victorydance

Not sure I agree with the last statement. It can be useful for many things. For one, especially a honours thesis, it can provide additional research experience, a good recommendation, and a good writing sample. It also provides you the opportunity of developing your own research design, collecting your own data, and writing a paper of substantial depth/length, all valuable skills. That being said, the OP has a lot of research experience, will probably have a good writing sample if they publish something, and probably has good recommendations. I think sometimes there is a bit of a 'red flag' when people apply to doctoral programs and haven't ever written a thesis. But if that person has a lot of research experience and perhaps a publication under their belt, I would imagine that wouldn't be a problem. If you feel like you are getting more skills and experience from forgoing your thesis component, then you should probably continue doing what you are doing. On the other hand, forgoing one of your projects to write your thesis isn't going to hurt you either (unless it is zero-sum and definitely costs you a publication). Writing a thesis can be an incredibly rewarding and fruitful endeavour. It was personally the highlight of my undergrad.

Figured out the laws from family/internet. Then went to the consulate in my city and received all the documentation I needed, filled it out and applied. It's not too complicated, but depending on the country there are some tedious requirements and you need to know family history, and have certificates of birth and such. It can be tedious, but definitely worth it. About the whole "sexy Europe" thing that I forgot to touch on last post, there are lots of developing countries in Eastern Europe that I would love to explore but always opt for more time in Latin America. Places like Romania, Hungary, Croatia, Serbia, Bulgaria, and the Baltic countries all have interesting histories and are far cheaper to live than Northern or Western European countries. The caveat being that you definitely have to become proficient in the native languages to survive.

This isn't really true at all. Any decent sized city has at least one hostel.

Did you do a honours thesis during your undergrad? Also, can you not do your thesis based on one of your ongoing projects?

What I meant by the EU status thing was...do you have any relatives with European descent? Were your grandparents and/or parents born in Europe? Some European countries have pretty relaxed citizenship standards. I was able to get Italian citizenship just because my grandparents on my father's side were born in Italy. Definitely something to consider if you have European descent because an EU passport makes things a million times easier. I don't find it challenging. But then again, I am quite nomadic. Judging from your other post you haven't spent much time out of your comfort zone, so that may be a challenge for you. But hardly one that cannot be overcome. I agree with the other poster, a more short-term 'getting your feet wet' thing might be a good idea. The hardest things are probably just things that you might take for granted in your native country being actually difficult with language barriers such as finding an apartment, paying rent, getting electricity or internet set up, things like this but that's part of the experience. Like the other poster, I am a minimalist. Actually, probably even more of one; everything I own fits into a backpack. These things are not important in my life. If you would like to keep some of your things, you may consider finding storage somewhere (preferably somewhere free of course). There is no 'perfect place' for me personally. I love Latin America but my living experiences here have been more on the temporary side of things. Spending summers, gap years, learning languages ect. But it's been part of a grander plan as well because I want to do research and fieldwork in my field in this area so having experience with these countries definitely will make that process much easier. I loved Rio, I love Mexico City, but every place has good things and drawbacks. I have a girlfriend that I live with here in Mexico, so yes I do have some roots here. In fact, I would go as far to say that I always call my new place 'home' rather than Canada. But then again, I don't really have a great connection with Canada. I don't plan on staying here in Mexico City long-term (well unless you consider the next year or so long-term). But who knows what happens down the road, but I am applying to mostly American Ph.D. programs, so that is probably where I will end up next. But I am sure I'll be back somewhere down the line, at the very least for fieldwork.

No need to go overboard. As long as you have four things you are fine: 1) Toque (or whatever you call it down there) 2) Gloves 3) Lots of Layers 4) Good Footwear.

I lived in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil and Santa Marta, Colombia. I currently live in Mexico City. In a nutshell, when I am not attending school, I am living somewhere in Latin America. You will not become fluent in a second language by living in Canada, not even close. Need to just move to another country and immerse yourself and study the language there. Obviously I encourage you to learn basics of a language before arriving at a country, but you won't reach a high level until you both take classes and become immersed. I encourage you to live abroad. It can be quite a fulfilling experience for a number of reasons. However, I would also say that you need to be smart about it. What draws you to the Nordic countries? I would choose a country that you are really interested in because that is what is going to keep you there. Whether it's just one aspect of their culture or a multitude of things, or a city you are interested in, their history, ect. This is important because it's going to help you grow some kind of roots outside of family and friends which is important for feeling grounded in a foreign country. Also, it is always wise to find a native significant other as soon as possible (for growing roots, understanding the culture, learning the language, ect.) Secondly, don't be afraid to get out of your comfort zone; that means that developing countries should be options. For one, Nordic countries are ridiculously expensive. Getting jobs as an expat is often difficult. I find expats need to be a lot more independently wealthy to survive. Developing countries on the other hand are cheap, you may not find a good source of income and still be able to get by in these types of countries. For example, the cost of living is a lot cheaper in Bucharest, Romania than it is in Oslo, Norway. You should also work to hedge some skills that may be lucrative in other countries, think of things that are in rare supply (this is also another advantage of being in a developing country). Can you get EU status? That would make your life a lot easier.

