APGradApplicant

1) It is not required and many PhD programs include a built-in Masters. An MA can help strengthen your application if you have a low GPA or are worried that your letters will not be sufficiently strong (either in source or content). If you are concerned that one of these issues might hurt your application chances, consider applying to respected MA "feeder" programs as well as PhD programs. 2) Adcomms will like seeing math ability. I would think that a robust business statistics course would be sufficient, I'm not sure. Taking a methodology class would be helpful in a lot of ways; it would solidify your quant credentials and give you a better sense of how you will be expected to ask and answer political questions in your PhD program. I have also heard that undergrad calculus is encouraged but not required. A high math GRE score would also help.

Agreed that Harvard is worth a shot. However, know that the "Big 6" in particular- or CHYMPS as some call them (Cal-Berkeley, Harvard, Yale, Michigan, Stanford and Princeton)- are incredibly picky about who they take. For instance, a 650V is a great score and from what I remember that puts you in something like the 93rd percentile. That said, you should know that admitted applicants at Harvard I would guess average a little above 700 (or certainly close to it) on the GRE Verbal. Another thing I didn't really understand until I talked to people who actually serve on admissions committees is this: LORs are important less so for what they say than for who is saying it. Or let me put it differently: virtually every file they see is going to have letters from professors that say good things about the student. Yes, it's helpful that they're personalized and that it's clear the professor actually knows the student and isn't just writing a form letter. That said, what most profs sitting on an admissions committee are going to ask themselves is whether or not they know personally or more likely, know of the professor who's writing the letter and if so, is this somebody who does well-regarded work in the discipline and for whom they have respect? This makes it difficult for people coming from lesser-known undergraduate schools in the sense that these departments often aren't the ones whose faculty are publishing in the top journals or who are well-known in their fields. Is this fair? Probably not. But it's a piece of the puzzle to the admissions game that's important to know about. Thus, in no way am I trying to say that you won't get into Harvard or another CHYMPS program; I just think it's important to put this whole process in perspective and not to set oneself up for a disappointment. I should also clarify that this is not directed at you specifically, Wallerstein. If anything it seems that you're taking a very measured and level-headed attitude to this whole process and that you're doing all the right things by "casting a wide net" (so to speak) when it comes to schools to apply to. You're also asking all of the right questions; I have no doubt that you'll do quite well in this process. The caveats I'm giving above are more just directed at the general pool of applicants who are gearing up to apply this cycle. Realize that there is indeed life outside of CHYMPS and that great numbers are a great asset but that unfortunately you're going to be far from the only one who has them. Anyhow, I guess that's my shtick on "What I Wish I Knew a Year Ago"!

Nothing to do with a program's competitiveness and everything to do with when departments draw up their budgets/when the admissions committee can meet. If you look through the results thread from last year, you'll see that most schools (I think 13/15 that I applied to) don't notify applicants of decisions until after Feb 1...and even so, a department would have to be pretty desperate to say to themselves "OK, our best bet is a late deadline...that way we can get some really good applicants who got shut out from better schools and decide to throw in an app at last minute".

Tskinner is an all around good guy for agreeing to look over people's SOPs! As a fellow 2009/10 admit cycle veteran of his, I would be happy to do the same thing and to share mine (although I think it is indeed posted somewhere). You can probably tell from my profile where I go now but I did scratch out my signature with admits/rejects when the cycle was over for a reason. That said, if you want to PM me I'll be happy to let you know all of my outcomes- the good, the bad and the ugly. Good luck to everyone applying this season!

FYI Rochester has some very strong comparativists who study Western Europe; this includes Bonnie Meguid, whose recent book on niche party competition and emergence in W. Europe has been pretty highly praised. I don't see any reason not to add it to your list. For more info on that particular subfield at U of R: http://www.rochester...sc/cp/index.php Update: I just saw that you said "not too quantitative" after the fact. Fair enough although I'm not sure I'd let this stop you from applying to such a strong program. The discipline is moving more and more in this direction and strong quant skills, even if you're looking to do more standard empirical work, are a very valuable asset to have on the job market.

Wish I had better news but...you'll be taking the GREs. Actually the good news is that they'll probably enhance your admissions profile, since the math is pretty easy with just a little studying and because of your advanced degrees in social sciences I'd imagine that your analytical/writing skills are better than your average soon-to-be or recent college grad. Good luck!

