Natesmith1016
-
Posts
15 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Natesmith1016
-
-
Hey, everyone. So it’s looking like my second straight admission cycle shutout. I’m feeling pretty dejected because while my GRE scores aren’t amazing, I did work hard to improve my scores over the past year. I took a Kaplan course online for 2 months and was able to obtain a 160 verbal 145 quant and 6 on my writing sample. Again, not the best, but after prepping for a year and considering where I started I was feeling ok.
Did my research and looked for professors with whom I shared research interests(Japanese comparative politics), obviously due to the niche nature of my field there aren’t a whole lot of options and those tend to be the higher ranked schools, sadly.
I had one of my former professors from USC(applied and rejected) who works on the political science admissions board write me a letter of recommendation, got it all in early.. and still nothing.
Obviously the most glaring thing I could improve would be my quant score, I really struggle with math, but I fought very hard to raise it from where it was initially. But part of me wonders with how competitive PhD spots are right now, is it even worth it. Just really lost rn. If anyone has been in a similar position or has any advice I’d appreciate it. This has been a lifelong goal of mine and it just looks bleak at the moment. Did my master’s in 2020 and it’s just been trying to get into PhD since then.. I’m only 24, but I still feel like life is passing me by.
Edit: totally neglected to mention my background, was so upset I forgot. Have a M.A Linguistics from Glasgow Uni(3.6 GPA) did my master’s in international public policy and management at USC(3.5 GPA) who also rejected me today.
-
2 hours ago, BunniesInSpace said:
Here's my two cents on everything here:
1. First, a 3.7 is ok. People on admissions committees are familiar enough with the UK grading system to not get their panties in twist when they see something like what I presume is upper second class honors. One chart I saw (from a different school) made it look like about 20% of students got a better grade, which is like, not the greatest but not the best. Clearly it means you're competent and stuff, but it doesn't scream "academic superstar". That being said, some of the smartest people I know don't have the best GPAs, and people are aware of that. It won't carry you, but maybe aside from Harvard or Stanford, won't sink you either, especially because it's in a different field. Plenty of ivy league near-4.0 types apply to top political science programs though, so the chances that a 3.7 will be seen as as a plus are very slim.
2. If you go to USC and get an MPA with a GPA over 3.8, that will probably be a good thing. Recs from economists or political scientists who teach in the program will be very very good. It's not the most efficient way to end up in a political science PhD program, but I don't think it's really the worst thing to do because you'll be exposed to a lot of a fair amount of government-related research. Also it's probably much better than doing nothing.
3. I wouldn't value an MA in Political science (or the UChicago cash cow MAs) over a top MPA/MPP. Most programs that offer political science MAs are either not that great of programs in general, or treat their MAs as cash cows (Duke, NYU, Chicago without scholarship), and committees know that. The bonus of an MPA/MPP is if you decide you like what's going on in it, you'll have employment prospects when you get the degree.
4. It is my opinion that if you go to USC and do well (3.8+ (but higher the better), very good recs, some kind of research experience), you can be in a good place to apply to PhD programs in the caliber that you want to get into. If your goal is Columbia/Stanford/NYU, will be better off doing this than directly applying without it. Bonus points if it makes you better at quantitative work and can write a quantitative writing sample.
5. To agree with someone who posted above, your internship probably will not matter very much unless there's a research component to your work. These internships might have some kind of "cool" factor but ultimately it won't make your application.
6. Your GRE scores, as-is, will get you rejected at all three programs you've mentioned. NYU and Stanford love high quant scorers. NYU loves to brag about being really hardcore with methods -- if you don't believe me read their FAQ. You need to get the quant score up. When I applied to these programs my goal was 165/165 but had decided I would settle for anything over 160/160. I recommend something similar. Is a 156 to 160 is not statistically a significant jump, but 160 seems to be some magical number that a lot of people just equate as "competent enough to read academic papers." The number used to be 700 on the old GRE, which is a much higher percentile. Are these numbers pretty much arbitrary and based off a a stupid "what is ten points beneath a perfect score" rule? Yes. Do people value these stupid magic numbers? Yes. Take a look here to see what kind of GRE/GPAs people who get into these programs have. That being said, GRE scores alone will not get you in. They'll get you rejected though.
