wtncffts

I don't know, I'd say it depends on what kind of statement it is. I've seen some schools say specifically for SOPs not to include autobiographical stuff, just academic career and research interests. If there are two different statements (personal and research), it would be more appropriate for the former. Often, the department's website or the application itself does ask for specific information (e.g., "Describe your research interests and your career goals in the program...").

I don't know, "school spirit" seems to be an especially American thing. I'm proud of my accomplishments, but I don't feel any special affection for either of the schools I've attended. I've bought school paraphernalia before, but mostly for christmas presents. I have a small pin on my bag, and even that makes me sometimes a little self-conscious. I've never once attended a university sporting event, and I paid little to no attention to how "our teams" were doing. I think this is pretty common up here; college sports just aren't a big deal. If I'm fortunate enough to attend a US school in the fall, I'm open to change.

I would echo StrangeFox's comments. The SOP is something completely in your control right now, unlike some other parts of applications. If you really think it'll be mediocre, work on it!

Alright, let's see - I've been afraid to confront the total costs until now.... 1. Application fees: $521 (9 schools but 2 w/ no fee - 1 more school possibly still) 2. GRE reports: $207 3. Transcripts: $110 (thank god my current institution charges nothing for current students) 4. About $10 in various other costs $848... more than I thought but I guess it could be much worse.

I will be 26, though my birthday's in December, so 27, really. Speaking anecdotally, it seems as though American students finish undergrad in four years far more often than in Canada - most of the people I knew in undergrad took five, six, or more years to finish. In my MA cohort and the one the year after, I don't think there was anyone who was 21 or 22, though I didn't know everyone that well. I'm guessing this is partly because of the comparative tuition rates - it's a lot more feasible to take a whole bunch of unrelated courses just out of interest. That's what I did; by the time I graduated I had a whole lot more credits than I needed because I took courses in, off the top of my head, film studies, anthropology, physics, math, english, history, geology, criminology, philosophy, and of course, political science. I'm probably forgetting some. Similar experiences?

I'm a little surprised to hear that you'll potentially be teaching graduate students. I guess this is more common in the sciences; in my experience, the social sciences usually have TAs only for lower and intermediate courses. I would think it'd be awkward, considering they're really your colleagues rather than 'underlings', for lack of a better term. Is this also something of concern?

Nothing to add on the topic, but do MBA applications really ask those kinds of questions? I actually think this might be an interesting approach in my field...

This, of course, depends on your own circumstances: whether you have teaching or assisting duties, other kinds of work, etc. Just classes, though, I suspect you will be 'on the clock' FAR less than you were before, particularly since you're in humanities, which is similar to social sciences. Even taking three or four courses, they're once a week for two or three hours each, often in the afternoon. At least that was my experience. As UnlikelyGrad said, it's really up to you what you do with most of your time.

I'll echo a few points others have made. I've been a TA for two courses. The first one was the intro course to a subfield in which I had only EVER taken the intro undergrad course myself. Here's a couple things I found useful to tell myself. Remember, you're not (yet) a professor with a PhD, you're a student! A grad student, yes, but still a student. You're not expected to know everything, and as others have said, some students will know more than you about particular things. It's probably different in the sciences because all students tend to follow a relatively linear course progression, but in my field, many students taking intro courses were already in their third or even final years. If you don't know something, just tell them you'll find out the answer and get back to them. I've actually done that, coming in next conference with five minutes responding to a student's question. As much as you may be 'afraid', don't forget that you are in a position of authority and students will mostly tend to be deferential. Again, it's probably different in the sciences, but in the courses I did the students' performances were almost entirely evaluated by myself or another TA. We marked the papers, exams, and gave grades for participation and attendance. Especially in a field in which grading is pretty subjective, students have an interest, at minimum, in not pissing off their TAs by being obnoxious. There may be one or two 'problem' students, but the vast majority are usually cooperative. I've never once had a student raise their voice at me, let alone yell. The 'problems' are usually much more mundane, if irritating: students trying to play the system, complaining about grading, etc. In one of the courses I TAed, there was a 'Head TA' to whom you could refer if there were problems (in the other course, I was the only TA). There's also the other TAs and the professor; sometimes things don't work out (the professor is distant, the other TAs are unfriendly), but hopefully you can establish good relationships with these people which will help you a lot.

