JPYSD

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! 🙂

Hello Catd, I do think you have decent chances at a good PoliSci PhD program, especially if you are pitching quantitative subfields like methods and political economy, for example. Political economy usually is the most "policy-related" subfield, however, many departments don't have that necessarily. Can I ask in which country you completed your grad degree? That wasn't too clear from your description. but might be important. It would be somehow important to pitch an application and research interest that very much aligns with the typical US PoliSci subfields. Methods would be one, but public policy isn't really. You are right in saying that the latter is something more for public policy or professional schools and there, I would doubt the usability of a PhD. I would apply as a general rule: If you are not fully certain that you would at least want to try to step into academia, a US PhD is not for you. Otherwise, it will be a waste of time and resources and just a really frustrating experience. Having said that, if you can write a compelling SOP with a clear and honest red thread that fits with the subfields and focuses of top US PoliSci departments, you have all the chances still for that. Your background is not too unusual and your grades won't matter too much, especially since you have a great GRE and quant background. It would be good, however, to find reference writers with connections to the US, especially to make a compelling case for your interest in PoliSci academia despite your "unusual" background. Usually, that is a problem for many applicants from abroad.

UChicago admissions should come next week most likely as well. Last year, they came on February 5th 🙂

Congratulations on that waiting list - depending on the university, they are often short, so you have a good chance to still get a spot there. To your question: You have all the chances still. This does not mean anything at all. Many applicants receive rejections from most of their schools and then suddenly an acceptance for their dream school. It really depends on the specific fit, not so much on the general credentials you presented to all schools. There is no centralized system, so don't worry! 🙂

Good luck on your applications. Improving your quant GRE is definitely a good idea, but as long as you are not mostly pitching quant methods work, I would not worry too much to get a perfect score. From what I have heard, high 150s to low 160s is the sweet spot to still being considered at top programs. 🙂 It would certainly make sense to take those classes to improve your very own understanding of these things. For the application, however, they won't improve your standing too much, especially if they are not from a renowned source/university. If you have absolutely no quant experience on your CV, this would be important to show, however. CP might be the most popular in total application numbers, but from what I have heard, most programs have quite equal numbers of spots available in between IR, CP, AP and theory. Methods and PE often depends on the trajectory the department wants to take, but the classic four subfields are usually equally distributed, as long as (!) your department has a similar spread in faculty. Some departments just really don't have anyone in AP (for example) and logically will not admit many AP students then.

I fully second this. Many programs of my T10 graduate school (not sure about PoliSci department yet) also announced that smaller cohorts would become more the norm in the future, as they want to instead focus on higher stipend standards and generally better conditions for graduate students. That means that even rich private institutions will put more money towards fewer people and as such, likely accept smaller cohorts. With the upcoming Trump administration and educational budget cuts, this trend will likely intensify, even at private universities, sadly making top PoliSci PhD programs even more competitive.

I don't have any special insights into this, but I think you have to closely see how it is mentioned for each program. "Cannot extend ... pages" is stricter language than just "should be ... pages long". If it is not the former, I would read a "should" into this, meaning: "It is better to stick to the limit for our own sake, but you will not be disqualified if your sample is within the margin of 3-5 pages". Obviously, bibliography doesn't count and long footnotes or a lot of graphs can be seen as a legitimate reason to push the page count even further. But: Really be careful if programs are precise in their requirement language. In those cases, I would try to just stick to the seemingly hard limit. To add: They have to be somehow flexible, because most people will have wildly different margins, as usually, only the spacing is specified but not the layout.

Don't put too much emphasis on the secondary field. You can mention it, it won't hurt and certainly not appear as too narrow, but rather make yourself seen as flexible. In my department, nobody really knows about their second subfield until early to mid second year. However, looking at the market, the safest path would probably be CP + Methods.

Yes, you absolutely should present a primary subfield. It is ok to say that you are unsure about a second one and thus, can mention several, but all departments decide subfield-wise, meaning that they say before the cycle, e.g., that they want to admit 4 IR, 3 CP, 2 PT, 2 PE and 4 methods students this year and try to stick to that. If you are unclear in your primary field, they will likely not know what to do with you. But again, you can show that you are flexible and willing to go a different direction, especially with your second subfield. But for the sake of the application, be clear with at least the primary one. Edit to make it clearer: You can mention several subfields, but clearly divide into a primary and secondary one.

