dumbunny

Well, I heard back 4/11 from Rice (no) and 4/12 from Pittsburgh (no). On the 12th, I accepted Riverside's offer over Binghamton's based on Riverside having more comparative faculty specializing in countries outside of Europe. There are certainly enough faculty at UCR who still study European politics, but (a) I don't want to confine myself to working/studying only under experts on one part of the world, and (b) I want to research presidential systems & institutions, but Europe is much more fertile ground for researching parliamentary systems.

I'm not. This particular question comes up a lot in any field, though. What I was passing on is pretty broadly applicable, and though I've acknowledged that the situation will differ from field to field, I don't see that anything I've said is that out of the norm compared to any of the other replies.

Your quant score is amazing, but your verbal score ranks somewhere in the 50s. I wouldn't go so far as to say that your verbal score killed your chances - in fact, it might not even be the biggest factor here, and I'm only mentioning it because nobody else has so far. Scoring 4-5 points higher on the verbal section (and ranking somewhere in the 70s) could open some doors for you that right now are closed. Schools get a lot of students applying who scored in the 90s on the quantitative section, and putting together a more well-rounded performance can give you an added edge.

In general I get the impression that there are advantages to going to a top ~10/15/20 school in a given field. (The threshold can depend on the field). After that point, rankings become gradually less important - unless it's something really drastic like choosing between #30 and #100. The 33% response rate in SLP can indicate that the field isn't as ranking-sensitive as other fields, though. Overall, in your situation, I'd weigh the programs on their own merits: what do you know about faculty? course offerings? financial support? professional development/networking opportunities? Sometimes higher-ranked programs get there for very tangible reasons. Other times, those reasons have nothing to do with your needs, and you're better off going to a lower-ranked school that offers what you're looking for.

Is "Dear" the norm in academia? I ask from a position of ignorance. I've always avoided "Dear" in professional emails because it sounds too personal to my ear. As a result, I open my emails with "Professor ____," instead. Is this considered odd or a faux pas in academic settings, though?

I'm a coward and a failure and a burden to society.

Friendliness isn't really a factor at all - plenty of faculty at either department have been totally congenial. For me, it's a matter of finding somebody for whom my research interests align with, or are a direct extension of, the faculty's work and/or expertise. I've done a lot of digging through professors' research to scope out possibilities, so it's not like I'm picking people at random. However, In my ignorance as somebody with just a bachelor's degree, if I pick out somebody who's been teaching and researching in my field longer than I've been alive and they say that what they do doesn't align with what I'm looking for, I need to respect that. When I talk about somebody being "enthusiastic" about what I want to do, what I'm saying is that they've expressed an academic interest or are academically engaged in the kinds of questions that interest me. If they're unenthusiastic, it's something they don't work with and don't sound comfortable advising on. I don't want that kind of advisor.

I would give reputation but I'm capped at 5 a day.

I don't intend to put words in your mouth. My intent was to provide my rationale for agreeing with you. As a general life observation, relationships tend not to work out.

Agreed. Relationships don't work out.

If you were worried about the state of your relationship, why did you apply to Purdue in the first place? Might this be an unconscious sign that you're ready to move on?

Why was "far from family" a con for the second option? Just curious. For me it's a major pro.

I think you're right. The bit about the adcomm supports my suspicion that I got admitted because I was seen a great fit for the department in general. People on the adcomm must have thought I could work with a bunch of other people, without actually having any feedback from those other people. It's disappointing. I really wanted to go here originally and I've been nudging the department to give me a reason to say "yes," but it's hard when people don't answer your emails. Oh well. At least their funding offer is useful for negotiating with another school.

On February 6, the program director sent me an email to notify me that I had been admitted to the program. That was my first interaction with any faculty member. "It doesn't sound like either A or B is excited to take you on in a primary advising role—is that your impression? Or is each excited to have you but of the impression that you're an even better fit with the other?" - definitely the former. It wasn't "you should also talk with this other person" - it was "you should talk with ___ instead." (Direct quote). Re: adcomm - I noticed that a couple faculty members were able to recall details from my application with zero prompting on my part. I assume this means these faculty members were either on the adcomm, or at least the adcomm did a good job keeping the general faculty in the loop.

