3221

Prof. Monteiro's site is great. Heed his advice.

I would strongly advise shooting for between 8-12 (maybe more if you can afford it). In my opinion, the more schools you apply to, the more you are able to maximize your chances. It is important to keep in mind that different committees are composed of different members and every application requires different materials. This variability can allow for a wide range in how competitive an admissions committee perceives your application to be. Things I am glad I did: 1) Study for the GRE (though I presume you already did this as you are in a masters program). I studied almost excusively for the quant section and I think it is by far the most important part of the exam. You do not want your GRE scores to hold you back. 2) Get as many people to read your SOP as possible. I think this was the strongest part of my application and I really benefited from the advice given by several professors. Also, have someone else (beside a prof.) read your SOP before you do your final submission. I submitted a SOP with a typo in it to three schools. Not sure if it mattered, but you really do not want something so trivial to keep you out. 3) Apply to a lot of schools. See my note above for this.

Hey guys, Here are responses by the Realist about various programs on a thread from last year (I think). Hope it is hopeful to get a little insider knowledge. Here is a link to the thread: "Harvard: big, disorganized department with faculty all over the place in their little centers and programs. Amazing resources but can be hard to get noticed. Their best grad students are among the best in the discipline. The middle- or low-level ones disappear. If you are going to be a superstar this is the best bet. Cambridge is by far the coolest place among the four. Yale: smaller, much more organized. Currently experiencing something of a battle between people who believe that the most important thing is to be absolutely sure that your statistical estimates are correct and people who believe that the most important thing is to be interesting, original, and theoretically sophisticated, regardless of how you study what you study. Placement has been a problem in the past decade, at least relative to expectations and history. New Haven is obviously worse than Cambridge. Princeton: larger than Yale if I am not mistaken. Some great students and the formal-quantitative pipeline has now been activated (check out this year's placement record). Many of the most arrogant professors in the discipline are here. Princeton is much, much less cool than either Cambridge or New Haven. Stanford: smallest, most focused, arguably the best training. Placement is amazing, especially in comparative/IR. Palo Alto is sunny and warm when the East Coast is freezing and cloudy, but you will be a graduate student in a social science, so you are not the top of the social food chain. Nice place to live, but not cool like Cambridge. Berkeley: is a big department that has a big-tent approach to political science. There are lots of people here who do their own thing. Traditionally it has not been a place to go if you want to be on the cutting edge methodologically, but its best students are absolutely the most interesting and theoretically sophisticated students out there. Placement can be a problem for Berkeley students unless they can demonstrate that they are not head-in-the-clouds types. Funding may be a problem for future cohorts, but I don't know. I worry about the future of the UC system, especially its ability to retain junior and new associate faculty given the absurd housing prices in the Bay area. But if you've ever walked through downtown Berkeley, you know how phenomenally cool that place is. Michigan: is also a big department, but traditionally it has had much more of a normal science approach to how we study politics. This can be very good, but it can also encourage narrow and uninteresting work, and placement suffers accordingly. Interestingly, it's the opposite of the Berkeley placement problem. (This is not necessarily true for theory, which I do not know about.) Funding is not likely to be a problem for Michigan grad students, nor for the department, due to the way that Michigan finances higher education. I quite like Ann Arbor and you can live high on the hog there on a grad student stipend. But it's no Berkeley. Chicago: is difficult for me to describe. It has experienced a wrenching departmental divide between the big-tent all-inclusive model and a narrower heterodox vision of what political science should be. The latter group has prevailed, and it is on a mission to stake a claim for that tradition within American political science departments. It's not clear that all of the graduate students whom they admit agree with this, or even understand it. Chicago has hemorrhaged faculty, especially in comparative. Chicago faculty are not necessarily arrogant but many of them are just obnoxious. Placement historically has been great, but I get the nagging sense that many of these placements were advised by faculty who are no longer there (again, especially in comparative). Chicago is great if you like Italian beef, the Cubbies, and livable major cities. Columbia and NYU I know less about. Here's what I do know: NYU is a bastion of positivism--economics-style political science research is the priority. Very close mentorship of students, but high variance in placement. Columbia is more of a standard department with a broad interests; nothing jumps out to me about it. There's a certain cachet about NYU and Columbia grad student life that many people like. Don't know anything about funding in either. MIT: is a medium-sized department with a bit of a divided personality. On one hand, recent hires at both the junior and senior level have been very methodologically advanced, at the cutting edge of contemporary political science research. On the other hand, they have this security studies identity as well, which is much more old-fashioned. I'm not sure if these people have a problem with one another, but in my experience at other places, both camps believe that what the other does is garbage. Placement from MIT is pretty good, but the standard accusation is that the quantoids are boring while the security studies people are hopelessly unscientific. MIT's in Cambridge, so it's a great grad student/young professional scene. UCLA: is a big department in a sprawling city. They train lots of grad students well, but they are a such a big department that many people get lost. Not much of a departmental culture of coming into the office for most faculty, although some do. The strength is comparative, and they used to have a security studies identity in IR, not sure how strong that is anymore. UCLA has a tough time retaining faculty because of all of the problems that Berkeley has, plus UCLA is a step down on the rankings latter so they lose people to better departments even if they don't care about housing prices or public university problems. LA is fantastic if you like LA, and if you don't, well, get used to sitting on the bus or waiting in traffic, because you'll do a lot of it. UCSD: is a smaller department, one with a strong departmental identity (contrast to UCLA) and a good placement record. They are very focused on contemporary political science so if you have heterodox interests this isn't a great place for you. All of the housing/COL/public uni problems of UCLA also show up at UCSD. UCSD faculty will tell you that the departures of Cox, McCubbins, and Poole isn't a huge loss, but it is...it's unclear how these guys could ever be replaced. Beware, many of the best faculty that you know are actually in the policy school (Gourevitch, Haggard, some others). My understanding is that La Jolla has pleasant weather all of the time, but I don't know if students get to live in La Jolla or have to live somewhere else. Some of the faculty surf before work, really."

