justanotherperson

Must say ya'll are awesome. It really helps. If I can ask additional (and dumb) questions though, umm... 1) Would somebody who's trained to do mainly quantitative works still be able to qualitative research too? Because I don't imagine it'd be very easy for a qual person to do quant research. (I guess I am asking this because I don't wanna miss out too much by going one way.) 2) I'm much better at understanding text based analysis than deciphering number-based information, graphs, etc. Of course I am willing to learn quant methods once I'm at grad school, but I'm quite skeptical I'd excel at it. I know getting admission from whatever grad school matters more at this point, but still, should I be worried? 3) I read some people are hostile to quant approaches, especially foreign service people and those at think tanks. I wanna work as a researcher perhaps in a non-university setting (though I'd still love to end up at a research university). Would going quant be a problem? Thank you all for bearing with my questions. Hopefully this thread will help others who are as confused as I am...

Hi all, I'm planning to study IR-security, and almost all schools I am going to apply are known for being relatively quant-heavy. I thought going quant makes sense cause lots of work done in the area of my research interest seem to have taken quant approaches, and I also imagined getting familiar with quant methods might be better in terms of job prospects down the road. Now that I'm looking to actually apply for the programs though, I'm starting to fret. I'm in no way good at math/stats/econ, and if I wasn't gonna go for a phD program I would have preferred qualitative work to quantitative work (for instance when reading journal articles). Another concern is -- how do I know, at this point as somebody having only a B.A. with no research experience to speak of, whether I'm a quant person or a qual person? I heard from others that I should decide on the methods based on what kind of questions I'd like to ask, and I know many prominent scholars have done heavily quantitative works in the fields I'm interested in... but I feel quite lost and would like a piece of advice on this. Do you guys think that applying additionally to a couple of programs where they do qualitative IR stuff, such as UND, would be a good idea? And can anybody offer advice on deciding on which way to go in terms of methods? Thanks a lot in advance, and good luck to everyone.

Since you asked if having broad ranging interests would be a problem: I believe you will have to have specific research ideas to base your SOPs on to convince the admission committee you are serious enough about doing phD level research. What is your primary subfield, CP or IR? When you say security, for instance, what kind of questions do you want to ask in your security research? Maybe thinking more about those things could be the first step in narrowing down the focus.

The previous thread helped me a lot. So thank you folks who have posted SOPs.... This is off topic, but is it standard to single space SOPs, when the school doesn't have a specific word limit?

Sorry guys for posting questions that have been discussed several times, but when schools do not specify whether SOPs should be double spaced, is it okay to single space it? For example, Penn State says on its website: This two-page statement should include: (1) a brief description of your educational background, with specific emphasis on political science and related fields; (2) a discussion of the major fields and specialties in political science that interest you the most; (3) why you wish to study political science at Penn State; and (4) your current career plans and aspirations. So, this particular schools says the statement should be two pages long, but doesn't say anything about the format. Can I assume they accept all formats, or should I still double space it? Also, do we need to distinguish between personal statements and SOPs? I am assuming they are meant to be the same, but please enlighten me if anyone disagrees. Thanks for reading and good luck!

Very, very helpful answers, thank you all very much!!! I realize, thanks to PH, that materials I put into my application matter more than exchanges with professors. Still I might try contacting some of the professors, based on what other applicants have said, though I know I might just be another (and quite possibly annoying) would-be grad school student to the individual professors... Thank you very much again and good luck to everybody

Hi all! I have a question to those planning to apply for polisci phD programs this season. Are you already in contact with or going to contact professors you would like to work with? Or is contacting the department and asking if certain professors will take in students in 2012 enough? I have heard different opinions on contacting professors prior to or during the admission cycle (some recommend it while others advise against it), so I'm really confused. Some people say contacting professors is not absolutely necessary in political science, but I'd still like to hear some insights from others who are about to go through the same nerve-racking process. Thanks and good luck to everyone reading this! xD

