Zahar Berkut

Olya, first, ласкаво просимо! I assume you are a Ukrainian finalist hoping to study in a US university? In my opinion, you should mention it because they should understand that, at the time of your application, being a finalist does not guarantee a placement, so you need to apply to other programs directly, and it's an important enough honor and accomplishment that it should help your application. If you are afraid that it will make your application reviewers worry that you'll go somewhere else if you get the Fulbright, it may be possible to contact your university programs directly and explain your concern. Usually there is an administrator for the department, program, or school you are applying for within the university, and they can answer these questions. The Fulbright program in Ukraine itself may be able to advise you on this. Finally, please send me a message through the gradcafe website if you have more questions, and I'll see if I can refer you to anyone I know.

Submitted my last application today. Very anticlimactic, but glad to be done with that step. Now the waiting begins... starting first week of February and stopping at the end of March. That's going to be quite a two-month period.

I suspect that these sorts of statements could play a role in the final cut, when the department needs to almost arbitrarily throw out applications to make a limited number of offers. The sort of thing that can't hurt, but might help. I'm dealing with mine right now, for my only program that requires it, and I'm really scratching my head on how much detail to go into in how I "really" decided to apply to a doctoral program and how my life experiences shaped that decision. They also did not specify a length limit-- I plan to keep it below 1000 words.

I had to calculate it myself for some applications based on what I know were the courses that fulfilled the major. One of my applications specifies that the numbers should be reflected on the official transcript, so I'm leaving that major GPA blank.

Just put my first one in the oven, planning to have the next two in tomorrow. And I have to agree that telling applications to just check the website regularly is an awful arrangement!

A recent DPhil reviewed my intended writing sample, and essentially suggested changing the bulk of the paper to be structured more like a political science paper. The paper was written in an area studies program, and while it qualitatively tests hypotheses drawn from certain scholars' arguments, the theory is meant to explain an empirical problem on its own merits, and not as part of an engagement with the broader literature in that subfield (to which I really was not exposed as either an undergrad or master's student). While I've read quite a bit of the advice on writing samples on GradCafe, and I don't think it's feasible to tear apart and put together the paper again before we submit our first applications in 8 days, I wonder... a) How carefully do reviewers look at the "social science-ness" of the paper's structure as distinct from general writing ability, critical thinking, and ability to manage a large research project? And... Is it worth it to use the very limited time left (I work full-time) purely to change the content or organization to better reflect the norms of my intended subfield? Obviously, I'll still continue revising for clarity and strength of argument, but this could be the difference between editing a section and re-doing the bulk of the paper/sample. Part of my motivation to post here comes from wondering if this reviewer filtered expectations through what goes into a UK application, where this is THE paper that will lead to the dissertation, and the master's component has already been completed. So I'm trying to sharpen my understanding of how this thing will actually be read.

Just in time for application season, this new report presented at the APSA annual meeting provides some very interesting data on PhD program placement and institutional prestige, with a particular emphasis on assistant professor placement over a six (?) year period. It also raises ethical arguments about the role of reputation in hiring. One of the authors made headlines some time ago for an initial version of this study, and this expands it. I expect this to be of interest to everyone here. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2303567&download=yes

I'm not necessarily planning on doing this, but I've noticed that at least one of the three schools mentioned in the initial post has a large number of students who receive a master's in a subject outside the department (usually economics for students doing CPE/IPE, but not always). It's not clear to me how this works. Are students able to sufficiently overlap coursework in order to "take" this different degree around the time they finish quals? Do they continue doing coursework after quals and/or over the summer in order to gain the extra level of expertise (and if so, would that coursework be funded)? Is there really an advantage to doing this that couldn't be gained by doing comparable coursework in PE or methodology within the department?

I'm really surprised that not everyone was supportive of your decision. Losing the only faculty doing your area of work sounds like as valid a reason as you could ask for. Also, thank you for sharing your experience.

You raise an interesting issue here. I don't think I've ever heard that I should specifically target a writing sample to a department's "fit." Of course it's better to have a sample within your subfield or theme of interest, but the idea of a highly targeted sample up to and including a completely new paper raises some questions for me. Can anyone else comment on this? Shameless solicitation: I'm wrestling with my writing sample right now myself. I wrote my undergraduate "thesis" in theory, and produced one long master's paper on a topic that comes closer to what would be my PhD interests, but which was meant to deal with public policy issues I probably won't address again. I don't have any paper targeted to what exactly I want to do because what I want to do has evolved with time and reflection, though I could point to either as a stepping stone to where I am.

Well said, and applicable to pretty much any time-intensive career path.

