Jump to content

catchermiscount

Members
  • Posts

    430
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Everything posted by catchermiscount

  1. Yeah! YOU DON'T DESERVE TO LIVE FOR COMMITTING SUCH A SIN, AND THERE IS NO WAY YOU CAN GET MORE TARGETED ANSWERS FROM PEOPLE INTERESTED IN YOUR FIELD! Seriously, you're going to be a great addition to the poliscijobrumors crowd -- this is right up their alley. In all seriousness, I didn't study very much -- maybe an hour a week? The math is hard to study for since it's just problem-solving and not really "math." The verbal...well, a lot of people study for it by making flashcards and whatnot. If English isn't your first language, then you can expect a little slack (though not too much!) on the verbal end. Good luck!
  2. When it comes to placement, the only truly honest source is a complete list of all placements, or at the very least a complete list of all placements in a given time span. "Selected placements" or "typical placements" don't tell the whole story. Know your goals for after the PhD and pick a school (or set of schools) that is best-suited to get you to your goal! Good luck.
  3. I am currently a graduate student at Rochester, and I think a lot of what's been said in this (brief) thread is relatively accurate. People that apply to (and thrive at) Rochester are those interested in taking methods and formal theory very seriously. As a result, the department has been able to forge a brand name that is quite distinct, which reduces uncertainty in the job market, thus helping with placement. Why so few applicants? For starters, due to the reasons listed above, a lot of students don't apply because they realize just what they'd be getting themselves into; thus there is a nice self-selection thing going on. Also, consider the applicant pool at Harvard or Yale or Stanford. A lot of the applicants are well-qualifed--more than they can accept, as per the rejection letters--but a lot of them have little business applying to a PhD program at a top 5 department. So why do they apply? Because of the name, they figure it's worth the $100 or so to fill out the application. Rochester probably has less of that going on, and even less than "peer" schools like WashU or the big publics in the midwest. The first of these reasons-- self-selection -- leads to another phenomenon: among those that are admitted here, more accept offers than at most other places. People that apply here -- that is, crazy people like yours truly! -- know what they're getting into and, moreover, WANT to get into it. And yes, we're small. My cohort numbers five. The overall feel is quite close as a result. And since I'm on the ol' soapbox, I will say that I feel that the substantive training is underrated here. At job talks or second year paper presentations or practice job talks, the questions aren't all about Greek letters most people don't care about. They're good questions aimed at getting deeper into substance. Very few people come here to become straight-up methodologists or straight-up formal theorists! OK, enough of the advertisement. It's late in the game, clearly, but should any questions arise regarding Rochester, don't hesitate to shoot me an IM. And to those that have applied, good luck!
  4. People seem to worry least about the analytical writing section, since many will be reading your writing sample as well. A very well written writing sample in hand is worth much more than the scores of two writing evaluators that admission committee members will never meet.
  5. It's difficult to speak to your specific circumstances, but it is entirely possible to get into a good program with some "colorful" features on your transcripts. With a well-written statement (and perhaps some tastefully-written addendum letter explaining how far you've come from the withdrawal days, etc.), good letters, and a degree from such a well-respected place, anything is possible. The quant score will hurt, and admissions committees typically include members from many subfields. So, while you are a theorist, it is possible that a person with strong formal or quantitative leanings will read and evaluate your file. People with worse scores have gotten into top programs, but it is something of a flag. So, your job in crafting a file is to highlight your strengths and have some unifying theme that helps to put a bow on those strengths. You have a lot of assets to counteract your liabilities -- so use them!
  6. Tend to agree with above. The non-company company line is that GRE scores are used only to pare the pile of applications to an acceptable size. Your scores should make the cut at most departments. On the specialty area question, bear in mind that many departments will utilize admissions committees with members from all subdisciplines. While they may take your area into account in evaluating your file, it remains that their overall tastes will be affected by their area and, in particular, methodological preferences. Still, you should be fine. Good luck getting your application materials together.
