Accumulated_Bambi

Many, though not all, PhD programs will provide minimum standards which applicants must meet to be considered. They will also make it clear that these minimums are not necessarily enough to be actually admitted as they receive a great many more well-qualified candidates for just a few spots. I think the first step for you would be to make a list of the top five or ten schools you are interested in, go to the poli sci department website for each school and find information on the admissions process and standards. This is more rare, but some schools also publish the profile of previous years' incoming class. Compare this information to your current profile and make a plan for how you make your application more competitive. A lot of programs will say that a weak gpa can be compensated for with outstanding GREs and/or writing sample.

I think I misinterpreted the SFSU degree requirements. Instead of five elective courses all from the theory field, they require two theory courses and three additional courses drawn from any sub-field. This means I can still take several comparative politics courses at either school. All the other concerns expressed in the OP still hold, however.

I've been admitted to both Portland State University and San Francisco State University for a masters in political science, and now I am trying to decide which offer to accept. To give a bit of background before summarizing each program, my primary goal is to get a PhD. I'm looking at a masters first in order to improve upon an unexceptional undergrad gpa and research experience. Failing the PhD route, I would be satisfied with high school/community college teaching or non-profit work. My primary interest is in theory with a strong secondary interest in comparative. Here's a summary of each school: Portland State: M.S. Degree Requirements: One methods course, a class called "philosophy of social science"; comprehensive exams and thesis; five courses in primary field (theory), four classes in secondary field (comparative). Faculty and Course Offerings: There's one professor I'm very excited to work with, the others I'm not particularly familiar with. The department seems to be relatively small with just two core faculty devoted to theory and two or three for comparative. However, the graduate level courses offered for comparative are more various relative to the theory courses the department has planned for the next two years. Cost: PSU is going to be about $10,000 less (mainly due to difference in cost of living, esp. housing). Portland State has also offered me an TA/RA position with a (very) small stipend. I'm not that concerned about the dollar amount but I do like that I can count on having some kind of assistantship experience. San Francisco State M.A. Degree Requirements: One methods course; one seminar each in American politics, comparative, and theory; comprehensive exams or thesis; five courses in primary field (theory). Faculty and Course Offerings: Two professors whose current research directly lines up with my interests, and one or two others who also work on problems which intersect in some way with what I am interested in. The department as a whole seems much larger than PSU's and with a significantly deeper roster of faculty in the political theory field. This obviously means that there is much greater variety in the theory courses. However, by the nature of the degree requirements, I wouldn't be taking any comparative classes. Cost: SFSU is significantly more expensive because of where it's located. I also don't have any guarantee of TA or RA experience or funding, although the department websites says these positions do exist. I'm also concerned that, after two email attempts, I can't get a reply from the professor I would like to be my advisor. I don't really know if this something I should be worried about, but it does make me nervous. My primary advisor at PSU has responded to emails, however. Ultimately, I am excited about the assistantship and lower cost of Portland State, but concerned about (what appears to me to be) its somewhat unusual curriculum of having exams and a thesis requirement, and no core seminars in the different subfields. For SFSU, I like the curriculum save for the fact that I would not be able to really develop a second field of interest in comparative politics (which I expect may be more marketable, and maybe after some time could become my primary interest because who knows the future...). I am also very happy with the faculty at SFSU due to their research interests and recent journal and book publications whereas PSU faculty are not as prolific publication-wise and not as closely aligned with my current interests. However, I am discouraged by the cost and up-til-now inaccessibility of key faculty at SFSU. Given all of this, I would be appreciative of any thoughts on which school might be the better choice.

By no means am I an authority on SOPs, but fwiw here are my thoughts... Overall, I think this is fairly good. I come away with a clear understanding of how you've prepared for continuing your study and why XXX university is a good fit. The writing feels efficient and flows smoothly between points with a few exceptions: Maybe replace "them" with a more direct reference to what you want to improve. I know you just mentioned it in the previous sentence, but "them" just seems a little too informal and vague. Perhaps it's because I am completely unfamiliar with your field/methodology, but is "informativeness" a term one finds in the literature on educational assessment methodology? I don't think this sentence is necessary. If they are curious about your grade they can see your transcript. Lastly, the the fourth paragraph ends rather abruptly. Consider adding a sentence which concludes the paragraph and ties it back to its raison d'etre, so to speak. Or make a more smooth connection to the following paragraph. Thanks for sharing! Good luck!