Thank you for your clarification! If you aspire to work in policy circles and think tanks and not solely in academia, the master programs at the Fletcher School and at Johns Hopkins are all good. Cambridge and Leiden are mostly research-based or academia-heavy and would make an entry into policy circles a bit more difficult, as they are mostly geared towards PhD programs (Leiden maybe to a lesser extend, but Oxbridge certainly). The policy programs, however, usually require you to already have some work experience before you enter them. This does not have to be full time or directly relevant, but going into those right after your bachelor's degree might be a bit difficult. Also keep in mind where you want to enter the job market after the master degree. The US programs are very US-focused (and a job entry there naturally difficult as a non-American), if you rather want to work in Europe or Asia, places like LSE, Sciences Po, Hertie or IHEID might be interesting.

Maybe besides your undergrad GPA (which should look much better with your quant grad degree), you have stellar credentials and definitely have a shot at all of those programs, if you can make sure to put your quant experience to good use and write a really good SOP that proves a great fit with the department. I am at one of the programs you have listed above, so feel free to DM if you have any questions 🙂

Of course, always happy to help! This is quite difficult to answer. I tend to see that the substantive area is much more important to be present at the department vs. the regional expertise, especially (!) if you can show through your previous studies or background that you naturally already have some of the regional expertise needed to have an understanding of the subject of analysis. If you work on political violence in sub-Saharan Africa, for example, it is much more important to find something that has worked on political violence generally compared to having worked on sub-Saharan Africa. Keep in mind, that you will have a committee, so while one person can almost never fit it all, you might take the regional experience of scholars with other substantive areas and combine it with those that have your focus on, let's say, political violence. Generally, it still seems that substantive focus trumps regional expertise, both in your SOP and in the faculty/department you are trying to select. Still try to find a way to address both in your application, however. Again, if you have specific questions, feel free to DM 🙂

I am in CP and everyone with my field has at least a region of focus. This can be as broad as "Latin America", but I think in the SOP, examples that are as micro as possible should at least be "mentioned", so yes, ideally mention countries. Your broad narrative can still be the main interest you are pitching, but at least bring one example to show your thought-of feasibility of your project. This is especially important if you are suggesting more of a qualitative methods focus. The more you go towards applying complex quant methods (which have to be explained), the less regional experience and focus seems relevant.

Good luck to everyone! I was part of last year's cycle and while I only received rejections at first, there suddenly was an acceptance from one of my top programs in the spam folder. So, don't loose hope and use this forum for good motivation and for cheering up each other. It helped a lot last year 🙂 If anyone needs any advice during these times, please reach out!

A late answer, but I assumed this means that the writing part of the document should not be longer than 30 pages. If references, figures or tables are in between the writing section, then that will count towards the page count. If they are attached as appendixes, just like a bibliography, in the very end, then that will not count.

Hello! For a longer and more helpful answer, I would need to know your background and the universities you are applying to, but I try it still: These days, master programs all around the world just throw around fancy names of degrees to win over international students to collect high fees. The name of the master degree only really counts if is either from a prestigious university or if you are a really good networker and can make the specific degree name sell in professional environments. What, however, does count is the broader discipline the master relates to and here my advice: Don't do a legal master if you don't have a legal background already or want to fully transition into a lawyer-career (usually a master is not enough for that). Stay in your discipline and specialize. You can absolutely do this with most IR master programs and still focus on international law aspects or trade. The sudden law background will just sound confusing to IR-focused employers and irrelevant to legal ones. Happy to help more if you can tell me the specific programs and places you would want to start a career in 🙂

The FP ranking is largely US-biased and practice-oriented. It (and Georgetown) is not made for students aspiring to stay in academia, but, indeed, for mostly American students that plan to go the foreign service / government route. Even for think tanks and independent expert careers in DC, I would argue, there are better IR schools. Georgetown just kind of has a legacy status in DC government circles (and among a small number of foreign governments), which is why it attracts and reproduces good students and rankings every year. Again, keep in mind that those are all "professional schools" and geared towards a practical career in politics and diplomacy (among Johns Hopkins, Fletcher, American, GW, Columbia SIPA, Harvard Kennedy and a few others). The "true" study or IR is largely academic and scholarly. This is something you might "find" at these schools too, but you will be better off at the best general Political Science departments. For academic masters in IR, you should go abroad to really have a benefit from it (LSE, Oxbridge etc.). Only Chicago seems to make sense if you don't want to go the professional route and stay in the US. Most other programs in the US are simply cash cows. Go to Europe instead or apply for PhDs directly. Feel free to PN if you have any more or specific questions. I worked in the DC circles quite a bit but now took the PoliSci route into academia 🙂

