Theory007

There was some talk about rankings within the top 50 so I thought I would add the ranking that I've always had in the back of my head. I'd say that any university within each category is indistinguishable from the others within the same category. For example, I think the ranking (or preference one would have) would pretty much be a tossup between any university in the top 20, i.e. Cornell, Northwestern, Ohio, UCLA, UNC, UPenn, Wisconsin are pretty much equal programs, and same is true for all other categories. But most people would prefer any program in the top 20 to any program in the top 30. This also means that universities are not ranked within each category - Columbia is not ranked higher than Yale for example. They are pretty much equals.
The list is my own but based on a combination of university ranking, polisci ranking, and general reputation. It ignores very many important things. Rankings within subfields vary widely. And of course I think it would be reasonable for anyone to go to a slightly lower ranked program but where the fit is better. But if the fit was the same, I think that my ordering would be acceptable to most people. In reality you will notice that the ranking does not follow the official ranking very well at all. Just to given an example: Brown and Georgetown are both ranked pretty low in the official rankings, but anyone would still prefer a spot there to any program in the top 45 or top 50. Even if Brown and Georgetown are ranked lower at the moment I think it would be reasonable to expect that it is a matter of time before they rise. And UC Davis is a highly ranked program but I still think most people would be indifferent to a spot at it vs. Brown.
I should say that it is not my intention to make anyone unhappy by placing whatever program they are at in the lower end. The ranking is based on my own idea of where I think the programs are compared to one another. And if you disagree, which I think many will, then let us hear what changes to the list would be reasonable.

There was some talk about rankings within the top 50 so I thought I would add the ranking that I've always had in the back of my head. I'd say that any university within each category is indistinguishable from the others within the same category. For example, I think the ranking (or preference one would have) would pretty much be a tossup between any university in the top 20, i.e. Cornell, Northwestern, Ohio, UCLA, UNC, UPenn, Wisconsin are pretty much equal programs, and same is true for all other categories. But most people would prefer any program in the top 20 to any program in the top 30. This also means that universities are not ranked within each category - Columbia is not ranked higher than Yale for example. They are pretty much equals.
The list is my own but based on a combination of university ranking, polisci ranking, and general reputation. It ignores very many important things. Rankings within subfields vary widely. And of course I think it would be reasonable for anyone to go to a slightly lower ranked program but where the fit is better. But if the fit was the same, I think that my ordering would be acceptable to most people. In reality you will notice that the ranking does not follow the official ranking very well at all. Just to given an example: Brown and Georgetown are both ranked pretty low in the official rankings, but anyone would still prefer a spot there to any program in the top 45 or top 50. Even if Brown and Georgetown are ranked lower at the moment I think it would be reasonable to expect that it is a matter of time before they rise. And UC Davis is a highly ranked program but I still think most people would be indifferent to a spot at it vs. Brown.
I should say that it is not my intention to make anyone unhappy by placing whatever program they are at in the lower end. The ranking is based on my own idea of where I think the programs are compared to one another. And if you disagree, which I think many will, then let us hear what changes to the list would be reasonable.

Even if I agree with you that there's a significant gap in the top 50, this is not a very nice message. This forum is meant to relay information and provide support to others, but talking like that benefits no one. If you disagree with the original message then let us hear why but don't talk like that.

There’s no need for condescending, snarky replies. Dwar has helped more people on this forum with useful feedback than most. Your comments are a great reminder of why this forum is not PSR, thanks. I hope we keep it that way. 

Even if I agree with you that there's a significant gap in the top 50, this is not a very nice message. This forum is meant to relay information and provide support to others, but talking like that benefits no one. If you disagree with the original message then let us hear why but don't talk like that.

Even if I agree with you that there's a significant gap in the top 50, this is not a very nice message. This forum is meant to relay information and provide support to others, but talking like that benefits no one. If you disagree with the original message then let us hear why but don't talk like that.

Even if I agree with you that there's a significant gap in the top 50, this is not a very nice message. This forum is meant to relay information and provide support to others, but talking like that benefits no one. If you disagree with the original message then let us hear why but don't talk like that.

Even if I agree with you that there's a significant gap in the top 50, this is not a very nice message. This forum is meant to relay information and provide support to others, but talking like that benefits no one. If you disagree with the original message then let us hear why but don't talk like that.

Even if I agree with you that there's a significant gap in the top 50, this is not a very nice message. This forum is meant to relay information and provide support to others, but talking like that benefits no one. If you disagree with the original message then let us hear why but don't talk like that.

