Tufnel

No offense taken, I always prefer to be corrected in a foreign language. English, on the other hand...

Why did someone vote this post down? What's wrong with it? 你读完了的时候，你想在哪国教授？

WashU received an increase in applications this year. They went from 120+ to 150+ applications. That's roughly a 25 percent increase in applications.

Penelope Higgins, thanks for weighing in. I apparently misunderstood. Patda - this is why you shouldn't take advice from a smelly 40 year-old that still lives at home.

What were the other two schools to which you applied? You applied to three. That's far too small a sample size to conclude that NE is realistically the best you could do. A PhD is not something to do if you're not going to be 100% committed. At least, I don't think so. You either do it and commit or you don't do it at all. It's too much time and the opportunity cost is too great. Bail if you want something else. One professor advised that I only get a PhD if academia is the only lifestyle in which I foresee a content Tufnel. It's a time sink with lots of associated BS. If your year off makes you reconsider your commitment to the PhD, then you should count yourself lucky. Better to know before starting than one year into the program. As far as the "go to Northeastern first" option, do you realize you won't just walk away seamlessly with an MA? If you enroll at NE, you're enrolling in a PhD program. If you want to go elsewhere, you're a transfer. You'll need the support of your professors, support they likely won't give unless you're obviously capable of a much better program. If they don't support your transfer, you're kind of screwed. The potential transfer school will want to see support and letters from your present faculty. If you want to do an MA first, do a terminal MA. If you're 100% certain that you'll be content with a Northeastern PhD, then go and try to transfer when the time arises. In the event that your attempt is less than successful, you'll still be happy with the result (a PhD from NE). But going with the mindset that you'll simply transfer is a bit unrealistic. You mentioned at one point wanting to teach at a school like Northeastern. But then the comment about the workload (something you apparently already knew) made you question that ambition. A good starting point is probably "Why am I doing this? What do I want from my PhD?" You have a very good GPA from a decent school. Every remaining piece of your app is still alterable. The GRE can be learned, LORs can be improved, research can be done. Presently, there's no scar on your app that prevents you from consideration at any school in the country. You did well on the only determined factors, the rest has yet to be finalized. My advice. Take a few weeks and forget about applications, grad school, your future, etc. Do whatever you like to do. Get really drunk and make some cool stories. Road trip. Whatever. Then re-evaluate. If you still want to go to Northeastern and are completely content with the realistic exit options that await, then accept their offer. I'll be going to school in Boston and will buy you a beer when I get there (I'd actually appreciate housing advice). If you want to reapply, then commit and go all in. If you're doing this because you don't know what else to do, then do something else. Teach English in Chile or something. Either way, best of luck. Sincerely. If all else fails, I've had good luck with Magic 8-Balls. And again, I have no first-hand experience with any of this. You're probably better off seeking advice from professors than anonymous people on an message board. I could be a smelly 40 year-old that lives in my mom's basement and enjoys elaborate trolling attempts on grad school message boards. In which case you probably shouldn't take me up on the beer.

My vote is for a redo. If you invested in your applications and Northeastern is what you ended up getting in return, I'd say go. But let's be serious, one month of total prep time is not enough for PhD applications. You're spending 5 years at this place, a few months to maximize your options is time well spent. Read more journal articles in your field. Write a fantastic SOP. Do some research. Invest more time in the GRE. But those placements Penelope Higgins posted are not very good. You even noted in your first post that most of the profs at Northeastern come from "top Ivies." That should tell you something about what kind of school you need to go to if you want to teach somewhere like Northeastern. Personally, I think a tenure track position at Northeastern is a solid placement for any school. It's a big PhD granting department in a great city filled with tons of great universities (and thus tons of scholars with which one may collaborate). If that's the kind of job you want, I'd say you definitely should take the mulligan. Here's a list of placements provided by Northwestern: http://www.polisci.northwestern.edu/graduate/placements.html A job at Northeastern would be better than half of the placements listed. In addition, that list is likely incomplete. Add to that list a number of PhDs that didn't receive academic jobs and Northeastern becomes an impressive placement. That's all to say that the job market is rough. FYI - I am not in a grad program, so treat my thoughts accordingly.

Penelope Higgins is surely more qualified than me to comment on the NRC rankings. However, I'd take them with a grain (or several buckets full) of salt. In my mind, they are more useful when disaggregated. For instance, they contain interesting information about the % of students receiving funding, average GRE Q score, time to completion, etc. But the rankings are based on some questionable assumptions, in my mind. Additionally, don't confuse departmental strength with strength in graduate training. A few programs to which I applied have great scholars but students who indicate that said scholars aren't interested in training graduates. I'm making my choice based on placement within my subfield. At the end of the day, I just want a decent job. The number of articles published by my adviser doesn't mean anything if he doesn't help his advisees secure decent positions.

Why do you want a PhD? If you want to work professionally, then you don't need a PhD. A solid MA from a good school + networking is more than enough. Only do a PhD if you want to be a researcher. If you DO want to be a researcher, then it is in your best interest to do some math. You don't have to make it the focus of your own agenda but you will be illiterate if you don't understand basic stats. Do your ethnographic study in Peru and avoid math if that's your thing. But to really fit the resulting paper into the literature at large, you need to understand said literature (including the math part). If you just want to continue learning (an admirable goal), then I maintain that there are more direct routes. A PhD is laden with B.S. departmental politics, disciplinary requirements, etc. If you just love studying, a library card (or a Kindle, if you prefer) should do the trick with less hassle. Regarding your original question, I'd guess that 700+ on both sections of the GRE, 3.8+ GPA, some research experience, and a coherent statement of purpose should do the trick. Perhaps less but I'm not sure. They are really stingy with funding, I believe offers are in the 17-18k range but don't include a tuition waver, which puts you within spitting distance of a 4 figure salary when all is said and done. And it's a 12-month program, which means you aren't getting summer funding (since there isn't a summer in year-round school). Either way, best of luck. If you do choose to do the PhD, apply widely.

