I acquired during that brief period greatly exceed, in terms of personal value, my academic outcome. Currently, I divide my time between my teaching job, extracurricular activities, doing social service at the community center “Casa Menses” and taking my last class at Universidad Iberoamericana. Being a teacher has played a major role in the decision to go Graduate School. In addition, it has helped defining the career I want to pursue in life. As a World History teacher my duty is to transmit to the students the idea that a historical change represents an aggregate of multiple connections: For example, American modern architecture cannot be understood without analyzing the financial and cultural relations between the Weimar Republic and the United States. In my future academic career, I want to explore the multiplicity of elements and relations that partake in the way the world has been shaped. Therefore, I want to become a Professor at an institution of higher learning, to fully inquire into the modern world’s historicity. After obtaining a Masters degree, I plan to pursue a PhD. In addition, I plan to combine my academic work with a career in journalism, focused in international current affairs. Recently, I got involved in the United States and Mexican relations, as an academic and political subject. Consequently, I will have the opportunity to represent Mexico as a delegate at the Forum for Cooperation, Understanding and Solidarity that will take place at Stanford University and Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México in the subsequent months. This year’s forum aims to bolster commercial and business relations between the United States and Mexico. There are two main topics that I want to pursue in graduate school: The postcolonial nation’s political developments and biopolitics. Regarding the first point, I want to explore how postcolonial nations have modified the world’s geopolitical organization. Specifically, I want to answer the following questions along throughout that exploration: How did the decolonization process modify the balance of power in the twentieth century? Moreover, how are the core-periphery relations organized in a Postcolonial Era? In terms of biopolitics, I want to explore the way that governments throughout the twentieth century have exercised power over human life: their aims and results. Particularly, I am interested in how population growth and control have become a global issue as well as a central matter for emerging nation. On account of the latter interests is that I want to enroll the Dual MA/MSc in International and World History. As a further matter, faculty members like Professor Connelly, Professor Rao, Professor Sherman and Professor Jones are specialists on the subjects I am interested in. In addition, I have been deeply inspired by Professor Coatsworth’s and Professor Piccato’s work on the economical, social and cultural change in Mexico throughout the nineteenth century’s last decades and the twentieth century’s first decades. Lastly, I want to attend to Columbia and London School of Economics, because I want to receive a world-class education and a global perspective on current affairs. The latter matters are essential for Mexico, as a developing country. My purpose is not exclusively academic: I want to take part in Mexico’s political and social development. There is a time and place for those transitions and they definitely have purposes (and some of them you use are perfectly fine). However (see what I did there?), when the majority of your sentences start with these words, you get this choppy effect. And when someone is reading writing like this it doesn't flow in their head, it's always like a start and go process and distracts from your meaning and purpose of your message. You need to work on being pithy and straight-forward. Sentences are stand alone clauses, but they should flow together. You don't have to inherently connect them mechanically like you are doing; but rather, they should connect by their content and flow. My advice? Get rid of most of those and just state what you want to state without them. If it doesn't make logical sense, then add them in. Less transitions is more. Secondly, and this is also tied to the choppiness of your writing, you use too many commas when they are not needed. For example, the sentence "After obtaining a Masters degree, I plan to pursue a PhD": no comma needed. There are many examples of this throughout your SOP. A good trick for learning how to eliminate these redundancies is to speak your letter out loud. When you are reading it out and you have a comma where you wouldn't actually pause in real life, then you don't need a comma there. Some of your sentences just straight up don't make sense. For example, never start a new paragraph with a dependent clause (for that matter, don't make sentences that don't make complete sense on their own. "On account of the latter interests is that I want to enroll the Dual MA/MSc in International and World History." This sentence doesn't make sense and I am not even sure what it is referring to. I imagine you are trying to say something like "this is why I am applying to X." ----- On a more substantive level, you need to try to tie your interests and potential research inquiries during the program to the professors at Columbia/LSE. Don't just say "Professors X, Y, and Z are professors I am interested in." You need to logically connect your interests (you have somewhat hashed these out already and have questions you are asking, which is good) to that section so that people on the committee see this connection. There is just some parts of this SOP that really don't need to be there. For example, the study abroad part and delegation part, not sure if entirely relevant. What about your dissertation (we can it a thesis here by the way - dissertations are usually full length projects done at the doctoral level)? I think you need to be careful to include and exclude what is relevant and what is not. Pithy is better than too much. ----- Espero que te ayude. Buena suerte, solo tiene que seguir trabajando en esto.

$99 on magoosh. I downloaded about 15 books for free off the internet.

I am a laptop enthusiast. I only have a laptop, it has enough power to do anything I want with regards to research, is great for my entertainment needs, and I just throw it in my backpack whenever I go somewhere. Tablets for me, are useless. They can't analyze data, you can't store much of anything on their hard drives, and the applications you can run on them is pretty meek. But it all comes down to what you want it for. If portability is paramount to you, then a tablet may be desirable. But for me, there really isn't THAT much of a difference between carrying around a tablet + keyboard and a laptop.

