Penelope Higgins

My impression is that the NYU MA program is not a great stepping stone to PhD programs, for the reason I spell out below. Others should feel free to correct me on this issue, and of course my comments here should not influence your choices unduly.
 
Based on what I know about the MA program, it is not staffed by the faculty from the PhD program, and courses are offered separately. See, for example, this list: http://politics.as.nyu.edu/object/ma.scheduleFall2014 of courses for Fall 2014. None of the folks teaching MA only courses, except Cohen, are regular faculty. Other courses are open to MA students only by permission, and many of the PhD courses are not even listed here as options for MA students. Students in this program won't interact much with the NYU Politics faculty, won't get letters from them for re-applying, and won't get NYU training.
 
All that said, NYU may be the best option for you. But I wanted to put my impressions forward in the interest of starting a conversation that might help you and others make a more informed decision about the program.

In nearly every case (read: every case I have seen), waitlists are not ordered. They consist of a small group of students, all of whom we would be happy to admit, who can be used to balance the cohort as those who are admitted inform us about whether they plan to attend. This balance can be by sub-field, within subfields, or by gender or other ascriptive characteristics. Because there isn't much comparison that I have seen among students on the wait list, there isn't anything you can do except express interest, and given that that expression is not a costly signal it isn't clear how much it does at all.

Can you connect your research interests to what political scientists study? If so, you will be fine, and time at a think tank, which will focus on policy or politics rather than academic social science, won't help very much. If you feel that research experience would help you refine your interests, that is a good reason to do it. But if you can articulate a research focus that falls in the arena of political science, you will not suffer for not having a political science background.

Someone in my grad school cohort who was wait-listed and eventually enrolled without funding ended up as clearly the star of our cohort. They got their first job at a top 5 department and now have tenure (early) at another top 5 department. Nobody remembers whether or not you were wait-listed or where you ranked in the admissions process once the admissions process is over.

You're either trolling or very naive/optimstic.

A couple of thoughts on the rarity of European PhDs in teaching posts in American universities. This is a general statement that should be read as a description of reality that is neither an endorsement, nor without exceptions.
 
There are few recent PhDs from non-US schools teaching at US universities. Of those, the vast majority come from Canada and England. This is largely a result of the fact that American political science is quite different from political science in Europe. Different research questions, different standards for qhat makes good research, different emphases of methods, etc. The result is the emergence of two largely separate communities. These overlap to some extent in studies of European politics, and in some parts of the political theory subfield, but otherwise they largely exist independently of one another. US universities tend not to consider hiring European PhDs partly because of the lack of network connections between the two, but largely because they are concerned that PhDs trained in Europe are not equipped to teach classes or train graduate students in ways that reflect the American version of the political science discipline.
 
I have co-chaired a dissertation with someone at a prominent university in a non-England European country, and discovered that we had completely different expectations, not only in terms of the formal dissertation requirements but in terms of what constituted good research. These are the sorts of bridges that are hard to cross. And that, in my view, is why doing a PhD in most places in Europe, in most areas of study within political science, will limit your access to jobs in the US.

A couple of thoughts on the rarity of European PhDs in teaching posts in American universities. This is a general statement that should be read as a description of reality that is neither an endorsement, nor without exceptions.
 
There are few recent PhDs from non-US schools teaching at US universities. Of those, the vast majority come from Canada and England. This is largely a result of the fact that American political science is quite different from political science in Europe. Different research questions, different standards for qhat makes good research, different emphases of methods, etc. The result is the emergence of two largely separate communities. These overlap to some extent in studies of European politics, and in some parts of the political theory subfield, but otherwise they largely exist independently of one another. US universities tend not to consider hiring European PhDs partly because of the lack of network connections between the two, but largely because they are concerned that PhDs trained in Europe are not equipped to teach classes or train graduate students in ways that reflect the American version of the political science discipline.
 
