ARealDowner

Just took the GRE today, felt good to get it off my back. My quantitative score ended up being higher than my verbal score (which really surprised me, as a former English major who hadn't taken a math class in four years until this semester, I was playing catch-up on math). Did do a four month version of the Magoosh six-month study plan, really helped me a lot.

The most recent practice tests I can remember, might be most useful for people to compare:

ETS Book Test 1:     V 169    Q 166
ETS Book Test 2:     V 169    Q 169
 
Manhattan Test 1:   V 162    Q 164
Manhattan Test 2:   V 162    Q 163
Manhattan Test 3:   V 162    Q 163
 
ETS Powerprep 1:    V 170    Q 167
ETS Powerprep 2:    V 166    Q 163
 
ACTUAL SCORES:   V 165    Q 169
 
Obviously very happy with the Q score, more important for my field. I noticed that the math problems on the real GRE were slightly more difficult than the ETS practice tests, slightly less difficult than the Manhattan and Magoosh problems I did (at least the hard and very hard - there were some at that level, but not many).
 
As far as the verbal, the Manhattan practice tests quiz vocabulary that is way more difficult than the actual test. There were a few questions Manhattan would give me where I didn't even recognize, much less know the definition of, a single word. On the actual GRE, there might have been a couple questions where I didn't know one or two of the words. Magoosh and ETS seemed pretty spot on here. GRE actually seemed more focused on some colloquialisms and common speech when it came to vocab words.

The only thing I would consider is that the mean GRE scores most schools report online somewhere are going to be weighed down a lot more by outliers on the low end than the top...since the ceiling is 170 on each section, and the average reported by top schools is probably somewhere between 160-165 on each section, there's not much room above it. However, if someone got a pretty low score on a section but had an outstandingly good rest of the application, that one very low score is really going to weigh the average down, while the median incoming student's GRE score is actually going to look higher than the average GRE score.
 
More anecdotally, I just noticed that by looking at the data provided by one of the schools I'm considering where the average GRE score per section was something like 162 or 163, but when it broke it down by person, it was a lot of 165-167 range people with a select few sub-155 people thrown in. So take that with a grain of salt - if your GRE happened to be close to that low end, maybe you end up becoming one of the people whose application is great enough in toto to be one of the few that makes it in. However, just keep in mind that something else in your application will have to be that much better than the people applying who are closer to those median scores.

I'm so happy for everyone who is still hearing wonderful news!  I just submitted my acceptance to attend yesterday and it feels exhilarating.
 
For those whose cycles worked out well, congratulations! 
For those of you whose cycles didn't work out, I know it's difficult, but please keep your head up and focus on improving your application!  This is my second cycle.  My first first one I was pretty much shut out, and now I'm going to Harvard.  Good things do happen!

Honestly, you have more than a sufficient math background already, not sure why the discussion has focused mainly on this. I would focus on four things you really can control at this point:
 
1) Doing well on the GRE.
 
2) Preparing a strong master SOP and then tailoring them for each program (particularly really nailing down your research interests and potential questions).
 
3) Doing the proper research on each department and their faculties/fit with your interests. 
 
4) Perfecting your thesis into a good writing sample.

This is one of the last places on the internet I thought I would see a temper tantrum. What a meltdown. This is fantastic, I should have popped some popcorn.

I know the tools and I reject them. People aren't numbers and can't be modeled by numbers. Talk about narrow minded. End of story. I may not have letters behind my name, but last I checked in the US, no one respects scientists anyway or we wouldn't be struggling with dealing with climate change. You want me to respect you? Fat chance. 
 
I love how, at first it's that I'm stupid, and now that I've shown I'm not stupid and I do understand the methods, that's still not good enough. Go fuck yourself.  None of you care about teaching the paying customers who are paying your tuition, you all think your research is more important. I can't wait till MOOCs put you all out on the streets. You're service providers, and you're antiquated. The CS kids have decided to destroy all our futures for quick cash, and if you think you will last much longer than the dreaded humanities you're fooling yourselves. the more reliance you put into quant, the more easily a computer can do your job for you, and the more replaceable you make yourselves. 

OMG an A in undergrad stats? Wow. You know all there is to know about quant and research.
 
