sargon01

It is quite important to have letters that get into the specifics of things you have done and accomplished. If you have to choose between a very well-known professor that can only or will only make general statements about you and a less-known professor with whom you have worked closely and will actually put some effort in writing your recommendation letter, the latter is usually preferable. This is a piece of advice I received from a very well-known American professor from a very good comparative politics program who took his time to help me understand the rationale behind US applications (I'm not American). However, since you already have two letters from professors with whom you have worked closely with and who can probably give a detailed account of you, one as an undergrad and the other as a grad student, then I think both your choices are good. I would not worry too much about it since you seem to have a solid base to start with. Just make sure you choose someone who thinks highly of you. When I applied last year I asked two professors I knew very well - one was my undergrad thesis adviser and the other my master's thesis adviser, and I had actively participated in a research group both of them were involved in. For my third letter, I chose a foreign professor so that my recommendation letters would not be restricted to my home country and university. I applied to only two programs (yes, a mistake) and I was accepted to one of them.

Like others have said, you should definitely aim higher. You check all the boxes needed to get into a top program, so go for it! About your writing sample: I have talked to professors who have participated in application committees, and they unanimously recommended submitting a single paper that shows your ability to come up with a research problem, formulate hypotheses and figure out ways to test them. They do not expect anything new or revolutionary, really. Just something that shows that you understand what research is. Mine took me about a month to write and I used multi-level logistic regression - but any statistical method would do just fine as long as they help you answer your research question.

Hey. Some advice that was given to me by a well-known and respected professor regarding applications: it is much better to have a good letter from a non-tenured professor - by good I mean one that mentions specific things that you have done, than a generic letter from a hotshot. It seems to me that you check all the boxes - you'll have good recommendation letters, undergraduate research experience, presentation at conferences... Make sure your writing sample is a single paper and not bits and pieces of different papers. They want to know if you can come up with a good research question, formulate hypotheses and figure out how to test them. It should be a complete piece of research in and of itself. That will give you an edge. And nail the GRE. If you want to get into top 20 schools, that is a must. Aim for 330+.

Additionally, PhD admissions are much more competitive than masters. This is partly because PhD students are a huge investment for departments, while master's programs are usually a ways of making money. As a PhD student you'll get full tuition, health insurance and a stipend. As a master's student, you'll pay to study. However, I believe most schools offer master's scholarships which at least cover tuition costs for the best-ranked students and the opportunity of doing RA and TA work for pay. At least that is how I think it is - you should check with someone who is more familiar with master's here.

Hi Charlie, I think you have a competitive GRE score, even for top schools, at least for PoliSci. It is very likely that other competitive applicants will have better quant scores than yours, probably averaging 164-165, but your other scores are superb. You will make the cut and other aspects of your application will be taken into consideration. Work on having a good writing sample (I suggest submitting a complete paper instead of using bits and pieces of different papers) that shows you're capable of coming up with a good research problem, formulating hypotheses and finding ways to test them. Political Science in the US is very quantitative-oriented, so you if you can do something with statistical analysis it might help you. Make sure that in your recommendation letters people mention specific things that you have done. For instance, "Charlie13 worked with me on project X where he was responsible for task Y and did a great job" and "Charlie13 came up with an insightful term paper in course Z, where he analyzed if and to what extend X had an impact on Y... which placed him among the top 5 students in that course" are always much better than "Charlie13 is a great student who asks good questions". The more your professors point out specific things you have done and succeeded, the better it will be for you. If you are close to them, you can point that out. You could also offer to provide them a list of things that you have done with them so that they can write a more precise recommendation letter.

I was in a similar position. I had money and time for only one GRE and I got 169/160. As I was aiming at #20-30 schools anyway, I did not retake it, since I figured my score would more help than hinder my application. It all worked out in the end. But if you're truly aiming at getting into top 10 (or 15) schools, I would retake it to get your quant score above 160. You have to keep in mind that people competing with you will have scores around 330-333, so you need to push your score up in order to maximize your chances. It's also worth checking how the schools rank in your specific subfield. The school I'm at is around the #20 in general but top 10 in American Politics, so they get more competitive applicants for that subfield.

Hi. I am first-year grad student at a #15-25 department. I think we've got a few things in common, since I am not American either, and I have a bachelor's and a master's degree from another country (Brazil). I cannot say whether you should reapply or not. There is an obvious trade-off in terms of time and better placement opportunities, and only you can decide. However, we can talk about your concerns in case you do decide to reapply. From my interview with the DGS, I can say without doubt that presenting a good fit with the department, both in terms of research interests and previous work, counted a lot towards being accepted. So you have that going for you. On the other hand, I have talked to a few students from later cohort that have assisted or accompanied the application committees during the process,, and they said that committees do eliminate applicants that fall below a certain score threshold in their GREs. So I think it would be wise to take the GRE again. You'll likely do much better now than you did before simply because your mathematical thinking and your English skills should be much improved by now compared to when you first took the GRE. For your reference, I got in with a 169/160/4.5 score.