[Fall 2010 Admission Results]

Acceptances should be out tomorrow or Friday (or the beginning of next week at the very latest). I'm certainly not expecting to hear anything, but it will be nice to know that, for me at least, this long and unpleasant process is finally over.

Thanks for the info. How did you find this out? Or is it just guessing?

[Vanderbilt]

I'm very tempted to e-mail the DGS and ask when decisions will be mailed (or e-mailed). I hate being pushy though. Ugh.

[Fall 2010 Admission Results]

I have not heard anything.

Well if you haven't heard... my guess is they haven't accepted anyone yet! best luck

[Fall 2010 Admission Results]

Has anyone heard anything from Johns Hopkins? I'm not expecting to get in or anything, just wondering when I should expect to get word.

[What does it take?]

Sure, there are some students from great non-Ivy American schools (CalTech, MIT, Michigan, UVA, Berkeley), but this does not make up all of the balance. Without divulging too much information I can tell you that the cohort ahead of me had someone who did undergrad at Truman State and another from California University of Pennsylvania. I also think that I was overestimating the percentage who went to Ivy League schools. It was probably closer to 10-15%. I mistakenly count schools like MIT and Stanford and Chicago as Ivy even though I know that they are not.

To answer your second question, no. Letters vary tremendously. Just because you have good grades does not mean that you have fantastic letters. When I read a good-but-not-glowing recommendation written for someone who went to Princeton it goes into the preliminary reject pile. When you letter writer says "I've taught at Random State U for 25 years and this is one of the three best students I've ever taught and the other two went on to succeed at PhD programs at X and Y university" then I notice.

Now, you then asked about two students who were exactly the same but one went to Harvard and the other went to Western Michigan. That counterfactual never comes up. Lots of times we get students with similar grades and GRE scores, but the letters and writing samples and personal statements are always different enough for us to distinguish.

Thanks for clarifying!

[Nebraska]

Yellowshoes,

I emailed them. Adcom will meet this week. They are going to hopefully send them out in the mail on Monday.

Thanks for checking! I guess they got tied up last week... good to know when I should expect to hear, although I wish it was e-mail rather than mail as that takes an unknown amount of days to wait.

[What does it take?]

Lots of good thoughts here. Most of them seem right from my perspective. Let me just reiterate a couple points:

1. Really, where you did your undergraduate does not matter nearly as much as how well you did while you were there. I look recent cohorts at the top-10 program where I did my PhD and I see about 25% Ivy League, 30-40% international (meaning schools in China and Turkey and South Africa that most of you probably haven't heard of, not Oxbridge), and the rest a random assortment ranging from Cal States to random little private schools.
2. Killer recs are phenomenally important. Your professors know you better than some random standardized test or your transcript does. I'd say that they normally are what helps us to decide between two otherwise equal candidates. And I can assure you that in the choice between a kid with a 3.8 at Harvard and a kid with a 3.8 at Western Michigan, we're going to go with the one who has the better letters. Trust me.
3. The personal statement does not have to be a dissertation proposal, but it should be able to convince us that you can communicate well, that you have a passion for research, and that you understand the discipline of American political science. Put some real thought into it and get lots of feedback.

I think you make some valid points.

I find the information you looked up about your old program interesting, particularly that 30-40% come from international schools. I suspected there were several, but that is quite a lot. So roughly 35-45% come from non-Ivy/non-international schools. I'm not sure I would consider Cal Tech to be a "random" school as we've all heard of it, and I think everyone is aware that (even small) private schools usually fair well. I think what is more interesting (and perhaps more relevant to those of us who have been voicing concerns about the importance of undergrad) is the percent of students coming from small state schools. This wouldn't be schools like the University of X, X State University, or even (in some cases) Northern X University (I'm thinking of Northern Illinois which people have heard of), but schools like University of X at (insert random, small location...this obviously doesn't apply to the extensive California system). Seeing how many students come from these sorts of schools (state ones that we've never heard of) would be worthwile.

To your second point, would you not agree that more often than not both kids (the one from Harvard and from Western Michigan) with the 3.8 will have excellent recs? Who would the school pick in that, more likely, case? I would think that in most cases kids would have similar GREs, GPAs, support in recs, etc. In the event that they didn't, however, I agree that the school would be less likely to pick based on undergrad. But when all else is roughly equal, who could blame them?

[What does it take?]

I'm going to be one of those students with a less than stellar school on my app. Although I go to a mid sized state school, there isn't really anything that I can do at this point right? I can't transfer to an elite school as a senior, but I might consider it if I decide to spend two more years in undergrad. The way that I look at it is that all I can do is legitimize my GPA through acing the GRE. What does concern me is yellowshoes' lack of success up to this point.

