
PoliticalOrder
Members-
Posts
140 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Everything posted by PoliticalOrder
-
Advice for Applying to Faculty Positions in Canada
PoliticalOrder replied to wildviolet's topic in Jobs
What's the question? What things would you really need to 'consider'? To be honest, there really isn't much that separates the two countries. -
The fact that you are asking leads me to believe you are not ready to apply. If you have doubts you can put in the effort, then you probably won't get much results. Secondly, you seem to not really know exactly what you are doing. Your GRE and GPA are both excellent. Secondly, admission committees don't care about 'experience.' They care about research experience.
-
Probably not very accurate. Although, at some level you have to think that it is almost completely irrelevant how many applications they receive. A high number of applications =/= a high number of quality applications. There is probably a lot of competition at the high end that many will seem strong and inseparable, but on the median and lower end you are going to get a bunch of incomplete applications, ill advised or weak applications, and people that had no idea what they were really applying for.
-
Your score is excellent. No need to retake.
-
I have many times in the past. There are completely contradictory results...the amount of meals, either way, have not been conclusively shown to matter for health. There are benefits and negatives to intermittent fasting, and there are benefits and negatives to eating 3+ meals a day. It does not seem to matter either way as long as you still get the same amount of caloric intake each day.
-
What's the difference?
-
^ There is absolutely nothing unhealthy about 'skipping meals.' The number of times you eat per day has no bearing on healthiness. The myth that you need to eat 3, or even 2, times a day (or more) is ridiculous.
-
Hello, Can someone help me with this QC question
PoliticalOrder replied to PMu's question in Questions and Answers
It is definitely D, it's easier to solve if you plug in numbers, especially plugging in 0 makes it obvious: If X=1 and Y=1, then 1^2 = (1)(1) so C. But if X=0, then 0^2 = (0)(Y) where Y could be literally any number. Therefore you do not know which absolute value of X or Y is larger and the answer is therefore D. -
This is kind of the good and the bad of liberal arts colleges. The good: small faculty and undergraduate classes so making relationships with professors is easier. The bad: not a research institution really and most professors aren't actively involved in research or don't produce a lot (and faculties tend to be small). That being said, research experience is not incredibly difficult to find, it just a matter of trying to create opportunities for yourself. Why don't you ask your adviser if you can collect literature and/or data for him? Even if its not a paid position and it is fairly rudimentary work it still counts for research experience and you can put a RA position on your CV. If not your adviser, try to approach professors that you have built a relationship with and/or have done well in their classes and see if you can get involved in some way. This is also a good way to make the letters you intend to use better. You could also try to take independent studies courses. Basically you design a syllabus with a professor on X topic and you meet with them periodically to discuss them and write a paper or something. This isn't as good as a RA position but it is better than just taking some random class (and I think a lot more educational as well).
-
Really depends on your field and/or project(s). If you are studying trade in IPE or congress in American, yes, you will need to know pretty advanced statistics and probably advanced formal/game theory. But there are other subfields that are less quantitative - for example, contentious politics/social movements in comparative politics - for the obvious reason that building datasets and quantitatively testing certain things is not really possible and/or that helpful. So, it depends. You do not need to be statistician to succeed in (non-theory) political science. But even if you have a qualitative bent, which is still possible these days depending on your approach, you will still need to collect data and run simple regressions/correlations for the most part. The collection of data and quantitative measures is everywhere in the field now, even the most qualitative projects - but there is still quite a bit of variance in how deep your analysis goes.
- 19 replies
-
- qualitative
- quantitative
-
(and 2 more)
Tagged with:
-
I'm just gonna post something that needs to be said. No matter how much you disagree with the quantification of political science, it is not going away and is only going to increase for the most part. And depending on your field (especially if you study American) qualitative methods may be nearly, or completely dead in the water. The name 'Skocpol Wannabe' is alarming. Every graduate student reads States and Social Revolutions and there is a lot to learn from it. However, political science is NOT done like this anymore in basically any capacity. Some of the posters have advised taking extra-departmental qualitative classes, I don't think that is really a good idea (outside of something like a survey qualitative methods course or comparative-historical studies). Archival work isn't a big thing in political science. Ethnography simply does not exist in the field. Interviews, while can be a part of a comparative politics research design, are usually just reserved for theory building and getting information that isn't available otherwise. Furthermore, the critical and gender theory that is heavily used in fields like Women's studies and Anthropology have virtually no standing in political science. If you don't have abilities in quant you probably won't get a job nor publish in top journals; it is as simple as that. You need to think about perhaps looking at other disciplines if you are dead set on qualitative methods, it's going to be a huge uphill battle throughout your career if you try to go against the grain.
