jessideng

Crawled last year's thread. These are the dates of decisions:
Jan 24, 2018    Wisconsin
Jan 30, 2018    Duke
Jan 31, 2018    Berkeley
Jan 31, 2018    Princeton
Feb 02, 2018    NYU
Feb 02, 2018    UCSD
Feb 05, 2018    UCLA
Feb 06, 2018    Michigan
Feb 14, 2018    MIT
Feb 15, 2018    Cornell
Feb 15, 2018    Stanford
Feb 19, 2018    Penn
Feb 22, 2018    Columbia
Feb 23, 2018    Georgetown
Mar 01, 2018    Harvard
Mar 01, 2018    Yale
Mar 09, 2018    Chicago

ok... so.....145 on verbal is definitely low, and you need to retake, international students applying to social sciences programs should at least get 155 on both sections. Wven though sometimes schools will notice that you are not using English as your first language, 145 will hurt your chances, big time.

GRE scores are not a good predictor of math or whatever other skills but they are highly indicative of one thing: your resilience. Basically, with enough time spent, almost everybody can get a high score. The question is - how hard will you try/how easily will you give up?
The way I see it, a good score will not really help your application, but a bad score can hurt because it can mean one of two things - you are just bad at math/language skills or you just did not work on it hard enough, which begs the question of whether you'll be willing to work hard once in the program.
What is a safe score? There is not a one number because it depends on things such as your subfield, exposure to math and whether you are a native speaker.

PROFILE:
Type of Undergrad Institution: Large R1, not that prestigious but respectable
Major(s)/Minor(s): Political Science, Philosophy
Undergrad GPA: 3.8
Type of Grad: Political Economy
Grad GPA: 3.7
GRE: 164/161/6
Any Special Courses:
Letters of Recommendation: 1 from Master's professor, 2 from undergrad. Chose the professors who knew me best, not the ones who's name carried the most weight necessarily.
Research Experience: Bachelor's and Master's Thesis, but importantly my master's thesis was not completed during application process which might have hurt.
Teaching Experience:
Subfield/Research Interests: IR
Other:

RESULTS:
Acceptances($$ or no $$): 3 programs in the 20-40 range, all with 5 years of funding
Waitlists:
Rejections: 6 top 10 programs, 3 ranked in the 20-40 range, 2 ranked in the 50-60 range.
Pending:
Going to: You can PM me for where I'm going and the specific schools I was accepted/rejected too.

 

LESSONS LEARNED:

1. "Research fit". Any applicant in the fall of 2018 or 2019 reading this thread will have seen this a million times. I agree with the overall consensus that it is incredibly important to your success as an applicant. The fact that so many people on ad com's have shared this fact with us is really important, so take their advice on it. However, the part I'm sad to share with you is that you can only guess research fit so much. Schools are always changing, always getting new faculty, and always adjusting their priorities. A program that you think has a great research fit may be looking to have a class that shifts it's focus slightly if they know that certain professors are retiring or leaving. They might have a new DGS or new department chair who thinks "we need to focus more on X rather than Y", but of course when you're on the outside looking in you think "Y" is their research specialty. This doesn't always happen and you should still pursue schools with good research fit, but in a certain sense I think it's overblown during your application process. If there's a school that you really like the location of, are really drawn for a variety of non-research related interests, I say apply anyway. There's a chance that your research interest is exactly what they're looking to add. This is somewhat the case with one of the schools I applied to, but at the other schools I was accepted into the research fit was as expected.

2. Prestige matters. A lot. A discussion was had in our year's general discussion thread along with an updated discussion in an older thread. The conversations were largely about how much academic prestige matters in getting an academic job. That, I feel unqualified to speak to with certainty, but as an applicant I feel as if one of the main factors which kept me out of the elite institutions was that none of the schools I attended were very prestigious. They were good, as were the professors writing LoR's, but nothing eye popping. When applicants with similar profiles from better schools apply, it's natural for them to have the edge. I don't say this with grievance, as I'm extremely proud of my background and don't regret any choices made so far, but just my opinion that might help future applicants set their expectations accordingly.

3. I had a lot of rejections. Yes, it's not the best feeling to get rejection after rejection, but I'm extremely happy knowing that I took my best shot and landed where I landed. I think it's well worth it to apply to a number of "reach schools" because if it works, great! If not, you're never wondering "what if". Be careful on sharing your applications outside of academia though. I saw a friend of mine applying to programs in another field the year before me share on social media where they applied when people asked. The problem with this is that even if you get into a school you are very happy with, people will compare it with where you were rejected from. I'd recommend not oversharing with those who don't understand how competitive these admissions are where you're applying and keep it on the down low until you decide where to go. Keep in mind that some programs even in the 30-50 range can have single digit acceptance rates. Why should I expect to have better than a 20-25% admission rate when most of the schools I applied to have under 10 or 20% acceptance rates themselves? I think it's healthy to adjust ones mindset going into these applications, they aren't like your undergrad ones.