I have co-chaired a dissertation with someone at a prominent university in a non-England European country, and discovered that we had completely different expectations, not only in terms of the formal dissertation requirements but in terms of what constituted good research. These are the sorts of bridges that are hard to cross. And that, in my view, is why doing a PhD in most places in Europe, in most areas of study within political science, will limit your access to jobs in the US.

A couple of thoughts on the rarity of European PhDs in teaching posts in American universities. This is a general statement that should be read as a description of reality that is neither an endorsement, nor without exceptions.
 
There are few recent PhDs from non-US schools teaching at US universities. Of those, the vast majority come from Canada and England. This is largely a result of the fact that American political science is quite different from political science in Europe. Different research questions, different standards for qhat makes good research, different emphases of methods, etc. The result is the emergence of two largely separate communities. These overlap to some extent in studies of European politics, and in some parts of the political theory subfield, but otherwise they largely exist independently of one another. US universities tend not to consider hiring European PhDs partly because of the lack of network connections between the two, but largely because they are concerned that PhDs trained in Europe are not equipped to teach classes or train graduate students in ways that reflect the American version of the political science discipline.
 
I have co-chaired a dissertation with someone at a prominent university in a non-England European country, and discovered that we had completely different expectations, not only in terms of the formal dissertation requirements but in terms of what constituted good research. These are the sorts of bridges that are hard to cross. And that, in my view, is why doing a PhD in most places in Europe, in most areas of study within political science, will limit your access to jobs in the US.

A couple of thoughts on the rarity of European PhDs in teaching posts in American universities. This is a general statement that should be read as a description of reality that is neither an endorsement, nor without exceptions.
 
There are few recent PhDs from non-US schools teaching at US universities. Of those, the vast majority come from Canada and England. This is largely a result of the fact that American political science is quite different from political science in Europe. Different research questions, different standards for qhat makes good research, different emphases of methods, etc. The result is the emergence of two largely separate communities. These overlap to some extent in studies of European politics, and in some parts of the political theory subfield, but otherwise they largely exist independently of one another. US universities tend not to consider hiring European PhDs partly because of the lack of network connections between the two, but largely because they are concerned that PhDs trained in Europe are not equipped to teach classes or train graduate students in ways that reflect the American version of the political science discipline.
 
I have co-chaired a dissertation with someone at a prominent university in a non-England European country, and discovered that we had completely different expectations, not only in terms of the formal dissertation requirements but in terms of what constituted good research. These are the sorts of bridges that are hard to cross. And that, in my view, is why doing a PhD in most places in Europe, in most areas of study within political science, will limit your access to jobs in the US.

A couple of thoughts on the rarity of European PhDs in teaching posts in American universities. This is a general statement that should be read as a description of reality that is neither an endorsement, nor without exceptions.
 
There are few recent PhDs from non-US schools teaching at US universities. Of those, the vast majority come from Canada and England. This is largely a result of the fact that American political science is quite different from political science in Europe. Different research questions, different standards for qhat makes good research, different emphases of methods, etc. The result is the emergence of two largely separate communities. These overlap to some extent in studies of European politics, and in some parts of the political theory subfield, but otherwise they largely exist independently of one another. US universities tend not to consider hiring European PhDs partly because of the lack of network connections between the two, but largely because they are concerned that PhDs trained in Europe are not equipped to teach classes or train graduate students in ways that reflect the American version of the political science discipline.
 
I have co-chaired a dissertation with someone at a prominent university in a non-England European country, and discovered that we had completely different expectations, not only in terms of the formal dissertation requirements but in terms of what constituted good research. These are the sorts of bridges that are hard to cross. And that, in my view, is why doing a PhD in most places in Europe, in most areas of study within political science, will limit your access to jobs in the US.

A couple of thoughts on the rarity of European PhDs in teaching posts in American universities. This is a general statement that should be read as a description of reality that is neither an endorsement, nor without exceptions.
 
