natofone

I glanced around and those numbers are WAY outdated. Sorry.

I took a class AND studied on my own. The class only helps if you don't have the discipline to study on your own. Don't waste the money if you can do it on your own. Just keep studying until you hit scores that you like.

Actually, I've received differing info from a huge name in the field. He thinks that I can improve my chances by upgrading my GRE math score. A 730 is only in the 78th percentile, which isn't very impressive for my discipline at the schools that I'm trying to target. Looking at all of the candidates that got into the very good schools, nearly all of them had very high GRE math scores.

Believe that you'll do much better on the practice tests than the real one.

-Working on language skills -Redoing SOP and really putting work into it. -Retaking GRE (old scores 720v,730q,6w) to get quant up. -Applying to schools not in the top-10.

I'll generally agree, but the debates in comparative politics (I assume your potential subfield) have settled on a pluralistic (inductive and deductive, within-case and comparative, stats and rat choice and case studies) approach to methods. This isn't necessarily reflected in the literature or training yet, but if the debates in the journals are an indication of anything, it is the way the discipline is headed. No, the sociologists have a better command of quantitative (at least statistics - maybe not modeling) methods than political scientists. Political scientists almost exclusively (American politics may be an exception - no clue) borrow their methods from other fields, primarily economics, but also sociology. I even took the sociology stats courses over political science because the sociologists have a better command of them, and actually develop many of their own techniques.

I'm also interested in topics and methods that pertain to both sociologists and political scientists. I don't think that either discipline has an edge in terms of those topics themselves, but I'm applying to political science because I would prefer to study the secondary areas that political science offers over sociology. For example, I'd rather take courses in international security than social stratification or another sociological topic.

From wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_institutionalism HI is a historically-based method used in political science and that emphasizes history and concomitant topics (temporal sequencing, path dependency, increasing returns, critical junctions, exogenous shocks). It seems like something that you'd be interested in.

Ph.D. Admissions Shrinkage http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/03/30/phd Top Ph.D. Programs, Shrinking http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/05/13/doctoral It looks like next year will be especially bad and possibly worse than this year (which sucked). Thoughts?

You'll be fine for India.

My links were poli sci if I wasn't clear. I am applying to poli sci, but I think that the sociologists have this type of approach (and concomitant topics) in the pocket.

I assume that you've read the work on historical institutionalism? These people would all be good to work with: http://web.mit.edu/polisci/faculty/K.Thelen.html http://www.gov.harvard.edu/faculty/phall/ http://polisci.berkeley.edu/faculty/bio ... Pierson,P/ http://www.columbia.edu/cu/polisci/fac- ... culty.html http://www.princeton.edu/~hmilner/ http://www.sociology.northwestern.edu/f ... /home.html (crosses over to work with poli sci kids) Based on your interests, you might also like a few people at Chicago: http://political-science.uchicago.edu/f ... igel.shtml http://home.uchicago.edu/~jpadgett/ http://political-science.uchicago.edu/f ... rman.shtml http://political-science.uchicago.edu/f ... ater.shtml (does a course on comparative historical analysis) There is also someone good at UCLA, but I'm forgetting who off the top of my head. Anyone?

How about just apply to whichever you like better?

Foreign Policy magazine does a ranking of these: http://mjtier.people.wm.edu/IvoryTower%202007.pdf Page 4.

I think that your chances of getting into a top program would be better in philosophy. Looking at all of the cohort stats, there weren't many theory spots open compared to the other subfields. Then again, you'll have an easier time getting a job with a poli sci degree if academia doesn't work out.

The DC schools rank very high in public policy degree programs (MPP and PhD in PP).

som - Have you looked into public policy PhD programs? There are some very competitive part-time ones (in DC and elsewhere). I believe that Harvard, Tufts, Princeton, Yale, Columbia, Chicago, JHU, Georgetown, American, GW, and many other universities have public policy schools. These programs will build skills that translate well into the public sector (game theory, stats, modeling, etc.) and there is also the option to teach, but they take only 3-4 years to complete. Political science is purely for future academics. Yes, some end up in other sectors, but that is commonly the result of failure in academics or a souring on the idea of being an academic. The main difference is that political science and public policy look at issues and problems differently. Political scientists want to explain what causes, while scholars of public policy want to solve them. Take terrorism for example. Political scientists make causal inferences about the origins of terrorism (socioeconomic conditions, political structures, economic incentives, ethnic fragmentation, ideas, political entrepreneurship, etc.). Public policy scholars will examine counter-terrorism strategies that have been successful. Of course these aren't mutually exclusive worlds and each dabbles into the other, but they emphasize different parts of the equation. Best of luck either way.

If you don't want to be an academic, then don't get a PhD in political science.

I think that Ferrero is joking.

Essentially what you're saying is that the rankings should include a measure for location, but that isn't what they are designed to do. They are designed to measure the strength of a program based upon things like placement, funding, faculty, etc. Of course there are other factors involved when we make our decision to attend one school over another, but the rankings are not designed to measure things like that. Besides, being in DC does little to advance a methods person, theorist, comparativist, and (likely) an IR person. It might have some payoff for an americanist, but the field is more than just american politics. In regards to work. Most good schools PAY their students to attend and you can always take out loans. If you have to work your way through a doctoral program, then it either isn't a good program or you got a terrible package. Top schools want people fully committed to this process. Peruse the websites of the top programs and see if any of them allow for part-time study. They don't.

I studied vocab and memorized all of the math rules, then I took practice tests until I got a perfect score in 3 in a row. The practice exams are far easier than the real deal. I ended up with a 720v, 730q, 6w. I spent maybe 3 months of weekly practice tests. My initial practice exam was only about an 1150 so my scores went up considerably with practice.

Oops, I missed that line. My bad.

Are you planning to become an academic in Europe? If not, I'd suggest sticking around here for the PhD.

The bottom line is that these schools do not place well and do not have the top faculty in the discipline. I would also question the seriousness of any program that has a part-time option. A PhD in political science takes 5-6 years as it is full-time.

I never lived in Columbus, but I grew up a little more than an hour away so I've been/stayed there dozens of times. Most of my classmates did their undergraduate degrees there so I'm pretty familiar with the city. You have to worry about two things: partying undergrads and crime. Getting jumped or robbed isn't uncommon. I've had multiple friends jumped at knife point (and ten times as many that haven't had problems). I suggest living in a suburb if possible. Worthington is relatively nice and not too far away. Columbus gets really shady really fast. I wouldn't sign a lease anywhere until talking with people about the specific areas that are dangerous and/or have drug activity. It will be hard to tell from online listings. The party nonsense gets annoying really fast. Try to avoid the crime ridden areas and the undergrads and you'll be fine.