A Dalek

I'm based in the US, so my advice about European universities is limited. I'd suggest looking into places like Essex, Aarhus, etc. in Europe. In terms of methods training, I have not been impressed with the students I've interacted with from Oxford/Cambridge. There are exceptions, but between the US vs Europe, the former is clearly dominant for quantitative political science. I can't give you any meaningful feedback on likelihood of getting into a program. Admissions are heavily dependent on the applicant pool in a given year. I think you meet the bar for admission, but without seeing who else is applying, I can't say much about your -relative- likelihood. Based on your interest, I would suggest you consider looking at WashU and Rochester. I'd expand your range to include a few programs in the 30-50 range to increase your likelihood of admission. Illinois, TAMU, Indiana, etc. A better verbal score would help. A perennial concern with admitting international students is whether they are proficient enough to TA.

N=1. In economics and psychology RAships and 'predocs' have become increasingly important for PhD admissions but that isn't the case for PoliSci. The field has a few faculty who use a lab model, but it isn't the norm and so I wouldn't place too much weight on RA experience. I think the honors thesis is plenty fine. Regarding topic vs region. I know I differ from colleagues on this but I think it's bad to try to clone ourselves by only working with students interested in our specific niche. How does it advance science to keep doing the exact same thing as prior generations? A faculty member should be able to give meaningful feedback on a dissertation, so some overlap is useful, but something has gone wrong if a dissertation is a marginal improvement of the advisor's existing work. Teach us something new! That said, I would give preference to a student who was interested in the same region as me vs. a shared topic due to logistics. I have had a few prospective students contact me over the years who were interested in my topic but wanted to apply it to a region where I had limited knowledge about the language or other region specific information. I would not have felt capable of advising them.

I think you'll be fine. There is a general bias towards someone with an econ background. There are a handful of qual programs that might be biased against you but it doesn't sound like you're applying to those. I would emphasize your general methods background. I wouldn't emphasize formal methods outside those schools with a strong formal theory core like Princeton/WashU/Rochester. Behavior people can get iffy about it. Apply to a few schools in the 20 or so ranking range. Lots of places are reducing admits going forward and competition for slots will increase accordingly.

I think a move from econ is doable. Can you get any letters from political scientists or economists who publish in polisci journals? It isn't enough to guarantee an admit (nothing is), but it could help if you had someone capable of vouching for you. Consider applying to a few public affairs/political economy programs like Duke's. If you are looking at something in the EU, look at places like Aarhus.

I can't really give you odds since it depends on what the rest of the applicant pools looks like. I'd swap out Iowa for Texas A&M, UT Austin, Notre Dame or another similar program. Iowa has some good people, but they're on somewhat of a decline due to budget issues. They've hired some new junior folks but it'll be a bit before they're at the advising stage.

If you have guaranteed funding from your foreign government, many (but not all) programs are willing to admit you as long as they think you are qualified. Note that this is different from simply saying that it's a possibility. You'll have to show that you actually have the funding or are in process of acquiring it. For US citizens, there is similarly some leeway if you have the military paying for your degree. I don't think you necessarily need a 'feasible' dissertation upon admission. My view is that most students will change their dissertation topic drastically after coursework and better understanding the literature. I'm personally more interested in whether a student really wants to be an academic or is only marginally interested. Being an academic is a great career, but it takes a lot of sacrifice and isn't for everyone. We can teach students the literature, research methods, etc. We can't teach the desire to be an academic. Opinions differ across faculty. Get feedback from others.

I can't speak about the Ivies, but in the state flagships there is a lot of pressure to reduce admissions and/or admit every other year. I know several top 50 programs who have already decided to postpone admissions next year. Given funding uncertainty, there is pressure to focus on providing funding for current students versus new students, and for graduating people after five years. IMO I think comparative is going to be the worst hit since CP students usually need extra time to do field work. I suspect we'll see more dissertations relying on existing datasets and fewer dissertations with significantly new data.

Minors aren't a thing at the graduate level. Most programs require you to select two fields, with one of them being your primary field, but they'd both be within the department. I would advise against methods/formal theory as a primary field unless you study under a methodologist at a top 10 department. It's very marketable, but few programs have the capacity to seriously train someone as a methodologist. It's okay to have multiple past projects but when you write your statements you want to focus on one subfield since many departments try to balance incoming cohorts by subfield. My advice would be to select either IR or Comparative as your primary field (given your interests) and methods/formal theory as your second field.

It's hard to say. What I can say is that there tends to be a lot of movement the last week, as people confirm/turn down programs and a few last spots open up. So there is some chance for those of you hoping for a last minute admit... But if you already have another OK admit, I think I'd recommend accepting it unless it's a big difference in ranking.

About half. Not many departments are going to the waiting list this year though.

Chicago MAPSS is a cash cow for the university. TBH I can't recommend any of the fancy MAs out there. If your undergrad has a 4+1 MA, that's fine if you want to take some grad courses before applying to PhDs but otherwise just apply directly to PhDs in the US.

