Zahar Berkut

There are only a few reasons to do a terminal MA before a PhD, if the PhD is already your goal. The ones I can think of: 1. Serious need to boost your academic record in political science coursework. 2. Undergrad major in non-polisci discipline. 3. Cold feet about starting a PhD program. I put myself in the final category, and I'm starting a 1-year M.A. next year that I think would also be of use if I don't go on to the PhD. If you're ready to do the PhD already, then take Tufnel's advice-- all of it, especially the part about private/public. You need to look into the rankings for your program of study, and forget whether their undergrad program is more prestigious. What you want to find is a good fit with faculty that can help you with your research interests. As far as funding-- I think Chicago's CIR offers some of the best tuition support for a terminal M.A. I myself will be doing an area studies M.A. with the support of a FLAS scholarship. It's rare otherwise to get much help with master's funding.

If for some reason you have reason to believe your GPA is holding you back later in the application process (it might not, depending, as mentioned above, on the other parts of your application), you can always do an M.A. (MAPPS might be particularly good for you with your theory/IR interests-- though I'm afraid you'll need a more coherent set of research interests than Plato/Nietzsche and state-building). But yes, the low GPA will create some difficulties. I'm reluctant to give specific schools-- you'll need to do some research to find a decent fit-- but you'll have some trouble with even top 30 programs.

Have you already gotten the Fulbright? You should be able to base your decision on funding if that's the case.

Very glad to hear your school's FLAS won't get touched in the coming year (I'm starting in the fall with a FLAS award, and I've been hesitant to contact my program and ask about it). Thanks for the Chronicle link, too.

Agreed-- there's an important distinction in U.S. grad programs between IR as a subfield of political science and professional programs in international affairs. SAIS is the latter. That said, you should look through the APSIA member schools to get a better idea of your range of your options.

So by now many of you have probably heard that education-- including some scholarships and fellowships in international education/studies under "Title VI"-- are getting chopped in the new national budget. It's unclear to me what effects this will have. I already know that international Fulbright applicants applying for study in the US are taking a hit, and I expect the same to happen for U.S. applicants for study abroad, though I'm not able to say how much the numbers will be affected, or in which countries. Any thoughts? Here's a link to a short blog post on the international education cuts: "Programs that fall under the Title VI umbrella include National Resource Centers, grants to universities for modern foreign language study; the Foreign Language and Area Studies fellowships; Language Resource Centers, which research teaching and learning of foreign languages; and centers for international business education and research, among others. Many emphasize languages and regions that are considered strategically important or are infrequently studied, Kazanjian said.The Education Department also administers Fulbright grants for doctoral dissertations, faculty research, group projects and seminars abroad." http://saveourforeignlanguages.wordpress.com/2011/04/16/congress-cuts-foreign-language-funding/

In that case, weigh the costs. If it really is affordable-- meaning your family both says they can help and really can without wrecking themselves-- then Oxford could be just fine. But also remember that it may be of less use outside academia than the Chicago degree. The nice thing about UofC's MA is its flexibility (and the fact that's far cheaper with funding because of the one-year nature). But you may very well be in a better position for a future PhD program with the 2 year MPhil. But what's your future goal?

Just submitted my housing app! Escondido, Rains, or Lyman-- chosen purely on the basis of price/having my own room. Also not willing to shell over a grand-- that would eat almost all of my stipend. : / Also requested a Russian or Ukrainian speaking roommate. I wonder if that means the only other Ukrainian speaker who mentioned it in their app will be assigned to my suite.

Conventional wisdom says a political science PhD is better for the academic job market, while a public policy degree will look better everywhere else. But with security studies the line is grey, especially if you take a political economy approach or specialize in specific issues rather than "grand" theoretical concerns. Joseph Nye put his degree to good use outside academia, for instance (an exception?). It's possible for public policy PhD's to get academic jobs as well, but it's far less common (I can think of two professors total I know of with that degree). And for US government, depending on the position, both ought to be acceptable, especially given your already deep background. One important consideration: the value added of a PhD for academia is crystal clear, but it's less obvious what a public policy PhD will do for you already having an M.A. Which is to say, from my academic-centric point of view, that it may help, but it will take more justification on your point to decide why the extra education is beneficial. I hope that helps a little. I'm curious myself now about placement records and such for public policy PhD programs.

