RWBG

Haha, well I hope you're right. Although it was my impression that there are more mathematically inclined people applying to many political science programs than there have been in the past. I lack the information to comment beyond that.

I don't have any insider information about how admissions committee decisions actually work, and I'm a bit biased, given that I'm in a somewhat similar situation to you. But I would imagine that adcomms consist of intelligent people who can discern the relative difficulty of different courses you've taken to some extent, and will attempt to determine your relative quantitative abilities beyond a first glance at the numbers of it. Certainly, in my experience, I took a theoretical course in math-stats and a practical stats course for econ majors, and found that a B in the first was more difficult to obtain than an A in the latter. I would imagine most people on adcomms would be able to figure that out as well. Especially if you've taken other math courses that demonstrate strong quantitative aptitude. A caveat being, of course, that if someone applies with higher grades than you in advanced stats courses, they will probably be given preference. But I don't think it should harm your position relative to applicants who've achieved higher grades in simpler methods courses in the polisci department..

I think it partly depends on what programs you're applying for. If you're applying for quant heavy programs, taking a math course Pass/Fail will probably count marginally in your favor (assuming you pass), but I imagine it would likely have little effect on the admissions process. Also, keep in mind that math department courses tend to be much more theoretical than methods courses in social science departments like polisci. It might be safer to take it Pass/Fail if this is your first foray into university-level math courses, as it can sometimes entail a bit of an adjustment.

That was definitely my concern when considering the possibility of transferring. I think a terminal masters is much more safe; no one gets offended, and it puts you in a better position when applying for Ph.D programs.

If you want better advice, I'd suggest including a bit more information. My similar thread has led to people providing me with a lot of really useful information. But of course, your stats are strong, so you'll be a strong applicant on those grounds, at least. I imagine a lot will depend on what courses you took, your undergrad institution, etc. more than any differences between a 3.7-4.0.

Keep in mind that many of your professors are also old, and may have already introduced students to all of these things.

I'm glad you're seeing this as well. I was starting to feel like I must be missing something, given that NYU is one of my top schools. Like, I'd definitely got to NYU over Yale or MIT, despite Yale and MIT's reputations.

That's probably fair (on research interests changing.) As a result, I've tried to go for a mixed approach; choosing departments that are broadly strong in my subfield, but also have at least a scholar or two who has done work that I have found interesting and relevant to my current work. Rosendorff is at NYU, and Przeworski is another scholar who has been a major influence on me. I also don't mind its heavy quantitative focus; I don't doubt that other methods can be valuable, but my main interest is in being thoroughly versed in quantitative approaches. On a tragic note, Fiona McGillivray died recently of pulmonary hypertension. She was indeed an excellent scholar.

Admittedly, MIT was probably a borderline school to apply to given my interests, and if it's the only school I'm accepted to, I'll have to do some serious thinking before accepting it. Wisconsin-Madison and WashU are excellent schools, but with the exception of Lisa Martin, neither school has scholars who have been particularly influential on my current work. In contrast, NYU's program is extremely quantitatively oriented, and has a number of scholars (Michael Gilligan, for example) who have had major influence on my current work. Actually, I'm curious; what are people's opinions on NYU's program? My impression from these boards is that people here generally aren't very impressed with it, but it seems pretty strong in formal political economy/political methodology to me. Their placement records are also fairly strong.

NYU is an extremely quantitatively oriented school. I don't know much about their methods requirements at the master's level, but if you're looking in studying IR from a less quantitative perspective, I think Columbia might be your better bet.

Wisconsin-Madison is actually a great suggestion that I hadn't thought of. I somehow missed that Lisa Martin was there. I'll certainly consider it, though realistically, it'll probably be added to my broader list of schools to apply to next year if I don't get into any Ph.D programs this year. This is an extremely generous offer, and I would be a fool not to take you up on it. I will forward you a copy of my SOP via PM in a little bit, and any quick comments you could give me would be much appreciated. MIT was a late addition to my list mainly because I like Hainmueller's work, and the small class size. As far as Ohio State; it's a good program, but most of the scholars there (from my impression) seem more interested in security-focused IPE, or IPE of finance, which while interesting, aren't really amongst my core research interests. I haven't looked into their program in that much depth though, so maybe my impressions are wrong. Thanks for sharing your experiences with taking an MA! That is encouraging.

Thanks for the response. I really appreciate it. All of those schools are on my expanded list of schools to apply to next year except UCSD. It was originally on my main list of applications (as I was also impressed with the program), but I'm not a U.S. citizen, and UCSD's program has this to say on non-citizens: "Non-US citizens are responsible for tuition and fee payments that total close to $28,000 per year for every year in residence. Unlike many other state universities, this tuition is not waived for students receiving teaching assistantships, which is the primary source of graduate student funding in the Department of Political Science. In almost all cases neither the University nor the Department of Political Science has the funds to cover these payments. As a consequence, very few non-citizens enroll in the program. Please keep this in mind when deciding whether or not to request the application." That was indeed one of the MAs I had in mind, although their compulsory methods courses seem to cover content I've already covered. Assuming you mean this one: http://www2.lse.ac.u...calEconomy.aspx They also have an Msc in IPE which appealed to me less. Additionally, I'm looking at a couple master's programs in top 30ish schools that look like they provide some flexibility in taking courses in a cognate discipline (in my case, I would probably take grad microeconomics and econometrics.) Any thoughts on whether the high variance in my grades will be a positive or negative factor when compared to an applicant with the same GPA but lower variance?

Hi everyone, After obsessing for a long time in private, and extensively lurking these forums, I thought I'd post one of these chances threads, along with a request for advice about a masters. So essentially: Double Major: Political Science and Economics, Top 20 school CGPA: 3.5. Political Science GPA: 3.8+ GRE: Q: 800 V: 740 AWA: 5.5 Some RA experience. Working on but haven't completed a senior thesis on political economy of int'l trade, did an independent study with a prof last year in which I covered most the lit review. About four half year graduate courses in polisci. One referee is my supervisor and employer, who is an assistant prof from a top 20ish school, but has been winning APSA and MPSA awards since completing his Ph.D, and has published papers in top 3 journals. My other referees are a former deputy director at the IMF with a Ph.D from MIT, and a former president of the American Law and Economics Association. My SOP should be fairly good, and basically markets myself as a quant/formal modeling applicant, and describes my senior thesis. Unfortunately, my marks in quant courses are very inconsistent. Like, I got 100% in one economics course, As to A+s in some other math and economics courses, and then a D- and some Bs in others when I got caught up with nonacademic commitments. The poor marks are not correlated with the harder courses. Incidentally, this is also what led to my low CGPA. Writing sample is good (I think) and includes a pretty rudimentary formal model, using a paucity of calculus. Applying to: PhD's: Harvard, Princeton, University of Michigan, NYU, Yale, MIT, Stanford. Also applying to a few MAs. So my thought with all this was that if I don't get into one of my top Ph.D programs (which to me seems likely), I would rather just do a master's and reapply in a later year with an (almost certainly) higher GPA than go now to one of my less-preferred schools. Given that I think the rest of my application is decent, my main stopping factor for getting into the schools is going to be my GPA. So in addition to having people rate my chances at those Ph.D programs, I'm also wondering if anyone has any thoughts on the value of doing a master's to increase one's GPA. For sake of argument, work off the assumption that the master's is not at a school I'm applying to for a Ph.D, and will likely not get me more/better reference letters. Also, please discount the cost issue. Any other good faith advice would be appreciated as well. Thanks.