- 19 replies
-
- qualitative
- quantitative
-
(and 2 more)
Tagged with:
-
I mean, what exactly are you asking? Every single program you will have to take (at least) two classes in the quant sequence (unless you are doing theory). There will also be formal theory, MLE, advanced quant, experimental methods, ect. to choose from. Most programs may only have one qualitative methods class, if even that. You may be able to find a comparative-historical class at some places (Chicago for example from Dan Slater). More or less every single program you list will be pretty much structured the same way....around 7-10 quantitative methods courses to choose from, some required to take, while having 0-2 qualitative methods courses that are purely optional. Then also a very broad 'scope and methods' class that is required but could literally be anything under the sun. Now, there are programs that have a more heavily qualitative faculty (places like Northwestern, Brown, Cornell), but that doesn't necessarily have any bearing on how they structure their coursework in grad programs. Although in places like this you are more likely to get a higher end of the amount of qualitative methods classes offers, like 2).
- 19 replies
-
- qualitative
- quantitative
-
(and 2 more)
Tagged with:
-
What to do about a bad assignment
PoliticalOrder replied to Sbrail2's topic in Political Science Forum
To be honest, getting placed as an RA in a center that is active in running surveys and polling is SIGNIFICANTLY better than TAing X intro course like most 1st year students at mid-ranked departments. You get a chance to instantly get involved in learning how to write surveys, analyze data, and display information that you will learn about in your methods courses and can apply them during your position. Consider this an advantage, not a disadvantage. -
What are my odds and how to improve them?
PoliticalOrder replied to UWC_Diplomat's topic in Political Science Forum
It's just important to submit the best letters possible, although a good letter from your graduate school would be marginally better than a good letter from your undergraduate, it doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things. Ideally you want to pick professors who you have developed some kind of relationship outside of class, either in some kind of mentorship/research capacity, or as a supervisor of some sort. -
What to do about a bad assignment
PoliticalOrder replied to Sbrail2's topic in Political Science Forum
What is your field? -
What are my odds and how to improve them?
PoliticalOrder replied to UWC_Diplomat's topic in Political Science Forum
A few things here: Applying for MA programs can be a little different than applying for Ph.D. programs. You want to focus all your attention on academic experience. For the most part, admission committees won't care whether you worked X job in the private/public sector. A few things stem from this: Considering you are just out of undergrad and currently in grad school, do you think it is wise to not have three letters from tenured professors? You should have plenty of options here and I am not sure your third letter might be the best even though he/she might know you well. They are an adjunct, not a professor engaged in research which is what you should always be aiming for (especially someone currently in a undergrad/grad program). About this book, what exactly is it? Is it actually academic work with a solid puzzle, theory, and methodology that is akin to political science? If it is, then this is a major boon to your application. But honestly, I have the feeling it is kind of a like an extended policy report or something along those lines. That being said...you need to be careful when you state things like 'this is the only book in English written on the political situation in BH since Dayton Agreements.' A quick google search reveals that to be patently false. Saying things like that in a SOP has the potential to be extremely detrimental to your application. The nice thing about your app is that you have a lot of things going for you. It's just a question of framing it, being selective about what you highlight, and showing your strengths while also showing that you can develop research questions in your SOP. If I were you, I would only highlight your solid education background, your ability to do some elementary quant already, your research experience (esp. that you were research assistant for professors - not random things like at X think tank), and some kind of well defined research interests. Lastly, make sure you are applying to programs with scholars that support your interests. Being constrained marginally by location is okay, but make sure it's not reducing your academic fits in the process. -
Because the final cut is substantially based on SOPs, LORs, CVs, and writing samples. And since the final cut is whether you get in or not, GRE and GPA stats are incredibly noisy. The funny thing about this board is that there is no evidence to suggest that the GRE is as important as people portray/think. If you go through the stats of top programs and top 30 programs, the average quant score of people who get admitted is somewhere around 157-163ish (verbal is a touch higher). That is not very high and suggests that any score from 152-168 can get admitted anywhere. And contrary to popular opinion, there is quite a bit of variation in GRE scores even at the high end.
-
How can I improve my file?