Now, that's the type of thoroughness I was looking for, pretty much answered everything. Cheers. My internship will have a research component, everything I'm doing at SC is with PhD studies in New York in mind. I'd probably retake the GRE next year, I've got some things I want to do before starting my PhD, like teaching abroad, then I'd come back for that.
You said when you applied. Have you got a poli sci PhD? How did you find it?
-
1 hour ago, ExponentialDecay said:
You should read your own "article" for MPA-PhD stuff, because the guy with the MPA and PhD in Public Policy is perfectly right - an MPA is not good preparation for a PhD. If you attend open days or prospective applicant presentations for the top policy masters like Princeton and Harvard, their reps will tell you the same thing. The reason is not so much that a bunch of classes will be irrelevant, since curricula at these programs are pretty malleable, but that even the relevant classes are designed for practitioners, not researchers. For example, your econometrics class will focus on interpreting and understanding regression outputs, not on how to build an econometric model and apply it to data. You will also have limited opportunities to work on stuff that will make you more competitive for PhDs, like writing a great thesis or getting real tight with professors in your subfield, because the program will be focused on trotting you out to employers and getting you a job at the end. There are programs that are better geared for an academic application, like the MPA-ID or some of the Harris School's programs, but they are an obsecenely expensive option that isn't tailored to what you want, and choosing them over going to a dedicated poli sci MRes in Europe that will cost you pennies on the dollar is a strange decision. I don't think a master's is a bad idea, but if you want a PhD, don't get an MPA.
I don't think your GPA is bad at all (although I'm confused if that's a first or an upper second), but the GRE really is quite low for top programs and unfortunately they pay extra attention to that when you're not from a US school.
The guy with the PhD was saying that it’s not a direct preparation as in, like you said, the aims are different of what you learn. But, there’s a lot of overlap depending on programme and specialisation. In my case, my electives and specialisation are all related to the PhD I plan to do. So East Asian studies research, quant analysis and other IR courses. It’s a first. GRE scores can def be improved but don’t seem to be everything.
-
5 hours ago, bhabhafk said:
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.
A 3.7 GPA is great by any objective standards dude. That’s a fact. That’s one mark from a 4.0. Again, from a different country with tougher gearing criteria then America too. Few people get a first in the UK. Your statement that an international degree hurts is also blatantly false. As the other guy said, you’re hurling words with no background or sources.
i linked you an article for MPA->PhD stuff. You didn’t read it. It’s pretty common and certainly helps.
>local government doesn’t help.
you definitely didn’t read my comment entirely because I clearly said I’m doing international specialisation and work with SC’s IR department. Yet, you’re talking about linguistics and local government? You know Ban Ki moon had an MPA, right? It’s not all local stuff, depends on your specialisation.
GRE scores aren’t everything. It all depends on the applicants at the time. I was below SC’s average quant too. SOP, letters of rec, personal statements etc all contribute.
-
12 hours ago, bhabhafk said:
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.
> I would be surprised if you got into a top 50 programme.
Come on now, man. You're milking it. I had a 3.7... not 2.7.... from an international university, with a different grading system from the U.S. I'm doing an MPA with international specialisation at a top 8 programme. GRE scores can certainly be improved, though. I took it once and got in both masters programmes that I wanted to, one for IR(NYU), so I didn't give it more thought.
link for you on MPA-> PhD since I feel you'll have a retort for that too.
-
On 6/27/2019 at 1:46 PM, Neo_Institutionalist said:
I have not done a PhD in political science, but I will be applying to PhD programs in the fall and I have consulted numerous sources on getting into top PhD Poli Sci programs, including current grad students and professors. I've had the good fortune of chatting with numerous Stanford Poli Sci grad students and professors in person, so I feel I have a pretty good idea of what is needed for admission into top programs. However, since im not a current Poli sci grad student, feel free to take what I have to say with a grain of salt.
Before I get into my advice, I just want to ask, why the switch to poli sci? what about it, and Far East Asian studies interests you? How do you become interested in this topic? What is your plan after graduating with your PhD in poli sci?
