IRdreams

I'm not in your field so take my advice with a grain of salt. In my field if you are waitlisted, the chance that they will offer you generous funding is low anyways. Thus, if I wanted to secure admission, I would definitely tell them recognizing that they are unlikely to top up the award very much if at all. I wouldn't worry to much about the tuition fees issue. The department admits you and with a fellowship you look like a free or cheap researcher and TA...something departments love.

A friend of mine who works in human resources disagrees. Many people put GPA on the resume and if he doesn't see your GPA he assumes you graduated with poor marks. This is not necessarily an assumption you want floating around. GPA is especially important on resumes when it is your first job after leaving a degree program and it is easier to remove for subsequent jobs since education is less important in the hirin process then.

Given how snide you are being to the one person who tried to help you, I don't think it's Sigaba who is discouraging others from participating.

Thank you for clarifying semantics. I now see the err of my ways. Your ability to focus on the big picture of a topic and not miss the point is unrivaled. You have definitely contributed to this conversation. Unfortunately, I fear that your vast intellect is intimidating other posters, deterring them from contributing as well. Therefore, I kindly request that you refrain from further posting in this thread. It is important that others feel encouraged to participate, even those without your superior abilities.

Underneath your attempt at psychoanalysis was some good advice. I did not want to go in with guns blazing (emotion), hense the reason I have kept quiet up until this point and posted for advice on how to take action without negatively impacting my future. The adjunct professor abruptly "resigned" after a meeting with faculty. She had sent out an email at noon stating that she would be emailing a lecture outline that afternoon. Two hours later, we were informed by the director that the class would be meeting in a different location that evening and he would be presiding over the class. He announced to the class that she had resigned for reasons he would not be disclosing. He went on a five minute rant about how we are not to talk about this outside of the class and if it were made known that we had, he would "come after us" and make our lives a "living hell" among other strong words. I recorded the threats in case I need it in the future for whatever reason.

I'm curious as to what made faculty change their tone so quickly and force action. It was not even two days before that they had intended their intent to do nothing. I certainly didn't do anything outside of what I said in the original post. My classmates had not either as far as i know. Needless to say, I am relieved for obvious reasons.

I was not present at the latest meeting yesterday, so no. That's why I'm asking what the next step should be. My classmates made mention of the fact that I had infact seen the evaluations. He deterred the conversation topic.

I completely understand your anxiety, but perhaps you could think of this new student as a boon to your research/education. Perhaps I am way off base, but if a new hot shot came into my group I would be slightly threatened. However, even though you are developing into a competitive researcher, you are also in grad school to learn as much as you can from every source/experience that you can get your hands on. Like ktel said, you could bounce ideas off of this person, learn what they know, and benefit from a fresh perspective. Unfortunately, you will always encounter new hot shots, but it is better to learn how to work with them rather than waste time comparing yourself to them.

I think "crazy" is a bit harsh. I would say that as a new grad student these feelings are perfectly normal, but I would not act on them. Try to think about how this new student could inspire you, always search for the bright spot in situations. Don't stress unless the time calls for it.

I'd say be honest about the class, but being honest doesn't mean you have to mention his lack of knowledge in one specific area. Cover how the rest of the class is going.

If you're a 2nd year and up grad student, chances are you'll know more in some areas than a number of the faculty they have, especially if it's not right in their area of expertise. And just because it was a technique that someone else in the department was instrumental in developing, doesn't make it any more likely that they'll know it if it's out of their area of speciality. Getting used to gracefully handling people when you know more about what they're talking about than they do is a good skill to gain, because it's just going to happen more and more often from here on out.

Heck, as you dive into your dissertaion project, there will be a lot of areas within it and the literature surrounding it that you'll probably know better than even your advisor. That's part of the point of getting a PhD, to become an expert in a field.

Your advisor is obviously curious about how the class is going. Give him your honest answer without trashing Professor Bob. You haven't mentioned whether his knowledge is lacking in other aspects of plant nutrient absorption analysis. Is he competent in other class topics? If Method X's usage in plant imaging analysis is a side topic that is generally unrelated to plant nutrient absorption analysis, then I wouldn't be too hard on the guy. Unless his expertise is in plant imaging analysis, of course. As for how your advisor reacts to Prof. Bob's lack of knowledge in his colleague's work, that is between them. If your advisor chooses to broach the subject with Prof. Bob, then it is between them.

