JPYSD

I hope many people received good news in the past days or will still receive them. I can just say that my program offered/will offer 5 waitlisted students a spot, which equals the number of admitted students that did not take up their place. So it wasn't all too bad for everyone involved in the end. Stay hopeful! 🙂

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.

And I just want to share again the hopeful news that my program works with a waitlist this year, which will be used right away once someone admitted does not take up their offer. I made the experience that a waitlist usually means the program did not (overly) overadmit, so there is actual use for it. Almost no program has a 100% rate of admitted students taking up their offer, so waitlists do have a meaning for most cycles. 🙂

While you are certainly correct with the point of not pressuring admitted students to turn down their offer for the sake of waitlisted applicants, I made a different observation regarding the waitlists: Many programs (including mine) matched the number of their admitted students exactly with the number of spots available for the year and have a waitlist. Meaning that every student that turns down a space in one particular subfield will be filled with someone from the waitlist. This has been communicated and I was able to see something similar happen at many other programs during the past years; personally know of several that got in via waitlists every year, even at top programs. It is true that many programs overadmit, don't have a waitlist at all or keep them very short. My experience has been, however, that the programs that strongly overadmit, usually don't have a waitlist. So one thing seems for certain: A (always subfield-specific) waitlist has its use and there are politics and clear thoughts behind it. It is not as grim as it seems.

That is very likely. Most T15 PoliSci programs received between 500 and 700 applications during the past years. There are statistics about that from other schools too.

Fully agree! But I actually think most departments set their intensions while they are deciding who to take on and reviewing applications. I doubt that most committees sit together to discuss a direction ahead of the application opening or even deadline, sadly.

Sorry to hear that! 😞 But to make you feel better: I heard from people at UChicago that this year, they will be more selective and will relatively admit more people from subfields that they had focused less on before (and less from the usual strong subfields there), to balance things out at the department. I guess that would mean more AP, methods and PE and less PT, CP and IR...

Hello Shawn, Congratulations on your great offers! Sounds like a successful cycle for you 🙂 I don't have much to contribute here, only that I have heard of more decent placements and read more works from PSU scholars. Their department and generally their social sciences seems more well balanced, which is what you want when starting a social science PhD, which can easily shift more interdisciplinary (across subfields and disciplines). As I am a first year US PhD student myself now, I just wanted to make another point to consider: Especially when your options are more or less similarly ranked, please think of the cities, apartments and campuses you would likely be in (next to the potential PhD cohort). Spending at least 5 years in a place during your late 20s is really foundational for so much in your life, and as especially the first two years of a PhD tend to be extremely hard, you want to be in a city that you are comfortable in and have good cultural connections or the right people at. Just my two cents. Best would be top visit both places, of course! Personally, I would pick PSU here, but everyone views this different. Stipend (and its use in the specific place) also matters, of course. An advice: Please contact professors and grad students from both programs and directly speak with them, openly disclosing your options. I have done this and it really helped me and surprised me how open the faculty is to help you. Best of luck!

To all that have been waitlisted: Your chances are probably better than you think. Even at top schools (maybe not Harvard or Stanford), every year, plenty of candidates will make it off the waitlist, which are usually kept quite short and focused. Last year, I know of up to 7 people which were put off the waitlist at even Princeton! Many programs don't even have waitlists (UChicago, for example), so the ones that have, keep them very small and focused. Usually, waitlists are subfield-sorted, so just because someone will not take up their spot, doesn't mean you will get right in, vice versa. The hardest aspect of waitlists is the waiting time, since you most likely have to wait until the veeeeery end, as programs will reevaluate once all acceptances and rejects by the students have come in.

It also depends on where your undergrad grades are from. US programs know that (most) US GPAs are heavily inflated, so having even slightly "meh" grades could already be a bad sign in your application. Coming with grades from abroad, the programs will look closer at them, especially concerning your relative class standing. I, for example, came into a T10 program with undergrad grades that would be directly translated to a 3.2ish US GPA. In my home country, that still made me belong to the top 15% of graduates, however. I also completed a much better Master program, so that might have changed things too. Best advice here is to be open about a seemingly "bad" grade and explain it in your letters or let your references explain them, if you can.

Being at a US school already is great! Statistics might be even better, as it will be greatly appreciated by most quant-heavy programs! The public policy schools are mostly just too vague in their approach and acceptance in the academic market. With the exception of maybe Harriss in Chicago if you are doing formal methods or political economy and Stanford, they are all mostly geared towards foreign service or think tank jobs, and in those cases, you will usually compete with people that are much younger as they only did those policy school masters and collected more directly relevant work experience on the way. So for policy jobs, a PhD will be "nice" but not a direct benefit, while for tenure track jobs in academia they are clearly a disadvantage as most departments will not take them seriously, especially if you wish to stay in academia. Especially if you were looking at the DC schools, Fletcher, SIPA, Kennedy and the likes, academia will not be the default path. Again, Harriss and Stanford are somewhat of a niche, but you will be quite detached from the PoliSci discussion there. They might all be a benefit, if you wish to work at, say, the World Bank, but that is a very small group of jobs. If you have no strong wish to stay in academia, want to stay close to actual politics and have a career in it and think you would have fun doing a PhD and don't mind the extra time, they might be great, however. As for references, including one from statistics is fine, even a good idea! Your credentials are great it seems. Find a topic and subfield you are passionate about and departments that really fit that interest and write a compelling SOP. That seems the most important for you. Good luck! 🙂