Imperator Totius Hispaniae

1. I know you stated that you are not necessarily looking for feedback on whether this is even a worthwhile endeavor for a JD student, but answering the question "why do I want a PhD" is a necessary question to answer before any other questions can be answered regarding your chances for success in being accepted into a grad program. To be sure, it is important that you discuss this with your professors to get their feedback, but keep in mind they may be biased in their assessments of whether you should pursue a graduate degree (something I have learned in my research). Basically there are only two reasons to get a PhD: 1) you are passionate about research and want to do so at institutions that will provide you with the best resources to accomplish your research goals; 2) You want to be a teacher at a research oriented institution. Any other reasons--wanting to advance in your career, not knowing what else to do with your life, or thinking getting a PhD will get you access to higher paying jobs--are bad reasons for wanting to get a PhD. This is because a PhD program is meant to do one thing: socialize you into thinking like a researcher and providing you with the tools to become successful at a research oriented university. Consequently, the skill set you obtain in a PhD program is rather limited and is not always applicable to jobs in the private sector. This is not to say you couldn't get other jobs in government or at think tanks with a PhD--indeed many grad programs are now encouraging students to look for jobs outside of academia (more on that later). But the opportunity costs of getting a PhD (which on average is 7 years for poli sci programs) is high. This leads into the next reason why you should really consider whether getting a PhD is the right thing for your professional career goals. The job market is absolutely atrocious. There are significantly more PhD graduates than there are positions available, which has created a whole class of students who are unemployed or perpetually working as adjuncts with very minimal pay. If you are interested in working at a think tank or public policy more generally, you could still get a job with just your JD. I know from personal experience that many think tanks accept JD graduates in research roles because I am currently working at a think tank right now, and when I was looking for jobs at think tanks, many job listings listed having a JD as preferable. So if this is your goal, just applying to think tanks or government research programs out of law school may be a smarter choice due to the reasons I mentioned above. If you really feel like you want more of a public policy oriented education in addition to your JD, then getting an MPP or MPA is probably a better option. Here are some links that will provide more information on what I have been discussing: https://chrisblattman.com/about/contact/gradschool/ http://100rsns.blogspot.com/ 2. Now to answer your questions and give general feedback. I have spoken to current poli sci grad students, including one who got his JD and two others from Stanford. They have all said that schools are indifferent regarding whether you graduated with a JD. Schools mostly care about your potential for producing interesting, original research and becoming a successful researcher at a highly ranked academic institution. This is due to the fact that schools are risk averse, and don't want to expend large amounts of faculty and monetary resources on students who have no chance of graduating with their PhD or getting hired as an academic. So you need to demonstrate that you have interesting questions and that you have potential for producing exceptional research. My guess is, it probably won't make much of a difference, due to the goals of law school and PhD programs are different. A law school's goal is to train students to think like lawyers and equip them with the proper tools to become successful lawyers. This is fundamentally different than the goals for PhD programs, which is to train you to become researchers. One has a more practical focus, the other has a more theoretical focus. Consequently, going to Yale Law School won't signal much to admissions committees your potential for research, nor will it provide an accurate barometer of the rigorousness of the program in relation to what is expected of students in a PhD program (again being due to the fact that what is expected in law school and PhD programs are totally different). It might help, especially if you publish articles about international law as it relates to international relations, and can get those articles published in political science journals. Moreover, there are political scientists who publish in law journals. But I am not sure if publishing in a law journal would signal anything to admissions committees, since the standards of what gets published in political science journals and law journals is likely different. It certainly couldn't hurt, but I would definitely consult someone on that. I don't think it would hurt necessarily, but not having research will not give admissions committees an indication for your competency in research, or your potential for success in research. Perhaps if you publish in a political science or law journal, it may help overcome your deficiency in research experience. 3. Here are a couple of other notes regarding your profile. a) the fact that you have a 4.0 in undergrad is excellent. Although it doesn't necessarily say anything about your ability to do research, it will help you get past the first round of cuts admissions committees make. b)the fact that you don't have a huge quant background won't hurt you. Political Science is not economics, which requires that you have a quant heavy background to be considered in top programs. From speaking with other current poli sci grad students, ad coms understand that most people applying to their programs probably don't have a heavy quant background and thus compensate for this fact by requiring you enroll in quant classes in your first year of a grad program. However, this is why it is crucial that you do well in the quant section of the GRE, because it signal to ad coms your success in the required quant classes. If you want a career as a professor at a research oriented school, you need to get accepted into a top 20 program. This means you need to get at least a 160Q score, but preferable a 165 or above. c) it is critical that you get letters of rec from professors who know you very well, and that you know will ham it up for you in their letters. According to one grad student I spoke with, it needs to be on the level of "this the best student I've had in the past 10 years", or something to that effect. It would be preferable to get most or all of your letters of rec from a poli sci professor (like the one you mentioned that was your advisor on your senior thesis), but if this is not possible, then get the other two letters from law school profs who are either well known in the poli sci circles (i'm sure there are a few at yale) or are just well known in the legal field generally, AND who know you and your work very well. Again, letters of rec from poli sci profs are preferable because poli sci faculty in ad coms will share with your poli sci letter writer a similar gauge of what success in a student looks like than would someone who is a faculty member from a law school. Consequently, ad coms place greater weight on letters of rec written from poli sci profs than from law school profs. Overall, in order for you to be competitive at a top school, you generally need a high GPA, high GRE scores, an exceptionally well written statement of purpose indicating your research interests, faculty you would like to work with, and what interesting research questions or ideas you will bring to the table, and glowing letters of rec. Publications would also be a nice resume booster. Of course, none of this guarantees you will get into a top program, because acceptance decisions are fairly random; it will merely make you competitive with other applicants. I know this is a lot of info to digest, but I hope it helps. If you have any other questions, feel free to message me. Ultimately, I highly encourage you do more research by speaking to current law school profs, past poli sci profs, and reaching out to current poli sci grad school students.