Harvard has cancelled their visit day because of COVID-19 concerns. I'm really bummed as I'd hoped to go there and see for myself what the culture and collegiality of the place is like. (not to mention what looked like a really good visit day programme...) I wonder if anyone is also facing cancellations, and if so how are you going to go about gathering the information you need to make an informed decision? 
And alternatively, if you know what Harvard Govt is like as a place, I'd be really grateful to hear about that as well!

Hi,
Let me jump right in. Regarding your reasons/points:
1. You are spot on about UT. They give little to no funding for master's students; strangely, this is the opposite of their PhD program, which is actually fairly well funded by Canadian standards. In fact, it would be fair to infer/surmise that the master's program tuition likely subsidizes at least some of the PhD program students. Average PhD award at UT is full tuition plus about $2k/month stipend, part of which is from TAing. This isn't amazing but it's on part with many US schools and better than a lot of Canadian programs. The downside of course is the cost of living in Toronto, but you face that whether you're at UT or elsewhere, and it's still slightly less than the cost of living in Vancouver. Also FYI, UT does have subsidized student housing that is relatively affordable compared to the rental market anywhere near the St George campus. 
2. That makes sense; I don’t have experience with the intricacies of the UT master’s program but I know with the PhD you are actually required to choose two subfields, including IR, Comparative, Canadian Politics, Public Policy, and Theory. 
3. That also makes sense. I also have no idea why it doesn’t have a thesis, though in UT’s case I’m not sure this is necessarily a huge issue because if you get into their PhD you still have another 5-6 years even if you did a 1-2 year master’s w/thesis beforehand. 
4/5. Fit is extremely important. You need to be happy with wherever you go and ultimately your quality of life is the single most important factor, but it’s also important to know the risks before you make a final decision.
UT does indeed have a reputation for being needlessly difficult and a massive department without a lot of tight knit supervision or relationships. Personally, I prefer this type of atmosphere to the hand holding, micromanagement and rigid structure of US-style PhD’s, which is why I did not stay on with my old department (MIT) for a PhD after my master’s degree. I definitely see the pros/cons with both models. In my case, I thrive under pressure and I prefer independence, flexibility and the autonomy to be able to do what I want without my supervisor or committee breathing down my back every week or two, which is extremely common in US (and to a lesser extent, Canadian) programs. 
I chose to come back to Canada for my PhD primarily because if I’m going to spend 5-6 years on another degree, I’d rather do it at home, but at UT specifically because of its reputation for hands-off autonomy. The almost universal theme at UT is that you either sink or you swim depending on your needs and abilities. This is harsh and it’s brutal and it can be ultra competitive and lonely and confusing, but for certain types of people (myself included), this is preferred. 
With all of this said, while I appreciate UT’s culture, the main reason I chose UT is because it’s one of only a few Canadian schools that regularly sends graduates to the US for Tenure Track (TT) and postdoc positions. UT is much stronger in theory than it is in IR so I have an uphill battle if I ever want to go back to the US to work after graduation, but at least it does happen. Personally, I’m really interested in doing a postdoc in the US and then doing either another postdoc or a TT position in Australia/NZ. I have a better chance of doing this at UT than at any other Canadian school and that is based on objective placement statistics, not rumour or perspective. Full stop. 
Don’t get me wrong: If you do a PhD at a non-top 3 in Canada, it’s still possible you’ll be able to work abroad in a postdoc/TT job. Anything is possible. But if you do the math and look at placement history at various programs, the statistics are strongly against you ever working outside of Canada in a postdoc/TT job if you do not go to a top-3 school. Some people who read this will hate me for saying it, but you can’t argue with the empirical evidence of placement statistics or the probability that this provides. 
My advice to you is to go to York. You sound like you would be happy there and your reasons for going there are great. If after getting a taste of polisci grad school at York, you decide you still want to pursue a PhD, you should apply to the top 3 here and also consider US programs because they do vary from their Canadian counterparts. The best way I can describe it is that US programs emphasize quant analysis and methodology significantly more than Canadian, British or Australian political science programs. This is why I got my master’s degree in the US; I wanted a quant/methodological background that you will not get enough of in any Canadian program, whether it’s a masters or a PhD. I have that background now so I don’t have any reservations about going into a Canadian PhD that will be weaker on the quant side of things (and trust me, UT is probably the strongest quant/methodology polisci PhD in Canada), but if you do 100% of your education in Canada and don’t get this kind of a background, you will also be limiting yourself in external job markets that value at least some quant/methodology background or experience. Especially in the US, because TT jobs require you to supervisor and mentor students in quant heavy programs and if you don’t have that experience, you’ll be at a disadvantage. 

Looks like the cycle is over for most people. Just wanted to echo what @Dwar said earlier; if things did not work out for you this cycle then do not be discouraged. For many of us it took more than one cycle to get into a good program and you can do it too! Good luck everyone.

