PolPhil

Neoinstitutionalist hit all the main points, but I want to emphasize a few things. 1. Your GRE scores aren't even close for the schools you mentioned. Your quant is completely prohibitive (I would be surprised if they even looked at your application) and your verbal is far below the cut. You need to a least be in the 90th percentile for both (roughly 163 for verbal and 166 for quant), especially since you're coming from outside of the discipline and your GPA, while not bad, is not stellar either. Take 2 months to master GRE material and then retake the test. 2. If you can afford it, do a master's program in political science. This will show ad-coms that you know what political science is, and that you can actually do the coursework. It will also provide you with contacts who can offer letters of recommendation and advice. 3. As it stands now, I would be surprised if you got into a top-50 program, let alone a top-10 program. You need to think about what schools are realistic for you outside of the top-20 and/or dramatically improve your profile. Success in a good master's program and top GRE scores will help a great deal, as will a solid writing sample (a master's thesis would be perfect), SOP (profs in a master's program could help with this) and letters of recommendation.

If you want my honest opinion, there's no such thing as a "good" mid-tier department for Political Science. Let me be clear, I'm sure that the professors at mid-tier departments are perfectly capable scholars, but PhD programs don't place unless they are top-20. For Theory specifically, it's more like the only programs worth attending are the top-5 (Harvard, Princeton, Chicago, Berkeley, Yale). For the MA, it's less important. Of course it's better to attend a higher-ranked program for the purpose of future PhD admissions (I'm assuming that this is your plan. Otherwise, I envy that you have 1-2 years and tens of thousands of dollars to burn on a terminal MA and nothing more in Political Theory). However, you could easily attend a mid-tier program, do exceptionally well, and get into a top-20 program. In the mid-tier, I wouldn't worry about how "strong" their theorists are (especially at the master's level, since you won't be specializing) as long as they have at least 3 or 4 theorists.

I don't mean to sound like a defeatist, but it doesn't seem like you know enough about the discipline or the PhD application process to really have a chance at getting in anywhere (which is why it's great that you're asking!). Here's my two-cents: 1. It's Poli Sci, not "Poly Sci." The Poli stands for Political. 2. You won't get into a Poli Sci PhD program without at least some significant coursework in Poli Sci, preferably at the upper-year undergraduate or graduate level. Courses in History or Culture likely won't cut it. Economics courses might. The reason for this is that you will likely have no clue what research in Poli Sci looks like if you've never had a course within the discipline. This goes doubly for the programs that you're talking about. To get into Princeton, Stanford, etc. not only takes a proven academic track record in Poli Sci, but also top grades in those courses (preferably from a well-known university). 3. There's no chance that NYU will let you switch from the MA to the PhD program. This never happens. The admission standards are wildly different, and the admission cycle is already over. 4. Do not go for a PhD unless you are dead set on working in academia. That is what a PhD is for. All of the training that you will receive is geared towards an academic career, and there's no point in absorbing the opportunity cost that comes with a PhD when you could just get an MPA (way less time). You need to be very sure that an academic career is your #1 priority at this moment. My suggestions: 1. If you are happy with a government job, get the MPA. 2. If you want a job in academia, get an MA in Poli Sci first, then apply for a PhD after (assuming that your grades are good enough). Some programs to look at are UChicago (could be funded), NYU (unfunded), Columbia (unfunded), and a bunch of smaller programs, some of which are unfunded and some of which are funded. You could also apply to schools in Canada, such as UToronto, UBC, McGill, which will be less expensive than an unfunded US program. Hope that helps!

I totally agree with you about the general importance of GRE, but its clear to me that for some schools it's a big deal and for others it's not. Same as the LSAT or any other standardized test, some schools see it as a better indicator of future success than GPA due to the fact that you don't have to control for variation across institutions. Some of your numbers don't add up though. Firstly, I think that you're right to take the gradcafe results with a grain of salt, but you're pretty much lobbing off like 5 or 6 points from the average GREs posted on imgur. Secondly, the averages at Duke (per the link you provide) over the past 5 years are 164 V and 161 Q. That's a huge difference from 160/160, especially for the verbal. Again, if the rest of your application is good, then it's likely not a problem. However, if you have any other faults or they're trying to decide between comparable applicants, then you may be out of luck.

