balderdash

Definitely offsetting the -1 on the post you had... because I definitely agree. Check out the Poli Sci subform. There's a thread near the top about best Poli Sci programs, and there will be some discussion of MA/MPA stuff. Generally, I would look at SAIS (Johns Hopkins), Georgetown, Tufts, Harvard, Columbia, UChicago, WW (Princeton)... there are just too many to list.

All I can help with is that I know JHU really well, and I think it's unlikely.

Well, I'm an American, just graduated from a US university and will be doing my master's in the UK, so I understand the trade-offs. I know it's a little bit of a cop-out, but it really is the best advice: Pick the programs that you want to apply to, regardless of location. Act as if they're all in the same city. Once you get your acceptances, that's when you worry about these pros and cons. The reason is that your list now isn't bulletproof - for instance, you say you're settled/comfortable with the culture in the US, but what if the US program you got into were on the west coast, down south, in the midwest, et cetera? Cultures vary, and you might not actually be all that comfortable with where you're going. Or when you say it's much more expensive, you may get an aid package from the US degree (though I have to say, it is unlikely). Besides, after you've been accepted, professors at the departments will be happy to have you air these concerns and talk them over.

Also, Johns Hopkins program isn't the strongest in the school, so admissions to that program is a bit more lax than others and carries the Hopkins name in engineering. Just thought you might think it worth a gander.

Who's worked up?

Exactly. So when someone says "I'd like to do political science with a focus in IR" (as I am doing, by the way), I'll assume they mean PhD. But I maintain saying "I want a degree in IR" puts you firmly in the MA/MPA category. Edit: Also, he said specifically "International Relations Departments," so that further supports my point.

Yeah, definitely - but the OP didn't specify, and given that IR tends to be something you do at the MA/MPA level, I took a shot there.

Foreign Policy Association top 10 is a bit different... for instance, I don't know anyone who wouldn't put SAIS in there. http://www.fpa.org/info-url4715/info-url_list_more.htm?attrib_id=12902&doc_category_id=1127

Sorry, too right. I meant Essex, not Exeter.

I appreciate the intent. [by the way, not that I'm a mod or anything suchlike, but they don't like proprietary posts on the forum. I know that's not what you're doing, but you will probably want to be careful that your posts can't be construed as such.]

Yuke, I have a lot of info, so I'm going to throw a lot at you. First, check out www.thestudentroom.co.uk , specifically the postgraduate section. It's a UK website, so there's a lot of Oxbridge stuff. Second, consider Cambridge. I applied to both (and the MSc at LSE) for the MPhil in a related field. I got waitlisted then rejected at Oxford (the cads) but accepted at LSE and Cambridge, and the latter is where I'll be going this year. Admittedly, Oxford's department is superior for my field, but it's also a year longer and more expensive. For Politics, however, most consider Cambridge's department to be superior, and to my knowledge their degrees are only one year as well. I would check out what they have to offer. Third, the difference between the MSc and the MPhil is that the MPhil is generally considered a higher degree, similar to an ABD (all-but-dissertation) level grad student. For instance, I think it's Columbia's PhD program that awards the MA after 2 years, the MPhil after 4, then the PhD after 5-6. At Oxbridge, MPhils are more individual research based as opposed to the MSc being coursework/exam/essay based. So it's really up to you to decide which is more in tune with your interests, though given that you're looking at PhD programs, I would suspect the MPhil is where you want to be. However, obviously both are fantastic degrees to have from well-respected universities. As for admissions information at Oxbridge - expect about 1/4 to get in. That seems really high (25%!) because of what we're used to in the USA, but I think that the UK applicant pool is just as competitive because though there are fewer apps, the quality is more consistently high (ie no clunkers apply). If you apply broadly - Oxbridge, LSE, UCL, KCL, Exeter - you'll stand a good chance of getting into at least one or two. They love US applicants because we pay easily triple what home students pay, which helps in the recession. Finally, chances for application to US PhD programs. I was somewhat surprised when a Yale professor told me via email that they receive quite a few Oxbridge MAs applying, so one still needs to distinguish oneself with good recommendations and good research. That makes sense, obviously, but I think it would certainly improve an application substantially - just as any solid research or work experience would. Hope it helps.

I mean, I appreciate the effort you've expended, but I'm fully aware about how CAT works. So are the people who write Princeton Review and Kaplan, and both counsel spending more time at the front than the back. No offense, but I'm going with what they say. Also, you're ignoring other beneficial effects of spending more time on the front. Usually, you have to warm up and take your time at the beginning to get your brain working, even if you're mid-test. Also, getting a few answers solidly right to start the test boosts your confidence and helps you with the rest. So I'll keep my "misconception," thanks.

After being accepted to SAIS for an MA International Studies, I spoke with one of the deans because I wanted to know what to expect with regard to my peers' ages. I was informed that students were typically 27-29 years old.

I disagree. A lot of programs will have minimum requirements or recommendations, and the 3.1 might clear what the 2.7 won't. Further, it's the difference between a B- and (rounding) a B. It's also about a 15% increase over the 2.7... wouldn't you like to add 15% to your GPA? On the resume/CV, put both. On the online forms where it asks for GPA, put CGPA.

Second round here. Hoo-ah! Chicago is going up Sept 8th, and Columbia will be up in October (but it's really annoying - you can create an account and all, but the app isn't there).

First of all, I don't know how well ranked 73% is in the Indian system, and without GRE or anything else it's hard to look at your academic background. Even then, I am no expert but I'm inclined to say HKS and Princeton are going to be out of your reach. They're simply amazing schools with really difficult admissions processes. Your story could be pretty compelling if you get it into a well-crafted, tight personal statement, so you probably have a good chance at LSE, Sciences Po, and Geneva. I don't know enough about Berlin to comment on it. But it's always worth finding out with HKS/WW. What's it going to cost, a couple hundred dollars?