^ They have other ones as well (3 month ones). I like these ones because it's straightforward and it's way easier to follow a set out schedule than doing it yourself.

Uh, if you want to improve your score you do. ------ http://magoosh.com/gre/2012/6-month-gre-study-plan-for-math-beginners/ That is the plan I have been using. I am a little over half way through it.

Make a spreadsheet on excel.

Yeah, judging by the lack of research experience and not knowing how to frame a research question, I don't think you are ready for a Ph.D. In fact, I am not sure if a Ph.D. is necessarily a goal right now, maybe down the road. If you are interested in the public sector, a Ph.D. might not really be necessary. If you want to continue working in campaigns and win a job because of a winning ticket, you don't really need a Ph.D. to do that. On the other hand, it can come in handy for example if you beefed up your statistical analysis skills and trained yourself in polling or something that might be valuable to campaign managers. If you aren't interested in academia at all, a Ph.D. might not be the best choice. It is a large commitment and training curve to be ruling out it's primary focus: research. Whether you choose a MA or a MPP is a different matter. I am not too well versed in MPP programs, but the key decision here is to find programs where you can learn skills that will help you out in what career path you are interested in. Neither will give you a spot automatically, but they both come with their advantages and disadvantages. There are lots of people who work on campaigns and find public sector jobs with masters of arts and MPP degrees. An MPP probably gives you a greater arsenal of skills and is more policy oriented, while a MA is more research oriented.

Yeah, but do you know what your research interests are?

What sub-field of political science are you actually interested in exactly?

Without any research experience, it would be tough to get admitted straight into a Ph.D. program. You don't have any at all? Did you not do an honour thesis? And if you don't think you are ready, an MA can provide lots of opportunities to see if that path is right for you and get research experience.

^ For a country like Turkey, you will be hard pressed to find Turkish politics specialists. You should just look for Middle Eastern specialists, but shouldn't confine your search to just them. For example, if you are researching ethnic politics, a comparativist that does work on ethnic politics may actually be a better fit than a Middle Eastern/North African specialist that does research in something unrelated. There is a bit of a hierarchy when it comes to comparative politics for fit. A regional specialist in your region that does research in your sub-field > someone who does research in your sub-field > someone who is a regional specialist in your region. You should be looking for those golden departments that have one perfect match, a couple that do research in your sub-field and a regional specialist or some combination thereof. The only time people look for people who do research in their country of interest above all else is when you are interested in diverse and culturally complex countries like China, Brazil or India for example. Or you study a very specific sub-field that is inherently related to a specific country. Some people spend their whole careers studying one country; but for the majority of comparativists, they are doing comparative studies with a few cases or high N studies.

Thanks for putting words in my mouth. No where did I say anyone can achieve a similar position, but rather that it is possible. Secondly, I never said I made the 'right decisions.' I was a delinquent in high school and graduated with a C average. I missed out on copious opportunities for scholarships because I put myself in that hole. I made my journey way harder than it needed to be. How is stating that there are self-constructed barriers to grad school representing a narrative of self-congratulation? There is are no right ways to live your life, but there are definitely strategies to offset financial or social barriers in life at every angle. The simple fact of the matter is that if you choose to start (intentionally or not) a family at an early age and then bitch about how grad school isn't accessible except for the rich then I have no pity for you. The same thing about making crass decisions about attending university when you cannot afford it. Well, I don't know. Maybe this is true, but every university I am applying to offers tuition waivers + stipends. Some places funding is short and not guaranteed for students, but these 'reforms' haven't done any damage to where I want to go.

Not really. Most top programs will pay anywhere between 15,000-30,000 stipend. That is only fellowship money, there are plenty of other sources of funding both internally and externally. Anything from awards, to grants, external scholarships, to government grants are available for any graduate student, as well as additional employment opportunities. Opportunity cost doesn't really have anything to do with accessibility. It skews the cost-benefit ratio, but it doesn't make it any less accessible. Which is what I was discussing.

The easiest path, in my opinion is: 1) Through classes, then 2) Through office hours. It seems like you neglected these two avenues and that is a shame. For most professors, students who show they are passionate about their study, through participation in class and getting to know them/asking for opportunities/engaging intellectually with them 1 on 1 will go to bat for their students. Office hours are the bread and butter of developing relationships with professors. Use them wisely.

^ Fair enough and it is something I addressed in my last post. I do agree, that people who entangle themselves in family (not necessarily a good or bad thing in of itself), have another barrier of entry.

