carrar

OP,
 
Work experience will only help an applicant a lot when it is both quant-heavy and directly relevant to your research interests. Therefore, in your case, it probably won't help a lot as it does not meet the first condition. There are two ways it will help a little bit. First, in your SOP you can write that it is an experience that has helped inform your research interests. In other words, it can make your SOP flow more smoothly. Second, it definitely means that you are a candidate who is quite knowledgeable about the geographic area you intend to study. Note that there is a decreasing rate of return on your regional expertise in admission. Being a Chinese yourself already helps in this regard, so having interned at a provincial-level government think tank will add more credential to it, but not that much in the eyes of a professor who does admissions. 
 
More importantly, there are three aspects of the admission you need to consider. First, your GRE scores. The writing score will hurt a lot. It will make you add to the stereotype that Chinese over-perform in the GREs. Professors can be like: "hey, there is another Chinese who got a verbal score that is higher than the actual level of research-level English he has. His writing score says a lot." An American will have less of a problem scoring 3 out of 6 in the writing section than a Chinese who comes from China. But even for an American, 3 out of 6 is still pretty low. Not low enough to shut you out of the door, but it will hurt you in the later stage where professors are debating between two files. In addition, there is still time, so retake your GRE also for the sake of getting even higher scores on verbal. It is important to have a score as high as possible. Trust me, scoring a 335+ will help a lot. People will say things like "I got in Michigan with a not so high GRE score" or "I have seen people with perfect scores who got eliminated by most programs." Just because there are people who die in a car crash with the seat belt on and there are people who survive without the seat belt on does not mean that you should not fasten your seat belt. Those who got into a top 5 with low GRE might have perfect GPA, which you don't have, a letter from Thad Dunning, which you don't have, and a degree in CS and Economics, which you don't have. Oftentimes, professors face a choice between two candidates. One interned in the Federal Reserve for 2 years. The other works as a NGO correspondent in Rwanda.  The first person got a letter from Gary King, the other from James Fearon. The first person has a degree from a top 5 US university with a GPA 3.8. The second person has a degree from a top 10 US university with 3.9. Professors are not able to tell whose profile is stronger, but with the GREs, they can. 335+ is better than 328. Case closed. Let's be clear. your current scores in verbal and math are not bad. If it is August, I would not even recommend retaking the test. However, it is June. 
 
Second, you need to think more than just China. Nowadays comparative politics has moved completely beyond regional studies and most research produced on a single country must be framed in a way that contributes to mainstream theories that can predict phenomenon cross-nationally. Therefore, don't say out front in your SOP that you want to study Chinese political system. NO. Say this: "I hope to make contributions to the rapidly proliferating literature on authoritarian regimes." Then, don't even mention China until you reach the paragraph where you need to explain your work experience. To begin reading the mainstream theories that China is relevant to, I recommend works by Milan Svolik, Babara Geddes, and Scott Gehlbach. 
 
Third, these years applicants from China never succeed in getting into a decent school without training in US or Britain. Many applicants now go with the route of applying to master programs in the US to gain experience before PhD applications.
 
If you have any questions, don't hesitate to PM me. Good luck.

There are dozens of students who get in with no math background at all.

I would say that about half of us are atypical, fwiw.

Professional Development, that is exactly what Fulbright is, noted previously in detail by me if you looked at the other post.
Don't try to dispute that, especially if you just agreed with Isaac.

You haughty young people need to step back take a good hard look at yourselves and realize that you have some growing up to do and that maturity does not come from being haughty toward others or from being a negative nancy.                        
You can't disagree with me and agree with Isaac (sorry Isaac) all at the same time unless you plan on contradicting yourselves. 

Maybe consider a "plan B" on your route through adulthood as maturity comes with age not grades. DISCOURAGING PEOPLE IS INAPPROPRIATE ESPECIALLY WHEN NOT KNOWING SOMEONE PERSONALLY AND ITS INAPPROPRIATE TO TELL A STRANGER TO GO FIND SOMETHING ELSE AND VERY INAPPROPRIATE TO TALK DOWN TO PEOPLE IN SUCH A HAUGHTY MANNER. 

SPEAK OF YOUR OWN EXPERIENCES NOT WHAT YOU THINK OTHER PEOPLE'S EXPERIENCES SHOULD BE.
 
