uncle_socks

Duke probably won't cancel admissions this year because they cancelled them last year (due to overenrollment the previous year). Who else is anyone's guess, but probably not Duke. That being said, it sounds like the Columbia decision was forced on by the school of humanities and social sciences, not from the department itself. I know at my own university, other departments who were not as well-funded as polisci had admin trying to force them to get temporary funding in exchange for permanently decreasing the amount of people in their future PhD cohorts. I expect that there will be a bunch of that, especially in departments that are more "humanities."

yeah you'll be fine. Stanford/Harvard/Princeton admissions are kind to their own and love each other's undergrads as well. Having a poster or a 100 page thesis isn't a big deal, (especially the thesis, no one wants to read it) especially with your profile -- they're not really that much of hooks. You can mention them in your SOP as significant research experiences but that's primarily what they're good for. Don't wait unless you want to (I waited, and I think it was a legitimately good idea for me, I took a job, matured a bit, made some money, etc.). Admissions might be tight this year but I'd be really surprised if you didn't bag at least one CHYMPS. Like really, assuming your recs are good, you're gonna be so good. Do apply widely in the top 10-15 just because this year might be kinda fucked up and departmental fit will probably be really important (and unfortunately, your idea of fit might be very different from a department's idea of fit), but echoing what was said above, you're not going to need to apply below somewhere around UNC's ranking. Assuming the 3.85 is nearly all A/A- and then some B's in biology, it'll be fine. The bio grades won't be held against you very much.

95% of the article is about money tho

With all due respect, soc (especially a department like princeton) isn't cancelling admissions this year because of social distancing. First years take classes full-time (fine to do online) and do very little fieldwork, plus these decisions were made months ago before we knew how long covid was going to drag out. This is almost purely a financial decision.

Brown admissions cancelled: https://www.brown.edu/academics/political-science/graduate/application-graduate-admission Universities are not in a good financial spot right now and would rather spend their limited funds on current students than on new additional students. My money is on more programs cutting the amount of students they take on/cancelling the 2020-2021 cycle fully.

The (unfortunate) nature of polisci outcomes is that it matters a lot less who you work with as opposed to where you went to school. Coming from an Americanist, "fit" matters a lot less in our subfield than it does in other subfields: a faculty who does congress can probably still help a lot with research on local politics, while a faculty who does France probably has less to offer with China research. Not to mention most top schools have someone who has done some work on local politics anyways. Try to find younger faculty who do research in the space that you'd like to work in, and see where they went to school. Ideally, you want to go to those schools.

For your list of target schools, a B in calc is fine even if it were on your normal transcript. Most -places only ask for your transcript for places that you've had full time enrollment for 1+ semester or 1+ years, so it's very likely you wouldn't be obligated to send that in in the first place. I don't think there really is a value-added for sending the transcript vs. just putting in your SOP "I took a calc class at UC online + did all this stats analysis for my thesis" or whatever. Really the only places a B in calc will hurt you are programs with really intense methods sequences where most admits probably have prior calc experience (think: polecon programs, NYU, Stanford, maybe MIT). And even then, if you're applying to these places, just mention the online course and don't disclose the grade. That being said, if you're scoring in the 160+ range in both verbal and quant, I highly encourage you to apply to schools ranked above your target schools (and by this I mean every top school with a good fit). You don't need to have connections with faculty to get accepted into top schools, unlike some fields like biology. I certainly know most students in the very top programs did not have ongoing conversations with faculty at their current programs. A 3.93/330+/good recs/good SOP will get you seriously considered at every program in the country.

I mean it varies by program. But if UCSD and Duke are about 165 on average, then places like HPS are going to be a little higher. Anecdotally I know a sizable amount (maybe 20-30% of non-theory people) of people at one of these programs in a cohort have 169 or 170 on at least one section (and honestly I mostly meant with respect to the top 3). Plus a bunch of theorists end up at all of these top programs and they are super good at verbal.