  7. Higher is preferred to lower, yes, but I hesitate to say that you'll "need" a top 10 department's credentials. While the exceptions should not disprove the rule, there are a lot of people from top 25 (or lower) departments with outstanding jobs -- see the Rutgers contingent at Michigan, for example. To answer the original poster's question, you'll probably want to start by looking at places like WashU (Hansel, so hot right now! HANSEL), Rochester, CalTech, and especially Stanford GSB given what you're looking at. The advantage of these places is that you get a lot of advanced/unique training from "in-house" faculty instead of having to head over to economics, business, biostatistics, etc. That said, at most political science departments, you'll have the ability to get high-end political science training and still have the flexibility to look around to other departments if you need to. So, finding a flexible curriculum might be the most important thing for you.
  8. I hope that my tongue-in-cheekishness was obvious. I just rattled off the boutiques. Look, nobody's going to convince you of otherwise, so the political science departments where you have the best shot of pulling off what you're referencing are as follows: Columbia -- very good qualitative IR theory people in Jervis et al and a very strong qualitative security person in Betts. Chicago -- Mearsheimer is Mearsheimer. Pape is Pape Glaser is leaving, which doesn't help matters. Though he's formal, Ethan BdM is becoming a highly respected terrorism guy. MIT -- Posner, Van Evera, Fravel, et al. Harvard -- though rumors are swirling about some of their leading qualitative security people, for what it's worth. Duke -- something on the Greico/Feaver end might be doable. George Washington -- That's where Glaser is going (to Elliott, I should mention). Georgetown -- always good security people around, and now is no different. The last two are less likely to fund PhD students than the average political science department; I believe Georgetown's website indicates the way that they distribute funding. Only a fraction of students are funded, let alone fully funded. But the people posting here mean well and are trying to give you some good, sound advice. You're doing yourself a disservice if you aren't thinking about Tufts, SAIS, Kennedy, Harris, Elliott, etc. Same goes for UToronto, LSE, or other well-respected non-American departments. The majority of American departments are going to shove some methods down your throat.
  9. Are you looking to do anything quantitative or formal? If you want policy, do policy. If you want political science (note the second word in the term "political science"), do political science. Think-tanks, on average, do not hire political scientists, nor do they perform "research" as we use the term on boards like these. Clearly, the best options for you are CalTech, Rochester, NYU, WashU, and, of course, Stanford's Graduate School of Business.
  10. Can't tell you it won't hurt with any given admission committee, and the stock answer for a lot of people such as yourself is "go get yourself a good master's degree, then apply to programs for your PhD after you've established yourself more in the field." That track certainly isn't a bad idea. However, it is entirely possible to earn admission directly to a PhD program given your situation (holding all other factors equal). I can only speak for myself (though I'm hesitant to do so). I didn't just withdraw from classes -- I flunked out of college once and withdrew out of another. Similar situation to yours, though I ended up with worse numbers. I was lucky enough to get into a program which, though it wasn't the best fit for me in the end, was very solid and where I was very happy. Having been through a similar situation (twice), my (unsolicited) advice is to ask political scientists you know what kind of questions the literature you're interested in is asking. It's way too easy for people to say "well, hell, nail the GRE and you're fine." You might not. But a well-crafted statement of purpose that has shown obvious homework in terms of where the discipline is will go far for somebody with your background. Mention this kind of thing. Also, mention what kinds of methodologies you hope to use to answer those questions. The more you can establish that you're aware of just what the hell political science is, the better off you'll be. Once you find out what it is, let me know -- I've been trying to figure that out for a while now. Good luck, and if you have further specific questions, don't hesitate to IM.
  11. This is devolving quickly. I have never sung karaoke in my life, nor have I ever heard the song "What a Wonderful World" or imbibed in the terrible plague on our society known as alcohol.