Catch a flight (make a bunch of appointments before hand and right when you arrive) in mid june and look for places, sign a lease, then go back home. Honestly, it's the only way to do it.

Well those are interdisciplinary programs, but okay. The MAPSS looks interesting. That actually is not true. Here is the course offerings in MPhil at Oxford: Research Methods in Political Science Introduction to the Advanced Study of Politics and International Relations Statistical Methods for the Social Sciences Applied Statistics for Political Scientists Philosophy of the Social Sciences Research Design in Comparative Political Science Research Design in Political Science Workshop Visual Ethnography in Politics and Law Formal Analysis Intermediate Social Statistics Archive Research Public Law and Legal Sources Field Interviewing Interview Analysis Elite Interviewing Social Research and the Internet Measurement in the Social Sciences Multilevel Modelling Network Analysis Panel Data Structural Equation Modelling Time Series Analysis Content Analysis Focus Groups Ethics Constructing the Text: The New Bentham Edition Problems of Method in the History of Political Thought Text and Interpretation They also offer a MSc which is almost straight methods and a thesis component. LSE offers a bunch of MSc programs, but for example, the MSc of political science and political economy, has these compulsory courses: Compulsory courses (* half unit) Political Science and Political Economy* provides an introduction to political science and the ways in which it illuminates the political and policy processes of advanced liberal democratic states. Game Theory for Political Science* introduces game theory and its applications to political science. Applied Quantitative Methods for Political Science* provides an introduction to the most commonly used methods for causal inference in the social sciences. Applied Regression Analysis* covers linear regression modelling and binary, multinomial and ordinal logistic regression (or another option if student can demonstrate they have taken a course with multivariate regression) And of course, many methods/stats electives to choose from. So I really don't understand what you are saying. Lastly, US Ph.D. programs don't 'require' you to have any advanced methods or stats training; just to show that you are capable of doing them. Plenty of undergrads go straight from BAs in political science with little methods training into a political science Ph.D. program, but it definitely helps to have experience with some methods and the more the better.

I don't believe Chicago offers a terminal masters program, but Columbia does. The reason I suggested it was because having a few MA applications along with your Ph.D. application cycle is I think a sound move (something I am doing myself). That being said, there aren't many great political science MA programs in the US. Columbia's is strong, heard NYU's is poor, and then you hit smaller schools like Marquette or Northeastern or along these lines. If you are looking to 'boost' your prospects, getting a MA from some mid-ranked school isn't going to really get that for you. You can also do a interdisciplinary MA program, which gives you a few more options. On the other hand, countries like Canada and the UK offer some good options. Schools like Oxford, LSE, Toronto, and McGill are all top schools that offer MA programs. It really doesn't matter what type of program either, because almost all of them offer some quant/methods classes if you wish (and they should definitely stock up on them if this is the route someone takes). And of course, there is the additional benefit of these programs being lower cost (plus these countries have more funding options for MA students) than American programs so the drawback of cost of MA programs is reduced.

Would you be interested in going abroad? Countries like Canada and the UK have good masters programs that are cheaper. They also follow a more BA-MA-Ph.D. route so there are lots to choose from.

Not anymore. Laptops are now just as powerful as desktop computers. ----- Personally I don't care about portability. I have a backpack, therefore carrying around my 15.6 (and I always have it) laptop doesn't matter to me.

Intelligence isn't a big deal to me in significant others. I don't like having intense discussions with people I am hanging out with. I just look for general chemistry and compatibility. I like to keep things separate in my life. My significant other is for caring, emotional support, loving, and having fun. I don't like having political discussions with anyone I spend my day to day life with. I am a political scientist, but am pretty apolitical. I like the technical side, not debating about certain partisan things. Actually, I hate it because I end up finding flaws in almost everything someone says.

Trinidade is beautiful. Actually that whole area is great. Paraty, Ubatuba, and Ilha Grande are all great places. I spent about 3 months in that area. It was a blast. ----- I feel like I always shoot myself in the foot regarding how many countries I have gone to. I always end up staying in one country for a really long time, or going back to the same country. It's weird, I haven't been to that many countries but I have been to Brazil and Mexico a combined 8 or 9 separate times. Went backpacking for a year in my early 20s and only went to Colombia and Brazil (5 months in Colombia, 7 months in Brazil). I have recently built up a fascination with Mexico. It is incredibly rich in travelling options and I think a lot of people do Mexico 'wrong.' I have now been to almost every state in the south and central (both east and west), only haven't been up north. Same with Brazil, but it's a little harder to get around because a lot of places are quite remote; but I have been all over that country. Hard to pinpoint favourites, but top 3 are definitely Mexico, Colombia and Brazil. Brazil is just so diverse and rich in culture; Colombia is basically anything goes, and Mexico has the most interesting history and depth of city diversity that I have ever seen.

