victorydance

Yeah, but the thing is taking a few classes in university will not allow you to 'learn a language.' Actually learning to an intermediate level and being able to converse in that language requires immersion and years of experience with the language. Put it this way...you take a few classes in Arabic, whether accelerated or not, and you will come out of your degree with very rudimentary understanding of Arabic anyways. This level of understanding isn't going to get you a job if one of the requirements is advanced knowledge of Arabic. Since the OP already has experience taking these language courses, how far did they actually get you? It's one thing to actually say you 'speak' a language..but if you were dropped in the country of those languages, could you actually properly function in demanding environments? If I were you, I would do the honours thesis. It gives you the advantage of grad school competitiveness...and you said you are interested in the middle east but it's too late to switch. Well the honours thesis is a perfect chance to do a comparative middle east research project. Then, after university I would move to one of those countries, live there for a year and enrol in a university there to properly study and learn a language. You would get way more out of that experience than you would taking a couple courses in Arabic at a university in North America.

Does your significant other have to be your spouse to be considered for a J-2?

A Ph.D. program in essence is to train you the proper methodological and analytic background to perform research. What you choose to do with that expertise, i.e. what questions you pursue, is pretty much completely up to you. Load up on methods training as much as possible while you are a grad student. Yes, by default you will become an expert in subfield-subfield X because that is what is required to write a dissertation. However, this does not mean you are stuck to that vein of topic or inquiry your entire life. As long as you have a strong methodological background, you can shift your interests either not at all or quite profoundly.

Also, one of the best ways to learn how to write good papers is to practice making research designs. There are templates out there and you follow the basic steps according to your question(s). Once you establish a solid research design, then you carry out the project. Everything in your paper or research project will stem from this.

My first real research experience was working as an RA over the summer for one of my professors. Mostly collected literature and compiled data sets. One of my data sets made it onto his paper. I then used those skills to make my own data set for my honours thesis. I used it as an indicator for one of my variables. -------- A common misconception about writing 'good' papers is they need to be stylish or ground-breaking in some way. They don't. Writing a good paper to me is knowing how the mechanics of research works, but this depends on the field. You have to have an argument. But that argument needs to be hashed out so that your dependent and independent variable(s) are clearly linked and drawn out. In other words, your argument isn't just "this is what I am arguing" but rather "X and Y influence Z". Then you make an assumption. Once you have that, then you need to show how they are related to each other. Why are they related? What is the theory behind why you think your dependent variables influence your independent variable? Is it logically consistent? Then you need to have a method of measurement. Whether this is qualy or quanty there needs to be some form of indicators that show how your variables change or stay the same. Then you go about measuring your variables. Is your hypothesis correct in reality? If not, then you start again and revise. Basically, if your hypothesis is backed up by the data...THEN you write your paper. Most papers will follow a general formula: Intro - contextualization, why is your question important. the literature - what have others done in this topic? what other theories are out there? hypothesis - what is your argument? research design - how are you going to prove your theory? What methods are you going to use? theory - why do you think your argument happens this way? body - detailing the substantive basis behind your theory, providing evidence to support your theory from your data or empirical basis discussion - concluding your paper and suggesting shortcomings, significance, future research or questions, applicability to other cases (generalizability), ect. ------- I didn't learn how to do this kind of thing until my junior and senior years. But this is the basic formula for writing a good paper. Your typical basic argument and finding literature to support it 15 page paper is not actual research.

I'll never understand why people think they need perfect GPAs to get into Ph.D. programs in political science. A 3.5 is not bad at all and a lot of people get into programs with GPAs similar to this. In fact, your grad GPA is weaker (considering grad GPAs are inflated comparatively), try to get this as high as possible. I think your biggest weakness is you are not very exposed to actual political science coursework and/or research. I took a look at the courses for the MPP at Georgetown and these aren't really traditional political science classes. They are policy oriented and much of political science isn't at all. You can play certain things to your advantage, particularly your methods and quant background. That being said, there are lots of cases of people coming from different educational backgrounds and getting accepted into Ph.D. political science programs. But you need to show that you know the literature and understand what political science is about. You say that you are interested in post-soviet politics and countries, ie. comparative politics. Do you actually know what sub-field you are interested in? Do you know the literature of comparative politics in this region? You need to show this in your SOP. These types of things are actually more important than your GPA.

I don't understand why you can't go see him during his regular office hours? Most profs hold office hours at least once a week.

Since I am not an econ major, I can't help you with the first three really. But I see potentially two major weaknesses in your application: 1) Lack of resource experience. The fact that you did two degrees at major research universities and didn't do any research assistant jobs or the like is kind of a red flag. It's a bit late but I would target some profs at NYU and ask if they are looking for RAs during the summer. Are you close with any profs at NYU or Minnesota? I would ask them as well. 2) GRE score. Obviously your quant score is fantastic. Your verbal isn't bad (but could definitely be more competitive), but your AW is terrible. I would retake it if I were you. You don't even really need to study math obviously, just work on your verbal section and study for the essay. Although the AW isn't taken that seriously, a 3.5 is far below average.

Just don't go to Montreal. Bar none, worst place to learn French in the world (of places where French is the primary language of course).

Nicaragua is even cheaper as well. Mexico City is also a great place to learn Spanish.

If you can, just go earlier. Like the other person said, make a bunch of appointments to see places right when you arrive.

My year off has been a blessing. I don't have any student debts and still have a bunch of money saved up that I didn't burn through so I don't even need to rely on a full-time job. I moved to a foreign country and got a part-time job as a RA. My language skills are greatly improving. I get to spend upwards of 30+ hours a week on my grad school applications. I don't think many people are 'ready' to go straight into Ph.D. programs from undergrad, especially those who went straight into undergrad from high school. People don't realize just how much of a commitment it is and I think that is why attrition rates are so high. I don't get the rush. Life experience is important in life. I have now taken 4 years off in total since high school and I believe I am a much better and rounded person for it.

