Jump to content

guest56436

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    400

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

 Content Type 

Everything posted by guest56436

  1. guest56436
    These are broad generalizations. Formal: Rochester, NYU, Stanford, Chicago. Quant: Michigan, Stanford, MIT, Princeton. There aren't many pure qualitative departments left. Most departments, including the ones above, have a mix. Some favor some types over others. As far as I am concerned, everyone should be shooting for mixed methods (whether that is a combination of qual, formal, or quant). What should be driving you is what do I really want to focus on (and to be clear these categories, especially quant and qual can be broken down) and are my POIs doing that kind of work? Can I form a committee there that has people familiar with my specializations? Are there courses offered that are going to allow me to learn those skills? Bottom line is that most top programs you will be able to get the bare minimum at the very least and some will be stronger in certain things than others. This isn't true at lower ranked departments though.
  2. guest56436
    There are divisions within all departments, not just methodological. I don't think it should be something that drives your decision about applying but it may be something to consider before accepting. Then again, it's extremely difficult to get a handle about these things from an outsider perspective. Methodologically speaking, the only thing that should be driving your decision about applying is whether or not there are classes and professors that can training you in the X method you want to focus on. I.e. don't apply to a department that does have any formal theorists if that's what you want to do.
  3. guest56436
    FYI, bed bugs are not exclusive to mattresses. They can live anywhere. Bed covers are asininely useless against the prevention of bed bugs. Waste of money. The only way to really get rid of bed bugs is through professional help.
  4. guest56436
    I think pure math is not going to really give you much utility going forward. You will be required to take things like analysis, measure theory, and modern algebra that will be much deeper than anything you will need to be able to do OLS or MLE or causal inference for social sciences. Furthermore, you need a strong background in math to get into these programs - at least differential, integral, and multivariate calculus + linear algebra + differential equations, ect., do you have this? Stats is probably similar to the above but more transferable to a Ph.D. program skill wise. Public policy will probably not be too helpful. It's too professional. People have taken that path before but usually its because they decide that type of work doesn't interest them. Area studies programs can be good but they can also be extremely 'critical theory' based and have little utility for more quantitative social sciences. M.A. programs in political science are usually crappy. My advice: the type of program isn't too important. What you want to do is get into a program where you will be allowed to enter Ph.D. political science courses without problems at a good institution. Also flexible enough so that you can take math/stats courses. Also one with a thesis requirement. And preferably one that is funded.
  5. guest56436
    No way to really tell because that score doesn't completely mimic conditions on the test day.
  6. guest56436
    I never said you can mix and match components of a composite score. Just that if you take it multiple times, you can send any of the combination of those separate tests.
  7. guest56436
    You can send any combination of your scores (including just one) and the admission committee will have no idea how many times you took it.
  8. guest56436
    ^ You should take a look at the course offerings and programs requirements of each before you conclude that they are interchangeable. I assure you they are not.
  9. guest56436
    History and political science (even theory) are completely different. You are asking the wrong question here. You need to figure out which discipline best aligns with what kind of research you want to do and more importantly how you want to do it. For reference, I don't think there is too much of a difference. History has less applicants but smaller cohorts while political science has more applicants but bigger cohorts. At the top places you are undeniably looking at under 10% (probably much less) admittance rates.
  10. guest56436
    I don't think political science is for you. To be honest, I would even go further in saying that it doesn't sound like you should be pursuing anything that is academic in nature (much less a Ph.D.).
  11. guest56436
    Take more math. Regardless, this isn't the right subforum for you.
  12. guest56436
    This is what you do: If you use word, put up your paper on one side and a blank document on the other. Then proceed to rewrite every sentence of your paper. Doesn't mean every component of the sentence changes (in fact, sometimes whole sentences even survive). Sentences can always be written more clearly and succinctly. Then pay attention to each paragraph. Then pay attention to how sections flow. Start with the concrete. Move to the bigger picture. Word choice is obviously important in writing but at the end of the day sentences and paragraphs convey thoughts, not words. Words are mearly just vessels to get you there.
