Wanumman

April 15 is right around the corner. And I am pleased to say that I just formally accepted an offer this morning (and rejected one, so hopefully that clears up a spot for somebody on the waitlist). It still hasn't sunk in yet.

Thanks everyone for replying and sharing your valuable experiences. I have the feeling that being at the same time 1) an international applicant, 2) outside of Academia for five years and not being 3) a purebred political scientist (my background is in public policy and in international relations, and I'm interest in comparative as a subfield) may be hampering my chances so far. 
I wish you all good luck and congratulate those that already got admitted somewhere.

Hello, people.
I've been in this forum last cycle, when I got eight rejections and was devastated for some time. But I've got my act together and tried again this cycle (this time with a different academic purpose, 14 applications, new letters of recommendation, etc.). I was planning to come here in February, but what I didn't expect was that by now I'd be already admitted to Rice (!!!). So I decided to anticipate my return.
For everybody here anxious and nervous about everything: try to relax if possible. A handful of rejections does not mean you're not fit for doctoral studies, neither that you're not going to get what you want eventually. This is important and I almost let it slip when I was depressed about my results last year.
But the most important thing is this cycle is only beginning. I figured I'd be anxious by now, but Rice put an unexpected and premature end to my nervousness. Rice wasn't even my best fit and I didn't expect it so quickly. I am certain you will eventually be as thrilled as I am right now.
Best of luck for everybody!

PROFILE:
Type of Undergrad Institution: Public LAC
Major(s)/Minor(s): Double-major Political Science and History
Undergrad GPA: translates to 3.9/4
Type of Grad: N/A
Grad GPA: N/A
GRE: V170/Q161/AW5.0
Any Special Courses: Research Methods in Political Science, Research Methods in History, Econometrics
Letters of Recommendation: Two from senior members of the Political Science Department, one Assistant Professor in History Department (1 from PS and 2 from HIS in a handful of places)
Research Experience: Senior thesis, currently working on 1 working paper, revising another
Teaching Experience: None
Subfield/Research Interests: Comparative/American/institutions
Other: Applied political experience in undergrad, internship in Canadian Parliament.
RESULTS:
Acceptances($$ or no $$): Six funded offers (1 top 20, 3 top 30, 2 mid-rank), 1 unfunded master's
Waitlists: 0
Rejections: 5 (3 top 10, 2 top 20)
Pending: 3
Going to: Don't know yet
LESSONS LEARNED:
Fit matters a lot, so read up as much as possible to find which people are the best to work with. At the same time, it doesn't have to be a perfect fit, though that has helped me. The adComs work in a low-signal, high-noise environment, so send as many positive signals as possible in your file to make it less ambiguous. Also, make contingency plans for if you're not admitted - I made them and was less anxious because of it, though I ended up not needing them.
SOP:
I don't feel comfortable posting it publicly, so PM me for it.

