uncle_socks

If it's anything like past years they'll hit you with the vague "not all decisions have been made" line. However, all that really means is they're considering the app for the unfunded MA, not that you're still in the running for the phd.

Most schools do have efficient ways of sending rejections...Northwestern literally does this every year though where they send a bunch of accepts earlier, and drag the rejections on forever. Read some old threads and y'all will see that this is Classic Northwestern behavior. I believe that many schools don't want transparency because the system is easily gamed. In retrospect, it's not hard to do all the things needed to get into top political science programs if you have enough time. It's just hard to know what those things are, and have access to all those things, at the right time. And it just so happens that elite undergrad programs already have you doing these elusive things, while less prestigious undergrad programs just don't.

I would get this up first before taking online courses. IMO I think this is too low for NYU, assuming you're not a theorist. If you think politics wouldn't require much math, you're a little off in both your understanding of modern dominant political science and the NYU department as a whole.

I meant a slightly bigger prioritization there than it is for most schools, like (made up numbers) if quant ability is like idk 30% for Duke, I mean it's >30% for NYU. Their website specifically tells you to take calculus if you are able to, and at their visit day they said something like "you're all here because we know you have the methods chops" which is certainly not something they tell you at other visit days. That being said, you're right quant ability is definitely an important component at every school if you're planning to become a quantitative person, and that sharpening quant skills will often improve your application everywhere.

Historically quantitative ability is a big deal for nyu. Take calculus, statistics, econ, or CS, get a really great quant GRE score, in addition to the regular things that make applications great.

I mean if I were rich, sure. I go to a top 10 school now and if I were rich, I'd go to an unfunded master's just to ease myself into the academic lifestyle. I'm not rich, I didn't do that, I don't know your financial situation. For all the arguing about an economic case for a PhD that I just made, dropping 150k in hopes of getting into a better PhD program is a much harder sell. Neither an unfunded masters nor a MA-> transfer application are likely to drastically improve your school prospects beyond what you can do for much much cheaper. If you want to get into a better school in a year or two, here's my advice: Apply next year. It's very likely much worse this year for admissions generally than next year. Even in non-awful years, there are people who get into the top programs who were totally shut out from admissions the previous year. ace the frick out of the GRE rework your statements/writing sample with your professors/smart friends/someone who will give you honest, critical, and helpful feedback read more political science. it will make your statements and writing samples more convincing Maybe go to an MA program somewhere where the money is actually good and where you're not secondary in importance to the PhD students, and work the frick out of making relationships with the professors. i probably wouldn't do this unless my GPA was bad or unless my letters were (possibly) bad. schools don't really care about the MA per se, but rather about grades and what your professors say about you.

this is ucla lol...that money is tied to teaching. NYU is the only place that unconditionally gives extra money for TA work. Literally everywhere else, unless you win a fellowship, your funding is from teaching at least a few semesters.

It's not common. I know of (not well) a couple of people who have transferred in the past. I think it's most common to transfer in between schools of similar ranking (for example, Arthur Spirling went from Oxford to Rochester), so that it's really a fit thing instead of a climbing up in the rankings thing. Most top programs have very stingy transfer credit policies, and would make you essentially go back to year 1 when you transfer, though obviously you might have a leg up on your research relative to your peers. I certainly would not recommend going to a program with the pure intent on transferring out after a year or two: there's certainly no guarantee that you'd even be a successful transfer, and it's two years lost and possibly some bridges burnt in a small field.

