cunninlynguist

That's crazy, and a little sad, about Indiana, but it makes some sense. Their MPA program is reputable, as is the MPA/MSES. Qualified applicants who want a sufficient emphasis in science should just opt for the MPA/MSES. And apparently they have! Regardless, that's a bit worrisome - I've considered dropping them from my list anyway. Yale definitely sends mixed signals about work experience. The 'typical student' has 2-4 years, while under the Admissions FAQ they say "one or more years of experience post-baccalaureate is a plus." I'm not optimistic about FES but it won't stop me from applying; I'll pretend my internship experiences constitute something worthwhile and tailor my SOP to be very career-oriented. Another potentially misleading element is the selection of undergraduate courses they encourage you to take (http://environment.y...-for-Admission/). I wonder if that's actually a significant consideration. If I recall correctly, you're heading to Duke, right? You must be getting excited. Michigan is technically my #1 choice - however, it'd be ridiculously tempting to attend FES or Nicholas if I, for some bizarre reason, were accepted to either

Now I'm a little worried. From the Survey results and the threads, I knew there was a smattering of high GRE scores but generally I thought the departments were accurate. For instance, Michigan recommends 1200+, Yale's posted composite is 1240, and UCSB states their average is 1200. Indiana's 2010-11 numbers, for their incoming class, are 1210 for MPA, 1120 for MSES, and 1220 for the dual MPA/MSES.

Sorry for your loss, it must be a very difficult time. Ultimately it's your decision, but I'd prefer to wait for the Fall. It's only a few months - you'll only get this degree once, so you should go exactly where you want to. The programs with spring admissions may not be worth it at all, especially relative to the options you'd have for Fall 2012 (and you've done well already, which is encouraging).

I've got a hunch you'll do fine, but I understand your concerns. First, you shouldn't automatically equate your SAT score to your projected performance on the GRE. In my case - which might not be reassuring - both scores were 650. However, on the SAT that was in the 85th percentile; for the GRE it was only 59th. There are some general similarities between the two tests but you can't let your past score dictate your confidence level. That was, what, 6 years ago? You're clearly an accomplished and capable student, which brings me to my main point: It may not matter as much as you perceive it to. For weaker applicants, it might. Perhaps a few programs you're aiming for enforce a strict minimum, but that shouldn't be the case at every single program on your list. How were your grades in undergraduate math courses? If you did well, and with a 3.89 I'd bet you did, that can be a significant countermeasure. Perhaps a re-evaluation of your preparation would be worthwhile. What are the concepts you're confident in, and what are you struggling with? As crazy as this may sound, you could ensure you know certain elements of the Quantitative section with certainty and virtually abandon some of it (for instance, I missed all 5 geometry questions, lol). My math preparation was perfunctory, really - I did a general overview of everything and should've just tried to master certain portions. Although you're taking it on August 6th, so the revised GRE may not lend itself well to that strategy. Or maybe that strategy is completely idiotic in the first place. I'm not quite sure. Stay confident, and keep us updated.

I don't think anything is directed at you, rather the people who create an account to post "I have a 3.5, a 1200 GRE. Recommend me schools and tell me if I'll get in." I went back and re-read your post and it's significantly different, with many useful and relevant details, and a tone that's actually receptive to input. You didn't expect others to do all the work for you, and magically assess if you'll get accepted. In regards to the posts that Strangefox is referring to: there's no contribution from the topic-starters afterward, there's no sign of prior research into programs and POIs - there's generally no appreciation, either. We're all nervous about our chances - my first post was about my GRE score. But if you keep your concerns and questions focused and legitimate, there's no reason this community won't be happy to help. Nothing is absolute. This process isn't as predictable as we'd like, and consequently nobody can provide a perfect answer. This isn't a law school admissions forum, where we could utilize a formula with reasonable accuracy. There are way too many variables, and would-be "Chances" posters would be wise to absorb Strangefox's advice.

BTW, I just did a quick review of some M.A. Economics programs and here are the corresponding numbers provided by each department: From Duke: The mean GRE is about 795 quantitative and 525 verbal. From NYU: GRE Quantitative and Writing scores > 80th percentile (@ 750 for quantitative, @ 5.0 for Writing) GRE Verbal > 50th percentile (@500) From BU: For those entering the master’s programs, we like to see performance in the upper 75th percentile in the quantitative and analytical portions of the exam. And keep in mind, those aren't minimums, those are recommendations based on strong applicants and actual admitted students. You've got nothing to worry about.

