Dwar

So I know nothing about political psychology, but I just wanted to say that going off a report published in 2007 is super risky. While it does take a while for things to change in academia, 13 years is a pretty long time. I’d check the placement for the last 5-6 years and go off that, anything over that mark is kinda unusable as too many factors changed. That’s even more so with data from 07, which is just before the recession. The market before the financial crisis is waaaaaaaaaaay different then the market after it.

Just wanted to add that private schools will also feel the squeeze in their endowments which will surely fall due to both the stock market crash as well as the decrease in donations. in theory big flagship schools may be better protected as federal aid to the states may be able to help (they received like 14 billion in this last bill), but at the same time they certainly do face cuts on the state level. last recession revenue was cut 25-50 percent on average. While this mostly translates into increase undergrad tuition (which doesn’t affect us), it can also lead to pots of money drying up. So conference travel, non-guaranteed summer funding, and additional fellowships and awards may all take a back seat for the moment. Now this all depends on how big this economic crisis is, and of course how long it lasts. If things do bounce back right away after the virus recedes then the affect could be minimal, but that’s a best case scenario. I’m honestly not sure how this will affect waitlists this year, but what I do know is what next year the competition will be much greater as a recession generally leads to an increase in grad school applications.

Minnesota (top 25) has a specific political psychology minor field. Link

Just want to chime in and say that I agree with this statement and that fit is in my opinion one of the most important things. An applicant can have the best scores and grades possible and still get all rejections if they do not have great fit with a department.

Say that you have a few options on the table and are still deciding. They may ask for specifics and it’s up to you to provide those answers or not. If the faculty members are genuine they may provide honest feedback about some of the other schools you are looking at. If that happens be sure to take their advice to heart, but keep in mind that they are still trying to sell you on their program. ALSO, just wanted to point out that many places in the Midwest (outside of Chicago) have extremely low COL, do the lower stipend may actually turn out to be more then a higher stupiden in the coasts. With that being said, I agree that you should only try and get more money if you’re prepared to accept their new offer right as they make it. I don’t think it’s a good idea to go through that process unless you are sure you’d accept their new higher offer.

Hey all, just wanted to urge everyone who’s made their decisions for next year to post in the results discussion/thread! it’s a great resource to share the knowledge that you’ve accumulated with next years cohort!

Simple answer: No. It isn’t about where you go to undergrad, it’s what you do while you’re there.

I would strongly advise you to take the Minnesota acceptance. I have two reasons for saying this. the first one is that you should avoid debt at all costs. Academic careers do not pay enough to warrant the massive debt that a Chicago degree would bring. I’m not sure how much debt you have from undergrad but let me tell you that event 20k is crippling and will prevent you from doing a lot of things when you want to (house, car, vacation). Avoid it at all costs. The second reason I’m advising Minnesota is that grad school admissions, especially PhD admissions, is an absolute shit show. There is zero guarantee that you would be able to get into a school of similar rank and prestige as Minnesota next time, much less a better program. Often times in grad admissions there are factors at play that applicants have no control over. Things that change from year to year. As a PhD is your ultimate goal I would strongly urge you to accept the offer you have now, instead of taking the huge gamble of trying again next time.

That’s what I keep telling myself. Also, the financial impact of keeping a school closed for an additional semester would be monumental and Something that I’m sure most schools would want to avoid. But ya know, the fear is there!

HAHA same. My work is enforcing a work from home policy for the next two weeks. Super surreal. i think my worst case scenario (besides like dying from it) is that the school closures will spill over into the fall semester and I won’t be able to attend grad school in August.

Okay so debt is super scary. I've been lucky enough to have about half the national average of undergrad debt in the US, but it's still alot and does concern me. I'll be paying off my debt for a good 10-15 years after i graduate. It has prevented me from doing many things, and i imagine it will prevent me from doing other stuff once i graduate (house, vacation, investments). If you plan to pursue a PhD or go into academia after your degree i can only say that this applies even more. Academic jobs generally do not pay enough to warrant additional significant debt. While i do not know your personal financial situation, i can only advise to go the rout of least debt. Future you will be thankful.

TBH, and i have literally no experience or extended knowledge of the Canadian academic system, but it seems that McGill and UT are both one of the big three, so i'm not sure there is really a substantial difference. Again, i have very little knowledge of the Canadian system so i may be very wrong, but that's just my take. What i do know about though, is that you should try not to acquire debt during grad school. Especially if you are a planning a career in academia after, debt is a killer and will follow you everywhere and prevent you from living life. So i would strongly recommend attending the school that will leave you with the least amount of debt.

Are either of them funded? If not, which school would you take out the least amount of debt with?

