eggsalad14
-
Posts
190 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Everything posted by eggsalad14
-
Hey, I like to have two chrome windows open at once - one for pleasure (great British bake off) and one for business (being really anxious about upcoming schools)
-
Got an MIT email today, American/methods
-
Sounds around right. I'll dig into some historical times later this weekend but those are definitely on the radar
-
Maybe good news lies ahead? Departments generally are slower sending individual acceptance letters especially if they want to insert in your name and attach the funding package as a PDF. I can almost guarantee that the rejection letter for Michigan was sent all in one email and bcc'd to approx 384 of us: they didn't insert names or anything, just a "dear applicant."
-
I can see that, sorta, their yield jumped from 38% to 54%, and they enrolled 20 instead of the usual 15 last year.
-
It seems outrageous honestly, if you look at their program statistics from last year they say 10% selectivity from 385 applicants. And last year was a five-year low. What they're implying this year is that they accepted fewer than 20 people (assuming they're being pretentious and rounding 5% to 4%). They accepted 38 or 39 last year. Lol I'm a little sore but more than that I'm so perplexed at what's going on.
-
Just got mine. They said about 4% acceptance rate, which seems really low.
-
Joint PhD Political Science/MS Statistics?
eggsalad14 replied to rnmhugji's topic in Political Science Forum
This is something I've seen quite about for Americanist graduates, probably at least partially because there is never a language requirement. I'm sure sure about all the schematics (perhaps after school visits I will be able to say more about it), but generally I'm quite confident about the following: 1. Students more than likely do not pay for it. You can (and many departments encourage) taking courses outside of the political science department. 2a. Sometimes these aren't really master's degrees that are open to the general public. That is, at least, as Harvard, there is no Stats A.M. (Harvard fancy letter ordering for an MA) that you can externally apply to (anymore), but Government PhDs sometimes have this. 2b. They are sometimes not as rigorous as a traditional graduate degree. This is especially true for universities that don't usually have masters programs. On the bottom of this page are the requirements for the stats masters at Harvard: a bunch of classes, and no thesis, comps, oral examinations, etc., whereas an MS at my ok state school most definitely involves a thesis. That being said, no one is going to looks at a resume with a Harvard statistics masters and think "oh this person only has this because they got in the back door." 2c. Sometimes they are the same master's program that you apply directly into. And in those cases, you likely will have to independently apply to get into it. In other words, you're not guaranteed an "in." 3. Most have pre-reqs that a vast majority of political science graduate students will not be able to meet. Even if you has a minor in applied stats at my undergrad, you would probably not be qualified to jump right in to the material. We're talking calcs 1-3, linear algebra, maybe some computer programming, a previous undergrad-level class in probability and math-stats (both WITH calculus); this sums up to almost a full year of undergraduate courses. 4. You probably need a somewhat compelling reason to convince the department/your adviser to let you take the master's -- if your subfields are theory and qual IR, it doesn't make sense to get a master's. That being said, it seems common enough that you don't need to try too hard to justify it especially if you have methods-heavy aspirations. 4a. If it's not something like the Harvard program that's catered to current grad students, it's more likely harder to gain entrance into the program, and harder to convince the political science department that that many statistics classes is worthwhile. 4c. From what I've seen, they don't earn the MA degree until around the time they graduate with their PhD, which is to say, they're probably slowly taking these stats courses over a longer period of time. This means another source of stress when you theoretically should be concentrating on your dissertation -
What I love most about this is that King wrote the paper and also is literally 1/2 the citations.
-
I basically always keep an email tab open. Just saw I had a new email and got excited. Nope, it was just the chipotle I just ordered.
-
You do have to keep in mind that graduate and undergrad grading scales are also wack and not really comparable. I've had it explained to me as for grad courses, A=average, B=bad, and you should drop out if you get a C, whereas undergrad courses regularly will fail 1/3 - 1/2 the class. But I digress, you are right in that a B from Harvard shouldn't look good as it's well established that an A- is the modal grade.
-
That being said, we need more decisions up in here so we can stop arguing about math aptitude and withdrawing from school applications ??????????
-
Thanks for the perspective. Again, like I've said previously, what mostly matters is stuff outside of math and outside of the common quantifiable things like GRE and GPA (past a threshold). That being said, it surprises me that even an F turned B- in intro calc isn't really disqualifying (assuming you don't show better scores in further math classes). Maybe it depends on what school that B- was earned at, but I'd be really surprised if a B- from a mid-to-not ranked school would not at least raise some eyebrows.
-
Fair enough, I think we can at least find common ground that mediocre grades in "easier" math classes (intro stats, calc 1 or God forbid anything under calc 1, any undergrad methods courses) is a big red flag which people on gradcafe rarely ever bring up.
-
I have to disagree. Someone with a gre of over 225 and 3.7+ from recognizable schools getting rejected everywhere in the top 20 likely has issues in their statement of purpose, writing sample, or letters. Of course, those are the parts we rarely ever see on gradcafe. It helps, but people are not getting denied based on not having calc 3. Literally every school has a math camp/something of that sort because the expectation is that they have to teach most students these things.
-
Fwiw I do have a strong math background and the cycle has been treating me well so far. But I think it's hard to pin it as a result of the math in and of itself. What we for some reason never talk about is that the math background is a good signal of "I know that social science is quantitative now, and I'm making a two year commitment early enough to show that I have wanted to be a social scientist for a long time." There is almost nothing you need in calc 2 and 3 to be successful in political science outside of methods. Linear algebra? Maybe cool in theory because it's applicable to regression but NO ONE does regressions by hand. Personally I didn't even know political science was as quantitative as it is until like a year ago, I just got lucky that I liked numbers and wanted to have employment options if I didn't end up doing grad school. I don't think taking a lot of math is necessarily a better move than doing research, or excelling in grad courses, or networking with professors. Sure I'm doing well in this cycle, but I have a friend who I'm pretty sure hasn't touched math since high school who is doing pretty well too.
-
I'm sending love to you guys right now. This process is crazy and most definitely not fair. @acmnny your scores are almost identical to mine and you probably have a higher GPA from what is definitely a more prestigious undergrad. I'm sure that even if (and this is a big if here, because we're only through half your schools) you don't get in somewhere this cycle, you'll be able to do well next cycle if you network with professors and perhaps rethink the SOP. There's so little information going into the process about what to expect, and I hate that aspect of it. Sure, good scores and grades will get you look at, but adcoms are all looking for things to ding you with. Too many Ardent writing samples? You better hope your application isn't at the end of the pile. Professor who you really want to work with leaving but hasn't made it public yet but it's an open secret within the department? Too bad. Please remember that so much of this is random and that results are in no way a reflection of your worth. Results, once you pass some gre/GPA threshold, are made based on secretive department needs and personal biases (whether they're positive or negative).
-
Not at all
-
NYU with funding info just received Edit: Not complete information on funding (it comes with the official offer later) but they do mention a stipend amount.
-
Thanks for the nice words. I think I just got really lucky with my letter writers saying really really nice things about me honestly. I'd say I'm a pretty generic Americanist (behavior) and my interests within that subfield are all over the place.
-
If you have money, I think the uchicago ones still are.
-
On the results page there's a comparative and IR, plus I know American and methods is also represented within these
-
Yeah, I don't think the summer stipend is guaranteed all years though (which is probably fair, because a couple years in you can probably pick up some paid work)
-
94k sounds so big until you realize tuition is 60k and fees are large too haha. It's a great package for Durham though.
-
According to Duke fields, behavior+identities and methods
