Jump to content

expatbayern

Members
  • Posts

    101
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by expatbayern

  1. Wrote a longer post that got deleted somehow, but I'll just say that the most obvious schools (in my mind) to add to your list for American institutions/PE are Duke, Vanderbilt, and Rochester.
  2. Not really sure what you mean by "foreign policy theory." At Penn State, all of Scott Bennett, Doug Lemke, Glenn Palmer, and Phil Schrodt research stuff that fits under some definition of foreign policy (and they're all well-respected and accomplished scholars who would be excellent committee members). Paul Huth at Maryland and Paul Diehl at Illinois do similar sorts of stuff (though I would tend to regard all these folks as conflict scholars first). I think this will come down to what you really want to study. If you are leaning more toward conflict and foreign policy, Penn State is extremely well-suited. But if you do really think you're going to end up doing IPE, it's worth noting that they're not as strong as Maryland or Illinois for that.
  3. This is about right, in my opinion (not associated with any of these programs). I'd put Maryland as the best IPE department on the list, possibly the best overall IR, and the best trajectory of late, with Penn State and Illinois stronger in conflict (basically I'd say the ordering goes UMD-UIUC-PSU in IPE but all three are very close in conflict). Indiana is (to my mind) a clear step down from the other three in any type of IR.
  4. To share my experience a few years ago with trying to bargain for higher funding: At every place I visited, the DGS seemed totally prepared to have a conversation about this. The responses tended toward "let me know where else you're considering and how much they're offering you and I'll look into what we can do" (and I'm sure they gave that answer to many other students trying to do the same thing at the visits). What they end up doing is going to be some function of how much flexibility they actually have, how much they want you, and what the competing offers are. This will vary greatly among schools and applicants, of course, and be prepared for them to come back with responses like "well, you have to consider cost of living when comparing our stipend to theirs...," etc. Things I had happen at at least one place: -minor one-year bump in stipend (funding for latter years, which was my major concern with the package, remained low) -adding in a "start-up grant"/signing bonus (this was not a standard part of the package at this school, but they matched the largest one I was offered by a competitor) -offers of guaranteed summer money/RAships on top of stipend (these came from particular professors I was interested in working with, not directly from the DGS) Things I did not have happen anywhere: -major changes to stipend level over a period of years (except in cases where this came in the form of some university-wide fellowship, which they had said up front they entered me for, not something that happened due to bargaining) The major worthwhile advice I have to give (besides go ahead and ask--everyone else is doing the same thing and no one will be offended) is if there are senior faculty with large grants/pots of money that you're interested in working with, talking to them (and getting them to agree to take you on for lots of RA work early in grad school) can be much more effective than dealing with the DGS (who is probably limited in flexibility).
  5. The "admit lots of students, only fund a few" approach seems mainly limited to the DC schools (at least among top-50ish grad programs)--from what I know, there's a lot of this at both GW and Georgetown. I think the idea on the schools' end is they get a lot of applicants who either: ( a ) have jobs in DC (military, policy, think tank, whatever) and are looking to add a credential on the side, or ( b ) have lawyer (or similar) spouses working in DC. Both lead to ability/willingness to pay and lack of alternate options (because of location requirement) on the part of applicants, so the schools simply charge what the market will bear. I would venture to say that almost any similar-tier institution in a lower-demand location (and for folks studying politics, it may be that all locations are lower-demand than DC....) funds better than these schools.
  6. Is there a coherent way to cut the MA thesis to, say, 3 selected cases (indicate that such cutting has been done to avoid confusion--you could perhaps say that you've included the most representative case, the one with the strongest support for the theory, and the one with the weakest, etc.)?
  7. You certainly wouldn't be selling yourself short with the introductory formal sequences at any of the big-3 Ivy schools: John Roemer teaches the first course at Yale, James Robinson at Harvard, Adam Meirowitz at Princeton (or at least each of these have held true at some recent point in the past). The bigger problem is that a year of grad courses in formal theory, even from the best folks in the business, only gets you to the "reading level," not to the "modeling credibly" level. It's tough to say what will move you past that point if you don't have the resources in your own department (ICPSR/EITM don't really go beyond the second course you'd have at one of the above places, either). How's the Econ department at your school? One path might be: 1. Go to one of the above programs and do their intro formal sequence. Make good impressions on and connections with faculty there, maybe convince someone to serve as an external member of your committee if there aren't people who can supervise formal work in your home department (or at least to be a person you can send your work to for comments). Let your professors there know that you intend to continue to pursue formal theory and ask them to recommend resources for advanced study. 2. When you return to your school, take the Micro sequence in the Econ department (as well as any grad-level Political Economy seminars). Similarly impress these faculty and communicate to them your desire to do formal work. 3. Spend LOTS of time reading the formal work coming out in top journals (and going to watch formal panels at conferences, making sure if possible you've actually READ the papers being presented in advance), seeing how models are employed, critiquing modeling decisions and asking "how would I model this?" Know that in terms of practical applied modeling, you're going to have to do most of the work/learning on your own. 4. When you start trying to write formal papers, get lots of feedback on them, including from both groups of professors you have networked with above. Ask people to be brutally honest, not just about "is the model solved correctly," but about "do the modeling decisions capture the political process they model" and "are my interpretations and conclusions compelling?" Actually, 3 and 4 above go for everyone trying to make it in political science, whether your doing formal work or not and regardless of the quality of your grad department. But regardless, I hope this helps.
  8. The advice you've received to apply to more top-tier programs is good. Your file is conceivably good enough to get you into the Stanford/Berkeley-level programs, but there's such a large stochastic element that you want multiple draws. Add the other elite full-service departments (ie Harvard/Michigan/Princeton, etc.) to your list. The advice not to apply to the other programs on your list is NOT good. You've listed a great set of choices for top-30ish programs with strengths in your areas of interest (there are not any that immediately come to mind for me as missing). While you could certainly end up getting into some/all of the top-10 schools, you could also very well get into none of them (you might also get into one or two top-5 schools while being rejected from multiple schools ranked 20-30). Your list consists of other places you could do very well, though. I would just add a few schools at the top end and consider that a good starting point. Always note, however, that no one here can give you a very good idea of your chances anywhere. The information observable to us is much less important overall than your writing sample, statement, and letters. If you took all of the information on this message board about GRE/GPA and admissions results, you'd probably find the numbers to be moderately predictive at a very coarse level (above/below 700/3.7) but not strongly predictive for any finer-grained differences. If you're really interested in contributing something in return for these responses, I'd point you to this list. That's Charity Navigator's top-10 for efficiency, sound financial management, accountability, and transparency. There are a lot of charities out there that give you pretty poor bang for your buck, but a contribution to anything on that list is pretty much sure to actually go toward the ostensible cause. Or browse around their site for information on others (you can sort by cause and then order by their ratings, etc.).
  9. expatbayern

