dagnabbit

Thanks to all who have posted so far! We really do have an impressive community of scholars on GC, and I am glad to know that our "cohort" will be well represented in the nation's top programs. Seeing as April 15th has come and will soon be gone, I figured I would bump this thread one last time - if you are reading this post and you have not yet contributed, now is your chance! The fact that this thread has already accumulated over 4,000 views is proof that the hard-learned lessons and advice that you post here will reach many inquiring eyes, and your posts will likely help to quell the anxiety of future prospectives who are scrounging for any insights into this stressful process.

I second the above advice to retake the GRE. Your current scores are definitely respectable, but as an out-of-field applicant you need to give every possible signal that you can handle the workload of a PhD student in the social sciences. Go to the results page and look at the profiles of past applicants who were admitted to the programs that you would like to attend, and make it your goal to score (at least) as well as the median admit.

I agree with @MickeyRay that scholarly development and hard work are essential to success on the job market, but it is simply not true that program prestige does not make an enormous difference. Academia is an intensely elitist institution, and there is empirical evidence to show that the majority of academic jobs go to graduates from the top programs. If you are not happy with a program's placement record, you should not attend with the belief that your outcome will be significantly better.

Good mentorship is really important, and you will certainly do better work if you are happy. That said, think long and hard about career outcomes before making your decision. Grad school is 5-6 years, but your career is potentially 40+ years - choosing a program based largely on friendliness of faculty seems a bit shortsighted.

I would note that Oxford's MsC in IR is significantly more difficult to get into than the other programs that you listed, and apparently among the most prestigious master's programs in political science. Aside from that, I'm not sure why you would be interested in a UK master's program when you have many good (and funded) options in Canada - it's often said that paying out of pocket for a non-professional master's is a really poor investment. Unless one of the programs that you listed has a clear pipeline to a public/private sector career that you are interested in, I would stay away.

Wow, 1k/yr for conferencing is really generous. It sounds like there's nothing that could convince you to go to UCR at this point, so you may as well decline the offer. As a final thought, I would caution you against going to Binghamton (or anywhere else) with the expectation of being able to transfer up the food chain. It does occasionally happen, but from what I've seen and heard there are really only two situations in which it can happen: 1. Your advisor gets a job at a higher-ranked program and negotiates an agreement that lets them bring their students with them 2. You were drastically "underplaced" in your current program, and your advisor realizes this and helps you transfer somewhere better. Maybe you self-selected by only applying to programs below a certain rank, or your GRE scores weren't indicative of your analytical abilities, et cetera. Still, unless the gap between the current and potential outcomes is drastic (you're currently at Wayne State and your advisor knows you could get into, say, UVA), it usually doesn't make much sense to reapply/relocate/start over.

I think that it's absolutely fine to wait until the deadline to notify programs, especially because so much of the waitlist movement happens within days of the 15th (I believe there was a poster a couple years back who was accepted off of the UNC waitlist on the 15th, actually). I understand your concerns about faculty contact at Rice, but I imagine that there must be at least a few people that you would be interested in working with if you applied in the first place. If you do get in, you should strongly consider attending - the resources that will be available to you at Rice (higher stipend, more funding for conferences/etc) plus the overall strength of the program vs. your current options will almost certainly lead to better career outcomes. It seems like Binghamton is the better option out of the current two, but as you said, they are similar enough that you should choose the department that you feel you will be most successful in. However, if you would need to take out loans to live in Riverside (even with full funding), you shouldn't go. The job market is too tough to justify going into debt for a PhD.

Have you scrutinized both programs' placement records? It's probably a good idea to attend the program that you believe will best prepare you for your desired career path, and graduate placement is a good measure of that. If you don't have guaranteed funding, I would advise you not to attend. That said, I would encourage you to wait until the very last minute to see whether you'll be accepted off of the waitlist, as Rice is a significantly better program than either of your current offers and would be your best option. I've also heard that their funding packages are generous.

If you haven't already, try these two things: 1. It might be worth inquiring whether or not you can continue your RA gig after you graduate. If not, one of your professors may be able to help you obtain an RA position with a different professor or at a research center. Many of the other prospective students I met at visiting weekends did this for a year or two before applying. 2. You should pay a visit to the career center, or whatever the equivalent is at your university, and see if they can help you out. I know that many schools have close relationships with certain companies, and as a result said companies will give preference to alumni when making hiring decisions. Northwestern is a very prestigious university, and I'm sure they have an extensive network. Good luck!