RESPECT!!! TRY IT SOMETIME
COMMENTS LIKE, "IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU'LL NEVER MAKE IT SO JUST STOP TRYING ALREADY or telling people the fulbright rules when no one asked.
No one deserves to be spoken to in a haughty manner.
 
"AS I SAID IN THE OTHER THREAD ...... "  "DONT APPLY" GET A PLAN B"   "Be more realistic (wth, you cant say that to someone you dont know)"
When you get older, you will be wiser and learn not to speak in such a haughty manner. Your grades wont get you that sweet heart.

 

I didn't ask for either advice or approval. Don't over step ones bounds and try to overstep one's bounds without all the facts.

Isn't this a thread full of whiny grad students complaining about grad school?

All I have to say is eff them.  Seriously.  It's your life and your body.  First I say take time to be happy about being pregnant and get really comfortable and used to the idea of being a mom.  You have to feel comfortable and confident in yourself before you can approach your advisor about it, and you have to take an "eff you this is my life" attitude before you can approach your advisor.  That can take some time to develop, so take your time.  You don't really have to tell your advisor until you get to about 3-4 months.  I agree that you should take this time to lay out a dissertation timeline (a realistic one) taking into account maternity leave and baby care.  In a few weeks, you should also start thinking about child care arrangements; one thing I've heard from dissertating friends with babies is that thinking you can easily dissertate while baby sleeps is a farce.  You'll need at least occasional childcare to give you time to write.  Also find out about maternity leave policies at your university for doctoral students.  There should be an HR office that can give you this information without informing your advisor - or someone else who isn't your advisor should know.
 
Once you're comfortable and happy and in a good place and have things settled - diss timeline, an idea of what you might do for childcare, ideas about maternity leave length and when you might want to take it, etc. - then I would set up a meeting with advisor and matter-of-factly say something like "Professor X, I wanted to let know that I am pregnant and expecting my first child in January 2014 (or whenever).  I've thought about how this will affect my dissertation timeline and completion, and I wanted to discuss my timeline with you so I can begin to make arrangements and plan ahead."  Keep the discussion on your dissertation and not your life choices, which are really none of your advisor's business.  His only concern is how and when you are going to get finished.  You can also use this time to discuss applying for external or internal funding if you'll need funding to cover the additional time, but I would just talk about it all very matter-of-factly and straightforwardly, focusing on the completion of the dissertation as a task and not WHY you need to plan around these things.
 
If he makes any comments judging your choice, you can say something flippant like "I understand you feel that way/sorry you feel that way/[some other polite way to say I don't care], but I just want to talk about how I'm going to get finished at this point."  If you're getting vibes that he's really against the whole thing and that he's going to be a difficult prick, then you can say something like you're sensing his discomfort and you just want to make sure he's on board for this.
 
If he's not...then you can visit the university ombuds.  (They can be really helpful!)
 
Finally, congratulations!  Babies are cute and can be awesome.  I'm nearly in candidacy myself and I have a lot of flexible time - it seems like as good a time to have a baby as any, especially if you are headed for the tenure-track, for which there is no good time to have a baby.

My thoughts exactly.  Not to minimize your problems, but babies are so amazingly wonderful!
As others have mentioned, I've heard dissertation phase is actually a relatively good time to have a baby, because you have the most flexibility in your schedule.  Our department is more family-friendly, I think, as some of the students had kids before they joined the program.  Another person in the program had a baby in what would have been her second year of classes; they arranged for her to do more in the summer, to make up for not getting a stipend one semester.  Now she's back in classes, and besides all the normal mom craziness is back to the normal routine.  So, even when it's at a less convenient time, it can be done.
All this to say that your DEPARTMENT is the problem, not you or your baby.  If they want to be sexists (I don't use that term lightly) and seek to further limit the opportunities of women to be in academia, you don't have to apologize to them.  (I'm really ticked off on your behalf right now.)
In addition to scoping out your school's policies (the graduate student center or student senate may point you to the right sources, if you don't know individuals), it's worth scoping out what benefits your boyfriend has for "paternity leave" -- some companies are actually pretty generous.  If you come to your adviser with a plan in place -- how much time you'll need off, how your boyfriend is also making sacrificing, how you will arrange things after maternity leave, etc. -- then I think you will still appear like your professional self.  Rumors do spread quickly though, so I think it's best to tell your adviser once you have a plan in place, before it spreads to everyone else in the department.
Lastly, you need to buy this:
.