4. This is more to do with the decision making process than application, but I would say go to as many open houses and welcome days as you can. Even programs you aren't really considering but were accepted to. The amount of information that gets shared during the visits is really helpful even if it doesn't directly apply to the school you choose, plus you get to meet some really cool people.

5. Figure out how important lifestyle is for you. You'll be spending 5 or 6 years in your mid-late 20's and often times early 30's wherever you'll live. I only applied to places that I wanted to live, which left a big gap in terms of rankings between top schools and what most would call "middle". Maybe I would have been accepted to some ranked in the teens or 20's, but I instead focused on places ranked a bit lower where I really wanted to live. For other applicants those schools are in locations that fit their personalities better, so my advice would be don't get so set on rankings that you just apply to the best schools where you think you'll get in. When you apply to a school, do so knowing that there's a chance you'd actually want to live there. If you think "this schools ranked well and has faculty I like, but I hate that location for size/weather/family", I would think twice before spending time and money applying. However for some people, where they live means a lot less, in which case I'd say focus on the schools themselves more.

6. I found it extremely helpful to post on a forum like this throughout the process in order to learn information and share my experience. However, treat this as you would any social media platform. I've attempted to only write things here that I'd be okay with professors and current students in the programs I applied to reading and figuring out who I am. Some of them do read these things, and I expect that with sharing my details regarding where I got accepted to above, professors at those departments know exactly who I am. This likely will scare some people off from posting, but I think that's an over-reaction. We all know that employers (and likely schools) check your facebook, twitter, instagram, or whatever accounts of yours they can find online, and we've adapted sharing habits to accommodate this. Do the same with this website. I found using this website to help me get through the application process in a healthy manner. So while for some "stay off grad cafe" is some of the best advice they can get, for someone like me staying on grad cafe helped make it a shared experience, one that I really appreciate.

7. Find your "sweet spot" and be realistic about it. Going in I actually thought the 20-40 range was where I landed as a candidate. Sure enough, 50% acceptance rate to the programs in this category, rejected from all 6 top 10's, and even rejected from the 2 lowest schools. I thought going in that those schools would be the most likely to accept me and also be the places where my personality would find the most success. I'm still glad that I applied to 2 "safety" schools and 6 top 10's, but I am in no way surprised about the result. What helped me is building a ranking of places I thought I was "most likely to attend" in terms of likelihood of admission combined with my interest in the school. All 6 of the 20-40 range schools were in my top 8 looking back. Maybe the surprising thing is how much post-visit considerations matter. I was accepted to the #2 school on my "most likely to attend", but ended up attending the #5 because of all the great information I learned post acceptance and post visits. In the end, my biggest piece of advice for the application process is do your best to figure out where you think you can get accepted to and would be happy. Apply to a lot of schools in that range. Then find some reach schools, a safety school or two (which a ton of people get rejected from by the way), and set your expectations accordingly.

That's all from me, I'm sure some people will disagree with some of the things I've mentioned, but this has been my experience. Thanks for everyone who shared this journey the last 8 or 9 months with me on this website!