I have rejected funded offers from UCLA, Wisconsin-Madison, and Ohio State. Good luck to those on the waitlist!

Harvard's offer is: years one through four: 24,500 summer research award for four summers: 4900 dissertation completion year: 24,500 years three and four assume teaching two classes a semester

I took stats as an undergrad and after graduating I took courses in calc and linear algeba. At most of the schools I got into the faculty most interested in my application did quant oriented work and I think they were a big reason for my admission into several programs.

Did all rejections from Yale go out at once? I have still not heard anything by am assuming it is a rejection.

PROFILE: Type of Undergrad Institution: research university Major(s)/Minor(s): Political Science Undergrad GPA: 3.75 Type of Grad: n/a Grad GPA: n/a GRE: 650 V 800 Q 5 AW Any Special Courses: took a couple math classes after graduating Letters of Recommendation: had a close relationship with all of them and I assume they were very strong Research Experience: thesis, independent research paper, research assistant Teaching Experience: english teacher abroad Subfield/Research Interests: IR/CP Other: RESULTS: Acceptances($$ or no $$): UCSD, UCLA, Wisconsin-Madison, Harvard, Ohio State (all $$) Waitlists: Princeton Rejections: Stanford, Berkeley, Chicago, Columbia, MIT, Duke Pending: Yale Going to: Advice: Waiting a year or two between undergrad and applying really helped me. During this time I lived abroad and learned a new language, took math classes to show I could do quant work, and worked as a research assistant for a professor at a top ten. I think these extra things allowed me to show that I was committed to pursuing graduate studies and willing to put in as much work as needed to succeed. At the start of this cycle I thought I had a general idea of where I would get in and where I wouldn't (based on personal connections, etc). My predictions were only somewhat accurate. I think fit is important to your success but some of the schools I thought I had the best chances/fit I was rejected from. Given this, I think that the best way to improve your chances of admission is to to make every little piece of your profile the best it can be. Finally, I would strongly suggest applying to a lot of schools. As you can see by my results, I was only accepted to one or two schools in each ranking bracket. If I had been more limited in the schools I applied to, I might not have shelled out the extra money to apply to Harvard or UCSD, and I might not have been accepted to any schools in the top ten. Good luck to everyone in future years!

Also waitlisted at Princeton for Comparative/IR.

MIT email sent me to website. Rejection there.

Recieved an email from a POI at Ohio State. Note: this was not an acceptance but an email saying that the POI had reviewed my file and was very interested in my work, etc.

great advice and thank you. i look forward to this application season.