I would first educate yourself on university policy regarding maternity leave, protection for your position, and any anti-discrimination policies.  If you encounter problems, definitely document them.  Stay polite, but firm and consistent.  If you get a hard time, go up the chain.

I agree with many things said. I understand that being a foreigner is more exciting and you probably did not realize that you were wrongdoing. I also sense that there is some exaggeration in your reaction (do not worry, we are girls and we overreact sometimes) so be careful not to see ghosts everywhere. Besides, you are leaving later on. However, as you've said, you are both adults. If you feel you should talk to this man, go to his office, knock on his door and tell him that he inspired you but you feel things are awkward. If he takes it the wrong way, he is the child. 

I think that there are two separate issues here, which I'll address in turn.

First, it sounds like you need to take a more active role in your education. That's precisely what you describe your friend as doing: apply for positions, schmooze with professors, talk yourself up. Since you do less of that, I think it's not unreasonable that professors have less of an idea of your research interests, and that they associate you with your friend's interests (since you describe yourself as his sidekick). Furthermore, since your friend has obviously been successful in his past positions, you can also kind of see why he would be recommended or sought after by other professors. You need to start building a name for yourself that's similar to that. If you do a good job, I don't see why you wouldn't also be appreciated. People are recognized for work they do, not for potential they might have. Prove yourself, and people will take notice.

Second (and more difficult), you need to stop comparing yourself to your friend. A fact of life is that there is always going to be someone smarter/faster/better at something than you are. If you give up as soon as you encounter such a person, you won't get very far. A fact of life is also that it's not always those smarter/better people who succeed more in life, you can affect your destiny by being active and taking initiative. Get your foot in the doorway, get to know professors and try to start collaborations - essentially do the things you say your friend is doing. Hey, maybe your friend will even be willing to talk to you about how he strikes up conversations with professors and gets these collaborations. It's something useful to learn how to do. From your story, I didn't think he was doing anything to harm you, though he may have been insensitive or oblivious when he could have helped you out. If you talk to him, that may change. ... or you may find out that you were right to distance yourself from him, but either way I think you'll use your energy better if you invest it in furthering your own causes rather than comparing yourself to others.

This quote really stood out to me. I don't know how your cohort experience is shaping up, but you'll need at least a couple people in your corner that can be supportive when you hit snags along the way.

Personally, I don't view my cohort mates as competitors at all. We all have different research interests and ultimately, I doubt many of us will be applying the same type of jobs given the diversity of our experiences and career trajectories. I actually view them as strong current (and future) colleagues. My field is small and I imagine your field is small as well. It is really good to have your cohort mates (and other students in your program) placed in universities across the country. They might invite you for a research talk or to collaborate on research projects in the future.

I also think being collegial with your cohort mates makes the doctoral process a lot more enjoyable.

I have a similar situation as the OP, except that one of my colleagues in my cohort suggested the idea. So far, I haven't heard of a group forming (but that doesn't mean that it hasn't formed, just that I haven't heard of it). Another colleague suggested a reading/discussion group outside of class. Ummm... isn't that what class is for? To discuss the readings under the guidance of experienced faculty? I'm concerned because:

1. I don't have much time outside of courses/TA/RA/kid responsibilities.
2. Although our cohort has been awesome so far, I am concerned about someone stealing my ideas. Perhaps this stems from my competitive nature and the culture of American public schools to produce winners and losers. Perhaps I am worried about being competitive in the job market.

And as far as learning how to collaborate with others--that's what my TA/RA experiences are for--it's all about collaboration and the sharing of ideas. Except in this case, we all get credit for it.

I'm not opposed to sharing my ideas in class. In fact, participation counts anywhere from 10% to 20% in my courses, so being vocal in class is important. However, I guess I'm opposed to sharing my written work, even if it's just a summary. As the OP pointed out, how you view the reading (i.e., what is significant) may vary from person to person. I'm happy to learn from others in class. But I just don't want to "share" the work.

As I write this, I'm feeling conflicted, like I should be part of the group, to promote collegiality, but at the same time, I don't want to.