Okay so 1. biological sciences are a much much worse job market than political science, for any of you biologists reading the forums out there. People love to parrot STEM STEM STEM but it is really bad out there for people who aren't in the TE of STEM. But 2. I'm not saying that an academic job is anywhere near guaranteed. But there is a subset of jobs that either require a PhD (like a TT job), or a PhD kinda fast-tracks you in (especially in think tank/polling world), or that you can get with a PhD in political science but not necessarily a plain old BA or MA in political science (I'm thinking tech-adjacent roles like data scientist or UX researcher at a $$ company, where they probably want a PhD OR a BS/MS in CS or stats or something). These tend to pay pretty well. And having a PhD helps you get that subset of jobs. I want one of those jobs. I primarily want to be a professor at an R1 school, but I'll be happy with one of those other jobs. All of these jobs will either have higher or equal total lifetime earnings as my old job, or be a lot more chill than my old job but still afford me an upper middle class lifestyle, and no matter what, they're a lot more fun than my old job. Coming from my program, it's nearly guaranteed that I can get one of those jobs. Hence, even if my short term desire is "get me out of grad school, I miss having free weekends" (I mean I usually don't but there are certainly moments where I feel that way) my long-term happiness is contingent on roughing it out and getting one of the kinds of jobs I've described. I'm not saying this is the only way people are allowed to think about graduate school. But it's certainly a rational way and I don't understand why you don't think people are allowed to make these kinds of calculations.

also I'm a grad student, so you're going to have to start saying "every professor and graduate student I've talked to, minus that one from the internet" next time ?

Maybe I haven't made my point clear. We're all here because we like polisci enough. We're all passionate about this field to sink a ton of time, effort, tears, etc. into applying for a chance to get a PhD. My point is that you can go to grad school because you want a job. For many (not all), grad school can improve your income prospects, as well as be something you enjoy doing. And it's okay if your primary motivation to go to grad school is the payoff after your 5-7 years, and not the payoff that is the act of attending grad school. Certainly I am motivated by the former rather than the latter. Grad school is fun but it's hard, and certainly if I were an heir, I would gtfo. I don't doubt that some people go to grad school purely out of love for the subject. But that's not everyone. And there are valid reasons to go to grad school besides purely out of love for political science.

No one's saying they want to be like, ultra rich. Yeah, if that's what you ultimately care about, go to Harvard Law or an MBA program instead or marry some rich guy about to die. If you want to be rich and a professor, yeah, go get an Econ or business PhD. My point is that you don't have to go to "pursue it for its own sake, as an end in itself" and for that to be your paramount motivation -- there are people for whom doing a PhD is a rational earnings-improving move. For most people, going to a top program is a win-win proposition where you can both 1. do something you love and 2. come out with a credential to get a job that both utilizes skills you've learned from the past 5-7 years AND pays pretty well and 3. not be financially miserable in the interim. It certainly is for me. Like yeah I wouldn't go to like [insert school that places poorly and is ranked poorly and makes you pay your own way] unless out of a true love for political science in and of itself. But the OP who brought that up, as well as most people on this forum, is very much not in that situation.

tbf it's a very uniquely bad year: grad program admissions and department hiring are all worse this year because budgets were made back when the markets were at their worst last year. Everyone expects the job market to be back to about normal within a couple of years. Every department can get away with less hiring for a year or two, but it's not long-term sustainable for departments. As long as as law schools and MPA programs exists and as long as politics is batshit crazy, there will be some jobs for political scientists to teach the undergrads who end up in those programs. We're advantaged over the humanities in that we get NSF funding and also people see our work as a little more relevant. Things will never be as good as they used to be pre-2008, but (mainstream, quant) political science is gonna be ok. IMO this is too extremist and is an attitude that promotes underrepresented groups not joining the discipline and also promotes this shitty starving artist trope. There are very valid economic considerations to going to grad school that can play in your favor, depending on your current situation. If you go somewhere like CHYMPS doing AP/methods, it's a clear cut case to go to grad school unless you're like already making six figures. Better case: a good TT job. Worst case: working at FB doing social science, or a polling firm, or management consulting, and definitely pulling in 90k starting (a LOT more for FB or MBB).

Yeah...Chicago is like the least militantly quantitative department out of like the top 20. Part of why one observes strange outcomes from Chicago (such as the aforementioned very frequent 7 or 8 years to graduate) is because there are so many qualitative people (especially theorists).