Type of Undergrad Institution: Top liberal arts college
Majors/Minors: Political Science
Undergrad GPA: 3.7
Type of Grad: N/A
Grad GPA: N/A 
GRE: 168V 167Q 4.5A 
Any Special Courses: One methods course
Letters of Recommendation: Academic and thesis advisors, and two other professors who knew me well.
Research Experience: Undergrad thesis and conference presentation
Teaching Experience: TA'd as an undergrad, and lots of private tutoring work
Subfield/Research Interests: Public opinion / political behavior
Other: A few years of work experience, including some data and managerial duties
RESULTS:
Acceptances ($$ or no $$): 2 US News top-30 ($$$), top-10 (MA, no $)
Waitlists: N/A
Rejections: 2 top-10, 3 top-20
Pending: top-50
Going to: One of the ~30th-ranked options
LESSONS LEARNED:
By most measures, I underperformed this cycle, although my two offers came with very generous ($30K+, fellowship year) packages. My friends in the enrollment industry say this not an uncommon result. Elite, high-demand programs can be picky, and rule out candidates on one or two blemishes, but in the next tier down, the review becomes more about "on-paper" qualifications. And so, the tippety-top programs took a pass, while the second-tier programs (saw my GRE, and) have been very enthusiastic about getting me to enroll.
So, what blemishes might those top programs have found? Here is what I would advise future students:
- If you're still in undergrad: 1) Take quant courses if you have the chops for it. This holds true for both the private sector and PhD apps. I'm very happy with my station in life, but with a stronger stats toolbox, I'd be qualified for some high-paying jobs, and would probably have more PhD offers. 2) Chase perfection in at least a few courses, and ask those professors for a recommendation. Coursework was always secondary for me. My lack of seriousness was part of the growth process, and I'm not saying everyone should be a bookworm, but try to give one or two classes your A effort.
- Start early. I decided to pursue this path about one month before applications were due. My SoP was well-written, but I did not have time to fully flesh out my research question. Instead, I reviewed some of the literature, and asked a series of relevant questions. This probably wasn't a bad approach, but this is your one opportunity to make an impression: a better SoP may have dug into methodology, or evaluated competing interpretations. Similarly, the time crunch forced me to use an undergrad paper as my writing sample. It was solid work for an undergrad paper, but not nearly focused enough to be publishable.
- Think carefully about who you ask for a recommendation. I only knew a few professors well enough to ask, and one was rather idiosyncratic. I will never know, but I suspect that his letter was weirdly written in such a way that reviewers may have mistook it for being less-than-positive. For what it's worth, I sensed this danger, and somewhat arbitrarily did not send his letter to the schools where I was eventually accepted. (Again, it's impossible to know and tease out causation, but it's worth noting.)
That's my admissions advice. Being very pragmatic, I also want to share my thoughts about attending a non-elite program. (Not that my options are bad... in fact, I'm quite happy with them.) Effectively: it depends on your goal. Openings for tenure-track political science jobs have decreased 15% this decade. And it'll be another 5-7 years before we're on the job market. If you can only imagine yourself at an R1 institution, or in a major city, then attending a program outside of the top 5/10/20 (or whatever) strikes me as quite risky.
Even outside of those parameters, it will be important to keep an eye out during our first two years. If the market continues to contract, students at high-prestige programs may begin to compete more earnestly for R2/LAC jobs. For us little guys, that means a tighter pinch in two ways: 1) fewer jobs altogether, and 2) more sharks in the water. If there are signs of this, you might consider transferring later.
But, there are reasons not to despair. As colleges become more sensitive to diversity, many provosts and search committees are starting to push back against prestige as a heuristic. (You don't necessarily have to be a URM to benefit from this.) Also, you're getting paid to earn a very impressive degree with a marketable skill set. It's a circuitous path back into industry, but this is not time wasted, especially if you see grad school as something you want to do in the first place.
Those are my two cents, based on reading a lot and talking to some people in the know. But it's all speculation. Enjoy the last few months before our programs begin. I hope it's a wild and wonderful ride for everyone.

I'm sorry I am just seeing this now. Hopefully you applied and are (un)patiently waiting to hear from your schools.
This is somewhat similar to the situation I was in last year (M.Div from Vanderbilt, undergrad in PS), and I applied to some of the same schools you did.
Short version: I got into a program (University of Virginia) and waitlisted at ND, and a lot of rejections. That seems pretty much par for the course (more or less) in this area, regardless of background of applicants.
Just a few thoughts: In terms of admittance, it can be tricky with a limit quant background, as you having to convince non-theorists that you can hang in the political science world. For most of the schools on your list, that won't be a huge problem because theory seems well-established and respected among the faculty. The same can be said for low quant GRE scores: won't matter to theorists, but will to others. However, adcomms will also defer to their colleagues if you seem like an otherwise strong candidate (and with two masters degrees, that seems reasonable :)).
Best of luck! If I can be helpful in any other way, feel free to message me!

One thing to keep in mind is that the POI does not have to be an expert in exactly what you want to do. Things obviously vary department to department, but my experience has generally been that faculty take on students whose projects they find very compelling and whose projects can be supported by the general resources of the university, which includes the specific resources of the faculty in question in varying ways. In other words, you really just need someone who works in the English Reformation broadly (or close enough to it) who finds your project very compelling where he/she and the rest of the adcom feel you'd be supported by the resources of the school. A few years ago, my department (Northwestern) admitted someone interested in working on Calvinism in the 17th century--not a single faculty member works on Calvin or 17th century Europe. But Richard Kieckhefer, who is a really well-known medievalist, was interested enough in the project and wanted to take it on. The student ended up declining for a number of reasons (none of which had to do with choosing a different PhD program), but the department felt that NU's resources could have supported that project.
I wouldn't say this kind of advising situation is more common than the "perfect match" scenario that I think most of us envision during the application process, but it's definitely much more common than many prospective Ph.D students think it is. And, of course, how this is defined is certainly a sliding scale, not a black or white thing.