I'm in the same boat. One of my recommendations is still saying 'initiated'; my recommender said he submitted it and he had a confirmation number. I e-mailed the grad program office but they have yet to respond. I'm not really worried about it, though, since I'm pretty certain it's just a matter of time.

My highest is $95, though I haven't actually submitted for this one yet. There were a couple which had no fee at all, and so I applied to them even if I didn't really have these schools on my list in the first instance. Just curious, I went to the MSFS at Georgetown site, it says a $75 application fee, which is pretty standard. How did it get up to $225?

SOG25, I think that the negative response on the part of some is due to your inquiries coming across as personally motivated and oblivious to counter-arguments. I'm not going to impute anything about your motivations, but I'll try to give my take as clearly as possible. First, let me say that I I don't know everything about poli sci depts; I have an MA (well, to be received in Feb, anyway) from a Canadian university but certainly don't claim extensive knowledge on the inner workings. As people have been pointing out, there's the pragmatic argument. Like all disciplines, political science has an interest in perpetuating itself through the process of training and creating jobs for their own PhD students. Frankly, there are more than enough jobs for law school graduates as it is, while the academic job market is, as you know, very slim. Another thing to consider is the disparity in salary. Both of these go to the question of why, in fact, there are mostly PhDs than JDs on poli sci faculties. Your more trenchant question is, I gather, not "Why is it this way?" but "Does it necessarily have to be this way?". I certainly don't think that ONLY PhDs are qualified to teach poli sci courses; I don't know anyone who does. As you know, JDs sometimes do teach courses with substantial legal aspects in poli sci departments. Often, eminent people (former politicians, diplomats, civil servants, etc.) also teach poli sci courses, many of whom, needless to say, don't have PhDs specifically in poli sci. And of course, Graduate Students, usually ABDs, often are given opportunities to teach their own courses (which is a part of the professional training I mentioned). As others have, I simply have to dispute your premise that what a PhD student learns, say, doing American Politics, is the same as what a JD learns. Now, if you can point me to a syllabus of a course in law school which teaches the same material and in the same way as a graduate course in US Politics, I'd be happy to accept your argument. As you point out, law students learn Constitutional Law. They may learn Administrative Law and other kinds of law which are relevant to the political process. But, again as others have said, there is more to politics than law. Political parties, elections, electoral systems, social movements, political and voting behavior, decision-making, political psychology, political history, workings of legislative bodies, political culture, participation, socialization, interest groups, formal methods, and so on; none of these are integral parts of a law school education. To be sure, you may run into many of these areas in law courses; after all, law and politics are intertwined on many levels. Just so, many poli sci students will also deal with many questions of law and jurisprudence during their studies. But political scientists specialize in these areas, and we want to encourage that. Departments, and undergraduates, want to have the assurance that faculty have at least been exposed to these areas and are comfortable with them. Remember, as a teacher you would need to be able to handle inquiries of students adeptly, especially in an intro survey course which covers a lot of ground. You may feel that you are capable of teaching poli sci courses, and that's fine. Perhaps your course of study in law school did expose you to all these areas and you have an extensive knowledge of the literature in each of them. I guarantee you that not every law graduate has. Comparatively, the best choice in most cases is to go with a specialist who's spent upwards of five or six years closely studying a given area than someone who is trained for a different profession but has some experience and education to bring to bear. As to your point about the quality of teaching, you're right that "some professors are more concerned about their research than their students", so it isn't necessarily the case that good researchers make good teachers. It is also the case, though, that having a JD doesn't necessarily mean one is a good teacher. I would suggest, in fact, that it's probably the case that PhDs will, on average, be better teachers. First, I've found that the best teachers are those with the most passion for their subjects, and I think having studied one or two (or more) specific areas for years in grad school usually attests to such passion. Second, PhD programs almost always include both training for teaching ("Teaching Political Science" courses, for example) and concrete opportunities to teach, whether as a TA or with your own courses. Again, you may feel like you would be a good teacher, which is fine, but such 'individual consideration' is simply not a part of academia. Which brings me to my final point... To return to the question of personal motivation, I'm sorry if you feel your options are limited because of this, but you just have to accept that, in the eyes of the profession, you are less qualified than others. I imagine I know enough to be able to teach intro or even intermediate Canadian or American history just from the reading I've done within and without the classroom, but I fully accept that no history department would consider me for a faculty position, or at least that I'm inadequate in comparison to a history PhD (assuming I had a poli sci PhD, which, fingers crossed, I will have in a few years' time).