anonymousvulture

I mean, Berkeley results at a saturday afternoon/night are already weird af; if Princeton is releasing today it will be the craziest season ever. I'd really take it with a grain of salt...

email to check portal, as described in the results page. it actually makes you think it is a rejection at first glance, usually departments contact you in a more personal way first

Not claiming for myself, but can confirm northwestern. Not a troll indeed. But they don't release at the same time and don't have an official waitlist as far as I know. Edit: I know of CP people admitted, not sure if it is a subfield thing.

Anyone claiming UChicago?

Based on previous years: Turn of the month for northwestern; 6-11 of February for UChicago; mid-February for Princeton (this one I'm less certain)

I don't feel like it is that different. Last year Emory jumped the gun on everybody, this year was WashU. Notre Dame was earlier last year, but we haven't got anything outta there yet. But there always seems to be some department who jumps ahead for whatever reason. The Vanderbilt interview is super early compared to last year, but last year the deadline for application was Jan 15th, whereas it was moved to December 15th this year. So they seem to be following a similar flow, but with a different date because of the deadline.

Departments always overadmit; they have a target for the incoming cohort (sometimes cappe by the university), but they know not everybody will accept. It may happen that their yield is too high and so they end up with a bigger cohort than they wanted. One way to avoid this is to have a longer waitlist and only pluck people out of it when they have a better idea whether the already-admitted people will accept or not. Don't know if that is the case, but could be one explanation. If all waitlisted people are from the same subfield, it may be related to faculty (either leaving, arriving, going on leave, etc)

Thanks, folks! And good luck!

folks being interviewed at UW-M: a) congrats! b) are you being contacted by adcom people or is it specific faculty you mentioned in your SoP? I am literally asking for a friend lol. Some public utility: back when I applied I was checking this resource: https://www.martindevaux.com/2020/11/political-science-phd-admission-decisions/. It is outdated (last year available is pre-pandemic), but with this link + some scrolling of the results page you can have a decent idea of when to expect results. Bear in mind that these dates will vary from year to year, and sometimes it depends on decisions that are not at the hand of individual departments or adcoms (budget restrictions from colleges, etc), and there is also some calendar-related noise (holidays, snow days, wheter the 1st of January is a Wednesday or a Sunday, etc). Also, don't waste your time and mental health updating portals. You may find out that you have been rejected, but it is *very* unlikely that you will be admitted and find out on the portal before receiving word from the department. Good luck!

