Doe comma John

Professor, Thank you so much for your input! It is incredibly valuable and I feel more confident in my decision to try for another cycle because of it. I really can't thank you enough.

This. To the OP, without professional work experience it's hard to appreciate just how important this is (I'm not trying to belittle any experience you do have. I just know where I was as a junior, so take what applies to you and ignore the rest). I have had some awesome professional opportunities for my age but it has still been 70% bullshit. Even if my career eventually consists of 70% bullshit, at least I'll have an extra ten years of 20% bullshit as a grad student.

Grad school has always been a clear best choice for me because sitting in a library learning makes me far happier and more fulfilled than anything else. It hasn't always been clear what I should be studying though. (I'm not really sure it matters in my case. I just like the focus and struggle.) I think the comment above about how you view the work of grad school (chore vs. Hard, often rewarding work) is spot on. I was struggling with the law school question when I was in undergrad, too. For me it came down to the choice between learning a fairly broad topic fairly well or learning a narrower topic in more detail. I thought I would be happier with more focus, so I chose grad school over a JD. I think I would have been fine either way. I know it seems like a life-or-death question (believe me, I know!), but just make the decsion you think is best and know you have plenty of time to change direction.

Regardless, from my perspective I think we're missing the major question by focusing on one minor part of the question. Whether I ask the political science professor for a letter, should I worry about asking too much from professors? If so, do you have thoughts on approaching the topic with them? Also, I was foolish to ask the question about letters from economists anyway. There is no secret formula to applications. No one, including me, can possibly know what is going to work for me and what isn't.

No, I have not taken a political science course since undergraduate. I am finishing my MA now (as in this semester, as in a few weeks from now), so I can't take one. I intend to study political economy, so I don't think the MA is irrelevant to my ultimate political science phd goal though. I could absolutely replace the undergraduate professor, I would actually really like to, but would that send the wrong message? I know there are two previously untapped professors who would submit letters on my behalf. Can I just have three letters from economists?

I applied for the 2015 cycle, I didn't get an offer that I was excited enough about to commit to for the next 5-7 years of my life, so I'm going to apply again in the 2016 cycle. The process of submitting LORs for students has got to be exhausting and I'm worried about asking too much from the two professors I want to ask to go another round with me. 1) A political science professor from undergrad (at a small LAC). That professor has submitted a lot of LORs on my behalf over the past 5 years. I'm most worried that I'm asking too much of this professor. 2) The director of my MA program (economics) who I have had as a professor 3 out of 4 semesters. He likes me but I think he's annoyed that I didn't just settle and take an offer I had. 3) I'm replacing one of the recommenders for reasons I can cover if they matter. Point is, I'm not worried about bothering my third recommender because it will be the first time I bother that professor for this. I feel like it could be perceived as a little arrogant because I applied to some top programs, it didn't go well, and I’m going to apply to some of them again, regardless of the apparent evidence against my suitability. Is this just a me-issue or do you think these are legitimate concerns? If anyone out there has written letters for students before, I would love your take on this too.

I have decided to go for another cycle. Thank you all for the support. I have a question that I hope some of you might be able to help with. I asked a lot from my letter writers this cycle and I’m unsure of how or even if to ask them to go another round with me. I applied to 9 schools and I think that required a lot of work, or at least a lot of time from them. Do you have any thoughts? 1) I feel like I’m imposing by asking that much again 2) I feel like it could be perceived as a little arrogant because I applied to some top programs, it didn’t go well, and I’m going to apply to some of them again, regardless of the apparent evidence against my suitability. Is this just a me-issue or do you think these are legitimate concerns? And if they are legitimate, do you have any thoughts on approaching the issue. I’m thinking of changing one of the letter writers because of a comment he made to me when I asked for advice on the state of my cycle (he basically said, “I would need to know you a lot better to give you advice about this”, which freaks me out because he offered to write the letter without me asking but he doesn’t think he knows me well enough to discuss my future?!), so maybe I’ll replace that one regardless. Anyway, any thoughts are appreciated.

Robes, Thanks! A PSJR thread that isn't worthless?! I mean, I guess given volume even they have to contribute something positive once in a while.

Although, I should be less assertive, the program I'm wait listed for is a 60, but I think it's a little better in IR and has strong faculty for a particular component of my interests. It's also in a large East Coast city that I think will give me better options than the Midwest, where I am now. With that in mind and my previous post, does everyone still have the concerns about the program's rank? That's an honest question. Side note: I think I've now given away enough information that you can probably figure out everything about me other than my social security number.

Bigten, Thanks for the input, but when I say federal government, I'm not referring to what typically comes to mind and certainly not an NGO. I have done my research, and I think a PhD is necessary both as a crediential and as an opportunity to spend five years focused on learning one thing very well. My impression is that for my interest, prestige of the program matters far less than it does in academia. And continuing as a graduate student would allow me to intern in the type of position I eventually want, but that is normally only available to PhDs (or people with other specialized qualifications that I cannot get). A PhD will absolutely not make me overqualified. Also, in terms of getting experience, I have a solid amout of professional experience (as previously mentioned, campaign, legislative, and lobbying work, and not previously mentioned, I'm an economic analyst for a fortune 300 company).

Obviously I can't make any decisions until I find out about the waitlist (hopefully within the next couple weeks so I can actually concentrate on something again), but I think I'm sensing a theme in a lot of the responses: don't underestimate the effect of chance. Since some aspects seem to be controllable (I would like to take the GRE again, but the amount of time that goes into that and the very real possibility that I won't do significantly better, ugh. Just ugh.) and the process is somewhat random, I'm leaning toward a third cycle. I can almost actually hear the collective grown of my loved ones. This builds character, right?

I want to reiterate how much I appreciate everyone's advice and support. I keep vacillating between wanting to work harder next time and maybe just walking away. Part of my concern is that no matter what I do there's still a large chance I'll never move past the 60 range. I'm still waiting to hear from the 60 where I'm wait listed and if I get in, I'm not sure if I'll take it or keep trying for a 15-40 program. The 60 I'm waiting on fully funds all it's students so it might be hard to turn down the bird in the hand. Then again, I may not even have that option. In keeping with my rambling, I had never heard of Stanford GSB's political economy program (don't know how I missed that) and now, regardless of the evidence, I'm having delusions of grandeur. It seems like Mecca. I don't know where I'm going with this, just observing that I would probably trade 10 years of my life for that opportunity. I think I'm getting too caught up in rankings, especially since my goal isn't teaching at a research university. This is the problem with small communities like this one: we all end up valuing the same things regardless of what we walked in with. Friends, I don't know.

Thank you for the encouragement and strategy thoughts. I certainly welcome any other thoughts. I'm not sure what I'm planning to do yet. I just need to drink and be alone for a while.

Yup, I'm sure that will be the silver bullet. That and all those other silver bullets. Maybe this explains the rejections from the top end, but it doesn't explain my whole cycle. And it's not like this is my first cycle.

167 is verbal, 160 is quant. It's unrealistic to think I can improve the quant. I've spent two years in PhD courses with economists and statisticians (I'm at an engineering school; our stats program is quite good) and my grades evince that I can keep up, but no, I can't do math as quickly as them. I think it's unrealistic to think I could improve the 160 since those are the kind of people taking the GRE and pushing a 160 down to the 80th percentile. I think I'm just screwed.