Re: SOPs and final dissertation resemblance: I would say that every US program expects your project to change. More generally, people's interests usually stick to the same substantive issue areas, but their approaches and puzzles of interest are highly subject to change given exposure to new concepts and scholars. That said, my MA supervisor wrote on the same thing he was interested in in his SOP - he also finished in 4 years but that's certainly a huge exception to the norm.
Re: PhD's in public affairs - my sense is that these types of programs aren't that numerous outside the US. Speaking as a Canadian, I know that most policy schools here are based around MPPs and MPAs, though a few model themselves off SAIS & HKS and have a PhD in policy. Policy degrees are more far practical, hands on, type degrees and the work tends to be heavily normative and prescriptive (the best policy option is x etc.) vs a political science degree which is more about, in this case, why certain policies were chosen (not necessarily whether they were the right choice). In terms of jobs, you would have a lot of options in private consulting but those connections don't tend to come from the program itself - you'd have to pound the pavement to earn the network. You could potentially work for government, but they much prefer MA level policy degrees - the pay bracket for PhDs is higher, and thus fewer positions tend to be offered (along with the sense that PhDs can be overqualified or less in tune with policy on the ground). I personally don't see the value in it - an MPA would get you into all of the same jobs a lot quicker for a lot less. Policy PhDs tend to offer much less funding as well. I'm not sure what you mean when it comes to being ideological vs. pragmatic. A policy degree is certainly more hands on, and far less about academic research and the development of theories. If you're more interested in policy, in being on the ground and making choices, it offers a very different lifestyle than a PhD in the social sciences. The program requirements will likely also differ, as will coursework. Policy programs can be cross-affiliated with politics departments, but many of them are completely separate. If you're attending a policy program in Europe, you will almost exclusively be taught by practitioners, which in and of itself also offers a very different type of class with far less regular meetings and less reading. But again, this depends on the program.
On the learning and having a good time doing it, without following a set plan, I'd say graduate school in any sense offers that - it's one of the biggest draws for me. My MA has already let me travel a ton and make abrupt life choices.
Two years ago I looked into it, and I did apply out but I didn't get in anywhere. Having internships and field experience was very important to everywhere that I applied. SAIS wrote me a personalized rejection letter saying they felt great about everything in my profile except that I was 21 at the time and I had never spent more than a day outside of Canada. So, that said, the applications also look different, and if you apply to certain schools they'll also look for you to submit a policy memo as opposed to a writing sample related to academic research. Being multilingual is also important. I just didn't fit the profile as much as I thought I did, and after a 2 year academically oriented MA I personally know that I am far more inclined to academic research and teaching.
If you're looking outside of the US policy schools, program reputation still matters as well. Centrally located programs like NPSIA and GPSIA in Ottawa (at Carleton U and Ottawa U respectively) will be natural feeders into local policy positions. There's also IHEID, and the Central European University, as well as the Hertie School. These places also tend to be less transparent about where their students go after they graduate in terms of placement so that's another thing to consider.
 

I think some people may be using this forum solely as a straightforward message board, but there is a special tool for acceptances and rejections. If you mouse over the green/red dots, you will see GRE scores and UGPA. E.g., http://www.thegradcafe.com/survey/index.php?q=Political+Science+Columbia. It might put some of your GRE worries to rest, as there are plenty of people getting into top programs with modest scores and even rather low UGPA. I shudder to think about their epic LORs and writing samples.

I think some people may be using this forum solely as a straightforward message board, but there is a special tool for acceptances and rejections. If you mouse over the green/red dots, you will see GRE scores and UGPA. E.g., http://www.thegradcafe.com/survey/index.php?q=Political+Science+Columbia. It might put some of your GRE worries to rest, as there are plenty of people getting into top programs with modest scores and even rather low UGPA. I shudder to think about their epic LORs and writing samples.

The only thing I would consider is that the mean GRE scores most schools report online somewhere are going to be weighed down a lot more by outliers on the low end than the top...since the ceiling is 170 on each section, and the average reported by top schools is probably somewhere between 160-165 on each section, there's not much room above it. However, if someone got a pretty low score on a section but had an outstandingly good rest of the application, that one very low score is really going to weigh the average down, while the median incoming student's GRE score is actually going to look higher than the average GRE score.
 
More anecdotally, I just noticed that by looking at the data provided by one of the schools I'm considering where the average GRE score per section was something like 162 or 163, but when it broke it down by person, it was a lot of 165-167 range people with a select few sub-155 people thrown in. So take that with a grain of salt - if your GRE happened to be close to that low end, maybe you end up becoming one of the people whose application is great enough in toto to be one of the few that makes it in. However, just keep in mind that something else in your application will have to be that much better than the people applying who are closer to those median scores.

I think the safest bet is to use whatever the most common format is for scholarly papers in your field. For example, most Literature papers use MLA so I just used MLA format (double spaced, standard margins etc). I know some people who used articles that had been formatted for a particular journal, and sometimes journals have really weird rules. In that case, I also suggested he switch the formatting to something more standard. Be it MLA, APA or Chicago, if you stick to a pretty standard format consistently, you should be okay. If you're really worried, double check with the department 

You should be completely fine. I'm a current PhD student and one of my recommenders didn't send them until the end of December. He was the DGS at my undergrad school and was very reassuring that most programs are very lenient on LORs coming in late since that's probably out of your control most of the time.
 