While I agree that it's probably not a good idea to write on some topic just because it's popular, I also disagree that quality is all that matters. It's a good idea to think seriously about the topic of your writing sample and to be slightly strategic sometimes. There are several considerations to take into account. First, you want a topic that's not too niche and doesn't require too much setting up for someone who's not familiar with the literature. This is because the person who reads your writing sample might not work in your particular subfield, much less in that particular area of your subfield. Second, it's still preferable to have a paper on a topic that philosophers still actively engage in. While it's true that working on something you're not interested in just because it's a hot topic will probably not turn out well, a paper on a popular topic will help your chances. This need not be a gimmick. There are legitimate reasons to prefer a more current topic: readers of your writing sample are more inclined to get excited because it deals with questions that they're still interested in and it shows that you're keeping up with the forefronts of research. Again, it's obviously a bad idea to work on something you're not interested in just because it's popular but you might have multiple topics you're interested in and how accessible and current each topic is should factor into your consideration of topic choice. 

For what it's worth, when I applied, I got into the three schools (two in the top 15). All three schools had faculty members who work on the topic of my writing sample and whom I cited in my writing sample. I didn't get into any of the schools that didn't have people who work on that topic, not even much lower-ranked schools. So, from experience, I'm inclined to think that topic choice, and not just the quality of your writing sample, is an important factor in deciding where you end up getting accepted.

@Mason.Jennings
Nancy Fraser is there, who alone makes it worth a while to study theory there in my opinion. They have historically been a critical theory program. Deva Woodly who does Theory + American is really strong up and coming young scholar, I heard her speak several times. Ross Poole teaches Marx there as well (as does Fraser, and a lot of other faculty members incorporate him into their syllabi and their work). Rafi Youatt does some interesting stuff on posthumanism. So people-wise, they are really good.
But in the interest of full disclosure, New School is also known for having terrible funding packages. So honestly, unless you have really good savings and are willing to burn through them, I wouldn't recommend going there. 
CUNY Grad Center might be a better alternative, funding wise, as they have fellowships which are decent (for NY even Columbia's funding sucks, and funding for all PhD programs sucks in general, but that's another matter). CUNY Grad Center has some amazing people, also few top Marx & critical theory people. Corey Robin is arguably the best-known young Marxist in theory, currently writing a book on the political theory of capitalism. Susan Buck-Morss, one of the most famous Frankfurt School theory scholars (together with Benhabib) is also there, from Cornell where she raised an entire generation of critical theorists. Jack Jacobs teaches Marx regularly. Also some other folks, in theory and outside, who'd be very happy to accommodate your research interests. Some other big names that might not be as close to your research interest but are there: Uday Mehta, Carol Gould, and Alyson Cole.
Btw, biggest New York city universities (plus Princeton and Rutgers in Jersey, and Stony Brook upstate) have this thing called Inter-University Doctoral Consortium, which is a great. It allows you to take classes at other schools. So going to CUNY Grad for example still doesn't preclude you from studying with Nancy Fraser. 


That being said, I do think it is important to put a big caveat in front of all this for prospective grads: tenure-track jobs are indeed disappearing and academia is a very precarious endeavor. I'm not one of those people who thinks TT jobs are the only reason you should pursue a PhD, but it is a reality that many people are. So be aware of that. However, when people tell you to "go study Marx elsewhere" and then mention disciplines like Anthropology, Cultural Studies, Comp Lit, or whatever - they aren't really solving anything because:
1) Tenure track jobs are perhaps even harder to come by in these disciplines. It is just the current state of academia, especially humanities (and humanities-like fields such as poli theory). 
2) There are broadly two ways of studying & using Marxian theory in poli theory today: history of poli thought (exegesis) or contemporary theory (critical theory of some sort that builds on Marx, but others as well). If you choose the former, then getting a placement will be equally hard as if you were studying Hobbes, or Locke, or Mill, or whomever from the cannon. Also, you will have to connect it with recent literature, other thinkers, find an innovative reading/approach to it, and show its pertinence for current issues. This is no small task. If you choose the latter, there is a bunch of critical theorists (of all stripes and colors) in the US academia (top 10 and below) which you can study with. My overall point being - studying Marx in poli theory today is perfectly fine. The problem is not with Marx as a figure, the problem is in poli theory & similar fields, that are in precarious position with this neoliberalization of higher education. 
3) This brings me to my last point here. The issue I have with people telling you not to study Marx "because you won't find a job" is that it most often serves as a tool to homogenize the discipline (or/and they simply don't know much about theory scholarship and scholars, as is the case in this thread, in my opinion). Not everyone wants to do liberal normative political theory that is 'the mainstream' (btw, there are people who approach Marxi and Marxist theory in a normative poli theory tradition as well, which only shows the wealth of approaches to Marx today). People have different aspirations and interests. And once you show people who say that that there are a lot of people working on these 'Other' topics as well, they quickly revert to: "well you won't find a job in theory anyway". So just be mindful that the entire discussion above about Marx (in this case) in political theory today is not really the problem of Marx per say, as you can study him with a lot of scholars in all sort of "top 10" or below programs, but with political theory itself (& academia overall today). 
If you're ok with that, and accept the risks, rock on buddy - join the struggle



