Zahar Berkut

FleetFoxes is right. I'll add that a very strong GRE score can help offset a weak GPA, but beyond that you really need to focus on identifying which schools are the right fit for your research interest. When the time comes, apply to a broad range of schools and see how you do. Worst case scenario, you can take the added information about your candidacy and use the time afterward to address weaknesses in your application. I would also encourage you to think very strongly about your reasons for pursuing a PhD. Do you want to be a professor? What are your research interests? Are you willing to commit 5 or more years to a minimum-wage "job" to enter an extremely cut-throat job market? If you can answer those positively, great-- but I hope you've gone through that exercise. I ask because of two things you highlighted above. First, think tank experience is far more valuable for a professional degree master's than it is for a PhD, since very little of the research going on in think tanks carries much weight with academics. Do you have experience as a research assistant for a professor? Are you writing a thesis? Those are far more valuable. Second, the "Chinese or Arabic" comment makes me think you're still unsure about what you'll study. You don't need to have a dissertation topic ready when you apply, but you should be able to point to some fairly concrete research areas or regions of interest.

Many would argue that universities do their students a disservice by accepting drastically more theory students than the job market could possibly support. From what I understand, there may be a dozen theory hires at best per year when perhaps hundreds just received their PhD. When I was an undergrad working in my department's political science office, I remember filing 100-200 applications for a single spot, filled with candidates from top programs. The two finalists we did not select are still looking for a tenure-track position three years later. I don't mean to scare you for the sake of scaring you, but you have to understand the risks before taking the plunge. You can absolutely still do a PhD in theory-- just be aware that there's a reasonable chance you'll have to look for work outside academia when you finish.

Hi Masha, I won't be conferencing myself, but I figure your introduction deserves a reply! It's great to see a sociologist working on the region (I've been woefully cut off from that discipline), and I hope you enjoy U Washington! I'm also curious-- what leads you to Georgian? Of course there are plenty of interesting migration and social movement questions there, but I've met so few people interested in the country, as distinct from the Caucuses in general.

Yup, if you want to work for the federal government but do not want a law degree, look into a professional master's in public policy or international affairs. Advanced political science degrees are geared strictly toward academia.

TV shows and news are also good. You definitely want subtitles-- if not in English, then get them in Russian so you can visualize each word as you hear it. A friend of mine learned a lot of his English by watching TV with English subtitles. You seem like a savvy language learner already, so I probably don't even need to mention that setting a modest goal (never a titanic one!) per episode or film is a good way to go.

I could add that it might still be worth it to do the PhD if you truly love the process of going through coursework and putting the dissertation together, and you're willing to go on to whatever you may find from there, and you don't mind living on a grad student's stipend for a while. It's just that many people enter the PhD not understanding all that, and they become disillusioned later. It's about the journey, though, as much as the destination.

I could take my MA in area studies to pretty much any career involving Eastern Europe/Eurasia. But I want to caution you against going for a PhD in history unless your end goal is to become a professor-- which would involve both research and teaching obligations. There just isn't any career that the PhD would offer you that you couldn't enter with the MA. I may sound harsh, but 5-7 years is a huge investment, and even if you aim to become a professor, the job market in history is very competitive. (If any other readers disagree, though, please speak up!)

Awful. Is there a site that records some of the debate? I'd like to know if the objection is to the notion of a science of politics itself, to a perceived domination of liberal professors in polisci departments, both, neither, or whatever else.

Huge congrats!

Are there any substantive themes or issues that you want to approach from a more philosophical standpoint? And do you know if you prefer a textual approach, or something closer to what Alexander Wendt does? What I'm getting at is, if you think about the scholars who's work most interests you and provide an example of the sort of thing you want to study, that will help you figure out which subfield. I'm also getting IR from you, mostly because you want to work with IR theory and it's easier to go from big thinkers to IR theory than it is to go from IR theory to the broader political theory subfield. Take a look at some of the IR/Theory people at Hopkins, though, and see if that piques your interest. They were one of the few departments I found that really emphasizes dialogue across the two subfields.

