Max Power
-
Posts
142 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Max Power
-
-
As someone who doesn't have a horse in this race, I really don't believe that people use the phrase "safety school" out of insecurity. Rather, out of a sense of security. While I didn't use that phrase (I don't think) on these boards, I definitely used that phrase when discussing my application chances last year. There were a multitude of reasons:
1. It is a term that is widely understood (even by those not applying for PhD programs), and so one way simply be accustomed to using it.
2. There are some applicants that are very well qualified, and may have applied to lesser-ranked schools knowing with a high degree of certainty that they would be admitted.
3. If someone is insulted by the thought of someone calling the school they like/will attend a "safety", they should grow a thicker skin. People will say much more difficult to hear things about your ideas and you when you're actually in school. But no one made a specifically disparaging comment (as far as I've seen) about any individuals attending such programs.
Sure, it's not a preferred term, but name calling isn't exactly the correct response to the situation.
I'll also throw out that its a less operative concept at this level. I got rejected last year by several schools that I thought I was at least a very strong candidate for and got accepted a couple of times by places that I thought I was a longshot for at best. Lining up my acceptances and rejections tells a pretty incoherent story
-
Columbia acceptance up!! Very early!
Sorry, but I don't believe this at all and everyone waiting on Columbia should take a deep breath. Columbia's classes don't even start until tomorrow, which means a lot of the faculty haven't been on campus since the middle of December. There is literally no chance that the admissions committee has had more than a very preliminary meeting yet, and no way they had time to review the ~500 applications they get each year. Also, Columbia admissions offers come through GSAS and not the department, so any offer they are going to make has to clear an extra level of bureaucracy before it goes out
- balledematch, PoliSwede, cthulhu and 1 other
-
4
-
At my undergrad school, GPAs were .5 lower for math/science/engineering majors than or all other majors. I am more than willing to assume that this is closer to the rule than the exception and that the people reading packets know this. Also, you said you go to a top school. This means that admissions committees are far more likely to have encountered other applicants from your school in the past and be familiar with the norms of GPA there. If you get really nervous about this, you can always ask one of your letter writers to mention something so you don't have to spend any space in your SOP on it, which is both a waste of valuable words when trying to come in under limits and probably an awkward transition.
-
For what its worth, Columbia isn't yet operating at full capacity. I have family on the faculty and they don't start their semester until next week
-
My recollection is that last year Wisconsin did an early round of admits and Michigan did everything pretty early, then it all sort of trickled out with most places being wrapped up by mid-to-late February.
-
As a rule of thumb, adcoms will not hold things against you that you cannot control. If everything else is in order and your other letters are in and it appears that by any reasonable standard you did everything in a timely manner and the writer hasn't finished the letter yet, they will understand. They are also profs going through standard end of semester insanity. They aren't going to toss an application where you did everything right.
-
dan carpenter at harvard does political economy of regulation and us bureaucracy
-
-
Easily. Your research statement and application will be higher variance than most other people, but also possibly higher mean. You will hurt your chances at some schools but raise your chances by an even bigger factor at others. Some members of admissions committees will read it and think its out there. You will not get into those schools. However, it will speak to some people who agree with your vision. You will have an extremely good shot at getting into those schools because your application will be unique and have a strong advocate. The downside to this is that you may want to apply to a few extra schools because there is no way to know which schools will have admissions committee members who will like what you are selling and which will not.
-
Short answer: yes, you can certainly overcome the holes in your application. focus your statement strongly on research and show that you can ask an interesting and relevant question. if you have a letter writer or two who can speak to the fact that you are clearly not the same person who who got those undergrad grades, that should be sufficient. it will sound way better coming from them than it will from you, plus it will just eat into your already limited word count on your research statement.
Your story and interests sound incredibly similar to mine. I had some rough years from 18-20 both academically and personally. I spent 5 years in political consulting, did an MA and had a very successful go of applying last time around. If you want, you can PM me and I'll share more details
-
Masters programs are usually easier to get into precisely because they are not funded. I also come from the social sciences so ymmv
-
You can pretty much calculate your program's attrition rate by counting the average incoming cohort size and counting how many people graduate each year. All the people on different time frames across cohorts should reasonably cancel each other out.
As Eigen said, there are several kinds of attrition. As programs get more selective, the failing out becomes a smaller part of it. They have high quality students coming in who are less likely to fail. There's no accounting for why people may decide to leave at other points or drift off ABD. Some people leave because they have a change of heart about academia. A lot of people arrive in grad school with only a vague idea of what an academic career is about. Some drift off ABD because they never learned how to be self directed in tasks and don't do well without having faculty members hand down assignments and prompts.
-
It often means taking a year in between while applying. My the ways that QMSS helped me were that
1) I got fresh grades to offset my undergrad ones
2) I got letters great letters from QMSS
3) I honed my research interests
4) I used a seminar paper that I wrote as my writing sample for my applications
-
If you are feeling burnt out, take some time. When I left college, I needed to be out of school. It took me 6 years to decide I wanted to be back in a PhD program. Taking time gave me clarity and made me a stronger applicant and student than I would have been without it.