As far as your competitiveness is concerned, it's a bit hard to gauge based on the limited info you have provided. But based on the limited info you gave, if im being completely honest with you, as it stands you are not competitive for the schools you want to apply to, especially Stanford and Columbia. However, this doesn't mean you can't get competitive. There are things you have within your control that can greatly help increase your odds. As someone who is also applying to poli sci PhD programs coming from a different field (history for me), I think it's first important to be sure that you are familiar with the poli sci literature in IR, Far East Asian studies. This familiarity will be crucial for your SOP (statement of purpose), especially for someone such as yourself coming from linguistics, because admissions committees need to know that you have a good grasp on what the current state of the literature is and how your own research interests fit in and add to the current state of research. If you cannot articulate this in your SOP, you will have a very hard time getting into top programs such as Stanford and Columbia. Have you read any articles from the leading journals in the field--APSR, the Journal of Politics, and the AJPS? Have you read any books on IR, specifically in East Asian studies? I would highly recommend doing so if you haven't. I think your level of familiarity with the literature will also determine whether or not you should defer for a year or go straight into a PhD program. If you aren't very familiar, or only have a cursory understanding, I would definitely hold off a year to do some research, and perhaps even work on an independent research project that you could use as a writing sample, just to show the ad coms your understanding of how to do political science research.
For people like you and me applying to poli sci from a different field, it's going to be a bit of a challenge, though not impossible. For you, GRE, Letters of Rec, and Statement of Purpose are going to be crucial in convincing ad coms you are highly qualified for rigorous poli sci research. You will be competing with hundreds of other highly qualified applicants in top programs, so you have to find a way to stand out positively to ad coms. Because there are so many applicants and few open spots for admission, ad coms will be looking for reasons to reject you, especially at places like Stanford (ranked #1), and Columbia (ranked #7). Just as a warning, even people who have perfect GPA's and perfect/almost perfect GRE scores still don't get into top programs like Stanford or Harvard, so don't be disappointed if you aren't accepted into those programs. Beyond GPA and GRE scores, ad coms are looking for fit, and how well a student's research interests fit with the research interests and strengths of the department.
Which leads me to my next point. I'm not sure if you were only giving a small sample of schools you want to apply to, but if those are the only schools you are applying to, you should really be applying to a much broader range of schools within and outside the top 20. Because the application process is so competitive, you will be significantly lowering your odds of getting into grad school if you're only applying to 3 programs, two of which are in the top 10. Also, why do you want to apply to NYU, Stanford, and Colombia? You really should be applying to schools that fit your research interests. Not saying that those schools don't, but I feel there are probably other schools that have just as strong, if not stronger, faculty doing Far East Asian studies. Grad school will be at least 6 years, so you want to make sure that you're attending a school that will have faculty and potential advisors who are interested in similar research topics as you, or else you will be miserable trying to work with scholars who cannot really help or advise you on your research topic. Perhaps you should spend more time reading faculty profiles at different schools and the articles/books they've published to find a school that's a right fit for you, and not just selecting schools because they are in the top 15 or 20.
As far as letters of rec, if the best you can do is getting letters from linguistics professors, that's ok. Make sure those professors will write you glowing letters of rec, on the order of "this person is one of the best students I've ever worked with". Also if these professors can attest to your research capabilities, this will be helpful as it will demonstrate to ad coms your propensity for research. If you could somehow get letters of rec from poli sci professor that are familiar with you and your work, that would be better of course.
Your SOP will be crucial for you. This will be your chance to demonstrate your propensity for research in political science, your familiarity with the literature, how your studies have lead to your interest in Far East Asian studies, and how your research interests will contribute to and push past the frontiers of research in your sub field. Although this statement of purpose was written for a PhD history department, it's still an exceptional example of a statement of purpose that you can use as a template for your own statement of purpose (obviously modifying it to fit political science and your own personal situation): http://ls.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/statement_of_purpose.pdf
Finally, as you mention, your quant GRE score is not great, however neither is your verbal GRE score. If you really want to get into Stanford or Columbia, you will need 160+ in both the verbal and quant, preferably a 165+ in both. Most schools have an implicit cut score just to make it past the first round, so that's why it's important to get as high a GRE score as possible. Also, if you want to get into top 20 programs and you have no math/quant experience, your quant GRE score will be especially important as someone coming from a different field, because ad coms use this GRE quant score to determine whether or not you would be able to survive the school's quant methods sequence. Also, poli sci as a field is becoming increasingly quant heavy (even in IR, though it depends on what specifically your research interests are), so be prepared that you will have to take quant methods sequences, especially in the top programs. You will be reading journals with a lot of math and you will be expected to output in your research quant methods, especially if you want to be published in a top journal. It's very difficult to do qual only work and there are very few scholars who do qual only work. Even the qual leaning scholars still use mixed methods.
