uncle_socks

Controversial opinion: Honestly if I see someone with an A in calculus or higher level stats (no, stats 101 doesn't count as real quantitative training) and a 152Q, I devalue their entire GPA because their college clearly wasn't rigorous enough. The handle on algebra that one should have to succeed in at the AP Calculus level will yield them a score in the 160s or high 150s at the very least. Top schools aren't looking for reasons to accept you. They're looking for reasons to reject you.

I don't think anyone can make this decision for you. It depends on how much you love PT. I hate PT so it's easy for me to say that the logical thing to do if you want to get an R1 TT job is to go into PE or IR, and do theory on the side, as like your secondary subfield. Any job in PT is hard enough to get, let alone an R1. I'd say take a good mix of courses at Chicago, and try hard in all of them. Let your best paper be your writing sample and just apply to whatever subfield that's in. You don't have to truly commit to a subfield yet, people change subfields all the time in grad school.

I mostly agree, especially about location, but think this guy's GRE recommendations are a little high. Anything 160/160 or higher is good enough to get into any program. Obviously the higher the better, but you're not going to get disqualified on the basis of GRE anywhere with a 160/160. 165 verbal is particularly high. I know multiple people who got into CHYMPS with less than a 165 verbal. NYU does really love high quant scores, though.

What are you aiming for? What are you hoping to do with a PhD? Your GRE score is going to hold you back from getting into places in the top 30. Depending on what you want to do with a PhD, it may be very inadvisable to go anywhere ranked lower.

Finished applying to programs (mostly top 20) a few days ago in American/methods. Very anxious about results. Hope these next two months can fly by quickly

Wow in addition to being sort of spam, it's crazy how lacking in understanding this petition is about any semblance of civic knowledge and in my opinion cannot possibly come from an American. Copying and pasting the text here to save everyone a click. First off, the the insinuation that congress=white house is hilarious, because the buildings are actually two miles apart from each other and encompass totally different branches of government. A lot of political science literature insinuates that Americans are dumb. But everyone knows white house=president. Secondly, it's trying to subvert the entire democratic process, which idk if you're trying to start that big a revolution, perhaps among the least effective things you can do is to start a petition on a federal government website. Also the entire "voice ourselves...communicatively" just lol " A mere six percent of present day congressional members are under the age of thirty-five, and even amongst these, the youngest is twenty-five years. The call to action through this communication is rather simple. The youth (18-25) are asking for the ability to represent themselves at White House congressional meetings. Among our numerous merited representatives in congressional bodies, youth officials between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five should be incorporated, as well. This will create a beautiful balance of experience and innovation in our political center. Every state in the United States of America has youth representatives who are willing to step up to the responsibility to voice ourselves collaboratively, and communicatively. However, we need the platform, and your support."

I have no evidence to back up my claim, but what I think is that a 3.6 is alright under a certain subset of circumstances. You probably need a few of these to compensate for at the top 5, a lot less so at #19 or #20. Come from a prestigious school, especially if it's known for deflating grades Rest of application is truly stellar. I'm talking high (overcompensating) GREs, good recs, good SOP. Be an underrepresented minority or have an otherwise compelling story High major GPA. Even better if the classes with lower grades are from classes thought of as hard for the average poli sci person and won't really be something you need to be competent in, ie physics, real analysis, organic chem, Literature in 14th Century Micronesia, etc. Strong upward trend in GPA. If you got Cs your entire freshman year and then got straight As after that, that probably won't hurt you too bad. What I do have evidence for is: GWU says average GPA is about a 3.8. They are not in the top 20. Washington University says 3.9, but I don't believe that because their combined GRE average is 323, which seems low for a 3.9. Ohio State is about 3.7. A 3.6 isn't going to get you explicitly automatically denied near #20, but it won't get you accepted either.

I could see it going both ways. There's two ways at looking at it. Either 1. Your GPA makes it clear that you are capable and just not great at standardized tests 2. Your GRE makes it clear your college was too easy and a 4.0 where you are would be a lot lower if you went to a different university. If you go somewhere very prestigious, it will probably be 1. Otherwise, probably 2.

It depends, really. Location (higher COL=higher salary), prestige/competitiveness (Harvard would pay more than UMass-Boston), and funding levels (state vs. private) can all play a role. On a broad scale, you can probably expect 45-65k, but that is 1. highly variable, and more importantly 2. contingent on actually getting a job, which it in and of itself is tough to do.

I don't know about UMD's Political Science program specifically, but yes, IR (and American excluding American Political Development) are probably the most quant-heavy subfields. Gone are the days when you can get away my being qualitative and maybe doing a simple linear regression unless your theoretic ideas are mind-blowing and field changing. Whether or not top 30 is "good" depends on your goals post-graduation. Want tenure track at Harvard? statistically not good (obviously possible, but you'd have to be a superstar). Tenure track at a non-flagship state school? You have a decent chance. Want to work in the IR field (not as an academic)? UMD is good, especially because of its proximity to DC (so more opportunities to take on internships, fellowships, and to network than your peers elsewhere). The city of College Park itself is...meh. Not particularly exciting. Just what you'd expect from a college town. But the campus itself is quite nice (especially if you're into that brick architecture), and you're just a metro ride away from DC, which is a huge plus. People are sometimes concerned about crime, but it's really not much worse than other college towns that have significant working-class populations. College Confidential has significant discussion about it.

@toad1 I almost feel at that point that it depends on what one's specific interests and sub-subfields are, though generally, I would generally place them HS>P>M>YC. It's also tricky because I know at least some of those schools have multiple polisci-oriented programs (ie GSB at Stanford, Political Economy and public policy PhD programs at Kennedy at Harvard)

@WHC_2017 and @CambridgeHeismanLord I'm not looking at CIR (more interested in MACRM or MAPSS so I can really gauge how much I want to pursue a PhD in PS), but I'm curious about how widespread good (I'm talking full tuition or maybe 3/4 or 2/3 tuition) funding is. Are the people that get funding the type of people that would get into a high-ranked PhD program anyways? Or is there a little more leniency?