As far as what you should do if you decide to apply, I'd recommend taking a shot at PhD programs. Relative to the cost doing an unfunded MA, applying to 10 PhD programs is cheap and the value of getting into a funded program is large.
-
I would argue that realizing you don't want to be in academia before you are in a phd program is a successful outcome.
- Edugy, Do_EE, Zahar Berkut and 1 other
-
4
-
In the past few years, QMSS has placed 3 in Columbia's poli sci PhD program, 1 at Princeton, 1 at Harvard and 1 at UConn I believe. I don't know of anyone who went there and wanted to pursue a PhD in poli sci who struck out.
-
I don't have any good answers, but if you are thinking about a PhD in political science (like it appears you are) you'd probably be better off posting this in the poli sci forum where its more likely that someone who knows something will read it
-
QMSS was excellent for me. The combination of the research methodology core substantive electives is a really strong prep for applying to phd programs. Recently, it has done an excellent job placing though people in PhD programs once you control for the fact that most people in QMSS do not plan to apply to PhD programs. This has also been heavily skewed to political science the last couple of years. No idea if this is systematic or coincidence, but if its the former, I expect the trend to continue given that the new director is from the poli sci department.
It is also really expensive. As far as reputation, its not widely known. There aren't a lot of similar programs so most people won't have any frame of reference when they hear what you have done. Ultimately, you'd be trading more on the Columbia brand than the QMSS brand. This will matter far more in the private sector than applying to PhDs. For applying to PhDs, I suspect that which classes you take will be far more important than the the brand name.
-
Second, Max Power, nice to see you hanging around the boards! You psyched to be starting your program? We'll practically be neighbors - perhaps I'll see you at a conference soon.
I'm super psyched. I moved a couple of weeks ago and have started hanging around my department some. The AP crowd is largely around. I assume you are just about equally excited to start your program?
-
Sure, why not?
I also know nothing about the whole process beyond the fact that I went through it last year and had a successful go of it. I'm probably one of the worst people to take advice from on this forum. I took a somewhat circuitous route plus didn't even decide I was going to apply until about the middle of October last year.
-
You should probably have at least one of the two. Research experience is always good. Work experience is a mixed bag. Its never negative, but it may not really be that positive. (Actually it can be negative if it distracts you from academically interesting questions. When I was in campaigns and lobbying, all I was ever really interested in was winning. This is not an interesting social science topic. I had to spend some time reframing those into things that I could appropriately ask in a poli sci department)
There are two threads started by The Realist that you should read. There's a lot o good stuff in there for starting to think about grad school and then constructing the strongest application you can.
-
What is the MA going to give you? It is not required to get into a PhD. There are 2 clear things and MA can provide a person with. It can help show that a poor undergrad GPA is an aberration or it can help a person learn the field. Your GPA isn't the best, but you have a high GPA in the discipline and it seems like you know what the field is. You might do well to consider spending a year or two working instead, which might do even more to strengthen your application than an MA. Work on campaigns and in government is valuable if you can connect it to academically interesting questions. I spent 4 years in campaign management, consulting and lobbying. This did a lot to inform the questions I want to work on and has been generally quite received in my new department.
Also, what sort of MA program are you looking at? A terminal masters in poli sci like MAPSS or a professional masters like an MPA/MPP? The former will probably do more for you app than the latter.
-
Don't fear quant heavy programs or you will wind up excluding a lot of the top places from your search. Even in the quant heaviest programs, it is rare to see someone coming in having taken anything past maybe multivariate calc, linear algebra and ordinary differential equations. They are all set up to teach you what you know from the beginning and work up. There may come a day when an A in real analysis is considered a necessity for applying to top programs, like it is in econ, but we are no where close to that day.
-
The best way of doing this sort of thing is to find the people who publish on this and see where they work, got their Phd, etc...do the same for where the people they cite study and got their Phd, etc...and comb through those lists! It's not an easy process, but you'll be better off with the broad knowledge than just from people posting on here. Sometimes, YOU need to do the legwork.
Do this. I started by read the CVs of all the American politics faculty in the USNWR top 30 or so. Then I read recent articles by people who had interesting CVs. Sometimes, I followed citations back to other people. The whole thing took me about a week or two. By the time I was done, I knew which departments were rich in people I wanted to work with.
Welcome to the 2012-2013 cycle
in Political Science Forum
Posted
I'll chime in another vote from a current grad student for not worrying about contacting profs. If you want to know if your numbers make you competitive, there are admin staff who can answer that. But I can pretty much tell you how an email to my advisor would go. I assume that he'd reply (there's a decent chance he wouldn't, but he's generally no less than polite given the alternatives). His reply would be 2-3 sentences saying that he's glad you are interested and he thinks you should apply (unless there was something in your email that made him think you had zero probability of being selected by the admissions committee). Then, he'd completely forget everything about it because he's not on the admissions committee.