PolPhil

I'd guess that unless you have something that stands out in your application that you're not telling us, you should be looking at top 50-100 universities. The cGPA, master's GPA and GRE are all huge red flags. You'd probably need significant research experience to overcome that, as well as stellar recommendations.

A 'C' or 'D' is a fail for most (or at least many) graduate programs (as in, you will not receive credit), but it's way too early to resign yourself to those grades. At the same time, American is very quant-heavy, so you will need to be competent. Keep working at it on Khan Academy, with profs in office hours, constantly drilling yourself, and if it sinks in, it sinks in. If it doesn't, you can reflect upon your first year and re-evaluate your plans. Until that point, the added stress of wondering whether you're good enough is not worth it.

Fair enough. I'll keep my generalization to History and Political Science programs, with which I am familiar.

I'd advise that you do the GRE to keep your options open. It's a small cost that could benefit you greatly. Without it, you'd also be putting a lot of faith into getting into McGill. I think you will, but it's never guaranteed. Chicago would be better for getting into PhD programs for pretty much any field in Poli Sci, though McGill would certainly not hurt. You should also keep in mind that McGill offers no tuition reductions or scholarships. Therefore, since the program at McGill costs just under $30,000 CAD for fall, winter and summer tuition, it's roughly equivalent to a 50% tuition reduction at U Chicago. Of course, this doesn't account for the difference in cost of living, so to be safe, you could say that a 70% or greater tuition reduction at Chicago would be roughly equivalent or better, financially, than McGill, as well as offering better academic opportunities.

25-35 is large, but it's not that large for a major Canadian university (and McGill is top-3). Compare to the University of Toronto, which has an MA cohort of around 40-50 students but the program is still ranked higher than McGill. In fact, the MAPSS cohort at Chicago is way larger--around 250 students, roughly 40-50 of whom do Poli Sci, so you'd be in a smaller program at McGill. Either are good options. If you get into both and the cost is roughly the same, you should be looking at which professors at which schools do work in an area that interests you. I think you have a good shot at funding at Chicago. As long as you have decent GREs, I would guess you'd get something like 1/3 to 1/2 tuition reduction ($20,000 to $30,000). If you do really well on the GRE and your statement of purpose and other materials are on par, then you would have a chance at a full tuition reduction, or something close to it. I'd say that if you work hard at these things, it would be reasonable to expect a 1/2 tuition reduction. In that case, it would probably be more expensive than McGill (I'm not sure what international tuition at McGill is since I'm Canadian). Even if tuition were similar, the cost of living in Montreal is just a small fraction of the cost of living in Chicago. That being said, Chicago has faculty that are generally more well-known and influential than McGill's faculty, so it would be a tough call. Either way, if you get into either or both, you should be in good shape. If you have any other questions about the universities, or the cities, let me know and I'd be happy to try to answer.

You probably shouldn't already have an answer to your research questions before you've started researching, or have even been accepted into a program. So my first word of advice would be to go into the PhD with an open mind. It's likely that your interests will change over the years anyway, so it's a good idea to go into a program that excels in your 'broad' interests. That being said, to answer your question more specifically, it could be a good idea to read some actual Political Philosophy and Political Theory, see which authors interest you most, and then see whether they did Philosophy or Political Science. In general, I'd guess that Philosophy is better for undergraduate training, since the methodological training (in logic, epistemology, etc.) is better, but Political Science is better for the PhD because the latter is slightly better for job prospects. Ultimately, it may depend on the particular program, since some Political Science programs (e.g. Princeton, Oxford, LSE, Brown) are highly oriented towards Analytic Philosophy, and others are more traditionally Political Theory. You won't be able to distinguish these small but important differences unless you spend some time snooping on program websites and asking your professors for advice.

Do well on your TOEFL, and you'll probably get intothe MA at McGill with that profile. Do well on the GRE, and you have a good shot at the U Chicago MA. Speaking as someone who has graduated from McGill and who currently attends U Chicago

"low but not miniscule" seems like a reasonable assessment to me. You're probably a step and a half behind the top candidates, but you clearly have a strong profile that should find you a home somewhere

Low 160s is a minimum If you have a good GPA (which you seem to have) and strong letters, SOP, etc. But really, if you did that well in your math classes, there's no reason why you can't score above 165 on the GRE, unless your math classes were not sufficiently rigorous.

No one's saying that the GREs are a perfect reflection of your math skills, but if you are actually good at math you will get a high GRE score after a couple tries at most. GRE math really isn't that complex. And yes, having strong mathematical ability and refined skills means that you will be able to complete problems faster and not run out of time, so if you did well in classes but you can't get at least a 160+ on the GRE, your grades are likely a result of grade inflation.

Your GRE scores are fine, but not amazing. They likely won't help or hurt you. Your GPA is bad, but you should be helped by your major GPA. At this point, work on your qualitative material (SOP, LoRs, etc.). Also, you should consider applying to some lower-ranked schools in addition to the schools you listed. For places like Princeton, Columbia and Chicago, even many students with "perfect" application profiles get rejected, so it's best to keep your options open.