I wouldn't encourage you to give up, just know what you are getting in to. Have people who know what to look for read your statement if at all possible. I really don't know what else could be my problem as its not GPA, GRE, stength of letters (akthough from less known profs, which I can't help), etc. Unless its undergrad, which also can't be helped now. The statement is the only thing I can mess with at this point.

[What does it take?]

I'm guessing that the folks with very high GPAs and very high GREs without luck so far have applied to only the top programs?

No, unfortunately. Several of mine are low ranked and I didn't even touch anything higher than 13.

[What does it take?]

I second all that's been said about undergrads, although maybe not the part about international schools... schools like to get kids from all over the world.

A point about statements. Yes get people to read it, but if your profs aren't reading them yearly (if your school doesn't have a grad program) then get someone who knows what to look for read them. My profs all liked my staement, but I have recently learned how far from good it actually is. They didn't have bad intentions, they have simply forgotten what goes into a good one.

As for my stats: 4.0 GPA and 1400 GREs. No luck so far and only a couple left.

[Nebraska]

Do you know if they are sending decisions via email or postal? If the latter, it should obviously take longer. Also, are you a MA or PhD applicant?

I noticed you are in at both missouri and missouri st. Louis. I think the first is the clear choice! Especially given the money situation!

[Nebraska]

Has anyone heard anything from Nebraska?

Apparently the committee was supposed to meet roughly last Monday and release results last week, but I haven't heard anything from them. (I applied for the MA, although I'm assuming they will release results for both MA and PhD at about the same time?)

[Minnesota Applicants]

Thanks, bsquar! Great info and very glad to hear that there's a place for non-poli psych people in American. If anything, that's what I was hoping might help my application a bit. By that I mean that I'm hoping that maybe my application will stand out among the Americanists if only because I am not one of those who is competing to get in on all the political psych research that's being done there and instead have research interests that are more concerned with institutions and public opinion. In fact, I listed Pearson and Treier (along with Jacobs) as faculty members with whom I would like to work. To be sure, I know that it's going to be a tough one to get into, and if I had a gun to my head, I would probably predict a rejection. That said, I am really hoping that I can perhaps get a nice surprise (similar to the way I managed to get placed on the wait list at Rochester, where I thought I had just about a zero chance of getting anything but a rejection).

Anyhow, best of luck to you on your application as well. As I said in the results forum, it has been a lot harder for me to get worked up about my rejections and any that might come in the future now that I realize how many friendly, bright and capable scholars there are who will end up going to these places with or without me in the cohort.

I've applied there too, with a 4.0 GPA and 1400 GRE. I've had terrible luck across the board so far though, and this is one of the best programs I've applied to. I think coming from a great undergrad, and already having tons of good news, works in your favor. I don't see why you shouldn't get in!

[Fall 2010 Admission Results]

Also in at the University of Washington. Email says about 210 applications were received, and they hope to enroll 12.

Well looks like I'm out then. Congrats to you! What's your subfield? (That goes for both UW admits here)

[Fall 2010 Admission Results]

Anyone claiming the UW Seattle admit on the results page? I'm wondering if it was a mass email or from a professor. Congrats!!

[Survey: Upward and Downward Mobility]

I think you're probably going to have to control for those on the extreme ends and only use results from those in the middle. I mean, someone from a Top 5 undergrad reallhy can't do anything but maintain their position or move down, and someone from the no-ranks can either not get in anywhere or move up. I'm not sure you can include all of these people in the same group.

For all of those schools in the middle, though, it is interesting to see mobility based on position within the current department.

[Fall 2010 Admission Results]

Claiming first acceptance to Missouri Columbia. Appears I have gotten full funding, but it has to be officially approved by the graduate school first. *takes a deep breath!*

There will be more, I am sure, but I have one and at a school I very much like for what I am looking to do. I would be perfectly okay with it.

Anyone know what funding looks like here?

Congrats!!!!

[Non-top 50 programs]

Can we just end the "NO I WAS BORN MORE UNLUCKY THAN YOU WERE!!" rant to prove a point and let this part of the forum for those who would initially want to discuss their futures at the non-top 50 programs? Yeah, some of the things the OP said were uncalled for. But let's be grown ups and let people be what they are?

end.

Agreed. It's just stupid to say "My life sucks worse than yours." There is always someone who has it worse than you.

It would be like a kid who grew up in a house with drugged parents and a kid whose parents helped them with their homework everynight. The latter says, "It was just as hard for me to get an A in our 3rd grade class as it was for you." No it wasn't. Even people at the bottom could be lower.