    Rochester, NY

    Everyone I know (faculty and students) with school-aged kids lives outside the city in the southeast suburbs (Brighton, Pittsford, etc.), precisely because the quality of these school districts far outpaces City of Rochester (I'm going to be done with PhD and out of Rochester before my child is in school, so I live in the city). These (or Henrietta, the first suburb to the south) are all only a ten minute drive from the University (or from downtown, Park Ave, etc.). Rochester has a world-class children's museum, lots of great parks, good music, cultural festivals, many good day-trips for sight-seeing and outdoor activities, etc. I personally think it's a great place to raise kids.
  10. Do you think constructivism and qualitative methods are among a set of valid and valuable approaches? Or do you think they're the ONLY valid and valuable approaches? Most large, top-tier, full-service US departments have multiple scholars who do primarily qualitative work and and are able to support qualitative dissertations. Self-described constructivists are somewhat rarer but there is still a presence at many top schools. These schools will, however, in general ask you to at least expose yourself to positivism, quantitative methods, rational choice approaches, etc. to at a minimum be able to read the leading journals in the field. If you are willing to learn some alternate approaches, even if you continue using the ones you are now most familiar with, you will do fine at most large departments. I find, however, that the qualitatively and informally inclined are much more likely to dogmatically reject quantitative and formal work (refusing to learn what's going on in the models or how to read the papers) than the other way around. If this describes you, you probably would have a better time at a non-US department, where there is much less emphasis on broad-based training.
  11. Not all 3.5s are created equal. What's your major GPA? What's the trend? What type/rank of undergrad? A former advisor who has sat on admit committees at a top 10 told me he wanted to see one semester where the applicant had taken multiple upper-level courses in poli sci and cognate disciplines and gotten all As. He didn't care about the rest of the transcript because that semester showed the applicant could hack it. But others who read your application will have different rules of thumb (maybe some like consistent performance, maybe some like to see improvement over time, etc.). As in nearly all circumstances, the best advice is to make the rest of your application (statement and letters) as strong as possible, apply widely, and see what happens.
  12. expatbayern

