Would anyone be interested in helping me build a regression model to help calculate the probability of admission at any given program for political scientists?
I tried to make estimates for myself using GRE scores/ranges, a program fit estimate, personal connections/whether or not I received recruitment contacting from the program and the quality of the application I sent off. I believe now after being waitlisted at Brandeis and partly (though less so) because I was waitlisted at WashU, that one factor I failed to control for was program size. My research experience was also a constant for myself, so that would be something I would be interested in looking at. Obviously GPA and undergrad institution rank would be important factors to look at.
Anyways, if I'm going to do so, it will require data. That's where some of you come in. I am capable of coding the regression in R, but may also need someone to translate this into a workable model in HTML. Otherwise, I could just post the regression model here somewhere and allow people to calculate their own odds of admissions if they are interested.
This is part of my ongoing project to provide more information to people who are at the beginning of this process (I plan on posting useful data for new applicants in March). PM me if you are interested in providing me with data and I will send you back a survey once I write it.
As per the discussion earlier, just received an official email waitlisting me at Emory.
Email seemed very positive. Might be my number one choice if I'm lucky enough to be admitted.
That's my second waitlist, adding to the burden on my poor heart.
PROFILE: Type of Undergrad Institution: Top 3 Canadian University Major(s)/Minor(s): Joint Honours Political Science & History, Minor in Economics Undergrad GPA: CGPA 3.76/4.0, Major GPA: 3.9/4.0 Type of Grad: Top 3 Canadian University, MA (IR Concentration, Methods minor) Grad GPA: 3.9/4.0 GRE: First attempt (August 2013): V154/Q149/AW5 & Second Attempt (November 2015): V158/Q152/AW6 Any Special Courses: ICPSR + semester long course in regression analysis at my current institution.
Letters of Recommendation:
A tenured IR political science professor, known for six years. I also TAed for two of their classes.
Associate professor. Senior thesis and MA supervisor for whom I’ve been an RA since the third year of my BA and am now TAing for this winter (known for 3.5 years at time of writing letters). Tenure track, well published despite being junior.
Assistant tenure track professor who worked outside my field of interest (comparative developing focus) that I took an honours seminar with during my senior year of my BA. They’ve remained a mentor to me during my MA.
If I could submit an additional letter, it was from a tenured history professor (DGS of his department) I met during the second year of my BA and with whom I did an independent study during my third year and worked closely with until my MA.
I intended to submit a fifth, from a methods professor, but they were expecting their first child in December so the timing didn’t work out.
I chose a variety of people who have mentored me in different ways, but who knew me best. I asked them to focus on different aspects of my profile: the first has seen me transition from a naïve freshman to a wannabe PhD student; the second has mentored and pushed my work intellectually and methodologically by supporting my training in quantitative methods, while also inspiring me to focus on my current area of interest and thus speak to my substantive interests and skills; the third is someone outside my field of interest who can comment on my work ethic and passion for the discipline, as well as contextualize the strengths of my BA and MA programs overall; the fourth I asked to speak to my preferred interdisciplinary approach to research, as well as the qualitative research work I’ve done. I also asked the second and fourth writers to stress that my GRE scores (V&Q) were not representative of my potential and highlight my additional training in methods relevant to the field and exposure to PhD level courses
Research Experience: Senior thesis during BA and independent study course. MA thesis. RA work for 3.5 years, as well as outside work for a law professor. Teaching Experience: Four TAships during my MA (1 per semester), mentorship of international students for 2 years during my BA. Subfield/Research Interests: International Relations – IPE. Other: External scholarship covering tuition from for 3 years. CGS-M SSHRC award for 2015-2016, and 4 other mid-range scholarships and research grants between both degrees.
RESULTS: Acceptances($$ or no $$): 4 acceptances, all with funding. Waitlists: None Rejections: Stanford, Columbia, Harvard, Georgetown Pending: None Going to: Happily decided.
LESSONS LEARNED:
It is absolutely amazing how far you can go in two years time. Two years ago I was writing a post in the 2014 government wrap-up affairs threads (see here: http://forum.thegradcafe.com/topic/53232-government-affairs-2014-wrap-up-final-decisions/#comment-1058121021) I was sitting there, one month before finishing my BA, facing rejections from every MPA program I applied to. I wasn’t ready to leave school yet but my confidence was crushed. What a turn around.
When I started my MA I wasn’t certain that I wanted to apply for a PhD. At the end of my first year it was evident to me that I truly loved the academic lifestyle, something made even more concrete when I was able to take my work with me and travel for three of my four months off this past summer. I should note that I very, very, very, nearly didn’t apply when I was too busy to spend a month solid preparing to re-take my GREs in the Fall. My hesitation didn’t stem from doubt over whether or not I wanted to go, but whether or not my profile was competitive enough to get into American programs. I wound up writing the test and only doing moderately well again (during my first attempt my scores were crap because I experienced a power outage an hour in and had to sit for 30 minutes panicking over whether I had to restart). I followed through because I had a very inspirational discussion with letter writer #4 and found myself knowing that this is what I wanted and I wouldn’t know if I couldn’t get in if I didn’t try. Knowing that you want this is important and an MA can help you trial run – it’s effectively like the first 2 years of your PhD if it’s a longer, academically oriented program.