On a serious note, what we're telling you is to stop being so narrow minded. As it was rightfully pointed out you need to know the tools before discarding them.
 
 
Comparing a whole range of approaches (qual) to the misuse of single model is inadequate. An adequate comparison would be somebody saying you can't use any form of modelling as it can't be used for causal inference. 

I just want to be completely clear here. I *never* approached my professors and adviser with the idea that I wanted to go to grad school, at first, I approached them for suggestions of what to do after I completed my undergrad career was over and *they* suggested I pursue graduate school, and *they* urged me to pursue graduate school. The more research I did the more I realized I was being guided into methodologies that I didn't want to pursue, that *I* didn't see any value in, (not that they had no inherent value) and then was quickly written up as being problematic by the self same faculty because I refused to see it from their perspective and jump on board. I stand by what I said, if they didn't want me to view qualitative and constructivist work as valid they shouldn't have introduced me to it. It's not my fault that they erected a strawman to tear down and I found more value in it than in their outdated realism and poverty propagating neo-liberalism. So they suggested I come here to gain some valuable insight, since I wouldn't quit with the idea that if I was going to Grad school it was going to be at a school that would have a program that would be in line with what I wanted to study.  And yes, I am tired of being told that I don't have a future in this field because I choose to not make use of their chosen methodology (btw, I don't suck at Quant, I got an A in stat, both my quant heavy science courses, and my quant heavy sociology course, I just don't like applying those methods to people) and they don't like it. 

I've been told in this thread that I'm wrong for not wanting to do something I see no value in, I've been told I'm wrong for wanting to maintain human dignity, I've been told I'm wrong for wanting to study what I want to study, I've been told I need to leave my own country to study it, which I find even more frustrating because it will infer an enormous personal cost on me, even though I've been flat out told that I have no future in this field without a grad degree. So what exactly am I expected to do? If I go to school for what they feel I should, I won't enjoy it, and I won't do well at  it because as you all state, it's a tremendous sacrifice. But I think I've started to understand what was meant by that, It doesn't really matter where I go, I was being told by my faculty and adviser that I have no future in the field unless I do exactly what they do. Well I stand by what I said before, I don't want to go to grad school, I've followed the advice of some previous posters and looked into the government affairs page and I think if anything some of those terminal degrees would be more what I need. You've all convinced me it isn't the right path for me, well done you. But you're telling me the exact opposite of what all of my faculty are telling me. I have no idea what to believe anymore, I'm even more confused now than I was when I came here. The amount of hostility that is clearly present here astounds me. So you know what? I realize this was a huge mistake and I'm gone. 

This has turned into a rather nasty back and forth, but perhaps the following will be helpful.
 
1) Different people use different research methods.  Take a look at the TRIP data (https://trip.wm.edu/reports/2014/rp_2014/index.php) and you'll notice that in the United States only about a quarter of scholars use quantitative methods as their primary approach.  It's certainly not true that American IR is overrun by number crunchers, although it's certainly true that far more than a quarter of younger scholars and scholars at top departments use statistical analysis heavily.  If, on the other hand, you find that what you wish to do is totally divorced from the work you see occurring in American political science departments, then you might rethink whether or not you actually want to be in a field where, in your own estimate, your approach is unwelcome.  It's another story if you would like to live and work in the UK/Canada/Australia for the rest of your career, but be forewarned that the American job market is much larger, so deciding that you would like to spend a career overseas is risky.
 
2) While quantitative methods are not hegemonic, you'll certainly find that ignorance about them in not acceptable in the field.  Students are expected to go through a year or two of training to learn the approach.  The early years of graduate school involve broadening your horizons before you narrow down into something specific, and frankly undergraduates are rarely in a position to judge what parts of this will prove useful (or not).  
 
3) If you try to pick where to go to school on the basis of methodology, you're doing it wrong.  People who succeed in this field are interested in questions, and find the tool that let's them answer the interesting questions.  That's why it's so important to have many tools in your toolbox and not to enter the process overwhelmed with preconceptions.  Look for programs where there are scholars working on the kinds of questions that you interest you and developing answer to them that you find compelling (or at least interesting).  If you end up not ever using quantitative methods, it won't put you outside the mainstream and it won't kill you if you spent some unpleasant hours in graduate school on problem sets.