Hope this helps. If you have any more questions let me know
Alright, sorry for the slow reply, Gradcafe didn't show me any notifications from this for some reason. So, I am a bit late here. I'll try to respond to all of your points, but it's a big text, so sorry if I miss anything. For starters, NYU, Columbia and Stanford are great for what I'm interested in, those are the ones I've looked at so far. I got in NYU's MA IR programme and am interested in working with some of the research that some of their professors are doing. As said in the OP, I was accepted into SC's price MPA programme, so I'll most likely be doing that this year with an international specialisation. Price's MPA is highly regarded and overlaps a lot with their IR department due to my specialisation. Stats, economics and Quant analysis play big roles in that programme. Recommendations would of course be taken care of, and as part of the MPA I'll have to complete 300 hours of an internship government/admin internship.
>Finally, as you mention, your quant is not great, however neither is your verbal GRE score.
I only took it one time, so I'm a bit unfamiliar with the scoring, to be honest. Is a difference of 4 points all there is between "not great either" and great? I'll keep in mind taking it again.
>If you really want to get into Stanford and Columbia
I do like the research in Far East Asian Studies they're doing, but honestly NYU would be my desired place.
So, now that you've got the MPA info, I think that might change some of what you were saying about getting recs from linguistic professors, quant work, etc. Basically, I'll be working towards that. Let me know if you've got any follow up questions, thoughts or comments. Thanks for taking the time to reply too.
Edit: Here's a neat link for you too about MPA-> PhD poli sci stuff
-
11 hours ago, Sigaba said:
@bhabhafk, I think that you are offering strongly worded guidance without providing an adequate amount of background that allows readers to understand the basis for that guidance.
Yea, definitely. I actually just saw all of these posts, did not get notifications. "3.7, while not bad, isn't stellar" I mean, it's on a 4.0 scale.. not to toot my own horn, but... GRE could be improved for sure though.
-
Firstly, I am aware that the community doesn't like these questions as they depend on a lot of variables and specific programmes, however all of the programmes I am interested in have told me they don't have admitted student profiles, so I would really appreciate some resources could consult or if anyone here has done a PhD poli sci and could give feedback.
I have tried emailing and calling all the institutions. As I said, I would be doing my PhD in Political Science, with an emphasis on International Relations, specific Far East Asian studies. The places I'm interested in are NYU(was accepted into their MA IR), Stanford and Columbia. As I said, they all told me they didn't have anything online where I could compare my credentials/GRE/GPA to admitted students.
I have an MA in Linguistics with Merit from the University of Glasgow(equivalent to US 3.7). I'm originally from the states. Appreciate any support that could be given. If you need any clarification on anything, feel free to let me know.
Edit: Should note my Gre Scores, 156 Verbal, 142 Quant(weak spot I know), 4.5 writing.
Research Experience: None.
I also currently have an admit to USC's price for my MPA, still deciding if I want to do that or defer for a year and go straight for PhD next year.
-
On 6/12/2019 at 9:11 PM, HBLB said:
So I actually dont think an MPA would hurt you that much for a PHD. From networking and looking at placement rates many schools do want a masters degree before your PHD. Although this doesnt apply as much for political science, I have noticed that it certainly does seem to apply for most of the public policy and public administration phds and to some extent for the more international studies phd programs, like Tufts, John Hopkins, University of Washington, and Pittsburgh. I would look at schools where you would like to do a PHD at and browse through the profiles of current PHD students and class profiles to get a sense of academic and professional background. In my experience, I would say many have masters degrees and in a diverse number of fields from history, sociology, to poli sci, international studies, and public administration/ public policy. Theres two ways to think about the masters before PHD route. One is that If you are dead set on a phd program it doesnt make sense to do a masters before a phd because you are basically going to have to do some of the masters stuff again and the cost of a good masters program can be relatively high. The second is that if you dont feel competitive for a good phd program, a masters can boost your academic credentials and allow you more flexibility to go straight into a career before a phd. When I went on masters visits there were a surprising amount of people deciding between top 15 foreign affairs masters programs and top 40 to 50 PHD programs, attempting to decide if the future prospects of getting into a higher ranked program were worth it. Based on my research it is certainly true that more highly ranked programs tend to place better for tenure track jobs, yet I have known many astounding professors who did not go to marquee programs yet landed great jobs because they were good at research and teaching. Ultimately, I think that if you put in the effort, get on research projects, and get published and find professors willing to help you that it may not matter where you go as long as you take advantage of the opportunities afforded by each school. Neither place is cheap to live, also USC is surrounded by a less nice part of LA and the traffic is notoriously bad but it's still So Cal. Best of luck!