It's kind of funny because our readings this week are about exactly this--the contradiction between what public schools promote (democratic equality) versus what public schools actually do (encourage competition, going through the motions of schooling to get credentials, and individual achievement). In a way, I feel like the program is promoting working together, but at the same time, when we all graduate, jobs are going to be awarded individually, not collectively. Maybe I'm wrong to think that my colleagues will be my competition? Maybe it will be graduates from other programs?

Thoughts from more experienced GCers?

I just want to say, if you look at the thread title from the front page it says:

"my phd-advisor stole my man"

I have nothing else to contribute to this conversation.

May I make a suggestion to the OP? I don't know if you've ever had a drink or not, but if you haven't, consider having one. I was totally dry for half of my undergrad, also for non-religious reasons, and when I finally had a drink, it cleared up a lot of the issues I had with it. Again, I have no idea if this would be relevant for you, but it might be something to think about.

In NY, tipping is a much bigger deal than elsewhere. I personally do not tip if they're giving me a water (or a drink). I'm tipping them to pour something into a cup. That's ridiculous. I don't care what agreement they signed up for wage wise. I didn't force them to and I'm not going to tip them because the bar decided to give them a bad deal.

Maybe because I'm a guy I want to tip even less. Half the time, I'll be waiting 5 or more minutes in a crowded bar for my first drink because girls are served first, even if they just showed up. I'm not going to tip someone who doesn't respect me enough to take me in turn.

I'm sour about it. I don't have enough money to give to charity let alone a bar tender. I don't get tips for getting good grades or coding well.

aww i bet you look cute with your widdle backy pack on

I've never posted to this forum before, but when I saw the topic it really hit home for a good friend of mine. My roommate's ex bought a dog with her with the understanding that they would care for the puppy together. A few months ago, he left her and even though she wanted to keep the dog anyway her ex didn't offer to pay for half of her care like food, vet bills, spaying, and other stuff that comes up when you have a pet. Maybe I shouldn't assume this, but you sound like you have done the exact same thing and are justifying it with the reason that your ex wanted the dog and that she "doesn't want anything to do with me." You didn't say anything about paying your part for your dog's care and sending a toy is hardly doing your part, so that is why I recommend that you not get another dog. You seem very fickle about this, and I won't comment about why your ex "doesn't want anything to do with me" but based on what I have read here I can kind of see why.

Just some thoughts:

I have a 5-year old dog that *I* raised since puppyhood. We're a package deal . Thankfully I live with my fiance so she'll be okay.

However, if you don't already have a dog, DON'T get one. They are good for stress relief, for sure... but they also add stress. You have vet bills, food, vaccinations, additional security deposits and licensing to think about; plus, little dogs have small bladders and need to go more often than big dogs, yet apartments (and sometimes, roommates) don't like big dogs. Then add the barking/noise, occasional accidents (getting sick, for example) - in more than one occasion I've gotten up at 3 AM and had to get out the shampooer to clean stuff, etc.

As for fostering... it's a lot of work. Don't do it - I say this as someone who HAS fostered. Plus, a rescue group will not let you adopt or foster if you're in college and don't have the time to spend on the dog.

Shelter dogs... they can come with a lot of problems too and they need a LOT of time and patience. My sister just had to rehome a dog we picked up from a shelter a year ago because he was not housetrained still (after two years!!!!) and was destructive. She's going to be a junior now and she has had no time to train. Thankfully he was a purebred and a rescue found him a suitable home (a family with a big yard). Since she's moving to an apartment with roommates, it just wasn't an option.

I don't know where you're reading this. That's not what the poster said at all. The ex decided to keep the dog. This is NORMAL. When I got divorced, we each kept the dog we were closest to (we each had "our" dogs) - I have not seen his dog in a year and a half because we did not part well. Doesn't make the OP fickle anymore than my not having relationship with my ex or his dog makes me a bad owner.

As for the last sentence, that is TOTALLY uncalled for. It's a personal attack. It seems YOU are projecting from something.

Well you obviously are not an adult yet, since you rely so much on your parents and cannot stand up for yourself.

just out-hipster them.

