encyclopediabrown

What questions do you all have? It's been years since I've been on this forum, but anything is better than the horrible rumors site. I've been on admissions committees at a selective institution.

Hi VCalery! I would echo the thought about applying to more of the top 1-20 programs given your strong profile. I also disagree, in a friendly way, with Mixedmethodsisa4letterword advice that social movements/civil society are too niche. If you're willing to look beyond the "Power in Movement" style of work, there are a lot of people working on protest/mobilization/revolutions/collective action. Scholars at Princeton, Berkeley, Mich, Stanford, Harvard, Cornell, Yale, Columbia etc. have written about protest or repression of protest in China. (And O'Brien is still supervising students as far as I know.) Plus many others from Beissinger to Svolik take a broader approach. If you want to share your sample or SOP I'd be happy to read, DM me.

Oh, I didn't notice the part about having not studied Chinese. If you want to study China/IR/security and have neither strong language nor quantitative skills, you are going to be in a tough spot. I would beef up both as much as possible. The pool for China IR and CP is quite competitive, and in my experience the standout applicants who make it into top 20 programs are usually strong on both fronts. Places like Penn and Harvard both accept a small number of applicants... but it's right that Penn probably targets different people because they know it's hard to out-recruit Harvard, Stanford, etc.

Hi dpan! I would apply broadly since getting into any single program is tough. Michigan, Columbia, and even Penn are as hard to get into as Harvard. UCSD, MIT, and many others ought to be on your target list. Committees will likely ask themselves why you want a second Ph.D. and you will need to provide a super compelling reason. One concern will be that they'll invest a lot of time and money in you and you'll decide you don't like political science either. I would suggest brushing up on quantitative skills and if possible take classes while you're still enrolled in your current program. Good luck!

Hi @CP_Religion. In our case the ad comm has final say and sometimes vetos recommendations. So it depends on how the committee reacts to file. The committee has seen the whole pool and the faculty sometimes nominate more candidates than their are spots so this has a certain logic to it.

Hi @BobBobBob! This is roughly how it works in our case. Each file is read by more than one member of the committee, and each reader scores the application. The files are then shown to the rest of the faculty who ruin all our hard work give us helpful feedback. The committee then works together to come up with a final ranking, and most of the discussion focuses on the marginal cases. My guess is that our assessment of these marginal cases is likely to be wildly off the mark but we do the best we can.

Hi everyone! I’m a junior faculty member who served on an admissions committee this semester. While it's fresh in my mind I thought I might share some thoughts in case it's helpful for future applicants. Of course, this is just my limited perspective. (And much of what’s useful has been said before by others.) For some context, I’m at a highly selective program that accepts around 5 percent of applications. I’m sorry not to be more specific but since I’m untenured I’d rather stay anonymous for now! First and foremost, you are an extremely accomplished and well-qualified group! It was a real pleasure reading the applications. There were around two dozen applicants who had perfect or close to perfect GRE scores and around 100 applicants who had GPAs of 3.9 or above. More impressive than the numbers, to me, were the many applicants who had compelling research agendas, interesting work or research experience, strong technical and language skills, strong writing skills, or who overcame significant barriers to get where they are. 1. Numbers: We didn’t have a strict cutoff for the GRE. Many made it to the second round and received careful consideration with low GRE scores. However, our admitted students mostly had scores in the 160s in both sections. Similarly, GPAs were generally high. But we admitted a number of people with GPAs below 3.5 and by necessity could not take the vast majority of applications with near-perfect GPAs. 2. Recommendation letters: The content of the letters is out of your control, but the strongest files have three letters from writers who are all professors of political science and who taught the applicant in a seminar in which she got an A (not an A- or below). It often helped if the professor had significant contact with the applicant outside of class in office hours or, more rarely, RA work. By the way, if the course is not complete yet (for example, you are applying in Fall 2018 and taking your first course with that professor in Fall 2018) I would suggest you don’t ask unless you really need to. These letters are sometimes pretty weak. 3. Statements: In my case, I was looking at two things. First, I wanted to know your research interests. You don’t need one specific question, and in fact introducing a broad set of questions or general research area is most realistic since we know your interests will change in graduate school. It is important that you show you know what political science research is. It helps if you can tie that to previous academic work, professional experiences, or skills you’ve developed. Second, I wanted to get a sense if you’re a good writer. This is really important in our profession. By the way, so many statements start out with some kind of anecdote. There is nothing wrong with this, but most of the time I did not find these compelling so in my view you can skip these. Starting out with a set of research questions is a safe alternative. Finally, please help us out by flagging at the end of your statement who you’d like to work with. Not sure who is an active mentor in your area? Look at the Ph.D. placements page and check who is serving on committees. (Downside: some of these people are overburdened and some good advisers have joined the department too recently to have advisees on the market.) 4. Writing sample: I looked at the abstract and intro to see if you are a good writer, the tables and figures to get a sense of technical skills, and I glanced at the rest to see if you have language/area skills (I was mostly reading files in comparative). 5. Subfield: The subfield you select in your application can have a big impact on who sees your file and who you're compared to. So think carefully about your primary and secondary subfields. Hope this is helpful! Good luck to all, you are an impressive group! EDIT: Forgot to mention subfield.

