brent09

The people at PSJR are right -- this doesn't belong over there. Don't use PSJR for advice -- learn that lesson now. You don't need to be getting a Ph.D. if you aren't sure of your field. Spend some time looking at the research done in each and see where you're a better fit. (Political sociology is not the same as sociological political science...) As far as psci goes, it's hard to say how much the MA GPA hurts b/c it depends on why it's so low. Did you get a couple Bs in your first semester but then improve? Did you do well in substantive courses but flop in methods? A 3.5 isn't great, and might keep you out of some top programs. Best thing to do it perform well now, and talk it over with your letter writers. Ultimately grades in grad school matter far, far less than your capacity to do good original research. So if your letter writers can vouch for your research abilities and creativity, the GPA shouldn't hold you back too much.

1. You'll have to do what your finances allow. If your UG GPA wasn't great, I would assume that your funding offers from MPP programs wouldn't be too generous. My girlfriend had a 3.9 GPA from a top liberal arts school, a 700+ GRE and two years experience with TFA. She got a fully funded offer from UGA and $25k from Duke (which would still mean ~30k in debt), and far less from Michigan, Wisconsin, Penn State, Harvard, Vanderbilt (and several others). Point is: she got in everywhere she applied, was a top-notch applicant, but still didn't get tons of funding offers. Professional programs are just plain expensive. 2. No, the faculty isn't too important. MPP/MPA provides training for policy, not theory-based research. An MPP/MPA would help if you rocked it -- no one here argues with that! -- but we tend to think it's too expensive for the benefit it confers. A Masters in political science, or a few terms in a lower-ranked program and then transfer, would likely be more beneficial and probably cheaper.

I would agree with Helix, and would only add this: It's not entirely clear from your original post that you need any additional training in political science. Plenty of people are accepted into good programs without having majored in political science. As long as you can show that you (a.) understand what political science is and (b.) that you would be capable of doing political science research, you don't need an advanced degree in political science to get into a Ph.D. program. Of course, you might be at a disadvantage if you don't have any letter writers in political science who could vouch for your research abilities. In that case, one close relationship as a research assistant to a political scientist, or a good independent research project / writing sample, can help quite a bit. I would suggest reaching out to a political scientist at your school to discuss shaping a project, or getting an RAship, to sharpen your application. If you're still certain that you need more political science coursework, I would suggest two other options. First, consider augmenting your profile by getting a job in a tangential field -- think tanks, polling firms, political campaigns, or some other political organization. That earns you money instead of losing you money. Second, just apply to Ph.D. programs, choose the best that accepts you, and transfer out after three terms if you wish. This option should also be free (or nearly free). Here's the summary: MPP or MPA is an expensive option that won't really show your ability to do political science (i.e., theory-driven) research. I don't think you need a Masters at all -- you should be fine with a BA in History. But if you wish to augment your profile, consider getting an RAship, doing a polisci research project, or getting work experience in politics/research. That would be a far less expensive option. (Remember, debt is your enemy if you want to eventually get a Ph.D.)

^ Right on. It's what you make of it, I imagine. I've heard that it's as good a networking opportunity as a training opportunity. So use your time there to meet the right people, impress the right people, etc etc. Have fun!

1. Look for old topics on transferring. It's a common question. 2. Faculty want you to be successful, and most of the time that carries over to transferring. They should be supportive. 3. Your advisors know more than we do, so just listen to what they've already told you.

I might be alone in this... but I don't think it's going to matter. If you have a good reason, inform your letter writers about it and they can explain it away easily enough. Neither one should really hurt you...

I was, yes. Tuition + stipend + summers. Can't say I would have chosen this path otherwise. Edit: though I will add this as advice to transfer students: it's expensive, so be frugal and save up. The application process is expensive, plus you'll likely not get funding for the summer between programs. Apartment deposits, rent, moving, et cetera are all expensive when you're living on a grad student stipend. Plan ahead.

Well -- yes and no. My point is that some people look down on transfers, others don't. I did just fine this season after getting roundly rejected last time. It's perfectly doable. In fact, I would say it's unlikely that you'll be dinged b/c you're transferring. But of course, as you apply to more schools, the odds that ONE of them doesn't want to accept you as a transfer student increases. Overall, don't be worried. You can pull it off, I'm sure. Just be super awesome in your current program (esp. in methods) and reapply in a year and a half!

I am transferring, and here's what I would add: 1. Yes it's possible. You need to impress everyone you come into contact with. Get as much methods training as you can. Work really hard. That means you need to be in your program for a full year before you try to transfer out. 2. Recognize that transfers can be politically sticky. Nothing you can do about it, some committees will look more unfavorably on transferring than others. 3. Be tactful. Don't talk widely about your plans, and don't open up to the faculty until after you've established a good reputation. If you tell your advisor this fall that you plan on transferring in a year, you'll likely struggle to get much mentoring or attention. Play your cards close to the vest. 4. Have a good reason. After all, your current program spent a lot of time and resources on you. If you're going to take that and then go elsewhere to finish, you should at least provide a compelling reason. It's possible to transfer (I'm going from a ranked ~50 to ~11 program, got into a couple top 10 places). Just own your current program, work hard, and don't discuss the transfer until you're ready to apply and you need letters.

Have you contacted them? You should probably do that if you haven't...

