Tufnel

Among top programs, I think research "fit" is less important than many think. Big programs have someone working on nearly every major issue. Sure, schools vary in their strength across areas. However, one could conduct research on any reasonably good question at HYPS. As faculty size becomes smaller, "fit" becomes more determinative. Basically, the ability to conduct one's intended research at a university is generally necessary for admission into that university. That doesn't mean that admission is "all about fit." Stats become an incredibly important tool for filtering. Admissions committees aren't going to look at every file closely when they have a pool of 700 applications. It's convenient to filter on quantitative indicators and many departments do just that when making admissions decisions. You're hurting yourself if you don't take the stats portion of your application seriously. In short, "stats" won't get you in but they might keep you out. Most importantly, I laughed at your comments about OP's (likely false) self-diagnosed necrosis.

Thanks! Your cohort is certainly important. I don't have any cogent thoughts on what separates fun, cohesive cohorts from less enjoyable ones. Some of the cohorts here are incredibly tight-knit, others less so. Frankly, I don't understand why students at HYPS compete with each other. The market can absorb multiple Princeton PhDs if they're good. You don't need to step on people to get a job, just do good research. Why not help each other? Admittedly, I have no firsthand job market experience and could be completely off base. But at the end of the day, I'd rather be nice and underplace than step on people and land my dream job (though that's obviously falsely dichotomous).

Good! Harvard definitely picked up that reputation, probably because of some notorious internet feuds among grad students. The department is big, which increases the odds of admitting someone who isn't especially cooperative. However, because the department is big, there are always nice people. Personally, I haven't had a negative interaction with anyone in the department. And since there are plenty of resources, there's no need to be competitive. Though you might get a different response if you ask someone else, I haven't found any of the rumors about a lack of collegiality to be true.

That sounds like a good background. Without knowing the details of your application (who wrote your letters, where you went to school, etc), I think you have a realistic chance this season. Plus, you have a pretty fantastic worst case scenario. Best of luck. And seriously feel free to get in touch if you have any specific questions.

It's good. I'm having a great time - the rest of my cohort is great, as are the professors and administrators. How is your cycle shaping up? Stanford should be soon, right? If anyone has questions about Harvard or the greater Cambridge area, feel free to PM me. I probably won't respond quickly but will try to check in every few weeks. For any Harvard prospectives, I love it here and have no regrets about my grad school decision.

I was recently reminded of how stressful the application season was last year (when I applied). Best of luck everyone! Try to relax - it will be over before you know it.

Though I don't know the new GRE scale well, the above posters are likely correct concerning your Q score. This is especially true given your interests. If you want to do IPE/finance, you need to demonstrate aptitude in math. Did you take a methods sequence in undergrad? Any math courses? Stats? If you apply to study a methods-heavy subfield with a low Q score, you need to prove you can hack it in a methods sequence. My perception is that you can get in with a low GRE if you have either great pedigree or extensive training in math-centric courses (and did well in those courses). If Kosuke Imai says you're ready for grad school, many (most?) adcoms will overlook a low Q. They will view strong performance in a rigorous econometrics sequence similarly. It sounds like you're in good shape if this season goes poorly. Should you receive less than favorable decisions, you can wait it out a year while doing a Fulbright (which is a great opportunity - congratulations). If that case actualizes, I suggest you apply to different schools. First, you may want to consider schools in the 10-20 range. Your present list is essentially the top 10 plus one safety. There are many excellent schools that have a lower overall ranking but that nonetheless would be better fits for your interests. If I were you, I'd look into Wisconsin, OSU, and Illinois. Though ranked somewhat lower, Emory might be a good fit for you. Second, I suggest you remove some of the schools on your list. Who would you work with at Berkeley? For all practical intents, they don't have an IR program. Yale? Scheve is fantastic but that's about it for IPE. Plus, he doesn't really do finance. With your interests, I'd rather be at Wisconsin than Berkeley. Third, I'd diversify. In my opinion, applying to a large set of peer schools adds little utility. The top schools generally admit the same group of people. If you're rejected at Columbia, Princeton, and UCSD, you're probably not going to get in at Yale, Michigan, Stanford, or Harvard. I haven't met anyone that was accepted to one school in the top 10 and rejected by 8 others. Thus, my advice is to apply to a few schools from the very top, a few schools from just below that, then a few below that, etc., until you are applying to schools at which you have a high probability of acceptance. At present, there's only one such school on your list. Here's an example list: Harvard Princeton UMich UCSD UCLA Wisconsin OSU Illinois Emory Washington TA&M Don't use that list as I haven't seen your application. The list is intended to be an example. You very well may receive an acceptance from a top school. A list like the one above preserves that possiblity without seriously diminishing its likelihood. However, it also improves your set of potential outcomes conditional on rejection at top schools. Feel free to PM me if you have any questions. I attend one of the schools to which you're applying and have similar interests. Best of luck!