[Non-top 50 programs]

So, while I appreciate the concept of this thread, and I recognize that you said "the vast majority", I just feel the need to put something out there. You don't know anything about the backgrounds of the vast majority of us, nor what we are like in person. We are all under incredible strain and I'm 100% sure we don't always censor what we post as well as we could. That being said, in most cases, being able to get into a good grad school is not about the cards you are dealt, it's about what you do with them.

I went to public school from K-12, my parents are divorced, my family was solidly lower middle class. I went to a school with no AP, no IB, etc. I worked my butt off in high school to get good grades and on top of that loaded up my extra curriculars and volunteered while still holding down a part time job. I went to one of those "elite private" colleges that nobody seems to think they can afford and I paid less than in state tuition at the state school in my town. Some of it was loans, most of it was scholarships. That wasn't handed to me. I worked for it, plain and simple, and I didn't do it with tons of money from my parents. I also worked 30+ hours at an outside job during all four years of college in order to pay my own living expenses. I am in serious debt. I will be paying it off for a while at what, given my career goals, is not likely to be a particularly generous salary. It was worth it in my opinion, and it was worth all the hard work to get here.

I know lots of folks applying to grad school this year who are in at top programs. Yes, some of them have the background you seem to assume. Wealthy families, private schools, etc. Many, in fact the majority, do not. Most of these people are folks I went to undegrad with which means they also went to an "expensive private school". Many of them were on scholarship, all of them are in debt, all of them worked hard to get where they are, and very very few were dealth a royal flush. Even those that were, you have no idea what their lives were like. A friend I know who is going to be at a great program in the fall probably meets your definition of being dealt a "royal flush", but what you wouldn't know till you got to know him is that he has had to overcome a serious learning disability to get where he is.

My only point is this. You don't really know the people on this board, or the people who got into top programs. Looking at their numbers and their few posts here is not indicative of who they are and, in general, tells you -nothing- about their background. When you make assumptions about them based on extremely limited information, you are as predjudiced against them as you have said you feel like they are against you, and that's not any more fair to them than some of them may have been to you.

You do a great job of showing that many kids do come from not-the-greatest backgrounds and still make it. I guess I should have mentioned in my post clarifying that "royal flush" was about money and not "being an alcoholic as an adult," that what is really the most important is the undergrad institution (which usually requires money). The undergrad institution effects everything: the relative value of your GPA, the quality of your letters (both the standing of those who write them and their experience reading great ones every year), the research opportunities you've had, and the advising needed to write a killer personal statement. The only thing undergrad doesn't effect is the GRE, which is almost useless since everyone has a great score in this game. You can overcome all of the aboved mentioned troubles of an unknown undergrad by working hard, but it is NOT the same.

Fortunately for you, you worked your butt off, got into a good undergrad, and made it work, and for that I can only say congrats and nice work! While the "royal flush" of money obviously made things more difficult for you, however, you likely had the support of your family (correct me if I'm wrong). Coming from a poor background, one must have people around them supporting their desire to go to a good undergrad institution. A lot of modest-income families don't see the need in going to a great school and, quite frankly, think it is a disgrace to your upbringing when you ask to essentially be "better" than your parents. They are incredibly unlikely to sign any loan papers you'd need. For most people, it is a money and a support problem. For some lucky ones like you, it is only a money problem (which I am not suggesting is anything easy to overcome). Ultimately, if you can manage to still go to a good undergrad without either money or support, then THAT is impressive. It's not strictly money that makes contributes to the "royal flush," it's the culture of the family and community you have.

I think this is a valid point.

[Fall 2010 Admission Results]

Some feedback on how it looks from my end. We are still going through files now.

• Applications are up a bit from years before. So it's a bit more competitive. We are going to offer slots to well under 5% of our applicants.
• We are not a top-10 department. Since we are realistic about our chances at recruiting the top students, we sometimes don't admit the very best candidates unless we have good reason to think that they'd actually attend.
• Lots of students have a 3.9 GPA and great GREs. Even at a non-top-10 department like ours, those sorts of stats are insufficient to guarantee admission to our program.
• A lot depends on your letter writers. Not that they're famous, but that they write you strong letters. Letters must be glowing. Letters writers can't just say that you're smart or that you got good grades in Intro to whatever, they have to convince us that you'll become a good academic political scientist. There's a lot to read between the lines. Also, letters from political science professors are a lot more credible than letters from other professors (language instructors, literature professors, etc.).
• A lot also depends on your statement. Not because we care so much about what you plan to study, although that matters some for judging whether or not you understand what political science is, but because it tells us how well you can express yourself.
• We honestly are less impressed with where you did your undergrad than we are at how well you did there. I just compared two files, one from a large public university that is decidedly not the best one in its state, and one from an Ivy. The latter student was obviously smart, but the former student had a consistent record of high marks in a range of social science classes and made a much better case that s/he understood political science and would make it in our program. We're going with the former.
• Admissions standards vary a ton across subfields. My department is best at comparative. It's just easier to get into our program for other subfields than it is for comparative

One more thing: I can honestly say that there is a large stochastic component to this process. Lots of wonderful candidates get passed over. We wish it could be otherwise, but it's just the nature of the game. Try not to read too much into it (although I remember how hard that was all those years ago when I got rejected at half the schools where I applied...)