My verbal and AWA scores were the same as yours - and your quantitative score also appears to be in the 84th percentile. So, presumably, you're in the 84th percentile across the board - I'd venture to say that's a very good showing for MA or MPP programs. If you were pursuing admission into PhD programs, I'd probably advise you to re-take to get close to 800 Q, as gellert suggested. Ultimately it's your decision (and time, and money). I don't think you'll be at any disadvantage whatsoever with your current scores. Raising your AWA to a 6 is difficult because the scoring system is stochastic and a little bizarre; it's also the section of the exam that is given the least weight by admissions committees. Additionally, you'd only have three weeks from tomorrow to re-take. That amount of time may not be conducive to raising your scores significantly enough to warrant a re-take. You did quite well the first time around, so my advice would be to relax and worry about the other components of your application.

Good observation. I had forgotten that the OP mentioned an upward trend in GPA ("improved every semester"). That could be useful, particularly since you'd be able to convey to adcomms that it reflects your abilities right now.

I bought my flip phone back in 2005 and still have it. Crazy, I know. However, it's definitely showing its age now (shutting off randomly during calls) and I need to upgrade. T-Mobile is making things difficult - my upgrade options suck for some reason and it seems every smartphone requires a data plan. Anyone upgrade their phone recently? All I want is something simple and I'm not looking to spend money on the upgrade, nor do I think I should have to.

First, you shouldn't automatically downplay your major - philosophy is difficult and that may warrant some consideration when the adcomms are reviewing your grades. However, as Eigen said, you'll be hard-pressed to defend a 2.65 GPA. For someone in your position, taking the GRE would absolutely be worthwhile. You'll need to perform very well on it to compensate for your GPA and demonstrate, by at least one measure, that you're academically capable of graduate studies. While applicants with GPAs that align closely to program averages won't need spectacular GRE scores, you certainly will. Unfortunately, even if you do secure 2 additional LORs that are fantastic and score highly on the GRE, I doubt you'll be a serious candidate at the schools you listed. Extracurriculars don't matter too much in grad school admissions, so while you offer a fair amount of them, it likely won't affect your chances. I'd do what Eigen suggested: aim for mid-tier schools. It appears that the Divinity programs at Harvard and Yale don't emphasize GPA and GRE to a huge extent, but it still may be an insurmountable hurdle. If you wish, you can certainly apply to a couple "reach" schools; that's contingent on applying to mid-tier ones that offer a much higher chance of admission, though.

You've obviously done your research and grasp what's expected of serious candidates at excellent programs. For now, I would advise you to simply continue to concentrate on GRE preparation; the prerequisite courses are a great idea, and conceivably a better way to demonstrate that your quantitative skills are sufficient for the programs (unlike geometry without context), but don't let your confidence waver before you've taken the test. Taking the prerequisite courses to mitigate an inadequate quantitative score shouldn't pervade your thoughts while you're sitting in front of that computer screen trying to score as high as possible. However, if indeed your Q score is poor, then by all means look into the courses. I'd contact your programs of choice and blatantly describe your situation and ask for their input. For instance, I agree with you: doing well in actual coursework applicable to future graduate studies should lessen the impact of your score, but the admissions committee may feel differently. I also tend to think that spending your fall preparing a re-take - in the midst of writing your SOP, securing LORs, and everything else that applying to grad school entails - could be a poor use of your time. In addition, the scores will not be sent as quickly and you may endure some stress regarding deadlines (ETS isn't the quickest or most reliable). Stay positive for the moment and perhaps explore different strategies. Since you understand the material, you may just need a good tactic or two to feel comfortable and then your score will better represent you. Three weeks is a significant amount of time. Good luck, and keep us updated!

Seriously, while I admire your self-effacing tone, you need to consider Stanford as a top option and not merely a reach. Even based on the quantitative factors alone, you're in a great position for consideration. From the department's website: Admitted students typically have GRE scores of 700+ on both the Verbal and Quantitative sections, and a score of 5.5 in the Analytical section. Admitted students typically have a GPA of at least 3.8 in their previous studies. I'll echo what lyonessrampant and hbgrad said: Ensure that your writing sample and SOP are strong and reflect your excellent credentials. If I were you, I'd revisit your list of potential schools and aim higher. There's no conceivable reason you should be applying to safety schools - apply to the best schools that align with your research interests. Actually, you should ask around, or do some online research, to find the absolute best programs in political psychology and political communication. Then, if need be, cull the less desirable ones in terms of faculty fit and make sure their admissions standards aren't beyond your reach (and I'd be shocked if you encounter any problems in that regard). Obviously you've narrowed down your choices and done a good amount of searching already; however, you should operate under the assumption you'll be a good candidate for virtually any program and go from there. You've clearly worked very hard to achieve your academic record, and that puts you in position to seek admission at top-tier schools, even in a competitive field. You even seem to possess some clarity about the areas of study you wish to pursue, which will help immeasurably when composing your SOP. Overall, you'll be an impressive and focused applicant - please keep us updated. If you feel generous enough to make a donation, I'd appreciate one to the Animal Welfare Institute.

