Tufnel

The general expectation is that MA GPAs are even more inflated than undergrad GPAs. Thus, while an MA may supposedly be a higher level of education, there seems to be less leniency for lower grades. A 3.4 undergrad GPA from UChicago will likely be viewed more favorably than a 3.6 from an MA at Georgetown. That's my opinion. I'm an applicant, not a prof, so your mileage may vary.

Honestly, my "plan B" is full-time music. It's completely ridiculous that the only two careers I find palatable are incredibly competitive. However, that could very well be part of the appeal. Truth be told, I'm concerned about finding time for music during grad school. It doesn't need to be front and center but without the occasional gig, I'll probably lose my mind.

Dude, just let it go.

This kind of advice is relatively meaningless without specifying a discipline. In Political Science, it's fairly common knowledge that the top programs use the GRE as a filtering mechanism. Throwing out all the applications with a V and Q below 700 is an easy way to make your originally huge pool of applicants a bit more manageable. Even beyond that, it varies widely by subfield and the nature of your research. The standard for the Q section is quite different for those studying theory in a more philosophical way compared to those who do formal theory. That said, it's certainly not all about the GRE. Again, in Political Science, the GRE is generally just a filtering mechanism. It keeps people from getting in, it is not sufficient to warrant admission. However, I'm very excited for your success. I only intend to communicate that in some disciplines and their subfields, poor performance on the GRE very well could preclude admission at top programs.

I personally haven't experienced that (knock on wood) but I feel for you. I nearly missed two deadlines and the stress was insane. I bet they let you submit late. They want the best candidates. It's probably not a good mark on your app but it would seem shortsighted to allow technical problems to prevent an otherwise qualified candidate from applying. That's just my opinion, it's not grounded in anything but my own wishful thinking. Good luck.

Marx and Engels theorized that hyper-inflation was the most robust determinative factor with regards to international conflict. To construct these theories, they drew primarily from Von Mises and other members of the Austrian School. However, Klare instead proposed that the fundamental ill was that of overabundance - there is simply too much to go around. Here, he referred to resources. Oil, gas, red meat... Things that man must have in order to survive. His primary and most widely-respected theory contends that man fights because there is that over which he can fight. If there is no pie, how can anyone fight about how many pieces they receive? Thus, the truly fortunate societies are those without sufficient resources, for they are the least likely to go to war. His major influence was Leo Strauss. Thus the two are similar in that they both grant supreme power to "who gets what, when." This is a unique approach, as most in politics and economics focus on the role of fox news in determining the outcome of conflicts. However, they differ in their attribution of importance to nutrition. While Klare believes that we would be better off without food over which to fight, Marx and Engels were convinced that we fight because we have no food. Here's how you should cite me: Tufnel. 2010. The Role of Red Meat in Conflict Determination. The Graduate Cafeterium. Interweb: webpage.

You're going to have to give your intended discipline. I'm not in a hard science, perhaps those journals communicate your area of study to those literate in it. However, they sound pretty ambiguous to me (physics or chemistry?).

I say you've got as good a shot as the rest of us. Nothing in this process is a sure thing but I think you have a fair chance.

Double tap.

You need to provide more information if you want anything worthwhile. Is English your first language (important)? How did you do in undergrad? Where did you do undergrad (LSE is different than University of Dar es Salaam - no knock against UDSM intended)? Performance on the GRE does not entitle one to a rejection or acceptance. Additionally, there is not a hard and fast line to which everyone is held. An acceptable GRE score for a Harvard grad with a letter of recommendation from Gary King is likely lower than that for a student from Northwestern South Dakota College.

There are two questions at play in your post, they are probably best understood if separated. 1) Are JDs competitive in the academic job market? (Are they perceived as qualified?) 2) Do JDs deserve to be competitive on the job market? (Are they in fact qualified?) I think the answer to both is no but you seem to be treating each simultaneously. Your conviction that the JD should be sufficient has no bearing on the first question. All else equal, a JD is not as competitive on the academic market as a PhD. And frankly, our opinions on the first don't matter. Even if you convinced every poster on this forum that JDs are qualified for tenure track employment, you've convinced an irrelevant segment of society - those without academic employment (save a couple exceptions). If you want a job as an academic, play your hand in response to the market as it is rather than responding to your normative opinion about how it should be. The latter question is the one you seem to be addressing. Though it's irrelevant (given the fact that none of us can do anything about it), perhaps it's interesting. You base your argument around the idea that JDs know American government and are thus qualified to serve as professors. This belies a misunderstanding of most elite universities. JDs learn how to be lawyers. That is the intent of law schools, the signal provided by the degree represents that intent. A JD says "I ostensibly know how to be a lawyer." PhDs are, by and large, taught a different professional skill - academic research in Political Science. For all the puffery surrounding academia, PhDs are professional degrees as well. You learn to research and you're expected to utilize those skills. Yes, you teach too. But at elite universities, tenure hinges on research productivity. Teaching is well and good but it is rarely the priority. JDs are qualified and often fill jobs as instructors. They teach con law, judicial process, etc. That doesn't mean they are at all prepared to conduct sound scholarly research in the social sciences. Since they were never trained to do research in political science, to expect as much is to misunderstand either the difference between the two degrees or the expectations of a poli sci professor. Just my $.02. I'm no insider though so take it with several grains of salt.

While we can all guess about your admissions decisions, more information will probably be necessary for any meaningful gauge. Without a GRE score, it's probably a lost cause. While a good score is not enough to get you admitted, a bad one is sufficient to keep you out. You probably need to give a GRE score, specific research interests, information about undergrad performance, etc, if you want a grounded prediction. However, you would lose a degree of anonymity in the process. My advice: Just apply and find out. We're all just guessing anyway, you won't know until you try. Also, it's probably not a great idea to let geographic location guide your selection.

Thanks for the reply, that's good to know. All this protocol stuff is tricky. I assume then that it is equally tasteless to include one's undergrad GPA? Leave off all quantitative indicators?

I was working on my CV last night and couldn't decide if I should list my GRE scores. On one hand, it certainly is not in line with the general format used by established professors in Political Science. Alternatively, no one applying to grad school has a record like that of an established professor in Political Science. And since many (most?) apply directly from undergrad, few have any legitimate publications (ruling out all possibility of mimicking the standard format). Most of the programs state that they would like either a resume or a CV, which further lessens the burden to cop the industry standard. What say ye? Are GRE scores on the CV/resume OK for applicants or are they in poor taste?

^4 Since someone much closer to the process said otherwise (Penelope Higgins), OP should disregard my original speculation. Congrats on getting published!

OP hasn't specified but he may be doing CPE, in which case he would be no less competitive.

I think it all depends. A lower tier journal can be a meaningful one to certain sub-fields. However, we could all name a few journals that never publish important research and are more or less meaningless. If the former, I think it will help. Even if your work isn't so meaningful, it's a lower tier journal that remains relevant despite its status (or lack thereof). If the latter, I don't think it will help and it may hurt. Dilenttantish, perhaps? Anyway, like everything else in this process, it depends on too many variables to speak with certainty.