    Rochester, NY

    Amit, I am currently a PhD student at the University of Rochester in Political Science. Here are my best answers to your questions: 1. As far as classes actually go, fall semester goes from the beginning of September to mid December and spring semester goes from mid January to the beginning of May, so you technically have one month off in the winter and three in the summer. I have always been working as an RA during summers, but have managed to find work that I can do away from the office in order to get away, visit family, etc. In your field, I don't know if you'll be working in a lab all summer--you'd do best to ask current students in your program what their summers are like. 2. I support my wife (who does not work) and infant daughter on my fellowship stipend plus RA work. We bought a house when we moved to Rochester (real estate is extremely cheap, in my opinion even less expensive than the rental market here). I would not be surprised if your fellowship is larger than mine, given your field. 3. No idea. This is a question to direct to your program's graduate placement director or similar.
  13. I was at Chicago 07-08; I did not apply for a second-year and don't remember anyone else from my cohort doing so (I did know people doing a two-year dual-degree MA from CIR and MPP from Harris). I am now in my second year at Rochester.
  14. I took two formal modeling/game theory courses down at the Harris School while I was at Chicago. One of them was automatically on the approved list of courses that fulfilled CIR requirements; one of them I had to get permission (but this was pro forma, as long as you have a good justification for it, they won't stop you from doing what you want to do). I didn't know anyone in my cohort who took them, but the methods sequence in the Department is on the approved list. As to the questions about application timing, only one person from my cohort applied to PhD programs that first fall: he's at OSU now. The others of us who waited to apply until we were finished are at similar- to higher-ranked places.
  15. I was at CIR and while I didn't work with Mearsheimer (since I do formal and quantitative IPE, there wasn't really much call to), I had multiple friends who had him as their advisor on their MA theses. He absolutely does really work with "mere MA students"--ie they had regular meetings, he read their drafts, gave intensely detailed feedback, pushed them on their logic and argumentation, etc. I also think you'd find he isn't just looking for people who agree with him; he's happy to advise people who do things completely at odds with offensive realism as long as their arguments are novel, well-formed, and compelling. I can't speak for everyone else on the faculty--there were a couple professors who looked down their noses at MA students, but this tended to be junior people, not the real "big names" in the department (who I always found accessible).
  16. If you're worried about keeping up with the reading load in your first year, the answer is easy enough. Once you decide where you're going, get the syllabi for the classes you're going to be taking and do some pre-reading over the summer. But really, don't sweat it too much. Getting familiar with the literature is what your field seminars in grad school are for. If they didn't think your background gave you sufficient preparation to succeed in their program, they wouldn't have admitted you.
  17. I'll ditto Coach. I had some information tipped to me in advance of Wisconsin's decisions being formally announced a couple of years ago, but I just checked back and even that wasn't until the beginning of February. They would really have to be moving a lot more quickly this year (and it looks like Wisconsin only came back from Winter break yesterday--I really don't think the admissions committee was meeting during break...) for those to be real.
  18. There's lots of good advice here--I agree with the schools applying12010 has mentioned (these are mostly the schools I ended up choosing between) and believe that it's worth applying broadly among them, and that you seem like a good candidate to get into at least some of them. I'm at Rochester doing formal IPE/IO, and would be willing to answer any more specific questions about any of these schools if one of you wants to PM me.
  19. Rustrytrix, "in one sentence," how about you tell us where you got your PhD, where you're now employed, and where some of your recent publications have been placed, since you you know so much about what applicants will regret. I don't know if you actually mean quant or formal above (since its generally the latter that people will argue a course in real analysis is helpful for). If the latter, want me to run downstairs and ask John Duggan whether his BA in Philosophy from Whitman included a real analysis class (or any of the others you're pushing for)? If you really do mean quant, how about you send a note to Gary King asking how much real analysis he took with his BA in Poli Sci from SUNY-New Paltz? I don't know, it doesn't necessarily seem to me like they regret their lack of math training. Nor do any of the countless other extremely smart formal theorists and methodologists who weren't undergrad math majors. As for me, I'm just a PhD student specializing in both formal modeling and quant methods at what may still the be most "high-tech" political science department in the country, with my last "math class" taken in my junior year of high school.