 Also I applied last cycle and I ended up choosing Berkeley so if anyone has any questions about the program or grad school in general I'm happy to help out! ☺️
 

.

Berkeley requires that you add an abstract and keywords. They say nothing about cover pages, so I presume they do not require one. A good abstract is a valuable part of any article, so your ability to write them well would be important. No idea if you need a cover page, probably not - I did not add one. I think you may want to message an admissions advisor about this; it's a legitimate question.

Agreed with the first set of comments. Your research statement should provide a clear agenda of what you intend to do, and why a particular program offers you the best fit (i.e. specify people you intend to work with). I would also add that it's worth highlighting how particular programs are the best fit for you. By this I mean actively refer to a program's structure and how it benefits your long term goals. E.g. UofT: your MA will there would be a research intensive year, focusing on the academic side since there are no TAships available to MA students. McGill's MA program amounts to the first 2 years of a PhD as your coursework is integrated with their PhD program, preparing you for the academic rigors, while also giving you the opportunity to have a lot of teaching experience (they primarily fund students through TAships), and RA opportunities abound. Best of luck!

Hey all! My cycle isn't actually done, but close enough to done for me to at least post this before I forget. I included my SOP from one school, but the school name is removed.
PROFILE:
Type of Undergrad Institution: Top 15
Major(s)/Minor(s): Journalism, Political Science
Undergrad GPA: 3.778/4.000
Type of Grad: n/a
Grad GPA: n/a
GRE: 750Q 720V 5.0W
Any Special Courses: Graduate seminars in IR Theory, Media and Communication
Letters of Recommendation: Tenured IR professor, Tenure-track IR/Security asst. professor, Tenured ME History prof (Tel Aviv Uni)
Research Experience: Senior honors thesis
Teaching Experience: none
Subfield/Research Interests: IR Theory, Security Studies, Middle Eastern Studies, Media and Public Opinion
 