The Internet is anonymous but academia is not. We spend a lot of time reading each other's work and it isn't hard to identify people based on writing style. The current crisis is unprecedented in nature. I did not think current admissions would be impacted at first since those items are budgeted in advance. I had thought the impact would be on future admits based on how covid was dealt with. Based on recent meetings I've been in though, the budget situation is much worse than initially expected. It's not clear which programs will weather the storm best and I would not try to forecast. We simply don't know. Regardless good luck to you all.

Last time during covid we tried to defer admissions (some programs did) or 'make up' for it by reducing admissions the year after. Many current students were encouraged to finish even if they didn't have a job in hand. It used to not be strange to have people stay in a PhD program for 7-10 years. That just isn't possible anymore. There is a big push to get people out in 5 years. Many programs have also begun to be more proactive in mastering people out if they don't show promise during coursework. I don't know what we can do this time around. We haven't recovered from covid yet. We never really recovered from the great recession. I am sorry for not being able to share good news. For what it is worth, I think academia is a noble profession. I love my job, but you need to make a lot of sacrifices for it. So only choose it if you really really want it.

More so than usual but not entirely. This is something that varies by program and how their specific funding is organized. I would be proactive if you plan to go this route.

I am limited in what I can say, but I can say this much - I would not count on getting picked off waitlists. I have been in meetings where it was made clear that, even if we weren't going to rescind offers, we should avoid sending out any new offers. There will be exceptions. Some programs are in better financial situations, but in general there is a recognition that our priority is to secure funding for our current students.

I am sad to say that 'oh my read this' is unfortunately very correct on this point. If you have a funded offer you are likely to accept, I would sign it ASAP. There are things we faculty cannot say during the recruitment stage and (some of us) feel pressured to sweep under the rug. Let me say the quiet part out loud though: the funding situation is very bad. There were already pressures to reduce grad admissions before the recent change in federal leadership, and things are much worse now. Some universities have been more proactive than others in announcing hiring freezes/admissions reductions, but the underlying problem is systematic and (if we're lucky) won't be addressed until the current federal leadership leaves. My own program isn't reducing admissions but I think we all privately know this will be the largest cohort we will get to admit for 4-5 years.

It's impacting everyone. Ivies have big endowments, but they also rely heavily on federal funding. Treat offers like legal contracts, because they are. Until it's signed and processed by both parties it can still be changed. Make sure to read the language in your offer letters carefully to see if it has a clause clarifying when/if they can change the stipend amount. For those of you who have multiple offers, you can use that to counter offer the stipend amount. Note that this is usually limited to bargaining how much you make the first year or trying to get non-departmental fellowships. Fair warning to everyone. The job market has always been awful but given current conditions it's going to get a lot worse. I expect hiring freezes nationwide, and even when they lift you'll be competing with several postdocs/Assistant Professors who were under placed because of all this. The market is still recovering from the impact of covid and never really recovered from the great recession. Given the high opportunity cost of spending 5+ years in your 20s/30s getting a PhD, make sure this is what you REALLY want to do.

Not an unusual profile at all. Several schools have a policy subfield. Don't hesitate to apply to policy schools either. They make more $$$ anyway.

Graduate admissions this year should not be influenced by current developments on federal grant making. Regular admissions in polisci don't rely on grants to pay for grad admissions. Some STEM fields might be influenced but that's because they're more likely to use grants to hire grads to work in specific labs. Different model from polisci.

No.

A word on interviews from a faculty member. While part of the reason interviews are done is to ask more details about research interests, part of it is to evaluate English fluency (for international students) and to verify the candidate is capable of basic manners (for all). Some people look great on paper, but are hard to work with for a variety of reasons.

Regarding future trends, I think we're moving towards smaller cohorts. There are exceptions of course. The high ranking rich privates (e.g., Harvard, Yale, Princeton) may be able to keep up large cohorts, but many places are moving towards smaller cohorts due to budget constraints and the worsening job market. My big recommendation to applicants is to ask yourself if you're okay going into industry or working in a teaching focused institution. There are just fewer tenure track jobs in research universities. There is nothing wrong with going industry or taking up a teaching focused job. There are worse futures than spending a few years reading political science research and making six figures in an industry job. Just know what you are signing up for and adjust expectations accordingly.

Might be too late but my two cents is to avoid MAs unless they address a specific deficiency. If you want to do a US PhD long term, doing a US MA makes sense to build relationships with US professors. Non-US degrees are heavily discounted in the US. We just don't interact with European universities enough to evaluate. There are a few exceptions like Oxford/Cambridge but CEU isn't one of them.

I think you have a decent chance. There is a positive impression towards an econ background, at least in terms of quantitative background. Long term do you want a job in the US or the EU? The field has a strong bias towards its own students.

It's not a realistic option tbh. The market is flooded with un/underemployed PhDs and you probably won't be able to get adjunct jobs with just an MA. The sort of places where you could find something with just an MA are middle of nowhere towns, making 30-40k/year with minimal job security or benefits.