GopherGrad

I sincerely hope it's the latter. Things certainly won't get easier (if) once we're in. BTW, to those interested, while I didn't try to start an account it appears that UNC Chapel Hill and Michigan are open for business, too.

I filled out the Yale app today, even though I'm not sure yet if it will make the cut in terms of fit. I can't believe I'm putting myself through another round of school applications. Off to Costco to get a case of Mylanta.

Yes. Standard wisdom is that numbers get your through the door, but SoPs, writing samples and LoRs are how they choose among qualified candidates. Also keep in mind that while schools are looking for brilliance, they don't recoup the stipends through alumni donations. As a TA or researcher, you're going to be a slave to the department; they want to know it's worth feeding you.

Being a slave to real estate really sucks, but you should apply at all schools that seem to match your academic and professional goals and see to the personal circumstances when you know. Your specifics may invalidate the following reasoning, but: 1) It's possible to hire a management company and rent for anything from profit to a smaller loss, depending upon your mortgage. 2) Short to medium term finances are not a good justification for skipping out on a great school. A PhD is a money sink even with good funding. If you were going to have a decent job, opportunity costs (lost income and investment opportunity) are probably going to be over half a million, anyway. If you're willing to forfeit that kinda dough, is the bath you'll take selling really a deal-breaker? Fit versus rank does become a sticky wicket at some point, but keep in mind we're counseling you mostly to look at higher ranked schools. Rank can be misleading in a couple of ways; both causing you to under-estimate your chance at a satisfying career at homely schools and over-estimate them at glamourous ones.

I don't know that adcomms will "hold it against you" if you have an absence, but attrition in some programs is an issue and the schools will want to be soothed about anything that could be a sign that you'll quit. They want to know you're the type of person that will follow through. The advice about aiming "higher" is good, even if "higher" is very eye of the beholder. Take some time and indentify places with great fit, irrespective of rank. You'll have to think about your career when it comes time to decide where to go, but for now, don't let fear (or snootiness) curb your curiousity about programs.

It's tough to get advice right now for a couple reasons. First, it's simply a slow time of year on these boards. Second, past a certain threshold of numbers, it's really difficult to tell anyone about chances as selection seems to rely more on SoPs and maybe letters of rec. Take all advice, including mine, with a grain of salt. Your stats seem decent enough that you're probably in the running everywhere, although you'll be aware that at the most competetive schools, your GPA and Math score will be a tad lower than average. The balance of advice here will probably tell you to explain the interruption in your education. I for one would advise brevity and confidence while doing so.

Law schools seem to either grade at about a 3.0 average or a 4.0 average. I don't know for sure how adcomm know which is which, but it seems unlikely that they are unaware of the difference. One thing is for sure: no adcomm is going to look at an "average" B curved out of a room full of geniuses the same as a "B" straight graded in Geology 1001. They know most law schools are harder and more tightly curved than most undergrad programs. To compensate for the uncertainty, we apply to a slightly wider range of schools, then we do what all the other kids do: cross our fingers.

Received wisdom is that rigorous professional programs like JDs will help your case to the extent it shows an ability to take on heavy work loads and see yourself through advanced degrees. At some point, I was also told it would make one's background seem unique, but if this board is any indication, that won't be the case in the coming application term. Whether your grades matter gets a less consistent answer, but it seems safe to say "less that undergrad grades". The reputation of your law school might. The thing about your law school grades is this: who cares at this point? If you're like me (another lawyer turned PhD seeker), you won't go back to school for seven years unless you get into a great program and have the opportunity to leave with little or no additional debt. Do well on your GRE and your chances on the numbers are as good as anyone's. The rest relies on the fit, clarity and persuasiveness of your SoP and other supplemental materials, and that's a crap shoot to some extent.

I think you're vastly over-estimating the amount of specialization the average PhD candidate has in prior education. I'm considered a decent candidate and I studied theatre. Whether you prefer sociology or polisci should focus on which courses and programs will provide you with tools to examine the questions that interest you and intellectuals to mentor your development as a researcher and/or teacher.