RESULTS:
Acceptances($$ or no $$): Stanford ($$), Chicago ($$), Yale ($$)
Waitlists: Duke
Rejections: Columbia, WashU
Pending: Harvard, Georgetown
Going to: No Idea Yet
My commitment to [insert school here] doctoral program is due to both its strength in my research interests as well as its reputation in the academic community. I am most interested in media and international relations with an emphasis on transnational security issues. I hope to continue to delve deeper into how media influences the international structure and security policies of individual states during my time at [insert school here].
My academic concentration in both Journalism and Political Science have thoroughly prepared me to conduct research in Middle Eastern media. My primary major gave me practical and real experience in how media is created and excellent interview skills which will help greatly in future research. And my major in Political Science allowed me to explore many aspects of the discipline through both breadth classes and seminars. As an undergraduate, my interest in international relations was solidified during a graduate seminar on International Relations Theory with Professor X. My seminar papers focused on issues of norms and international security dilemmas from the perspective of less powerful states and what consequences decisions of these states have on the international structure and Great Power decision making.
A seminar with Professor Y deepened my knowledge of public opinion and media literature as well as methodology. Although the seminar was focused on American politics, I was encouraged to explore my interest in non-Western media for my seminar paper. The paper focused on the used of private security companies in current conflicts in the Middle East, and I am currently editing the paper for potential publication in a scholarly journal.
My senior honors thesis, supervised by Professor Z, focused on Middle Eastern public opinion of the American use of private security companies in the Iraq war. I was able to analyze media discourse about similar incidents of violence against civilians committed by American military forces and private security contractors in 2007 using sources in both English and Arabic. I concluded that Middle Eastern media sources create a narrative of abuse against Iraqi civilians by private military contractors. This lies in contrast to coverage of instances of violence against civilians committed by American soldiers, which are treated as isolated incidents. My paper suggests that the extensive use of private contractors, therefore, undermines the American counterinsurgency strategy in Iraq. The paper was nominated for High Honors in my department and the work was supported by an Undergraduate Research Grant from Q University.
My language skills make me a rare candidate for a political science program. In addition to bi-lingual research for my thesis, I have undertaken extensive language preparation in Persian (Farsi). Four years of Modern Standard Arabic and three years of Classical Persian at Q University were supplemented with in-country language experience in both Jordan and Tajikistan. My travels have allowed me to gain not only reading and writing ability in my target languages, but an ability to communicate orally which will be an asset in my current field work. My study of Persian was supported by a Critical Language Scholarship from the Council of Overseas American Research Centers.
During my final quarter of coursework, I plan to strengthen knowledge and skills in preparation for [insert school here]’s doctoral program. I will participate in a graduate seminar with Professor Will Reno on conflict and international development and strengthen my skills in quantitative analysis through a course centered on learned the statistical package R. My course load will also include a class giving an overview of the American magazine industry to prepare me for work experience in the spring.
During spring 2012 I will gain real world knowledge that will serve as the beginning of field work training for my eventual doctoral dissertation. As an editorial intern at Qatar Today, a leading business and political publication in Doha, I will gain first-hand knowledge of the process of media formation in the Middle East. The location and nature of my work will allow me to form professional connections that may assist me in further scholarly work.
My primary research interest is in Middle Eastern media and public opinion regarding transnational security issues. I am also interested in how the interplay of public opinion and media affects state decision making in the region and the international community as a whole. Specifically, I would like to investigate the changing nature of the media environment in the Middle East and what relationship this has to security polities implemented by the United States and regional actors such as Saudi Arabia and Iran. A few scholars have examined the rise of media giants such as Al-Jazeera, but because of the recent genesis of a relatively free press in the region little work has been published about the intersection of media and public opinion in the Middle East. I aim to adapt current methods of media and public opinion analysis used to study Western media to more fully understand the changing face and influence of media in this strategically important region.
In addition to my academic interests, I am deeply involved on campus. During my tenure as managing editor of Northwestern’s campus magazine, it was named the Best Student Magazine in American by the Society of Professional Journalists. My interest in politics and media overlapped when I helped to found weekly publication Politics & Policy which provided undergraduate students an opportunity to provide commentary on political phenomena and engage in in-depth research on topics ranging from defense procurement to Latin American economic policy. I also served as Captain of the women’s rugby team, which strengthened my teaching and coaching skills over four years.
My commitment to both teaching and research have deeply informed my choice of a doctoral program. Both my experience tutoring fellow students in language as well as coaching have affirmed my desire to become a professor. My previous coursework and work experience have uniquely qualified me to continue my studies of Middle Eastern media and the effect it has on state decision making. I look forward to continuing my work and education at [insert school here].

PROFILE:
Type of Undergrad Institution: Top 3 Canadian university
Major(s)/Minor(s): Political Science
Undergrad GPA: Between 3.82 and 3.92 depending on how you calculate it.
Type of Grad: Top 3 Canadian university (Political Science MA)
Grad GPA: None at time of application.
GRE: 168V 158Q 5.5AW
Any Special Courses:  
During undergrad: grad seminar in political psych, summer school on experimental methods. 
During MA: 2 PhD-level statistics courses, 2 independent studies on topics relevant to my substantive interests.
Letters of Recommendation: Apparently all very strong, from political scientists who know me well and work in fields relevant to my research interests.  Sent all four when possible, otherwise alternated #3 and #4 depending on who had better connections to the school.
1. Famous/respected senior scholar who co-supervised my Honours thesis. 
2. Rising star junior scholar who I am RAing for and co-authoring with during my MA. 
3. Untenured AP who co-supervised my Honours thesis and taught a seminar I took.
4. Tenured professor who I RAed for during undergrad and am currently co-authoring with. 
Research Experience: 
- Honours thesis (experiments, top grade in the thesis program)
- Several consecutive RAships spanning ~3 years
- 3 quantitative working papers with various faculty
- Research grant to conduct a survey at my undergrad institution
- Two undergrad publications
Teaching Experience: None
Subfield/Research Interests: Political psychology, political communication, experimental methods.
Other: former Editor-in-Chief of undergraduate journal, prestigious MA fellowship.