  20. I don't think anywhere will hold it against you to have taken time off. In your Resume/CV, I'd just have: Attended U of X, 97-99 Worked full-time at Y, 99-02 Attended U of X, 02-04 (B.A. May 04) or whatever. In terms of your stats, frankly I'd say you could aim a little higher. Apply to the schools on your list as well if they're good fits and places you'd be happy, but you should at least apply to a selection of top-25 programs where you can make a credible case you're a good fit and see what happens.
  21. Another option is simply to sign up on interfolio and have your recommenders send a single generic letter there. I know there are a couple of programs that don't accept letters from file services (Princeton and Harvard are in this boat if I recall correctly), but then the professor only has to write a couple extra personalized letters instead of one for each application (helpful for them with many/most applicants applying to 10-15 programs). The programs you're applying to understand the utility of these services and won't downgrade your letters because they aren't personalized.
  22. I'd say if you have the time to do a little studying, it'd be great to take the GRE again. It wouldn't be surprising to boost your combined score 80-100 points if you targeted your weak areas and did some effective sustained studying. That's not to say you don't already have a nice file, though. I don't know enough about media and politics to recommend niche programs (I think Wisconsin has some strengths there), but I'd just suggest you apply to the top 10-15 schools, see where you get in, and go the place that seems like the best fit once you've talked with faculty. One thing you don't mention is what sort of work you're going to be doing during your PMF. Depending on the office, some fellows occasionally get the opportunity to go to the same conferences as political scientists. It would be be excellent for you to see some actual political science research (and particularly helpful for your statement of purpose) and talk to/network with some political scientists. Good luck!
  23. At the risk of feeding what I have a sneaking suspicion is an attempt to troll, here's something to think about before deciding not to re-take: APGrad is correct that anyone can raise their quant score to a decent level, and all that it takes is putting in the work. Furthermore, the admissions committees know this. Do you really want their first thought in looking at your file to be "this is an applicant who isn't willing/able to put in the work and do a little bit of studying/preparation"? In all seriousness, a 440 Q is (per wikipedia) in the 18th percentile--you're in the bottom fifth of all test-takers. To get in the upper half of test takers (which seems a reasonable goal for any relatively competitive program), you need a 620 Q (this is equivalent to a 460 V). To get in the upper third, you need a 700 Q (520 V). To get in the upper fourth (here we're just starting to talk about having any shot at the very top tier), you need a 720 Q (560 V). You're verbal score is 95th percentile--completely respectable. Ideally, to feel you had a solid shot at top-10 programs, you'd want your quant score at the same level (remember, these schools probably admit at best 10 percent of their applicants), but this unfortunately requires an 800 Q. A more reasonable goal might be to aim for the low 700s--then you're in the 70th to 80th percentile. Admissions committees will see that improvement and feel more confident you're able to study effectively and handle the work of grad school (it wouldn't hurt if your verbal bounced 30 to 50 points as well on a second attempt, either). For what it's worth, I had 99th percentile on the verbal and an 800 Q, with near-perfect GPA from both undergrad and a top-tier MA, plus strong letters from name faculty, and my best results at any of the traditional top-10 schools were waitlists. Oh, and no one cares what your AW score is. Committees will read your SoP and writing sample to determine if you can write.
  24. From quick wikipedia/googling, there are 200 accredited law schools in the US. There are fewer poli sci PhD programs than that, but probably still more than 120. There are something on the order of 1.1-1.2 million lawyers in the US alone. APSA has "more than 15,000 members residing in over 80 countries." The fact that you can get a job as a lawyer after graduating from a bottom-tier law school does not automatically imply the same goes for political science.
  25. This is a little harsh. You've already been admitted, which means they're trying to make a positive impression on you. You should feel free to ask specific, hard questions. Ask potential advisors about the placement record for their students, not just the department as a whole. Say "I really want to study X; is this a feasible thing to do here?" Tell them what other programs you're considering and ask them to make comparisons (yes, they may awkwardly bash all others--but if so, this is valuable information, both about them, and about what the potential weak spots of other departments are--then you can ask professors there hard questions about those). Say "I'm concerned about the level of training in stats/formal/fieldwork/experiments/etc.; have you had students successfully take courses in the stats/econ/anthro/psych/etc. department? How have they successfully incorporated those methodologies into their work?" The process of visits/calls/emails is all about finding the best fit for you. Not talking about yourself is a surefire way to avoid learning anything helpful for that decision.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. See our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use