wtncffts

Back to the admissions process, I'd like to ask what determines the timing and manner of notifications of decisions. The 'Fall 2011 cycle' thread, and, indeed, most of the rest of these forums, consists in a whole bunch of anxious and nervous people waiting for news. So, why? I know you can't speak for every school, perhaps, just yours. 1) Why do some schools not send out all decisions at the same time? I recently commented on that other thread that there were some schools which sent out some acceptances but no rejects, thus leaving those, like myself, in limbo and perpetual hope. If the department has already made such decisions, I'd humbly submit that it would be much kinder to let people know at the same time. 2) Couldn't there be a fixed date of notification? That is to say, couldn't a department send out an e-mail once the application deadline has passed, saying, in effect, "We've received all applications, will begin the process of reviewing them, and will notify all applicants on March 1", or whatever day. That would also alleviate a great deal of nervous waiting and worry, waking up in overinflated hope every day, and checking e-mail every ten minutes. If we knew the date, we could all relax, and, god forbid, get some work done? Perhaps there are logistical reasons for all of this; I'd like to hear them, if possible. I hope this doesn't sound rude or whiny, it's just that there seems to be a whole lot of unnecessary emotional distress as a result of this process.

Alright, that's what I figured.

I'm not familiar first-hand with public admin programs, but starmaker is right, I think. In any social science nowadays, you're going to have confront at least a basic use of math. There are subfields in political science, like political theory/philosophy, in which the literature is not especially quantitative, but you'll still probably be required to take the intro methods course. It isn't just a matter of your GRE score, but your ability to get through a rigorous program and conduct and understand research. I don't have experience with NVLD, nor the severity of yours, so I'm sorry if I'm assuming things. Is it a matter of just not being able to comprehend math, or that it just takes a lot more effort and concentration to do so? If it's the latter, and if you really want to pursue graduate studies in any of the social sciences, I'd say just set your mind to it: get some help from a tutor or learning centre and commit yourself to working as hard and as long as you can to achieve a certain level of quantitative competency. Perhaps that sounds glib or facile; again, I'm sorry if I betray a lack of understanding.

So, there are a bunch of schools for which a sizable number of acceptances are posted but no rejections. Anyone have any idea about what that means? I'm assuming rejections from those places, but it's cruel to keep us dimly hoping like this...

If you haven't received any decision yet, I suppose you could reiterate your desire to get into that program, but it would be a very difficult balance so as not to come off as whiny or entitled. You have to know that they've already considered your application as thoroughly as they can, and may not be receptive to you essentially saying they've made a mistake. Assuming, from the boards, that they have already made and sent out decisions, I don't think they really can accept you, since that would actually mean reneging on an acceptance offer already made to someone else, or else miraculously finding more funding. I don't know, perhaps you could argue your way onto the waitlist, but I doubt it.

Yes, I think you could certainly ask departments about this: explain your situation and just inquire as to your prospects. If you aren't applying right now, it might be better to wait until this whole season is over, perhaps. However, if you're thinking about poli sci, you need to know that most programs, especially in higher ranked US programs,place heavy emphasis on quantitative methods. You don't have to be a math whiz, but you'd need to be able to produce and interpret data, which requires at least a basic understanding of statistics. As well, research in the field, in many areas, is becoming increasingly quantitative or makes use of formal/spatial modeling or game theory. Most graduate programs have a methods training requirement, which may be more or less rigorous, but will involve some mathematics.

Alright, I think we pretty much agree then. I took more issue with the 'unfairness' claim than the 'bias' claim; I certainly could concede that the system may be 'biased' in that it might inherently favour domestic students, but, as you say, that's not unfair at all.

I also have not much advice except to gather whatever evidence you have of his malfeasance and go to someone higher up. Clearly, this has nothing to do with your not being able to take criticism; the advisor is either duplicitous, senile, or both. I would also be interested in why there's a policy against changing advisors, since that seems unnecessarily restrictive.