Thanks for the response - everything you said makes a lot of sense. Basically, for those applying for an MA, one DWIC letter (especially if it's specific and complimentary) shouldn't be a big deal. But if you're pursuing a research-heavy PhD, any semblance of a DWIC letter would be a red flag. And I'd still like to get some opinions on the LOR I have a copy of to assess its usefulness. If anyone's interested, just send me a PM.

Agreed. Not to be rude, but we all offered helpful responses and it seems the OP was only concerned with funding estimates... which are nearly impossible to predict with any certainty (especially at the elite programs).

Unfortunately, it seems that a lot of admissions committees use them to cull the 'weak' applications (but you're right, there are a lot of conflicting reports; I don't think we'll ever know for sure). In any case, an 1120 shouldn't be a huge issue - a 950 or something similar would be a completely different story. It just wouldn't make any sense if your 3.97, PBK, field experience, and publication can't offset an underwhelming, but not irreparably bad, GRE score. You're not an applicant who needs to use the GRE as a selling point of your academic ability - your other credentials are excellent so all you'd conceivably need to do is get past the threshold.

Your credentials in literally every other area look outstanding, so the importance of the GRE in your particular application will likely be small. However, given that you're aiming for top-tier schools, there may be a minimum threshold in place. (It might be 1100, but there's no distinct way to know unless there's explicit information detailing how each department considers the GRE). I tried looking for average scores for the Harvard program and found nothing. Perhaps you could e-mail the admissions department - without disclosing your scores - and simply ask if they have a minimum requirement for GRE scores and/or if they can provide numbers for their admitted/incoming students. Your score as-is may factor you out of consideration for fellowships and scholarships. That's why it would be especially valuable to see the scores of other applicants and incoming students. Find out where you stand, if possible, and then assess if you'll be able to still receive serious consideration. If not, you may have to face the annoying possibility of re-taking the test to ensure you're not passed over in the first stage of review.

That's directly from the admissions info regarding the MPP at HKS. Your scores are excellent by any measure, and you should be in good shape to compete for scholarships at the three programs you listed. Since your verbal is 670, it must be around the 95th percentile; for a non-English or Philosophy candidate, you're definitely in elite company. My advice would be to celebrate your score and work on the other components of your application.

The general consensus seems to be that 'did-well-in-class' letters are underwhelming and to be avoided, if possible. However, what are the actual components of a DWIC LOR? If the professor simply refers to your grade and doesn't provide useful details - possibly because they don't remember you, and are only prompted by the grade - then it's clearly not a strong letter. Is there any exception? For PhD applicants, I imagine a DWIC letter would be a death knell given the inability to speak on research potential, but is it more acceptable for Masters applicants (if appropriately detailed and laudatory)? Additionally, would anyone be receptive to looking over a letter of recommendation that may fall under the DWIC category? I'd really appreciate any insight into whether or not it'd be a viable option as a LOR; it's an actual copy of the letter provided to the student with all names and affiliations blurred out. Let me know.

If you're satisfied with your quant estimates, what's wrong with your verbal? For instance, a 750 Q is approximately the 82nd percentile, while a 590 V is actually the 84th percentile. However, if you're absolutely determined to reach a higher mark on the verbal section - I'd definitely recommend studying roots and word components at this stage, while still tackling a bit of word memorization. Just try to prepare yourself for any word that may appear (and in my experience, the words you studied so intensely won't show up on the test). The easiest way to do that is to be comfortable with the roots and prefixes and so forth. Just out of curiosity, what programs are you applying to? Is there a particular reason that you've set a threshold for what you'd like to get on the verbal section?