Yes, you're right that it's possible to get in with a 160/160, but it's not going to help your chances. Some schools like Stanford post their averages, which are close to the scores that I provided. I think that NYU says on their website that if your score is not in the 90th percentile, it's not considered an advantage (though it's not necessarily a disadvantage). The ~160/160 range is going to be somewhere around the 20th to 30th percentile for admits, so the other parts of your application better be stellar.

Hello everyone, I'm asking for help with course selection, as I'm a bit of a atypical student and I want to maximize my odds of making it into my ideal program(s). About me: I did my BA at McMaster University (a Canadian university not known for the humanities or social sciences) in History and Classics, with a minor in French. During my first two years of university, I had no clue who I was or what I was doing. I did fine in my first year, but my grades in second year definitely have hurt me.Things started to change during my 3rd year when I did an exchange to the University of Lyon in France. Long story short, I started to take an interest in my education and finally put in some effort. By my 4th and 5th year, I was at or near the top of my class in both my major courses and my electives. Still, despite posting a GPA over 3.9 in my final 2 years, my overall GPA was a 3.57. Having discovered my passion for education and realizing that I have some potential, I decided to pursue an MA in History. I got into McGill and the University of Toronto, 2 of the top 3 schools in Canada. I ended up choosing McGill because of the location. Though I have enjoyed my time at McGill, I do regret my decision to some degree. I realize now that the added prestige of UofT (it ranks about 20-30 spots higher than McGill) would have helped me down the road. Even so, McGill is no slouch, and depending on how things skake out as my MA in History comes to completion, it looks like I'll have a grad GPA between 3.83 and 3.95. Oddly enough, the most valuable part of my MA in History might be discovering that I want to do Political Science instead. Ironically, the idea of switching to Poli Sci came from a prof whom I had gone to see to ask whether she would consider supervising my future PhD thesis in History. She told me two things: don't do History at McGill and don't do History. Aside from the poor job market, she noticed that my interests were probably better suited to Poli Sci, given the direction in which these two disciplines are going. To her credit, I have always been interested in the kind of Intellectual and Political History that nowadays falls under Poli Sci, and Political Theory more specifically. This is why I decided to pursue a second MA in Political Science. The only school that I got into is the University of Chicago (MAPSS), which is not the worst consolation. The rejections are probably due to my lack of undergrad background in Poli Sci, as well as my pedestrian undergrad GPA (my graduate grades weren't out by the time I sent out my applications). I know that a lot of people consider the U of Chicago a cash-cow, but from what I can tell, if you can find a way to shine in this program, make use of the university's resources and make connections with the many highly respected Poli Sci profs in the department, you have a decent chance of getting into a top-20 program. So now here's my conundrum: My interests are *primarily* in Political Theory, but let's be honest, this subdiscipline is no better for job prospects than the discipline of History as a whole. However, the U of Chicago has one of the best departments for Political Theory in the world. I'm also well above-average in mathematical skills (though I haven't formally studied math since high school) and my general interests are much broader than Political Theory. Specifically, I could also see myself studying quantitative methods and formal theory, international relations or political economy (the latter two with either or both of a qualitative or quantitative focus). Just to be clear, I am very ambitious and I'm well aware of it. If I stay in Political Theory (with a more traditional bent within this subdiscipline), my top choices are Princeton, Columbia and Harvard. I didn't just pick these out of an Ivy League hat; these departments are actually great fits for my interests in PT. If I end up focusing outside of PT, I'd have to reconsider my top choices. I'm thinking that I'll pair my PT concentration at Chicago with something else, but I don't know what. I'm thinking of taking about 2/3 of my courses in PT and the rest in quant. methods or quant. substantive courses. Do people think this is a good idea? My reasoning is that admission committees might see my general lack of background in Poli Sci (precisely, 0 courses pre-U of Chicago) as admissible if I can excel in quant. courses, which might indicate that I could excel in other subdisciplines. Or do people think that I should just go straight for courses in IR or Political Econ.? Or do people think that I should dump PT as my primary concentration altogether and go for something more quant. focused? (Let's assume that I'm equally apt to excel in PT and quant.-heavy courses). I should reiterate at this point that I would consider anything outside of the top-20 for my PhD as a failure. I'm not a snob (okay maybe I'm a bit of a snob), but I am eyeing the market for TT positions in Poli Sci with trepidation, and I'm excruciatingly aware of how difficult it will be to ultimately be able to work at an institution that interests me if I don't get into a prestigious program. My GREs are competitive (169V, 164Q, 5.0AW) and I'll have to see how grad grades, LORs and everything else pans out as my year at Chicago progresses. Anyway, I know that this is a long one, but if anyone has made it to the end, I'd love to hear some advice. Thanks!