Looked around a bit for this topic but didn't seem to find it. How much do you like to travel? Where have you been? I am partial to the Americas. Don't have much experience anywhere else, never been to Europe or anything. I've been to Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Mexico, Cuba, USA, and Canada. I have spent about 2 years in Mexico and Brazil (I have lived in Rio de Janeiro and Mexico City), while the others varied from weeks to 5 months. Also spent some time in Thailand and Laos after high school.

I agree that it might mean that he has received absolutely nothing. It is often hard to tell because people use unfunded and funded as sort of a false dichotomy. My general point was that I often see on this board where people instantly shun anyone going into an 'unfunded' doctoral program. When in reality, it's not always a black or white situation. I'll admit these posts are more of a general gripe rather than specific to this thread. Obviously, I totally agree that if there is no tuition waiver, no stipend, and low chances of any funding then it's a pretty easy 'no.' However, when people don't receive standard fellowship stipends (ie, approx. 15K or more a year) and say they got in to a program 'unfunded' that isn't necessarily a bad thing. They could have a full tuition waiver and find funding from a number of other sources both externally and internally that could easily fund them through their whole program. I am of the opinion that there is no "useful" funding packages, money is money. By honing your grant writing skills and applying broadly, three $3000 awards or grants amounts to a yearly $9000 stipend. I also think people make the mistake of receiving funding and just stopping there. Theoretically, grad students could pull in as much money as they would in a full-time job if they played their cards right. With the sheer amount of options out there, it is foolish to assume that the typical entrance funding package is the end all be all of graduate funding.

A lot of people make the mistake of thinking no fellowship = no funding. There are numerous ways of getting funding besides the basic fellowship package. Not only that, but fellowships are competed for every year so you could get one as soon as the next year. External awards and fellowships, RA, TA, other departmental awards can easily fully fund your doctoral program. I had a prof who had a funding offer from a lower ranked school and an unfunded offer from a top 20, he choose to go to the top 20. He ended up getting fully funded despite not having an initial fellowship. You have to weigh your options. If there seems to be a multitude of funding options at university X, that doesn't mean you will go into debt. If there doesn't, then obviously this might be a problem. If you don't even get a tuition waiver, then obviously that is ridiculous. Lastly, the outright ignoring of external fellowships and awards on this board is outstanding. There are literally dozens of different scholarships/grants/fellowships you can apply for from virtually any country you might come from.

Yep. The old tried, true, and tested spam email a bunch of profs does indeed work. That being said, you need to be smart about it. Only email profs that have similar research interests than you. Especially look for assistant profs or post-docs, these are the ones who are trying to churn out the most research. Make sure your email is well written, your CV is well-developed, and everything like that. You might have to start as a grunt worker for free. Doing lit reviews, cleaning up data, ect. But if you do a good job, you might get a paid position.

Did you not apply for external funding sources?

I am interested in a ridiculous amount of things: 1) Russian Literature. I have a list of like 50 Russian classics that I am supposed to get through before I die, I am probably through about a 1/4 of them. I am a big fan of Dostoevsky and Gogol. 2) Geology. I am interested in how certain rock formations come about, the processes of the earth's crust, different kind of rocks, ect. Took a few geology classes as electives during my undergrad. 3) Spanish and Portuguese Language. I am at an intermediate level of Spanish and a beginner level of Portuguese. 4) History. Particularly interested in Latin American history, both pre-Columbian and post-colonial. Beyond that, I am interested in things like chemistry, travel, ecology, geography, human behaviour, sustainable development, energy, ect. but I wouldn't consider these subjects as something I am profoundly interested in. I think I could definitely be an anthropologist in another life.

No. My first cycle is this fall. So this is just what I have gathered from numerous sources, so it should always be taken with a grain of salt (like many Ph.D. application 'advice'). You should definitely emphasize this in your SOP. Especially if you don't have any formal academic research experience, such as working as a research assistant for a professor or something along these lines. Research is still research, and working for a number of years in government research is definitely an asset. I have no idea what your job description actually entailed but I imagine you can emphasize a number of skills you gained that could be fruitful in a doctoral program in political science, this is what you want to focus the emphasis on. Of course, this isn't going to put you ahead of any applicants per se (maybe perhaps those who have no research experience at all, but maybe not even then), but it will by no means hinder your chances.

There's no connection between work experience and getting accepted to Ph.D. programs. Graduate programs are looking for potential academics, which really has nothing to do with work experience for the most part. That being said, you can use it to your 'advantage' if it closely is related to your research intentions.

Your prospects of a TT position are more hurt by attending a low ranked program for your Ph.D. than anything to do with going to the same institution as your undergrad. Your chances of obtaining a TT position are quite low.

There seems to be a lot of misinformation in this thread. From the official site: http://www.ets.org/gre/revised_general/test_day/expect/ You will always get five sections of quant and verbal no matter what. The extra one may either be ungraded, or an identified research section. However, I have no idea how common the latter is. Whether you get an extra non-graded quant or verbal is just luck of the draw. I would think anyone who gets the identified research section has a small advantage, because at that point you can basically relax and not care about getting things right or not.

^ That is probably because you got a non-graded one instead. I am not sure how common research sections are.