Meldroc, I wouldn't sweat your GPA from the last bachelor's. Your age, experience and pursuit of a new BA will make it irrelevant in the minds of most adcomms. I think a passing reference to the time and subject gap between those grades and today will be enough to alert even those that might overlook it. You might consider contacting a couple admissions counselors at chosen schools to make sure this is the case though. In terms of cutting down your multiple options... I know it seems overwhelming, but you'll get there. I looked at my scores and my goals from the degree and used those crappy rankings to select a broad range of schools where I might be competetive and which would help me get to my goals. Then I started researching. I have an Excel doc with several tabs; one for admin (addresses and GRE submission numbers), one for substantive application issues (rules on writing samples and statements), one for professor and student profiles that match my research interests, one for financial aid, etc. I supplement my online research by identifying students or faculty for informational interviews about the specific school and the broader market.

Thanks to everyone that posted. I, for one, am finding this tremendously helpful reading.

Okay, so in hopes of coming to some better understanding of the OP's advice I've been looking at the placement history at a few of my potential schools. It's not helpful because I can't really see if anyone wasn't placed. There's a list of jobs, but no stats. Am I looking in the wrong place?

It's hard to advise. There are plenty of people that like lawyering, although you probably won't see many of them here. The thing with studying law is that it seems relatively few law students are well attuned to what practice will be like. You really need to spend some time understanding the range of jobs you might get depending upon your placement and performance in school and ask yourself which of them are good fits for you. Life for a lot of new lawyers is repetetive and boring, especially at the large firms. You tend to sacrifice pay and security for interesting work and responsibility. I think you should apply to both types of programs and see if one result or the other gives you a better shot at realizing the dream career in that branch.

Thanks for confirming some of my understanding; I knew there were a couple of you guys kicking around with us. If I recall, your insight has been valuable to me and many others. Thanks. I think most of us understand that it's difficult for adcomm members to identify (much less articulate) patterns in what makes applicants stand out. What you can give, though, helps us become competetive and, I should think, increases the quality of applicants pools and the clarity of our applications.

I am a (slightly) younger JD applying this coming season, as well. I think the emphasis on explaining your departure from legal practice is overblown. For starters, I spoke about this potential issue in my application with adcomm members at several schools in several different academic disciplines. No one placed much value on a linear path and all recognized that successful people with diverse experiences will tend to continue thier success. In fact, some amount of diversity is obviously valued in the classroom. Second, it's not as though most people don't realize that law is a boring, sucky slog for lots of top grads. Grad schools do worry about attrition, but completing your JD and working for five or six years actually proves you DO have the fortitude to slug it out. Smart people change careers all the damn time. That said, if you have something of a through-line, play it up a little. My JD coursework and a note I published focused on corruption and developing legal institutions and I interned for Dept. State between 1 and 2L years. You may also want to look at the courses you've taken and ask if there are any obvious deficiencies that a traditional polisci kid wouldn't have. I took Econ this spring and will take a methodology course this summer to shore up my knowledge and assure the committees that I can hit the ground running. The bottom line is the same for you as for anyone. Solid grades and GREs are required; some outstanding extra-cirriculars or career success can be a little bonus. The key to distinguishing yourself is having great letters and an SoP that clearly delineates a research interest that fits well with your school. A final note if you plan to hang out on these sites. A lot of people that post here are wicked smart, but basically none are on adcomms. Take all our advice with a huge grain of salt, but particularly aggressive, gunner-ish, world-on-string stuff. Remember how you felt as 23 year old starting your JD with all that grit and determination and certainty about what practicing law would be? A lot of people that frequent these boards are in the same boat. Selling a career change or the value of work success to them will be harder than to a middle age prof.

Yeah, for us, unfortunately, it will probably have to be one or the other.

That last part was only meant to be funny, but your response was really great. Thanks for all the help!

