RWBG

I wouldn't say Yale's particularly known for game theory, whereas Stanford has some of the best formal theorists in the world. I think your first instinct was solid.

My two cents: Probably not worth retaking the GRE, unless you're pretty sure you can get 600+ and high 700 on a retake. As it is, over the two tests, you have high scores in both, so that may be enough. Regarding math profs as letter writers, maybe not, unless you're doing heavy formal theory and they can speak to more than what would be reflected in the grade. However, if you did a stats class (presumably metrics/regression oriented?) that involved empirical papers, and they went well, it might be useful to have a prof who can speak to your ability to do empirical work. Depends on the opportunity cost though; are you getting them to write you a letter at the expense of someone who might be better known in the field? That being said, holding everything else constant, having letter writers that can speak to different aspects of your abilities is probably better.

This still depends a lot on what research you're interested in. The reality is, the quant section is scaled such that 800 is only 94th percentile; the difference between a 720 and a 770 is the difference between the 75th and 89th percentile. If you plan on doing heavy formal theory or empirical work, a 720 can be a bit of a red flag; in economics departments, some schools actually advise you to retake the GRE if you score less than a 780, and I would imagine formal applicants may face somewhat similar expectations. As coach said though, if you're not planning on doing much math-y stuff beyond a required methods course, you probably won't need to retake it, because quant abilities aren't going to be integral to your ability to succeed in your Ph.D program. But admissions committees use all the information they have to try to predict your performance; they don't arbitrarily stop caring beyond a particular threshold score.

Obviously, getting 50 points higher on the GRE will help, the question is how much. Quant scores seem to matter somewhat more than verbal scores. I wouldn't call 720 poor, but it is below the average at the TOP schools, and about the average for the 7-20 ish range. http://graduate-school.phds.org/rankings/political-science/rank/________________M_______________________________________________U How important it's going to be will probably be partly dependent on the kind of research you want to do.

I'm really curious about what department has 1500+ as a minimum. Harvard has an average GRE quant score of 759; their average GRE score is almost certainly below a 1500.

Some people have already received responses. If you haven't heard from UBC, it probably means you're on some kind of waiting list. Same with U of T, although I don't know if they sent out any rejections yet, so their waiting list could just be composed of everyone who applied who they haven't yet admitted.

I'm a Kaplan GRE instructor, and I'll say that the benefit you'll get from the course really depends on what your initial strengths and weaknesses are on the GRE. For example, if you have strong math fundamentals but are just having difficulty completing the GRE given the time constraints, you may be best served just doing a lot of practice tests. If you're having more difficulty figuring out the correct approach to problems/having difficulty with more fundamental concepts in mathematics, the course can give you strategies/methods that will be helpful to most applicants. Verbal section improvements tend to be smaller, as a lot is dependent on how many words you know/your command of grammatical structure, but there are verbal strategies that can get you an extra 30-40 points or so on the margin. Additionally, what others have said about the benefits in terms of providing external motivation is definitely true for many people; I know a lot of people who planned to practice a lot by themselves for the GRE, ended up not doing so, and achieved poorer results than they were capable of. One thing that's unambiguously useful, though, is Kaplan's online system, which identifies your strengths and weaknesses after each practice test, and allows you to do focused quizzes on the material you're weakest with. For the record, my GRE score was Q: 800 V:740 A: 5.5 Edit: I'll also add in response to Milo that whether or not you should focus on doing tests under timed conditions also depends a lot on your initial point. In general, I would say use separate problems/quizzes for learning the fundamentals, and use the timed tests to get used to the GRE/practice getting the timing right. For a lot of people, spending too much time or too little on certain types of questions can be the difference between a 720 and an 800 for them, especially if they don't finish the test (something which is penalized more than getting the wrong answers.)

This sounds like good advise. I was under the impression that only MA level classes could be taken by MA students; upon review, the Ph.D courses seem to be available to master's students unless they explicitly say otherwise. I retract my previous statement.

The faculty at nyu is very good, but not all of them are teaching MA level classes. In addition to Bruce BdM, George Downs and Michael Gilligan are some noteworthy people teaching MA classes this year.

If math isn't your strength, you may be well served by programs outside the U.S. For example, Canada has master's programs that don't require you to submit GRE scores, and are generally much less quantitatively oriented than U.S. programs.

Congrats!

Still some things up in the air; sent you a PM.

Yeah, it was an e-mail that alternated congratulatory sentences with sentences offering condolences for the ph.d rejection. April 10 deadline to accept.

Congrats on Western! While there, you should check out Ron Wintrobe in the econ department, as well as Al Slivinski if you're at all interested in formal theory. Just in case those two slipped past you because they're in the econ department.

Same here.

Generally, no. They may match funding from an external source, but nothing beyond that.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but I know for a fact that Toronto sent out Ph.D offers on Monday of this week. MA offers will go out early next week.

Sorry to hear that! I haven't heard anything; it's kind of weird that they wouldn't send out rejections all at once! I'm still waiting.

Haha, well that hope ended quickly... Congrats to the NYU admits.

Congrats on those acceptances; Berkeley and Duke are very strong schools, at either of which I'm sure you'd be able to pursue formal theory effectively, and which have strong placement! My thought is that Rochester and Caltech may get applications from every formal political science student, so that it can become difficult to differentiate yourself at that point if you're applying for formal-heavy stuff. Perhaps your application is more unique/stand-out at Berkeley or Duke as a result? There are a couple of very clearly defined ways in which my application will improve for next year, so I know I'll have a better chance then. It would have been nice to get in now and not have to worry about applying next year, and getting rejected starts to raise those nagging worries about what would happen if I don't ever get into a Ph.D program, but all in all, it's not the end of the world.

Why read the book when you can watch the movie!

This is pretty surprising. Umich is a great school though, so I hope you're not too worried about it. This ends my lingering pipe-dream that I might have made their waitlist. @Tufnel and wtncffts. I appreciate the encouragement! NYU's really the only school left amongst the remaining four that I feel I have any chance at. My fit there is good (probably the best of any school, actually), but they've struck me as more competitive than some of the schools I've been de facto rejected from. My only hope is that their extremely high average GRE-Q scores relative to other political science departments reflect an unreasonably and unjustifiably high focus on GRE scores in admissions! If that ends up being the case, maybe I'll have a chance. But as of this point, my focus has shifted from the now minute probability of success this year to planning for next year's applications. On a lighter note: http://hijinksensue....ally-biased.jpg

For formal theory, I would think Rochester's the obvious choice. Even if you liked UCLA better, Rochester tends to place formal theorists very well, as hiring committees immediately look at Rochester grads when hiring for formal theory. Congrats to all the Rochester admits! Hopefully I'll see you there in 2012...

Congrats, Oasis! I had resigned myself to reapplying next year, so although this likely signals that will be necessary, it doesn't hurt as much as it might have a few weeks ago. Anyone want to claim the rejection? I haven't heard anything yet.

Now there's a posted rejection (for Rochester). Absent a claim here though, I remain skeptical.