davet73

No kidding, especially from a Top 10 program!!!

So, my question is about potential supervisors. After being accepted to a university, how should I go about approaching prospective PhD supervisors? I have heard nightmare stories about professors hijacking a students research and that research basically mimicking the research interests of the professor instead of that of the student. I want to make sure that I have a great level of autonomy with guidance. Can I be direct in asking about autonomy, or would it come across badly? Thanks, Dave

UCLA is my program of choice, so I am interested in hearing the responses. However, my focus is on voting behavior and the impact of media (so I am looking to work with Vavreck or Zaller).

As far as a MA, I think what matters is what you get out of it. I wouldn't do a MA simply to improve my application to PhD programs. But even with that said, there could be some benefits. As for me, I decided to do my MA at McGill University. The reason I decided to do a MA first was because I wanted to see if I really wanted to spend 4-5 years doing a PhD. A MA degree gives you the opportunity to decide if you want to do this as a career, if you want to spend hours reading literature and playing around on Stata, or if you can handle a PhD. So, if you are absolutely sure you want to do a PhD, I would just spend all of my time studying for the GRE. If you can replicate your GRE scores, then you should be fine. One of my friends was just accepted to Princeton with a 154Q/158V/5A GRE score, but their SoP and recommendations were strong. Your GRE will probably make up for you letters or recommendations. However, as I said, the MA can have great benefits, even if you know that you are going to do a PhD. At McGill, my supervisor is well known in the voting behavior community. Not only will he be giving me a strong letter of recommendation for my PhD applications, he also asked me to co-author a book chapter with him (which will be published later this year or early next year). So, my MA has already given me a publication. So, overall, my MA experience will probably help my PhD application, especially when competing with applicants who are coming straight out of a BA program who probably do not have a well defined area of study. Therefore, I would recommend finding a MA program that will give you the most bang for your buck. That is just my two cents.

So, simple question (which usually never has simple answers)...is the current job market in the US more favorable for comparativists or Americanists? In addition, how is the market for behavioralists regarding voting behavior? The reason why I am asking is that I am filling out my PhD "statements of purpose" and I really have two research ideas that I am interested in. The first one is looking at American voting behavior, which will primarily, if not exclusively, look at attitudinal data (mostly ANES). The second research interest is looking at political parties in a comparative manner (Europe and North America for now) which will use both attitudinal and aggregate-level data. I don't want to get into the specifics regarding my research ideas, but as you can see, there is quite a bit of difference between the two research proposals. Of course, I want my statements to be extremely focused in one area. And regarding "which one do I enjoy more", they are probably about the same. Also, I do have my MA from McGill, so I already do have some comparative experience. So, thoughts? Does the job market favor one over the other, or is it six of one, half-a-dozen of another? Thanks.

PoliticalOrder is right. Gidengil and Belanger (who is my supervisor) are not just some of the best in Canada, I would argue that they are among the most respected worldwide. The problem is that McGill's Canadian politics field has very few classes, and none of them deal with voting behavior or any aspect of elections. In fact, I had to create a reading course with Dr. Belanger just so I can get something on voting behavior. So, if you attend McGill, you will have great professors to do research with and that can advise you on your thesis or dissertation, but you will have to take a lot of classes that do not relate to your subject at all, which is the problem.

I can only speak for McGill. As far as Canadian politics, McGill is getting weaker. Out of the 100-120 graduate students that we have here, only a handful (including myself) focus on Canadian politics (and I am an American). If you do want to focus on public policy, Richard Schultz is a great prof here at McGill. However, he is really the only one regarding policy. McGill is becoming more of an IR-Comparative university, unfortunately.

It would only be the part that I had written, not the entire thing, but I get the point.

What is your area of focus?

I was wondering what is the main purpose of a writing sample? Is it to primarily (or only) examine an applicant's writing ability, or is it to see how an applicant can structure a paper, or both? The reason I am asking is because I am deciding on what type of writing sample I want to send with my applications. I have a "regular" paper with an intro, lit review, methods and data section, results, and conclusion. However, I also have a literature review that I wrote for an upcoming chapter in a Sage handbook (that I am coauthoring with my current supervisor). I think that the literature review is significantly better written than any of my "regular" papers I have done. If I want to show my writing skills, I would want to send the literature review. So, basically, I'm confused on which one I should send. Cheers, Dave

I would actually like to add a question to this question...does an unfinished MA in Political Science hurt? So, here is my situation...I started my MA in Political Science at Eastern Illinois University in the Fall of 2013. In my first semester, I had issues with the professor I was a GA for, and decided to apply to a different program (but everyone had run ins with him, and he is no longer at EIU). So, I applied to McGill for a MA in Political Science (figured what the hell, even if it seemed like a shot in the dark). During my second semester at Eastern Illinois, I was admitted to McGill. Of course, I accepted. During the spring and summer semesters, I finished my course requirements for EIU (finishing my coursework with a 4.0), and all I had to do was write and defend my thesis. But when I came to McGill (which was only a few days after finishing the summer at EIU), my time was limited, and I ignored my EIU MA degree and have spent all of my time on my McGill work (which also includes a RAship and a TAship). I will have my McGill MA finished in May of 2016 and I plan on applying to PhD programs starting in December. Will the non-completion of the EIU degree hurt? I would hope that they would see that I left EIU to go to McGill, but could it still hurt nonetheless?

Hello everyone, I am applying to American University for my PhD (my focus is voting behavior,campaigns and elections). Just seeing if anyone has applied there before and their experience. Also I am wondering how much weight they put on GPA, GRE, fitting into the program, etc. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Dave

I'm actually Dr. Waller's TA for his American Govt class. We have a good working relationship.

Hello everyone, So, I have a little bit of an "issue" with selecting a PhD program. I wanted to get some advice from, well, basically anyone to see what they think. Here is my situation. I am currently at McGill doing my Masters. For my PhD, I want to focus on American Politics (with a specific focus on voting behavior in the South). I am an American student and have a lot for practical experience in American politics (worked for a US senator, on presidential campaigns, yada yada yada), and most of what I worked on as an undergrad was in American politics as well. Anyway, I have considered asking for a fast-track here at McGill, where I can start as a PhD 2nd year in Fall of 2015. The problem is that there isn't an American track, and my major would be in comparative politics, and I would not take any American government courses while at McGill. But even with that, I have a supervisor who is highly respected when it comes to voting behavior in general and has agreed to take on my research, even though it is American politics. My other option would be to look at other PhD programs. I have looked at UBC, especially since they have an American major for their PhD program and an expert in southern electoral behavior. Of course, I have looked at American universities as well. If I take this route, I would start as a PhD 1st year student in the Fall of 2016. But, of course, I would have a major in American politics. I would like to apply for the fast-track here at McGill, but I am worried that if I look for a job in American politics back home that having a major in comparative might hurt me. On the other hand, if I can stay here at McGill, I can be two years ahead on my PhD, which is just as important. So, thoughts?

Well, I do think my letters of recommendations were a big factor in my admissions to McGill.