 
 

I think opening your SOP by contextualizing your current interest in the field via certain sub-fields / theorists / works is a good way to go. It gives the adcomm an immediate understanding of what it is you want to do.
 
When people talk about not being "catchy" or "cute" they are generally referring to a) starting with an inspirational quotation and / or b ) starting with a personal story, especially about loving your field since childhood (lots of talk about the latter here at Grad Cafe).
 
Your opening sounds better as it doesn't ask them to search through paragraphs of BS for the relevant information (the relevant information = why you are an excellent candidate for their program). Instead of relating to past studies, though, I'd encourage you to relate it to your present interests / future focus at the university in question. And always be sure to do exactly that throughout-- bring any reference of theorists / works back to your interests and your research.  The adcomm doesn't want an explanation of Foucault's The Birth of Biopolitics (to give an example from my field!); rather, if you're mentioning Foucault, they want to know how your proposed research at their university relates to his work (i.e. does it use Foucault as a mere stepping off point? maybe your work is entirely centred around Foucault? or perhaps your work speaks back against Foucault?). Remember that your purpose isn't to explain Foucault's work to the adcomm, but to give them an idea of how you got where you are and where you want to go -- with the help of their PhD program -- in light of your reference to him.
 
 
In my experience, starting with a personal story is a no-no -- especially for the PhD. I agree that it comes off as a bit silly. I know some students are accepted to grad school regardless, but I think it's a risky approach.
 
My MA and MT SOPs both started with direct reference to my research interests (writ large, which I think is okay at the masters level) and some past experiences.  
 
My PhD SOP opens with a not-too-specific-but-clearly-signals-a-subfield-and-speciality research question. The following sentences flesh that question out a bit. In those sentences, I start to tailor my SOP to each school by using keywords, movements, or scholars that reflect the research of my POI at each school.  
 
Good luck with your SOP!

What surprised me the most: I think it was the GRE cutoff. I never wanted to believe it existed even though I had suspected all along. Also how much the GRE was even discussed. I feel very lucky that I got such a high score on my first time around and never had to take it again. It seems silly to me that a bad score on one 4 hour test can really control which schools you can reasonably get into.

Fellow reviewer's opinions: How differently each application could be read. I would read one application and think "heck no!" and then show up and have other people say "heck yes!", sometimes for the same reasons that I was against an applicant. I think that's the value in having discussion and not having 1 person making all of the application decisions.
 
Questions you haven't asked: I actually think y'all have covered many of the questions that will help you the most. If I think of others, I will post them.

What I would have changed on my own applications: Probably my statement of purpose. I didn't tailor them as much to each school as I should/could have. I think I did a good job on explaining deficits in my application, but I basically substituted each school's name into a couple of slots and used the same SOP each time. That was clearly a mistake now, but given how many similar applications we got this year like that, it's not something that's widely understood. Part of that was because I wasn't sure why I wanted to go to graduate school, other than desiring a Ph.D. and having a lot of smart people telling me that I should go.

I also think I would have done even more research than I did ahead of time. Although I checked out school's websites, I now know that that information isn't always updated frequently and doesn't have details like that imaginary department that you mentioned. There's no way to tell by looking at a department's website if the person you really want to work with wants to move closer to their family and has been looking for open spots on the East Coast. Or if a young hotshot is about to get poached from a school that can offer them more. Or if a 4th year professor failed a tenure review and is on probation. I would email DGSs, graduate students, and professors I was interested in working in to get a feel for a department before I applied. I get several of these emails/visits each year in the fall and I never mind answering questions.