  13. guest56436
    I'll try to lay this out as succinctly as possible: 1) You develop a puzzle or ask a question. 2) Identify the empirical components of the puzzle that aren't explained at all or well enough by the existing literature. 3) Identify the main strands of the literature that could potentially address your puzzle. 4) Explain why the existing approaches do not explicitly explain the phenomena you are trying to explain. Point 3 is the main portion of the 'lit review.' You have to know how the literature is in dialogue with each other, collect the most prominent literature, then synthesize them. Discard what isn't relevant. Of course, there is a number 5: build your own theory. Sometimes certain aspects of the existing literature may be useful and can be incorporated into your own theoretical approach. Obviously there is a lot of things packed into these steps. You don't have to read entire papers to understand their value; the empirical section of the work may be totally irrelevant for example. There are also other shortcuts; some books already have ready-made lit reviews that you can base yours on. Another skill that is really important is being able to identify literature trees. Usually most 'themes' stem from one or two seminal works that then built on to test the theory, change it, expand on it, ect. Being able to see these strands from the beginning is really important for finding your relevant literature.
  14. guest56436
    Last cycle.
  15. guest56436
    Like I said, these are the top programs in the world - they are all strong in comparative and American. Perhaps your could make the argument there are some weaker ones. Yale's American subfield seems to be in a bit of disarray right now, I think Michigan's comparative subfield is weaker UNLESS you are doing Inglehart type work, which has dominated the department for a long time (then again, he will probably be retiring soon). Comparative is wierd because certain departments will be strong in some areas but weak in others. Berkeley used to be a juggernaut in Latin America but isn't anymore. Michigan hasn't had a single Latin Americanist for around a decade I believe whereas it now has two very established SE Asian scholars which is rare.
  16. guest56436
    Generally CHYMPS departments are strong across the board; they will have solid scholars in all subfields. There are exceptions however, for example, Harvard isn't particularly strong in IR. As you get to the latter parts of the top 10 you'll notice that some departments are stronger in one or two, but weak in multiple. This trend becomes even more prevalent in the top 20. Theory is often the one with the most variation.
  17. guest56436
    There's been dozens of threads on here about this, just do a simple search. Long story short is it's not going to hurt you but it's not going to help you either. Political science admissions are centralized to the committee and your POI may have very little say in who gets admitted or not.
  18. guest56436
    It's not great but fine, 160/168 is a great score and that's all that really matters. Many profs don't even look at AWA.
  19. guest56436
    Online streaming - not exactly legal (it's a bit of a gray area in many cases to be more specific) but it's not enforced.
  20. guest56436
    I highly advise against this. It's hard enough to come up with a coherent and interesting proposal, doing multiple is extremely difficult. It's fine to have broad interests but that portion of the SOP is designed to show the committee that you can come up with something interesting that speaks to academic political science. Spreading yourself too thin may come across as incoherent. Develop a strong, interesting, and tight research statement and tie it to the relevant faculty at each school. POIs do not have to be perfect fits.
  21. guest56436
    With a BA and a MA, why can't you have three LORs from professors? Your stats are obviously good but admission will entirely depend on your research experience, writing sample, and SOP.
  22. guest56436
    I block out entire days for one main thing (although this can be broken down to smaller tasks of course). So if I have classes MTW, for example, I'll do all my readings, class prep, and math exercises for the next week on those days. TH, F, S, would be reserved for research - writing, grant writing, collecting data, etc. This time can also be used for seminar papers. I always take one day off and Sunday is usually most convenient for me. I work from 9-6ish 6 days a week, never in the evenings unless I really need to finish something important (but I work/plan ahead so this is extremely rare). I find giant blocks of time to work on one larger task more beneficial for me because it allows me to get really involved into it.
  23. guest56436
    I wouldn't personally classify cold emailing POIs as a prospective student networking. The key for the OP at this point, if he wants to apply this cycle, is to do significantly better on the GRE.
  24. guest56436
    I don't encourage this as they have no real say in admissions process.
  25. guest56436
    https://goo.gl/images/vEBwyQ
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. See our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use

  I accept