balderdash
-
Posts
571 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Posts posted by balderdash
-
-
I think many would be interested to know that according to firsthand accounts, the median age of protesters is 26, with a mean of 29. That's older than most would have guessed, with many "old" people mixed in. (Do you think yourself "just some young hippie, hoping to live some 1960s fantasy?" Or would you consider yourself a reasonably-informed political actor?)
Also, median income for bottom 90% in America grew at 4.2% p/a pretty stably 1933-1980. Then the Reagan Revolution occurred, neo-liberalism ruled, and it shrank at -.1% p/a 1980-2007 (growing from $10,000 to $30,000 in average annual income through 1980, then stagnating).
The figures for the top 1% are 1% growth p/a, then 4.7% p/a since 1980, tripling average annual income from $400,000 to $1.2m. Source.
We don't just have inequality. We have Ivory Coast inequality. (No offense, Ivory Coast.)
- awwdeerp, orst11 and mandarin.orange
-
2
-
1
-
How were your marks at Nottingham, and where was your BA from/what did you study?
Provided the answers to both are reasonable, I'd say you have as decent a chance as anyone else.
-
White House internship is good, but I frankly don't think you'll be very competitive at the schools you list. Most applicants will have GPAs north of 3.8 and GREs above 750 on each section, and many will already have advanced degrees and a few years of solid work experience.
You're in the Poli Sci subforum, so I would assume you want to do a PhD in PS with an IR subfield. If that's the case, I'd seriously consider taking some time out to work or applying for a Master's (and then working your butt off to get a stellar GPA) as an intermediate step. On the other hand, your schools make me think you mean an MA in IR - in which case, the same opinions hold but you may find better advice in the Gov't Affairs subforum.
Best of luck.
-
Actually, OP isn't as thick as some people are making him (?) out to be.
Last year, when I applied, I called the Dep't to ask if writing sample was required, and they said no. Then I called GSAS, and they said yes. I submitted an email inquiry, and eventually GSAS reconciled the two and confirmed to me that the department was correct, and none is required but it is optional.
-
Good to see another Tab - I was in St Ed's last year. What college were you/who was your dos?
I would call up with your dos, talk through your options, and really get a better sense of what it is that you want to do, with any methodology. I would highlight a thesis or one of your supervisions that you really got passionate about and then expand this into a research question or theme that you want to take up as a doctoral student. Lucky for you, you'll have experience writing personal statements for uni already, whereas most American applicants won't.
As for your marks, no worries, you've "checked the box" so far as they are concerned. These schools get many applicants from Cambs, so they'll be fully aware of how to assess the 67 against US GPAs. I think you're fine to apply to the schools you've listed, but keep in mind that many, many students take a few years off, have multiple rounds of applications, etc before they start a program. You may not get the offer you want first time around (I didn't).
As for the references, definitely the dos and tutor, but for the third choice, go with whoever is able to best speak to your future academic potential, whether that's the Chair or the supervisor. There are no names in PPSIS that I can think would be an absolute game-changer for US admissions (though again I don't know the whole department), so I think the choice will have a lot to do with the research topic you take up in your personal statement. I wouldn't think choosing the supervisor would be a question mark, unless you've been working there for a while and the topic is germane to his/her work. But really the choice is yours.
-
Princeton is up today.
-
Government is how Harvard says Political Science, so it's just like traditional departments elsewhere. Treat it the same way you would Stanford/Yale Political Science and Princeton Politics.
-
Honestly I think your instinct about being too inexperienced is spot-on. Your stats are wonderful, but at HKS, WWS, and the like, you'll be competing with people of similar academic backgrounds who have been working for the UN for 10 years, you know?
So in my humble opinion, I would advise getting 2-3 years of work experience before applying.
-
I disagree with the "problem dictates the methodology" point. The implication is that someone without proper econometric training would know what can and can't be anwsered with statistics seems silly.
I think you've misread me, as that's not the implication of what I was saying. Perhaps I should have been more explicit, but I think it's assumed that one needs a solid base in a range of research techniques in order to even begin framing the research questions. What I meant was that beyond this sort of familiarity - after the first few years of graduate study, as I mentioned in my original post - is when the problem takes precedence, so methodology can't really be "known" prior to that experience.
-
As is often written around here (and in scholarship... I think I saw it the other day in a book from 1970), the problem dictates the methodology, not the other way around. So apply to schools based on thematic/advisorial matches, and worry about methodology later once you have your research question sorted out as as a 3rd-5th year student.
-
I can't weigh in with much, but my supervisor who has been helping me with my personal statement urged me to mention my RA experience.
-
Well, I stand corrected by a much more informed mind.
-
Though I'm no expert on Harvard Extension School, I think what happened was the idea that "no one is going to view this as you went to Harvard Harvard" got so internalized that it became exaggerated to the "no one cares that you went to HES" and "people look down on HES" lines you frequently hear.
Again, I'm no expert. But my inclination is that they'll view it as a worthwhile demonstration of your intent to be a scholar and your dedication to the field, the same as if you had studied elsewhere. I think the journal article will help, and your stats won't get you thrown out of any admissions offices. At this point, it really comes down to your personal statement/writing sample/recommendations. Just do your best on those.
-
Welcome to the forum. I hear you on the apparent lack of good qual programs.
Not to be rude, but there was a thread about this, specific to South Asia, just a few weeks ago: Next time, please search before posting.
Hope it helps.
-
As for ANU, I know it's respected in Aus, but beyond that I know nothing. As for the other: you mean King's College London, Department of War Studies?