I didn't mean to imply that, I was just sharing my experience on how someone from a low SES family can make it work. My route is not the only route, just one of the many. But that's the way our society works. Do people from wealthy families have more opportunities than people from poorer families? Yes, indeed this is true. But you can't just slice a portion of that and say there is something wrong with X. What I mean is that there are barriers to entry in the academic world, just like in any occupation or endeavour, but that doesn't necessary mean there is something inherently wrong with academia. That's like saying "you can only be an investment banker on wall street if you come from a rich family." Or "I wish wall street was more open to people from lower SES upbringings." The simple fact of most high level industries these days is that to make it into that upper echelon is that you need to come from the best schools and have the best training possible. This is a barrier that makes it harder for people from low SES but it is not a barrier that is impossible to overcome. Can you blame academia for wanting the people who went through the best schools, had the best advisers, and showed that they can go through those hoops? I don't. The thing is, is that I do think Ph.D. students can get a pretty good deal. Like I said before, if you play your cards right you can get a salary of 20-30K a year (or more), pay no tuition, and get access to countless opportunities. I think that is a pretty good deal. I am not going to judge you. The problem, I think, is that people spend a lot more time 'wanting and doing' rather than 'preparing.' This culture of people going straight to college from high school is incredibly detrimental to their prospects. This culture of going into debt for education is the same way. The culture of needing to start a family as soon as possible is incredibly detrimental to their economic standing and mobility. This culture of needing to own a house or living space is another detriment. If people slowed down a little bit and stopped treating life like such a rat race, a lot of these barriers wouldn't be so prolific. For example, barriers for low SES people are real. But a lot of barriers to academia are self constructed (for low SES or not). People who start families very young and buy a house have constructed a barrier for themselves (ie, financial commitments, lack of mobility). People who went from high school straight to college who couldn't afford it have constructed a barrier (not ready/sure about their passion of study/mature enough, possibility of going into debt). It just so happens that low SES people are more likely to do both of those things than people of higher wealth, but they are nonetheless self constructed. ----- What I am trying to say, is that if you step back, academia is actually quite accessible. The only real major hurdle is getting good grades, doing well, and getting research experience during your undergrad. If you have that, you have a chance to get into any top school and get a stipend to study there. Lots of people, no matter where they come from economically, are able to do the above. On the other hand, society drills us to act certain ways or want certain things that actually impede your ability to get there. I think THAT is the mistress and cruelness of society, not whether you hit the lottery and came from X upbringing.

And assumptions don't matter when you are an anonymous poster on the internet. I am a first generation high school graduate and put myself through my undergraduate myself as well. Do you honestly think you are the only grad student to come from a low SES family? The point is that if you play your cards right, grad school doesn't cost anything. In fact, if you really play your cards right, you can study at grad school while making a decent salary. The reason I don't care about money is because it is the lifestyle I choose to live. Everything I own can be fit into my backpack and I live in developing countries when I am not studying. I don't care about making money, ergo, going to grad school isn't as 'practical' for me. It allows me to study what I love while continuing to do fieldwork and research on the countries I am interested in. Why would I care about getting an engineering degree or a finance degree and getting a cush job when money/security/comfort don't and probably will never matter to me? The assumption that only rich kids can go to grad school for the pursuit of knowledge is asinine. If you want it bad enough, any obstacle can be overcome. Doesn't mean a lot of people don't get an opportunity because of X disadvantage, but that hardly makes it a rule.

"But all this talk of top schools requiring near perfect GRE scores has really got me scared." Well this is inherently incorrect, so stop stressing yourself out.

How is this in any way remotely true? What practical implications are these? That I miss 5-7 years of earning capacity/experience that I do not intrinsically care about anyways?

^ Great, but that doesn't solve your problem. What exactly is so stressful about doing the GRE? It is a standardized test of high school level math and some mid to high level vocab. I guess I am questioning your commitment to your applications. If you can't retake a measly GRE because of a poor math score, what does that say for your applications, or even more, your future as a doctoral candidate? It seems like you are more set on doing the bare minimum rather than improving your weak spots in your application. A 152 for a science Ph.D. application is very low. I scored a 160/148 my first try a few years ago. What am I doing? 5-6 months of intensive study to raise it an acceptable level. All I am saying is if you are not willing to commit to improving your application (and not just GRE) then you will get beat out by others who were. And trust me, there are dozens of people who are putting in the effort.

"I really don't want to go through the emotional stress I had to go through to wrote the first GRE." Yet...applying for microbiology Ph.D. programs. Think about that for a second.

"unlike in the UK, in the US you don't choose a supervisor until you've been accepted and I don't get to choose which applications succeed" Have you thought of the fact that it is the truth? These professors have no say in the admission process, and quite frankly, probably don't give a rat's ass about you. Occam's razor is your friend.

160 for theory applications is probably upper range, no matter which schools you apply to. A 160 is solid for any Ph.D. political science applicant, whether theory or not. Ideally 163+ is the benchmark for no doubts, but 160 is perfectly fine.

The only choices he would have in Quebec are McGill, Concordia, and Bishop's. The former two are in Montreal, while the latter is in Sherbrooke. Montreal is not full immersion, way too much English to be considered so. However, it does have the most education options and is an easier transition for you/your husband (both Concordia and McGill regularly admit community college transfers for example). Sherbrooke would be complete immersion, doubtful you would hear much English there. I think the percentage of Anglos there is under 5%.

^ Wherever the best comparativists in East Asia/Japan are, you should apply.