natofone

Chicago is certainly more of a qualitative program. In recent years they have been trying to take a more pluralistic approach to methods and incorporate more quantitative methods, but they are particularly strong in qualitative methods. Off the top of my head they offer at least three courses in qualitative methods (Slater-comparative historical analysis, Wedeen-interpretive methods, and Mearsheimer-comparative case study). You should also investigate Yale because they are particularly strong in ethnographic fieldwork. I know that they have at least one course on the topic and have a few faculty that write on the topic (lawrence, wood). UCLA is also a qualitative-friendly program with courses in qualitative methods. Plisar is correct about MIT.

Some schools definitely toss applications if your GPA falls below a certain point. If you have outstanding letters you should try to get into the top 30, but I think that it will be very tough and certainly an uphill battle. Maybe your letter writers can reach out to the DGSs at other programs. I'd ask them about it.

I agree with what Plisar said. You are not a sure thing at top 10 programs, but you should apply widely if you can afford it because I think that you have a very good shot at getting into a great program. One thing to consider is that American politics is a little bit less competitive than some of the other subfields. Don't lose hope.

Congrats Ap! I will be attending Maryland as well.

I wouldn't even consider Kent State if you have an offer from Hawaii. I grew up about 20 minutes from Kent and until you posted it I had no idea that they had a PhD in political science. I just googled the program and it doesn't seem like they have a traditional political science PhD program with standard subfield breakdowns. Also, while Kent is actually a very nice city, Ohio has terrible weather.

AP - What program will you be attending if Rochester doesn't work out?

You didn't specify MAPSS in your statement: "ive heard from MULTIPLE reliable sources that the m.a. students at chicago are treated like second class citizens, absolutely cannot get any attention from professors, and do not generally have luck getting into top programs afterwards." MAPSS may be different, but I never heard any students in my MA program complaining about these things.

Not true at all. I did the IR MA and had no problem getting personal time from professors, getting letters, etc. Of the other students in my cohort that applied to PhD programs, 4 got into top 10 (and all had multiple top 10 offers to choose from) and 2 got into top 20. Several of those were from students that struck out entirely when they applied the first time.

For those that have attended visitation weekends and met with the DGS or pertinent faculty, have they specifically asked you about which other programs you have offers from? Is this common?

Yes, but the nice part about the quantitative section is that you can easily learn all of the math needed. On my first practice exam I got a 510 because I didn't remember the math rules. After simply learning all of the rules (maybe a week) that I had forgotten since high school I jumped to the 700s. By practicing the pacing and learning those goofy exam strategies, I ended up with a 780. So, while it sucks that you have to jump this arbitrary hurdle, at least you know what needs to be done to become competitive for next year. Much easier to make up for a low gre quant than a low GPA.

So do they not fund anyone, or do they decide on funding later in the process?

Ditto.

Has George Washington sent anything out yet? Has anyone contacted them?

Placement records and prestige-based rankings won't change for a few years based on some new faculty hires, so it is a gamble. Do you have other offers?

3000? Dang.