My friend had offers to do his doctorate at KCL in WS and at Oxford in History, and he wants to be a political scientist. So he did a lot of research, asked a lot of top names in the field, past advisors, professionals, etc., and they basically said that the King's reputation is solid but a War Studies degree is a curveball in applying for tenure-track jobs afterward... so you may find difficulty with that.
Also, from many friends who attended KCL: the social life leaves something to be desired. (Though, having spent time at LSE, I guess I'm not just an impartial observer.)
-
I feel for you. Try being an Africanist (that isn't doing petropolitics or elections).
I can't really help with particular faculties, but I can say that all of my advisors basically said to expand out a bit because of the dearth of Africanists. Basically you'll say, "I want to do XYZ with Europe, but I stand to learn a lot from Prof Jinglebutt's work on Latin America because it explores the same themes." It may not seem like much, but it will probably add 1 POI at every school you're thinking of applying to, and it will make you seem flexible enough to adapt your research to the department.
-
I believe so. In most cases, I just called and asked the departments' graduate secretaries. As I recall, all of them want single-spaced.
-
Also, I think everyone needs to remember it's an investment. $1000 dollars is not a lot when you are considering you will be living your life at these given places for roughly 5 years.
Not if you don't get any offers... I sure could've used the $800 I spent on apps last year.
-
I'm not a Lit student, so I hope you don't mind if I chime in.
I think that beyond the reasons discussed above, the humanities are the closest atheists like myself get to "something greater." Here's a passage from Hitchens's God is not Great, on wonderment in secularism:
Evolution has meant that our prefontal lobes are too small, our adrenal glands are too big, and our reproductive organs apparently designed by committee; a recipe which, alone or in combination, is very certain to lead to some unhappiness and disorder. But still, what a difference when one lays aside the strenuous believers and takes up the no less arduous work of a Darwin, say, or a Hawking or a Crick. These men are more enlightening when they are wrong, or when they display their inevitable biases, than any falsely modest person of faith who is vainly trying to square the circle and to explain how he, a mere creature of the Creator, can possibly know what that Creator intends. Not all can be agreed on matters of aesthetics, but we secular humanists and atheists and agnostics do not wish to deprive humanity of its wonders or consolations. Not in the least. If you will devote a little time to studying the staggering photographs taken by the Hubble telescope, you will be scrutinizing things that are far more awesome and mysterious and beautiful—and more chaotic and overwhelming and forbidding—than any creation or “end of days” story. If you read Hawking on the “event horizon,” that theoretical lip of the “black hole” over which one could in theory plunge and see the past and the future (except that one would, regrettably and by definition, not have enough “time”), I shall be surprised if you can still go on gaping at Moses and his unimpressive “burning bush.” If you examine the beauty and symmetry of the double helix, and then go on to have your own genome sequence fully analyzed, you will be at once impressed that such a near=perfect phenomenon is at the core of your being, and reassured (I hope) that you have so much in common with other tribes of the human species—“race” having gone, along with “creation” into the ashcan—and further fascinated to learn how much you are a part of the animal kingdom as well. Now at last you can be properly humble in the face of your maker, which turns out not to be a “who,” but a process of mutation with rather more random elements than our vanity might wish. (Hitchens, C. 2007. God is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. New York: Twelve, 8-9.)Granted, he's talking about science. But the same ideas apply to literature. The greats, according to the individual's own definition, have more moral authority in them than any holy book I've come across, and their ability to connect on a philosophical, spiritual, or human level is far in excess of any sermon I've heard. Since I am incapable of properly expressing this idea, I'll close my interruption of your thread with another Hitchens:
Literature, not scripture, sustains the mind and—since there is no other metaphor—also the soul. (ibid, 5.)Indeed.
-
So today, UCLA and UCBerkeley (and I imagine other UC schools) open their applications. Anyone working on them?
Others already online: Yale, Northwestern, Madison, and Cornell. Still waiting: Princeton, Stanford.
By the way, I thought it might be interesting to compare costs. After transcripts, app fees, and GREs, it looks like my total for this year will be $1,030. Yikes.
-
You're a Fulbright. To quote a great film, "Chill, Winston."
(I got a SAIS offer but went abroad instead.)
- cunninlynguist and Clay Made
-
1
-
1
-
First, I would call the graduate secretary and see if they're interested in additional material or not, and ask how to send it - last year, a few offices told me to send similar statements via email and they would simply print it out and attach it to the file. Others said they didn't want that information, so I snuck it into the application elsewhere (like the SOP, suggested above). It's still early in the season; I wouldn't expect the graduate coordinators are going to be annoyed at you asking (and if they are, well, that's their job).
If they do want you to send the information, the best thing to do would be wait until you enroll and then go get "proof of enrollment" from the school's registrar. Then fax/mail/scan and email. That will look the most official.
-
For that I can only offer the forum regular's refrain: search the board, there must be a hundred threads on that very subject by now.
-
Yeah, don't worry about it. Write a good statement and I don't see any problem with your apps.
By the way, +1 for "I'm feeling really rather nebulous" - I laughed out loud.
Listing emeritus or adjunct prof as my faculty fit in the SOP?
in Political Science Forum
Posted
I think this certainly holds if you put your primary POI as an emeritus. But I talked to the professors who are writing my recs, and all three (independently) think it's all right to say you want to work with Professors A, B, C, and D, with C being an emeritus. Even if they are 99% inactive, they can weigh in on your research once or twice a year, and probably (due to advanced age and experience) connect you to other people in the field. (I mention an emeritus in 2 of my 8 SOPs, both in such cases.)
But I am by no means sure of this, so I'd love to hear others' (read: Penelope's) opinions.