I think senioritis is pretty inevitable, or at least it was for me. And I don't think it is connected to what classes you are taking or the fact that you left the most boring requirements to the end. I had a terrible case of it even though I was working on a thesis I had invested much blood, sweat, and tears into as well as taking upper division astronomy classes because they sound and were in fact amazing. Anyways, it clears up when you start your grad course work so just float on now if you need to with the conviction that you will be moving on to bigger and better things.

On a related note, I always get transitional depression which fuels my senioritis lack of motivation. This might be something to consider. You are planning on making a pretty substantial change in life plans. I also remember senior year sucking for this reason and the fact that there were so many unknowns. Would I get a job? Would I go to grad school? Which grad school would take me? Will there be funding? Will it be in a good city? What will my cohort be like? Will I have a good adviser and committee? Am I really cut out for grad school or were the schools that rejected me right? Ect ect ect. Maybe it is just me, but it is pretty hard to be motivated with that much existential angst hanging around.

List the best fitting institution. The reviewers know that your plans are up in the air, but they still care about whether you are able to ascertain what is the best fit for the proposed research. I got it in my second year when things were already settled, but I definitely got some push back on fit from one reviewer. Moreover, I would imagine fit is more important at your stage since you have more control than once you are already in a program. Choosing the best fit program more over signals that you understand your field.

Rochester, Stanford GSB, Caltech, Princeton, maybe NYU. The existence of theorists on the faculty does not imply a solid theory curriculum. Indeed, one of the departments mentioned here has a theorist that (1) tends not to take on students, and (2) tends to spend his/her time outside of political science due to some hostility within the department. While it's smart to look at the faculty, also look at very recent students. Who's been turning out good theorists? Or, if you're just thinking about using theory to do IR, who's been turning out good applied users for IR? If that's the criterion, then Caltech or Stanford GSB might not be the best options, as their (formidable) strengths lie elsewhere.

Q: Explain the origins of WW1.

A: WW1 started because Germany was Marxist and they were naturally jealous of America's capitalistic lifestyle.

Q: Explain the origins of WW1.

A: WW1 started because Germany was Marxist and they were naturally jealous of America's capitalistic lifestyle.

I also wanted to mention that in the social sciences the broader impact section can be tricky. In many STEM fields, outreach is specifically expected, but there is no cognate in the social sciences. While the NSF considers advancing science a BI and connecting your work to helping the world is a good choice too, I noticed that reviewers have wild different ideas on this subject. One reviewer wanted to specifically see how I was promoting diversity in political science while others were happy with my activism related to research and my argument about how I advance the field. Considering this disparity between the official policy and reviewer practice, if I were writing again I might try to have at least one of each type of BI in my paper: diversity of the field BI, research BI, and "help the world" BI.

That being said, if you really only want a masters and not a phd, you should not use of the slot of someone who is commited to the phd as a point of ethics.

Why? If someone can take advantage of a market inefficiency, that makes him a good consumer.

When the grocery store has a sale on 2 lbs. of sugar for $1, you would seriously argue that I ethically should buy the 6 lb. package for $3.99 instead of 3 2 lb. packages for $3, just in case some guy who only needs 2 lbs. can buy his for $1? Would you also argue I am being dishonest to the store because I really want 6 lbs. of sugar?

Let's say Joe Blow applies to work at Goldman and would prefer to work there, but JP Morgan calls back first and offers $150K to work there as an analyst. Joe Blow should turn down $150K because Goldman is his first choice and some other guy's first choice is to work at JP Morgan? Better yet, if Goldman calls a month after he takes the job at JP Morgan and offers him $160K, he should stay there just because he owes it to the guy who dreamed of working at JP Morgan, or because JP Morgan invested time and money on recruiting and training him?

Lastly: Plenty of people take the NYPD and FDNY tests because, despite being hard - sometimes deadly - jobs that aren't very high paying, they pay a living wage and offer comprehensive benefits. It's a way to feed your family while you wait for something else higher paying or less demanding to become available. Meanwhile some people who dreamed their whole lives of doing these jobs - many times people who would be 4th or 5th generation On The Job - don't score high enough on the test to make the cutoff for the next Academy class. God forbid you were in a burning building, would you want the more capable person - even if it's not his dream job or one he will stay in for more than a couple years - to be your rescuer, or the less capable guy he deferred to because it was the "ethical" thing to do?

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.

I had an adviser in undergrad who thought that this was absolutely necessary. When I met with one of his colleagues to think about strategizing for a summer internship between gradschool and graduation, he barged in on the meeting. Demanded to know what I was doing. Got in a fight with the guy since "serious grad students need to seriously bone up during the summer." When I later thanked my adviser's colleague who I had only met the one time for his advice but noted that I would be taking my summer in a different direction, this charming gentlemen thought it was okay to tell as an undergrad: "The reason you're not going to get into Harvard is because you've done nothing of distinction in your life." Needless to say it turned into major department drama.