Think of it this way: you are competing with the best mathematics students in the entire country (and in fact, the world) for a few spots. These are students who have great applications across the board; they have research experience, they have mathematics degrees with great grades, good recommendations, great test scores, and clear intentions and signals for what makes a successful graduate student. If you think there are easy ways into top 15 grad schools, there aren't.

Go to a hostel in your first destination. Stay there a while. Make some friends and hitch with them.

You are just straight up paranoid. You have little life experience and it has completely distorted your perceptions.

No problem. If you want more advice on how I am studying for the GRE, and/or how to target programs shoot me a PM.

I agree that practising your writing frequently will lead to improving it generally. But I also feel that you need to get your writing edited by someone else (especially someone who is trained and/or a good writer) to really understand and exponentially improve your writing. Seeing how other qualified people critique and fix your writing is a good system for understanding how to improve your own. Secondly, revising is a process that a lot of people really skimp out on. 80% of writing is revision. If you haven't revised your writing more than 3 or 4 times when you 'finish' a composition then you are doing it wrong. Professional writers don't bust out perfect compositions in one or two goes. Many have revised their writing upwards of a few dozen times before something is complete.

As a general rule, MA programs are much easier to get admitted into (compared to doctoral programs). For a few reasons, least of which they are big money-makers for universities because they are more often than unfunded and require less of the school's resources. It's hard to say how competitive you would be with a 3.6 GPA and 169/150 for MA programs because I don't have information (and the acceptance process is very random) about the rest of your application. That being said, there are countless people who have got admitted into MA programs like Columbia or Duke or others with stats like that. About the GRE quant...the great thing about this section is the math is only high school level and is easily learn-able. I am actually in a remarkably similar situation as you. I scored 147 on my quant (with a good verbal score as well) when I took the test two years ago in the middle of my undergrad on a whim. I will be taking it again in September and have a weekly plan that focuses mainly on math. I have been doing this for a month now and have upped my practice scores already to the 155 range. My goal is to get 163+ on test day. There is no 'representative of my abilities' on the GRE, that is why it is a flawed system. Anyone can spend a lot of time upping their vocab and basic math skills and 'beat' the test. Lastly, GPA and GRE scores are actually not what is going to get you accepted, but rather what gets your application considered. Both those measure are notorious for being 'benchmarkers' where if you met a certain threshold, you are through the hoop to the next stage. What is going to get you admitted is your SOP, letters of rec, and your writing sample. These are the components that show your research interests and how you fit into their program.

To answer your question, neither your GPA nor your GRE scores are horrible. I would retake the GREs. Since you have 7+ months to study for the test you have plenty of time to up your quant score. You don't even need to study for the verbal section since your score is outstanding. With that much time and concerted effort you could break 160 in quant and be as competitive as anyone else. A combined 320 GRE and a 3.6 GPA is enough to get into virtually any MA program as long as the rest of your application is strong. In fact, I would worry about researching what schools are proper fits for your interests more since you were unaware that many schools in the US don't even offer terminal MA degrees in political science. Lastly, apply broadly; don't worry about 'tiers,' worry about what are good fits.

Penn nor Harvard offer terminal MAs in political science. Nor do any other Ivy league schools as far as I know except Columbia.

Hate to break it to you, but schools like Harvard and Penn don't offer MA programs.

Freedom goes both ways. You may say that living in big cities is more restrictive, however big cities provide way more opportunities for leisure and job opportunities than smaller towns so I would argue that it's small towns that are more 'restrictive.' The difference between small town and big city is not as wide as you believe. And the fact that you have no experience living in one is probably why you have this perception. First of all, half of safety is 'fear.' If you are afraid of things, places seem a lot more dangerous than they are. What's the worst thing that is honestly going to happen to you? That you get robbed at knife/gun point? Even then, the chances are extremely low and the outcome is you are out 20 or 40 bucks. You could get raped? I would imagine the rape stats are probably pretty similar in rural vs. city atmospheres. The chances of any serious crime, ie. murder, happening to you randomly are slim to none. When you learn to 'let go' you can adjust rather easily. That being said, you need to take precautions. Some simple ones: -don't walk in shady neighbourhoods with jewellery showing. -don't be an idiot and look like you don't know where you are, ie. walk around confidently. -keep an eye out for your surroundings You follow those simple rules and the chances of anything happening to you are slim to none. I've lived in places like Bogota, Rio de Janeiro and Mexico City for the past 5 years and I have been robbed a grand total of 1 time. And I have been in some damn sketchy places and weird situations during that time period. The world isn't as scary as you think it is.

There is nothing wrong with re-applying to the same program a year later.

^ Yeah, but I don't see the point in restricting yourself to only Canadian universities. Even a mid-ranked university in the US is probably the same level or better than most Canadian universities for doctoral political science programs. Although McGill and Toronto have solid programs, neither place exceptionally well.

That probably makes sense. In Canada, which follows a more undergrad-masters-Ph.D. system, typically assistant profs only advise masters students. I know that at my university that out of the three assistant profs, I don't think any of them chaired a dissertation. Chairs are usually reserved for associate or full profs. There might also be a bit of a bias here though too because Ph.D. students may seek out more experienced profs for chairs as a general trend. I think I would look for more experienced profs to chair my dissertation just for the networking and notoriety aspect. Of course, having a close relationship on your committee with a younger prof to bounce ideas off of could definitely be invaluable. About the assistants having bigger groups, this is common I agree. Since all things being equal, assistant profs are more aggressively conducting research, they are more likely to hire RAs. I think there is a bit of a golden rule that undergrads looking for RA positions are best to target new professors than more established ones.