It's my understanding that Columbia is increasing its emphasis on Ukraine, at least on political issues-- they've got the former Ukrainian ambassador to the UN in residence last I checked, and I think they make it a point to always have a few Ukrainian professors in residence. That said, a friend of mine did their MA program with a focus on public health, and she seemed to like it. By which I mean she never talked to me much about it, and just kept doing awesome things in life. As a rule, I'd run through department lists to check out potential faculty and even course lists to make sure they can offer you what you want to study and give you chances to work with who you'd like. I expect that with all the schools Columbia has, including public health and SIPA, they can let you customize your course of study as you'd like. But all things equal, the Harriman Institute was one of the absolute first centers for REES to be established in the US, and both it and the school have a very strong reputation abroad-- it also means you can expect a strong alumni network. The name recognition will only help. Its Ukraine offerings would have put it at the top of my MA program list, if I thought I could do the degree in one year. New York is very expensive, but if they offer you the proper FLAS with full tuition plus stipend I think it's worth stretching your budget (as they're supposed to according to the rules... this is actually the school where one admit thought the offer was only partial tuition, which makes no sense to me). If you can't think of anything specific IU has that you don't think Columbia can offer, it's very hard for me to make an argument for IU over Columbia besides money-- and really, I think it's possible to budget the $15k if you can restrain yourself from all the wonderful, expensive things New York offers. You can PM me, btw, if you want to talk more specific things regarding programs/Ukraine focus.

Come to think of it, this would be a good time to solicit advice on in-country language training programs. I secured a summer FLAS through my university, and I'm leaning toward doing an individual study at MGU (I've heard good things about the faculty for this kind of arrangement-- it would be one-on-one, 20-30 hours per week). But just on the off chance anyone has other recommendations, I'd be happy to hear them. Note that the biggest limiting factor for me is starting date, which needs to be last week of June at the earliest.

Congrats NiceGuy! I'm glad to hear it worked out for you.

Hi Ali, good to see another Ukrainophile. I think you outlined the institutional differences pretty well. Indiana built up a massive reserve of Slavicists during the Cold War, and they're slowly fading away as the school tries to shift resources. The school is large enough to have regional pull in the midwest, and possibly abroad because of its history (depending who you talk to). But while I can't speak to KU's program, I will say that I've come across the school a LOT since I went down the Ukraine track. Their summer program in Lviv is very well known, and I've met several people associated with the school in the past year while just doing my thing (both students and a professor). So some of the questions you might think about: does Indiana have much greater resources in your substantive area of interest (e.g. public health)? And what would your options be for an advanced degree in that? The major weakness of regional studies MA's is that they can be hard to present as a terminal degree, depending on your area of interest-- they're really most useful combined with a professional degree, like in public health. You could always do that later on, of course. On the flip side, while Ukraine-specific courses are a very nice luxury, you still have the ability to do Ukraine-specific research in a more general course sequence. (My REES program is actually based on this more general approach, and it's working fairly well.) So there are ways to get around that if you choose Indiana. Also, do you think you might actually "switch" to Polish? Does KU have the resources for that? Finally, don't worry "too" much about summer stuff. It's very good that KU is covering you off the bat, but Indiana probably has summer FLAS opportunities as well... although you might be lower on the preference list for Ukrainian study if you're already fluent. So as an exercise, I'd recommend running through the department websites for anything you plan to take a course in, just to get a feel of what opportunities you'd have. Also, have you had the chance to speak to students from both programs? I'm sure the university can put you in touch, and I also met a KU alum in Ukraine recently, so shoot me a PM if that sounds helpful. And just in case I come off too strongly on the side of Indiana, I'm not so much pushing it as I am asking if you've checked all these things out. Both sound like wonderful options-- don't be afraid to go where you'd be happier.

My thoughts: A. Probably not, but if she can defer program admission, it's likely they would vote for her funding again. Have her ask about it regardless. B. She can try, and she should. C. Difficult to say. Are both degrees in area studies, or is the SAIS one the standard MA program with an area studies concentration? There's a huge difference. The latter would be a professional degree with the hard skills training and connections that come with a top international policy program. The former would almost certainly be more academic, and less career focused. So it depends a lot on your friend's goals and ability to afford SAIS.

Maybe it varies by program, but I could have sworn that mid-to-late April was the standard acceptance deadline for grad admissions. If one of your programs set a an earlier deadline than your other offers, you could try contacting the school and asking if they can give you more time to decide. March 30 seems way too early to me.

Nice! But wait, does that mean they're not comping the rest of your tuition? I've heard of some programs failing to do that, and according to my program director, that would be against the FLAS rules (can't confirm that independently right now).