Who gave you the most financial aid? Honestly that is the most important factor when looking at an MA degree, especially in policy where the earning potential of an MD or JD generally aren’t there.

While I do disagree on a few placements, I do generally agree with the overall structure and placement of your rankings. I definitely think that the tier system is far more important then specific numbers, and often times us, as applicants, place waaaaaaaay to much significance on a single number. I appreciate the visual that you created to help push that through.

Honestly, unless you are applying to like Rochester or NYU or another math heavy program, I think stats and methods (R/STATA) is really all that matters. Sure going further into math might show that you really know your stuff, but unless you actually enjoy it and are sure that you'll do well in those classes i don't really see a point. Be sure to mention both your stats course and your methods training in your SOP, and if possible incorporate methods into your writing sample. Like what was said above, at the end of the day programs are going to either care about the GRE score or they aren't. At the end of the day it is just one facet of your profile. Rightly or wrongly (in my opinion wrongly) some programs use the GRE as a filter for applicants, so i'd just recommend you avoid those programs. If you have an otherwise outstanding profile i see no reason why you shouldn't get accepted anywhere that you apply (within reason).

Definitely not the norm. In my experience with grad administrators, they’ve all been amazing. This is from experience at schools that I’ve been both admitted and rejected from. while I obviously don’t know the specific school or specific situation, I’d only say that while it’s great and make your life hella easier to have a responsive and caring person In that position, ultimately it’s the professors that make or break a program.

If you can improve your score then Of course you should. However that isn’t always possible due to a variety of factors (I personally know that, 147q here). But having a low quant score isn’t the end of the world. Do you have classroom experience in stats or methods? Know R or STATA? If you do then I think your low quant score can be mitigated by mentioning those skills/experiences in your SOP. Now I won’t lie and say you can apply everywhere, there are schools that will definitely throw out your application without even looking at it due to your score. Those are schools that regularly get 200/300+ applicants so they need an efficient way to quickly judge every applicant and unfortunately GRE is the preferred method. But of course you can still succeed with that q score, assuming you have an otherwise impressive profile. I was accepted into one of my top choices and I know that others have been accepted into their top ones and even some top 20 with those scores. So it is possible, but it does make it less likely.

From what i understand (and please take this with a grain of salt), Public Policy PhD's are viewed better in industry, but not necessarily in academia. From what I've seen it seems like your statement about them being second tier does hold some truth to it. For example, if a Public Policy PhD and a Political Science PhD apply for the same position within a political science department, all other factors equal, the political science PhD will get the job. I would assume the same goes for econ departments. With that line of thinking it would figure that public policy PhD's would work in public policy departments, but from what I've seen online that isn't always the case. Those types of programs often want professors with real world experience, EX: Ambassadors, congressman, policy makers. People who can teach their students about the industry world and have the experience and technical know-how to back it up. Essentially, they seem to value different things then what other more academic oriented departments/schools generally do.

I agree with this. Also know that often times there are various subfield divisions within IR that departments create. For example, a department may have political economy as a subfield of IR, along with institutions or conflict studies. But i agree that you should be looking for strong political economy faculty and reach out to them and ask if their program is well suited to your interests. ALSO, just want to point out that public policy PhD programs are a whole other ball game from political science. They often times require an MA and i believe many of them except some level of field work.

I think University of Washington did. I believe they shut down the entire campus

Oh i was looking at USNEWS. TBH NRC is kind of useless. They last came out in 2010 from data acquired in like 2006-2007. While i do like how they actually use outcome and satisfaction, it is way too old and infrequent to be accurate at this point. USNEWS places IU at 29 and UCI at 45. While USNEWS has major flaws, it is the most recent ranking published and the most commonly used. But i do agree that you should follow your heart and head and go where you will be the most successful.

IMO, the rankings are super arbitrary and a specific number doesn't hold any significance. I'd say that the groupings are as follows. Tier 1: CHYMPS Tier 2: 7-20 Tier 3: 20-50 Tier 4: 50-65 Tier 5: 65+ Obviously there are anomalies and schools which should be ranked higher/lower then they are, this is just a massive over generalization. But it is how i view the ranking systems and i totally understand that other people view it differently. I based it mostly off placement, which sucks everywhere, but seems to generally be the same among similarly tiered schools. Feel free to disagree with me, it's just how i view them. With that being said, i would put UCI and IU in the same general tier. Meaning if a student felt strongly about fit or personal success at one school over the other, i'd recommend they follow their heart.