RESULTS:
Acceptances($$ or no $$): Harvard ($$), Michigan ($$), UCSD($$), NYU ($$), Northwestern ($$), Stony Brook ($), UPenn (*), Vanderbilt (*).
Waitlists: None
Rejections: Berkeley, Stanford, Princeton.
Pending: None
Going to: Will decide after visits.
 * Declined before they sent funding info
 
LESSONS LEARNED:
 
Many, have spent a long time thinking about this. 
 
While putting together your file:
 
-  Be strategic about your reference letters, if possible. If you have multiple people willing to recommend you, try to think about how they each bring something different to your file as well as have credibility with different groups you hope to reach.
 
- Not everyone will agree with me here but: de-politicize your file. I’m someone who has done a lot of activism and electoral politics in the recent past. I made a point to focus on my academic achievements in my file, and to try and make my google results more professional (to limited success). Why? Because (I’ve heard) ad comms are very wary of people pursuing graduate studies as a way to change the world who don’t understand what academia is like + because it's impossible to know who is on the committee and what they value/believe politically + because there’s already limited space in the application. 
 
- Do an MA. Whether this is a feasible option of course depends on where you are. In Canada, there are lots of well-respected & fully-funded MA programs, and I received a scholarship/RAship, which meant it wasn’t a sunk cost. Not only did my MA make me more competitive for PhD programs (by giving me way more research experience and methodological expertise) but it also was a great experience to spend a year working with new mentors. I wouldn’t have wanted to do my PhD at this school for myriad reasons, but I am very grateful to have had the chance to spend a year here to diversify my academic experiences, strengthen my application profile, and become that much more sure that I wanted to be an academic.
 
- Anticipate your weaknesses and try to counteract them. I knew that my methods background would be thin for a lot of top schools so, as much as possible, I spent the last 8 months before applications building up my stats chops. I think this helped in general, and I think it helped counteract my GRE Q. In addition - get your references to speak to your weaknesses in their letters. And, if your school doesn’t have an endemic of grade inflation, get them to mention that as well. N of 1, but I think this helped.
 
- If you have time, submit the January applications when you submit the December ones. This allows you to enjoy your winter holidays in peace instead of scampering last minute to remember how to do things. 
 
- Letters often do not come in on time. Don’t panic if your reviewers are a few days late, though of course send a gently-worded reminder.
 
- Start preparing early for both the GRE and the essays. The GRE sucks. Studying for the GRE sucks. If you do a little bit of studying every week over a long period of time, and take it early enough to allow a real take, you’ll save yourself so much anxiety. As for the SOP: it’s been said on previous versions of this thread but your first SOP will be total garbage. Start it (at least) the summer before graduating, and revisit every 2-4 weeks. Ask your letter writers to review it, and PhD students you trust. And - a mistake I made - don’t forget that it’s not just one long SOP. Some schools want a short one (~500 words). And some schools want a SOP that’s about research + a separate Personal Statement that’s about your personal journey. While I wouldn’t recommend sending out all 3 documents for frequent edits, you should draft all these separate documents early. 
 
While waiting for decisions:
 
- Personally, I don’t think its a good idea to cold-email POIs before getting a decision from the department. Every professor I talked to said they get hundreds of these e-mails and view them as a nuisance more than anything. There’s a good chance your POI isn’t even on the committee, and it’s unlikely that a professor will be willing to go to bat for you with the ad comm after just a few e-mails. If your letter writers know your POI, get them to e-introduce you or to just mention you to the POI (even so, this may have no effect besides making you feel more in control of your destiny). Otherwise, hold tight. 
 