I'm not certain that I will live off campus. The dorms just seem overpriced. They are really small but quite expensive. And I'd like to have a social life outside the academic bubble. Some sort of grad apartment complex would be perfect.

Poppy: That's great to hear! I anticipate that I'll be working more than ever but I enjoy my discipline and enjoy working hard. I hope to have a jolly time too. Have you all looked into housing? I've never been to Boston but the prices I'm finding on craigslist are absurd. Do you know of any neighborhoods or apartment complexes that are well-suited to grad students at Harvard/MIT? And when are the good places taken? Should I try to find a place during the open house or can I wait until July or so? (I realize I'm asking other future students but perhaps you've also been looking) Also, congrats everybody! I don't know about you all but I'm still beaming about the acceptance. I couldn't be more excited.

GSAS, so my PhD will actually be in government (Harvard's label of choice for political science).

That's the plan. I'll probably accept after the open house. Have you decided on Harvard?

Thanks a lot everybody! I'm pretty stoked. I didn't know how all this would play out as my profile certainly has some flaws. I'm withdrawing from all but a couple schools, so hopefully that opens up spots for people on wait-lists. I wish I could buy a round for everyone. The last seventy-odd pages certainly fostered some solidarity. More importantly, I'm now very excited for the coming baseball season. I now have much higher expectations for the Reds!

Also in at Harvard. My hands are still shaking.

I don't think so. I believe they pulled the files that they thought were particularly strong, admitted them and talked to them, then went back for round two. I think there's a strong argument to be made for admitting applicants early. I don't have any empirical research to back it up (surely someone has conducted relevant research) but personally, I seem to prefer the school that admitted me earlier (when comparing comparable schools). There's something to be said for picturing yourself at a school, in a particular city, with a particular set of scholars, etc. That's some mental inertia. I guess if you're Harvard, you don't worry about it because you're Harvard. But had I been accepted to Stanford and then to Harvard, I'd give the advantage to Stanford simply because they were way out front. I would have already spoken with professors in length, researched the program in great detail, emailed students, etc, before even realizing that I could consider Harvard.

One school explicitly mentioned in the acceptance email they sent me that they admitted applicants in stages. They claimed that I was in the first selection (bats eyelashes sheepishly..."you say this to all your new admits, don't you?"), after which came several subsequent waves. They said it let them notify their preferred applicants first, rather than making them wait for committee to finish. I declined as soon as I was admitted. That's probably another reason. I assume it makes it easier to land on a specific number of matriculants.

I saw that post. Did anyone ever claim it? I read it to mean that all admits would be notified this week. However, it sounds like you interpreted it to mean that the committee would be finished but admits would not necessarily be notified. Can anyone confirm one way or the other?

I just want to get on with it. I more or less know where I want to go if I don't get into Harvard. If I do get in, then it gets tricky (obviously, I'd welcome the confusion). Once Harvard's decision arrives, the ball will be in my court (one way or another). **Looks at the sky** ...Sweet baby jesus, please give both Balderdash and Gopher a baby jesus miracle. While you're at it, may the Reds win the 2011 World Series...

What if you've spoken with multiple faculty since receiving your offer? At the schools I've declined thus far, I had only spoken with one person (a faculty member on each occasions). I contacted that person when I declined. However, I've spoken with at least 5 faculty at another university. Should I contact all of them or only the grad administrator?

Any guesses about Harvard? The waiting is driving me crazy.

Right on! Congrats!

Harvard should be soon too, no?

I think (entirely speculatively) that it's all of the above. Some departments, Brandeis for example, are explicit about their intentions. From the Brandeis website: In practice, that means they encourage small-n over large. NYU is on the other side (ironically, they are a "department of politics"): Ours is a young discipline often characterized by identity crises. Some care passionately about the science of politics and wish others would view the discipline similarly, while others obviously disagree. I think some select the name to make a statement about the nature of the discipline. There are still some liberal arts colleges that classify political science (or politics) as a humanity, a characterization that reflects a certain perspective about the nature of political research. For career researchers, such a characterization is a statement about the nature of their vocation. I think some take issue with a classification of their work as outside the realms of science, particularly those committed to empiricism. Then there are the strange outliers like Harvard and their classification as a department of government. I have no idea why they chose that name. The "political science and IR" label is, I believe, a response to the relative youth of IR as a subfield. I'm not sure why this seems unique to political science compared to other social sciences. The methodological debate is present in other disciplines (econ, particularly over the last couple of years), though I'm not sure if it is similarly divisive. I have no idea why someone has yet to suggest a renaming of economics to "Economic Science."

While I dislike Rand as much as the next guy, I'll only say this... If I received a suggested summer reading list from a potential school that included Rand, I would matriculate elsewhere. I'm all for breadth in thought and study but there are at least 200 books that I believe are far more helpful for understanding "political philosophy (American)." Tocqueville, Dahl, and Hayek are all important reads (though I take major issue with the latter). But one can make a legitimate argument that some of Rand's philosophical works do not even warrant academic inquiry. The bar for service as a foundational piece of literature is much higher.

It indeed depends on the school. Some schools automatically consider you for the MA, others do so only if you indicated an interest in a masters when filling out the application (often in the form of a "check yes or no" question), while many (most?) do not offer a terminal MA in political science.