Jump to content

dagnabbit

Members
  • Posts

    139
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by dagnabbit

  1. In general, the programs that send out acceptances in January tend to be those who are competing for applicants that might have better options. The logic is that an early offer + early visiting weekend might cause prospective students to consider the program more seriously than they otherwise would have. These tend to be places ranked 15-30ish: Wisconsin, OSU, UT, Emory, and so forth. The CHYMPS schools typically don't send out decisions until mid-February to early-March, both because they receive a larger number of applications and because they don't have the same need to fight for good students. As @DreamersDay said, remain skeptical of any high-ranking admissions on the results page at least until next month. On another note: please take care of yourselves in these upcoming weeks. Get some sleep, drink water, do whichever type of exercise you prefer. Keep busy with work if you can, and try to limit your daily visits to this site. Remember that the admissions process, while noisy and imperfect, is a matching exercise; you've identified the programs that seem to be the best fit for you based on public information (faculty, methodological approach, etc), and now it's time for admissions committees to identify which applicants fit them best based on a combination of public and private information (Prof. So-and-so isn't taking on new advisees this year, we're trying to expand our IR subfield, we're trying to become a more quantitative department, etc). There are two conclusions you should draw from this: 1. If you're rejected from a program that seemed perfect for you, there's a decent chance that it was due to one of the aforementioned private objectives. At this stage, being "above the bar" is a necessary but not sufficient condition for admission; you may have been edged out for an idiosyncratic reason that was beyond your control. Try not to let it get to you. After all, you didn't want to live in Palo Alto anyway - housing prices are ridiculous and it's too far away from your family. 2. If you're accepted to a program, it wasn't by mistake. The committee has read your writing sample, statement of purpose, and letters of recommendation, they've seen your transcripts, and they believe that you would be successful in their program. They're willing to invest substantial time and resources in you. Remember this if you begin to experience the imposter syndrome that afflicts so many incoming PhD students. Best of luck to all of you!
  2. I'm a little confused about the big gap between the first four programs you named and the last three. If you want to do civil conflict stuff, why not Penn (Sambanis, one of the top civil war guys) or UCLA (Michael Ross) or even UT (Michael Findley)? Your profile looks good (GRE scores are a little low, but not too low), and you do have a shot at top places, but I think you'd benefit from applying to 2 or 3 other programs ranked 10-20. Brief anecdote: my rejection e-mail from Michigan last year claimed that they'd received 400 applications. That's nuts. With that kind of application to open slot ratio, even the most qualified applicants could be rejected for idiosyncratic reasons. I would at least urge you to consider applying to Penn - the department is definitely on the rise, and Sambanis would be a fantastic advisor for what you want to do.
  3. I imagine that there's a lot of variation in how adcomms look at application materials, so I'm not sure anybody will be able to answer this question for you. If the letter is particularly enthusiastic, or if the letter writer is a known quantity, I'm sure committee members will read it carefully.
  4. Yeah, apply to all of the places you listed - not sure why Georgetown would make sense for comparative, though. Have you considered the top UCs (particularly Berkeley and UCSD)?
  5. @sethbwa - I went to one of the schools that you're talking about for undergrad, and I can tell you that: 1. The placement list is not comprehensive. It isn't intentionally deceptive, but you certainly should not take away the idea that most grads get TT jobs. 2. Attrition rates were very high, due in part to lack of funding/resources and higher than average TA/teaching loads. 3. ...and, for the reasons mentioned in #2, the grad students who stuck around were pretty uniformly unhappy and overworked. Of course these are conditions common to all graduate programs, but it's much worse when you have no guaranteed funding/are made to TA for multiple courses per semester/have little access to departmental resources for conferences or otherwise. My point is that attending a top program not only increases your chances of getting a fancy research job, it increases your chance of getting any job at all (including small teaching schools) and means that you'll likely have a less stressful/financially ruinous time in grad school.
  6. The US News rankings are generally the ones that people are referring to when a department's rank is mentioned. However, there are a lot of different rankings out there that measure different things: the NRC rankings measure programs on several different metrics, there's a list of rankings by placement quality out there somewhere, and so on and so forth. I would encourage you to think less about rank and more about placement - would you be happy in the type of job that (average, not outlier) graduates of this department tend to get? If not, you shouldn't apply regardless of rank.
  7. Columbia and Cornell are good choices - however, I'm a little confused about how you chose those other programs for IR. What are your interests within IR? Security, IPE, IO?
  8. Here's a link to the program from a 2015 regulation school conference - might be able to find some US/Canadian scholars there: https://theorie-regulation.org/colloques/conference-rr-2015-en/program-rr-2015-en/ Do note that the reason that you're having trouble finding people is because regulation/accumulation theory isn't really something that (North American) political economy scholars study, and there are fairly few economists who do that kind of stuff anymore either. If you adopt that research program in grad school, know that you'll be fighting an uphill battle when it comes to getting an academic job. I will reiterate that I can only speak for US/Canadian political science, and that you may find more work being done in this area elsewhere.
