Theoryboi

And it is actually ethical to announce it beforehand than just admit 3-4 students without telling anyone about the funding issue. At least now applicants dont need to throw in 125 bucks.

Hey Oak_Park,
I'm not super up on the political economy and quant departments but maybe check out Tulane and Florida International University. I am not recommending them as I am not very familiar with either, save that they have focuses on your regional interest. Tulane's PhD is in Political Development and I am aware they focus on LA/Caribbean and have a political economy bent. Further, they have a Francophone thing going on there because of New Orleans, so they may have less of a focus on Spanish America. (Per their email their sent to me from the GRE mailing list). Also, as they aren't top-25 schools, you may stand a better shot of getting in. Good luck!

One thing people’s GRE scores do correlate very well with is their belief in the utility of the GRE.

Just a quick message for everyone on this thread: This is my last year as DGS, so I won't have my finger on the pulse of admissions enough to answer your questions going forward. I'll tell my successor about this board and ask him or her to chime in as I have.
Thanks for being such a welcoming community, and best of luck to all of you, wherever you end up.
-Bear

What is your subfield? If you're Theory, then Language especially German, French. If American, then quant. If IR, then it probably depends on where you feel weaker/what your research interests are. If you want to use a lot of data analysis for research, then quant. If not, and especially if you don't have any significant 2nd language ability, then language. Comparative is the same scenario as IR, I would say.
Speaking as a Theory/IR person, I've found having a UG minor in German was helpful for getting into my master's program because it showed a very focused initiative on my part towards European Integration studies at the time (I've since moved away from that focus though). With that in mind, I think an IR/Comparativist can distinguish themselves by having language ability in the region they are studying. Conversely, there are heaps of people with quant 'focuses' who have very little actual research focus beyond that. Just my 2 cents.

I am praying some of you who have no acceptances and are feeling desperate will receive a surprise last-minute fully funded offer. Jah bless...

Luka, you're making millions in the NBA, what do you need to go to UCI for?

Luka, you're making millions in the NBA, what do you need to go to UCI for?

Luka, you're making millions in the NBA, what do you need to go to UCI for?

Luka, you're making millions in the NBA, what do you need to go to UCI for?

I think you're on the wrong thread, Placebo. Good luck anyways.

I think you're on the wrong thread, Placebo. Good luck anyways.

I think you're on the wrong thread, Placebo. Good luck anyways.

Let's get this bread.

Let's get this bread.

For anyone waiting on Oregon: I gave the department a call today and they told me that there will be a 2nd round of admissions coming at some point (implied in the near future). The person I spoke with said she didn't know when the committee was re-convening, but she said all decisions will be out before March 15th.

I'm a currently attending theorist, and I have a fellowship at an "ethics center" hosted in the philosophy department at my university. The methods of political theory and the methods of political philosophy are, at least today, very distinct. First, as a general note, political philosophy is almost an afterthought at most Ph.D. philosophy programs, where the focus tends to be on metaethics, metaphysics and epistemology, philosophy of mind, etc. Traditional "moral philosophy" and political philosophy are less important in those fields. There is a sharp divergence in method of interpretation, the aim of our work, sensitivity to real-world or empirical facts, analytic rigor, and the 'canon' of thinkers and text. 

Jacob T. Levy has a helpful meditation on some of these differences at the following: https://profs-polisci.mcgill.ca/levy/theory-philosophy.html

Some of the distinctions are, without doubt, arbitrary. Others are much more integral to either camp's work. 


-- 
All that to say, regardless of what you think of the distinction, it is a real and lived distinction and these departments and thinkers are usually compartmentalized through their various institutions. If your aim is to be a political theorist, in a political science department, you will probably not experience a great benefit from pursuing an M.A. in a philosophy department. 

 

I am hoping to use this thread to bring aspiring political theorists together to discuss admissions results from 2019.

Hey yo theorists keep me in the loop if the discussion moves out of the general board - I'd love to hear your thoughts as well.

My random theory thought is that we theory folk are a more oppressed group than gamers given how few spots are available at unis plus the job market.

I was rejected by Princeton, Berkeley, Duke, and Wisconsin-Madison. My first acceptance came today, and all I can say is that the process is extremely arbitrary provided that you meet the minimum requirements.
People on this forum have talked about math, SOP, research experience, GPA, etc being important factors in the admissions process. But my experience tells me that even if you excel in all these areas, it's still not sufficient. (N=1, so take my words with a grain of salt.)
I took advanced math and programming classes and graduated with a minor in computer science. I worked as a research assistant for two CHYMPS political science professors and got recommendation letters from both of them. My GRE scores are in the 95% percentile for all three subsections, and my GPA is in the top 20% of my class at a top 20 university. I wrote my undergraduate thesis on political economy, and the project involved a lot of heavy programming. The two CHYMPS political science professors read my SOP and said it was good. I wrote two paragraphs for each school emphasizing research fit.
All that is to say that I still got rejected almost everywhere despite these credentials. I honestly do not know what I would do differently to improve my chances. I would think it's the same for a lot of great applicants, like @acmnny and @Chronicoverthinker.
Also, I think research fit is too subjective to be a useful topic of discussion. I met with another CHYMPS professor recently, and he said my research idea was "uninteresting" and "did not speak to any larger issue in political science." But the two professors I worked with both liked my proposal and one said he hired me because I wrote it in my job application.
I think a more productive approach to rejections is simply accepting the arbitrariness of life. If you meet the minimum standards (90% GRE, okay GPA at a known university, good letters from people who do research, some research experience), there's no use faulting yourself for rejections or thinking you could've done things differently to improve your chances. The process is simply just random, like job searches and the search for a romantic partner or a true friend.
Finally, there's a lot of reporting bias on this forum. I wouldn't have created an account to share my experience had I not received an acceptance today. So when you see people getting multiple acceptances, know that they are hundreds of others who have been rejected everywhere or who have only gotten into one school. Please don't think less of yourself as a person or as a political scientist just because there are two or three people getting accepted everywhere.
TLDR: The process is random. Pedigree definitely matters, especially when it comes down to picking two people out of the final ten. Research fit is super subjective, so don't worry about it if you've said what you wanted to study in your SOP. And if you don't think there's anything you can change, either apply again next year or find a job! The application process says nothing about you as a scholar let alone a person.

Yes. More than most other US programs it seems. CIR gives a non-trivial number of full scholarships (worth approximately $60k). They also give a significant number of partial scholarships (20k+). Plus the program is only one year.

Congrats to all the Duke admits. I don't see any theory folks listed on the results page. I'm certain I didn't get in but I am wondering where my theory peeps are at.