I don't want to speak for the US educational system for many reasons, not least of which is I'm Canadian and have never attended a US institution, but I think many of these points also apply to Canadian schools. First, the GRE. From everything I've read, GRE scores aren't a very significant part of admissions decisions; used as a cut-off, perhaps, but not much more. Believe me, I'm the last person to defend the GREs use as a measure of anything meaningful, but to the more general point, if you're going to a US university you have to be expected to communicate in English at a roughly equal level with domestic students. That's just the way it is. I TAed at a school where many students had English as their second language,and while I admired their courage at trying to write and speak in their non-native tongue, I could not 'relax' standards of, say, proper syntax and semantics on papers. They chose to attend an English-speaking school, as you have. Second, of course US schools don't know everything about every university around the world. I don't expect that they should, and they couldn't even if they tried. It works the other way around, too. There may well be, for example, a state university which has a great reputation but which a top school in, say, Germany, has never heard of because it isn't Harvard or Princeton or the like. It's only common sense that schools will know the most about other schools in their own countries, in the US as in everywhere else. Third, the recommendation system. Again, I'd just say that that's the way it is. That's how US schools do things. They can't tailor their admissions processes for every particular international context. I seem to be reiterating the same basic point, which is that it's only "unfair" if you expect US schools, or any other institutions, to account for every educational practice and make admissions uber-individually tailored. That's logistically impossible and I see no need for it. I understand that a lot of international students want to study in the US; I'm one of them. But I don't see the system as being "biased" or "unfair"; if it is, then I fully expect it to be. I understand that, given equal 'skills', I would likely have a lesser chance than a native German of getting into a German university, simply because they've been immersed in that particular educational system for much longer. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. International students make an intentional choice to 'subject' themselves to the American educational system. Noone forces them to.

I think it's normal, or at least common. I had a similar experience during my MA program (also at a Canadian university). Not so much with my coursework, which was all completed by the end of my first year, but working on my thesis, there were many times when I was simply bored and unmotivated to do any more on what seemed like something I could never finish. I ended up finishing and submitting it much later than I had originally wanted, such that my MA took more than two years to finish. Grad school is hard. We were advised not to take more than three courses; taking four would have taken a lot out of you. I'd also suggest that you not put artificial deadlines on yourself, if that's what this is. You need to let the work happen in its own time.

If your profile is right, you're from China, so your misconceptions are understandable (though in the process of applying to schools, I'd think one would have done a little more research). Berkeley is at least as 'prestigious' as Princeton, in my view. The Ivy League isn't the end all and be all, and schools like Dartmouth and Brown, which I'm sure are great schools, are ranked much lower than several public universities, including Berkeley, Michigan, UCLA, etc. If you want to go by rankings (which are always methodologically controversial and of dubious value), the Academic Ranking of World Universities places Berkeley 2nd and Times Higher Education has Berkeley 8th. Some others have Berkeley slightly lower, but the point is that it is an elite school and there's no reason at all to be 'concerned' about its reputation.

That's about right. There's nothing wrong with that, as it's true and the reasonable thing to do. You want to have as much information as possible before making such a big decision.

I'm not in anthropology, but I agree with all the above. I also want to echo space-cat's comment about "imply[ing] that two top tier programs admitted classes of raging idiots." Obviously, the people they did admit weren't "far less qualified" in the eyes of the adcomm; the way you phrased it sounded very entitled, which is a major pet peeve of mine. I trust that you didn't mean to convey that impression.

I may be a little confused about the discussion here, but there seems to be an assumption that one prof has some sort of absolute power in a department; that whatever they want they'll get. I guess this differs by department and field, but from what I know, an adcomm is exactly that: a committee. So one prof comes in and says "I really want so and so" but so do the other four or five or however many, and they hash it out. There aren't enough spots for everyone that profs might have expressed interests in. There may also have been problems with other parts of your application which the prof you contacted wasn't aware of, and which came out during the admissions process. Bottom line: don't assume anything.

