Theory007

Oh no problem. Wait so professors have told you it might be a good idea to inquire the admission committee and ask if they are doing interviews this year? The reason why I advice against it is 1. that it is so early in the process, and 2. because Adcoms are processing hundreds of applications and are therefore incredibly busy. It is hard for me to see why someone would encourage you to contact them. I know what it is like to refresh my email every 5 seconds to see if there is an update but the best thing you can do is - in my experience - to stay busy and try to focus on other things. One exception is if you have a notable update to your application - such as new grades, an accepted journal article, an award, or something like that. Or maybe if you haven't heard anything after results have been released it may be worth it to get in touch. Otherwise I would not. I do have to say that it looks like you have applied to a good mix of schools so I am sure it will go well for you. Good luck @DanTheGrad!

I would just wait. The application season is very long and this early not a single program has released decisions - most programs are not even in session yet. So sit tight and wait even though it's hard.

If it is genuine it may be advisor specific. I would not worry if you don't get an invite.

It's way too early to hear back. In previous years, only a couple of programs have released results in late January. But there is variation fro year to year so by mid-February (I think) there should be a bunch of decisions out from a bunch of programs.

Actually, I am beginning to think there is no point in me posting here further. Respond with a yes or upvote if I should leave the forum and I will.

Yes I believe you should provide the evidence because you are the one presenting an extraordinary claim. The GRE has been the standard for grad admissions since the 1930s (I believe) so whether you like it or not it is on you to prove that everyone was wrong all these years. This is why I don't think I need to present any evidence but you do. Why does it matter that several people seems to disagree with me? Why don't you engage with the perfectly coherent response I gave to PolPsychGal11? It is so easy to attack me or claim that I am wrong because several of you disagree with me. I have absolutely never ever said that there was a causal link between the GRE score and grad school success. Never. I have said that there is a correlation between a high GRE score and grad school success and there is absolutely no doubt about that. I'm not trying to rile you up further but if you disagree with this you should re-think what it means for something to be correlated (in a technical sense). I say this not in a mean-spirited way but because I think it may clarify what I do and do not think. You don't know me, and I am actually not the type of person you describe. You may have guessed that I study political theory so to me it is all about the argument. I am fully open to anything someone else might say and my general attitude is to solicit different opinions in order to accurately hone my own. But you have made your mind up about me have you not? You still don't know me but it might please you to know that I have a great working relationship with people in my department. We are all direct with one another in an intense and rewarding environment. You are right that I am not co-authoring (and not interested in it either) but just got my second sole-authored publication out, which I am clearly very happy about. Yep I was on the committee last year and will be on it again this year. What has your experience been like? You strike me as mad and I just cannot understand why it is so upsetting that someone disagrees with you about the GREs and grad school success? I hope one day you will see the value in disagreement and how being confronted with people who disagree with you actually helps you - especially in academia! I am not attacking you, making assumptions about you, or trying to denigrate you in any way. But throughout this entire conversation with you and others, the main thing I have noticed is that I try to have a respectful back-and-forth while people like you are quick to be mean-spirited, resort to personal attacks and disparage someone with a different opinion. I just find it curious that it is like this and that people simply cannot stick to the topic and present coherent thoughts. If I disagree with you, it must be because I am a terrible person. I am not simply wrong in your eyes - I am a bad person too. To me this is just a discussion about a topic I find important and interesting. I do not have any other intentions and as far as I know you are great! I have presented my views in considerable detail in previous posts. How about - in the spirit of having a good conversation about this - you tell me what I am wrong about? I am actually genuinely interested to know - especially because no one has disputed anything I have said. Now give me that downvote.

I'm okay with downvotes but if you disagree with what I say why don't you join the conversation and let me know why? I have not been disrespectful in any way but simply relayed some kind of argument in response to what someone else said earlier.

Since you say you are responding to what I said, please allow me to respond. All I ever said was the following: 1. The GRE is a predictor of success in graduate school 2. If people disagree with this claim they have to present evidence against it 3. The supposed evidence presented in the one post I responded to did not constitute evidence And then the conversation turned nasty. Now, one thing I did not say a word about is how adcoms actually admit students - because it is an entirely separate question. I clearly have no idea what goes on in the minds of people who admit and deny students, and I never claimed that I did. All I said was that higher GRE scores correlate with better performance in graduate school and this still seems very hard to deny. Consider the admission statistics for UCSD (and virtually every outstanding program will show something similar): https://polisci.ucsd.edu/grad/prospective-students/admissions-statistics.html It's clearly a top-program that admits students with very high GRE scores. How can this be? Either 1. All applicants have high GRE scores such that students are surely not admitted because of their GRE scores. Or 2. The admission committee selects students on the basis of high GRE scores. Or 3. The admission committee selects whoever is deemed most capable or better suited for the department. It's clear that 1 is false; there is a ton of variability in GRE scores and clearly not everyone can be in the 90th percentile of the verbal portion of the test for example. I think 2 is probably true for some programs. It is at least true that there are some places that use the GRE to distinguish between otherwise similar candidates. 3 is - in my view - most likely to be true. Adcoms select the overall best students (most likely to succeed) and they happen to have higher GRE scores on average. And this is my point: GRE scores correlate with performance. At the very least one cannot deny that higher GRE scores correlate with a higher probability of admission to top program. That is what these admission stats show. Now, @PolPsychGal11 you say both of the following In effect, it sounds like you are saying that when it is hard to evaluate a candidate's credentials, adcoms do in fact look at and take the GRE seriously. But if the GRE does not predict success (per your first statement above) why would anyone consider the GREs at all? i.e. how would it help to discriminate among certain international applicants? It sounds to me as if you think that the GRE does in fact correlate with success in grad school (or at least that adcoms do consider GRE scores) but when students can demonstrate their potential in other ways, adcoms tend to look at those other things. Or am I getting something wrong? Either way, this is exactly my point: GRE scores do correlate with grad school success, which is why you and I agree that @sbidyanta should keep his/her hopes up! Just to be clear: do not mean any of what I say above in a combative manner. I am simply very interested in this stuff.

Hi @ShowroomDummy! I'd say that you need enough research experience to write and submit a decent writing-sample for your application. At the end of the day, programs look for students able to produce research - or students who has potential to produce great research once they enter the program, and the way to demonstrate that you're that student is through your writing sample. But in the US, most undergraduates do not have formal research experience in the form of research assistantships, but do get some research experience through the projects and final papers they do for their upper-level coursework. Some students do write a senior thesis in college and are technically supervised but this consists in writing and submitting drafts and receive comments from their professors. This counts as research experience of course but I doubt how valuable it is. I do think motivated students can produce good enough research by themselves in college for it to turn into a writing-sample that will help you get admitted to a program. In short, research experience per se is not super important in my view - a good writing sample, which is doable without formal research experience, is. Do you mind sharing what you submitted for your writing-sample with your applications? If you're doing your MA thesis now, my guess is that you submitted something you had written for your of your courses for your MA studies. Either way good luck! It sounds like you have applied to a reasonable range of programs, which really is a good thing. From following this forum for years, I have noticed that many students are unsuccessful with their applications because they only apply to top-10 programs or programs that are extremely competitive. So I would bet that you have set yourself up well with your applications.

I said that I was not trying to "control the conversation" - I still don't understand what you mean by this. Maybe you think it is incumbent upon me to answer whatever, but I think it is more important to not occupy the conversation and let others use this thread. @LatinAmericanFootball asked a specific question and I am happy to answer but clearly I have no obligation to answer publicly. Why not answer it publicly? Because I still don't think I am the one who needs to present evidence for my position. The burden of proof is on those who present a staggering claim and that is not me. Besides, me posting again will fuel the apparent rage you have towards me and my objective is not to escalate the situation. I want this to be a site for everyone and not stuff like this. As an alternative you can start a new thread on the topic (I will not split my own) and we can engage there. But this thread is for aspiring phd students in political science and meant to offer support to anyone who needs it. I have not called anyone in particular cheaters but suggested that the GRE taken at home does not live up to the same standards as an on-site test. And it does not. I say this not to make anyone unhappy but because I am trying to explain why many schools have decided to make it optional. And yes, I can disagree with anecdotal "evidence" - some person saying something about something - because it is not particularly relevant what a select individual believes about anything. Despite what you think, I am free to dismiss claims that the GRE does not measure ability. You seem to think that the study you cited is slam-dunk evidence that the GRE does not in fact correlate with ability, but anyone who reads that study can see that it is not. Did you read it at all - I'm still curious about this? I have not deliberately raised the temperature of this conversation or made snide comments. I have said - maybe in a direct manner - what I thought about the astonishing claim that the GRE does not predict performance. Clearly I am free to say this without reservation. Remember that I responded to the claim that the GRE does not predict performance. You may think I would be on the receiving end of criticism by "academic and graduate students'" denouncement, but why would I? I am simply pointing out that the evidence you presented fell short - and there is no doubt about it. Yes I have dismissed alternative points of view because there is no evidence for these views. I am not for or against either. All I am saying is that the evidence you happened to present fell short. And I did agree with at least one way in which the GRE is unfair to underrepresented students - and I still believe this. You seem to think that I have other motivations like being concerned about who will get admitted, that I am not genuinely curious, that I am narrow minded, that others' performance on the GRE will undermine my own, or that I am saying what I am saying "because the GRE worked for me". You can make up any story that you want - and you have made up plenty already - but it does not change the fact that the article you presented as indisputable evidence does not say the thing you thought it did. Everything I said about that article still stands. You have not attempted to dispute this but instead spent your time acting offended. Please take me face value when I say that I am simply interested in responding to a specific claim and nothing else lays behind this interest. I have no doubt that the conversation will continue and that is fine. But the conversation we're having right here is not productive and - again - I want to leave room for others in this forum. I cannot figure you out. You're mad at my tone it seems - even though I did not personally attack anyone and simply stated what I believed to be factual. And you're unnecessarily angry about the fact that I disagree with you and presented precise reasons why the purported "evidence" you cited was no good. I am not sure why you are so offended, but it seems to me that you are trying to escalate the situation here and that you now resort to personal attacks. If you have the interest of the members of this site - as I do - then let me appeal to you for the third time and suggest that we end this conversation here. Continuing this conversation does not serve anyone. Notice that I am not trying to escalate the situation, not making up stories about you, and not resorting to personal attacks. I simply happen to disagree with you and can - I believe - back it up. I don't understand why that's so upsetting to you but again let's end it here. As an alternative you can continue your attacks in my DM - but let's de-clutter this thread and let others post their questions, concerns, and later victories and celebrations when they get admitted. Deal?

I honestly have no idea what you mean by this - I am not tying to control any conversation, but I do have an interest in not occupying the thread with this stuff so others can use it as intended. Let's please be done with this. I'll DM @LatinAmericanFootball if he is still interested in an answer but will not otherwise partake in this further.

All I ever argued is that the GRE is still a relevant factor in current admissions and I asked how the GRE was culturally biased and undermined diversity. You can say that whatever I said is being dismissive and painting with a broad brush, but this is still not a legitimate critique given what I actually said (I don't want to repeat this for the third time here). Well I replied - just now - to two of the three comments in response to what I said - I'll get to the last one and I'll easily lay out there references. You may think that I am taking an odd tone on this topic, but why would it matter that I am getting pushback? I actually don't understand this? Should I give in simply because people disagree with me? Regarding the tone, remember that I am merely responding to your accusation that I am taking a glib view when I am obviously not. I am trying to have a conversation about stuff and it is fine - I think - to be direct. And I did not launch accusations your way but responded to what you said. The references you posted still do not support your point. I don't think when people claim that the GRE is biased that I am the one obligated to defend the opposite position. You have to show the evidence for the astonishing idea that it is biased or not correlated with ability. And your evidence does not hold to to scrutiny. I explain in detail why. I don't know why this is so upsetting to you. No I did not read your profile and this seems to have offended you lol. I was under the impression that people posting in this thread were people applying in the current year to political science programs. So I made a huge mistake there. But since you are in a grad program, my point about B-grades and ultimately how the article does not go against the view that the GRE correlates with ability should be clear to you. Is it not? And I still think that when people post "evidence" for something that clearly does not support their position, then it is fair to assume that they either did not read or understand what they presented. Be honest - did you in fact read the article or did you skim the abstract? I'm guessing the latter. Either way - this is derailing this thread and I suggest that we end our discussion here so people can use this space more productively. The admission process to political science programs continues to be grueling, and I - like many others - are here to help and support the best we can.

If you revisit my original post you will notice that I did not make a blanket statement, but said that some students who do well on the GRE do not succeed in their grad programs and some students who do poorly do succeed. But this does not take away from the general trend that higher GRE scores leads to better grad program performance on average. I looked up the articles you mentioned and there are numerous problems with the first study at least (which is the only one I looked at in more detail). 1. I don't want to go into detail, but using very unsophisticated methods the authors find only partial support only for the hypothesis you put forward. 2. Besides the authors are trying to tease out how a particular GRE cutoff affects different students and finds that since underrepresented students tend to pass the third statistics course at the same rate of students with higher GREQ scores, that the implementation of a GREQ cutoff is barring such underrepresented students who would otherwise have passed that course (with a B). As you will learn if you enter a graduate program, B is a passing grade in a graduate course but there is much institutional pressure to give students passing grades. Everyone will get at leas a B except if it is completely indisputable that a student will not be able to complete the program. See on page 214: "Of note, all students who fully matriculated from all GRE-Q score groupings passed the statistics courses with a 3.0 (B) or better.". Lol, everyone in the sample got a B or better. Also note that this does not in any way contradict the fact that students with higher GREQ scores do better. Indeed, students with higher GREQ did better in the mentioned statistics course, i.e. were more likely to get As, and therefore GRE scores do predict performance in terms of grades at least. There really are more things I could say, but at best the study is not inconsistent with what I said earlier. I would also generally advice against the practice of linking to articles that you either have not read, do not understand, or have not thought about enough to see if they support your point. Indeed, I could also post a bunch of articles below that find the opposite, but it is not - IMO - particularly useful for anyone. Again, all I am saying is that the GRE correlates with ability, and there is - just like IQ tests predict intelligence - no doubt about it as far as I can tell.

I'm willing to accept this. It certainly is unfair that students with more financial leverage can take the exam several times and those without cannot. But this is not really a fault of the test but that people do not have the same access to it (which is still a problem). It does not constitute evidence that you can cite a professor or two who says this. There is absolutely no doubt that higher scores on the GRE correlate with ability. Again, it may not be a perfect measure, but the GRE together with other elements of the application gives a pretty good picture of the student. Explain to me how the test is culturally biased. Is it that questions are asked in a way that is easier to understand for certain groups of people? You must be implying that the test does not really measure the potential of students such that those who the test is biased against actually do better than the biased test predicts when then go to graduate school. But there is no evidence of this; the GRE predicts extremely well how students do in their grad programs so it's hard to see how it could be culturally biased. Students with low score do worse than students with high scores. I am still not saying that the GRE is the only thing that matters. I'm only saying that it predicts performance and it does.

How is the GRE biased and undermines diversity? I'm genuinely curious. The GRE measures ability (or correlates with it) and there is tons of evidence for this. Sure some people do well in graduate programs with a low score but GRE and some people with high GRE scores do poorly. But on the whole it predicts performance.

Despite the GRE being optional, I'm sure it matters as much as always. Adcoms will sometimes look at 10-15 virtually identical candidates (but this year probably more!) but one with a strong GRE score will signal that he or she really is outstanding - proven under controlled conditions. I do not think however that GRE tests taken at home - during the pandemic - count for anything. This was probably the real reason that they made the GRE optional because anyone who took the test over the past two years could have cheated and probably did. But a test taken before the pandemic is still very valuable. Few people will submit such one and if you did well I think it will count strongly in your favor.

If you are serious about going to graduate school, I will very highly recommend that you apply to at least a handful of schools. I'm sure you can find more than just a single one that offers what you're looking for.

I know it is expensive to apply but before using any codes I'd check with the department/university to make sure it is okay. Usually these codes are meant for lower income students to remove their barriers to apply. For other students it is fair pay the fees since each department spends a lot of resources on reviewing applications. So it would be wrong to use the codes if you can pay (according to the standards stipulated by the university) and it would not surprise me if adcoms simply discarded applications that had used codes disingenuously.

Are you applying again this year or did you go to MIT?

Welcome everyone to the 2021-2022 application thread for political science! Discuss the application process, ask questions, post results when they come out, and anything else related to admissions this year. Good luck to you all!

Hi! You have one really great thing going for you - your work with that Duke professor is extremely valuable. It helps you narrow down your research interests, which is essential for your SoP and writing sample. If you get a recommendation out of it then that is even better and should you guys end up co-publish that paper then you'll be in seriously great shape and be, I think, a contender for the best phd programs in the US. If I was you I would pull then professor aside and ask him/her to ask if they think you may be suited for a phd program in political science. Undoubtedly they will be able to answer that and at some point you might float the idea of you joining Duke and becoming their student. See what they say. EVERY other aspect of your application would have to be excellent; SoP, writing sample, and very importantly your GREs. I would really set some time aside to work on the GREs - if you can get a great score soon that is great. If not I would for sure wait until next year and then apply. And forget MA programs if you're coming to the US - if you do it right you will get into a great phd program. I am not saying it is easy (at all) but I think you will be able to do it if you get 90th+ percentile in both sections on the GRE and write an excellent SoP at least. Hope that helps. Remember to heart /upvote if this is useful

Hi! First of all it is not strictly necessary that you have a degree in political science to receive admission to a phd program in it. Often it's necessary to have a social science degree though although people with strong quant skills from other fields (like physics) seem to have a good chance. I think if you can put together a good application, a strong political science writing sample, and an excellent SoP where you both outline the pertinent debates and explain how you would contribute to it, you may have a chance without doing either of the things you suggest. For someone like you, very high GRE scores will be needed I think, but that is totally possible if you devote enough time to study for it. If you are just getting into political science, I would pursue option 3. You are almost certainly not going to be able to make the kind of relationships to matter for phd admissions and I am not sure Harvard Extension courses will help you much. As an alternative, you can go for low ranked phd program and leave with an MA after two years and apply to more competitive programs. Or the lower ranked program may be a good fit for you in which case I would just stay and complete my degree there. You can also apply directly to MA programs. I don't think you need to go anywhere spectacular, as long as you end up with a degree that helps you refine your interests and produce a good writing sample, you should be in good shape in my view. Good luck!

Good luck, seriously. I'll be rooting for you. Phd applications really are a crapshoot. I have over time become more and more convinced that the added value of going to a top program is not huge. People get hired based on the research they do, regardless of the school they come from. What matters more is the advisor you get and a terrible advisor in a great program may not be able to do as much for you as a great advisor in a lower-ranked program. That's why everyone always emphasizes the fit between you and the program and between you and your prospective advisor - and they are right in doing so. SO the benefit of a top program is not as great as one may think, but the probability of getting into one is for most people very low. Just my five cents.

You will not like what I have to say. You went through an application cycle and received no acceptances - OSU without funding does not count in my opinion. Am I right to assume that you have the exact same profile as last year except that you enrolled in an MA program? Did you go to Chicago? Unfortunately it is well known that those MA programs do not do much for your phd chances. Except if they help you refine your research interests or come up with a better writing sample (which is not your situation) they will not make much of a difference. I admit that there is a chance that you were rejected from phd programs due to a lesser quant background and maybe your MA prep in that area will help you. But it is uncertain. A C+ in a sophomore quant course will always stand out to adcoms and is a huge red flag. If I was you I would: 1. Introspect and really try to figure out what was missing in your application the first round. Likely your writing sample, LORs, or SoP were lacking. So go back to those and work on them non-stop until December. These are the areas you should try to improve in. 2. Apply broadly in the top-50. You will be competing with the best of the best in the top-10 and even if you had a perfect profile chance of admittance there would still be slim. There are many great programs in the top-50 - begin looking now. 3. Consider eliminating strongly quant-oriented programs. I know this is not good news, but it would be devastating (?) to receive only rejections this year also. I do think you'll be able to enter a good program if you follow my advice. Good luck.

I think these are great stats - maybe a higher verbal score would have served you well, but I think adcoms will take account of the fact that English in not your first language so maybe it will not be much of a disadvantage. And the rest of your profile looks good too. You have a chance at a top-10 school, but let me urge you to apply widely. Even for someone with your profile chances are slim at a top 10 department. So apply to schools anywhere in the top-30 and I think you would have a good chance getting in somewhere. Everyone wants a top-10 spot, but many of those places accept only something like 5% of those who apply. And often it is the same few people who get into Harvard, Yale, Princeton, etc. so I would be very conservative and also apply to great school you might have a higher chance at. In short; the competition is stiff for anyone and if you confine yourself to only top-10 schools chances are that you will not get in anywhere. Hope this helps! I wish you the best of luck!