^Exactly. Generally, I would say that placement strictly dominates ranking, especially in theory. The only thing to watch for is the TYPE of placement. Some programs might boast higher placement, but they're placing people in the region where the school's brand is strongest. Some programs place well, but place more in SLACs than in others. If the placement at school B is still better, even with those considerations, then go to B. As far as UCLA versus Minnesota go specifically, UCLA clearly has the better brand. But if MN is placing stronger in theory, then go to MN -- it's no pushover, a PhD from MN will serve you well. Besides, who wants to live in LA?

Declined last offer from WashU w/ funding in American Politics.

Declined Penn State and Wisconsin (funded w/ fellowship, American Politics)

Are we talking Southern California or South Carolina. B/c SoCal only offers a Ph.D. in "Politics and International Relations" right?

UT Austin is good in American but not so much in formal; it also has a reputation for some dysfunction. Virginia is weak in formal or quantitative methods, as is BC. I don't know a lot about Baylor -- that might be indicative of something. I agree with RWBG that MIT is not great for formal; I included it because they're pretty good at political economy more generally. If you're focused on institutions, definitely give WUSTL and Rochester close looks. I think you'll like what you find.

First I would suggest figuring out if you want the degree in Public Policy or Political Science as they're going to be fairly different. For policy, I would add the Wilson School at Princeton, the Sanford School at Duke and the Ford School at Michigan. For political science, here's my two cents: scrap Minnesota, Penn, Austin -- none of these are great for your interests. Add Rochester, MIT, Stanford GSB. For slightly safer schools, maybe consider Penn State, Iowa, or Michigan State. As for your profile, it looks good -- but be CAREFUL that your letter writers are tailored to the program to which you're applying. You don't want a policy professor writing about your strong aptitude in public policy work in a letter for a political science program. In general, political science adcoms want to know that you understand what political science is and how it's done. Also try to pull that quant score up. If you're wanting to work heavily in formal and economics, places like WUSTL and Rochester will (generally) prefer quant scores north of 160.

I agree with all of this. Also, try to get a fair reading of what your likely "range" of programs should be. A lot of people advocate applying across the range of schools, but that can be a poor strategy if you're a good candidate. If I have any regrets from this past cycle, it's that I was a bit too conservative in choosing my schools. I wish I'd tried for a few top-10s and fewer top-30s. Key, I think, is talking to advisors who can give you some idea of what your range should be.

I visited one school (a lower-ranked program closer to home), talked to several faculty members and..... got rejected. Despite getting into several much more highly ranked programs. So either I really sucked in those conversations, or at the very least it didn't help at all. Basic point: it's not necessary, likely won't help and might even hurt. Even a positive visit wouldn't necessarily help b/c it's tough to predict who will be on the adcom. If a visit is easy, go for it -- I don't really think it hurts chances -- but I wouldn't go to any great expense to visit before applying.

Wow. Posting really slows once most of those decisions go out. Hope everyone's doing well, and good luck in deciding! (And hope to see some of y'all at UNC or WUSTL this/next week!)

Yea... the website shows $1200 per credit hour, so assuming a 9-hour (3-course) load per semester, that comes out to $21,600 per annum. Plus the costs of living in the D.C. metro, which is exceptionally expensive. Tough to pass on an offer, but unless you have lots of cash to burn, I'd say pass...

Declined: UMaryland -- American/Quant Methods -- Funded Georgia -- American/Methods -- Funded (+ fellowship) As far as "under review" goes: I met several people a week or so ago who still hadn't heard from Maryland. I had already heard from and declined their offer. Given that some of these people were into other top programs (OSU, UNC, PSU) I have a hard time believing they were all "unofficially" rejected, or even waitlisted. I think some programs just take their sweet time making decisions.

Just to reiterate my comments (with a bit more discussion): I would advise taking the statistics for social scientists, preferably the course with a theoretical grounding. Linear algebra and calculus are important classes, but they don't directly apply to political methodology (they're nice to have but not absolutely necessary). You would be better off showing admissions committees that you can handle the statistics we use most frequently. If you had two years, then I might suggest going for all the background. But now you need to be strategic, and the best choice under those constraints is to focus on the stats you're most likely to use in a Ph.D. program. Knowing R (and Stata, WinBUGS, JAGS, Amelia etc) is helpful, but it's perfectly possible to pick that up on your own. Take a good theoretical stats course and master the skills, and teach yourself some R on the side. In my opinion, that would make you a very strong applicant.

Theoretical stats for social science, learn R on the side. The background math is useful if you have tine, but given the time constraint just go for the stats class that will give you a good theoretical grounding.

This is a tough call. You might want to provide more information (if you're comfortable doing so) such as: What are your stats (GPA, GREs)? What're your interests? What were the full results this round (as in, range of programs to which you applied)? Do you already have a lot of student debt? Why did you drop out of law school and did you explain that well in your applications? The fact is: you could get into a better program out of LSE or UMass, with the higher probability favoring the former. I'm always hesitant about paying for a master's, but it works for some people. Transferring also works for some (me!). A little more information might make it easier to fully consider the options you have, yanno?

^ Ha. At the end of the day, it's gonna be a gut thing. Trying to be super explicit (formally or otherwise) might help you to realize or consider things you weren't looking at before. But really, it's gonna come down to what your gut tells you. (Because no model will be able to convince you to do what doesn't feel right.) For all the anxiety, I think that visiting and talking to people should generally leave you with a sense of what feels right. Trust your gut.