I applied to programs that fit with my methodological and ontological focus with at least 2-3 people I could see myself working with. Each SOP was tailored to that program (explained more below). I learned a lot about my preferred approach to research, both theoretically and methodologically, in the last two years which was really important when I considered fit beyond whether there were POIs at a program who simply substantively studied what I studied.
I also found that there was a lot of great advice online: Chris Blattman’s blogs on how to write an SOP, as well as Dan Nexon’s posts on the Duck of Minerva with suggestions on program choice and SOP writing:
http://chrisblattman.com/about/contact/gradschool/ (Scroll down to his “Words on Personal Statements)
http://duckofminerva.com/2012/08/applying-for-phd-in-political-science.html
Fit is important, but so is your network and I think this point is very underestimated by a number of people. I’m fortunate in that I’ve been able to work with a number of scholars who were trained in the US and who are still very much integrated into the US conference scene. Two of my letter writers have written extensively with a number of POIs across the 8 programs I applied to. This isn’t to say that everything can work out great because of connections alone, but I did feel more confident that my application would be taken seriously despite some pitfalls because of my network.
The other side of this coin is that I know that my letter writers know me very well. They have seen me at my absolute best and worst. I trusted them to write detailed statements, and we also talked about what their letter would accomplish for my profile. This is a really important discussion to have. While it’s awkward to ask, they understand and if anything are assisted by you describing what you’re aiming to accomplish. Do not underestimate the value of building your network early and just being friendly. There's a difference between getting to know your professors vs. getting close to them only for a letter.
Departmental issues can be a problem – do what you can to ascertain the state of the game when and if you visit. Talk to current students and POIs after you’ve been accepted. These people genuinely don’t want you to come to their program and be miserable because you’re all the more likely to drop out. In my experience, the best departments will be open about both their strengths and weaknesses, as well as impending departures. During visit days, be collegial and friendly with current grads and ask faculty the hard questions. What are their hiring strategies? What are the departments goals in the next 3-5 years? How many students does a faculty member typically sit on a dissertation committee for? How are TAships structured? Does the department sponsor social events for faculty and students? Are students encouraged to work together on problem sets? Do students compete for TAships and RAships? Is there conference funding? Are there research centers that would support your work? Is there office space for graduate students? Are PhD students allowed to take outside jobs on top of their funding packages? What is the housing situation like for graduate students on and around campus?
Lastly, this process is expensive and taxing, but be prepared to invest in yourself – and view it in that respect! (Prices Expressed in Canadian Dollars:
- GRE Prep (Round 1: Kaplan Online Course & Books, Round 2: Magoosh with Manhattan Prep Books/Flashcards & the Official Guide) - $1000
- GRE Test Fee x2 - $500
- Travel to write GRE x2 - $300
- Application fees (Round 1: $250, Round 2: $1000) - $1250
- Grand Total: $3050 CAD on applications & related expenses.
It’s pricey, but there’s a learning process involved. I learned a lot about myself during my first application cycle, and even more so this time around.
*I also very much recommend Magoosh and Manhattan Prep of all the test prep resources I got my hands on. I found the practice questions and tutorials to be the clearest, and most practical. Had I had more than two weeks to prepare, I know I could have mastered this test using these resources. I would also reiterate that spending time mastering this test is worthwhile but no more than 2 months of solid prep or you'll probably go crazy (I know I did). Writing it a second time has its benefits but given the costs, I really wish I hadn't experienced technical failures the first time (and in that case I really should have asked for money back to something but I didn't).
SOP: Don’t feel comfortable posting, but here is a rough idea of how I structured things: I had two baseline versions, one at ~500 words, another at ~1000 depending on the program’s word limit, written in LaTex. I introduced my research interest by discussing a puzzle that has motivated my current work and then expanded that into a potential dissertation on the topic. I transitioned to describing my research experience/educational background that had led me to this puzzle, as well as who I worked with in the last 6 years that inspired me to pursue this career path. I then moved to discuss why X university’s program could build on what I’ve learned to get me where I want to go – the academic career path. I stressed what I liked about every program I applied to, namely how it was structured, what my intended major/minor was, as well as something unique about it I was really drawn to, and how it fit with my interests. I also indicated potential POIs and how their work has proven influential to my current studies (beyond name dropping). I aimed to list at least three people per statement, if not more. When it came to the length difference, the first part about myself was the same and quite short - where I expanded if I had more than 500 words was on how I fit with their prospective program, and why their program was the best fit for what I want to do.
Personally, I didn’t like what the document turned out to be. I have a hard time writing up my CV let alone an SOP. I had three professors review it, and letter writer #2 edited several versions and gave me great comments. They were also very reassuring, despite my not liking how it read and more than willing to give me tips on how to write it. I also ensured that I sounded like myself in it, which in my previous round of applications was not the case after my supervisor edited it. I again agree with what others have said that it’s important to re-write it several times. The final version that I submitted was undoubtedly my best version.
huso got a reaction from Albert01 in 2017-2018 Application Cycle