In the situations that I've been in, in political science, it's mostly A. TAs oversee groups of 15-20 students in conferences (also commonly called sections; labs in sciences, I guess). At least when I TAed, it functioned much more as a forum for discussion and elaboration on the material rather than lecturing (though some of my fellow TAs did a lot more talking than I did or wanted to). And, of course, grading papers and exams, duties shared with the prof (the extent of which has largely to do with his kindness/convenience). When a student was ABD (all but dissertation), they had opportunities to design and teach their own courses, but on special topics, not the intro courses. These aren't really considered TAs, obviously, because you're not 'assisting' anyone.

Sure you can. There are plenty of examples of that here.

I've never been waitlisted (straight up rejects and admits for me...), but I would think your 'position' also depends on who exactly decides not to attend that program. I don't know your field, but in mine, if, say, an IR (international relations) person decides not to attend, I'd think they would go to the waitlist for another IR student, not just anyone off an arbitrary ranking. It's as much about 'fit' off the waitlist than it is initially, I'd suppose.

I think this is something you need to ask the department, unless by chance someone here is already in that program. I have no idea. Is this what you applied for? I didn't think there could be distance PhDs for something like engineering.

Perhaps a frivolous question asked out of boredom, but anyone have any thoughts/knowledge on why there are a number of different names for political science departments? Is it historical quirk, intentional action for various purposes? Do you suppose different labels can sometimes say something significant about a department? Some examples: Department of... Political Science Politics (e.g., Princeton) Government (e.g., Harvard) Politics and Government / Government and Politics Political Studies Political Science and International Relations Of course, the vast majority are 'political science', but I still think there's more variation in our discipline than other social sciences such as economics or psychology. I may very well be out to lunch. Just tell me if that's the case.

Maybe I come at this from a non-theory perspective. I certainly understand that as an intellectual representation of conservatism or libertarianism, Rand doesn't stand up. But perhaps you're underestimating the quite direct influence of Rand's ideas on modern conservative/libertarian movements such as the Tea Party; if one were studying this phenomenon, I think reading Rand would be insightful even if it is poor philosophy. Edit: I started my reply before I saw that last edit on the above post, which is pretty much my point.

Same here. I can't do a PhD program without adequate funding, but I only applied to places where it was explicitly stated that all, or most, incoming students were 'fully funded'. As to what that means concretely, I don't know yet.

Well, let's not jump on and start a flame war. I think firefly28 was merely reiterating the point about Rand's significance, for good or for ill, in American political thought. Saying that one is giving "a bit more credit" when the baseline is "among the poorest written ever to reach a wide audience" isn't exactly a ringing endorsement. The comparison to Marx, it seems to me, was only that the significant flaws in argument don't detract from the political/cultural significance of the work, not that Rand and Marx are equal as social or political theorists. Firefly can correct me if this is a misinterpretation.

As to your last question, I would just stick it out, get the degree, and not look back. You can't let them beat you, especially since it seems you're so close to finishing. I have to agree that the problem here just seems to be a bunch of terrible people. I can't believe that professors would act that way, nor that they would jump to conclusions just because you're doing better now than you were. I mean, that's a good thing, isn't it? What does wearing a tie have to do with anything? This behaviour sounds like high school, not a professional environment of mature advanced students and academics. I don't understand this complaint about 'lying to get sympathy'; from what you said, you weren't giving excuses or asking for special favours. Obviously, I don't know the whole story, so there may be something else going on here. It might also be the case that you're perceiving slights or attributing motives to others which aren't there. But, as I said, I think you need to hang in there, get what you came for, and leave it behind.

As Tufnel said, most of the higher ranked schools in the US do not have terminal MA programs to my knowledge, but I don't see anything impractical about separate applications. That's how it's done up here in Canada. Many MA applicants are not simply 'failed' PhD applicants but specifically want an advanced degree to boost their credentials in the job market or just explore further some intellectual point of interest, without committing to a PhD program whose only ostensible function is to train academic researchers and teachers.

I don't have firsthand knowledge, but I do know that poliscijobrumors is garbage. Too much trolling and inadequately regulated. You can't really trust anything there.