Hello, Seeker. I'm an Americanist (with a possible minor field in comparative- more specifically comparative political parties, electoral systems and legislative-executive systems) but nonetheless I did pay a nominal fee earlier this year to access US News' subfield rankings, which I'm happy to share. As you may or may not know, USN rankings do of course generate significant controversy given that they are based on reputational surveys. That said, they're surveys filled out by professors in the discipline...you know...those people who oftentimes are on job search committees . Thus, while I don't think they're perfect, I do think they provide at least a decent "benchmark". Keep in mind that some of the programs listed below may not have strengths all of the exact areas in which you are interested. That said, if you spend enough time combing through these forums, you'll see that what most people in the profession or well into grad school advise is that, barring extraordinary circumstances, the first priority for applicants looking to place at a good R1 should be attending a Top 20 program and that the second priority should be a really strong fit within your subfield. I don't know anything about your profile but for candidates like myself this was important advice. You might want to look at Realist's thread on this for more... Edit: Let me add that I'm an incoming first year grad student, so have little experience beyond the application game. Just wanted to clarify that so you know where I'm coming from- relatively new to this myself. Anyhow, let me shut up and give you the comparative subfield rankings, which list the 18 best programs: 1 Harvard University Cambridge, MA 2 Princeton University Princeton, NJ 3 University of California--Berkeley Berkeley, CA 4 Stanford University Stanford, CA 5 Yale University New Haven, CT 6 University of California--San Diego La Jolla, CA 7 University of Michigan--Ann Arbor Ann Arbor, MI 8 Columbia University New York, NY 9 University of California--Los Angeles Los Angeles, CA 10 Duke University Durham, NC 11 Cornell University Ithaca, NY 12 New York University New York, NY University of North Carolina--Chapel Hill Chapel Hill , NC 14 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, MA University of Chicago Chicago, IL 16 Northwestern University Evanston, IL 17 University of Wisconsin--Madison Madison, WI 18 University of Washington Seattle, WA

You got ambushed on PSJR for a reason. This is either a really good troll or a really annoying serious question. Thankfully, the common thing that either of these posts would share is that they don't deserve a response.

Below 700 verbal (let's say it's 660-690) shouldn't kill one's chances of being admitted at a top-10 program. A 660 still puts an applicant close to the top five percent of test-takers. On the other hand, while I of course can't speak for adcoms at top programs, a score below the 600-mark on the quant section is pretty low. I remember talking to the Grad Director at a top-10 program last fall when I began the whole process (I'll be starting somewhere this fall) and he actually said that a 720 quant was a "little below average" for their program. I'm not saying this to be a downer- I know how stressful this whole process is having just gone through it- but I think it would be extremely difficult to get admitted to a program like Harvard or MIT with a a <600Q. If you take a look around the old posts from last admissions cycle and the one before that, you'll see a sprinkling here and there of applicants who offered up their scores and if you do a little more detective work, their later posts will often report their admissions results. The good news about the GRE quant section, however, is that it's a HIGHLY teachable thing. The math concepts that one applies to arrive at the correct answers are really no more difficult than 8th grade Algebra I and 9th grade Geometry. The trick is to get used to the different "types" of questions that you'll see employed over and over again by the test-makers and to become comfortable confronting these with confidence. If you can do that, I don't see why you couldn't get a 700 or close to it (or even above it!). Obviously there are those "outlier" cases everywhere but I think taking the route I outlined is a much safer way to perhaps remedy your concerns about a low quant score. PS- I just realized after writing this that you're taking the GRE next week. If you're not happy with your results, I would suggest simply taking it again.

I disagree with you on that point. Education is not listed in the enumerated powers of the constitution. The Founders clearly meant for it to be a local issue. This allows parents and teachers in each community to have a say in what they think is the best way to teach their children. Sadly, this is a point that seems to escape politicians in both parties. President Jimmy Carter created the bureaucratic nightmare that we call the Department of Education because he was looking to keep the teachers' unions at bay in light of a left-wing primary challenge from Massachusetts Senator Teddy Kennedy. Ronald Reagan vowed to abolish the department but then backed off of this promise once he saw that it might actually be a tough fight. Most recently, Bush II expanded the DOE's power by nearly doubling its budget and widened its scope by passing No Child Left Behind. States and municipalities should serve as testing grounds for what works and what doesn't work. Further, we need to develop more charter schools and make sure that parents of smart and motivated children who are in failing schools be given vouchers that they can use to send their child to a stronger private school. Anyhow, the main point I'm making is that one size does NOT fit all and that the federal government sucks at doing anything- whether it's fighting misguided wars in the Middle East, securing our southern border from invasion by illegal immigrants, controlling "morals" by passing regulations on sexual behavior of consenting adults, or trying to "expand" the economy via a heavy-handed central bank that ends up hurting more than helping. As you can probably tell, I'm not a strong partisan for D's or R's. I just wish more people would listen to Ron Paul and realize what a mess politicians in BOTH parties make when they try to solve problems through centralization and intrusion... Anyhow, I'm now onto a topic completely outside the scope of this thread, but I just couldn't help rant about that, as localized education is a pet issue of mine...