If you want to be a solid candidate for a top 10 program, you're going to want to retake the GRE. Your quant is actually fine (higher can only help though), but your verbal is a little low. Averages for verbal are often around 163-165 (Duke and UCSD publishes these iirc) and a substantial amount of people getting into top programs (especially top 3) have a 170V. Not that a 170 is a necessity or anything, but you should try to get it up a couple of points, especially because your GPA isn't the highest. Research experience is good and will help in admissions, though it's not a "hook" or anything. Tbh it's really going to come down to how good your writing sample is, how good your recs are, how good your statement of purpose is, and your fit with departments, all of which we can't really say much about on the forum.

Usually this should only happen if you're being offered a fellowship or something better than your current funding package. I think it's theoretically possible for some programs to be changing offers with respect to covid, but nothing about covid is normal and I wouldn't consider that kind of change under the umbrella of normal. If any program is reducing their offer (with or without covid), they should be named and shamed.

I hate to be the bearer of statistically bad news but a lot of programs (even super top programs) have had directive from admin to not go onto the waitlist this year because of tanks in the economy/to their endowment.

Based on their history it looks to be Loyola in Chicago.

Switching in your third year isn't a problem. There's a number of current students and profs at T10 schools who didn't switch until very late or have BAs in things like engineering, econ, math, stats, biology. Honestly applicants probably get bonus points in T10 admissions for having a STEM/econ degree because that means they've done some quantitative work that a lot of undergrad polisci programs don't get to. Applications are somewhat random but they're not that random, and the best way to avoid getting universally dinged is to apply widely (like if you're deadset on attending a top 10, apply to all/nearly all top 10s), get great GRE scores, find a professor who will seriously and critically look at your statement of purpose and writing sample, and make sure your letters of rec are from TT professors who actually like you. Lots of people currently in top 10 programs have actually applied twice, striking out the first time and then getting really sweet admissions the second time. A year in consulting, a think tank, or a pre-doc/post-bac really does wonders on maturity.

Advantage: I mean yes in that your file is more likely to be looked at, and that if you have a 3.2 in [unrelated field] you won't get automatically disqualified if everything else is good. But like, the expectations are still very high: coming from a top undergrad you pretty much still need a great GRE (160+/160+), great letters from people who matter, and a good statement of purpose. IMO the real only advantages are ones that you already have: good access to world class professors who matter and who are friends with other T10 professors, probably a good aptitude at taking standardized tests, and a writing center that is very accustomed to reading PhD statements of purposes. But if everything is mediocre but your school's name, you're going to get dinged. At your current school: Anecdotally if your school is Harvard or Stanford, then my personal belief is that there is some extra advantage that you wouldn't get coming from Yale or Princeton.