It's early, but I plan to enter this cycle. I've posted/lurked on Grad Cafe for a long time now, and I think I'm prepared to take the plunge. I'm planning to be a comparativist with an interest in political economy of development, regional interest in eastern Europe and Central Asia (CIS), mixed methods. My research questions have to do with informal institutions, natural resources, corruption, and ideology. If that sounds scattered, I'm still sorting that part out. I completed my master's in area studies about a year ago, and by the time I expect to enter I'll have three years post-BA experience (both research and work) in my region of interest, with pretty strong language skills. Undergrad political science/IR, no quantitative training, and a handful of econ classes. My decision to apply as a comparativist comes as both I and my interests have matured-- as an undergrad I thought I would go either IR or theory, and I wrote the equivalent of my senior thesis on classical theorists. I'm trying to stay true to the things that I've always been very passionate about, while following those interests that have grown by spending time in my region of choice. I'm still compiling my list of schools, but I think I can make a good case for fit at Columbia, Cornell, Harvard, Madison, Michigan, Princeton, Stanford, UCLA, and Yale.

The OP is "osama123." Please do not feed the troll.

So I'll reveal a little more about my own background (the debate in question concerned where programs' expectations on methods training lie, especially programs known for offering "rigorous" training/approaches-- I'd still like to hear more on this!). I've done coursework in basic micro and macro econ and international trade and finance, but did not receive any quantitative methodological training-- the closest I have on my transcript is one impressive mark in formal logic, and a notation for basic calculus and physics, neither of which I've touched in years. My interests have shifted away from political theory (in which I invested way more time than the average undergrad) and security studies and toward a few theoretical and substantive topics in comparative with reference to my region (political institutions, identity politics, political economy of development), where I've been spending a significant amount of time in a semi-academic research capacity. I did graduate coursework related to these topics and produced some work with a heavy theoretical bent and some empirical analysis, but I couldn't actually create my own dataset and run analytics on it. I want to substantially bolster my methodological repertoire in grad school, and I'm attracted to scholars who employ some formal theory or/and quantitative methods in their work-- mainly because I just think what they're doing is very creative and I can imagine going in a similar direction based on my interests. Ultimately I want a mixed methods approach, with a heavy emphasis on combining theory building with empirical inquiry, and with the ability to at minimum do econometric/advanced statistical analysis as my research questions demand. I am curious about formal theory, but I have no idea if I'll be qualified to "do" that or if it will be worth the investment-- I'll need the program's guidance on that. But some of the programs and scholars I'm most attracted to seem to work with students who did a major in economics already, and I was essentially trying to feel if I'm precluded simply because of a weak methods background. I'm taking time to do independent coursework in introductory probability/stats, and possibly linear algebra or multivariate calculus in the fall or spring, as a way to prepare for actual graduate coursework. I don't know what sort of signaling effect this would have for an admissions committee (or the best way to go about doing that on my own time outside a university... help?). I also don't know what my quant GRE will be, but I intend to bang my head against the review books until I get a high enough mark. (Figuratively speaking. Obviously.) Ultimately, I'll make the case that a strong theoretical grounding, extensive area studies experience, and years outside the academy provide the grounding and maturity to follow the path I propose my forthcoming statement, and that I can shift some of my attention to methods without sacrificing substantive knowledge because of said experience. Hopefully I have not answered my own question here... at the very least, I'd still like more input on minimum and common backgrounds for proposing to learn/use formal theory or advanced quant methods.

Thank you all for the responses. Assuming that there's no stipulation I should discuss second or third fields, would you only recommend a paragraph in the personal statement to deal with these peripheral interests?

Please help settle a debate: Let's say that an applicant to PhD programs were to apply with IR or comparative as her main subfield, but said applicant has an interest in doing some coursework in political economy (comparative or international, probably with an institutionalist bent) and incorporating it into her scholarship, up to and including a second or third field in political economy if the department formally offers it. Methodologically, she intends to use advanced statistical techniques, and she is unsure about the extent to which she will learn/employ formal theory. How much of a minimum background would that candidate need to have to credibly argue for this interest in CPE or IPE in a personal statement? Economics courses, mathematics/statistics, familiarity with formal theory, etc.? How amenable are departments to training candidates on the lower end of that minimum threshold, bearing in mind this is not their primary interest (meaning the burden to be well-versed ought to be lower than someone intending to work primarily in CPE or IPE)? And if this threshold, or expectations thereof, varies by department, could you point to the extreme and median expectations?

MyUSofWhatever hits all the key points. If you can afford it, I am sure it will be excellent preparation for PhD admissions, but you need to be sure you can handle the costs (it may not be worth it to go into debt for the MA, but that depends on your finances). The support they give for writing the master's thesis is particularly valuable, probably better than what PhD students usually receive for any comparable master's paper. And if you need a new writing sample, you may not have one ready for the following admissions cycle. Depending on your field, you could wait until you complete the thesis, defer for the following admissions cycle, and take a year to travel or maybe do research on a fellowship (Boren, Fulbright, etc.) Just an option. The flip side is that getting the master's from UChicago can also make you more marketable outside academia, and you can try to hedge for that possibility by developing skills that might be useful on the job market (quant methods, language, substantive knowledge related to economics, etc.). I believe that about a third of the students go on to PhDs, another third go public sector/non-profit, and the last go private. But you'll need to gauge the value added by examining your own interests as well.