The distribution:  I think this is tied to fit. It was brought up several times in the meeting too, like "hey, isn't X retiring soon?" as a reason that someone might not be as happy here. I wouldn't say that anyone was precluded from admission because of it though. The one exception might be in smaller specialties. So if a department is really heavy on culture and only has 2 gender people, the people applying for gender might have a slightly harder time getting in. I would advise people applying to work with 1 person in a department to have contact with that person BEFORE applying and to widen their interests so they can work with more than just that one person. Like in the example I just gave, find an intersection of gender AND culture that could make you more appealing to that department than someone who just studied gender.

As for your hypothetical situation, I'm not sure what our committee would have done. We seemed to get plenty of great applications in any strong area that we had, so we had no problem filling slots with great people. I don't know if that's what normally happens or if it would play out like you mentioned. I hope it would be the latter.

Great questions! Thanks for the compliment.

 

PROFILE:
Type of Undergrad Institution: Top 3 Canadian University
Major(s)/Minor(s): Joint Honours Political Science & History, Minor in Economics
Undergrad GPA: CGPA 3.76/4.0, Major GPA: 3.9/4.0
Type of Grad: Top 3 Canadian University, MA (IR Concentration, Methods minor)
Grad GPA: 3.9/4.0
GRE: First attempt (August 2013): V154/Q149/AW5 & Second Attempt (November 2015): V158/Q152/AW6
Any Special Courses: ICPSR + semester long course in regression analysis at my current institution.

