AlphaLvSim

The GPS PhD cohort is very, very small, but don't forget that you also have the UCSD Department of Politics PhD program on campus, and UCSD is a top 10 school.

Unfortunately I cannot speak to the UK experience, but I suspect that enough differences exist that it is hard to directly compare the cases. Overall, I do not think the problem is that a 1 year program is bad; timing, with applications due in winter, is the real barrier. Regarding LORs, advice that I have gotten from multiple sources is that making sure your letter writers know you well is far more important that getting an average letter from a well known scholar. To make those connections takes time, and that slows down how fast you can realistically apply.

So, I have been thinking about similar questions myself. One important element, to me, is that the 1 year MA program is unlikely to get you into a PhD program any faster than a 2 year MA. Why? Because of the structure of application deadlines. PhD applications are due in December and January; if you are in a 1 year program then this is possibly before you even have 1 semester/quarter of grades posted and likely before you can build any significant relationships with faculty for LORs. Most MA programs have you write a thesis, but it surely will not be done by the first winter. Thus, you are likely to re-apply to PhD programs -after- you have finished the 1 year degree. If you were in a 2 year program, you would be applying in the fall of your second year, which means that the 1 year program does not offer a temporal advantage. You might not have your thesis finished, but I imagine your letters, as well as grades, will be more useful after a full year in the program. That said, the upside of the 1 year MA is that you can get work/research experience during your gap year, and that is added value (or +EV as some of us are prone to say).

I second the advice in this thread: you almost certainly have better ways to spend your time or money than with a retake. From the conversations with academics that I have had, the AW is the least important section of the GRE, and your other two sections are impressive even for a top program.

Simmer down now. Assuming that you are making a good-faith effort to be pointed in the right direction and not just handed answers, check out this link below. It is to a non-academic source (Politico) but the author is an academic that specifically studies the differences between lobbying in the EU and US. Look into her work (including a book on the topic) and I am sure you will have a better idea. link: https://www.politico.eu/article/why-lobbying-in-america-is-different/ And try to think of how your request might come across, and don't take refuge in the language of instruction; you selected the program after all. It is always better to be asked to be given a few pointers, authors to look into, etc instead of looking for fully assembled work. disclaimer: I do not focus on EU (or US for that matter) institutions; I just performed a cursory search and this popped up.

The application process is quite the stressful marathon; hang in there!

I got an email with a offer letter. My actual status on the UCSB portal did not update until days later. Regarding later acceptances, I am not sure and it was not something that I asked when I called the department for some other clarifications.

I talked with the office and apparently the admit decisions were supposed to go out earlier than they did, but there was a communication error that delayed sign-off by the Dean's office. Admit day is April 6th, so if you have not gotten a rejection it might be worth calling/emailing. My conversations with the grad assistant Carol were pleasant and informative.

My understanding was that the process had some hiccups, but I heard back from UCSB over a week ago.

I still appreciate your information/perspective, because my other source (the grad office) has quite an incentive to paint everything in the most favorable light possible.

Well, I don't know how much stock I would put in my conversation. I didn't mean it to sound like I was contradicting you, but more along the lines of "hm, the grad office has a product to sell, I wonder if they were sugar coating?"

This is interesting. I had a length conversation with staff at GPS and they indicated that essentially I should decline any 24.99% positions (9.5 hours) since 10 hours was the threshold for 50% base tuition remittance, and the impression I got was that departments that offered 24.99% were being scuzzy. Of course that is just one person's opinion.

Yeah, its the drop in the 2nd year+ that is most concerning to me. According to the department, you can pick up TA-ships sometimes, but it is all a bit vague. If I was assured a fellowship to support me in those quarters the decision would be a little bit easier. I plan to ask around on visit day and see what I can find out, but even 20k/year in Santa Barbara is fairly slim (though I know that public universities cannot offer ivy-level funding of course).

I am currently on the fence RE: UCSD. I applied to the MPP program, and despite its newness, the program seems solid. In the end, funding is likely a factor; currently the only fellowship that they awarded me is for the first year out of state tuition. Since I live near DC I am going to go to the event on March 29th; anyone else planning to go?

I just got my offer of admission for UCSB. The letter describing the offer structures the package in a way that is not super clear, but I got more information from the department. The first year, my in-pocket stipend would be right around $20,000 and would involve TA-ing 2 out of the 3 quarters. For subsequent years, I have two quarters of TA-ing assured with a stipend of $6800 each, and the final quarter would depend on potential future fellowships etc. So basically $20,000 the first year and $13,000 thereafter. I know that this is very much on the lower end of things money wise, though I am cognizant that UCSB does not have a ton of money to throw around either. Perhaps more importantly, I am curious if the TA load is high/medium/light for that level of funding. Two TA positions each year seems relatively high for this level of support, but perhaps I am wrong.