Curiousgeorge84- This is why race-based affirmative action was a bad idea to begin with and an even worse idea in this day and age when we have a black president. I'm glad to hear that you're opposed to it although I disagree with socioeconomic affirmative action as well. I'm not, however, opposed to taking one's "life story" into account in college admissions, which in many cases will result in socioeconomic affirmative action. When I say I'm opposed to socioeconomic affirmative action, I mean that I don't think parental salary taken by itself without context should be a considered factor as much as what the applicant has gone through themselves...

Glad I could help! With respect to your follow-up questions, I believe that I would be doing you a disservice by trying to give you an informed answer, which is of course because I honestly don't know. With respect to this, I would try to seek out a professor at your undergraduate inst. in the field who you know to be generally "fair-minded" and neither partial nor hostile to public policy. They'd probably be able to give you a good answer on this kind of stuff, as well as on individual programs. Sorry I can't be of more help, although once again glad to hear that my initial reply was informative for you!

Newbie- It really depends where your interests lie. If there is (are) a paricular public policy area(s) (e.g. healthcare, welfare, education, military/defense, trade) that you know 100% for sure is (are) your primary interest(s) and you're not really looking to study political institutions or behavior more generally, then a policy PhD is probably for you. While you could certainly be a professor of public policy, especially if you go to a top program, my understanding is that many who get this degree end up working at policy think tanks or for the government at the state or federal level. That said, what I don't know is if you don't want to be a professor in the field, whether it makes sense to get a PhD rather than just a master's. I'm not really sure what the "payoff" is of doing the doctorate if you want to exercise one of the latter options I mentioned. In the mean time, if you pursue a political science PhD from a strong program, then you'll of course be studying institutions and/or behavior in whatever subfield (American, comparative, or IR; theory is of course a different animal, but I'm guessing not an interest of yours anyhow if you're even asking about public policy) of poli sci in which you are interested. This means learning quantitative (and maybe qualitative, although this has become less and less stylish in poli sci) methods for conducting research as well as the latest literature in your areas of interest. Further, most everyone, with exceptions here or there, who earns this degree will be looking to get a professorship once they successfully defend their dissertation. As somebody who's going to be starting a poli sci PhD program this fall, I can tell you that while I'm sure some public policy issues will no doubt come up when I study Congress (my main interest), I'd be looking at it more in the context of how these policy initiatives are advanced/marketed by political parties, presidents, interest groups, etc. as opposed to studying the minute details of the policy and its implementation/effects once it's in place. Conversely, someone getting a policy PhD would almost definitely be focusing on the latter aspect, as the point is to become fluent in one or two (usually) specific policy areas. If you're not sure but are eager to get started on grad school (although it probably would be nice to know which one you want), the best bet would probably be to apply to a political science PhD program that lets you take public policy as a major or minor subfield along with one of the more traditional ones (American complements PP well if you're looking to study a domestic policy area; IR or Comparative would be good picks if you're looking to study a foreign/international policy area). Places like TAMU, FSU, UT-Austin, some of the SUNY schools, and Vanderbilt (maybe?) are some examples of political science PhD programs that allow for a public policy concentration paired with a traditional subfield. Again, in interest of full disclosure, I'm entering a strictly political science PhD program and really didn't think seriously about a policy PhD or taking public policy as a field were I to go to one of the programs that had that option, so I'm not incredibly familiar with the public policy stuff. That said, I have some friends in those types of programs and had the chance to hear about it a little when I was on some of my visits, so I hope this answer at least is a good primer as you further navigate what you want to do down the road...

I wonder if we'll see any summer surprises. A few years back, a good friend of mine didn't get admitted to Harvard Law School (off the wait list) until July!

Congrats! Have you decided which offer you're going to take?