Hello! I am also from the typical European 3-year system and while I have done masters before my PhD in the US, I know a handful of 3-year-bachelor graduates that were able to get admitted into top US PhD programs, both in Political Science and Economics. Fyi, there were coming from German and British universities and went to places like Columbia, Princeton and Berkeley. So, it is definitely possible, but: Everyone that I know with such a path constructed their bachelor study in a very "American" way. This means that they took a lot of quantitative classes (!), wrote a long thesis with (ideally) original research and worked as research assistants for several professors or research programs. Many already had publications and recommendation letters from professors that had a connection to the US PoliSci community. I think all those factors (besides good grades, of course) are key to have a chance at said US programs. However, they would be key even if you would be doing a four-year bachelor or another master. What I am trying to say is that it is just really difficult to get those central qualifications within just three years of study, which is why most admission committees are critical towards such applicants in the first place. But if you can truly show that you have those credentials from just 3 years, it does not matter that it "just" has been three years. Most 4-year American programs truly are 3-year programs on the subject, since you are not really choosing your major at the start of your first year, anyways. I have heard and witnessed, however, that the trend goes to admitting students with prior (research) master experience, even with American bachelors. So, if you cannot get into a top program this year, try to do a good and academic master before that allows you to get as close to American academia as possible. But don't fall for the trap of American PoliSci masters, they are mostly just cash cows. UK programs (especially Oxbridge) or some academic programs in Europe (not the professional ones!) are much more worth it. Feel free to reach out if you have more questions and good luck!

I am sure many people are still waiting on some results and waitlist outcomes, so let us respect their outcomes and not announce the cycle as closed, but since you asked: I am fairly happy with my (first) cycle, although the outcome was "soso". I applied to only T10-15 US schools and to one UK school (13 in total) and was rejected by 10 (among them my 2 dream schools), although many POIs told me I would have great chances at their programs. The unsurprising learning was: Fit really matters the most. I was accepted at a good program, where I honestly also had one of the (if not the) best fit, but never talked to anyone before the application. The surprising learning, however, was: The GRE still matters a lot at the top programs. It was the one major thing that (I think and was told) made my application look slightly bad, since I had really awful scores and an admissions committee member (also my POI) at my preferred program actually reached out after the decision to tell me that the low GRE score was the main factor why the committee remained skeptical in the end. I assume good enough scores / "just" above average scores are almost as sufficient as perfect scores, but if any one of your application materials really is surprisingly "bad", it won't make an otherwise perfect application stand out anymore. That was a sad learning, since my dream programs failed probably quite significantly due to that score. Currently, I am deciding between my US and UK options, and will most likely have to delay that process until UK funding decisions are made. It looks like the US, however. Good luck to everyone!

No 😞 Just that I have been rejected from Nuffield. But no college or funding news...

I am not knowledgeable enough to give you a proper answer, but I guess every opinion helps in those decisions: I have heard from many more people that BC is seen as a niche program for certain areas of theory and know of a handful of people that were placed decently. Now, I don't know about funding and the specific campuses, but BC would for most people be in a much more desirable location. Not just Boston vs. Bloomington itself, but also the fact that as a theory student, you pretty much stay at your program for most of the 5 years (rarely fieldwork etc.) and the Boston area would give you the chance to be a proper part of the theory community with conferences and events at Harvard, MIT, BU, Northeastern, Brandeis etc. Connections seem so important in academia, and I believe this could be easier to achieve, so you could have a more diverse academic life at BC/living in Boston. But as always: funding and personal fit should be the most important factors! (also: since you might have posted there - don't listen to PoliSci rumors - that page is just full of awful trolls that don't want anything good for you)

Congratulations -that's awesome! Also DPhil in Politics? Let's wish each other luck for funding...