Huge congrats to everyone in this year's cycle (especially zilya-- I had a great experience at Stanford CREEES, feel free to message me if you'd like to chat about the program).

I agree with Helix-- fit matters a lot, so look carefully at some of the "top programs" you have in mind before ruling them out completely. Also consider UT Austin. Look especially closely at Minnesota if you're interested in Central Asia. Kathleen Collins is there and she does some fantastic work.

To have a strong position at a think tank, I believe you need to have either a PhD or extensive policy experience-- preferably both. A PhD in public policy is more effective to that end than a PhD in political science-- see, for instance, the PhD programs at SAIS, HKS, and Fletcher. Many of these require you to be an MA student or already have a master's.

Interesting question-- that sounds like a sound way to hedge your bets, provided you find a department that encourages you to spend the time to develop that secondary field. Most political theorists I know promptly forget their secondary fields as they focus solely on a humanities-type dissertation, and I would be wary of getting tracked into that if you want to maintain a secondary field in political economy for academic or career reasons. If you're proposing keeping the theory focus and just allowing the secondary field to stand out as a back-up, I'm guessing it would help a lot to produce a decent paper or two in that specialty, if only to keep your methodology and quant skills fresh and to have extra credibility on your resume. Personally, I think it would be cool to incorporate formal methods and contemporary positive theory into a traditional-type theory dissertation, especially if you're writing on a political economist like Adam Smith or Marx. I don't know if you have something like that in mind, but as always, the key is to find a department that will support the type of work you want to do and the plans you may have for your career.

I'll add Duke and UT Austin to Penelope's list, if Straussians are amenable to your preferred approach. As far as selling yourself, I also agree that your background is just fine for any political theory program. All of your efforts should be focused on arguing for how well you'd fit with a given department. Be aware, though, that the academic job market for political theory is considered absolutely dreadful-- though I don't know how it compares to intellectual historians'.

Your GRE scores, major GPA's, and research experience should at least give you a shot at any school. But as Bdeniso suggests, fit is the far more important factor. Decide where you'll find the faculty who will work best with your interests and apply to those.

First, I should say that I'm confused by your goals. Do you want to be a professor? Do you want to work in DC and gain policy experience? Neither one of these are necessary to do the other. Some people work first to gain experience and to help them decide if they want to get a PhD. It sounds like you want to attain the milestone of having worked in security policy so you can go on and reach your other goals. But you're not going to reach the position where you can make any serious impact as an individual unless you stay in the policy world for years, maybe decades. Also note that very few PhD programs are oriented toward policy work-- those tend to be PhD's in public policy, as opposed to political science. RAND's graduate program is ideal for that option, for instance. As a rule, polisci programs train you to be a professor. Also-- are you saying you want to get two PhD's, one in theology and one in political science? Because that sounds way excessive to me. So, regarding your questions-- you should pose these first and foremost to your undergrad adviser, who will be able to assess your abilities and chances far more accurately. Generally you can compensate for a weak undergrad record with a strong GRE score and a well-crafted personal statement that demonstrates your scholarly aptitude and seriousness and proves why you fit well with the given department. You do NOT need a master's before entering a PhD program, though some people do those to further make up for a weak undergrad record. But again, if your concern is that a master's in polisci/security studies will not train you to do policy work, you shouldn't be looking into a PhD in the same area that will most certainly not acclimate you to the policy world. What you would want is a degree in international/public affairs, the kind that SAIS and Fletcher offer. So, I'd say clarify your goals, and talk to your adviser at length to figure out what works best for you.

If you feel burnt out, do NOT apply to a PhD program right now. Take some time, and use some of that time to dig deeper into the political science literature and research faculty/programs to get a better feel for what you'd be doing as a grad student and scholar. I actually did a 1-year master's program in area studies, and I'm currently deciding when to apply to a PhD program. This is actually not a bad option, because area studies programs occasionally offer FULL tuition AND stipend through the Foreign Language and Area Studies (FLAS) scholarship. Any of the schools listed on this website for the current award period ought to be able to offer them, though you'll need to search each program's website individually. Most programs are two years and may not provide funding for both of them, but if you can find a 1 year program like I did for my region it will help defer costs, and regardless, half the costs at a public institution might make the program more affordable. Area studies programs can potentially lead a student either to academia or the professional world, depending on interests, and many students in these programs are there to boost their credentials for a PhD program that requires language training. In political science, it may or may not be helpful-- you'll need to see which polisci faculty you can work with at the school. There's also U Chicago's CIR/MAPSS programs and Columbia's MA in quantitative social science. U Chicago does provide merit scholarships for tuition, though it is expensive. Columbia doesn't offer much from what I recall, but it is an excellent program. You might want to take some time off, apply to PhD programs if you're still interested, and if you don't get the admissions you want try again with a focused MA program to boost your credentials after you've earned some money.