Super sorry for the late reply here, but thanks for the feedback again. Most of the programmes I've searched for so far don't require masters and don't expect it. Columbia, NYU, Stanford etc. NYU's MA in IR is usually a terminal course, when I visited in May the course administrator told me it's very rare for someone to go from the MA IR to PhD so yea, for most of what I've seen, IR/poli sci PhD's are just straight from undergrad. But, like you said having an MPA opens other opportunities up and puts me in position to get very well paying jobs with governmental/international(I'll do international specialisation) organisations. So, looks like that's the way I'll go. I'll also get my CELTA certification this year a well, then in 2021 after I get my masters, I'll go teach in Japan, then get to work on my PhD.
-
This question may already have an answer here:
Ok, so after some feedback from people on here, talking to my sister and her husband, I’m beginning to lean towards not doing my MPA since my ultimate goal is to work in academia and to get a PhD. That said, I’m worried about not having the credentials to get into a PhD course. I have an MA in linguistics and have a lot of history, culture courses as well that I’ve taken between Glasgow and my uni from when I was in the states.
All the programmes I’ve looked at: Columbia, Stanford, USC(got in their MPA), NYU(got in their MA IR) and Princeton all say you only need a bachelors to apply, but I just worry whether or not I’d be a competitive applicant. Could someone help me measure myself up in terms of incoming PhD students? There may be some courses I need to take at a community college to boost my profile and I’d really appreciate it.
My sister and brother in law came over yesterday to help me reach out to some professors who were working in departments in my research areas of interest(IR Far East asian studies) and I also emailed NYU about potentially switching from the MA to the PhD route since I would like to do my own research. That said, I'm a bit concerned about A) my qualifications and B)whether or not there's even much mobility in the research/academic market for Political Science PhD's.
I've also been chatting to a guy who has a PhD in Poly Sci via reddit, and he's told me that the job market is pretty abysmal for Poly Sci/IR PhD's at the moment. When I explained to him that in addition to working in academia, I would also like to work in international politics/offices like the UN, WHO, etc. He explained that people with PhD's usually do not get hired by those organisations and are usually only brought on as consultants for a time. So, if doing direct government/bureaucratic work is my goal, he suggested to do the MPA. The MA IR programme coordinator at NYU told me herself, that the programme is usually terminal and very rarely do people go on to do PhD's, "although it is an option" this stood out as a red flag to him.
TL;DR MPA would be 70k, but after completion I would obviously be competitive in the governmental job market. Or, I could take a year off and hope that my MA linguistics is enough to get into a PhD programme.
-
21 minutes ago, Sigaba said:
FWIW, in my experience, a combination of two apps, a pass, on-line shopping accounts, and the selective use of TNCs, make vehicle ownership unnecessary.
If you go to Southern Cal, you'll have access to enough options to get you where you want to go soon enough--sometimes almost as fast as you would if you were to drive.
Yea, I mean Uber does exist and the metro while pretty lacking in terms of stations, does still exist. That's just a minor aside compared to the other stuff with PhD and job prospects.