I don't know a whole lot about the specifics of these programs, but from what I do know, here's my advice: If you value academic rigour, learning and improving quantitative skills most, then go to Harris If working in the NY area is most important, go to Columbia Both of these are great schools that will give you a great education and access to jobs post-graduation, so you're going to have to split some hairs. Are there any specific faculty at either program who you'd like to work with? That could help you decide. All else being equal, you should choose whichever school is best suited to your lifestyle (and it sounds like NYC is more your thing than Hyde Park).

I don't know about the MA literature program in particular, but most academic MAs at U of T are not funded. Typically, in Canada, programs that are ranked on the higher end tend to give out less money at the MA level.

These questions would normally be pursued in a Philosophy department. Ethics is a subfield of philosophy. (In some European schools, "Theoretical Philosophy" and "Practical Philosophy" are separate--ethics falls into the latter category). Use the following link to find the best programs in ethics, then take a look at some departmental websites to find out whether the professors and program at that department fit your interests: https://www.philosophicalgourmet.com/

On your first point: Yes, it's true that most Canadian PhD programs involve coursework, but it's usually only 1 year of coursework compared to the standard 2 in the states. Even though Canadian students typically have a coursework-heavy MA in hand, which their American counterparts do not, there is a difference between being a PhD student doing coursework and being an MA student and doing coursework. On your second point: Yes, Canada has far fewer universities, but the amount of PhDs we produce is roughly proportional to the number of universities we have, relative to the population differences between Canada and the states. Canada produces enough PhDs to fill all their faculty positions, but American PhDs are sought after in the Canadian market, because they are often seen as better trained (this is what I have been told explicitly by my professors at McGill and McMaster). Of course, given equal resumes, a Canadian will often be picked over an America because of Canada-first policies, but that's a whole other thing.

Probably way too late, but in case people come here in the future, here's my advice: 1. Both are fairly liveable cities. Weather is way worse in Edmonton. Housing is probably a bit cheaper in London. Neither are particularly "exciting" cities. Edmonton is a bit closer to Canada's main centres of natural beauty. General services are roughly equal. 2. Early schooling is roughly the same. 3. Childcare is roughly the same. Edmonton (and Alberta in general) might be a bit better for cost of living overall.

I'd say that the cost is only worth it if you are using it to leverage an acceptance to a top PhD program. If you want to go into industry or government, you're probably better off going to a Canadian university (much cheaper/funded) or funded US program. If you plan on working in NY specifically, however, this program may not be a bad idea.

You've misunderstood this comment: "I don't think you can get paid as "full time" in two places at the same time ." This doesn't mean that you wont have the TIME to work/study full-time at both institutions. Rather, most (of not all) programs won't let you (a) do another program at the same time and (b) leave campus (residency) without reverting to part-time status, which would disqualify you from funding. Most programs also only allow you to leave campus for a certain amount of total time (usually one year), which wouldn't allow you to complete your coursework requirements at a second university. This is pretty unfeasible. You should choose one program. PS I also agree with the poster above regarding the time commitment for grad school. Completing a PhD program full-time is way more work than a full-time job. Instead of the normal 40 hour work week, it takes closer to 50-80 hours per week, depending on the person and the program. Think about that. It's not possible to balance 160 hours of work per week. Even if some of your work would be redundant, because the programs are similar, you'd still be looking at 100-120 hours per week, which is, to be honest, impossible.

It's probably going to be fairly difficult for you to get into a top-30 graduate program in IR with (1) the pedigree of your previous institutions and (2) your grades (in particular, your undergrad GPA is very low, but your grad GPA isn't great either). I would recommend doing an MA in IR/Security Studies to make you competitive, but I'm not sure which schools would accept you into their program, given that you already have an MA in IR. As far as I know, it's usually not possible to do a second graduate degree at the same level in the same (or nearly same) discipline as a previous graduate degree. Do you have any former profs that you're close with who can attest to your quality as a student? That would help a lot, as would any real research experience within the social sciences. Very high GRE scores could somewhat offset the low GPA, but you would need in the high 160s on both sections. I'm sure that you could get into a PhD program somewhere, but I think that you might have to looks outside of the top-30 (and realistically, outside of the top-50). You may also have to fund your own degree, because getting funding will be difficult with your GPA (this will also depend on your GRE scores). Why do you want a PhD in the first place? Are you planning to go into academia, or to build research skills to work in industry/for the government? To be honest, I don't think that academia is a likely option at this point, unless you find a way to overcome these substantial deficiencies in your profile. However, if you just want to learn or build research skills, I'm sure that this is a possibility--just not in a top-30 program. If you choose to do a PhD, make sure that you're making a smart financial investment though. I would personally never advise to fund your own PhD, unless you're independently wealthy. Sorry that I couldn't be more optimistic, but that's the best advice that I can give based on what I know. Take it with a grain of salt, and I'm sure that others will have something else to say.