What did I actually do with my summer? I came to the conclusion they were both dicks and ignored them both. I took my major's advice (third professor in this story) to have fun with my summer. He told me that the number one issue with going from direct from undergrad was burn out and that recharging before hand was really important. From what I've seen, burn out can have an effect regardless of your gradschool trajectory so even if you aren't from undergrad taking a break is not a bad idea. That said, I definitely read. But it wasn't textbooks. And I can tell you that I've been no worse for the wear in gradschool as a result.

Why did I mention reading during my summer? Well, if you are in a reading intensive program this might be your last opportunity for a while to read for pleasure. While I have had the time to read for pleasure in grad school, after reading several thousand pages in a week I generally lack the motivation then pick up an outside reading book.

Another piece of unsolicited advice: make sure you show your personal statement to advisers for helpful criticism. Many of my professors offered to look at what I had wrote. I am frequently afraid that I will be "discovered" to be unqualified if I let people read things like my personal statement and such discovery by someone close to me I imagine would be much worse than faceless committee members. Based on this imposter fear, I did not take my professors up on their very kind offer and this was very foolish of me. When I did my application cycle, I was lucky to be admitted into 3 good programs, but the programs that admitted me had versions of my PS that were the most radically altered because they were less known for methods. Looking back, something I put in the personal statement about methods that went to more quantitative schools would have been stricken by my advisers if I had just let them look at my drafts and I may have made a stronger showing at those schools. There is no guarantee of course. But professors know their field better than any applicant so really do take advantage of their experience and wisdom when attempting to speak to their peers.

Hello all,

After four months' hiatus, I'm back for another cycle - good to see some old faces (handles?) around. To my knowledge, no applications are open for business yet, but with Yale's coming online Monday, I thought now would be a good time to wish everyone good luck. More importantly, to all the new applicants this year, I'm going to try and give some unsolicited advice. Here goes:

Last year, I went into applications humble yet confident. I had a 3.90 at a top-10 national university with a reputation for difficulty, research experience, was doing a master's at Cambridge, had worked in government for 9 months in addition to various internships, was awarded Phi Beta Kappa and other honors, had 3 good recommendations from tenured professors, submitted a capstone paper for a sample, and had a 1570 GRE.

I went 0 for 7.

So this year, I'm focusing on what actually matters: the personal statement. It is the single most important part of the application. Never mind what the departmental websites say about holistic approaches and solid backgrounds; that all matters, but only as an initial check on the candidate before the real admitting and rejecting happens based on the PS.

Focus on matching your research interests to specific professors, and write why they will want to supervise you and why your research will benefit from them. And spend some words doing so: I've been told about 40% of the PS should be discussing this (last year, I used about 15%). Don't just look at their subfield ("comparative politics") and confirm that their area focus ("Africa") matches yours. Read their bios, but then analyze their CVs. Find recent articles and/or books. Then read the works themselves. Quickly, you'll find the professor you thought was a perfect match is actually only tangentially related to your research.

Which is the second most important thing: have your research absolutely sorted out. Have a research question. Make sure you could explain to your grandmother it in 100 words or fill 10,000 words discussing its intricacies, because you'll have to do both at some point. They won't take you on interest ("I want to look at political violence") and credentials ("I have an MPhil from Cambridge") alone. They want to know that you can formulate and articulate a proper scholarly inquiry. This should also take up about 40% of the PS, according to academic advisors with whom I've spoken (last year, I spent about 25% on this).

Maybe these things were obvious to other first-time applicants and I just lost my way, or stupidly ignored it. But I certainly wish someone had drilled this into me before I started work on my applications. Perhaps I would have got an offer last year. Perhaps not. Either way, my personal statement was concise and well-written but completely useless for my application. I deserved my rejections. And so will you if you don't take this advice.

Best of luck.

Why? Are you suggesting that people should change the way they do their work for their peace of mind--or for yours?

You know, when I was rejected, no one offered me a drink, and I work at a bar.

We really should provide the community with a pamphlet, "When Someone You Love is Applying to Grad School". We can include sections like "Just Because Your Loved One is Smart, Does Not Guarantee Acceptance" and "How Adcoms Hold Your Loved One's Future in Their Hands" and "Why Telling Your Loved One to Look at the Bigger Picture is Frankly Insulting (No One Goes to Grad School for the Lulz)".