I'm applying to grad school in clinical psych, and I also was surprised to see personal mental health issues noted so strongly as unacceptable in SOPs, especially considering that clinical psychologists should be more accepting than most of mental illness. However, that this is specifically in psychology is significant- and if you read more closely, it seems to me that mental illness itself is not the issue.
this is the actual quote from the article (emphases are mine):

Personal mental health. The discussion of a personal mental health problem is likely to decrease an applicant’s chances of acceptance into a program. Examples of this particular KOD in a personal statement included comments such as “showing evidence of untreated mental illness,” “emotional instability,” and seeking graduate training “to better understand one’s own problems or problems in one’s family.” More specifically, one respondent stated that a KOD may occur “when students highlight how they were drawn to graduate study because of significant personal problems or trauma. Graduate school is an academic/career path, not a personal treatment or intervention for problems.”

It seems like the real issues are 1) having an untreated illness (and having any unresolved issue is a red flag in an SOP) or 2) only caring about the field because of your experiences with mental health. Think about it this way: if you were applying to an immunology program, and your entire SOP consisted of a discussion of your own autoimmune disorder, and how you want to go to grad school to figure out what was going on with your disorder, that wouldn't be looked on very favorably either.

However, I want to emphasize that I do believe discrimination based on mental illness happens all the time, including (especially?) in graduate admission, and that I do believe mental illness, and the skills gained in overcoming it, are not viewed the way they should be. But, in psychology, there is good reason to warn against dwelling on it in the SOP.

Another blog about how horrible grad school is. How wonderful.

Did you guys know that the job market is bad? And that some people don't fit in? That you might have a shitty boss? You could feel overwhelmed and overworked? You might be making a mistake?

Welcome to life! These are issues everywhere you go. All the bitter ex-grad students want you to believe that grad school is the only place where things are hard like this, or these are the issues. Guess what, they aren't. These are realities in every field. Be aware of the pitfalls, but don't presume that every cranky poster with ablog account has some magical insight because they had a bad experience. Most of us have heard the speeches and been apprised of the risks. Ultimately we are going to give it a shot. I'd rather be an unemployed phd than some dick wondering how things could have been different if I had just given it a shot. Maybe I'll drop out in a year or less. Shit happens. But if we had everyone who had a bad experience in a given field write a blog, no one would want any job ever.

Actually, the courses that you have proposed teaching are not in my purview so I do not find you to be competition. I work in security. The one ILaw paper I've written is about why ILaw might exist on paper but if it has any effect it is that states increasingly have become more brutal in war since its inception. This was a paper I would not have written had more security classes been available that semester. Furthermore, ILaw is one of the more marginalized areas of research in IR so working in it is often professional suicide. However, your failure to understand the general professional consensus that has been outlined here suggests that you wouldn't be competition anyways. Part of succeeding in life is recognizing the constraints that exist regardless of their legitimacy and strategically responding to them. By creating a thread whining to people who can't change the professional reality for at least another 20 years, what exactly do you hope to accomplish? (Don't answer that, it is rhetorical and I will no longer engage in this thread...as I said...there be trollz)

This thread though is generally pointless, since you seem to fundamentally misunderstand what the business of political science is. You may disagree all you like, but numerous people on this thread have noted that teaching is rarely a priority goal and that research is our number one priority. For example, "best teacher" awards are often given to faculty before they are denied tenure as a CONSOLATION prize. So your premise that JDs are qualified to teach is all well in good, but it ignores the fundamental reality of the discipline that teaching is not particularly highly valued. This obviously varies somewhat by school with SLACs valuing teaching some more and in fact JDs who ALSO pursue PhDs are commonly found among SLAC departments. However, tenure is often difficult for JDs who have not had the research training that PhDs have had. Though what they write may be legitimate for their discipline, it can have problems being published in respected political science outlets because it does not meet the somewhat arbitrary norms of another discipline. It does not matter which discipline is better, these norms are nonetheless a reality that creates barriers to entry across disciplines.

Finally, your general argument boils down to smart people can develop multiple competencies. This is probably true. The same people who can exceed at top graduate programs are likely the same people who can succeed at top law schools. In fact, there is a great deal of fungibility between admissions at these institutions. Again though, this ignores the reality that different degrees are perceived to signal different information and that this information is used in the tenure process. Furthermore, others have already noted this, but the mindset generated in each degree are very different with students taught to value different types of information and questions. This is part of professionalization. The result is that when people communicate across disciplinary divides they generally speak at cross-purposes. This thread is already 17 pages because of this communication divide.

The fact though that almost none of my arguments are substantially different from those previously proffered suggests that by this point in time the thread really is beating a dead horse, so I really do believe my jpeg sums it up nicely.