I don't like the way the OP has overreacted in this thread, and I certainly don't approve of some of his comments. That said, I generally think that most people on this thread need to understand the context in which qualitatively-oriented people are operating. And that is being told that our approach has no place in the discipline. This is something that the quantitatively-inclined will never hear in their careers.
 
Quantitative methods can absolutely be useful for a huge variety of questions, and have a valuable place in political science. I would never dispute that. But when you hear comments to the effect that even a mixed-methods dissertation 'sends off the wrong signals', and that qualitative dissertations belong in sociology or the humanities, we've gone way too far in the direction of conformist groupthink. How can we read the work of giants like Peter Hall, Paul Pierson, Theda Skocpol, and Alexander Wendt (to name only a few) and then casually say that qualitative work is not political science?

So try to view people's frustrations in context: they feel like they're being pushed out.      

Yes, but I refuse to work long hours, sacrifice sleep, or social life. I'm not a slave, and I refuse to be treated as such. If that requires drastic measures so be it. 

You don't necessarily need undergraduate quant training, even to study poli sci at a quant heavy program.  As one top professor told me, poli sci isn't economics: you aren't expected to be a mathematician before you start.  You are expected to put in as many extra hours as it takes when they're paying you solely to learn the tools you need to succeed in the field.
 
If you're in undergrad, you started college post-financial meltdown.  You should thus know by now that the options are (a) work at Walmart for minimum wage or ( work countless hours, sacrificing sleep and a social life as necessary, to find a job with even a minimal wage and social status premium over Walmart.  The days of getting paid to do something you actually want to do are over in this country for the 99.x% of us who aren't superstars.  

ITT I see a lot of excuses and not a lot of action. Everything that is pointed out to you, you seem to reply back with some form of a caveat. 
 
For example:
 
- history has language requirements
- political science and other social sciences require quant training
- internships don't pay
- can't do X and Y because not in an honours program.
 
Sounds like a lot of excuses for your lack of motivation and/or laziness. Seriously. If you want something you have to jump through hoops and get the necessary skills and experience to get there. You are not entitled to anything. 
 
Personally, I have had to jump through a lot of hoops to get where I want to be academically, like learning languages when I am not particularly skilled or quick at them, taking and willing to improve my quant skills to succeed in political science, going to office hours countless times when talking to professors was once very intimidating for me, coming from a very untraditional and unacademic familial background and rising to the top of my respective cohorts on effort, ect. Life isn't all roses my friend, you need to do what you got to do to succeed if your desires are even somewhat ambitious. 

what are you talking about

I got into Harvard as well. AS;EISH;LFIHESAZLFIHEASLIFHESAL;IFE!!!!!!!!!!

epic.

Just got accepted by George Mason University!!! Unbelievable, first acceptance of this (second) cycle.. and three-year TA!!

Cornell rejection. Now it's final. I am going to Bloomington. Other results do not matter.

haha i'm glad i'm not the only one who was torn between different psych programs! i was still considering clinical psych as late as September/October this year and started to fill some clinical applications out but then i just exclusively focused on experimental psych. congratulations on getting into a great school though

Plot twist: Each time someone calls Harvard, the announcement is pushed back a day.

Just received an email from NYU offering me admission to the Master's program, which explains the long wait from when others received acceptances/rejections.
I have a strong PhD offer already (and still waiting on several others), so I won't throw my money at NYU for a MA. 

Hi all, 
 
I know that many of us have heard from departments, and therefore, I am wondering if anyone has started the process of deciding on a program.  Also, I know this is a bit early as some programs have yet to announce decisions and that there are still visit days to attend.  However, I am constantly weighing all of my options and playing out different scenarios in my head.  My current question is do I attend a top 10 school with some fit or a top 20 school with near perfect fit (please note that I do not have all of the information regarding the schools as I have yet to visit)?  I have read a ton online and many advise to go with the highest ranked program that one gets into.  However, my current undergraduate advisors really stress fit.  Any advice is appreciated and I would love to hear how you all are weighing your options and deciding on programs. 
 
Thanks!  

Accepted at Syracuse (yay), but on the waitlist for funding (boo). Waitlist for funding seems to be a new thing for them as the website states all admitted students are offered funding 

You're trapped, mate. It's the Durham life for you.