PoliticalOrder

Differential and Linear Algebra and Statistics are probably the best places to start. Take them either as part of your MA or as additional electives at UChicago (you can always take classes when you are a student at a university, but they might not count towards your degree). No one on admission committees really cares what online or distance courses you took, you want them on your transcript.

^ Yes, that is correct. There is a hard cap. Basically you have to make sure your employer/their immigration lawyer sends the application by express courier on the day that the application is open (they will not accept apps before). Then once that fills up to the hard cap, THEN they have a lottery to see who gets selected for processing (which isn't necessarily a given you will receive the visa but you should if your paperwork is properly done). If you get in your application on the day it opens your chances of obtaining the visa (if all paperwork is legit) is something around 1/4 or 1/5...a little higher if you have a MA/PhD.

It's done by lottery, not first come first serve.

Not really. I don't know exactly why they didn't give a date of program for 5 years...but the process of extending this is very straightforward, all you would have to do is meet with your DSO at your institution and they will give you a new I-20 if you are still maintaining student status. In fact, this process would probably be less complicated than getting a new I-20 now with a 5 year end program date would be.

Renewing a F1 visa if you maintain your student status is a very simple process. You are overthinking this.

If your funding doesn't require that you TA, DO NOT TA, focus on doing well in your classes and especially your research. You can always TA later.

Well, first of all political science is not humanities, it is a social science. There is a general pecking order: Natural Sciences (physics, chemistry) > Math, Statistics, Computer Science, Technology, ect > Social Sciences > Humanities There is some elitism, generally people look down on the disciplines below them. General public seems to look up at STEM, but not really understand the nuances between the other fields, although disciplines like English or Women's Studies are often criticized to some degree. Political Science seems to fit right in the middle, probably the most 'respected' of the non-STEM disciplines with the exception of Economics. Anthropology is probably the least respected of the social sciences. I mean basically, the more quantitative your field is the more 'respect' it has. As far as how prevalent this is, it really depends. Some people take it seriously, some don't at all.

In my (totally unqualified) opinion, it is always beneficial to remain a 'resident' in Canada. I haven't lived in Canada for about 4 years now but I have always just listed my parents address as my residency and filed my taxes (no income) as if I was living there. Mainly for two reasons: one, it makes the whole health insurance thing much less complicated > you don't lose your health care and when you go back there are no complications regarding this; and two, if you have no income you still qualify for GST refunds, which in the grand scheme of things is not much but still something like ~$500 a year for free. The actual monitoring of this is quite weak.

It really doesn't matter.

Use it as an opportunity to improve your social skills, don't avoid things because of them (or lack thereof).

I just want to point out that it is very rare for TAs to ever have to lecture, especially for first year TAs. You might have to run discussion groups but this isn't really 'lecturing' it is facilitating/moderating discussions among the students. The only way you will have to lecture as a TA is if your prof needs to miss a class for whatever reason and even then you would still usually have the right to 'volunteer' whether you want to cover that class or not, i.e. it's not expected of you. All this to say is chances are all you will be doing is grading exams/papers and having office hours.

No.

That simply is incorrect. I know for a fact that UChicago, UT Austin, UCLA, and UC San Diego all offer funding to incoming LA Studies students. If the OP is interested in knowing more about these schools, feel free to PM me.

You do realize you have been debating with someone who is already been through a quant sequence right?

What, first you claim I am giving out misleading information then provide data that actually supports my position in an arrogant fashion and you expect me not to call you out? Secondly, a test that is designed to trick you purposely, is timed heavily, and relies on math that doesn't necessarily have any applicability to probability or statistics is a good indicator of your ability to succeed in a quant methods sequence? Anyone with high school level math and a good work ethic can succeed in political science graduate quant sequences.

With someone so arrogant about who and who shouldn't apply to top 10 programs you seem to lack some pretty significant reasoning abilities. You basically proved my point...out of the people who got admitted to Yale last cycle 4/7 had quant scores in the 150-160 range (I counted the 161 because it's virtually the same thing)...what exactly are you arguing against here? Because that data definitely supports the statement "people get into places like Yale and Princeton with scores throughout the 150-160 range in math." Secondly, you are conflating things here. 1) the GRE quant score does not represent one's ability to succeed in a quantitative methods sequence, nor 2) ability to succeed at a top 10 program. The evidence (or lack thereof) does not support either of these arguments. Try again.

