LatinAmericanFootball

Wow, that's brutal... I heard from a POI that many programs would accept smaller cohorts, but a cohort of 5 is scary.

Yeah, I'm also expecting news from these schools and maybe Princeton and UT Austin over the next few days. Fingers crossed for what might be a huge week!

That's a tough question, but I would say to only apply to programs you would be happy to attend in the first place. If you only get in places at the end of your list, I think it only makes sense to decline if you know what were your weak points and you are confident you can fix them for the following cycle, e.g. a weak GRE. Like you said, it's a risky move that might cost you an entire year.

Don't know if anyone else here applied there, but I'm claiming a rejection at UChicago Political Economy. Just received a email from them telling to check the portal.

I just received this invitation from Notre Dame. It says "This event is for finalists for our program’s 2022 cohort and will allow us to get to know you better and for you to learn more about our program and university." The schedule also includes individual meetings with faculty, so it seems to be almost an interview. Fellow ND applicants should probably check their emails!

Seconding most of the other posters above, I'll only start worrying in about two weeks from now. Princeton, Berkeley, Emory, and UT Austin usually release initial decisions on the last week of January. Unlikely to receive anything before Jan ~25th.

I have a similar problem. My GREs don't show up but my TOEFL scores do, which I assume must be because I registered for the GREs under a slightly different name (common and acceptable under my country's naming customs, but weird for the application systems). I sent emails for most programs warning them of that and they matched my scores with no issues, but as you mentioned MIT specifically asks not to do it so I'll also just wait I guess.

I mean, just to name a couple, professors at Columbia and NYU mention on their "Advice for prospective PhD students" pages that GREs are very important for admissions - see http://macartan.nyc/teaching/applying-for-a-phd/ and https://cyrussamii.com/?page_id=2121. The faculty present at Stanford's "Pathways to PhD" informational session also said the same. So that's three top departments saying GREs definitely matter, even if just for an initial screening of the candidates or whatever. I have my doubts on whether it is predictive of future success and there certainly are cultural biases - the verbal section was particularly difficult for me as a foreigner and it hardly speaks anything of my ability to read and interpret the PS literature. But scores seem to matter for most departments.

I suggest you cycle through some of the previous Profiles/Results threads, like this one from last year: I am also a foreigner myself, but I would say that "typical" research experience for US applicants consists of an undergrad thesis (or "honor thesis") and some research assistance for professors. My impression is that a master's thesis already counts a lot and a great SOP and recommendations can make up for lack of experience if they show that you have good potential. So I guess you shouldn't worry too much.

Folks, my email inbox is getting congested as you tagged me like 15 times over the past 24 hours. My point was simply that the GRE is still being used and taken seriously by admissions committees, and the many of us that had to take it at home should not worry about it being less valued than the standard GRE because (1) the report does not indicate the test type and (2) ETS protocols are very rigid. If @Theory007 has reasons to believe otherwise but is not willing to disclose them, no sweat, but I'll stand by my point. Multiple people receiving offers last year with GREs taken at home, and the fact that many universities that made them optional last year made it mandatory again this year (when it is still possible to take the test at home), further indicate that making it optional was more of a response to the early-pandemic uncertainty and making grad applications accessible to people who wouldn't be able to take the test either way than any concern with cheating. In other news, most applications are due today - hope you all got to upload everything without issues! My last recommender just sent his letter after I reminded him for the third time this week. Hope he doesn't hate me now.

AFAIK decision timelines vary a lot across universities, from late January until early-mid March. It might be worth checking the previous app cycle threads and see when people reported results from each department, as they seem to release results more or less on the same period every year (for instance, Berkeley seems to always send offers around January 30th-February 1st). Someone also collected this data for most universities on this link: https://imgur.com/a/EuNTB

Do you have any evidence to back that up, e.g. people in adcoms saying they don't trust the GRE At Home? I took it at home and know people who took it at home last year, and I can assure you that even if I wanted to cheat (which I obviously did not) it would have been very hard to do so, as ETS protocols are very rigid. In fact, GRE online boards are filled with people that got their tests cancelled because they did something slightly suspicious which the proctors understood as possible cheating even if it wasn't.