I don't know much about American Politics specifically, so I can't give you any specific recommendations on programs that might be strong in your specific interests, but here's some general notes: 1. Your GPA is going to be competitive anywhere. If you do competitively on the GRE (verbal and quant each above 165), you shouldn't worry about it. A lot will obviously also depend on your research experience (having an honors thesis will help), letters of recommendation (the fact that your referees are from UMich doesn't matter much, but whether they know you well and how highly regarded they are will matter), your statement of purpose (definitely run this by your referees for help) and your writing sample. 2. UNC Chapel Hill is a prestigious-enough school that ad coms will notice 3. The quant course will help. From what I've heard, it seems like American Politics is very quant-heavy compared to other subfields, so math skills will be important. Since you're also an econ major, I'm guessing it's safe to assume that you already have significant quant training? That should help. A 165+ on GRE quant would be a good bonus. 4. Extra-curriculars don't seem to matter much, unless they specifically involve academic research or are unusually impressive Words of advice: Don't stress. You seem to be on the right track. Finish your thesis, write your GRE, get acquainted with your referees, and you should be fine. I'd suggest that you also post some more specifics about what you plan on researching during your PhD, if you know what you want to do (you should have some kind of idea of what you want to do, though this may change over the years).

Current MAPSS student here. I done quite a bit of digging on the MAPSS website, the Grad Café and other forums. The first thing that you should know is that tuition costs roughly $52000, which adds up to closer to $60000 after fees and health insurance. The vast majority of MAPSS admits get some kind of funding. The largest proportion of admits get somewhere around 1/3 of the cost of tuition in scholarships. If you have a strong background (GPA above 3.7, good letters of recommendation and decent enough GRE scores), you can easily get 50-100% of tuition in scholarships. HOWEVER, it may be a bit different for you because you're switching disciplines. I switched disciplines going into MAPSS and received a $20000 scholarship. I suspect it would have been higher if I had applied within the same discipline, based on the amount that I've seen others with similar profiles receive. MAPSS sounds perfect for you though, because you are in a "general social science" program that would allow you to take classes and explore across the social sciences. You'd also have some of the top faculty in the world in all three disciplines (econ, soc and poli sci) with whom you could speak about your plans for grad school. MAPSS has a very good record of placing its students in decent-to-top PhD programs, but this tends to only apply to students who are highly self-motivated. From what I have gathered, a lot of people who go into MAPSS end up coasting by (they get in in the first place because admission standards aren't very high) and getting nowhere with a very expensive degree. If you have any other questions about MAPSS, I'd be happy to try to answer.

I'm no expert on the matter, but from my conversations with professors and looking at the demographics of faculty at universities I've attended, American PhDs seem to be far and away the most marketable in the world. This appears to be the case across disciplines. I can say that this is for sure the case in Canada. Most recently, I went to McGill, where the vast majority of faculty in the History department, and from what I know, the Philosophy and Political Science departments as well, have American PhDs. I suspect that this is because the graduate training is a) longer (which allows more time for development) and b) more comprehensive/rigorous. I'm sure that my b) is controversial, but for example, the History PhD at McGill involves no coursework--it's thesis only. No way that, on average, a student who completes a thesis-only PhD is going to be as prepared as one who has completed two or more years of coursework along with their thesis, even if the thesis-only student did a one or two year MA.

Just offering my advice man. It's not a PhD thesis, so I'm not going to spend hours looking back to where I've gathered info in order to provide citations. Take it or leave it.

Also, having an international degree will usually hurt your case, not help it. Lastly, you should look on the the Grad Cafe's results page for NYU, Columbia and Stanford. As you'll see, the applicants that get accepted usually have undergrad GPAs above 3.8 from top universities and have GRE total scores above 330. Many applicants with these stats will still get rejected.

This only goes to show that you need to do much more research on PhD applications. A 3.7 GPA is good, but not that great. It's very average for most Poli Sci students looking to get into a PhD program, and it's below average for all of the schools that you mentioned. Your GRE scores aren't just low--they're likely below the minimum cutoff for almost all schools in the top-10, and many schools in the top-20. The fact that you got into NYU's MA means very little. It's fairly easy to get into MA programs in Poli Sci. They usually have acceptance rates from 30-50%, and there's very little risk since they don't have to fund you. Those programs pretty much want as many people as possible so that they can use the tuition that you pay to pay for their PhD students. Also, an MPA is not likely to help you in getting into a PhD Poli Sci program. Of course, some people manage to do it, but they're the exceptions. Most of these people will have had GPAs and GRE scores far above yours. PhD programs in Poli Sci won't care much about your internships and "experience in local government." They're not public policy/adminstration programs, they're academic Poli Sci programs. They want to see that you can do academic research in the social sciences. A research assistantship could help in this regard. I don't mean to be discouraging. I'm trying to be honest, and I hope that you actually consider my advice as well as that of others; otherwise, you're in for a world of disappointment come application time. Your 3.7 GPA in Linguistics isn't going to carry you. Get some graduate work done in Poli Sci, and make sure that your grad GPA is above 3.8 and that your GRE scores add up to over 330. After that, you just have to worry about the intangibles, which are also very important.