bigdummy

For what it's worth, I did the exact opposite and I'm getting really anxious about it. I started with a 1,000 word SoP template and then trimmed it down depending on how each school framed what they were looking for in the "Please explain...." prompt on the application. As a result, I didn't really give much of a narrative about my choice to pursue grad school, didn't really propose a project (more just said: here are the questions that motivated the thesis I just wrote and I want to go to grad school to work with a POI who is motivated in their work by these types of questions), and didn't really expand on any of the stuff that comes when one deepens that narrative/proposed project side of the application (e.g. detailing why you really are a fit, showing that you are more well rounded than some vague research interests). My point would be, I guess, it's a trade-off. There might not be enough in my short SoPs to distinguish me from all of the excellent candidates that apply. And the only way to remedy that is perhaps by risking what you risked--namely, giving too much detail. The SoP is such a tight-role walk! I guess we just have to wait and see what happens. The best is probably just to stay calm and wait, though that's definitely hard to do. Best of luck! (Edit for solecisms!)

If you could ask your question in a more specific or pointed way then I think we might be able to offer some good answers. As is, it's hard to make sense of what you have in mind or what motivates the question, hence what answer would be reasonable and appropriate.

Honestly, this kind of worries me across the board, since there are so many talented and capable applicants. I really wish that I had applied to ten schools. I've come to think that the key is probably to apply to a lot of places you would be happy attending and then just hope that something comes through. I doubt we can count on any given school coming through, no matter how good of an application we might have put together (and mine at least is certainly far from perfect).

I think it's probably best to just ignore/not get excited by anything until it's verified in this thread.

A question for all the theory people who seem to be sitting on this thread tonight: How specific did you guys get about your proposed research in the SoP? Congratulations to all those accepted to Northwestern today! I'm still sweating out the fear of getting totally rejected this cycle, so even if it's not your #1 it's a real accomplishment you should be proud of (it's definitely an awesome place for those seeking a more 'continental' pov).

So I'm really curious what exactly you guys have in mind with this rankings stuff. There seems to be an awful lot of talk about political science rankings as though it is one homogeneous thing. Notre Dame may be ranked 37 in "political science" but is definitely a top ten program in political theory. And even then, "political theory" is still a pretty vague term to bandy about, since Notre Dame is definitely the best in the world when it comes to certain topics within theory, and pretty lousy at others. It strikes me as very weird to lump all these things together under a single hierarchy or causal picture. It strikes me as a whole lot better to focus on your own capacities and interests and to determine what school will give you the best training and opportunities in that respect. Honestly, it seems better to worry about becoming the best political scientist or theorist you can, and to then hope the rest will come--even going to the highest ranked programs in the world guarantees very little. Edit: Also it seems worth keeping in mind that all placements aren't equal.