I am on an admissions committee this year. Two things. First, you are an EXTREMELY impressive bunch. It was a pleasure to read through the applications. I was floored. You're much, much more accomplished than I was when I applied. Second, it is completely true that in the end so much of this process is random. There are so many outrageously talented applicants we're making wild guesses about who will be a good fit in our program. These guesses are often way off base. If you're feeling dejected at not getting in, I get it. (I got rejected from nearly every program I applied to and I remember the feeling well.) Try to remember that it is NOT a reflection of your self worth, smarts, or ability to succeed. I know that's easier said than done, but I can tell you from the inside, it's true.

My two cents from the (junior) faculty side of things! I'd spend the months before you start a Ph.D. program getting out from behind your computer. Go hiking, paint, dance, read novels, read plays, and read quality non-fiction about politics --- newspapers and books about the areas of politics you're interested in. There are two reasons to do this. First, relaxing is good for you. Second, doing these things helps you be a nimble and creative thinker, and someone who knows a lot about the substance of politics. The hardest part of being a researcher is finding questions that are interesting, and being a creative person who is broadly knowledgable about the world helps.

For those of you feeling a lot of anxiety about hearing nothing so far, on February 2nd the year that I applied I had zero offers. By mid-February.... I still had zero offers. A rejection from UCSD rolled in and I told my girlfriend, "Well, I guess I'm not going into academia." That same night I got my one and only fully funded Ph.D. program offer. I've got my Ph.D. now and a nice tenure-track job (at least until they figure out they've made a huge, huge mistake.) All it takes is one! And that one can take a while to come.

You can always ask! It helps if you have an offer from another school that is seen as a peer and that has a better deal. Then you can go to the admissions committee chair and outline your concerns, as long as you are reasonable and polite about it. Of course, some requests (increasing your stipend by a huge amount) may be less reasonable than others (asking for summer funding for one or two years, or help with moving costs). Anyway, when I got into graduate schools I tried to negotiate and it didn't work, so don't be discouraged if nothing comes of it. Many schools don't have flexibility.

The results from Harvard, Columbia, Yale, etc. are trolls. I'm on an admissions committee this year, and unless I am greatly mistaken these three schools, and in general most others, will have results closer to mid- to late-February. I know we're still reading files. Of course there are a small number of exceptions. I'm impressed Wisconsin moved so quickly!

Cool! For various reasons, there's a huge difference between the NRC survey-based rankings you posted here and the NRC regression-based rankings. For what it's worth, the regression-based rankings seem more reflective of the perceived status hierarchy in the discipline, as of the mid-2000s anyway. Of course perceived status != actual training quality.

You should apply to a few more of the top ranked schools! I get what you're saying about fit, and the rankings are of course arbitrary, but unfortunately they matter quite a bit. Coming from a higher-ranked institution will increase your options down the road. For admissions, much will depend on your LORs and statement, but your numbers and overall profile will earn your file a close read at much of the top 10. All good Ph.D. programs reject most applicants, so you want to roll the dice as many times as you can.

The point carefree makes about fit and good advisors is important and carefree’s posts here are always smart — but the post could also be slightly misleading. In my view you shouldn’t read that post and think “if I go to a low ranked program and have supportive advisors I’ll be fine.” Of course that’s not what carefree says but it could be misread that way. Sadly, supportive advisors and a good dissertation aren’t sufficient to get you a tenure track job. And unfair and arbitrary as it is, program prestige will help up your odds. What do the odds look like? I entered a program in the top 5 in the usnwr 7-8 years ago. (I think I was admitted by mistake!) Among my cohort about 65 percent have graduated. 30 percent overall are in tenure track jobs, 20 percent have graduated and taken non-academic jobs, another 15 pct in post docs and VAPs, the rest dropped out or are still in school.

