guest56436

Don't bother. The vast majority of people don't even consider the writing score. Your Q and V scores are excellent and 4.5 is just fine.

Another thing that would concern me is looking through their grad courses - they have the typical year long stats sequence but they haven't offered any other quant methods courses for 2+ years (this might be not updated though). It's a pretty small program (although they do have a few interesting faculty members for sure), I'm not sure what that means for getting sufficient training methodologically. If the stats sequence is the only regular methods courses that they offer that's a big issue. I think if you wanted to get placed at somewhere decent (looks like the ceiling is a good state school or R2 position) you'd have to really publish well before hitting the market. Tough spot to be in coming into a program. Some people have done very well in that program, but it's been rare enough to suggest that it was probably more about those students than the most program. Have no idea what the funding situation is like.

If your goal is to get a JD, why do you even want to do a master's in political science? What's the value that it's going to bring for you?

A failed prospect? No. You just have to know what you're getting yourself into. I wouldn't personally attend that program - but everyone has different parameters for making decisions of course.

Post-2008 placement is not too good. I'd be a little weary of going there.

Yes. You have to think of your application as a holistic package. In order to get into top 20 programs, much less CHYMPS, requires strength across all or almost all categories. Perfect GPAs and GRE scores don't cut it; this is how law school applications work, but it's not how Ph.D. applications function.

Yes.

I had the same situation and I made up the dates and years and got my doctor to sign it. Up to you if you want to do the same thing. Hardly ethical, but I'm not going to be bothered to take a bunch of vaccines I had already taken.

That you should call them?

Don't do it. If you really don't want to attend a low-ranking program just decline the offer and enter the next cycle.

It means the program accepted you. But, usually, all acceptances for grad programs need to be finalized by the graduate school administration. This is usually just a formality - very very rarely do you not get accepted by the grad school after being accepted by a program. You can consider it an acceptance at this point. It's not necessarily a matter of funding.

Welp, I just got the same letter. Good luck to the rest of you.

I don't know. Looking at the review procedure, there's a selection process where they eliminate a bunch of applications (for everyone) before the final review stage. I reckon this is why the OP got cut, because I got a letter a couple of months ago stating I was forwarded to the national competition as a direct applicant.

I always thought that if you were in a combined MA/PhD program, you had to wait until you were actually in the program (i.e. Fall of first year) to apply. If you are or will be registered in a combined MA/PhD, fast-track (accelerating from a master’s program into a doctoral program without obtaining the master’s degree) or direct-entry PhD program, you may be eligible to apply for a CGS Master’s Scholarship provided you have completed between zero and 12 months of graduate-level study by December 31 of the year of application. If you are currently registered in a combined MA/PhD, fast-track or direct-entry PhD program, and have or will have completed more than 12 months of graduate-level study by December 31 of the year of application, you can only apply to the doctoral awards funding opportunity." But it's not really worded very well. It doesn't say if the applicant is ineligible or not. Anyways, I guess this means we will all be receiving letters to notify us if we made it to the second round or not soon.

If you are applying to phd programs this cycle, were you even eligible to enter?

I think this is a somewhat wrong approach. The goal should always be what do I need to do to get into the best program possible. Not, conversely, I didn't get into X programs this cycle, how can I change which schools I apply to so that I receive acceptances? Yes, we all want acceptances; but we should strive for acceptances from programs that are going to give us the best chance of getting a job. What I would do in your shoes: - First all, retake the GRE. Then retake it again, and again, until you have at least high 150s or 160+ in your quant section. You're making it easy for schools to reject you if it's not that high. Everyone is capable of getting at least 75th percentile in the quant section, just takes hardwork and discipline. - Critically assess every part of your application, and fix whatever is weak. Rewrite your SOP, get some research experience, get a working paper in order from your master's thesis that you can submit as a writing sample, continue to build relationships with your letter writers, ect. I usually trust applicant's assessments of which programs they think are a good fit for them research wise (although, sometimes, people really miss the mark here). I doubt the problem is which programs you applied to, it's that you lost out on the competition battle - which happens for everyone, by the way. Lastly, don't pigeon hole yourself. There's nothing inherently wrong with being more qualitatively inclined...but there are certain questions that cannot be adequately answered without quant methods. A lot of IR students/scholars are using formal models to build their theories. You may find out that you can measure your variable using text analysis of documents. Don't shy away from this...and do not apply to programs specialized in qualitative methods; it makes getting a job even more of an uphill battle. It also may be helpful if you provided a list of the programs you applied to this cycle.

There's plenty of templates, you have to decide for yourself which one you want to use. It's a personal decision. However, I will tell you why I think my template is superior: These things are completely unpredictable and unknown. - You don't really know what a department's culture is like until you are in the program. All programs put on a 'show' during their admission events. Every department will tell you the environment is cordial. - Your environment/happiness of course can be based on location, friends, ect. But you don't know who you are going to meet. You don't know which students are going to accept the offers. You don't know which friends you are going to meet when you get there. You don't know which students you are going to get along with, and which ones you are not. - Location is highly dependent on your personal experience. This is why travelers have vastly different opinions of certain places they go to, because they are largely basing their opinion on how much did they enjoy their experience there. One could say, sure, I would never want to live in South Bend for 6 years, but most location decisions are usually not that cut and dry. What is known in the process? Ranking, funding, professors (kind of), and placement. Those also are the factors that are going to get you a job. So yes, there is no wrong template, but making significant decisions on unknown factors might not be the best idea. But again, it's up to you.

1) Placement 2) Ranking 3) Potential adviser, and their personal placement 4) Funding (this includes how much service/TAing you have to do and availability of internal grants, not just dollar amount) Nothing else really matters in my opinion.

The acceptance list is already finalized. They sent out acceptances to the people on the list yesterday. Ergo, I would suspect they have all been sent out.

Yeah, I think so.

It doesn't make a difference to me.

Yes.

At least one of the new hires isn't on the list. So like I said, they have 6 theorists. The other fields have 7, or 8 in the case of comparative. That is quite rare for a mid-sized department to be structured that way. I wouldn't personally attend Brown for a Ph.D. but that's another question.

One of Brown's main focus is theory. I wouldn't say it's necessarily strong vis-a-vis other top programs, but it's comparatively strong within the department. I'd advise you to look again, I'm pretty sure they've hired at least three theorists in the last two years alone. They should have at least 6 theorists, and considering the size of the department, that's a huge percentage.

They probably do a field seminar every two years, so it combines the current and previous cohort into one.