Thanks for this! I always wondered what departments that get applicants who are clearly using that school as a "safety" do with that applicant.

As to the points about letter writers and undergrad institutions. I'm under the impression that sometimes undergrad does matter (I was told this, actually, by a very reputable prof at an excellent school) for picking the safer of two candidates. Not that either is particularly smarter, but just that you sort of trust Stanford over Northern X.

You say that "good" letters are better than "famous" letters, but I wonder if coming from an unknown school disadvantages you on both ends. Not only are your profs not famous, but your department doesn't send many kids to grad schools, nor does it have a grad program itself. So, your profs don't see what a "good" letter looks like all the time. Any truth to that?

I do think your point about getting into a school under a less-competitive subfield is true, and I second the above poster who asked if using that as a strategy to get into a school and change subfields is doable. I think many people have considered it. Or, at least changing second fields.

EDIT: I didn't mean having done most undergrad work in American and applying for theory, but having done most undergrad work in American, applying as an Americanist, and then switching to theory once you are there, even though your record and application don't really show you as one.

[Non-top 50 programs]

And this input by the way is coming from a person on this forum who stood up against the claims of some people on the boards who asserted that if one did go to a top ten program, they were going to be f-ed in the job market. And Bobb is exactly right, you're going to have a tough time starting a serious and rational discussion with most people on this board when you make the disparaging comments that you do. I worked incredibly hard to get where I am.

Read the Bell Curve by Murray and Hernstein. Environment is by far a lesser factor in determining ones intelligence and success in life than is natural ability. I really don't like to get into my personal life on these boards, but reading your hasty assumption that all of us who have been admitted to top 50 programs have been "dealt a royal flush" in life really stunned me. In my adult life, I have had to work very hard to overcome depression, coming out of the closet as a gay man, and live in recovery from alcoholism (I decided to get sober 9 months ago and haven't had a drink since, this experience is largely what made me decide to shift from being a political hack to wanting to give back to others through teaching).

So please, just stop making assumptions about people and where they've come from in life. I can't speak for anyone else on this board, but I imagine I'm far from the only one who feels this way.

Just to clarify what I think the original poster meant by "royal flush" (please correct me if I'm wrong): I think it has nothing to do with things that are hard to deal with (be that a disability, being gay, being depressed, etc); I think the poster means either A: Having enough money to afford a good high school and more importantly undergraduate education or B: if not money, having been told that going to a good undergrad is important for getting into a good PhD, that it can be done without it, but that it is much harder to break into that circle than to remain there. Being depressed as an adult and having to come out of the closet are much different than knowing that where one goes to undergrad really matters and having the resources to do so. I think the later is what the poster means by "royal flush."

The tone of the original post will, I agree, be damaging to this conversation.

[Boston College]

The only thing I can tell you is that last week I was told they'd be done in a week to ten days. (So, I'm assuming, by the end of this week.) My online status page also hasn't changed, except they added that they need my final bachelor's transcript. From what others have said though, I don't think that means anything.

I think that means they've mailed your letter (says nothing about what the letter says, though). The "decision letter has been mailed" notification should be listed at the very bottom of "receieved items." They don't remove those items, and it doesn't stand out, but if they've add the final transcript part they've probably added that.

[Vanderbilt]

I e-mailed the director earlier this week to update my file. He said he committee was meeting at the end of this week and that e-mails should go out next week. He also said that he will send a mass waitlist e-mail and one to those who won't be considered any further.

[Boston College]

Ughhhhhhhh still no news!! Is that a good thing or not? Last year they were all out by now!!

I obviously don't know, but I'd say it's a really good thing. BC sent out a wave of rejections a couple of weeks ago, and then within a week sorted out those who weren't going to be in the running for PhD (but marked to be considered for MA) and made decisions on them. So I would guess the fact that you haven't heard means you are still in the running (or at least are being held in the symbolic waitlist). They definitely seem to operate on a "narrow it down" system rather than a "notify the best and let the worst wait a while" system.

Did you mark to be considered for MA?

[Texas Tech]

I'm sure none of you care, but Texas Tech has sent everything to the Graduate School and the website is supposed to be updated.

Anyone hear anything else, or frankly, even care...

My guess is a resounding no. hahaha

I didn't apply there, so I haven't been keeping up with it, but good luck!!!