oakeshott

As far as I can tell, here is what's going on with Harvard Gov: committee members began informally notifying admits / waitlists on Friday, but some committee members have been slower than others. So the overall effect is that good news began trickling down on Friday, stopped over the weekend, and will likely finish trickling down during the first half of this week. Uncharacteristic for Harvard, but there it is. Good luck! (Edit: this applies to Harvard Gov, not necessarily to PEG / other joint programs.)

DO NOT get drunk and do / say stupid things. It happens more often than you'd think...

It does not.

As usual, n=1. So take this with a grain of salt. I committed to School A, only to get off the waitlist at School B on maybe April 16. A couple of weeks later I asked to be let off the hook from School A and committed to School B. Everyone at School A (and at School B, for that matter) was extremely gracious, kind, and understanding. The program administrator at School B liaised with their counterpart at School A so that I wouldn't have to worry about the bureaucracy and could focus instead on making my decision and talking to my POIs at both schools. When I decided to go to School B, I contacted the people I had met with at School A. I didn't go into too much detail, but I did say where I was going, I thanked them profusely, I said I was genuinely sad that I wasn't joining their program, and I noted that personal factors played an important role. I said I hoped we could stay in touch. All of that was sincere. Every single person wrote back. Like I said, every single person was gracious, kind, and understanding. So that's my story.* Maybe I got really lucky with the folks I met at School A. Maybe I was also lucky in the sense that, given my profile, the switch made a lot of sense. Maybe. But I still think the things I did right are transferable: Act in good faith. Be honest. Be forthcoming. Get help from administrators. And know that, as I said above, faculty and administrators everywhere know that this is just how the game is played. Try to worry less about pissing someone off and more about making sure that you make the right decision. It's one of the most important you'll ever make. By the way: if there are other people, not at School A or B, who have been supporting you / following you in this crazy adventure, make sure to keep them in the loop too if you decide to make a last-minute switch. They'll appreciate it. *I'm not super comfortable publicly sharing more than what I've already said, but feel free to message me if you want to chat more.

This might help Good luck!

Yes. AP subfield.

Sorry, there are two parallel discussion happening right now: one about Indiana and one about UCLA. My post was about UCLA. Good luck! Hang in there.

The email was from one of their admin staff.

Thanks! And it's still early—I'll keep my fingers crossed for you. Good luck!

S.O. received an email a few minutes ago.

(At least some) UCLA admits are out.

I couldn't agree with this more. One of the best pieces of advice I've ever read on here. That being said, the ability to handle rejection is a difficult skill to acquire without actually going through the grind.

The more math, statistics, R, and LaTeX you know going in, the easier your life will be. Anyone who tells you otherwise is just lying to you. Of course you can pick this stuff up when you get there—and for the most part I did. But that doesn't make the above statement any less true. There's no question: If I could have my last summer before grad school back, I would take some online math courses and read the Angrist and Pischke books.

On behalf of all your GC friends from last cycle: Congratulations, sir!

Almost every senior person I discussed Chicago with said something along the same lines: "It's good enough to attract top talent, but not good enough to retain it, so it's always going through booms and busts." Right now it's clearly experiencing a boom, though that may already be receding. That being said, I think Chicago is a very intellectually exciting place. Perhaps more so—and in less traditional ways—than "better" programs. I have a lot of love for it and a small part of me will always be sad that I didn't pick it over a "safer" option. I can't really speak to the department's relationship with Economics. For what it's worth, I can say that—at least according to the conversations I had—the relationship with Harris has not always been the strongest, but there are active efforts to change that. Although it does seem like that ball is on Harris' court. @Comparativist, has Slater's move been confirmed?

