toad1

Are you supposed to / expected to reply to informal acceptance emails that appear to be sent in mass / are for informative purposes (eg expect a formal letter, this is accepted students day, etc)? My instinct is no but I would rather be sure and check with you guys.

Can't have that mindset in January--it's a long application process and you never know how things will turn out.

50% is likely a massive understatement

Congrats to those who have heard from Duke! Is anyone familiar with Duke's historical process? If no word today should rejection or at best waitlist be assumed?

Anyone claiming Columbia acceptance? Likely troll -- too early for them.

Very strange..... keep us updated. Good luck to all who may be hearing back from Duke soon!

I think that fit is the most important factor when it comes to where you get admitted/rejected. If you are saying you recognized that you weren't the best fit, I'm sure they saw that as well and that led their decision more than anything else (if they even did choose to reject you, which I think shouldn't be assumed when it's still January). So I wouldn't sweat it.

Just wondering, did you have POI that you contacted and opened a dialogue with prior to the submission of applications? Or is it someone you simply named in your application and are hearing from first time? I only ask because it was my experience that most universities did not encourage reaching out to faculty prior to getting admitted to the programs. Just wondering what other people's approach with this was.

Is this a real story about the Harvard acceptance lol? Wonder if the application was so strong that that’s why they were rejected at other programs—knowing the person would pick a stronger program.

I am surprised so many schools are doing interviews... not what I was expecting. Do you think they are interviewing everyone they plan to accept?

As others mentioned, I think it's largely a gateway to be considered seriously. In the later, more important rounds that determine whether or not you are admitted, I doubt that either the GRE or GPA is a huge factor.

You're talking about the actual GRE in practice, I'm talking about the idea of the GRE as an opportunity to test all prospective grad students on an equal playing field. I don't deny the GRE is imperfect.

For the sake of political science programs, personal statement / LORs is more important from what I understand. GRE has to be above the school's threshold but it won't get you into programs alone.

Thanks, I'll look into these when I have time. But, I can speak from experience with friends in those situations: it is sometimes the case. I quickly glanced at the first article and it claims it costs thousands of dollars of prep material to study for GRE... I don't know, one of my best friends who was in a similar situation as I described above just bought one prep book for LSAT and killed it, and it got him into virtually every top programs and full rides. His background, outside of that, was good but nothing memorable: good GPA at a mediocre state university. He was able to overcome because of the LSAT, not in spite of it. But I'll look into these with an open mind.

Well, whether they are effective could be debated, and if you say studies show otherwise I have no reason to question you. Although, I don't really understand the logic of 'how' and would be interested in seeing the literature. My point is, there should be a test that can equally assess people on a level playing field. It's easy to buy experiences a top schools and get to know elite professors to write your LORs, etc. I think that, when it's all said and done, people should also be assessed on a quantitative, across the board metric that will allow people who maybe didn't have those opportunities to show that they are cognitively able to take on the program too.

Personally I'm a huge advocate for the GRE (and standardized tests in general). I'll try to explain my reasoning. Firstly, everyone's GPA largely boils down the around the same area (3.6-4.0) which is a difference less than one letter grade according to most grading systems--a metric which, comparing grades in different classes taught by different professors in different universities (possibly in different countries in different years). This hardly is an accurate way to assess people. Conversely, the GRE is 'the great equalizer', in that everyone is subject to the same exact rules and questions that are constructed in order to be of near equal difficulty, testing people on their skills regardless of their background. Of course you can have a bad day, but then you are able to take it again (literally as many times as you want) so that you think it actually reflects your ability. This works in favor of people that aren't as privileged. If you are well off such as being a legacy at an Ivy League college or having enough family wealth to pay for expensive prestigious schools your whole life (kindergarten through undergrad), you have a huge advantage on nearly EVERY metric except the GRE. The GRE is literally the ONLY metric that allows someone who has grown up in a poorer neighborhood, maybe only had one option of attending a less-than-ideal public school their whole life (K-undergrad) and is still swimming in debt from a public university. Just my 2 cents. I understand completely how people can be frustrated with one test weighing so heavily, but someone else could argue that everything else has been against them their whole life in this fight for top spots--and this is their one truly equal chance to show they can compete too. So, I say: good.

And an AWA score of 60, that's pretty impressive!

That's for OSU I thought

Tongue twisters

Sorry to hear about that, but congrats on U of I!

Is this for a transfer? I see from your profile that you committed to UNC for the 2015-2016 cycle.

That's fine, and I think everyone would agree with recognizing the harsh reality of the job market -- but since most of us are in this for the passion of the study, I'd hate to see anyone decide against pursuing their passion (and settle for a career that's likely in an entirely different field) because they couldn't break the top 20 schools. Even if the end result isn't a TT position, there is still value in a PhD. I appreciate your side being blunt about the reality, but I also think we can be encouraging to those who want to go down this path for good reason.

With all due respect, I don't think anybody should discourage anyone from pursuing their doctorate because they can't get into a prestigious enough school, especially when that person doesn't know any of the other people's circumstances. Some of my best professors were from schools like University of Alabama or local universities people on this board wouldn't have even heard of let alone get ranked in the top 20 -- while some of my worst professors were from very elite schools. Thankfully my favorite professors didn't listen to this sort of advice, otherwise I wouldn't be one of the many (hundreds/thousands of) beneficiaries to their mentorship. If you want to be a political scientist, get your PhD at the very best school you can get into, rankings/prestige considered. If it isn't considered 'elite' by the masses, but it still seems preferable to any alternatives outside of academia, don't pay any attention to this elitist nonsense. Hard work will pay off in the end. And even if it doesn't, you would regret forever if you instead fall back into a job you aren't passionate for and grow miserable for because you didn't have the grades, scores, or research experience for an elite program that very few get selected for. I'm not saying be reckless, I'm not saying sign away your life to endless student loans.. but I am saying that, if this is the path you want to take, make it happen. Don't let anonymous people on the internet tell you that the best program you can get into isn't good enough. Maybe it isn't good enough for them but it is good enough for you.

Do you have any evidence to back up this claim? Not necessarily disagreeing, but I've never personally seen or been convinced of any correlation between prestige and quality of methodological training, especially not a huge difference. I find it very hard to believe that Harvard, Stanford, etc. have any observable difference in quality of methodological training than say UNC or U Chicago.

Also, I don't completely understand why this conversation about rankings is happening now after we've applied to all of our schools and are waiting to hear back. Everyone needs to just sit back, relax, see where they get in, and if they are fortunate enough to get into more than one program, have the courage to objectively decide for yourself which program is best for you rather than just going off what US News is telling you (which is valid in its own right but also largely arbitrary in the grand scheme of things).