  12. Ha, yeah, the hospitality was excellent in Columbus. Send along my best to your informant ;-).
  13. Said a most grateful "no" to Penn State and Ohio State today. Good luck to all!
  14. For the especially bold among you, an additional tactic that has proven successful is meeting with professors at conferences. While email exchanges are great, there is nothing better than face-to-face contact and proving that you can discuss your ideas systematically and thoughtfully in a conversation rather than an email. The downside is cost. Often only members of various associations are allowed to attend, and getting to the darned thing can be a pain as well. But I think it can put you over the top if you're a candidate on the cusp. Do bear in mind that professors will not have much time to give. Check the tentative programs that you'll find on the conference websites and see when they're presenting. Send the introductory email, mention that you noticed that they're presenting, and send a feeler along the lines of "would you like to meet for coffee after your presentation?" I did this as APSA this year and met with, what, ten faculty members or so from about six schools. They also happened to be schools that I got into. I saw some presentations from faculty that made me decide NOT to apply to their university. I mean, it's just helpful to see how all this works. The upcoming APSA is in Toronto, so, if you do decide to engage in this kind of thing, you might want to make sure the passport is in working order.
  15. Undergrad Stuff Institution: Top 40 state engineering institution -- dropped out after a year -- GPA 1.8 Mid-sized Catholic midesetern university -- dropped out after a year and a half -- GPA 3.7 Poor directional southern state university -- graduated (!) -- GPA 4.0 Total GPA: 3.5 Major: Government Minor: English Grad Stuff Institution: Top 25 doctoral program -- transferring out due to some faculty issues. GPA: 3.9 Major: IR Minor: Methods GRE V: 700 Q: 800 AWA: 5.0 Research Interests International security, especially bargaining, victory, resolve, and rivalry; domestic politics in IR, especially leadership and resolve; and methods, especially scaling and creating better measures for the scientific study of IR. Miscellaneous Special classes: prob/stats, OLS, MLE, time series (ICPSR), simultaneous equations (ICPSR), formal theory, multidimensional scaling Skills: R, Stata, SAS, SPSS, LaTeX Teaching TA four semesters. Won departmental teaching award. Coursework toward certificate in collegeiate teaching Will TA at ICPSR this summer. Research RA one semester Results Accepted with funding: Illinois, Rochester, Ohio State, Wisconsin, Penn State, Rice Waitlisted: Emory, UNC Rejected: Michigan, Princeton, Yale, NYU, Duke, WUSTL, Chicago Going to: no idea yet What would I have done differently? I might have applied a bit more nationally -- I tried to stay within a reasonable different from home with a few exceptions, but I didn't consider, say, California schools. I was lucky in that I got into a few places not far from home, but, given the business, it's not a wise practice. I might also have been a bit less specific in my SoP -- I know that sounds strange, but since I was already a graduate student in a PhD program I wanted to show that I had really solidified what I want to study. Overall, though, I'm happy.
  16. I will second the fact that Lansing/East Lansing can be a fun place to live if done properly. I've been doing it for almost two years and I've been happy with it. In fact, if anybody is planning on coming to the area prior to the school year and is looking for summer housing options, drop me an IM.
  17. While NYU's department has always been solid, a lot of big names currently on the roster are relatively new hires. Bruce Bueno de Mesquita joined the faculty in 2002; Alastair Smith in 2003; Nathaniel Beck in 2004. I think I remember something to the effect of "we only just now started to get the grad program in gear again, so start looking at our placements in another 3 or 4 years when these new additions have had their hands on the grad students from start to finish" on the website, though I don't know if that's still there. The upward trajectory, though, is obvious, and recent placements have been good. But yeah, for formal IR, it's a tough place to beat.