There were some quite successful people last year on the forum who did not submit GRE scores, so I assume they were mostly used as tie-breakers in schools that made them optional or did not request them at all. I also scored pretty well so I'm sending them everywhere, but most of the departments I'm applying to made them mandatory this year anyway.

Yeah, guess I didn't expect the worsening economy or the new Covid variant lol. I remember a lot of talk last year about how recessions and uncertainty make people go after graduate studies, and these were some of the reasons for the high competitiveness in 2020-21. Another reason to apply broadly...

Yeah, I'm trying to think that it won't be a dealbreaker if they really want me... but it's still a gaffe. At least I have something to blame if I don't get in!

I was submitting some last apps and just realized I wrote on my (already submitted, due by Dec 1st) SOP for Harvard how its "Department of Political Science" is a great fit for me. It's actually called Department of Government. Am I doomed?

1. Your math background is already way above average for Poli Sci PhD applicants. If the cost of taking calc 2 or some linear algebra is low (i.e. won't keep you from working or cost you time that you need to study for the GREs or prep a writing sample or SOP), it couldn't harm. But it is likely that the marginal benefit is not very high and that just by being an econ major and having taken grad econometrics you can already convincingly argue that your math skills are solid. 2. Most programs at the very top (think Stanford, Harvard, Princeton) are primarily quant-oriented. Other programs in the top 20 are "boutique" quant programs, meaning that their main strength is game theory or statistics. These include WUSTL, NYU, Rochester and maybe Emory. But you'll certainly find space for quant-heavy research at any top 20 program. Good luck!

I didn't really have to do much convincing, I mentioned I would apply to 12+ schools when I first made contact asking for the letters and they didn't seem to mind. All of my recommenders did their PhDs in the US so I reckon they also applied to multiple schools and understand how random is the whole process.

Me too! Except I have 14 more to go (Six of them by the Dec 1st deadline). Yikes, this is exhausting.

Your quant GRE is definitely a weakness, but plenty of people in this forum have been admitted at top schools with Q scores of ~155. Assuming you get past this "first round" your profile looks strong enough to have a good chance at any department. I would suggest you ask one of the letter writers (probably the one that knows you the best) to highlight your quant skills in their letter. Also, NYU seems to be particularly picky with quant scores, so unless your fit there is great there might be better places to apply to.

I'm not in the US, but my feeling is this year will be calmer. There is less uncertainty re: politics, the economy, and the pandemic. We will probably see a small decrease in the supply of people applying (going back to industry, other sectors) and an increase in the demand of applicants as departments admit normal-sized cohorts and the ones that suspended admissions go back to normal (perhaps with bigger cohorts to compensate the gap year).

Thanks for starting this thread! Good luck to all of us applying this year, hope we are a successful cohort. @Fellow applicants: how many schools are you all applying to? I recently settled for 15, kinda worried that might be too many but I'd rather be safe than sorry I guess.

Any good PhD program would only accept you with reasonable funding, so the question is not so much funding v. no funding as it is acceptance v. rejection. As polisciallday mentioned, it will probably come down to your SOP and LORs, but you probably have a real chance at many good programs. I'd say only do an MA if it's funded AND if you're only looking at the very top programs, which would expect some research experience.

Second the above. I've seen folks on this forum get into NYU with 163Q or so, but if those are your dream schools and you really want to be safe, you should aim for the 90th percentile (at least 166 or 167).

It's possible the lack of GREs might have hurt you last year. Since your scores are very good (esp. quant) and the rest of your profile is too, I'd say it makes sense to apply to a similar range of schools to the one you did last year. You should definitely have a shot at schools in the top 20-30 or even above that. Of course, it all depends on how strong your SOP, letters, and writing sample are.