I don't think you'll encounter any problems. The top programs - I'm applying to those 4, as well as Michigan SNRE - all have similar stats in terms of admitted students (3.5 GPA and 1200+ GRE). Your GPA exceeds that and I imagine you'll do well enough on the GRE. You'll be able to parlay your experience into serious consideration, even if it's not directly related to environmental policy (after all, it's difficult to find "experience" for our field before grad school anyway, especially if your undergrad education doesn't match perfectly). The one minor deficiency may be a lack of undergraduate course work in policy and/or political science courses. I doubt it'll affect your application much, however; write an excellent and focused SOP and that should allay any concerns the admissions committees may have about your knowledge regarding policy. Fortunately, environmental policy is interdisciplinary by nature, as are the programs themselves. Your majors seem to provide a thorough foundation for the science elements of graduate coursework, which will be a bonus. Keep us updated on the GRE - when are you taking it? My score wasn't "exceptional" (1240; 85th percentile on the verbal and 60th on the quant) - I took it during finals week on the designated study day after preparing for it during the semester, not during the summer like a lot of people. However, it's still very good and generally if you cross the 1200 barrier you'll be competitive for admission and some fellowships.

Given those specifics, 2 LORs from the Fed may be a good idea. Your boss is notable, but also knows you personally, so that should quell any concerns about the esteemed letter writer who doesn't actually know the student. You're the applicant, and obviously you have the clearest view of what your application should convey to the programs you're applying to. Do what you feel is best. Your experience with the Fed is clearly valuable (and recent, to speak of your current abilities) - use it to your advantage if you feel it'll give you 2 great LORs!

Agreed. You'll want to avoid all 3 LORs being from the Fed given the lack of academic connection - and perhaps it could inadvertently signal to the admissions committee that you sought names and titles rather than people who can truly assess your potential as a graduate student. Do exactly what lyoness suggested when you contact your professor - make it easy and provide some reminders and prior work. They'll probably remember you in a meaningful way after that, and you'll get a valuable letter that's grounded in academics. If you feel compelled, getting 2 LORs from the economists wouldn't be terrible, especially since you're contributing to research. Given your excellent stats and experience out of undergrad, your LORs don't need to be completely traditional. Just make sure they complement the goals you convey. No excuses not to get a letter from a professor, though: that should be your #1 priority, and you're well-equipped to figure it out given that it's only June. Good luck!

That was an oversight on my part, regarding how the U.S. News rankings operate. I had literally just looked at them yesterday. And actually, they have a category for graduate schools in Environmental Policy and Management (I'd assume the name should encompass virtually all programs). The list is a poor one, so I doubt anyone pays much credence to it. I hope not - some of the programs on there no longer exist, some excellent ones are missing, and some random mediocre ones are present. Both ranking systems are problematic, but I've never really had any issues with NRC - at least you understand the methodology a bit and it's objective. I think the NRC rankings are predominantly PhD-based (?), so it does little to reliably rank Masters programs, though. But wouldn't you tend to agree that departments may skew their numbers toward reflecting the stats of their top-tier (and potentially early) admittees? It would add a sense of competition and prestige with no identifiable pitfall.

That is fascinating, and probably one of the most interesting things I've read about the admissions process. The practice makes some sense (and shouldn't be that surprising), but it's still a bit deceitful in my view. It's not inflating the numbers or wholly misrepresenting their incoming classes, however it doesn't offer a true illustration of every student admitted into the program. Those numbers, if the department decides to release them, should offer a realistic portrayal of their typical student; if you get admitted during the normal period of review (January-March, as you said), you're worthy of representation, right? Regarding perceived reputation and actual value to a student, and value as a degree: one of my undergrad professors told me to follow the funding and the fit. Prestige is a necessary consideration but ultimately it shouldn't be what dictates where you go. Rankings based on numbers alone are inherently misleading and I've found, for my field, that a few of the best and most reputable programs (at excellent schools, no less) aren't on the U.S. News list. If you ask around or look at employment data, it's a much different story - and much more relevant.

Very interesting. I wonder if some departments post "recommended" numbers (usually rounded) to dissuade potential applicants despite not explicitly stating there's a threshold. It's one thing to have an absolute minimum of 3.0 and, say, 1000; it would seem another thing entirely to state "Our most competitive applicants have a GPA of at least 3.2 and a combined GRE score of at least 1150." If you've got a 3.1 and 1120, your application may get culled in the first steps of the process, even though you've satisfied the explicitly-stated minimums for the graduate school itself. Seems like you can never know for sure. Fortunately, most of the programs I'm interested in provide averages/medians. (Most programs in all fields seem to recognize that people are going to ask for those numbers anyway). Duke only provides PhD numbers, though - useful, but not particularly so for Masters applicants! I inquired about those stats a couple of days ago, so we'll see. The common refrain really appears to be that quantitative components can only get you so far. And averages are still only averages - it might be more helpful if programs provided ranges. Someone with a 3.5/1170 who wrote an excellent SOP and appears to be a perfect fit would likely be accepted over someone with a 3.7/1250, mediocre SOP, and questionable fit.