  18. Princeton is a lot like Harvard. They have some young people doing quantitative/formal IR, but the brunt of their high-end security-type people are more qualitative in nature. There is a strong methods department as well. So you can make something work. Caltech and GSB are both outstanding places to study formal and quantitative methodologies. The obvious knock is that you won't get the substantive IR training that you might in regular political science departments. But Caltech and GSB people are outstanding, and they're great at placement as well. Chicago? This makes me scratch my head a bit. On the security end, there's Mearsheimer (qualitative), Pape (qualitative), and (for now maybe) Glaser from the Harris school. The department overall has adopted a very qualitative approach. The people they turn out are wonderful at what they do and razor sharp, but I wouldn't recommend it for scientific security. aTm is outstanding as well, and I immediately regretted not putting them on my original list. They stole Quan Li away from Penn State and already had Tarar, plus a lot of their investment in good assistants should be paying off soon.
  19. I second this. Also, you will want to get your liver in shape for grad school. It's about to get the hardest five years of its life. You don't want to end up like Yossarian, kiddies.
  20. Michigan has good formal IR people -- Morrow is one of the Ms in BdM2S2, and Stam has contributed a lot to the bargaining literature (see Smith and Stam 2003 for example). Rochester is the namesake of the Rochester school and has turned out good formal IR people in recent years; I won't bore you with the names but it's been a pretty good bunch. Emory is not as much of a formal IR place but has a good formal sequence (three in-house formal courses is good). So yeah, I'd still have them up there.
  21. I mean, yeah, the thing with Harvard is that it's full of smart people and the resources to do anything that they might choose to do. So you'd find good IR people, good formal theorists, good statisticians (I hear this King guy might have some potential), but not necessarily any "scientific IR" people in terms of security. Bas is well-trained but will be an assistant for some time. I would never tell somebody not to go to Harvard, but it remains that some places (admittedly with a lot of variance in their rankings) are more "scientific security" shops.
  22. I'll second tidefan. IR has really moved away from these kinds of problems toward a more general (and often stylized) kind of science. You have two options in terms of academic degrees: 1) Go comparative, as tidefan encouraged. I think this is likely the right answer; 2) Go IPE with a second focus in comparative. If you're more interested in the China thing, then this is a less appealing option. There are good China experts around. What I know is by no means exhaustive, but Lieberthal at Michigan is apparently quite good, as is Johnson at Harvard. You'd obviously get great IPE training at either of these departments as well. Mearsheimer at Chicago has been working on a US/China book for a while, but if certain things spring up in their department, you won't get the IPE training you'll want. If you're interested in more applied problems, you might want to look at policy schools instead. You'd be more likely to find US/China stuff there than in political science departments. I mean, don't try and figure out a more efficient way of lying in your SoP if what you really want is a job in the Department of State. Two reasons: first, academic employers after you get your degree at, say, Duke are not going to be wowed on tenure decision day that you've delved into these issues in places other than top journals or high-end university publishers. Second, the Department of State people won't be impressed that you're highly proficient in multinomial probit and understand its advantages in terms of addressing the IIA problem in multinomial logit. Given the lingo that you're throwing around and your highly valuable skills, policy schools are likely to view you as a very attractive candidate. So, the usual suspects...Tufts, Georgetown, SAIS, KSG, Harris, etc. Good luck!
  23. Bear in mind that there's a lot of correlation going on here. Good places do well across categories, and they cluster. If you're in one school that is clearly one cluster above the others (for example, Berkeley for the original poster), then I generally would advise to take the top cluster school. For comparing within clusters, I think it's important to examine some relative things and also some smaller issues that fall through the cracks when we look at departments more broadly: 1) Does the department place well relative to its rank? Some places overachieve, and others underachive. 2) Coauthoring. Don't just ask. They'll tell you there's a hearty culture of it. Go look it up. 3) Balance of TA/RA responsibilities. It's bad to only TA. It's bad to only RA. Ideally, you RA a little more than you TA, but you get to teach at least one class of your own. 4) Collegiality. Does the department have a uniting idea or method? If so, will you be able to expand yourself enough? If not, is there currently a methods war going on? Those are some of the things I'm thinking about, anyway.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. See our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use