Legitimate red flag, or am I overreacting? I've been admitted to a political science PhD program, and met with some faculty members one-on-one. The program director (herself a faculty member) had suggested some people for me to meet, and her list matched the names I'd come up with based on CVs and reading past publications. When I finally got to meet faculty members, they all told me there wasn't much overlap between my research interests and what they do. One professor ("prof A") suggested I talk with "prof B"; I go talk with prof B, and he refers me to somebody else...prof A. Later, a pair of faculty members also told me I wasn't a fit with them, and used the rest of our scheduled meeting time to catch up with each other while I couldn't get an academic word in edgewise. Afterward, I told the program director how the in-person meetings went (she'd asked). She suggested some other people for me to reach out to, so I emailed four professors. I heard back from one person who's retiring next year, but I haven't heard a peep from the other three in the 2+ weeks since. (I've reached out to each professor twice). Overall, I'm feeling pretty discouraged about my fit with the department. It's a smaller program, and I've met or reached out to nearly half the faculty already. It seems like faculty sees me as a great match for the department in general, just working with somebody else. Aside from that, I'm just not feeling like I'm being taken seriously - which is kind of weird, because the department's offering me a research fellowship and ~4k more funding than other members of my prospective cohort.

The email from the professor offering to let you volunteer sounds like a very positive sign. I'd be all over that - I don't know about your field, but my general impression is that it's not every day a faculty member goes out of her or his way to reach out to an applicant.

...definitely spoke too soon. I just had a chance to talk with one of the Riverside professors who wasn't in his office on the recruitment day (he was teaching a class). The encounter went very well - academically/research-wise I'd say I got more out of 14 minutes on the phone with this dude than I did from this entire process with Binghamton. The Riverside prof is a methodological and topical match for what I want to do; he even pointed out areas in which the literature I'm familiar with is somewhat dated and has been improved upon by later research. He came across as the kind of mentor who can encourage you and push you to be better at the same time, and he's not the only one. And this keeps happening every time I interact with the Riverside faculty - that department is so much more helpful and so much more responsive, it makes me wonder what I'm even doing considering an offer from another department where only the director has projected any trace of "give-a-damn." Then I worry about the $$$, which is the one thing keeping Binghamton's offer out in front at the moment. Guess I'll talk with Riverside's program director to see if there's any wiggle room on funding. If Riverside can make y1 match the subsequent years of their own offer, and if the BInghamton faculty keep on not getting back to me, then I feel really good about telling Binghamton "no" while waiting to hear from Rice. If that scenario doesn't unfold, however, and I don't get in to Rice, then I feel like I might as well just flip a damn coin! Worst case scenario, an asteroid strikes the planet and we all die, right?

Rice's faculty look like a great fit for me. The thing is, I thought the same thing about Binghamton too! Your response brings up a couple good points. One - Binghamton sends students to UMich's ICPSR summer program. Two - I'm guaranteed an additional $1000/year budget for attending conferences. Riverside sends students to conferences of course, but I couldn't get any information on program support to do so. Seems like Binghamton offers a lot more networking opportunities. Riverside faculty does say you can take outside stats courses, but the circumstances & approval process seemed fairly convoluted. I'm leaning towards saying no to Riverside as a courtesy to the students on their waitlist, while waiting to hear back from Rice. If nothing happens with Rice, I'm ok with trusting the Binghamton department's judgment in admitting me as a good fit for their faculty. Either it pans out or it doesn't. If not, maybe I can get my quant training, finish my master's and try leveraging that into admission elsewhere...am I crazy?

