jackassjim

Emory has started calling people. Edit: Call for admission, not interview

Thanks everyone for the feedback. I really appreciate it. Yeah, I'm applying for admission to a PhD, so that will be at least five years. Also, my wife gave birth a few months ago, so separating myself from her and the little one is out of question. It's definitely not an easy thing to coordinate our applications. Already, we know that my wife will not receive interview invitations from a large number of schools, and I have gotten an offer for a full financial ride from a great program, but in a city where she won't get in. ARRGGGGHHH!!!! C'est la vie, I guess. I'm thinking of Marc-Aurele, and trying to be as stoic as I can, but this is real hard. I think I will withdraw only when we get official confirmation that she is rejected. That seems like the most sensible thing to do. However, polumetis has a good point. I paid for a decision. I guess that if I decline the invitation in a courteous and professional way (explaining my reasons), I will not necessarily burn any bridges. Thanks again. Jim

Hi all, Quick question for you guys and gals. My wife and I are both applying for grad school and we need to be accepted in the same geographic region. She was rejected from a school already, and I was wondering if it would be wise for me to withdraw my application to that school immediately. On the one hand, I am curious to see if I would have been accepted. On the other, I might have to reapply next year. How would the department take it if I didn't take them up on their offer, only to reapply there? Thanks for your input. Jim

Maybe you could submit a scanned copy or one by fax while they wait for the original to come. You know, as a good faith gesture.

Please, guys and gals, tone down the rhetoric. This is getting unpleasant.

Hehe. That really made me laugh.

Point well taken. Daniel Drezner (from Tufts) makes essentially the same argument in two of his postings. Interesting stuff: http://drezner.foreignpolicy.com/posts/ ... _education http://drezner.foreignpolicy.com/posts/ ... _part_deux

I don't feel so special anymore :wink:

Sure, I can see how some applicants would follow that logic. It is a very risky gamble however. In essence, my question was: Just how low do you think the yield would be if they did not offer funding at all? If the yield is VERY low, then it's a problem for the departments who want to ensure that their "legacy" is preserved by sending, not just good, but great graduates on the job market. I get the feeling that the best candidates are probably very committed to political science, but that they are also those who have the better Plan B available to them. From my perspective at least (not that I'm the best candidate), the opportunity cost of attending grad school in polisci is already really high. For example, I have applied to a few joint programs that required a separate application to law school. Without much effort, I got into the JD program at harvard. Now following that track would certainly be a less risky option than hoping for a chain of events that is rather unlikely (end of recession -> growth of university endowments -> polisci department budget bump -> money is spent on current students rather than on attracting new and potentially better ones in a tougher market for schools (no recession = less applicants in grad school)). If that kind of Plan B is available to me, I can't imagine the options that the real star-applicants have... Of course, this is just speculation, but what do you all think? Are the stars among us that crazy about polisci that they would take the gamble?

I know it probably means nothing. Don't worry about crushing my hopes, I was only joking. Well maybe, but it's still her official title (at least as I read it from the department's website).

Beginning of January.

So they are actually looking at files. I just got an email from one of my department's secretary that my GRE score report is missing. So how do you all think this works? Do they first go through all the files to see what's missing, then contact all the students to ask them to provide the documents? Would seem like a huge waste of time with the +/-60% of applications they won't seriously consider in the end... Hehe, I guess I'm just fishing for this to be a good sign.

Are there so many students willing to pay full tuition for 5-6 years to get a PhD in political science, given that the financial prospects at the end of the tunnel are not so impressive either?

That's suspiciously high. Let's remember those are anonymous comments. Let's not freak out...

That is just plain scary. I hope many other people chime in to say it's bull. I will be following that thread closely.

At the top of this page, click on Results Search. There, you can search for the schools and programs you have applied to in order to see when they have sent out acceptances/rejections last year.