Yeah undergrad rankings in the US News are bullshit. That's what graduation rates, alumni giving, (and your link) go into. Schools fabricate, twist, and omit data on these to get better enrollment rates for that $weet undergrad tuition. But literally no one cares about these, and I can't recall a time in my gradcafe reading time in which anyone has ever seriously referenced the undergrad ratings. That's why I called Stony Brook (not very good in undergrad, but a fantastic PhD program) underrated in a prior post -- because the undergrad rankings are irrelevant. However, the way they rank grad schools is literally not about any of the factors that you've mentioned. Grad school rankings are built solely on how fellow academics think of your program. If you're going to attack the US News methodology at least reference the correct methodology: https://www.usnews.com/education/best-graduate-schools/articles/social-sciences-and-humanities-schools-methodology Yes, expert opinion varies by subfield and by "expert", but that doesn't mean that there are strong themes within them and a strong perceived hierarchy by grad students and faculty writ large. We shouldn't pretend that there isn't a consensus. Also on the subject of rankings at large: yeah they're pretty dumb when we go by the US News methodology. But guess what? The US News rankings are very very highly correlated with the kind of rankings that matter: recent placement within your subfield. Another type of ranking that matters: how free-flowing the research money is at your school. The types of software/research pools/visiting academics/sixth-year funding/funding packages/faculty hiring your school can pay for all give some people advantages over others. The opportunities are worlds larger with a Harvard or Princeton PhD than with a Davis or UVA PhD, both inside and outside the academic market. Can you learn the same things at each program? Yeah. Will you have to work much harder to achieve the same things coming from a lower ranked school? Also yes. In an ideal world does the government seize all higher education and stop perpetuating these inequalities? Maybe yes, but until then, ranking is a big deal. I'm not advocating that anyone lose sleep over any of this, as luck and one's own effort play massive roles in academic success. I'm just trying to say that rankings are super highly correlated with things that do matter and that within the academic community, there is a consensus (especially with respect to who is in the top 6 (and that it's just my lowkey pet peeve when people spell out the CHYMPS with authority but don't match the CHYMPS that everyone knows are the CHYMPS -- like when you replace Michigan with MIT and Columbia or Chicago for Cal it's kinda obvious that people are starting from the acronym and filling in the holes -- else we'd see less CHYMPS and more CCCHYMMPS ya feel)). And to the OP @IRTphd915 sorry for hijacking this. My advice is that because IU and Irvine are not disproportionately endowed, is to really dig into the last 5-10 years of placements in your subfield and go to whichever is placing better. Google all those graduates and see what they're doing. Academic interests change a little bit, but odds are your main subfield will stay the same. Also think about possible things you would like to do if you don't get an academic job (this goes for everyone! even in the CCCHYMMPS!) -- IU has a world class business school and Irvine a really great law school and in some subfields, there's room for collaboration and cross-departmental networking at both. Ask an admin or faculty about placement in both places: their online lists are pretty clearly not complete (Irvine not updated for 2019 and Indiana not listing job title). That all being said, if they're about the same, my money is with UCI. Things happen to assistant professors, and you don't want to be reliant on any one faculty member. and @needanoffersobad, my impression of Vanderbilt and Penn State is that Penn State (recent Princeton placement aside) will set you up really well for a career in data science or consulting, but R1 academic jobs are hard to get with a PhD there. If you're truly 50/50 and want a career in industry, Penn State sets you up better than a lot of higher-ranked schools will. Vanderbilt is fancier name for sure (and I think they're disproportionately strong in my subfield so maybe that's why my opinion is higher of them), but they don't place as well as you'd expect. Ask Vanderbilt if they'll give you a full placement record. Their online placement record that I found doesn't include industry placements and these are important holes that need to be discussed -- are their PhDs without academic jobs baristas or are they RAND associates? It's a big difference.

My hot take on this: Did you try to make the top 6 CHYMPS because that seems to be the conventional wisdom? The top 6 is very traditionally (and for good reason) Cal Berkeley and Michigan, not Columbia and MIT, and I struggle to think of a subfield that one could come from where they think that Columbia and MIT are both better than Berkeley and Michigan. In particular, MIT is very good but is hardly a full-service department. Some other minor quibbles: Emory ranked too low (esp. given recent hires and placements), Pitt/Rice/Iowa/Syracuse are a big step beneath everyone else in that column, Rutgers too high, Stony Brook ranked way too low (pretty much top 20 if you do pol psych, which is the only thing they do), and Rochester way too low. Very interesting to see how people interpret departments though. I really wonder what would happen if we individually made rankings and averaged all of those out

For undergrad yeah the M is for MIT but Michigan is unanimously (niche subfields aside) stronger in political science PhDs. It's not subjective.

Vanderbilt has been willing to reschedule a visit specifically for you in the past. Idk about Penn State. Schools try to be accommodating. ry to visit both.

If the generic email went out already, it's likely that that's all they're admitting. Not everyone is on gradcafe. I'd be happy to be proved wrong but 9/10 times this is the right opinion on it.

I'd say top 10, but it has certain strengths and weaknesses depending on your field of study and depending on what schools you're comparing it to. In American politics I'd definitely say top 10 if the professors and you are a good match, but it's a small subfield there and I'd hesitate to go there if I wasn't a good match. Security studies? Very good.

eh it's about the right time and last time Harvard did do phone calls well before the email, so I trust it. Might be a little more scattered across the next couple of days depending on subfield.

Chicago: no. If you haven't heard from them by now you're 99% rejected from the PhD. They take longer to send rejects because they consider admitting and consider funding to their masters programs, so there's a chance you get into one of those instead.

No idea. I have no affiliation with Ohio State and don't know too much there beyond what I've read here.

Ohio State has weird funding mechanisms. Some people get funded through the university via the university's fellowship competition, and then the department decides on funding for those who don't win the big University competition.

I have no skin in this game, but just wondering if you can talk a little publicly about the methods curriculum there. I've always thought of Oxbridge to be methodologically years behind the US, and I'd love to update this prior.