Irvine's a good program. I think it's generally considered to sit somewhere between the upper tier of UC Berkeley/UCLA/UCSD/(UC Davis?) on the one hand, and UC Riverside/UC Santa Barbara/UC Santa Cruz on the other hand. Usually you'll see the department ranked around #40 nationwide. Marek Kaminski's work looked interesting to me when I was trying to decide where to apply.

Thank you. I'm hoping it's not considered an unwritten rule to avoid doing that, but you're right about Rice looking much better on paper. My biggest concern about Rice is that I haven't had much contact with the faculty yet. It's really important to me that I go to a program where I could see a few faculty as strong advisor candidates - and visiting Binghamton & Riverside in person totally flipped my impressions of my prospects in either department upside down. I have guaranteed funding from Binghamton & RIverside. Placement records look pretty similar - mostly liberal arts colleges, with the occasional post doc fellowship or decent-looking research university placement here & there.

1 - What is your basis for calling yourself a philosopher? If admissions committees see you calling yourself a philosopher, they're going to want you to be able to back that up. Unless reputable sources are publishing your philosophical works, you're better off billing yourself as "a philosophy student." 2 - Having applied three times and finally getting admitted this year, it's been my experience that poli sci PhD programs aren't too hot on overtly activist career goals. (Or maybe they just weren't too hot on mine...heh!) Civic duty of people to change society? Meh. What factors or strategies make civic engagement politically effective? Now you're talking. What are some under-researched/under-reported/under-represented causes? Also interesting. Given your goal of starting a new political party, you might also want to look into comparative politics with an emphasis on party systems. 3 - As others have said before, an MPA speaks more directly to your needs and aspirations.

Learn to accept rejection as a sign that somebody is willing to deliver bad news to you as if you were an adult. The more criticism and rejection you can handle, the bigger of an adult you are. Nobody "deserves" acceptance or positivity. At the same time, so much of the application process is a total crapshoot that depends on the following variables, among others: 1 - who at the university is looking at your application 2 - how much room is available in the department 3 - where that room is available (eg if you're in political science and a bunch of students are graduating who were focusing on comparative politics, that year it's going to help to be a comparativist) 4 - who else is applying to the same program as you 5 - where else those students applied, and where else they got accepted 6 - job/career status of faculty in the department (eg you might be applying thinking you're a great fit to work with such-and-such professor...but they're about to retire in six months) A lot of times, you're going to get rejected not because you're not "good enough" for the department, but because you just don't fit the department's needs for whatever reason. It's like, imagine if you're a baseball player and your position is 1st base. You're not going to get many offers from teams that already have a good 1st baseman but have to fill holes in their starting pitching rotation. Don't tie your self worth to the grad school admissions process. Just focus on your ability to build a strong two-way relationship where you are able to meet the department's needs, and vice-versa.

2010 - graduated from UC Davis. Didn't do too well but oh well. 2011 - applied to 5 schools. Rejected by 5 schools. 2012 - applied to 5 schools again. Rejected by 5 schools again. 2013-15 - too homeless/broke/unemployed to bother 2016 - did ok on GRE. 2017 - third try, got admitted to two schools and waitlisted on two others.

Also wait-listed with Rice. Binghamton Pros: more money + lower cost of living. Emphasizes quantitative methodologies, which I'm interested in. Lots of faculty look like good match on paper. Cons: professors I met in person didn't see any overlap in research interests. No reply from faculty I've contacted since. Mexican food is terrible. Riverside Pros: some faculty saw common ground in terms of research interests. Cons: faculty all over the place methodologically. Much tougher to budget. Closer to family. The two programs are similarly ranked, so no clear winner there. Overall, I think Binghamton makes a lot more sense on paper, but I don't really feel wanted there compared to Riverside. I'm also wait-listed at Rice, and the program director there tells me that they haven't heard back from most of their prospective cohort yet. Not sure how long I ought to wait to see if/what they offer.

I realize it's a different situation altogether, but after finishing my undergrad in political science, I got turned down by ten schools before finally getting admitted to two programs this year (and a potential third). You never know what's going to happen.