I will also add that it behooves you to think long and hard about why you want a PhD. If you want to do a PhD in order to teach at a research university or top LAC, truth be told, you don't want to do a PhD at a school outside the top ten or so as a theorist. Frankly, the theory market sucks, at least theory as traditionally defined (formal theory, on the other hand, isn't bad at all). Even theorists from the very top universities struggle to earn a placement at a top school, many settling for simply any academic job. The academic market is brutal. It just is. And theory is significantly harder than the other subfields. In addition, theorists have few skills that are valued in the broader marketplace. Someone who does political economy may find work in industry or government. But Nietzsche? I love Zarathustra but it won't take you far in a non-academic job. Summarily, it behooves you to determine your desired ends and to then discern whether or not they align with the means to which you have access. If you truly want it badly, then I suggest that you take the GRE and own it. 1550+. Then talk to your closest professors and ask which schools they think are reasonable fits. This will help you determine the strength of your letters. Apply to a range of schools but do not apply to schools that will not yield the type of job you seek. If you decide that a masters degree is a feasible option, also apply to MA programs that will make you a stronger candidate. Be warned: It takes theorists a long time to finish. The decision to do a terminal masters degree adds time to a PhD that is already unusually time intensive when compared to other subfields. Good luck!

The above poster is correct; a masters is unnecessary. If possible, apply only to schools at which you'd be happy and leave the option of a masters at Vandy on the table. In the event that your applications go poorly, you can do the masters and improve your application. If you must decide prior to the reception of your decisions, still apply only to those schools in which you are seriously interested. The top schools all provide adequate funding. As you slide down the rankings, packages get stingier and students are occasionally admitted without funding. Finally, I think it's in your best interest to drop the private school preference. Though you'll probably find this out on your own, the university landscape is quite different at the graduate school level when compared to the undergrad hierarchy. Many of the big state schools are incredibly good at research and graduate education. Frankly, it would be absurd to choose Brown, Georgetown, Penn, or Vanderbilt over Michigan, UCSD, Berkeley, or WUSTL (though none are bad schools). My decision this year came down to an Ivy and one of the UCs, both of which I esteem highly. While I chose the former, I believe I would have been justified in choosing the UC. Source of funding is not relevant with regards to graduate education. While you should obviously do whatever makes you happy, I only want to ensure that your preferences are not based on a distorted understanding of academic caliber.

I'm going to travel a bit and work on languages. I speak a couple, though neither fluently. Since I'd like to get both up to a relatively advanced level of fluency by the time I finish my PhD, I ought to use my time now to review/study. I'm not going to kill myself over it, just hang out with people and talk.

Three thoughts: -Did you only apply to MA programs? In the US (I'm assuming you're an international student and applicant), an MA is not a prerequisite. If you didn't apply widely to PhD programs, I'd consider skipping on the masters degree and applying for PhD programs this fall. -Depending on what you research, GWU might be a better choice than NYU. Their IR faculty is quite good and getting better. -If any of the offers come with a stipend or some sort of funding, I'd take it. Prestige at the MA level isn't going to matter that much. All the programs into which you were accepted are decent programs with active faculty doing legitimate political science. If you must do an MA, I'd do the one that comes with the most support.

You seem to disagree with me in the first sentence but then spend the remainder of the post in substantive agreement. If you have an offer for a funded PhD, take it. That some students benefit from the program does not mean it isn't a cash cow. Cash cow - a product or service that generates much more profit than necessary for the continued operation of said product or service, so much so that the profit is used to fund other ends (like a PhD program). I heartily agree with the final three paragraphs of your post. If you can pay for it, it might very well be the appropriate choice. Personally, that's a huge risk. I would only drop 40k (plus the foregone opportunities) if I was absolutely certain I wanted to be an academic and absolutely certain there was no alternative route to academia. That's a lot of coin for a career that will likely provide a five figure salary.

The faculty is indeed very good but I don't think you'd get too close to them while doing an MA. The MA is a cash cow; if you have a funded offer from a PhD program, I'd take it.

Cool, I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts. I've heard the Kindle isn't the best choice for reading PDFs because the font is often too small, even when read in landscape mode. That would obviously render it fairly worthless to me, E-ink or not. I saw the clearance ipads. It's definitely tempting, particularly if the only legitimate alternative (the DX) is comparable price-wise.