PoliticalOrder replied to StrengthandHonor's topic in Political Science Forum
Where are people getting the idea that Cornell caters to training for LACs? Of their placements the vast majority are at research institutions.- 14 replies
-
- political science
- applications
-
(and 1 more)
Tagged with:
-
Honestly, it really depends on your reading skills. I have no problem reading everything from all my classes, but some do. It would also depend on how much you are willing to spend on it and your time management. That being said, if you mean reading 'cover to cover' as in reading political science literature like a novel, that is a poor approach to reading academic research. Obviously the first thing you do is read the introduction of the book or article. The introduction always points out the puzzle that they are trying to explain and briefly summarizes the author's main argument. It also identifies the empirical boundaries of the puzzle. The puzzle is probably just as, or in many cases, more important than the central argument the author advocates for. Why? Because how can you evaluate whether someone adequately addressed the questions they asked if you aren't able to know what questions they are seeking to explain. (This is also extremely important for learning how to identify puzzles of your own - perhaps the most important skill for anyone who wants to do well in academia). After the introduction there is usually a literature review of some type pointing out how other authors have addressed this question (or tangent questions related to it), and why they do not address their specific puzzle and/or cases. This is incredibly important because you not only see what the extant literature is, but if they framed this section well, you will see how they took bits and pieces from the literature and formed it into their theory. Then obviously will come the theory they advocate for. A 'central argument' is one thing, but you need to understand the causal mechanisms for why their theory addresses the puzzle they are investigating. Then the rest is the empirical sections that try to go about proving their theory through case studies or stats or whatever, and disproving how the other theories could not address it. Now, after you read enough literature you start to see how most works follow this same path although the structure may be different. But really there is only a few important things: 1) What is the puzzle? What is the universe of cases that the puzzle encompasses? 2) How do the extant theories address this, what are their shortcomings? 3) What is different about the author's new theory, what are the underlying mechanisms and assumptions? 4) How do they prove/disprove the theory through empirical evidence? So good reading is not about actually reading but rather engaging with the article. Focus on what matters, not the fluff. Some people just outright skip certain aspects by not reading them, but I have never done that. But furthermore, the key to being a good seminar participant isn't whether you have read something (everyone does, at least if you are in a good program with good students) it's about whether you understood and digested the readings. TAKE NOTES. Take notes on the puzzle, the literature review, the main theory and mechanisms of every book or article you read for a class. If you don't, you will forget most things and will not be able to deeply discuss them in class. My basic path is as follows: First I read the introduction, literature review, and theory section and highlight/underline the most salient parts. I then read the conclusion, then take a look through the empirical section (if the empirical section is addressing cases that I am interested in, I spend more time on it). I then go back and turn the underlined parts into detailed notes. This will take more time than just reading but will prove extremely fruitful when you want to actually address it in class, or more importantly if you want to use it in your own research. There are no hard and fast 'tips' for reading quickly. Some people advocate skimming (which I do time to time on the empirical sections), but the best approach IMO is to focus extensively on the things that really matter and just make sure to devote enough time to reading throughout the week so you can get through it. One thing a lot of students don't realize is that if you spend more time on reading during your seminars throughout the semester not only is it way easier to do well in the class on assignments, but it is also easier to be able to use that literature for your own research if you need to at a later time. Also, we don't get to just 'learn' how to do good political science by doing, there are high barriers to entry to publishing from the start, the best way to learn how to do it is by extensively and exhaustingly learning how other people do it through their own work.
-
Keep in mind that if you are interested in the policy aspect, the Harris school is one of the top public policy departments in the world and there is nothing really equivalent at UPenn.
-
Lower ranked programs to fit career aspirations?
PoliticalOrder replied to waterloo715's topic in Political Science Forum
Don't do it. Look through placements at top programs and you will see a lot of recent grads who have landed at R1s, R2s, and more teaching-heavy positions such as LACs and SLACs. The simple point is that graduating from a top program gives you more options while lower ranked programs close doors automatically. Furthermore, if you want to get TA experience, you can easily get it. You just have to ask. And secondly, a lot of top programs push students to actually run a course of their own which is way better experience than TAing for a redundant amount of times at public schools. The utility of TAing diminishes over time. TAing 8 courses is not much different than doing 4. -
Duke vs Columbia M.A. in Political Science
PoliticalOrder replied to Cartesian's topic in Political Science Forum
This isn't really that true. Both Columbia and Duke are in the same general range and actually have very similar strengths (political economy).- 8 replies
-
- political science
- polisci
-
(and 2 more)
Tagged with: