Theory007

The short answer is that all of these schools are within your range. They are all good programs, but they seem to be well-suited to your interests, and identifying such a good range of schools is an accomplishment in itself. So good job on that. If you really published two papers during your undergrad then that is impressive and that really will make you stand out as a great candidate. Very few people have one publication out of their undergrad, and no one has two. In fact I'd recommend that you add a few top 10 programs to your list. You will have a chance with your current GRE scores, but if you want to go for a top-10 program try to get each section closer to 165 or so. You're not far from these already and don't worry about the AWA (no one cares). Also keep in mind that a lot of schools are not requiring the GRE for the next admission cycle so if you decide not to submit your GRE score to a top-10 program that might be okay. In that case, your two publications will carry even more weight, which is to your advantage. Your GPA is a bit low, but I dont think it falls below the threshold at any respectable university. I would be careful with submitting part of my undergrad thesis as your writing sample. Except if you believe it is truly outstanding you may be better off with one of the published papers. It just is rare that undergrad work is very good - although it does happen (I'm sure someone will correct me on this). I would begin working on my personal statement right now. It takes a lot of time; expect 15-20 iterations of it. There is some disagreement on if such statements must be catered to each program. I think it can only serve your advantage to do so but other candidates have had successful applications by sending out the same generic statement everywhere. There are few available examples of successful SOPs but the best, I think, contain very detailed information about what you are interested in researching, how it fits into the literature, etc. Anyway, hope that helps.

You'll need at least two courses in calculus (most people have three), a course in linear algebra, and as much statistics as possible. These are the absolute minimum requirements. Most successful applicants have real analysis also and differential equations. Without this you simply will not make it through the basic coursework - there really is no way around it.

I will of course not say that you have made a mistake in choosing Minnesota. If Minnesota outweighed Cornell in your mind that is all that matters. And no doubt, both are good programs. One thing I will say is that programs, in my experience, "act" in very different ways towards accepted applicants. I was in a program once where the visiting day was truly perfect; everyone were super friendly, professors engaging, and people spoke unanimously about how great the place was, etc. But once I got there it was very quickly clear that a lot of what the program had displayed itself to be was more surface than anything. Students were in actuality not supported well and it basically turned out not a great place to be for someone who wanted to be a political science professional. After the first year, a third of my cohort was gone and I think only about half the people stayed beyond the second year. The program I am in now is no doubt far more reputable. But there was barely any communication between myself and the university the summer before, and the visiting event was low key overall. The program however has turned out to be outstanding and everything I was hoping for when I began my grad applications way back. In my experience it looks like "weaker" programs (not saying that U. of Minnesota is weak of course) do what they can to retain the best of their application pool whereas stronger programs do not need to make as active an effort to appeal as well to the students who got first round offers. After all, if only few of them showed up they would likely still have a bunch of outstanding candidates to choose among for second round offers. Have others experienced something like this - stronger programs not making a great effort to appeal to accepted applicants? My point is that while I am sure Minnesota is a good choice for you, had I been in your shoes, knowing what I know now, I would be apprehensive about turning Cornell down. I would really look more at the more objective standards of the program instead of what I perceive the program to be (which really can be skewed), and think I think would have lent favor to Cornell. But I have no doubt that you will do very well in Minnesota.

I think you would have a chance at almost any program you would apply to. If you could increase your quantitative score on your GRE that would help even if we all agree this is less important for theory, which is the subfield I assume you are interested in. Based on your list of universities, I assume you are interested in Continental Though. And yes those programs are all within reach. You will almost certainly get into Boulder, which has scholars on contemporary gender mainly so if that is your thing that might be a good place for you. If you are not super interested in gender I really don't think political theory at CU Boulder has anything to offer. You might add UCLA to the list. I would also apply to 2-3 top programs since you will have an at least decent chance of getting in. One thing to keep in mind is that a writing sample on Nietzsche may make it look as if you are more interested in philosophy than political theory. If you are interested in continental thought broadly, and not contemporary work on race, gender, power, I think more mainstream programs would suit you better than at least some of those you have listed.

It will not do any harm to take the test now even if your score is low; you decide which of your tests to report to graduate programs. But I'd rather save half (?) the fee and take it when it was likely I would get a high score. If you are going to retake it in the future, and from what I understand this is likely, you would have to go to an actual test center and do it there. So I dont even think that taking the test now prepares you well for the second round if that makes sense. I don't think that 155+ should be your aim. 165+ is realistically what you need for a top 10 program.

Before I say anything I should make clear that it looks like very many programs will not be requiring the GREs this year. Apparently to take the GRE prospective students are now required to do them at home under a certain conditions, and since this dramatically increases the chance that the applicant cheats programs have simply decided not to rely on the GREs. It's not true for all programs, I presume, but for many it is. As a long-term member of this forum, I would definitely not take the GRE if I was you and expected that I'd do around 155+. I think the consensus is that most programs have minimum GRE thresholds of what is necessary to be seriously considered for admission. No one knows where that threshold is, and it undoubtedly depends on the program, but in general, I'd say that a V of 165+ and a Q of 163+ will make you competitive for any program. For reference, the average at UCSD was 165 & 164 last year but I'd highly doubt that I top program would even consider an applicant with scores below 160. What this means is that you would be better off taking some time off a study seriously for the GREs (especially since you are not applying right away). The preparation is stressful and the exam is tough, but everyone struggles with this and you can do it!

I wonder why he left UChicago. Cornell U is of course not bad, but it must take something extraordinary to leave the core faculty at UChicago

To specify further; letters of recommendation for US phd programs are letters that professors write on behalf of their current or former students. So the student and professor know each other and the professor is able to recommend the student by attesting to their academic performance/ability. So no US professor (and non-US professors as well I presume) will recommend you if they do not know you. You may still be recommended for admission to a program by an admissions committee, but an individual recommendation is a professor's positive assessment of you as capable to performing well in a phd program and become a scholar. Hope that clears it up.

I my opinion, and others may disagree, it might come across as smug. I do not doubt your abilities or accomplishments but even if you whatever you have looked at in MWG looks reasonable you really are in no position to judge if the courses will be easy for you or not. Besides, the adcoms have heard it all and it might not come as a surprise that everyone who applies to a given program have confidence they can and will do well in it. I'd explain to the adcoms why you never took intermediate economics courses (that really is a genuine question if you want to do an MPA) and then I would start now on my SOP, speak to recommenders, and prepare a writing sample if that is required. Even if you are smart and capable those other things are very important. I am sure that Harvard wants people who are academically capable, but another thing to keep in mind is it is looking for people who are unique and contribute to a stimulating environment. Very many people apply to Harvard and the like because of its name, and that does sounds like you to be honest, but adcoms will see through that immediately. So think hard about why you want to be a HKS and try to communicate that in the application.

American non-phd programs are not very competitive but the program HKS is probably more competitive than others although not more competitive than many phd programs. Your GRE score is great and your math background excellent and you will stand out for these reasons. You are right to think that adcoms will find it strange that you never took intermediate courses in economics for a program that requires (Im guessing) phd level coursework in economics, where the difficulty is x10 compared to the intermediate courses. I suppose it all depends on how competitive the program really is and how many applicants it takes; you have one obvious deficiency and many applicants will not have any. Either way, this is not a reason not to apply. You'll have a good chance of getting in so do apply. And you will also be competitive for many great phd programs (although it's always hard to get in), especially with those GRE scores. If you get into one of those you wont have to pay tuition and will probably also receive a stipend. So I'd apply to HKA is I was you and possibly a bunch of phd programs if I was you.

I don't know about MA programs, but I imagine that many do in fact offer evening classes and considerable flexibility (at some places part-time studies are possible). What I can say is that if you are proposing working and studying at the same time, a PhD program is not - in my opinion - feasible. The coursework alone will take all your time, and many programs have TA/RA requirements on top of that. In short, you will be crazy busy and it is literally unheard of that students have jobs (even part-time) on the side. That said, I would encourage you to pursue a phd degree if you are interested. Most are funded and will provide an adequate living stipend that is sufficient for most people. But know it is a full-time commitment where you have to put almost everything else to the side in the meantime.

I don't know if others have made this point, but if you are concerned about not having sufficient coursework in international/comparative politics then I think (with all due respect) that your concern is misplaced. Political science programs admit plenty of students without any background in political science (economics majors are common, and physics majors not unheard of). And even if you do not have any background in IR/CP I really do not think it will work against you. You may be slightly more competitive with an MA degree if it comes from a non-American top university; Sciences Po, Oxford, Cambridge are decent choices. I'd add London School of Economics to the list and even Seoul National University (I my experiences, both are responsible for the majority of foreign MA holders in Top/Near Top US Phd programs in political science). I really would not waste my time at a US MA program; they simply will not make you a more competitive applicant. They can perhaps help you for other reasons (maturity, growth, figuring out what your interests are) but they will not help you in phd admissions. Now, add to all this that you both have strong recommendations and a 4.0 GPA at Cornell. That makes you look very competitive as an applicant! I'd spend a lot of time on the GREs, writing sample, personal statement and make all these great by next December. If they are, you are in a strong position to gain admission to a top PHD program. Forget the MA program. Since I know it is coming, I should add there there are plenty of excellent programs outside the top-10 (there really are!) so figure out where you will fit better and let that guide which programs you apply to.

I think the consensus is that most programs have minimum GRE thresholds of what is necessary to be seriously considered for admission. It is usually also the case that a higher GRE score, even above the threshold, correlates with higher chances of admission. I do not know, and I suspect no one does, what percentage of applicants have both high V and Q scores. Typically, adcoms look for a higher verbal than quantitative score and I am almost certain that it is far more common for applicants to have higher verbal than quantitative scores (although there are some programs that emphasize the quantitative score - NYU and UCSD come to mind). In general, I'd say that a V of 165+ and a Q of 163+ will make one competitive for any program. Your scores are 4 points higher on both, which is what makes me think that your application will stand out no matter what.

Can you share more about your supposedly poor academic record? With your impressive GRE scores you will be - on that parameter alone - among the most competitive candidates in the pool. You will stand out and any program will think twice before rejecting you. Even if your undergraduate record is poor, you will likely still be a serious contender for any program ranked 15-20 and below. Of course, you would still have to provide a great writing sample, quality SOPs, and most of all communicate very clearly why you would be a good fit at the programs you would be applying to. The truth is that all adcoms know that MAPSS is a cash cow and I doubt it would actually improve your record. I suggest either 1. that you aim for a program in the top top 15-35. Depending on how "bad" your record actually is you would probably have a decent chance many places. of 2. that you attend an MA program somewhere other than MAPSS, which is incredibly expensive anyway. Why not either pursue a 1-2 year MA degree in Europe (preferably something like LSE) or even went to one of the other few international programs that would improve you chances of getting into an American phd. Or do an MA degree in polisci at any American program? The latter would require that you applied for the phd and then left after two years with the MA. If you choose the first option you would likely be able to do well, become a great political scientist, and have the career you would want. If you choose the second and did really well in your studies, all the same is true except I am sure a top 10 program would be within your reach. If you are looking at programs for theory (did you say that somewhere?), I may be able to provide some advise. Just PM me.

what program did you decide on if I may ask?

Well in these times schools may withdraw offers they have extended to you. So I would worry about that less than usual

Yeah I know of people who have heard back on exactly April 15th so hang in there. Good luck

As far as I know, if it is not a rule, then it is at least agreed among universities that their waitlists will all be resolved by April 15th. That is, the university will certainly let you know by April 15th if they have a place for you or not. If you want to be sure, why don't you contact the program where you are waitlisted and ask if they can guarantee that you hear from them by April 15th? I do not think it is rude to ask for an extension, but I wouldn't do it. I do not think they can offer it to you because they too want to sort out their own waitlist. There is another anxious person waiting out there to hear back from the school you are accepted to. And if you get an extension they will also get back to their waitlist at a later date, which makes it impossible to extend all their offers by April 15th.

You said you accepted CSU's offer right? You will be very happy in Fort Collins although I don't know anything about the program per se. Maybe you and @Dwar should stay in touch since the two departments literally have zero interaction with one another, are located only an hour away from one another, and are the only phd programs in political science in all of Colorado. I'll join in myself!

If you turned down other departments for the offer you thought you had, I would email and call them all right IMMEDIATELY. Be honest about what happened and let them know that you wish to attend a real department and not that piece of trash that rescinded their offer to you. I am sure people will understand and do what they can to help you.

Imagine how crazy next admission cycle will be

I agree that people will not be rejected once admitted. But I think there is a real chance that programs will ask students to postpone students' attendance for a semester or year. At least for persons who cannot enter the US. There are many reasons for this, but ultimately it is neither in the student's nor the program's interest to have students spend a year in a program virtually. Everyone is better off simply postponing for a year or semester. If things continue to be bad and extend through the summer, it would honestly surprise me if programs just continued with first year classes online as if nothing had happened. And it will take long before things clear up in the US; even if everything goes smoothly from now on there is literally no chance the US will be back to normal the next couple of months. It could be longer than this, easily. And when things return to normal, then the US will probably still exercise caution and maintain entrance restrictions until it is completely safe in the eyes of the authorities. I think I am optimistic when I say that it could take 3 months from now before all is back to the way it was. That is best-case-scenario and right on the verge of the time where people will be able to get their visas in time. Again I cannot imagine that anyone will be rejected once admitted, but I can imagine that certain significant adjustments will be made. If I were you, I would inquire my program about this; what is the plan? What will they do if all this extends through the summer?

It sounds from your question that you are asking what you should do in this situation. My advise is this. If you are or have been waitlisted at strong programs then I would recommend one of three options; either 1. reject entirely or defer admission to the low ranked school for a year; 2. attend the low ranked school for a year only; 3. attend the low ranked school for 2 years alone and leave with an MA. In all cases you should spend the time from now until next application cycle (depending on what option you choose) to attempt to improve your application. You can do this; many of us have and many of us have gone through two cycles and some even three. And it is really worth it going to a great program. If you are not waitlisted at a great program, I would only attend the low ranked school if you MUST get a phd in political science. Your job prospects will likely not be great, but at least some people do a phd in political science to develop themselves and for reasons other than getting a great job in academia. So if you are one of those people then I understand and wish you well. Would you be willing to share what program you are considering attending and/or where you are waitlisted (which is more important)? PM me if you will.

I totally get that!

oh I really doubt that will be happening. By next semester everyone will know very well how to conduct their classes online if need be so I think they will be ready/able to do that if need be. And it would be very bad for any program to be missing an entire cohort so I am doubting that that will happen.