There are few recent PhDs from non-US schools teaching at US universities. Of those, the vast majority come from Canada and England. This is largely a result of the fact that American political science is quite different from political science in Europe. Different research questions, different standards for qhat makes good research, different emphases of methods, etc. The result is the emergence of two largely separate communities. These overlap to some extent in studies of European politics, and in some parts of the political theory subfield, but otherwise they largely exist independently of one another. US universities tend not to consider hiring European PhDs partly because of the lack of network connections between the two, but largely because they are concerned that PhDs trained in Europe are not equipped to teach classes or train graduate students in ways that reflect the American version of the political science discipline.
 
I have co-chaired a dissertation with someone at a prominent university in a non-England European country, and discovered that we had completely different expectations, not only in terms of the formal dissertation requirements but in terms of what constituted good research. These are the sorts of bridges that are hard to cross. And that, in my view, is why doing a PhD in most places in Europe, in most areas of study within political science, will limit your access to jobs in the US.

A couple of thoughts on the rarity of European PhDs in teaching posts in American universities. This is a general statement that should be read as a description of reality that is neither an endorsement, nor without exceptions.
 
There are few recent PhDs from non-US schools teaching at US universities. Of those, the vast majority come from Canada and England. This is largely a result of the fact that American political science is quite different from political science in Europe. Different research questions, different standards for qhat makes good research, different emphases of methods, etc. The result is the emergence of two largely separate communities. These overlap to some extent in studies of European politics, and in some parts of the political theory subfield, but otherwise they largely exist independently of one another. US universities tend not to consider hiring European PhDs partly because of the lack of network connections between the two, but largely because they are concerned that PhDs trained in Europe are not equipped to teach classes or train graduate students in ways that reflect the American version of the political science discipline.
 
I have co-chaired a dissertation with someone at a prominent university in a non-England European country, and discovered that we had completely different expectations, not only in terms of the formal dissertation requirements but in terms of what constituted good research. These are the sorts of bridges that are hard to cross. And that, in my view, is why doing a PhD in most places in Europe, in most areas of study within political science, will limit your access to jobs in the US.

A couple of thoughts on the rarity of European PhDs in teaching posts in American universities. This is a general statement that should be read as a description of reality that is neither an endorsement, nor without exceptions.
 
There are few recent PhDs from non-US schools teaching at US universities. Of those, the vast majority come from Canada and England. This is largely a result of the fact that American political science is quite different from political science in Europe. Different research questions, different standards for qhat makes good research, different emphases of methods, etc. The result is the emergence of two largely separate communities. These overlap to some extent in studies of European politics, and in some parts of the political theory subfield, but otherwise they largely exist independently of one another. US universities tend not to consider hiring European PhDs partly because of the lack of network connections between the two, but largely because they are concerned that PhDs trained in Europe are not equipped to teach classes or train graduate students in ways that reflect the American version of the political science discipline.
 
I have co-chaired a dissertation with someone at a prominent university in a non-England European country, and discovered that we had completely different expectations, not only in terms of the formal dissertation requirements but in terms of what constituted good research. These are the sorts of bridges that are hard to cross. And that, in my view, is why doing a PhD in most places in Europe, in most areas of study within political science, will limit your access to jobs in the US.

A couple of thoughts on the rarity of European PhDs in teaching posts in American universities. This is a general statement that should be read as a description of reality that is neither an endorsement, nor without exceptions.
 
There are few recent PhDs from non-US schools teaching at US universities. Of those, the vast majority come from Canada and England. This is largely a result of the fact that American political science is quite different from political science in Europe. Different research questions, different standards for qhat makes good research, different emphases of methods, etc. The result is the emergence of two largely separate communities. These overlap to some extent in studies of European politics, and in some parts of the political theory subfield, but otherwise they largely exist independently of one another. US universities tend not to consider hiring European PhDs partly because of the lack of network connections between the two, but largely because they are concerned that PhDs trained in Europe are not equipped to teach classes or train graduate students in ways that reflect the American version of the political science discipline.
 
I have co-chaired a dissertation with someone at a prominent university in a non-England European country, and discovered that we had completely different expectations, not only in terms of the formal dissertation requirements but in terms of what constituted good research. These are the sorts of bridges that are hard to cross. And that, in my view, is why doing a PhD in most places in Europe, in most areas of study within political science, will limit your access to jobs in the US.