Helix, I noticed the exact same thing from the admission postings and was kind of waiting for some other people to bring this up, so thanks for doing that. Seems like it's the case for Georgetown as well. My subfield is IR and I'd like to focus on American foreign policy, and there are so many profs at GWU with similar research interest, but I guess I shouldn't apply for GWU knowing that it won't fund me anyways. If this helps at all, I know MA students at American SIS can be funded based on merit. Which might mean it is generous with funding at the doctoral level too. Oh well... =(

Thank you Wesson and Helix for sharing your insights. Now I know I should be more cautious!!! Thanks a lot again for the helpful advice! It really helps.

Hi all, perhaps a bit random question, but I was wondering whether it would be "dangerous" to list in SOPs names of assistant professors as professors I'd like to work with. Not that they are bad, but somebody said something like non-tenure stream professors can leave the school while you're still there, and if that happens and if you went to that particular school only for that particular professor, you're out of luck. I'm still searching for schools I'd apply for Fall 2012 admission, but have a few schools where faculty research interests overlap with mine but they are newly minted phDs themselves and are listed as assistant professors. Some schools do make it clear if certain professors are tenure-track or not, but others do not explicitly say so. So... what do you think? Please feel free to discuss anything! Thank you.

Thanks for the advice. Guess I have a long way to go! Thank you!!

Hi all, I've been doing a bit of research on poli sci phD programs, and US foreign policy is one of my would-be research interests if I manage to get into grad school. Anyhow, one thing that confuses me is that US foreign policy seems to belong to different subfields at different schools. I thought it'd be something dealt within IR, but I notice that there are some comparative works on foreign policy and also there are schools (Boston College is one example) that list US foreign policy as a research topic for AP. So basically my (ignorant) question is -- when I want my research done on US foreign policy, which subfields should I be aiming for? IR, CP or AP? Among many possible research topics in US foreign policy, currently I'm interested in: 1) Post Cold War US intervention in global conflicts; 2) US military alliances -- have they become a liability or do they still matter, etc. Oh, here's another, possibly dumber question: Is it inevitable that one has a regional focus in approaching research subjects in IR/CP? My regional focus could be on East Asia (so in the case of US foreign policy, something like US foreign policy toward East Asian countries), but I just wonder if one can study something related to US foreign policy that is still not bound by regional boundaries. I guess US foreign policymaking in general (which to me sounds like AP) can be said to have no regional focus, am I correct? And if anybody cares, please recommend some prominent academic works concerning US foreign policy that I can check out! ) Please enlighten/correct me all you want! I'm just really lost. Any help will be much appreciated. THANK YOU!

Thank you so much for the reply. This helps a lot. I guess I should think more about doing IR theory as my concentration. THANK YOU!!!!! MUCH appreciated.

Hey guys, I'm a newbie to the forum so not sure if this topic has been discussed before. Been browsing some 10 pages or but so far haven't really spotted anything concerning this topic, so I started the thread. Apologies if this overlaps with previous discussions. Anyhow, my question is: Is there anybody here wanting to concentrate on international relations theory?? (such as realist theories as advocated by Waltz) If so, can you tell me which professors are famous in the field of IR theory? Any recommendations? I am currently looking at polisci phD programs in the U.S. (aiming for Fall 2012 admission) and would like to concentrate on international relations (and comparative politics, if I have to pick two). I'm especially interested in IR theories (realism or liberalism IR theories in particular) and have been looking for professors specializing in this particular subfield. Seems difficult to find polisci phD programs mentioning IR theory concentration. Oh and I'm an international student with a BA from my home country (spent a year in the U.S. as an exchange student). My GPA isn't high but got okay GRE scores... I'm not eyeing the very top schools, but would be really happy to get into schools in the top 20-50 range (with funding)... Any comment will be VERY MUCH appreciated!!!! Thank you in advance.