I'd say that you should go with the UCI option. TBH i think specific rank doesn't really matter as much as grouping, and i'd personally put UCI and IU in the same general grouping of 20-50 ranked schools. Ultimately though you should check with the UCI placement and look if you can see yourself happy in the types of jobs that their graduates generally get.

PROFILE: Type of Undergrad Institution: Big state school Major(s)/Minor(s): IR Undergrad GPA: 3.6 Type of Grad: N/A Grad GPA: N/A GRE: 162v/147q/4.5aw Any Special Courses: Two methods courses, one on R and the other on STATA Letters of Recommendation: One from my undergrad mentor, who also supervised my senior honors thesis and was the director of an on-campus research institute. One from a professor who taught me various IR courses. One from a professor that taught me language and led my study abroad/field research experience. Research Experience: One summer field research experience, a junior level research one semester research project, a senior honors thesis. Teaching Experience: N/A Subfield/Research Interests: Other: I also presented at three research conferences hosted by my university. They were for undergrads within the school, but it did give me presentation experience. Results: 3a/1w/2r/0p Cycle RESULTS: Acceptances ($$ or no $$): CU Boulder ($$), UConn ($$), Kansas (waitlisted for $$) Waitlists: Kentucky Rejections: Penn State, UMass Amherst Pending: Going to: CU Boulder SOP: First section talked about my motivation for entering grad school, as well as the research question I had and wanted to pursue within grad school. Second section talked about how I prepared for grad school. So I went through my relevant undergrad courses and research experience. Third section was the "fit" section. I went in depth as to why I wanted to attend the specific school, discussing at least two faculty members that I was interested in working with. Lessons Learned/Advice: Start the whole application process early. Start looking at schools, professors, and research topics well before you have to submit the applications. Secure your LOR writers early on as well, as sometimes those can fall through and you need time to pick up another one. Get out of the undergrad mindset when selecting schools. By this I mean you have to look at the department and faculty, not the school itself. Sure a school may be prestiges for undergrad, or well known in various STEM or Humanities fields, but that isn't what you're going to school for. Get out of the whole mindset that dominates undergrads and undergrad admissions. Find at least two professors at a given school that you want to work with. This is both for the admissions and the subsequent years spent there. For admissions, they are more likely to admit you if you show a strong fit with the department, and that is better demonstrated by having more then one POI on staff. But this is also important for when the program actually starts. You don't want to be in your 2nd or 3rd year and your POI leaves and you have no one to work with. I've seen that happen, and it sucks because the student then has to go through this entire hellish experience all over again. Take quality of life into account when selecting where to apply. I think this factor is usually ignored or put on the back burner for many students as they are most looking at rank. But quality of life is one of the most important things in determining your ultimate success in grad school. If you are someone who hates winter, don't apply to any New England schools, if you are someone who loves four seasons, don't apply to U of F. If you are unhappy in your environment then you will less successful in graduate School. It is already a SUPER stressful time in your life. you don't want to increase that by being unhappy about where you are living. Placement matters more than ranking. I know that this is a bit controversial, but I firmly believe that it is the placement that matters way more then the rankings. I think the most important thing is to take a look at the recent placement and think if you'd be happy there or not. Where do their students end up? R1's? R2's? LAC? Industry? all of this is important and you have determine if it is where you can see yourself and where you would be happy. NOTE: often times schools will get one or two big flashy placements, those are most likely outliers. Make sure you look at where most people end up as that is far more likely. I think we as applicants place WAY too much emphasis on GRE. That is mainly because it is one of the two things that we can really compare to each other and one of the major things that shows up in the results page. While the GRE is a factor in admissions, I think it is definitely loosing its importance. We shouldn't see it as the end-all be-all of applications. Second cycles are okay. I know it sucks not getting in anywhere, but doing it again is totally okay and does work out! Apply to a wide rang of schools. PhD applications are a total and complete crapshoot. You don't know who will like your profile, or who will be on sabbatical or who will be looking to take on more students. All you can do is shoot your shot. So sure, apply to that top 20 school, or even the top 10 school, because who knows? I would also like to say that generally speaking applying to only top 10 or top 20 is ill-advised. Sure you may think you have an excellent profile, but you never know what they really are looking for. Applying to schools from every bracket is a much better idea and a safer bet. I want to reiterate that the application process makes absolutely no sense. As you can see from my profile I was admitted to a top 40 which generally has an acceptance of around 15-20 percent, while I was either waitlisted/waitlisted for funding/straight out rejected from lower ranked/less competitive schools. I honestly have no idea why the cycle played out the way it did for me. I doubt I would be able to replicate it if I tried. This website has been a great source for me and I would love to give back some of the knowledge that I have. Please feel free to slide into my DM's if you have any questions about anything I've posted.