Penelope Higgins

All admits for Princeton in all subfields (including theory) have been notified. I don't know about waitlists or rejections, sorry.

Never. Top schools want to compete for the top applicants.

Sorry not to reply sooner - missed this post. The answer is "it depends." It depends on the PhD program: some value area studies knowledge in their comparativists, some value methods and theoretical training. Here's how I would think about enrolling in one of these programs: does it give you the opportunity to work with some scholars who will be known quantities to political scientists, and will you get to work closely enough with them to get strong recommendation letters from them? I did an area studies MA because my undergrad was quite weak. Of my 3 letters, only one was from a PhD in political science. That probably got me rejected from some departments, but it helped me get admitted to several others. A strong letter from a big name historian or sociologist or anthropologist who studies your region of interest will help your file at many departments, so long as you can explain in your statement why you want to study political science.

I'm currently faculty at a place that rejected me for grad admissions. I know several other people in the same situation at other departments.

Here's the dirty secret: there is no focus on pedagogy in any PhD program. Some departments allow for (and some require) more teaching than others. Some require that all graduate students take one semester of 'teaching methods', some have mentoring programs where professors oversee and advise on graduate teaching. But the PhD is 100% about research. Don't enroll in one if you want to learn how to teach - there is nothing more than on-the-job training. It is a real disconnect, but that's the way it works...

These are both questions that you should ask the folks at Duke. They are fair questions to consider as you weigh admissions offers. Nobody on this board will have thorough answers to either question. If the department does not give you clear answers on these issues, I would be wary about enrolling. But I expect that both answers will be fairly easy for them to provide.

I think the reply above is a bit over-stated, but generally points in the correct direction. My view on this (based on teaching in two doctoral programs) is that an A is a strong performance, and A- is an OK performance, and a B+ is the minimum acceptable grade. If you're counting on this course for funding applications, or expecting to work with this professor down the road, you've got an uphill battle. But 1-2 B+ grades in the course of a PhD is not a big deal. Certainly nothing to "feel guilty about" - just keep moving forward!

If you're interested in applying these ideas to state formation, you should see Yoram Barzel's work on the state, and Steven Haber's 'The Politics of Property Rights' and Robert Bates and James Robinson also have some relevant papers.

mmm... warmed over sock puppets

Currently a visiting fellow at the Hoover institute at Stanford and I don't know where he will be after that. Chicago denied him at the 3rd year review stage. The consensus is that he has lots of interesting research, but none of it was published yet.

Just FYI Simpser is no longer at Chicago as of the end of this academic year. So when you get in, you should take that into consideration.

I know people who have used MAs from the following departments as a springboard to top PhD programs: Chicago, Yale International Studies, NYU, Georgetown, and Columbia. I am sure that there are others, but these are ones that come to mind as good options. Another possibility, depending on your interests, is to do an MA in something interdisciplinary (area studies, development, etc.) since these tend to be in programs where you're not competing with PhD students.

Of the two options you suggest, the MA is definitely the way to go. It serves two purposes: first it generates a record of strong performance in graduate coursework in political science. Second, it allows you to improve your recommendation letters by making them current and polisci relevant. Look for an MA in a department that has faculty who are well-known enough in the discipline to write you letters that will be taken seriously, but favor places where MA students are given the time of day by faculty. Because they are often not funded, terminal MA admissions are much less competitive than PhD admissions.

Just FYI Harvard only makes a single round of admissions decisions. I can't imagine, based on some personal information, that they are out this early. Someone may have gotten a phone call or informal communication from a faculty member, but official offers have almost certainly not been made. When they are made, they will all come

Mmm... sock puppets...

I know folks on the admissions committee at Columbia. I don't know when decisions will be made, but I can 100% guarantee you that they have not yet been made, let alone announced. Edit: Note, I am not at Columbia.

You're right. The source I cited does not dispute your argument. But if you want to be taken seriously by academics, an encyclopedia ain't going to help in this or any other context. Your inability to understand that is not unrelated to your inability to understand the other issues people have raised on this thread.

Are you seriously citing the Encylcopedia Britannica as a source? I'd advise you to do better than that if you want to study or teach political science! How about this definition of the field - it reflects how the mainstream of political science actually thinks about what it does... http://www.apsanet.org/content_9181.cfm?navID=727

I'm a faculty member. And we also have a grad student on admissions every year.

I don't tend to remember details from here when I'm looking at files since there is enough in them to keep one's mind busy in the piles of paperwork and it has been a few years since I've done grad admissions, so I'd have to say no to your question. But maybe someday?

To make you feel even better, your second worry is generally groundless. If there is a letter in your file I will look at it - I don't stop when I count to 3, or pick the 3 most prominent folks.

Just to add that if Kalyvas isn't 'positively oriented' I don't know what the term means. It's built around a formal model! And lots of 'positively oriented' political scientists (Kalyvas included) get the jumping-off points for building their models from the work of more qualitative or descriptive work. -- and I should add that I am currently teaching the comparative politics survey course for grad students this semester, and I assign parts of several of these books for the course and on our comprehensive exam reading list for CP.

Good news. And I'd imagine that this whole mess won't have affected your chances most places.

Sorry to hear about this situation. Incredibly irresponsible on the part of your recommender. I would hold out hope that at least some departments will review your file. I retain some degree of optimism on your behalf because I was in the same situation, and was admitted to several programs with all 3 letters missing (of course this was over a decade ago so perhaps things were different then?) though my file did suffer when it came to allocating fellowships. I would be surprised if most admissions committees in the US make any cuts before mid-January. Individual members may have begun reviewing files, but no decisions will be made until meetings can be scheduled when school is back in session. Most likely your letter was triggered by a departmental assistant getting files ready for the committee to start reviewing, so once you have a letter lined up, I would contact the sender of that email to find out how to get your letter into the file as quickly as possible rather than sending it via the normal channels. Perhaps you can shame the recommender, or ask the new possible recommender, to submit letters by fax or email directly to the professors on the admissions committee? Hang in there. *edited for clarity

Earlier poster was right: MA grades are REALLY inflated. A B- in an MA class is basically a failing grade. Trust me - I've given a few grades in that range in my time teaching, but only a few. I've never given a C range grade, even to students who should have failed.