Hello 🙂 It is indeed a good idea to apply to PhDs directly, especially if you have a political science background already. If your GPA is decent, can score a high GRE result, have access to decent LORs and enough time to create a serious research narrative in your SOP, thats all you need. Most US master programs are cash cows and only really make sense if you can find funding for those, which is really rare. The name will not carry, everyone knows what they are for. I only saw people really increasing their chances with a master from for example Chicago or Columbia (both rather common for that purpose) if they did not have a political science background in their undergrad or if they really had bad grades and needed to create a better "impression" of themselves. UK master programs are a bit of a different story it seems, since they are usually more competitive themselves to get into, don't have the grade inflation and make the candidate more interesting. Especially Oxbridge, LSE and King's would be the options here. In terms of rankings: It sadly is true that the US News Ranking is the only really trustworthy ranking for US graduate programs in political science. Its subfield rankings are decent for ranking the T10, but as you can see yourself, they don't go very far down, so take them with a grain of salt. It is also true that while theoretically everyone has a shot at academia, the vast majority of placements stem from T10-15, max. T30 schools. There are a few exceptions of good programs outside of those here and there, but it's really tight. If you are interested in political science schools globally, the Shanghai subject ranking is not too bad. Among the top 30 schools globally, Oxbridge, LSE, King's and the European University Institute definitely should be included as well. Maybe even Zurich and some of the English programs in Scandinavia. In terms of chances, it is all about the "fit". Your topic has to fit to the research focus of ideally not just one professor and the department as a whole. Yes, a statement of purpose will be a research proposal with maybe one paragraph about the specific university you are applying to and yourself in the end. The "purpose" is your topic and not who you are. Here and in your statement, you have to be as specific as possible, although not one person has to fit it all. Remember, you will build a committee, so its the synergy of several people you should be interested in. On the flipside, if there is one perfect faculty for your topic, but the rest of the department is very far away from that subject area, it is not a good sign. Of course it is not about the subfield you should match faculty with but about the subfield in the subfield. Try to get as close to your actual research as possible. Comparative politics and theory are really big fields, e.g., and you could still have a horrible fit in a department that is usually known for those fields. Most of the T10-15 programs will be really good for most subfields. Then there are some departments that are clearly specialized in one subfield or research focus, but rather weak in most of the other classic ones. This will reflect in the rankings of course. Brown, e.g., is top-notch if you want to do comparative work with a South Asia focus or political theory. It is ranked at place 41, however. NYU is probably the top school for formal and quantitative methods, but is much lower. Chicago might be the best in country for political theory, but has no substantive people in American Politics. So it really depends and you have to do your research. A general rule is (and you should stick to it, because it really shows the quality of the program): Where there is no good funding included in the program, it will not be a good program. The more you move yourself away from the T20, the less money or even no money will be guaranteed. Avoid those programs by all cost and don't even bother applying. T10 programs all pay a stipend of above 40k USD. But it decreases rapidly from there and of course depends on the area you would live in. Also, apply broadly. There is no such thing as a safety school, since most programs max. take in 10-20 students, even the "low-ranked" ones. It really is about fit and fit only if your stats are right. If you don't have an obviously bad GPA and GRE, then still apply to the T10-schools, even if you think you would never have a chance. Placement records are usually published by each department and show where people might end up with the degree. They could be read as a ever-changing "ranking". For T15 schools, they don't really matter because everyone really has a shot if they do good research. Of course the top of the top schools have it much easier producing those kind of students with their connections. If you are looking at schools ranked lower, definitely check their placement records. They won't be great but take them with a grain of salt - it will be about you in the end, so a good fit and funding is much more important for now. Go through every single university from the top to the bottom of the US News List and filter by fit and funding. Then narrow down. Feel free to PN if you have specific questions regarding programs etc. 🙂 All the best!

Thank you for this! Are you saying that you know for a fact that Nuffield already sent out their offers for this year (at least for the already admitted students)?

March 22nd is the day until they will have completed sending out everything, by latest. I would guess they sent out about half of the decisions by now (including mine), DPhil in Politics more than DPhil in IR it seems, and internal applications probably before regular applications. No information about funding yet (Nuffield, Clarendon etc. is not out yet).