Letters of Recommendation: 
A tenured IR political science professor, known for six years. I also TAed for two of their classes. Associate professor. Senior thesis and MA supervisor for whom I’ve been an RA since the third year of my BA and am now TAing for this winter (known for 3.5 years at time of writing letters). Tenure track, well published despite being junior. Assistant tenure track professor who worked outside my field of interest (comparative developing focus) that I took an honours seminar with during my senior year of my BA. They’ve remained a mentor to me during my MA. If I could submit an additional letter, it was from a tenured history professor (DGS of his department) I met during the second year of my BA and with whom I did an independent study during my third year and worked closely with until my MA. I intended to submit a fifth, from a methods professor, but they were expecting their first child in December so the timing didn’t work out.
I chose a variety of people who have mentored me in different ways, but who knew me best. I asked them to focus on different aspects of my profile: the first has seen me transition from a naïve freshman to a wannabe PhD student; the second has mentored and pushed my work intellectually and methodologically by supporting my training in quantitative methods, while also inspiring me to focus on my current area of interest and thus speak to my substantive interests and skills; the third is someone outside my field of interest who can comment on my work ethic and passion for the discipline, as well as contextualize the strengths of my BA and MA programs overall; the fourth I asked to speak to my preferred interdisciplinary approach to research, as well as the qualitative research work I’ve done. I also asked the second and fourth writers to stress that my GRE scores (V&Q) were not representative of my potential and highlight my additional training in methods relevant to the field and exposure to PhD level courses 
Research Experience: Senior thesis during BA and independent study course. MA thesis. RA work for 3.5 years, as well as outside work for a law professor.
Teaching Experience: Four TAships during my MA (1 per semester), mentorship of international students for 2 years during my BA.
Subfield/Research Interests: International Relations – IPE.
Other: External scholarship covering tuition from for 3 years. CGS-M SSHRC award for 2015-2016, and 4 other mid-range scholarships and research grants between both degrees.
RESULTS:
Acceptances($$ or no $$): 4 acceptances, all with funding.
Waitlists: None
Rejections: Stanford, Columbia, Harvard, Georgetown
Pending: None
Going to: Happily decided. 
LESSONS LEARNED: 
It is absolutely amazing how far you can go in two years time. Two years ago I was writing a post in the 2014 government wrap-up affairs threads (see here: http://forum.thegradcafe.com/topic/53232-government-affairs-2014-wrap-up-final-decisions/#comment-1058121021) I was sitting there, one month before finishing my BA, facing rejections from every MPA program I applied to. I wasn’t ready to leave school yet but my confidence was crushed. What a turn around. When I started my MA I wasn’t certain that I wanted to apply for a PhD. At the end of my first year it was evident to me that I truly loved the academic lifestyle, something made even more concrete when I was able to take my work with me and travel for three of my four months off this past summer. I should note that I very, very, very, nearly didn’t apply when I was too busy to spend a month solid preparing to re-take my GREs in the Fall. My hesitation didn’t stem from doubt over whether or not I wanted to go, but whether or not my profile was competitive enough to get into American programs. I wound up writing the test and only doing moderately well again (during my first attempt my scores were crap because I experienced a power outage an hour in and had to sit for 30 minutes panicking over whether I had to restart). I followed through because I had a very inspirational discussion with letter writer #4 and found myself knowing that this is what I wanted and I wouldn’t know if I couldn’t get in if I didn’t try. Knowing that you want this is important and an MA can help you trial run – it’s effectively like the first 2 years of your PhD if it’s a longer, academically oriented program.  I applied to programs that fit with my methodological and ontological focus with at least 2-3 people I could see myself working with. Each SOP was tailored to that program (explained more below). I learned a lot about my preferred approach to research, both theoretically and methodologically, in the last two years which was really important when I considered fit beyond whether there were POIs at a program who simply substantively studied what I studied. I also found that there was a lot of great advice online: Chris Blattman’s blogs on how to write an SOP, as well as Dan Nexon’s posts on the Duck of Minerva with suggestions on program choice and SOP writing: http://chrisblattman.com/about/contact/gradschool/ (Scroll down to his “Words on Personal Statements) http://duckofminerva.com/2012/08/applying-for-phd-in-political-science.html Fit is important, but so is your network and I think this point is very underestimated by a number of people. I’m fortunate in that I’ve been able to work with a number of scholars who were trained in the US and who are still very much integrated into the US conference scene. Two of my letter writers have written extensively with a number of POIs across the 8 programs I applied to. This isn’t to say that everything can work out great because of connections alone, but I did feel more confident that my application would be taken seriously despite some pitfalls because of my network. The other side of this coin is that I know that my letter writers know me very well. They have seen me at my absolute best and worst. I trusted them to write detailed statements, and we also talked about what their letter would accomplish for my profile. This is a really important discussion to have. While it’s awkward to ask, they understand and if anything are assisted by you describing what you’re aiming to accomplish. Do not underestimate the value of building your network early and just being friendly. There's a difference between getting to know your professors vs. getting close to them only for a letter. Departmental issues can be a problem – do what you can to ascertain the state of the game when and if you visit. Talk to current students and POIs after you’ve been accepted. These people genuinely don’t want you to come to their program and be miserable because you’re all the more likely to drop out. In my experience, the best departments will be open about both their strengths and weaknesses, as well as impending departures. During visit days, be collegial and friendly with current grads and ask faculty the hard questions. What are their hiring strategies? What are the departments goals in the next 3-5 years? How many students does a faculty member typically sit on a dissertation committee for? How are TAships structured? Does the department sponsor social events for faculty and students? Are students encouraged to work together on problem sets? Do students compete for TAships and RAships? Is there conference funding? Are there research centers that would support your work? Is there office space for graduate students? Are PhD students allowed to take outside jobs on top of their funding packages? What is the housing situation like for graduate students on and around campus? Lastly, this process is expensive and taxing, but be prepared to invest in yourself – and view it in that respect! (Prices Expressed in Canadian Dollars: - GRE Prep (Round 1: Kaplan Online Course & Books, Round 2: Magoosh with Manhattan Prep Books/Flashcards & the Official Guide) - $1000 - GRE Test Fee x2 - $500 - Travel to write GRE x2 - $300 - Application fees (Round 1: $250, Round 2: $1000) - $1250 - Grand Total: $3050 CAD on applications & related expenses. It’s pricey, but there’s a learning process involved. I learned a lot about myself during my first application cycle, and even more so this time around. *I also very much recommend Magoosh and Manhattan Prep of all the test prep resources I got my hands on. I found the practice questions and tutorials to be the clearest, and most practical. Had I had more than two weeks to prepare, I know I could have mastered this test using these resources. I would also reiterate that spending time mastering this test is worthwhile but no more than 2 months of solid prep or you'll probably go crazy (I know I did). Writing it a second time has its benefits but given the costs, I really wish I hadn't experienced technical failures the first time (and in that case I really should have asked for money back to something but I didn't).
SOP: Don’t feel comfortable posting, but here is a rough idea of how I structured things: I had two baseline versions, one at ~500 words, another at ~1000 depending on the program’s word limit, written in LaTex. I introduced my research interest by discussing a puzzle that has motivated my current work and then expanded that into a potential dissertation on the topic. I transitioned to describing my research experience/educational background that had led me to this puzzle, as well as who I worked with in the last 6 years that inspired me to pursue this career path. I then moved to discuss why X university’s program could build on what I’ve learned to get me where I want to go – the academic career path. I stressed what I liked about every program I applied to, namely how it was structured, what my intended major/minor was, as well as something unique about it I was really drawn to, and how it fit with my interests. I also indicated potential POIs and how their work has proven influential to my current studies (beyond name dropping). I aimed to list at least three people per statement, if not more. When it came to the length difference, the first part about myself was the same and quite short - where I expanded if I had more than 500 words was on how I fit with their prospective program, and why their program was the best fit for what I want to do.
Personally, I didn’t like what the document turned out to be. I have a hard time writing up my CV let alone an SOP. I had three professors review it, and letter writer #2 edited several versions and gave me great comments. They were also very reassuring, despite my not liking how it read and more than willing to give me tips on how to write it. I also ensured that I sounded like myself in it, which in my previous round of applications was not the case after my supervisor edited it. I again agree with what others have said that it’s important to re-write it several times. The final version that I submitted was undoubtedly my best version. 