- Limit your access to this site. I’m serious. This website is extremely useful during the pre-application process, as you put together your package. And while decisions are rolling out, it can be nice to commiserate with other applicants. However, so much of the information on these forums (and on the results page!) is simultaneously stressful and useless. Limiting your access to this site is the difference between getting an e-mail notification about your rejection (quick like a band-aid) versus agonizing for hours or days or even weeks over whether/when the rejection will come and if maybe, just maybe, you’re on a waitlist they didn’t tell you about yet. If I could do it all again, I would just look at these pages for tips while putting my application together, jot down rough timelines to hear decisions, and then never log in again. (Psst: https://selfcontrolapp.com/)
 
- When you inevitably ignore the above: try not to pay too much attention to when other people get their results. Sometimes other peoples’ results are a clue that bad (or good) news is coming. Sometimes they mean nothing at all. I was convinced I was rejected by Vanderbilt for several weeks, when it turned out they just didn’t feel the need to interview me. I got an interview by Stony Brook several weeks earlier than most people, but all of us got accepted at the same time. At my MA institution, I heard back 2 weeks later than the first round of admits because they were finalizing my scholarship. No news is not bad news - it’s no news. 
 
- Try to remember how idiosyncratic this process is. We have a tendency to assume everything is planned and down to an exact science. It’s not. Based on this site, I was worried my GRE scores would bar me from admission at CHYMPS, and then basically every professor I talked to said it depended who was on the committee. Similarly, some folks on this forum tried to predict the exact date admissions decisions would be released based on previous years. Realistically, the committees release decisions when they make them, and when they make them is based mostly on when they’re able to actually meet. Lower-ranked schools have an incentive to release early as to convince you early, whereas highly-ranked schools know they’ll fill their quotas no matter what so they can release whenever. Attempting to calculate the exact date of offers or the exact GRE scores you need to get in - these are futile exercises. All you can do is improve your file to the best of your ability and hope it works out.
 
 
SOP: Not comfortable sharing it but the structure was as so: opened with a vignette about becoming interested in political psych —>  discussed my general research interests —> discussed a specific set of questions I’d be interested in answering in my dissertation —> hinted at methodology I’d hope to use —> discussed my research experience and credentials chronologically —> discussed what drew me to the specific school including POIs, institutes/centres, and annual events —> ended with a line about intending to pursue an R1 TT position post-grad.
 
Good luck!

If you have 170/158/5.5, then your high verbal makes up for the 158 quant score. However, if your verbal is lower (which is understandable if you're international) the quant has to make up for it. You're fine, @Wanumman.

I used Kaplan's Premier GRE 2016 book/software (provided by a research program I did over the summer). Did practice problems out of the book and took one computer-based practice test through this software.
Practice test score: 167 Q / 159 V (QVQVQ)
Actual score (3 October): 168 Q / 165 V / ¿AWA? (VQVQV)
Hours studied: ≤20 (I was spending 6 to 12 hrs/day for 5 weeks on the Physics GRE, so I neglected to pay much attention to the General)
Observations: 
Taking at least one practice exam of the type you'll see on exam day (computer or paper based), especially for someone preoccupied with studying for subject tests (e.g. math and/or physics, where the subject is much more important than the general), is crucial. This may seem obvious, but I have friends who have tried to take it cold because they couldn't find authentic practice exams.  Understand that, assuming you're 1) taking the computer-based and 2) aiming for a high score, your second half of the exam will be hard! I actually took a bit of a mental break on my experimental section because it noticeably easier. If that was my actual second verbal section, then my score would have been too low to report anyway. Sure enough, a harder verbal came in the 6th section and I knew it was genuine and to focus on it.  Math questions in study books ≠ math questions on 2nd half of the GRE (for anyone in the ~165+ range, that is). This was the biggest thing the practice test taught me. I took a few paper-based practice sets out of the Kaplan book and would get 39/40 or 40/40 in roughly 1/2 or 3/4 of the allowed time. Your test day experience will be very different from these practice sets if you're shooting for a perfect quant, and you need to be mentally prepared for this. (I gave myself a little mental pep talk before the 2nd math section of my actual exam, because I knew this section would be challenging.) This might be a matter of personal preference, but take all the allotted time on a given section! If you finish answering and checking your answers with ≤5 minutes left (e.g. on the first quant and verbal sections), don't skip the remaining time. If you're sure of your answers, take a break and just relax. I was one of the last people done when I took the exam, presumably because everyone else rushed through. I don't know why you would willingly force a brisker pace upon yourself – if anything, use the remaining time to review the questions a second or third or fourth time, rather than forfeiting it.  Takeaways: 
Second-half quant questions for top-end scorers are much harder than questions I found in review books or online. Knowing what difficulty your second-half questions will be will help you spot (and take advantage of) the experimental. 