Heh. I see your point; it's a personal thing. For me I'm not sure it's as much orientation within the relationship as it is a different perspective and a pronounced set of priorities entirely my own. A consistent, healthy relationship takes precedence over my career; I work to support my relationships. I recognize that work is a big part of life and it sucks to be bored through it, so I'm willing to invest in my career, but... I'm also disinclined to think that I've got much time guaranteed to me. Five years maybe isn't much if you look at 80 as your total. But if I died at 50, I'd spend almost third of my remaining time without the love of my life snoring gently next to me. For me, that's the point where my life goals start to conflict. Plus, I'd be missing the years with the best sex.

P.B., I think it's a stretch to call five years "short term", for starters. I can't articulate her part very well. She hasn't taken even really short term seperation well, though, and has said that longer terms would be "workable, but not ideal" in that sort of voice that says "to be avoided at almost any cost". My part is from experience. I dated overseas during law school (Helsinki to Minneapolis). I focus on relationships naturally, and while the missing wasn't terrible in strict emotional sense, I ignored my classes to work so that I could ignore my classes to travel to see her. I was disappointed in my performance as a student and fear (know) that I'd make the same mistake again. It's sort of a "have you cake and eat it, too" issue, which works out if your S.O. isn't similarly pre-disposed.

Yeah, I excluded some of the info your post implicates for the sake of brevity. I'm fairly familiar with the FSO lifestyle; I did an internship for them during law school and thought pretty seriously about making it a career. My understanding is that spouses are only banned from Iraq currently. I've asked a State connection about those details. The financial issue worries me more than delaying my career. In fact, while I worry about the ramifications for our relationship if I turn down an interesting PhD offer (resentment, etc.), I could probably aimlessly follow her globe trotting for a few years afterward and be very happy. I'm knowledge driven, not career driven. At that point we might need to re-evaluate the balance of our careers, but she'll have close to ten years in by then and might be itching for a change.

So, yesterday my girlfriend was informed that made it to the Oral Assessment round of the State Department's interview process. If she were to get an offer, she'd likely be expected in DC for training late, late this year or early next (just before I'd find out about admissions). If I get into an interesting program we're going to have some decisions to make. Niether of us are very keen on doing the long distance thing. We're investigating the flexibility of our respective options, hoping that it might be possible to swing my education with only a year or so apart. So ... from the perspective of a PhD student looking to study IR/development topics, how does that look? Are there opportunities to spend a year at an overseas uni? Take a sabbatical for family reasons and return? I also noticed that most programs don't require more than 16 or so courses. Is it possible to do one's reasearch and writing away from one's uni? Take summers off or random semesters off? Enroll in the occasional course on an on-line basis? I assume these affect funding through teaching or RA-ing. How would you approach this? I imagine some of you are...

Theatre.

I think the way you've phrased the examples invites criticism in the second instance of the same problem the first example glosses over. To put it differently, I'm sure we could come up with several sub-topics within the broader field of "democratization" that only glancingly deal with one another and ask if that really constitutes "fit" in the same way you have for political economy. Say you want to study judicial corruption in China; you could probably make a good case for "fit" with either 1) a prof that studies anything about the judicial branch in China or 2) a prof that studies judical corruption in the Middle East. In the first case, you will likely be asked questions about your work that steer you toward fitting your solutions into the framework of Chinese development. In the second case, you'll probably be challenged to think about processes for alleviating judicial corruption largely without reference to social context. I think the fit question has less to do with an whether the interests are the "same" and more to do with how complementing academics will enrich your study (and how you can contribute to thiers). Consider that, by the time we're finishing up, we'll be more expert on our topics than most of the faculty. I'll want people who can challenge me to think about how my work fits into the bigger picture; not a set of profs who can correct my mistakes.

Paris, You're not the only one here just starting out; I thought that question (and paige's answer!) was really helpful. In my beginner's opinion, I think you're on the right track, too. It seems that matching the process or particular cause and effect is more important than region. I think schools value students that want to study thing complementary to existing profs; not exactly matching.

Not that my newbie two cents is worth anything, but I agree with b and c above. I plan to contact professors with matching interests prior to application in order to evaluate my interest and fit and then tailor my SOP to the feedback. I never would have thought of using it as a "test" of my SOP language. That's frankly brilliant.