  9. I would agree with @Comparativist - this really isn't one of the parts of your application that will be scrutinized heavily. I would recommend listing whatever courses you wouldn't want the adcomm to miss while looking over your transcript, but chances are that if you made the shortlist they'll read the whole transcript anyway. If this is in regards to UT, my anecdotal evidence is that I didn't do the required template but got in anyway. But, YMMV.
  10. Out of curiosity, where are you seeing the placement record? They don't appear to have it available on their website, which is typically not a great sign.
  11. Having never applied to/enrolled in a masters program, I can't speak from personal experience about this topic. However, my cohort-mates who had completed MAs prior to beginning the program mostly agree that the value-added of the MA was that it helped them to define a potential research agenda, which in turn helped them to decide which PhD programs would best accommodate their interests (as well as helping them to write convincing SOPs). If it's really the case that you already have a good idea of what your research interests are, and you don't need to compensate for a horrific undergrad GPA, I would advise you to seriously weigh the benefits of spending x amount of money on a masters program simply because you didn't get an offer this cycle. There are other options, such as applying for RA positions, that might add value to your future applications without putting you in debt.
  12. From what I've heard, it seems to be common practice for admissions committees to discount international applicants' verbal/AW scores. Those portions of the test simply rely on a lifelong immersion in / mastery of the English language, which gives domestic applicants a significant advantage - knowing this, many programs will look elsewhere for proof that you can communicate well in written English. Seeing as your verbal and quant scores are very good, I would probably advise against a retake. Spend that time polishing your writing sample and SOP instead.
  13. For what it's worth, my GRE was almost identical to yours (I got one more point on the verbal, but otherwise the same) and I got into two T20 programs. That said, I do wish I had done significantly better on it. If you think you could raise your quant score by 3+ points, I think it might be a good use of your time to retake it. Otherwise, that time might be better spent working on the rest of your materials. And, uh - definitely contact your desired letter-writers ASAP, if you haven't already.
  14. Do you still have a chance at any school at all? Yes. That being said, your current score will probably not make it past the first cut at many places. From what I've heard, admissions committees often use stats like GRE/GPA to make a long list out of the initial application pool, and a very low Q score might lead to your app being thrown out before they even see your application materials. Your GRE score is not the defining element of your application by a long shot, but the truth is that many programs have score cutoffs/quotas/etc., and you don't want to be rejected simply because you fell on the wrong side of these. There are a lot of good arguments out there about why the continued use of the GRE in graduate admissions is problematic, but for now it's still part of the dance. You should retake the test if it is within your means to do so. I would recommend purchasing/renting/obtaining the Manhattan Prep series on the quantitative section, as they really try to provide a complete understanding of the mathematical/logical concepts that underlie the questions on the test. One last thing: I disagree with your postscript. Political science is a pretty quantitative discipline, and IR is probably the second most quant-heavy subfield behind American politics. Everyone who studies IR at the graduate level will at least be required to read and understand quant research, and admissions committees will be looking for signals of quantitative literacy regardless of your specific research interests. Of course you can do qualitative IR research, but I just wanted to make the point that it's probably best to get comfortable with quantitative analysis instead of writing it off.
  15. I have personally never heard of such a program, and have no knowledge of anybody who has completed such a program. I can think of a few examples of scholars who have completed both a political science PhD and an economics PhD, though not at the same institution and not at the same time. If somebody has two PhDs, it is usually because their interests changed and they needed the second one to work in the desired field (though I have heard of math PhDs going on to do econ PhDs due to the terrible job market for mathematicians). It is not unheard of for political science doctoral students to acquire an economics MA, though I would not say that it's common. The real question is this: what is your desired career path? If you want to study IPE/CPE from the perspective of a political scientist/using political science research methods (and seek employment as an academic political scientist), you should aim for top political science PhD programs that are strong in these areas. If you want to study issues of political economy from the perspective of an economist/using economics research methods (and seek employment as an economist, academic or otherwise), you should target economics PhD programs that are strong in political economics. The top political economy programs (Stanford/Harvard) do place their PhDs into academic/non-academic positions in both fields, but their admission rates are extremely low - it would be unwise to place all of your eggs in that basket. It's also worth noting that the political economy programs (as well as most top econ programs) will expect you to have taken specific math courses as an undergrad, unlike most political science programs.