Johns Hopkins and USC aren't really on the same level as the other schools you mentioned, and this fact is reflected in their placement records - I would avoid these schools. The other three are all great choices, and you should definitely consider UCSD and Columbia as well if you're interested in studying conflict. The fact that you never studied abroad is unlikely to matter, and your "lack" of research experience (how much can one reasonably accomplish as an undergrad?) can be mitigated by a strong SOP and writing sample that demonstrates your understanding of what political science research really is.

It seems like the jobs that Irvine PhDs get are mostly at SLACs and directionals in California, with a few exceptions - if you wouldn't be satisfied with an outcome like that, you should probably wait a year and then try again next cycle.

https://www.usnews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-humanities-schools/political-science-rankings New USN rankings just came out, if anybody's interested. Not a lot of movement within the T10, but lots of change-ups elsewhere: Penn with an enormous jump from #28 to #19, WUSTL falling from #13 to tied for #19, Davis from #23 to #17, Texas from #21 to tied with WUSTL/Penn/Cornell for #19. Notre Dame dropped significantly, Vanderbilt rose quite a bit. Any thoughts on this? Will these new rankings affect your decision?

Honestly, I would not seriously consider UCSC - while there are many UCs worth attending, Santa Cruz is not one of them. If the placement list that they have on their website is comprehensive, they barely place any of their PhDs in academic positions (either US or international). PSU seems to be the clear choice.

Things seem to be seriously slowing down in here, so I figured I would encourage all of you one final time: please post your profile in the results thread! We're off to a great start, but I know that there are so many more of you with interesting backgrounds and good advice to share. C'mon -

One could easily end up with debt in the mid-5 figures after completing an unfunded masters somewhere expensive like Chicago, which (like others have mentioned) is really insane for a non-professional masters. Another thing to consider is that, while there is some chance that you'll build relationships with high-profile profs at Chicago, you'll be competing for attention with PhD students and you'll be at a significant disadvantage. I agree with @PizzaCat93: you have funding at GMU, so it would be better to attend for a couple of years and then move up.

I would say your profile looks strong - obviously your GRE verbal is low, but from what I have heard this is often excused when English is not one's first language. It's really going to come down to the strength of your letters, SOP, and fit with the schools you're applying to.

Chiming in with a brief PSA: If news/lack thereof from the big H has ended your cycle, it's time to make your way over to the results thread! It's still a bit lonely in there at the moment. Thanks, and congratulations/condolences to all.

Seeing as I started the thread, I suppose it's only fitting that I go first. PROFILE: Type of Undergrad Institution: Large, low-rank R1 Major(s)/Minor(s): Political Science / Geography Undergrad GPA: 3.65 Type of Grad: - Grad GPA: - GRE: V167 Q158 AW 4.5 Any Special Courses: Grad seminars in IPE and politics of identity, audited a grad level research design course. Letters of Recommendation: All tenured or TT political science profs in my department, one from the prof I worked for as an RA. Research Experience: One semester RA, standard senior thesis. Teaching Experience: None that I mentioned in my application. Subfield/Research Interests: IR (international organization/foreign policy/IPE) Other: I was in the honors college at my undergrad institution, and received a scholarship that covered all of my tuition and fees for four years. I could have gone somewhere more prestigious, but the prospect of a free B.A. was too good to pass up and I don’t regret my decision. RESULTS: Acceptances ($$ or no $$): UT Austin ($$), UC Davis ($$) Waitlists: - Rejections: 8 other programs, all T15 Pending: - Going to: Not sure yet LESSONS LEARNED: While I did have a successful cycle in the sense that I received two funded offers, I also failed to gain admission to my top choices. The process of putting together my file and scrutinizing it for months has definitely made me realize which aspects could have been stronger; therefore, I’ll talk about a couple things that I think made my application stronger and a couple things that I would have advised my 20-year-old self to do if I could go back and talk to him. - I think my SOP was fairly strong, and I’ve been told as much by a number of professors (including one at a program that did not admit me). I followed the advice of a GC user who recommended that one take the time to go through the last 4-6 issues of every top journal (both general/subfield), reading abstracts and occasionally entire articles if they are germane to your research interests. I did this and it really helped me understand the current state of the scholarship in my area of interest, which in term helped me to articulate my proposed research question. - I frequently sought advice from my letter writers throughout the entire process, from figuring out where to apply to deciding between offers. I asked them for feedback on my SOP and writing sample, and their suggestions for edits certainly strengthened both documents. I see a lot of people on here post about not wanting to bother their busy letter writers, but I don’t see any problem with politely requesting their guidance when you need it. After all, they were once in your shoes - all of my advisors assured me that they remembered well the anxiety-inducing nature of this process. - One thing that definitely kept me out of top programs was my weak quant background; as of last semester, I had only taken one stats course and no calculus or econometrics. I regret this deeply, but the reason I didn’t take these courses was that I didn’t realize that I wanted to do quantitative research until the second semester of my junior year when I took the grad IPE seminar. Unfortunately, by that time it was too late to take most of the quant courses I would have liked to. - While my GRE Q wasn’t horrible (70th percentile), I know it could have been better if I’d had a bit more time to study. It was only in August that I decided that I wanted to apply this cycle, so I had around two months to study while taking a full course load and working part-time. Ideally, I would have started preparing my application materials much earlier. If you are reading this in March/April and planning to apply in the upcoming cycle, START NOW! - Try to keep in mind that there are so many idiosyncratic aspects to this process that it is really difficult to accurately predict one’s chances of admission at any program. For example, I had an interview with my POI at Wisconsin that I thought went really well – he expressed interest in my research proposal and asked me if I had any questions about the program. However, I was rejected anyway. While the rejection could have been due to me unknowingly botching the interview, it also could have been factors beyond my knowledge and control (funding constraints, subfield size limits, etc). Don’t beat yourself up about rejections, seriously. SOP: I would rather not share my entire SOP for myriad reasons. I will share the general layout though, which might actually end up being more useful anyway: 1st ¶: Stated my name, intended program and subfield, and my desire to eventually work as a professor at a research university. 2nd ¶: Discussed what I believe to be an underexplored research puzzle in my subfield, and why I believe it is important to investigate. 3rd ¶: Discussed a theory that I believe could be applied to said research puzzle, and why it would be useful. 4th ¶: Summarized how my academic history led me to develop my current interests, and how I attempted to apply them in my senior thesis. 5th ¶: Talked about my experience as an RA, what the project was like and what my contribution was. 6th ¶: Briefly (3-5 sentences, depending on the program) highlighted faculty and program fit. Each version of my SOP ended up being almost exactly 1000 words.