Your GPA is fine, but since your undergrad institution isn't top-tier, you will need solid GREs (as well as the SOP, LORs, etc.) to get into schools like NYU and Columbia. The "precise" verbal/quant splits you'll need will depend on your research interests. In general for Poli Sci at these schools, you should aim for 165+ verbal reasoning (96th percentile), 162+ quantitative reasoning (80th percentile) and a minimum 4.5 analytical writing score (82d percentile). This will demonstrate that your grades aren't a result of institutional inflation. Since you have an internship and presumably some additional work experience, you have the makings of a good profile. One thing that you should keep in mind is that if you are set on moving into academia, you will have to let go of your preference to stay in New York. Admissions are a crapshoot to a large degree and even with a great profile you'll be lucky to get into wherever you get into. Where you get accepted (and tbh, where you should want to go) will largely be dependent on departmental fit, i.e. the presence of researchers at a department of interest who are doing work that interests you. A PhD isn't like a BA or an MA, where the institution doesn't really matter and things like location or social scene take precedence. It is an intensive process, the focus of which is producing academic research. On the bright side, almost all of the good programs will fully fund all or most of their PhD students. If you are going to commit, then you are going to have to really commit. You will not succeed otherwise. This shouldn't be something you do on a whim because you are unhappy at your current job (and you are unlikely to succeed if this is your primary motivation). That being said, I bid you good luck, and it looks like you have a shot at building a good application profile based on the small amount of information that you have provided.

Learn to accept criticism. The poster you replied to was just being honest. You're attitude won't do you any favours. I also worked 40+ hours per week while taking more than a full course load, and I have better grades than you. Instead of blaming your life circumstances, look towards what you can do to succeed. Your GRE scores seem to suggest that your grades are in line with your ability rather than some unrealized potential. If hope that you can re-take the GRE, do great and prove me wrong. Your ability to get into a good program will depend on it. But for now, you should be looking inward to figure out whether you are actually cut out for a life in academia.

Your GPA is average enough to get in with great GREs and great LoRs and a decent writing sample. Simply put, however, your current GREs won't get you anywhere near the top tier of schools like U of Chicago. They will be looking for verbal scores above 165. Even the middling schools will be looking for verbals over 160. That's just the way it is with Phil departments, given the degree of literacy that is required for their programs. Since you can't change your GPA, work on getting your GRE at least into the 162-163 range. That should give you a shot at a desirable program.

I should add that the University of Toronto has a MA Political Science program with a special Theory concentration. You won't have the same requirements as the other Poli Sci students.

Princeton has a PhD program in Political Philosophy, which you can enter after having been accepted to their PhD program in either Politics, History, Religious Studies, Classics or Philosophy. Chicago has the PhD Social Thought program, which is pretty open-ended, i.e. you could tailor it however you want within general social/political theory.

I'm posting to provide a beacon of hope and a boon to the confidence of anyone, like myself, hoping to get into top 10 grad schools but is not getting much better than above-average scores on practice tests. As you can see, my average scores for practice tests + the first time I wrote the GRE are 159 for Quant and 164 for Verbal, never scoring higher than 164 for Quant and 167 for Verbal. I had resigned myself to good, but not great results, but in the end my actual GRE scores were 164 for Quant and 169 for Verbal, which I'm very pleased with. Stay confident, prepare thoroughly, sleep well and good luck!