Congrats on the latest wave of acceptances! I'm just curious, jrnels, about the funding breakdown you've got in your signature. Are you listing both tuition and stipend? I'm never quite sure what to tell friends about FLAS/scholarship funding levels at certain schools. Not to put you on the spot, that is!

Thank you for the responses! There are some great insights here, and I'm thinking that if I have only one course on campus available, it should probably be the more rigorous stats course with an emphasis on applications (not the R-intensive one). I may still take the autodidact route and build up on linear algebra and other math course sequences, but the stats option may be most effective for signaling potential employers in the near term. Personally, I'm not sure how I would be using quantitative training in a possible PhD program. I believe strongly in mixed methods, so any tools available to shed more light on a question is great, but I can't say right now how much I expect to work with formal models. Come to think of it, that's probably a problem for the mixed methods philosophy: you can't have every possible tool available without committing a disproportional amount of time to methods at the expense of thematic courses. So the efficient methodology-training outcome probably won't move very far past some of the basic regressions.

After a long hibernation, I'm emerging-- with questions for the informed! I will have one free course next quarter in my area studies terminal MA program (terminating in June), and I'd like to take that chance to bolster my quantitative skills, which I currently lack. The issue is, I have many options available to me for a one-course venture into mathematical/statistical methods. My background: BC calculus from high school. Previous posts on this issue suggest two philosophies: i) cover specific topics relevant to statistical social science work, or ii) just get the fundamentals of math down (calculus, differential equations, linear algebra, etc) that will allow someone to access the necessary coursework when the time comes. The trade-off is one of timing-- if you want to use quantitative methods on the job before pursuing a PhD, are there any topics that must be covered beforehand? To help me decide, and especially to help me distinguish the different syllabi available to me, I ask the forum what topics need to be covered in order to: 1) Signal quantitative ability to ad-com's; 2) Signal quantitative competence to potential public/private sector employers; 3) Enhance my ability to conduct political science and/or policy-relevant research (two questions, I know); The more specific one can be about topics that ought to be covered in methods, the better-- it will help me and whoever else faces a similar situation in the future compare syllabi. Currently I am looking at two stats-for-social scientists courses, one with a heavy R software emphasis and the other more theoretical; one statistics department course (still more theoretical, but it's hard for me to judge); and finally, a linear algebra/multivariate calculus course that itself would not contribute to research methods but would allow me to study econometrics and intermediate microeconomics on my own following the completion of my degree.

Congrats to everyone on their acceptances so far! These are some great schools here, and I wish you luck when funding decisions roll out.

I usually point people to U Chicago's CIR and MAPSS, which offer merit-based scholarships (about 5% receive full tuition). If you have a region of interest, a FLAS scholarship is possible, but more common for area studies MA's.

In addition to the great points above, I should also ask: why do you want the PhD? Are you trying to become a professor, or make yourself more competitive outside academia?

Tergellian, I'd be hard pressed to find somebody more competitive than you based on those stats. If you're worried about the GPA, don't worry-- it's good in its own right, and if you're comparing yourself to a 3.9 overall, you've compensated as much as any human being could hope to. The SIPA and SAIS programs feel out of place if your goal is academia. With the UK programs it's at least understood that an MPhil is a stepping stone, but it's harder to say just how much you'd benefit from doing this if you intend to follow up with a PhD program. You could always replace them with other PhD programs. I also don't understand the choice of Brown, but maybe I haven't looked into their political economy faculty too closely. Finally, it actually sounds like we have very similar interests. If you don't mind, please do PM me about your work experience in the FSU-- I'm looking to make that transition myself this coming year.

Also bear in mind that they presumably remove names from their Job Market page once people secure a position. You're kind of in a double bind if it takes longer than 7 years to secure the PhD (and I think that's pushing it already, whether it's typical or not). I strongly suspect there's a bias in some departments against people who take whatever is considered an inordinate amount of time to finish (as an office assistant, I once filed an application checklist that noted "took over 10 years to finish" among a short list of only negative comments), so those who took a long time to get their PhD's are also staying on that Job Market page for a longer time. In principle, there's no reason why you couldn't finish in 5 years at U Chicago, which still has a top department. That not everybody does just puts the burden on your own self-motivation.