Question I've been thinking about - if somebody who was admitted to a program with a merit-based fellowship turns down their offer, what's the procedure for reassigning that fellowship? Is there generally a ranked waitlist for these fellowships? Do students who have already received offers receive better offers in these instances? Maybe a current PhD student can provide some insight?

Just gonna leave this here. Once you've heard back from all of your programs and you've had time to think through your advice/closing thoughts, please post! It's for science!

As social scientists, we are invariably infuriated by the graduate school admissions process; it is lacking in methodological transparency, we feel certain that admissions committees suffer from several biases, and much of the available data is anecdotal (my friend got into Harvard with a 310 GRE, etc). This thread is our contribution to future prospective grads, and our tribute to those who have gone before us. Also, it's just really interesting. Previous threads: 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, and 2010 Format: PROFILE: Type of Undergrad Institution: Major(s)/Minor(s): Undergrad GPA: Type of Grad: Grad GPA: GRE: Any Special Courses: Letters of Recommendation: Research Experience: Teaching Experience: Subfield/Research Interests: Other: RESULTS: Acceptances($$ or no $$): Waitlists: Rejections: Pending: Going to: LESSONS LEARNED: SOP: Note: If you are uncomfortable revealing certain aspects of your file in order to maintain privacy, please do not let that stop you from posting the other parts! Anything is useful, and each cycle we have so many applicants who post in the main thread but leave before posting here - let's change that!

Received my Michigan and Stanford rejections today, which means that I have officially heard back from every program to which I applied! I'm done! I never thought it would feel good to receive back-to-back rejections, but now that I have received all my official decisions I can finally focus on making my own decision. While I didn't get into my top choices, I met (and exceeded) my own goal for this cycle: to receive a fully funded offer from one of the programs to which I had applied. Thanks to all of you wonderful posters for the congratulations/commiseration throughout this tumultuous process - none of my friends or acquaintances are applying to grad school this cycle, and thus gradcafe has been a welcome outlet for admissions anxiety/elation. I will definitely be sticking around while everybody else receives their final decisions, and anybody with questions about living in Ann Arbor/Philadelphia/D.C. should feel free to DM me. I think I'll also take the liberty of starting the wrap-up thread, and (again) I encourage everybody to post as much of your profile and results as you're comfortable sharing.

I think you should go to whichever place has better placement in your subfield. Presuming that both programs offer full funding, it seems to me that 5-7 years of living modestly is worth it for better job prospects.

Without knowing anything about your field or your research interests, it's kind of tough to provide a nuanced answer to this. That being said, it sounds like the cons of UVA (worse placement, worse fit) are significantly worse than the cons of Michigan (far from home, housing costs) if your goal is to get an academic job. Plus, having grown up in Ann Arbor, I can say that it is expensive to live near the university but significantly less so if you move towards the outskirts. It's a really fantastic place to live, too, although the winters are pretty brutal.

Way to go Monody!! You deserve it!