Well, I'm sure narius will come back and give a much better explanation than I can (like with last time), but I'll start us off: First, there's no real need to declare one area and stick to it without ever touching related work... I mean, I know all the PhD apps require me to submit a concentration, but it's not as though it's static, unbending, and completely divorced from other subjects. Most, in fact, require expertise in at least 2 subfields to graduate with the degree. So I wouldn't build up these distinctions so quickly. Also, development is really, really broad. The subject as you described it is probably how European programs are set up and how the policy world works. When I was at DFID, it was a lot of focus on poverty reduction/rural growth. But US academic programs in development really can be much broader. For instance, I'm applying to Yale, whose faculty has a really strong base in conflict and development - Blattman's work is on child soldiering in the LRA, Kalyvas studies civilian violence, and Wood looks at sexual violence as a weapon of war. So it is definitely development, but nothing to do with what you mentioned. So would that type of program fit your interest? Perhaps. If there is someone on the faculty who teaches Chinese development, then almost definitely (and there are a Lot of people who study Chinese dev nowadays). It's all about finding the faculty that approximates your interests, and then finding your own way.

That's a good point. I guess I specified my advice for time-effectiveness given that the OP only has one week to better the score. I think when I took the exam I had exactly one question where I said "wow, I'm glad I studied that word and learned its nuances" (for 'sybarite'), so there's a lot of effort expended to pick up only a bit of nuance that may or may not appear. But you're still right.

Neither. Learn the strategies to understand the questions and tricks for answering them first and foremost. That's 80% of doing well on the GRE. That said, if you feel 100% comfortable with all of that, I'd say learn the words that you half-know ("What does lambaste mean again? I always forget...") because you're unlikely to commit a completely new idea to memory. You can, however, solidify the shaky in such a short time frame.

To be more strategic about it, every question has a particular way of being solved that must be drawn from a discrete set of fields (ie, algebraic equations, geometry, etc). So the key is to look at the question and first understand what bit of knowledge the question is testing. When you approach it from the perspective of the test itself, you can get a grasp of what equation, set of rules, or skill is required. Once you get that sorted, you know what you have to do and it's just a matter of executing. Also, remember that the first half of the section is much more important than the second half. Thus, budget your time but stack it toward the front end: don't be afraid to spend 3 minutes on each of the first few questions, but by midway through the test it should get shorter and shorter.

I would look at programs in straight political science with a focus on those issues. Also, if you're open to degrees in the UK, there are quite a lot of degrees that would be relevant. I'm about to do an MPhil in Development Studies, and some of the courses are on migration. LSE and Oxford both (to my knowledge) offer MSc Forced Migration degrees. So there's always that (and those degrees are cheaper than similar master's in the US).

I would still apply... if anything, the department knows you and your work, and that should help your application. Spending a year to do the Master's will only show that you're more prepared than the average leaving-undergraduate-institution applicant. The absolute worst case is that you finish the year and are rejected for next year's PhD admissions. But if you didn't get in when they know you and you have the extra training of the MA, then you probably wouldn't have been accepted without the MA. If you get in, then you've only spent one year out, you have better preparation, and it may have helped you get in.

I would focus on three things: 1. Since it sounds like you have one more year of studying at the undergraduate level, I would make every effort to build relationships with professors. You'll probably need 3 who can write solid recommendations for you, so you really need to go out of your way to get to know them. By the same token, look at the requirements for applying to programs - if there is a 20 page writing sample, work over the next two years to make sure you have a great paper that you can use. 2. Make sure the year between finishing this degree and applying in 2012 is spent doing something worthwhile and relevant to your area of study. An internship or something in information security would work. 3. I don't want to offend you, and I admire anybody who speaks more than one language well, but it sounds like your English skills could use improving. My undergraduate institution is well-known for engineering and the sciences, and the applications from India and East Asia were overwhelming. Any student who couldn't hold a political conversation about the news (for example) didn't really interest those departments because they had so many similar applicants who could. So I would say that over the next two years, do everything you can to spend some time in the UK, Australia, South Africa, or the US to get some language immersion. It would also look great on the application (that you're outgoing, like to challenge yourself, et cetera).

I don't really know much, but I did want to say that if you're talking about a 16.53/20 as in the French grading scale (where Gods get 20, Professors get 19, and Grad Students get 18, as the joke goes), than a 16.53 would be much higher. I'm good friends with some Parisians and Sciences Po grad students, and they speak as though a 17 gets a commendation from the school. If that's true, and that's your grading system, than you'd be up at like a 3.7, which is very solid indeed.

Well, they're pretty different areas. Economics in IR could be reworking the Bretton Woods system, trying to bring down tariffs, studying international monetary flows, transnational labor markets, et cetera. Development such as the work I'm doing can be about civil wars, regional politics, and genocides as hindering development. That's a pretty substantial difference. Other development people focus on human rights, agriculture, gender issues, health crises, refugees, legal systems, democratization... I mean, it's really a ton of issues outside development economics. Diplomacy and strategic studies is a complement to security studies, and although I'm no expert in this field, I would hazard a guess that the former is about incentives and bartering, two-level games and trade-offs. It probably focuses on international organizations and laws. The latter is, I would imagine, US- or Eurocentric (depending on the school) and primarily concerned with unilateral goals. The main focus is probably security and protecting interests abroad as opposed to multilateral and global objectives that diplomacy is focused on. Finally, communication and journalism are a bit more nuanced, but the idea is the same as with the other two distinctions above.