  16. 1. I don't think you're giving yourself enough credit here. After months of efficient studying, you should certainly be able to bring your score above 320. After all, your grades are exceptional and surely you've aced quite a few timed exams as an undergraduate. Check out this list of free studying resources. The unfortunate truth is that an exceptional GRE score is more or less necessary but not sufficient for admission to top programs; low scores might keep you off the short list. I would encourage you to browse through the results page on this website, and note the scores of applicants who were admitted to the programs to which you are applying. You should aim for the median score of the accepted students. Finally, be wary of "average admitted GRE scores" posted on department websites - these are inevitably brought down by students who have poor scores but are otherwise truly exceptional (rec letters from Gary King, etc). 2. You have a pretty good list so far - I would add Vanderbilt and Stony Brook. 3. No, I don't think that's justified. Look at grad student profiles at the programs that you're considering, read their CVs, see where they did their BAs. Personally, I attended a research university ranked >130 and am heading to a T20 PhD program this fall. 4. Nobody will expect you to have published anything, so don't worry about that. I think that your challenge as a history major is to sell yourself as somebody who knows what political science research entails; your letter writers can help attest to this, but a strong SOP and your conference presentation should be good signals. 5. I basically agree with @IR44 on this one. I have heard that it's a big plus for comparativists to have lived/worked/studied in the region that they plan to research, but this isn't applicable to your case.
  17. Certainly not problematic to highlight APs that you would like to work with - I did this, and I know that many others did as well. However, I would advise against identifying them as your prospective advisor (or planning on them being your advisor), largely due to the reasons that you mentioned. Additionally, you want your advisor to be somebody with enough clout in the discipline that he or she can adequately promote you and your work, both before you go on the job market (introductions at conferences, etc) and while you are on the job market (making calls for you, writing letters that carry weight); senior faculty are typically better at this than junior faculty.
  18. Honestly, I think that you should start by seeking guidance from your former professors. GradCafe is very helpful regarding certain aspects of the application process (GRE studying tips, SOP advice, Interview advice, etc), but not so much when it comes to something as major as choosing a field of study. Sure, we can list all of the best places to study political psychology, but we can't really tell you whether you should be studying political psychology or not. You should contact a professor who knows you and knows your work and have a conversation with them regarding your research interests and how to best pursue them.
  19. To briefly address your questions: 1. Yes, I think that you are competitive for T20 programs provided that your application materials are top quality. Apply to every T20 program that fits your interests, and especially consider Davis/Wisconsin/Penn. 2. I don't think that your stats are such that you should plan on doing an MA before applying to PhD programs. That said, it might not be a bad idea to research a few MA programs to apply to in addition to the doctoral apps that you send in.
  20. Your profile looks very strong. Regarding your concerns: 1. I think you should try to frame your professional background as an asset, focusing on the skills you gained and projects you completed, and explain how your time in the professional world motivated the academic questions that you are interested in exploring. Make a strong case for why you are actually an academic, but certainly don't waste time explaining your initial motivations for pursuing professional training; I don't think admissions committees would care. 2. Seek advice from your letter writers on this, but I would imagine that academic writing > non-academic writing.
  21. I don't have extensive knowledge about either program, but here are some thoughts: 1. From what you wrote it sounds like you would have to pay at Kentucky and you would receive a stipend at Ole Miss, which is a big plus for Ole Miss. It would be less of an issue if your plan was to find gainful employment after completing the MA, but if you are interested in doing a PhD then you are looking at ~6 years post-MA of making very little money - more debt is not a good idea. 2. As you've noted, the Patterson School MA is not designed to prepare students for academic careers. This is kind of a big deal, because... 3. With very few exceptions, PhD program admissions committees will care more about what you did during your MA than where you did it. Mississippi's program is more likely to provide you the opportunity to create a solid writing sample and narrow your interests well enough to write a great SOP, as well as RA/TA experience. Perhaps Kentucky is ranked above Ole Miss, but the program will not be focused on training you as an academic.
  22. Your post is kind of confusing. Are you saying that you would be interested in either academic political theory, public policy, or law school, but that your main requirement is staying close to home? You sound like you're not quite sure why you want to go to grad school - my advice is to do some soul-searching to figure out your career goals before you spent tens of thousands of dollars and years of your life on a degree. Of course, maybe I just misunderstood your post, in which case I am sorry.
  23. I don't think that you should be concerned with your grades, seeing as you took difficult courses and admissions committees will take that into consideration - regardless, a 3.8 GPA is fine. What you should absolutely do is take a seminar paper and build it into a polished writing sample, and study harder for the GRE and make sure that you nail the quant section on your next try. With a solid writing sample/SOP and a better GRE score, I think you would be competitive for top programs. It's difficult to recommend specific programs without more information on your interests - are you more interested in IPE or CPE?
  24. @mstama123 Congrats on your decision! Did U of T provide you with their placement record? I can't find it on their website, but I'm curious.
  25. I think that all of @Bibica's advice is very good, but I just want to emphasize the importance of this point. Chicago and Columbia both have a lot of PhD students, and the tenure-track/tenured faculty are likely spread thin between advising them, teaching, and conducting their own research; before you spend the money on one of these programs, make sure that you will be working (at least some of the time) with faculty that can write letters for you. Remember this, too: the value added from either of your current options will be the connections you make with faculty (resulting in rec letters) and the strengthening of your research abilities, not the name brand on your CV.
×
×
  • 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