JPYSD

As far as I know, their funding is a completely different (much later) decision. But tbh, I would not expect a funding package from any of the London institutions if you did not specifically apply to a funded program.

What is good of course depends on your area, as schools in big and expensive cities naturally pay more than those in cheaper towns on the countryside. But of course, it depends on overall wealth of the university and (!) the department. There is this very helpful website, where you can filter according to program, year and university: "phdstipends". But many entries are wrongly entered or trolls, so you need to find a trend and way through the lists (usually still quite possible). Most t10-15 schools in bigger (more expensive) cities seem to have payed between 40k and 50k USD last year. That is at least my experience and a very good PhD stipend. Some of these schools are traditionally a bit stingy with money (Columbia, for example) while others are more generous. Often, private schools pay better than public ones. The trend is to pay more and admit less students. The amounts get lower rather quickly in the "ranking", however. To me as a European, those are still dream numbers. If they do at all (which at least half don't), most PhD programs there pay max. around the 20k mark (Switzerland is different).

That seems to differ school by school. I have heard of some that can give you an indication on how far ahead you are on the waitlist and give you a rough estimate (5 vs 10 vs 20 people on the waitlist). I have also heard of others that don't share anything, however. It is common practice for departments to share the list of admitted students and more information about the process and context to current graduate students in the department. If you know someone there, you could confidentially ask. In my department, the waitlist information was not shared, however. We only know the admitted students and the fact hat there exists a waitlist.

Not much different. Brown very much has a similar process to some of the top schools and in many ways, should be ranked much higher. Those kind of rankings are a bit silly in the first place. What matters more is their actual research output and their funding. And Brown is as well funded and politically renowned as most of the t10-20 schools are.

If there is a waitlist, it is likely to be used. Most t10-waitlists are really short, so you have good chances. Harvard and Stanford are maybe really difficult in that regard, but most other schools move a lot before their new PhD class stands. Of course, the larger the accepted cohort is, the more likely it is for the waitlist to come into effect for more people. So the program size might be a factor, as is the subfield. Princeton admitted a huge amount of students last year and if I remember correctly, at least 5 people got off their waitlist that I was aware of (all right before the final decision deadline, however).

I also had to make some experiences with "bad" grades and in my opinion, it all depends on the context. I often observe that master grades are not taken too seriously, because they are often heavily inflated, so if your friend's undergrad is better, then that is certainly a good sign. If your friend is from a grading system, where inflation is not as common as it is in the US, it is important to explain that in your application, ideally via the recommendation letter writers. Same applies, if the grades are not that good because of unique circumstances. In any way, "bad" grades might be a hurdle for the toptop programs, but in my experience 3.7 (even for American standards) is not that dramatic for most. Be open and transparent about it. The rest of application has to be on point, however.

I fully agree with you and haven't said something very different. Both are great approaches to a PhD and very different. The rankings, however, don't show that complexity. Anyways, still happy to help regarding DPIR if you have questions as mentioned above 😌

I don't want to start a discussion about rankings as they are largely irrelevant, but that refers mostly to undergrad degrees or professional degrees. US PhD programs do have an edge in training, research output, funding and placement (also in Europe), which is why they are sadly so competitive compared to most European programs, which are often reported as equally good in international rankings. Most European PhD programs, however, are thesis-writing programs and as such, not comparable. In the US, you are being "trained" to become a PoliSci-scholar. Rankings don't show this at all. Both have their place for certain people, and DPIR is certainly still toptop!

It is quite clear to me that high GRE scores (generally, only the quant score) only matter to certain subfields and then again within the subfields only for the professors (and applicants) that are quant-focused (certainly not everyone). It is such a vague test and score, it would only be correct and fair to receive less meaning to admissions in the future. Edit: But I can see the frustration. I also took it several times and spent way too much money.

Yes, that is strange indeed. Last year, I was rejected with the knowledge that the committee was very GRE-focused and only chose top GRE-scores (for CP, at least). I also learnt from my program, however, that every year's PhD admission is extremely different from the years before, just because it depends so much on who sits on the (yearly changing) committee. Seeing the list of admitted students of my program this year, I can say that it matches 1on1 the research interests of the specific (!) admission committee members. Last year, it was the same issue and then, I was lucky to match these interests. This year, I would have had no chance. Usually, there are only 3-4 people on the committee for most programs, so even if you think your fit is great regarding one specific professor in the department, you still need the luck that this professor has influence over the committee or is on exactly that one. Coming back to the GRE: Each committee has a different focus on test scores as well. While there are general trends in between the years, it might change drastically, if, for example, the CP member(s) are suddenly qual. and not quant.-focused.

I am not fully sure what you mean, but it is indeed true that most people don't choose to take up their DPhil offer, as it remains unfunded (like myself). DPhil students that are unfunded are usually the ones that don't have the highest academia ambitions in the first place and come from the private market or surely want to go there after graduation again, so the costs seem fine for them. In general Oxbridge PhD-circles, an unfunded place is often seen as a soft rejection if you still have the right credentials, but I would not say that is true regarding DPIR, as it is one of the more competitive departments at Oxford. I know of many students that receive funding from their home countries or re-applied to funding in their second year and were successful. There are many ways to get money, it is sadly very non-transparent und confusing, but DPIR is getting more funding every year, so it is not looking too bad. You have to be aware, however, that many funding decisions come very late and often beyond May, which is super annoying. Being a first year at a t10 department in the US now, I can see many reasons to actually prefer the Oxford DPhil over a US one. American PoliSci always sees European programs super weak, but I think one has to look at the specific needs and profiles of the student. For more information, feel free to dm. 🙂 Also, I would say, it strongly depends on the college you are admitted to. But that is a completely different discussion.

I was accepted to Oxford last year (not going there, however, because I studied there before) and can tell you that DPIR usually takes until mid-late March to release their decisions (often in groups). And they have plenty of spots available. It is a great program, which gets better every year, and a perfect city to study at, but sadly, funding is still an issue for many. But I would be hopeful regarding it! Feel free to send me a message if you have questions 🙂

https://www.theeagleonline.com/article/2025/02/breaking-au-now-classified-as-r1-research-institution But take it with a grain of salt, as the other commenter said, referring to the Government Department. SIS is quite different and great, however! But funding still an issue usually. (I did not go to AU, but know many people there)

NYU typically sends rejections very very late and most of their rejections are actually acceptances into their master program with no funding, of course. Really stupid system - they clearly just want to make money.

Congrats! They actually just announced that they officially became R1-classified today, so good day for the both of you, haha! It is a nice and friendly place - hopefully funding will get better for everyone.