I'll follow @coffeeman123 because I think the gap year advice is very important, and I did not follow it lol. Luckly for me it all worked out great. But do consider his advice, which I think is right on the money. PROFILE:Type of Undergrad Institution: South American, one of the two institutions in my country that makes those international rankings (which I don't think makes a difference; some people go into t20 US universities from less-known places).Major(s)/Minor(s): Economics (no major/minor system in my country)Undergrad GPA: 2.6 (6 out of 10)Type of Grad: Master's in Political Science, same institution.Grad GPA: 4.0 (straight As)GRE: 157q/162v/5.0w - did not submit where it wasn't required; TOEFL was 115 (30r/30l/29s/26w). Research interests: Party Systems; electoral systems SOP: DO NOT follow this template, as I think it was a mistake, but: 1 paragraph general bullshit about why political science, 1 for past research/experience, 1 for future research interest/questions; 1 for fit. Any Special Courses: at the undergrad level, with lame grades: single and multivariable calculus; probability and statistics I and II; econometrics (basic, panel, time series); math for economics (basically algebra); public policy analysis (ATE framework). At the graduate level: introductory baysean statistics; qualitative methods; quantitative methods for causal analysis.Letters of Recommendation: master's advisor; master's professor who is probably the most recognizable name abroad; another master's professor (multiple courses) who supervised me in different RAs. The latter two did their PhDs at US institutions.Teaching/Research Experience: 3 RAships on methods courses; 3 solo conference presentations (two of them international); 1 RAOther: worked as a survey analyst for a while and as a campaign officer. RESULTS:Acceptances: NorthwesternRejections: Brown, Cornell, GWU, Notre Dame, UChicago, MichiganPending: noneAttending: Northwestern (Duh)LESSONS LEARNED: some important context: I was in a bit of a hurry to apply, and so I did it in non-ideal conditions. I spent nearly a decade going in and out of undergrad, and only hit my stride by the end of college/beginning of the master's. So I was in a hurry because I did not want to hit the job market at 40 or something. Do take some extra time if that is not a big constraint to you. Being rushed meant that I a) wasn't very clear on my research interests, which was a big problem; b) only took the GRE once, and did so in a hurry, which led me to eliminate a good chunk of my potential list, and include some places I wasn't too keen on attending to begin with. So I learned what not to do more than what to do, which is what I'll share. This advice is probably best for non-USA people. Choosing a university: check for faculty fit, visit phdstipends.com and the MIT living wage calculator (be mindful that you can live with a few thosand dollars less money than the calculator suggests), and, whenever possible, reach out to graduate students. I reached out to people from my country and some americans and they were always great, I owe a lot to them. They will give you the red flags of the department, tell if your prospective advisor is not taking students, and tell what people are working on - a lot of the time it doesn't show on google. If you have a cogent research agenda, reach out to faculty during the northern hemisphere's summer. Have an elevator pitch of your research ready. This is an art, and one that I absolutely did not master. I did not do it (not successfully, at least lol), but a lot of people did and told me it made a world of difference. ask for fee waivers. Public Unis won't give it to foreigners, but I got waivers from 5 of my 7 universities. Only paid for Michigan (public) and Northwestern (waivers were over when I got to asking). if you're not studying american politics, chances are not every department will have a fit for you, because even if they do study your region of interest, the methods or topics might not converge. For instance, I applied to Michigan because I think it is great, but the excellent people who study latin america there do so on topics very distant from my own interests. In a highly competitive department, that's fatal. This gets more important as you go down the rankings because departments get smaller. Also, don't apply to places you wouldn't want to go just because there's a fee waiver or something. For instance, I applied to GWU without having a decent fit because I thought it was worth a flyer - faculty is great, the city is awesome, etc. But it is a short stipend, and I'm married, so it would be tough. They waive the app fee, but then you get rejected and it makes you nervous while waiting other results, and it is always extra work, extra letters to manage, etc. Bottom line: be selective, and not with rankings necessarily, but with what you want. In my particular case, I was focused on Brown, Cornell and Northwestern (the last two in particular), and had no fit at Michigan and GWU. Also, I applied to UChicago at the last minute because a friend who I thought was applying gave up. So basically half my list was me taking a flyer. I would be a little more selective if I went back in time. SOP/Research: This was the weakest part of my application, and it is the most important. I've been studying electoral systems, but want change topics. My SOP ended up being a little vague on most universities. This is a fatal flaw, because it gives away the impression that you have no idea what you are talking about. The only exception was with Northwestern's statement, because I kept it short and to the point, and was more upfront about the fact that I did not have a specific research puzzle, but I was able to show that I knew what I was talking about and connect my past interests with my future ones. But even there, I think I only got accepted because the fit was perfect, even more so than I thought before applying. I did a different version for Cornell (which read like bullshit in retrospect) and Brown (which was a too broad, shoot everything that walks type of statement). I also went with the origin story first paragraph, which I also think it is a bit of a waste of time in most places. In short: know who you are and what you want to do. If you don't have an elevator pitch, don't try to bullshit around it. In sum: be upfront. Ideally, take another year and develop your research if you feel you're not there yet. I know a lot of people who did this and strongly recommend. This is what I would've done if I was a little younger lol. GRE: I got admitted without sending it, but I had a lot of math and statistics in my undergrad and master's, so I thought it was best to send and noisy signal than show my hand. Also, I wasn't applying to quant-heavy places. I know of people who were admitted without it, but I still think it is HIGHLY recommended for people with no US academic record. You'll often hear faculty say that they have trouble comparing people with a good (even if not great) GRE to people without one. Some places are moving towards eliminating it altogether, but others are having misgivings about the experience. I don't know where the academic market is going, but I'd assume we'll see more and more situations in which the GRE is fake-optional (like Berkeley, where they tell you it is optional, but highly recommended). Because of work, I only had a little under 3 weeks to prep. I did too much practice tests and study too little of the actual content, and ended up botching time management anyways lol. I do know of people who aced the whole thing under similar conditions (albeit econ master's students), so a lot of it is prior math training and talent (for lack of a better word). That being said, don't fret too much about GRE unless you are at the top-5 or bust level. I was gunning for T-15 to T-30. If you're over 330 I think there is no point in retaking it, and even 320 will give you a puncher's chance and it will be enough if the rest of your file is strong. It doesn't get you in, so just score enough so it does not block you out. One very important caveat: if you want to do formal theory or very heavily quant work, or go to a field like political economy, you may want to actually try to ace the quant part. waiting: if you're anxious, it is going to be awful. It was much worse than I thought. no advices here, except: do not refresh portals. admits always get e-mails. You'll only find out (with a small number of hours in advance) that you were rejected. Try to cold turkey your ass out of the internet as much as possible. negotiating: ask for help, either from older graduate students or other people. americans negotiate a lot, and a lot of people from my backgroud do not. We think it is all excellent and infinitely better than what we would have back home (which is true), but it can always improve. In my case I didn't get much because I had no other offers, but I did get some help with moving expenses. Luckily I got into a place with excellent funding. final thoughts: job market in academia isn't great, but remember it is not always about the money. if you are into academia, there are worse ways to spending five years than doing a PhD, and you'll learn skills that translate to the broader job market (programming, stats, writing, etc). take into account quality of life, location, etc. I hope you all get as many lucky breaks as I did!

I know of someone who was in a similar situation and then was offered a master's. Hopefully you are on a waitlist

I think it may be a bigger deal depending on the department. I've heard some are less worried about the regional aspect. That being said, maybe you could try to see what kind of dissertation this person has advised in the past. This info is usually in different places in a website depending on the department, but it may be found. Also, I would assume that this could put you in a disavantadge in terms of fit, since there is likely to exist someone as qualified as you are, but with the same regional interest as this professor (unless It is something really specific, I guess). Imagine you're eating feijoada with gin tonic. Can be done, but a caipirinha is a much more clear fit.

I think we could maybe give It a couple of weeks. There are still a couple of important things unfolding: the long wait of waitlists and the negotiating/choosing of different programs. They might even feel secondary now, but I for one wish I was more prepared for the latter lol.

no problem! you can DM me whenever. I don't think I learned a lot about what makes an application successfull, but I'd be happy to share whatever may be useful. And do expand out of the top 7; people on PSR are too maniac about rankings (to be fair, the job market really is rough and it helps a lot to be at a top 10, but still...)

hey, you've got a whole new pizza now haha. congratulations!