Thanks for the advice. The problem is, I could get very strong letters, but none would be from political science faculty. This is why I wanted to get a terminal masters in poli sci in the first place. Based on numerous convos I've had with other people on this forum as well as current grad students in top poli sci programs (stanford and UCLA to be specific), all have said that getting letters from top scholars in the field matters a lot, because ad coms have no barometer for assessing the rigor of coursework in other fields, or what constitutes a good student in another field, or my potential for research. So I feel like I'm kinda stuck, especially because, naturally, I would like to get into a top 10 or 20 program. If I apply now as is, with a (hopefully excellent) gre score and well written SOP, but no letters from poli sci faculty, I feel like I would be hobbled by that fact. Or, I risk looking like a perennial student getting yet another MA, but with the opportunity to get letters from well known faculty in the field. What to do?

Hey it was no problem. I've learned so much throughout this process, and I'm willing to help whomever I can. A couple more points: 1. Don't worry too much about your GRE score. If you don't have another GRE in you, that's ok. I don't know for certain whether or not the top 5/10 schools have scholars that research direct democracy; I was simply stating that in general, those types of schools tend to have scholars that do more research in niche areas. I really encourage you, with the limited time you have, to do more research to see which scholars are doing the type of research you're interested in, especially in departments within and outside of the top 20. 2. With that being said, I think it's important you expand your research interests beyond direct democracy for a couple of reasons. First, professors leave departments to go to other ones all the time, so if you find one professor at a school who does direct democracy and leaves, you need to have back up professors who would be able to help you as an advisor. Second, from my understanding, people's research interests often end up changing once they get to grad school, so that could very well happen to you as well. In that case, you need to make sure there are other professors in your department that research topics in your new area(s) of interest. Thus, I would suggest you find at least one other area of interest and then search departments that have 3 or 4 professors who do research in that area. Hope this helps!

I'm not as experienced with the application process as some others on this forum, but as someone who is looking to apply in an application cycle or two, I have done a tremendous amount of research on the subject. So take what I say with a grain of salt. Here is what I found that pertains to your current situation. 1. In general, the higher ranked the department, the more variety of specialists in particular sub fields you will encounter. For example, my research interests are in a particular sub, sub field of new institutionalism. In my research, I've discovered that Stanford, Harvard, Princeton, MIT, and Michigan have the most scholars studying in this niche sub, sub field, while others outside of the top 10 have very few scholars doing research in this particular area. This is due to the fact that the top 5/10 schools get significantly more funding than other programs and therefore can afford to pay faculty to do research in very particular or niche sub fields. Your best bet would be to try and get into the top programs. However, this is not to say that schools outside of the top 10 or 20 programs won't have scholars researching direct democracy, it's just that you will probably find fewer of them. Keep doing your research on which faculty research direct democracy. Im assuming you have, but if you haven't already, ask your professor/s to see if they can point you in the right direction. 2. I think the fact that you were accepted into the honors program will send a good signal to admissions committees. It also seems you have really good people writing your letters of rec. I spoke to a stanford poli sci PhD student, and a great piece of advice she gave to me was that you need to make sure that all your letter writers ham it up in their letters--particularly if you're trying to get into places like Princeton. She said if they can say something to the effect of "this is one of the best students i've ever had in the last 10 years", it would really help you be competitive, especially if you have any deficiencies in other areas of your application. If you can, I would recommend trying to retake your GRE. A 157q will probably keep you out of the top programs. I would try to shoot for at least a 160q; a 165 would be even better. I also don't think your age should be a problem. And finally, make sure you get a lot of people to review your SOP. Hope this advice helps!

I have a very strong relationship with the associate dean of my law school (where I got that terrible GPA), and I'm sure he would be able to explain the situation. Thank you for the advice!

Thanks for the advice. This has been my concern as well, which is why I am putting my feelers out there to see if it's even worth applying. I realize that on paper I look like a perennial student, who is only applying to grad school so I can add another degree to my collection of degrees. Is there anyway to mitigate this and explain, or have letter writers explain, that my GPA or degrees do not preclude my ability to be successful in a PhD program?