Princeton Review is already on the list, but here's a gem of theirs that I think is easy to overlook:
 
Princeton Review Vocab Minute Podcast: a huge series of very short songs featuring vocabulary words and their meanings.  They have junior (ACT/SAT) and senior (GRE) level, and if stupid songs help you learn (and they definitely help me learn!), they're fantastic.

Just agreeing with @TakeruK regarding applying to a relatively large number of schools. If a student wants to apply to the top programs in their field, it would be foolish to only apply to a couple of them. I applied to a large number of top programs, and while I had done enough research into the programs to exclude some otherwise very good programs on the basis their research programs in my field (e.g. Stanford, Harvard), I didn't anticipate getting into all of my top five choices, so I had a lot of work to do after decisions came out deciding exactly which program was right for me. 
The search before applying for me consisted of essentially asking "is this program strong? are there good, well-regarded faculty here? are they doing the research that I want to do?" while afterward, after being admitted, I could afford to ask much more precise questions "how will I enjoy my time here? what's the culture of the program? do I get along with the faculty/students? how does funding – both my personal support and the group's own money – compare? will I get enough attention/support from my advisor(s)?"
I suppose this isn't exactly what OP was getting at, since after I was admitted I wasn't asking basic questions but very specific ones (as opposed to people asking "is this program good?"), but I definitely understand why someone would need to do additional digging after being admitted to a program, since it makes sense to apply to a large number of schools when shooting for a top program where being admitted is very low probability. 

These tests were taken over the course of roughly 3 weeks, starting on 9/12 and culminating in test today. I focused mostly on quant, knowing that I have a pretty strong knack for verbal.
 
Manhattan Adaptive Tests (Custom pulled from pool, adaptive)
9/12 (taken without prep, includes essays): Q 159, V 164
9/18 (Q): 159
9/19 (Q): 161
9/20 (Q): 161
9/24 (Q): 164
  Magoosh Tests (Custom pulled from pool, adaptive) 9/15 (Q): 161 9/18 (Q): 162 9/20 (Q): 162   GRE Official Guide Paper Test 1 (9/20)
Q 165, V 167
 
GRE Official Guide Paper Test 2 (9/21)
Q 166, V 167
 
Power Prep Test 1 (9/23)
Q 169, V 168
 
Power Prep Test 2 (9/25)
Q 167, V 170
 
Actual Test (10/3)
Q 170, V 170, essay TBD.
 
Both Magoosh and Manhattan severely underestimated my score, to the point that I was starting to freak out after a week of little improvement and subpar (for my standards) scores. However, I calmed down significantly once I transitioned to the official GRE material, which I assumed was much more accurate. The official tests unsurprisingly turned out to be the most accurate gauge. That said, I don't think the Power Preps are adaptive, and they are set to follow a "medium" path. On the real test, I obviously got the "hard" question and had several questions in both quantitative and verbal which were MUCH harder than anything I saw on the Power Prep tests. Luckily I answered/guess those questions correctly, but my 2nd sections on both were harder than anything PowerPrep threw my way. If you get a medium or easy second section, I imagine it'd be right on the money.