I completely concur about this point. That's the most valuable thing that I learned from my service was how arbitrary the process is. The next time I don't win a fellowship or grant, I'm not going to beat myself up about it as much, because this whole process is run by subjective human beings pretending to be objective. There is an unknown criteria that seems to make some students stand out and others not as much. I wish I could articulate better what it was.

Thank you! I am wondering how my DGS would feel if she read these posts. I haven't violated any rules, but people seem to want to maintain secrecy to make it seem more serious. I feel like my service just enables me to give better and more specific advice for people applying about things like SOPs. I wish I had known all of these things when I was applying to graduate school, my 4 admissions now seem more like luck and a great GRE score than anything else.

The GRE cutoff totally matters. I wish it didn't, but it does. Study hard for that thing. I think my 327 got me into schools that otherwise wouldn't have considered my low GPA and odd background.

I agree with finknottle. I think that when schools ask for 500 words, they're making an implicit statement about what they want you to tell them. A 500 word SOP isn't the place to demonstrate creativity or flaunt vocabulary. I had to go through this process when I submitted my applications in early December, so I have a couple of practical suggestions that helped me:

1) Take your 1000 word statements and go through every sentence. Ask yourself: can I say what I mean in this sentence with fewer words, even "smaller" words? Think Ernest Hemingway. We sometimes actually underestimate the power of succinct, straightforward prose. (Remember, it's not that what you originally wrote wouldn't impress an admissions committee, but that they want to know if you can get to the point. It's a type of writing that graduate programs will require once you're admitted, so they're having a look now.)

2) Read each sentence again, and then consider if you can collapse one into another. Instead of this: "I traveled to Chile and was inspired by their democracy. This experience shaped my decision to write my undergraduate thesis on the country's transition from military rule." (27) Try this: "Inspired by Chilean democracy, I composed my undergraduate thesis on its historic regime change." (14) Don't just delete periods and add conjuctions; play around with sentence composition and try fitting the meanings of entire sentences into dependent clauses.

3) Now that you've preserved as much of your original as possible, just expressed it differently, now's the time to do more heavy cutting. I absolutely agree with you that pulling random sentences out isn't helpful. But hopefully you've condensed some of that meaning you were afraid of cutting before this point. Now you need to give the big, critical eye to your, as finknottle pointed out, "personal" bits.The first thing to go should be your narratives of how you came to be interested in a certain topic, especially if it involves an anecdote. Try to fit that stuff into dependent clauses if you MUST keep in in. Try trimming out that fat (remember, fat is what makes things taste good, but committees reading 500 word statements want the straight-up protein) and seeing where you stand. Some other things that can go, if you have them: a) Any kind of "prose CV" where you talk about your awards, accomplishments, etc. out of context just to demonstrate your chops; b ) Whatever comes before your thesis statement in your intro paragraph (whatever comes before "I want to study ____ at _____ because _____" or its equivalent in your statement); c) Sentences that expand on the one or two that came before them, but offer extraneous information that gets away from your main point. Think of your statement like a tree. A thousand word statement can have some branches, even a few branches that have branches. But a 500 word statement needs to have a clearly-defined trunk (the argument of why they should admit you) and just a few short, thick branches. The idea is not to stray too far from the trunk with anything, even if it's well-written AND informative. Ask yourself if what you're saying helps you further your MAIN POINT, which is why they shouldn't throw out your application.
-->That said, make sure you DO keep your research interests, your prior research (but be straightforward! Try a one sentence summary of the work, and a one sentence summary of your findings), your career aims, and why you're a good fit for that particular school. Those should be the backbone of your statement, because they're what committees will match with their faculty and program.

4) When you've done all this, give the statement to someone that you trust who's a good editor. Ask for feedback, especially from academics who've been through this process themselves and/or served on admissions committees before.

I realize that was kind of long, but I know how hard it is to take what you think is a finished piece of work and have to almost go back to the drawing board because you have to be willing to chop whatever it takes. Hope this is helpful! You can do it!