I'm on the admissions committee in my department yet again this year. I can assure you that nobody cares about that sort of thing even if we do notice. We've admitted people addressing cover letters to the wrong school. Actually we've hired a job candidate who did that in recent memory as well. Quality of work wins out.

I'm on the admissions committee in my department yet again this year. I can assure you that nobody cares about that sort of thing even if we do notice. We've admitted people addressing cover letters to the wrong school. Actually we've hired a job candidate who did that in recent memory as well. Quality of work wins out.

I'm on the admissions committee in my department yet again this year. I can assure you that nobody cares about that sort of thing even if we do notice. We've admitted people addressing cover letters to the wrong school. Actually we've hired a job candidate who did that in recent memory as well. Quality of work wins out.

I'm on the admissions committee in my department yet again this year. I can assure you that nobody cares about that sort of thing even if we do notice. We've admitted people addressing cover letters to the wrong school. Actually we've hired a job candidate who did that in recent memory as well. Quality of work wins out.

Language skills may be seen, in some departments, as a necessary condition for admission. But nobody is going to see language skills as a strength that compensates for weaknesses in other parts of the application. In that sense, languages do not play a role in the admissions process.

Departments don't give a priority to language abilities. Languages are, for political science, nothing more than a tool that you need to do certain kinds of research. They can help your application by demonstrating your preparation for research, but they won't substitute for the other required components of the application package.

I think it's best to identify a research interest and a way that you would go about analyzing and solving the puzzles that remain in that interest. Once you're there, you can ask what kind of methods are best.
 
In general, you can make a case for mixed methods in just about any interest area, but it's more convincing in some than in others. Comparative nationalism might employ some surveys that require you to prove statistically that associations between responses were not random, but you'll have to do process tracing and historical analysis to make any sort of convincing case. Voter behavior is maybe the opposite; you can get some leverage from attempting to trace particular influences on a given voter and then generalize, but you can't possibly avoid using large-n surveys or experiments that will have to be justified statistically.
 
Making an argument that you need training in partcular types of methods to solve particular types of puzzles not only communicates your personal methodological bias or interest, it also signals that you understand methods to be the ways that you go about gathering and analyzing data and that there are certain tools for certain jobs.
 
Your own field would appear to have puzzles best solved using a wide variety of tools. If you are interested in the associations between particular types of financial or economic policies and later performance, you'll likely be doing a lot of coding and quant work. If you are interested in explaining the history or comparative internal politics of these institutions, that seems to be more qual. At some point, you may want to tie those questions together, at which point you'll need both.

None of us can tell you how a degree from Idaho State will be received in your home country. But here are two reasons to hesitate about choosing this program. First, funding, especially for international students, will be limited or completely absent. And second, their doctoral program requires students to specialize in American politics (see the description of the graduate program on their site). You won't be able to write a dissertation on the things you've mentioned on here before as your interests. If you're really committed for some reason to not taking the GRE, I would think that universities outside the US would be your best set of options.

None of us can tell you how a degree from Idaho State will be received in your home country. But here are two reasons to hesitate about choosing this program. First, funding, especially for international students, will be limited or completely absent. And second, their doctoral program requires students to specialize in American politics (see the description of the graduate program on their site). You won't be able to write a dissertation on the things you've mentioned on here before as your interests. If you're really committed for some reason to not taking the GRE, I would think that universities outside the US would be your best set of options.

By the standards of where you're coming from, even most quantitative and formal work in American politics won't compare. There are departments (like the one coach is attending) that are exceptions, but in general most grad students in American aren't developing new methods or models. Look at the American politics syllabi and at the work of faculty and you'll get a sense of this.

This statement, to be honest, isn't based on direct experience: I am not an Americanist. But I have served on hiring committees for American politics and in economics, and the difference in methods expectations is dramatic.

I do grad admissions in my department most years. Our spreadsheet on applicants doesn't even have a column for the writing section of the GRE.