I'd agree with everything Comparativist says -- especially the part about not stressing about it! Yes, search committees certainly use it as a heuristic along with grades, GRE, and GPA, especially for the first pass. To answer your question, think of the USNWR rankings; the political science rankings also matter marginally because it influences the likelihood we know your recommender. However, many students in the supposed "top 5" programs went to colleges outside of the top 50 USNWR national or liberal arts college list. So while not helping you, it does not exclude you from consideration.

The short answer is that, yes, you should absolutely believe the doomsayers. The lower ranked the PhD program on the perceived (totally arbitrary and unfair!) status hierarchy, the lower your chances for academic employment. The longer answer is that its complicated and probabilistic, not deterministic. The people attending programs below the supposed top 20 are bright and capable. Many of them go on to rewarding careers in a mix of places. Some go on to teach at universities and colleges, others into the private sector, NGOs, or government. However, as a matter of probability, your chances of landing a job as a tenure-track assistant professor gets lower and lower the further you travel down the perceived (again, totally arbitrary and unfair!) status hierarchy. This is understandably frustrating for some, especially because a PhD is a huge investment of time. And in fact, even if you are a first year student at a so-called top ten school your chances of finishing are closer to 50 percent than 100 percent, and your unconditional odds of landing a tenure-track gig are closer to 25 percent than 50 percent! So go in with your eyes open!

In addition to the schools you mentioned, I would also consider the M.A. programs at Berkeley, Yale, and Stanford. They all offer fellowships to some (but not all) entering students. The support ranges from partial support up to a full ride including stipend. Good luck with your applications!

I'm not sure I totally agree with Comparativist on some of the specifics, here, although I agree on her/his bottom line advice. (And in general Comparativist gives great advice!) Here's how I see the tradeoffs: - I agree that stats/econ m.a. gives you the most transferrable set of skills. However, it doesn't necessarily give you a feel for the substantive aspects of political science. - Public policy is not be quite as helpful in terms of skill building, although most offer a sequence of stats and micro/macro. But PP programs are more likely than stats/econ to expose you to the substantive problems political scientists are interested in and the style of work. Of course, this will also vary a LOT by professor and program. - Area studies programs also vary (and in my experience U.S. programs are generally not "critical theory" focused). Importantly, some have good funding. Many will allow you to take many or mostly political science/econ courses if you want to but you are certainly less likely to get as teched up as a PP degree. So, no obvious answer. In my cohort in my Ph.D. program, I can think of people with each of these degrees who not only got admitted but have gone on to nice jobs. In my own M.A. program, however, only a couple of us stuck it out from M.A. -> Ph.D. -> academic job.

Clearly, then, Stanford would be a good fit! But so would most of the places on your list, which all have people who could chair an institutions-focused dissertation. However, your more substantive interests (e.g. are you interested in ethnic conflict, the U.S. Congress, civil wars, etc) may narrow things down somewhat. My two cents: have a trusted advisor look over an early draft of your research statement. And if you can stomach the fees, apply broadly! Even with a sterling record, there's a lot of noise in the admissions process.

Hey Cristian, are you interests more specific than American/Comparative and institutions? The programs you mentioned all have strong faculty in the major subfields (as well as people who do institutions). Regardless applying broadly is not a bad strategy.

1-2) Your good GPA and research experience mean that you could be in the running. A lot will likely depend on your research statement, GRE, and what letter writers say in your letters. There's a lot of randomness in admissions so nothing is guaranteed! You could come up empty or get into 4 or 5 places. Wish I could tell you for sure. 3) FWIW I'd endorse this evergreen Blattman blog post: https://chrisblattman.com/about/contact/gradschool/ TL/DR: "If your goal is to be a professional researcher and instructor, then a PhD makes sense. If not, not. In particular, if your goal is to be influential in policy and practice, then an MA or MPA or MIA from a US or UK/European institution probably makes far more sense for you." 4) Not needed in my experience! 5) Definitely look at Michigan (Ang, Min, Gallagher). Also consider MIT (Tsai), Duke (Manion, Malesky), Cornell (Weiss, Wallace), Brown (Steinfeld). Please feel free to direct message me if you have more questions. I am reasonably familiar with the areas you're interested in.

With a credible profile like that, I would suggest applying to a wide range of schools, including places that are higher ranked than your list such as Princeton etc. (not that you should pay too much attention to subtle differences rank). The process is very random and you want to maximize your chances of having good options in April.