Looks like the cycle is over for most people. Just wanted to echo what @Dwar said earlier; if things did not work out for you this cycle then do not be discouraged. For many of us it took more than one cycle to get into a good program and you can do it too! Good luck everyone.

Looks like the cycle is over for most people. Just wanted to echo what @Dwar said earlier; if things did not work out for you this cycle then do not be discouraged. For many of us it took more than one cycle to get into a good program and you can do it too! Good luck everyone.

Claiming the acceptance to Colorado State University! Whew. I feel like I can finally breathe again.

Hi all!
I've been stuck home because of a health-related issue, so (in addition to watching a lot of Brooklyn Nine-Nine) I scraped the tables from the Grad Cafe political science results page since its beginning in 2006 and here are a few things I thought I'd share! I'm trying to set up a GitHub page to make the scraping code and data accessible if you guys want to play with it.
Disclaimers:
I only used data that matches "political science" and "PhD". So 1) these things don't apply to Master's degree applicants, and 2) the data is "biased against" (includes less posts from) Harvard, Princeton, NYU, etc. because they use other degree names (Government, Politics, etc.). I only kept US schools that are in the top 100 based on the current USNWR, because cleaning the data would have taken me too much time otherwise. This is not an assessment of the quality of any school! I know that things change fast, so the data from early years might not mean much. This is not meant to give any lesson, I just thought it might be interesting to some people. ? Data is from this morning in Europe (Feb 22nd, 2020). First: the average grades since 2006 (for the GRE, it only includes years with the new system):
Average reported GPA: 3.75 Average Verbal GRE: 163.4 Average Quant GRE: 160.9 Average Writing GRE: 3.8 Second: the distribution of the posts between A/I/U and decisions:


Third: the distribution of the post between schools. I don't have enough space left so I'll upload these pictures in a comment. 

Any thoughts based on this? I can also look at other metrics if you guys think it'd be interesting! (Next thing planned is visualising the dates at which decisions are received).
PS 1: thanks again for all the support and positivity on this forum! ?
PS 2: there probably are a some coding mistakes, so once again I'm not pretending this gives any lesson!

I feel like it would be pretty difficult to drop below a 3.7 GPA in a graduate program. In my experience as an MA student at a major R1 institution where MA and PhD students take the same courses, it is pretty difficult to get below an A- in a class. Not sure how things work at UCLA, though.
 There are, obviously, exceptions and some professors do grade quite aggressively. 

I have no skin in this game, but just wondering if you can talk a little publicly about the methods curriculum there. I've always thought of Oxbridge to be methodologically years behind the US, and I'd love to update this prior. 

I studied abroad at Oxford as a direct enroll student (granted not at the graduate level), but I completely agree with everything that's been said. Oxbridge is the vanilla ice cream of political science. Not engaging, super boring, and unnecessarily laborious. I got my Master's at LSE and loved it. Much more stimulating and a much, much stronger focus on methods that will make you a better researcher/thinker and more competitive on the job market.

And, as far as I have heard, Oxford/Cambridge are weak in methods training compared to to basically any school in the US top-25. LSE is great though. But that is something to consider before you aim at schools in the UK

Just takes money & often a posh pedigree. Westminster dog show of programs. Some of the dullest minds I've met in person, but spotless on paper.

Thank you so much -- I'll be happy to post once I've heard back everywhere. 
Haha luck always plays into graduate admissions -- there's no way to control a lot of the factors that affect admissions (e.g. availability of advisors, funding, etc.). I think I did well for the things within my "control" and overcame some things in my background. But I'll say this: both good performance and luck are necessary but not individually sufficient for admissions to graduate school. 

Hey All, 
I know that this cycle is really picking up steam for some people, while for others it is starting to close down. Either way I know that most of us are facing some sort of rejection. I wanted to share this Reddit thread from last year where an AdComm professor in a social science field provides an in-depth analysis of the admissions process. The Professor discusses how and why students are accepted or rejected. They also answers a ton of questions in the comments section, so be sure to read below the initial post.
I'm hoping that this will be able to offer some insight into why rejections come and de-mystify some of the admissions process. I know that in face-value a rejection just seems like a label of failure, but many times it isn't the case. Often times it is internal department politics that we, as applicants, would have no way know knowing or foreseeing. 
AdComm Reddit Post

You're too modest. Surely it's more than pure luck that you're like one of the most competitive applicants to political science programs in 2020  

Ditch the undergrad mentality. When i applied the first time I went into it with a very undergrad idea about things. For example, I applied to schools that I’d always wanted to go to for undergrad, wrote my SOP as if it was an undergrad admissions essay, and just went about the whole thing as if I was in high school. The biggest piece of advice I can offer is to ditch that mentality and look at it from a graduate POV.