Probably kinda rambly so I apologize: I mean it depends on what your goals are. I'm assuming you applied to Chicago for a reason, and they accepted you for a reason, and that at least partially has to do with the fact that there are faculty there with whom you have mutual interest with. IMO that's most of the academic fit you need. I personally think that we read a little more into "fit" on this forum than is necessary as a means of explaining seemingly-random admissions (and because we're not personally privy information like "oh you're the 2nd best in XXX field but we're only accepting 1"), like it's a big deal sure, but for the most part, like 80% of us can have good enough "fit" with any top 20 school excluding Rochester. I struggle to think about "fit" being of paramount importance, especially thinking back to what I thought I'd be researching as a prospective student because interests change. I took one class on what I wrote my SOP on and was miserable! I met with someone I wrote about in my SOP and I think they're a psycho! These days I'm just plain bored with so much of what I wrote about in my SOP! I think it's important to go to a school that is broadly strong in a lot of areas, and where if you change your mind, or if someone or two moves, or if someone dies, then you'll still be okay. Fit can impact who is on your diss committee and what classes you take and who your initial advisors are. However, you'll eventually learn that classes are more of a hassle than a plus, that people can give out good advice beyond what they publish in, and that in this day and age, connecting with people who are in your subsubsubsubfield can be done online and you don't have to physically be their student (though of course, you're somewhat advantaged if you're their student). On the other hand, prestige impacts how seriously people take you on the job market, especially for R1s. You can win the {whatever your subfield's equivalent of the EE Schattschneider award is} and have an APSR but some job committees will still think an unpublished CHYMPS kid has more "potential." Unless you are a massive exception (and it's always best to assume you're not), a UChicago PhD can be competitive for a USC job, but a USC PhD cannot get a UChicago job. I think I've said this a few times on this board, but one of the most helpful exercises when trying to decide where to go to is to compare the schools' placement. If you're not super interested in a TT job, I'd think long and hard about why a PhD because damn doing a PhD is a lot of suck. Prestige is often associated with a lot more implicit benefits as well (though this is a little less of a concern because USC has money more than somewhere like Wisconsin does). Summer funding, money floating around for surveys, subsidized housing, teaching loads, conference travel funding, etc. are often so much better at better-ranked school. The less time you spend worrying about money and doing things that are not research, the more time you have for research. This is very important. P.S. CA might be sunny, but you can actually afford to live in something more than a glorified box in the midwest. We spend all our time working anyways :(((((

Of course this is a highly personal decision, but as someone a few years into a political science PhD, I'd implore you to reconsider this (or at the very least give Chicago an honest chance) if you seriously want to get a tenure track job, and especially if you are interested in getting an R1 job. Getting an R1 job out of USC is nowhere near the norm. Ask professors at both schools which program they think will better equip you for your future goals -- yes they want you to come to their school, but they also want you to achieve your highest potential regardless. The advantages of coming from a top (as defined by the rankings) are massive. There's not a big difference in between, say Chicago or Ohio State. But the prestige differential in political science in between UChicago and USC is very large. That being said, if your long-term interests involves California or if you never really cared for an R1 job, it's much less a big deal.

that's special for you (and maybe a couple others). it's likely you'll get more money (or maybe less teaching) than everyone else if you win the campus wide fellowship.

way too early for yale

To add on to this, you don't have to TA at NYU, and if you do, that's pure extra money in your pocket. However, I don't think people can TA in first year. Additionally, first years do have some housing priority in NYU-owned (read: cheaper) apartments, though idk whether they kick you out of those after a year or two.

Unless something has changed this year, you need to be interviewed to get an acceptance.

tbf if you're not a formal theorist, it's probably not really worth applying to rochester. it's very niche.

If they're doing ucsd acceptances like they have before, the acceptance message is generic but they have to attach a non-generic pdf, so that probably takes some time. I remember I got my acceptance hours after some others who posted here got their acceptance. It's probably good news for those of you who haven't heard

My year results from the school wide funding competition came out in the last week of February. If you don't get funding through that, I'm not sure if the department has their own secondary funding process (that could take more time) or not.

can you clarify if it's like UCSD GPS (or whatever it is) or UCSD polisci?

lol yikes it's readily clear that 2020PhD is someone's troll alt account and it's not even a well-hidden alt. even worse than the princeton results page trolls because at least those are anonymous. I hope they learn "their" lesson that stuff here is public and gradcafe does not have a nice deletion policy.