zombieD

Oh yeah, and watch out for the passive voice in your writing.... "is played"

What if I told you I'm a billionaire who publishes in the literature in many different disciplines under many different names for more years than you think a person can stay alive and I've recently faked my death as the wealthy and famous person. Hypothetically... what would that calculus be? And how does a paradigm shift start to happen? I believe someone like this has funded ML for years!

Yeah, but I have a degree in Math and coursework in Physics since. I don't know why programs emphasize the Verbal GRE so heavily when the discipline is so heavily quantitative.

I can relate well to your situation. I worked my way to a Masters in a Political Science PhD program and left to work and go to school part time. I studied Math, Physics and Computer Science and worked in IT for a while. My numbers are still pretty good even though one of my undergrad Poli Sci profs thought I would screw up my GPA. I was studying Point-Set topology, Partial Differential Equations, and Projective Geometry in Math and Condensed Matter Physics and Nanotech. You should check out CalTech's Social Science program. There are high admission standards, but it's interdisciplinary and high tech (neuroscience, computer sims, formal modeling), and they have the JPL nearby. "you don't need a 100k master's degree for that" I passed on University of Chicago's two year terminal Masters program in International Studies and went elsewhere where I got funding. I don't recommend just going for a Masters right away. You could start a Poli Sci PhD program and decide you want to do a dissertation in Economics or Math. I flirted with the idea as well and decided to go back to Poli Sci as I have quite interdisciplinary interests

3.5 isn't good at... Harvard? People apply at more than the super-elite schools. 3.5 is a good GPA in just about every context, it's not exemplary though. I don't necessarily find this advice too drastically helpful as it has more to do with the GRE and applications and less to do with research, which is what they fundamentally will judge. Once you start a program, your GRE, undergrad GPA and any other GPA will be fundamentally meaningless. The admissions process is a mystery and a gamble. Departments are very quiet about how they make acceptance determinations and are even more quiet about the stats of the people who actually attend their programs from wait lists. I'm pretty confident my numbers are good enough for a mid-tier or lower-middle tier school and I'll test those waters, even though I'm resigned that my numbers are not perfect, as I think some of those higher tier universities would be a good fit. Let me ask another question which would be more helpful. What schools would be considered to have an emphasis on quantitative research by reputation?

You're saying admissions is largely a numbers game and to a large degree it is, but I've read on the acceptance pages here online that some people get into the elite programs with less than stellar numbers. The school I went to has a bit of a reputation which I don't plan to mention in my SOP. I did very well at UIUC actually. I just had one incomplete class and finished it late, so I got docked a grade. Without that class which I inevitably took again I would be at 3.5 GPA. I've had good recommendations from there for jobs in the last few years, so I'll probably get good recommendations from there for another place. I know people from Ohio State and from Michigan through UIUC. UIUC is not lower tier, but it's not elite. I think they're ranked 23rd on the World News Report. I got in at U of Chicago as well years ago, but just for their MA program. I was told I had publishable work at UIUC, but left before I had the opportunity to work on it further. I'll polish it this year and use it as my writing sample. Oh yeah, one more thought, I don't believe the GRE amounts for much in the long run as I've been down this road before. If you're going to grad school that standardized test is literally the most insignificant part of the process of earning a PhD. I'm not going to let it be a time bandit. I think a lot of these top-notch 25 year olds use it to mask their academic weaknesses to programs. I'd like to know the average GRE scores for students admitted to top 10 Poli Sci programs who leave school before the PhD.

I got my analytic writing GRE score, a 5.0 and I'm happy with that. I don't know if I would improve my Verbal if I took it again. I have vision problems and cannot read text from a screen very well, so I struggled on Reading Comprehension. I would print hard copies of roughly every paper I would read from JStor in grad school. I find it strange that top Political Science departments would value higher verbal scores than quant scores, even though it's a scaled percentile. Yes the verbal tests whether you have a vocabulary and that's important, but the topics of reading comprehension are jargon laced and not necessarily with any jargon from Political Science. So, I doubt I'll take the GRE again. I think the analytic writing offsets the low verbal well. I need to work on my writing sample and SOP, and I have strong recommendations on the way. As far as a dissertation goes, I know a few areas quite well. I haven't published anything, but I have three strong papers from my Masters. On my SOP I just mention my general ideas in relation to my areas of interest with research program implications. Yeah, my dissertation might change, but if I go to a top tier school with only 2 years of coursework before exams, I'll have some frame of reference from my previous research. UIUC has 3 years of coursework before exams. Only having 2 years more of coursework might be good for me because I felt they were moving a bit too slow in the program so some could keep up, which is not nice to say, but true to some degree. That program has drastically changed since I was there so I've heard. There's a number of great professors there, but the department had a free speech scandal with a former professor and other stuff which had hurt the atmosphere somewhat. Anyway, thanks for the advice.

I just recently took the GRE and am preparing to apply to schools for Political Science PhD this fall. I got a 155V 163Q and I'm waiting on the analytic writing score. I'm wondering how greatly the top tier judges the verbal score for someone who wants to study methodology and modeling, American/Comparative. I've studied some theory too, but it wouldn't be my focus. I've got a bachelors in Math/Poli Sci and I was in the UIUC (Illinois Urbana) PhD program in the top 25. I left after my Masters and before exams because faculty retention was low, there had been a federal scandal in the department, and they made some poor funding decisions. I've been working and in school part time learning IT type material for the last 10 years. I left my job in IT last year and am working to return to a PhD program, living off my savings. I have also taught Intro to American Government at a local community college. I'm just wondering what ballpark I'm in right now. I'm 33 and have a pretty solid sense of what my dissertation looks like. My undergrad GPA is 3.7 from a major Midwestern university with my Political Science GPA closer to 3.9. My GPA in grad school was not as good 3.45, I had one C- in a class I had to take as incomplete, a stats class ironically. So I'm thinking maybe a quantitative higher tier school like Michigan, UCSD, maybe MIT, maybe Ohio State and I'd have an outside shot. I think I will get good recommendations as I have stayed in contact with people from Grad School. Maybe more realistically, U of Colorado Boulder, USC, Georgetown, U of Washington or U of Cali Santa Barbara I have a sense of what schools would be a good fit. Any input from the field, especially those who are in the 2015 acceptance hangover?