First, great user name. My decision came very suddenly, largely as a result of the circumstances I found myself in (doing research in Eastern Europe on a scholarship for a year), a project which itself came in response to what was at the time a budding interest in the region. I decided while here that I wanted a deeper background, but I also wanted to figure out whether or not to go on to a PhD program in my field. So I only applied to two programs, one in regional studies and one in IR, based on the possibility for funding and the fact that each program is 1 year. If I were to do a complete search with the regional studies MA as my final education goal (so that 2 year programs would be more appealing), I'd recommend looking into Columbia, Duke, Georgetown, Harvard, Indiana, Stanford, and probably some other less competitive schools if need be. Each of these has stellar faculty in a variety of disciplines and a ton of resources in their respective regional studies research institute on campus. Indiana in particular has a famous language training center. FLAS scholarship is a major factor in school selection, since these grants can often provide a full year of coverage for even MA students. Stanford reserves most of its grad student FLAS's for MA students, but at other schools it might be more competitive. I know U Chicago, for instance, only gives the FLAS to PhD students. Competitive applicants: background in the region, preferably including experience in the actual region; intermediate to advanced language skills in your language of school (usually, but definitely not always, Russian-- Columbia actually seems to be signalling it wants Ukrainian speakers); and then the usual strong undergrad record/GRE scores/letters/relevant activities. I can discuss it more with you by PM, but as a sophomore I'll warn you against letting yourself obsess over it too much just yet.

I'll comment on the GRE score and publication: Generally, applicants to top PS programs try to break 700 on quant and get close to the top percentile in verbal (also around 700). But it's kind of a moot point until you know what your actual scores are and how much you can improve them-- you want them as high as possible, and then you can start guessing what schools are more or less in range. BUT, for theory applicants, quant might be less important, even though top applicants usually have high scores anyhow. Of course, GRE scores never make an application, but they can break it, so look at what you have to offer as a whole. Regarding publications: it doesn't hurt, but many undergrad journals are not regarded very highly and it will probably just serve as more proof of your ability to write on top of your sample. Unless you somehow publish in a peer-reviewed journal, which is actually quite tough to do. As for all your other questions... I think your advisor would be in the best position to talk to you about the specifics of your situation, and the theory faculty should be able to recommend specific schools based on your interests and their knowledge of faculty.

Job markets ebb and grow, but what you say about easier access to research materials might be true. Be aware that quantitative/survey methods dominate the American subfield. In the end, just make sure you're applying to a field that matches your interests. It's always possible to switch to what you thought would be a secondary or minor field (my undergrad advisor started American and switched to IR).

The PhD in political science is often strictly viewed as training to become a professor. If you have good reasons for wanting to do a PhD to make yourself better able to enter the public policy or consulting realm, then a PhD in public policy or economics is still a possibility. The Kennedy School and the Fletcher School definitely offer PhD's, though I'm honestly not sure what their grad's do with them. So look into SIPA to see if they have their own policy-oriented PhD program if you must stay in the NYC area. But really, your MS in International Economics does qualify you to go into the line of work you seem to be interested in, and the theology background should make you a particularly interesting job candidate. So, I guess what we're trying to fish out is what your reasons are for wanting further education.

Last I checked, CIR's placement record section on their site was outdated, but if MAPSS is a good indication, they place well. If you are very interested in the second year specialization, ask CIR directly about the chances of going on to that. If you have the time and inclination, it can be a good way to build depth and stay in grad school while doing PhD applications for the following fall.

I echo the above commenters: Chicago and Columbia should be comparable in terms of resources, personal networks, and competitiveness. You'll want to weigh the faculty you'll potentially work with, and possibly the quality of advising/ relative treatment of the MA students in the program. Don't worry about seeing eye-to-eye with faculty in a one year program, just find one or two people you think you can build a strong relationship. Writing samples will matter, so consider the CIR thesis part carefully.