-
3 hours ago, HBLB said:
Congrats on getting accepted to both schools, both are fantastic and well regarded. In terms of an NYU MA in IR vs a MPA from USC, it sounds like you are set on USC and the MPA. USC probably does place a fair amount of its students in international and multilateral organizations, but NYU's reputation and location give it a big advantage in placement in that area over USC. I am not sure that it matters that much for a PHD where you go to get your masters, although you should keep in mind that an MA in IR is traditionally considered a more natural fit for a PHD program in international studies than an MPA. Personally, I am in a similar boat having completed a certificate in an MPA program and I am moving into an IR MA program in the Fall and thinking about a PHD. Have you thought about PHDs in political science or Public Administration/Public Policy? There is only a small number of international studies PHD programs and they have alot of crossover with Political Science and PA/PP programs. Looking at IR vs Public Administration Masters and their placement rates I would say that your degree matters much less than the networking and the skills you develop in the program as well as how flexible the individual programs are in allowing you to take a broad number of practical courses. I would look at each programs job placement, both in specific fields and for a PHD to see which program placed students and where. I dont think you can go wrong but USC isnt known as an IR school so you may struggle a little in getting jobs and internships in international organizations. This is just my relatively unqualified opinion and I think you should try to reach out to people at both schools and do your homework. Best of luck!
Thank you for your reply and kind words. So, in the time since I posted this question, I have gone from 100 percent sure on USC to 80 percent. Reason being is that if I want to get a PhD, I was recommended to avoid the MPA. Now, I am a bit confused and wondering how I would stack up going from undergrad to PhD without anything else. I was wondering if you could help me navigate this a bit more? I would really appreciate it.
-
So, TL;DR deadline day is coming up for me to choose on Sol Price at SC for my MPA or do my MA IR at NYU. SC will be slightly cheaper, but price isn’t a big factor to me as much as career prospects. From posting over at r/gradschool and a couple other forums it seems like MPA is more in demand and offers more diverse options, but I’m not sure. I want to go into politics longterm, but want to lecture at the uni level in the interim, which would require a PhD.
Right now the real hold up is being worried whether or not I’d be able to do a PhD in IR without a masters in the field. Also public transport in LA is obviously really bad so that presents a bit of an issue. But I’m pretty much 98 percent committed to SC as I feel head to head, the MPA would be better to have over the MA in case things don't work out with applying for/doing a PhD. I would still be able to work in governmental consulting and the like. Another concern I have is whether or not I would still be able to work for the UN or do international work with an MPA. I know that Ban Ki-Moon, the former Sec General of the UN has an MPA, but other than that, I am not sure. I would really appreciate some advice.
Background- MA linguistics Glasgow uni.
-
So, TL;DR deadline day is coming up for me to choose on Sol Price at SC for my MPA or do my MA IR at NYU. SC will be slightly cheaper, but price isn’t a big factor to me as much as career prospects. From posting over at r/gradschool and a couple other forums it seems like MPA is more in demand and offers more diverse options, but I’m not sure. I want to go into politics longterm, but want to lecture at the uni level in the interim.
Right now the real hold up is being worried whether or not I’d be able to do a PhD in IR without a masters in the field, also public transport in LA is obviously really bad. But I’m pretty much 98 percent committed to SC.
Background- MA linguistics Glasgow uni.
Most likely rejected from every PhD program… feeling pretty lost. Advice?
in Questions and Answers
Posted
Hey, everyone. So it’s looking like my second straight admission cycle shutout. I’m feeling pretty dejected because while my GRE scores aren’t amazing, I did work hard to improve my scores over the past year. I took a Kaplan course online for 2 months and was able to obtain a 160 verbal 145 quant and 6 on my writing sample. Again, not the best, but after prepping for a year and considering where I started I was feeling ok.
Did my research and looked for professors with whom I shared research interests(Japanese comparative politics), obviously due to the niche nature of my field there aren’t a whole lot of options and those tend to be the higher ranked schools, sadly.
I had one of my former professors from USC(applied and rejected) who works on the political science admissions board write me a letter of recommendation, got it all in early.. and still nothing.
Obviously the most glaring thing I could improve would be my quant score, I really struggle with math, but I fought very hard to raise it from where it was initially. But part of me wonders with how competitive PhD spots are right now, is it even worth it. Just really lost rn. If anyone has been in a similar position or has any advice I’d appreciate it. This has been a lifelong goal of mine and it just looks bleak at the moment. Did my master’s in 2020 and it’s just been trying to get into PhD since then.. I’m only 24, but I still feel like life is passing me by.
Edit: totally neglected to mention my background, was so upset I forgot. Have a M.A Linguistics from Glasgow Uni(3.6 GPA) did my master’s in international public policy and management at USC(3.5 GPA) who also rejected me today.