I also had concerns about my undergrad GPA. A few suggestions, based in part on things that worked (or at least seemed to work) for me: A masters degree can be an excellent way to make up for a less-than-stellar undergraduate GPA. It might be worth looking into some options. The one caveat is that, all else being equal, this is probably not a smart tactic if it involves a big financial investment on your part. If your grades in relevant subjects (PT? Political science more generally?) are significantly better than your overall grades, then that can help assuage the impact of your 3.10. Make sure you point that out explicitly and, if possible, in some detail. I personally added an additional document highlighting my major GPA and the grades I received in each political science class I took. As stated above, a great GRE can also help. Make sure you crush that thing. All of it. In terms of explaining earlier grades, my personal opinion is that that stuff belongs in the letters of recommendation. Why? Because it gives the explanations greater credibility, because it avoids the appearance of you trying to make excuses, and because it doesn't take up precious SoP room. For what it's worth, I got into (almost every) school for which I followed this strategy, and got rejected from the (2-3) places where I myself addressed early weaknesses in my transcript. In general, I am a strong believer that a less-than-great undergrad GPA can be overcome. A great SoP, a great writing sample, and—above all else—great letters of recommendation are key. With that being said, sometimes admissions committees face constraints that they truly aren't able to do much about. Some universities, for example, tie funding to minimum GPA requirements. So my final bit of advice echoes @printerdrop's: look into the programs you are interested in to get a better sense of what is and isn't doable. If possible, try to go beyond whatever information is publicly available and talk to people at those places / people who know those places well. There is a lot that departments don't say publicly. Good luck!

My two cents: I submitted an aggressively qualitative sample with all my applications, including some for places with very strong quantitative orientations. My quantitative GRE score also happened to be similar to yours. I had a pretty good cycle. My interpretation: obviously I am just one data point, but my experience is consistent with the argument that you should submit whatever your best work is, regardless of where it fits in the qual-quant spectrum. Writing samples get used in different ways by different committees, but in general I think their purpose is to demonstrate that you can ask interesting questions, come up with interesting answers, and test your answers in interesting ways. Like @deutsch1997bw said, there are other parts of the app that are designed to help you signal that you have (at least the potential to acquire) good quant skills. I would go with your strongest sample. It sounds like that's the Venezuela one. Again, though, these are just my two cents! Good luck.

I'm currently enrolled in one of these programs and headed to a good American PhD program in the fall. I would say two things. (1) In my experience, the reputational gap between the two departments (at least for things other than PT and possibly IR) really is quite striking; (2) That being said, and keeping in mind that I don't know anything about you, I would caution against investing significant amounts of money into either program if your intention is to enter a PhD program (immediately) afterwards. That's about as much as I feel comfortable saying publicly, but please shoot me a PM if you'd like to discuss more.

If civil war feels a bit constraining, you may choose to present yourself as being interested in (internal) violent conflict more broadly. Among top programs, Stanford, Chicago, Yale, and MIT could be particularly great places to land.

Just got off the waitlist. but also

Harvard waitlist decisions are coming on Monday, so I'm sure the same is likely to be the case for other programs that only move (or mostly move) after the April 15 deadline. Good luck to anyone still waiting!

It's part of the process. It happens every year. People in every department know that it happens every year. As long as you are professional and sincere about it, you will certainly not become a pariah. Program A won't love it, but they'll understand. They have a waitlist too.

There's another mechanism: use this as opportunity to gain as much insight into the professor's department as you possibly can, and then leverage that information strategically as you tailor your application for that particular school. In other words, the meeting can help you understand what to do in order to come across as a good fit.

If you get off a waitlist, you most likely won't find out until shortly after the deadline on April 15. Then you'll have a day or two to consider whether you want to take up the new spot. If you decide that you do, then you'll need to contact the department where you had originally committed and request a waiver. At least that's what I was told by one of the schools that waitlisted me. They claim this is pretty much standard procedure. Good luck!

You have a very strong profile and the advice you've received here so far is solid. I would maybe add four things. (1) Others might disagree with me—especially because you have very good grades—but if you feel like you could improve your GRE scores by 3+ points per section, it might be worth retaking the test. Every inch counts, especially if you decide to apply to even more competitive places (and I think you should). (2) It's great if you can send four strong (and well-rounded) letters. But if one of them isn't particularly strong (or if they'll just be repetitive), it might be worth just sending three. Unenthusiastic letters can hurt you. (3) I wouldn't worry to much about your relative lack of research experience. It's their job to teach you how to do research. Having research experience on your CV as an applicant is mainly helpful because it is a good signal that you know what research is and what it entails. But you can also signal that in other ways: in your SOP, in your letters, and in your writing sample. (4) Depending on what particular aspect of conflict (and region) you are interested in, you might also want to consider Chicago (Lessing and Staniland in the department, Gonzalez at SSA, Blattman and others at Harris, the Program on Political Violence at CPOST, and the new Pearson Institute) and Yale (Kalyvas, Lawrence, Wood, Lyall, Kocher, Wilkinson, the OCV Program). Stanford can also be a great place to study conflict, especially if you're interested in Latin America or in the more IR-inspired approaches to violence and internal conflict.