What are your other options? If money really is not a problem, it might be a good option. But make sure that you'll have the chance to get letters/form some kind of relationship with some tenured faculty member of interest. Ask the program to connect you with a current MA student that shares your interests and get a better perspective on their experience, and if they don't post their placement record for MA students, ask the program to provide that.

I'm actually probably going to practice for/retake the GREs (doing a terminal MA program next year, my top choice). I took them at the last minute without much studying, and I ran out of time on math with a lot of questions unanswered. Will need to get that score up if I do apply for PhD programs in the future, and I might as well get it out of the way. That, and the beach.

Call-- to accept I needed to look at the letter they sent me and register online with a student ID.

Chicago CIR merits asking this forum. I would find out from Chicago, directly if possible, what Harris School courses you'd be able to take (and whether John Mearshimer will be teaching next year ot not, since he is not listed on the political science department's "tentative" course list). That will matter a lot for the value of your degree. The CIR thesis will allow you to develop some specialist knowledge in a security studies topic, possibly a policy topic. The program seems to have a good record placing people. But weigh whether you'd be getting the policy analysis, economic, and statistical training you'd probably get at Korbel. Also, you didn't mention how much funding Chicago offered, but weigh the monetary costs too.

Completely agree. I believe-- could be wrong-- that some spots in Munger are reserved for non-law students to force them to migle with other people. Munger is too expensive for my stipend, so I'm going for any two/three bedroom (per resident) setup elsewhere.

MAPSS offers full tuition funding to something like the top 5 percent of applicants (on the basis of some sort of voodoo calculation). With your GRE's and overall GPA, you might be competitive. I don't know if my friend who is there now got funded, but she is boosting her theory credentials and loving it. You have the assurance of working directly with big name professors and you can usually work with them on the required master's thesis. Given that Chicago has a stronger rep in theory than NYU, you might look into it.

If I were to argue that research has in fact received too much emphasis at the expense of undergraduate and even graduate instruction, and that a balance must be struck between these two critical parts of being a political science professor, would that settle the discussion? I'd rather not argue which of the two is more important, or ought to be more important-- political scientists themselves disagree over this, even if more have been inculcated to favor research. But nobody denies they are both necessary and vital. Because a JD "might" have sufficient training in one but not the other (just as an MA could be a sufficiently good undergraduate, but not graduate teacher-- and of course, neither JD's, MA's, or PhD's receive teaching training as part of their degree requirements), a JD does not fulfill one of the necessary requirements to be considered universally qualified to be a PS professor.

So I was offered funding at Stanford's CREEES, and there's a strong chance I'll be taking it. Any other success stories in Russian/Eastern Europe regional studies?

It sounds like you'll be making some considerable sacrifices to do the MA, including depending on your wife for support. Please bear in mind that the political theory job market is abysmal, by far the most competitive in political science. My friends who applied for the PhD this year ONLY considered top 5-10 programs, and were not willing to attend shy of that for fear of being out of a tenure-track job. I am not saying don't do it, but you must have very strong reasons for believing a paid master's will sufficiently boost your application to a top program. Your GRE scores are stellar, of course, so it's definitely possible. Be sure, though, that you'll get strong letters from reputable (and reliable) faculty, develop a quality writing sample that will be of interest to admissions committees, and have a strong enough record to show you've got the chops for theory. You might also ask the department directly about the "placement" record of their MA grads into theory programs. Have you looked into MAPPS at U Chicago? I know at least one person doing theory there. Since it's not exclusively a polisci program, your low PS GPA may not count against you as much. They can also offer some funding, so if the amount exceeds your savings from living at home in NJ, it might be worth consideration. But then, maybe you also want to stay close to your wife and family. Finally, can I ask what your area of interest is in theory? As an international studies major, you've piqued my interest. You can PM it to me.

I do think that would be impossible. These courses have heavy work loads, and if you want to get through everything with good marks and without wanting to kill yourself, you need to actually have time to sit down, study, and unwind. I can't imagine pulling that off with full-time work, especially if you need to re-arrange your entire work schedule to go to classes.