I am currently researching the the prospect of getting a PhD in Political Science. My research interests are in american and comparative politics, specifically institutions and institutional analysis. My research interests align most with scholars such as Barry Weingast, Gary Cox, Douglas North, Elinor Ostrom, and Robert H Bates. Obviously, I would want to get into a top 10-20 PhD program. However, I have a checkered educational past. I went to undergrad at a top research university, majored in history and minored in political science, and got a 3.4. I then went to get a dual degree JD/MBA. I hated law school and did poorly, and got a 2.7. In business school I did better and got a 3.5. It wasn't until after graduating law school that I realized I truly didn't want to be an attorney, and that my passions were in political science, research, ideas, and teaching. I have almost no math experience, as I took no math in undergrad. The only math experience I have is in business school, where I took a single stats course and a corporate accounting course. I still have yet to take my GRE. I have read in these forums that you need to have taken quite a bit of quant classes in order to be competitive in top schools. Currently working as a research assistant for a scholar at a right leaning think tank (not sure if this would hurt me advertising this on my resume) Based on the above info: 1) Should I pursue a terminal masters program in political science or a public policy degree in order to make up for my deficiency in math courses, lower GPA, as well as to try and get research experience with political science professors so I can get good letters of rec? 2) The only people I could get a letter of rec from are the dean of my business school, an econ professor from my business school, and one of my law professors who I'm very close with. Are these sufficient, or should I pursue a masters so I can build relationships with professors in poli sci to get letters of rec from them? 3) If getting a masters is not a good idea, is there anything else I can do to bolster my resume (besides the obvious getting high GRE scores)? I spoke to a current PhD poli sci student at UCLA and he told me he didn't think it was necessary to get a masters. Thoughts?

Thanks for the advice! My more substantive interests in American politics are U.S. Congress, bureaucratic agencies, the judiciary, and lobbyists. Comparatively, my interests are in constitutions, democracies, and legislative bodies/actors. I'm also interested in looking at institutional arrangements in european countries at certain points in history, particularly those in the medieval/renaissance/enlightenment period. I will definitely have an advisor look at my research statement though.

I'm not sure if the following is specific enough, but I'm really interested in the new institutional analysis subfield in both the american and comparative fields. More specifically, I'm interested in discovering which political institutions are the best at encouraging and fostering peaceful exchanges between collective groups of people. I'm also interested in understanding how american institutions developed over time, and why they developed in the particular way they did. My interests have been very much influenced by the work of political scientists/economists such as Barry Weingast, Elinor Ostrom, Douglass North, and Gary Cox.

@Comparativist thank you for the response! After doing a little more digging, Stanford seems to have faculty that are more in alignment with my research interests in institutional analysis/institutional design (E.g. Barry Weingast, Terry Moe). Have you applied to any schools yet?

@Comparativist So in your opinion, of the CHYMPS departments, which have the strongest faculty in American/Comparative?

not@prof_yet: Ya i've been doing similar work, going through different departments' CV and seeing if I can decipher which areas of specialty they are good at. But it's sometimes a bit difficult to discern. Stanford and Princeton seemed to have the professors doing research closest to my interests.

Hey Guys, I'm doing some preliminary research on which PhD program I should apply to. I am very interested in American/Comparative Politics, specifically in the institutional analysis subfield. However, I am unfamiliar with the top 10 PhD programs specialties in political science. I know that Columbia and NYU are known for their political economy and quant programs, respectively. But I'm unfamiliar with the others (Harvard, Stanford, Yale, Princeton, UCLA, UCSD, Duke, etc). I know that fit is incredibly important when applying to certain departments, so any help would be greatly appreciated.

As a disaffected law student who recently graduated with a JD/MBA degree, I had a moment of clarity 6 months ago when I realized, after some intense soul-searching and self-introspection, that I do not want to pursue a career in law anymore. Through this intense soul searching and much research/discussion with friends, family members, counselors and past professors, I discovered my real passion has always been public policy, specifically economic public policy. In fact, much of my free time in law school was spent reading lots of econ policy blogs as well as books on economics. So I decided I wanted to be a researcher at a public policy think tank. In my research about what degree requirements are necessary for a career in this area, I learned that my degrees may not be sufficient. I read from various sources that my JD/MBA may be adequate for a starting research position at a think tank, but that if I wanted to move up into a senior researcher role or direct any sort of research, I would need to get a PhD. An investigation of various senior research job listings bore this out, with many of the requirements listed as having at least an MA in economics, but with a strong preference for a PhD. I have very minimal math and econ training. I took a Micro/Macro class, a law and economics class, and an intro to stats class when I got my MBA, but that is the extent of my exposure to math and econ. I know that most graduate schools are looking for candidates who have taken classes such as linear algebra, advanced stats, multivariate calculus, and real analysis. So my question is, do I need to get a PhD in economics for me to move up as a researcher in the think tank world, or would a masters in econ be sufficient? And if it is strongly recommended I get a PhD, would it be wise for me to get a terminal masters degree in economics to make up for my deficiency in math and econ classes?