firefly28

Along with Canada, you could also apply to schools in Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, and Hong Kong. It depends on what you want to do, but schools do have some strengths--NZ has the leading scholar in political marketing, for example, and Singapore National University is good for International Relations (particularly, as one would suspect, in SE Asia). University of Toronto in Canada is a very good university.

Since I've been accepted at one place, I'm fairly hopeful that I'll be accepted to more--I don't think that 2 out of 3 remaining is unrealistic. This is in part because the school that accepted me was very enthusiastic, and the school (Pitt) that didn't accept me wasn't, in hindsight, that good of a fit.

Good luck. I thought about applying to UMich even though it would've been a reach for me. PS I love the University of Phoenix admittee who attempted to defend the school's standing...and made rather conspicuous grammatical errors in doing so. Oops.

This is true. If there's any information on the average applicant profile, then the acceptance rates could be weighted by the average applicant profile. GPA could also be included (accepting that some schools may weigh GPA heavier than others). One other thing to keep in mind is the average size of the incoming class. If candidates A and B have virtually identical resumes and each are highly qualified, they both may be accepted into UCLA, but only the higher one may get accepted into the program that accepts significantly fewer students.

That's a nice starting point. Perhaps % acceptance could also be factored in?

True (and nice job on fleshing out the math of it), but this is only helpful when one is assessing one's chances once the applications are out, as opposed to when one is deciding how many to send. I'd also caution that the reasons for rejection aren't always reflecting something lacking in G. For instance, I think that I wasn't exactly an ideal fit for Pitt, given that my interests don't precisely reflect what their major foci are. I think it's conceivable that I could get accepted to universities that are on that same level if I am a better fit for them. There's also an issue of year-to-year quirks in their admissions approaches: school X may be taking in fewer political theory people, because perhaps they admitted more than usual last year, etc. a professor may not want to take on anyone new in a given year. So on and so on. That being said, I think your approach is still valuable. I just wouldn't necessarily get too discouraged--make sure that there aren't reasons other than G accounting for the rejection, if it is possible.

Yes, you're correct. The consequences of rushing the post

Calculate your probability of getting accepted at at least one. Say you give yourself a 15% shot at each one. That means that you stand only a .15^9 chance of getting turned down by every university. I applied at five universities. But I applied to no reach schools (could've tried for Princeton, Yale), and no 'fallback universities.' I strictly applied to schools that I was very competitive at and that were also quality institutions. So far I'm 1/2 and the 1 seems like it will probably give me a fair financial aid package. I'm optimistic that I'll get accepted at at least one more university, hopefully 2. Well, hopefully 3. I'm guessing that you're applying to schools whose acceptance rate is around 10%. That means that 9 is a better figure. After a certain point, mathematically each one gives you a diminishing increase in your overall likelihood of acceptance (you can see this is you graph it). So, I'd say it's not necessarily worth it to apply to more than 9. Of course, money was more of an issue for me than some other people.

You can also adjust it based on your strengths--if your GRE scores, GPA, etc. are noticeably higher than the school's average, bump it up a little.

Got the rejection letter from Pitt today. I'll check in with my contacts for confirmation, but my guess is that I wasn't a great fit for the program--my interest isn't one of the major fields at Pitt. So, I am accepted at one, rejected at another. 3 more to go.

That may depend the university--last year I met someone who was considering CMU's PhD program in linguistics, and it seemed that they paid for her hotel stay.

Hmmm. I'll be anxious to speak with my contacts in the Pitt department.

That's true, though there are two other flags: 1) It says only "Pittsburgh" 2) It belies the trend in previous years, which suggests that Pitt sends out letters between the 5th and the 15th of February (http://www.thegradcafe.com/survey/index.php?q=%28politics|government|political%29+pittsburgh&t=a&pp=25). I see no reason to believe that they have accelerated their process this year--the number of submissions likely isn't down.

Think of it this way: Give yourself an approximate probability of getting accepted at each university. Provided your GPA, GRE scores, letters of rec, etc. are solid, this should be a viable way. Say you're pessimistic. Give yourself a 10% chance at each university. Now do the math for getting accepted to at least one: .9^15. That gives you only a 20% chance of being rejected by every university that you applied to.

Along with a host of articles on various subjects, I'm reading Dixit's Games of Strategy and the Oxford Handbook of Rational Social Choice. I don't actually know if formal analysis will be a significant part of my research but I want to prepare just in case.

I've received one phone call/letter from a University (not one talked about). I am still awaiting word from four others. I think that there's a good bit of misinformation going on in the postings. Someone posted that they were accepted at Pitt and that their acceptance included full funding. Well, all accepted students for Pitt's Phd program are fully funded. The schools I am still waiting on include Pitt and UNC.