Hi again, That's a great, and very sensible reply. I also believe we should allow ourselves to be "seduced" by new theoretical and methodological perspectives, as well as by new topics of inquiry. I'm also an IPE person who has worked on trade dispute settlement. Our profiles are getting closer and closer. Hopefully they take more than one Good luck

I also found that very intersting rising_star. Like ridgey, I feel this is something that would require quite careful phrasing. One thing is certain, I will ask that of prospective mentors after I get accepted...

Some people are oversharers. Because he talks about his stuff doesn't mean your included in the plans...

Hey there adaptations, Yeah, it seems we have quite a few schools in common. Would be fun to see if we end up at the same place! For us (my family), it's not purely a question of geography. My wife wants to practice and I want to go into academia. So the fit with the research of an advisor is much more important for me than for her. In effect, we kind of applied around my targets (don't I have an amazing partner?!?!). U of Chicago, of course, is a great school. However, their focus in my subfield is quite at odds with the type of stuff I hope to do. In the end, it's all a question of theoretical and substantive (interest) match. For other schools, I was able to overlook that because they were especially strong in other areas such as methods. At Chicago, I just didn't see what else would compensate. Also, I guess my application there fell victim to the reputation (caricature?) that their econ dept and realist theorists have cultivated over the years. At Northwestern, I would have a great match, a great (joint) program, and good financing prospects. What about you? What's your subfield and what do you plan on looking at in your research? Ciao,

I never quite understood why people wanted to make up substantive questions only so that they can make contacts with profs. Even if you're subtle, at this time of year, they see you coming from kilometers away (hey Americans, when will you finally go metric?!?). Why not be direct and practical? I say: (1) don't just write compliments for no reason; (2) ask a question only if you actually care about it; (3) if you decide to ask a question, make sure it's one that can be answered in about 3 lines of text (these people are busy); (4) yes, ask if they take students --> if they don't have the funds and no other profs interests you in the dept, you might want to reconsider applying there altogether (I know this doesn't apply to the OP, but I mean this as more general advice). (Also, this depends on the discipline. I know for some it's crucial to have someone with funds to hang on to. In others, it isn't) Now, I do think it's good to ask a question to get the interaction going, but make sure it doesn't come from left field. For example, I'm applying to joint programs, and I asked some profs about the program, how well it was integrated, and how well they thought it prepared students for the type of research I want to do (which happens to be the same kind of research they do). I didn't want to ask about how they positioned themselves in some meta-theoretical debate, given their stance on X and Y in the paper they have published in 1987 in the American Journal of blah blah blah. Note to rising_star: I know the quote was kind of misinterpreted, but I meant to use it as an example only. Sorry.

Sorry. Edited...

grex, To elaborate a bit on your point... What we are really talking about here, is not so much a correlation between variables, as the stability (standard deviation?) of the ranks that different admission committees assign to a particular applicant. A low SD (high correlation for you), by definition, means that there is little spread around the mean rank that is assigned to her. A shorter spread is very bad for those who consistently rank in, say, the bottom 25th percentile, because it means that they are very unlikely to benefit from an 'outlier' ranking that goes in the right direction (down (up?) toward that #1 spot). The 'correlation effect' you discuss is not nearly as problematic for those who are very competitive, i.e. those that have a mean rank that is very close to the acceptance threshold. In effect, it is unlikely that the association between rankings is strong enough to shrink the spread so that those applicants are kept out of every schools. Of course, the converse of the argument you make in your post is that, if you are generally above said threshold, you want much higher correlation/lower SD. In other words, it's all relative to where you are in the pile. Now, the question of red flags is something else. If there's one of those, you could very well be rejected everywhere. I guess the 10% already assumes there is no such deal breaker. Edit: I see how my 10% estimate might have induced you into believing that that hypothetical candidate was near the bottom of the pile, in which case your intuition is perfectly fine.

Really, the most basic way should have been to speak with your profs...

Doubt is not the same as belief we cannot know. I'm not sure it qualifies.