In the past I studied significantly more than that and had a lot of trouble reaching 320, let alone 330. I mean, 330 is approximately 165/165, that means you are hitting the top 90 percentile in both categories (which means that for every 100 takers, you did as well or better than 90 of them in both math and verbal)...to say 'it's not that hard' is completely false. Honestly, on this board I see more of the other phenomena...people way overstate the importance of the GRE for Ph.D. applications. The simple fact is this: YES, committees use GRE as an important cut-off measure. YES, you could potentially get axed against similar candidates because of a relatively poor GRE score. HOWEVER, the GRE has extremely diminishing returns for your acceptance...once you reach the later stages of the review process, the more important factors that give the reviewers more information such as writing samples, LOR, SOP, and research experience matter significantly more for if you get in or not. You do not need stellar GRE scores to get into top programs (even top 5 programs). Don't believe me? Go through the results section...people get into places like Yale and Princeton with scores throughout the 150-160 range in math. And this isn't some random thing either, there are dozens people who get in with these scores (even as low as 148-153) every cycle. ------ Bottom line is get as good of a score as possible. Preferably 160/160+, but it you don't that doesn't mean you are doomed, especially if you have an otherwise very strong application.

If you are so nervous about grades - which you seem to be taking WAY too seriously here - why don't you just take it pass/fail?

My 20 hour a week TA job gives me full tuition waiver, ~US$1600 a month stipend + employee health insurance. However, this is something that varies widely by university.

" And I have always been taught that it is rude. " It's not. There's not much you can do really...people are going to want to speak their first language. But yes, you could ask them when you are around to speak in English...but that doesn't necessarily mean they will change or want to change.

I don't disagree with this. You are correct that some people have 'other' preferences when deciding on graduate schools. However, I do not agree with this: "In regards to your last paragraph, yes I agree that we don't know any of this other information about a person's goals and motivations. However, if we only use the limited information (i.e. the only two choices are UBC and U of A) then I would still say picking any one of the two choices will have a higher chance of getting a TT job than picking none of them (since this would be 0% chance)." There is really no downside to applying to graduate schools next year besides marginal costs. Grad school applications are not a zero-sum game, you can always partake in another cycle. "In addition, the original question is not "how do I best maximize my chances of getting a TT job?" (if this were the question, then I'd agree that a better ranked school would further increase the chances) but it is "out of these two options, which one has the better placement rate?". So, I don't think "none of the above" is a good answer to a question that asks to pick one out of two." Yeah, but my point is that if you are concerned about placement, which the OP is, then you should be weary of attending either of these programs. That's all. Regardless, I don't think we can really continue this discussion without more information from the OP...so I'll leave it at that.

That argument makes zero sense. We can all assume that the goal of anyone going into a Ph.D. program in political science is to attain a TT job (because there is not really much else as far as value for a Ph.D. in political science)...then you are best to go to programs that give you the best chances of that. Saying, well not everyone's goal is to get a TT from a top international school then going to mediocre X program is fine is not logically consistent. Regardless of goals, the most important thing is to reduce risk, one way (and perhaps the most reliable) is to go to the best ranked programs and get the best training. For example, a Ph.D. graduate from University of Toronto has a much greater ability to reach any goal they might wish as far as TT goes than someone who graduates from UBC. So why wouldn't you try to maximize your potential by applying more widely and to the best programs? All I am saying, and this is based on limited information, is that if your only choices (or if the only two programs you applied to) are UBC and U of A, then I would think twice about going to either of these programs because neither (although UBC is clearly superior) is going to give you significant prospects for getting a TT job anywhere. Just a word of caution, especially since the question the OP asked is directly related to placement.

That wasn't my frame of reference. But when you go to a Ph.D. program that in its entire history has their best placements at Carleton, York, and Queen's, you need to really consider how to improve your options. Basically you are looking at a >50% chance of not being placed and a 5% change of getting placed at a decent university in Canada. And essentially a 0% chance of having any penetration internationally at renowned political science research universities.

Honestly, I would think long and hard about doing a Ph.D. at either of these schools.

^ Even UBC's placement record is fairly poor though, less than 50% of Ph.D. graduates get placed in TT, and the most notable ones listed....well are not that notable at all: McMaster University York University University of Western Ontario Queen’s University National University Singapore University of Tokyo University of Queensland University of Southern Denmark University of South Florida Memorial University University of Manitoba University of Victoria