Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About northstar22

  • Rank
    Espresso Shot

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Interests
    Professional: political science, comparative political economy, international political economy, welfare states, immigration, Marxist theory, political methodology

    Personal: writing, fishing, hiking, spending time with friends and family.
  • Application Season
    Not Applicable
  • Program
    Ph.D in Political Science

Recent Profile Visitors

2,125 profile views
  1. I took the test on 10/19 -- received scores on 11/11 V 165 (96%) (good enough) Q 149 (49%) (bad but not terrible) AW 3.5 (29%) (I am honestly shocked at this score . . . I expected at least a 5). Looks like a retest is in my future.
  2. I know I worry too much . . . I apologize. I am a perfectionist. Anyway, I know quant is really important for poli. sci., and I'm just not sure that 49th percentile will cut it . . . not that the GRE is the only thing in my application, of course. I've heard that most programs don't place much weight on the analytical writing score, but that they look for applicants with scores at or above 4. Oh well, there's not much I can do at this point but apply and see what happens.
  3. And they are atrocious. My verbal score was in the 96th percentile, so not bad at all. However, my quantitative score was in the 49th percentile (terrible), and my analytical writing score was in the 29th percentile (atrocious). Here are my (new format scores): V: 165 Q: 149 A: 3.5 Do you guys think I have ANY chance at getting into a political science PhD program? The other aspects of my application are good (3.46 undergrad GPA, 3.8 GPA in my last 60 UG credits, relevant MA). I'm a terrible test-taker, especially on these standardized tests. I know I can rule out top-25 programs with those scores, but would I be competitive at any school (even sub-100 ranked programs)? Would retaking the GRE help my application at all from an admissions standpoint? Would adcoms overlook these results if I scored significantly better on a later test?
  4. I think this discussion is over. Thanks for you guys' input, I appreciate it.
  5. I've thought about that, to be honest. I'm pretty sure I want to stick with political science, though, because the questions I'm looking to answer fit best within the field. I'm not married to critical theory, it's just one aspect that I'm looking for in a program. I certainly want to incorporate political theory/philospohy into my program as a secondary area of focus, but I'm avoiding it as a primary area because of the dismal job prospects for political theorists. I'm flexible on the geography front (I'm open to schools any small- to mid-sized town in Canada, the Northeast, the Midwest, or the West), but there are some compromises I'm just not willing to make. Living in NYC, Toronto, or Chicago is one of them, living in the South is another. I'm prepared to endure the consequences, whatever it may be, of my decision. Plus, I'm looking to teach at a small Midwestern (or Prairie Canadian) university after graduation. It doesn't need to be an R1 or a top-25 program . . . I'd be happy at a second- or third-tier university or even a SLAC. Rochester is on my reaches list because of their strength in quantitative research methods. Michigan is on the list because of overall program strength and location. Most of the Big Ten schools are on my list for their location. Location is definitely one of the most important factors in choosing a school for me. I know that is unorthodox (some would call it stupid), but it is what it is. Some people are of the mindset of being able to live anywhere, but that's not me.
  6. York is not on my list because of its Toronto location. Yes and no. I said I was considering in specializing in it, but decided not to because I didn't feel like I had a strong enough background in calculus. I'm still looking for a program that offers strong training in quantitative methods.
  7. Gardner Bovingdon. I'm not picking a narrow field, my area of specialization is one of the most common in political science. I'm flexible on academic dimensions . . . I don't NEED a Marxist / critical program, I would just prefer one. Geography is the most inflexible for me . . . I'm not willing to live somewhere I hate for six years.
  8. Thanks for the info. I don't want to move overseas, so I only plan to apply to US/Canadian institutions. The New School isn't for me because of its location. I'm a small town Midwest guy, so anything in NYC is definitely out. UMass-Amherst will have to go on my list. It's a school that was really never on my radar (I'm focused mostly on Midwest/Manitoba/Ontario schools), but I've always been impressed with Amherst (the town, not the university). I don't think I'm top 5 material, unfortunately. I'd love to go to Michigan, but I would almost certainly not get in. Unfortunately for me, most of the other Big Ten schools lean right. Indiana has one critical scholar, IIRC. This was what I was afraid of, but I may have to look outside of my geographic area. I really don't think I would be a good fit in a predominately conservative / neoliberal program.
  9. Are there any political science programs out there that emphasize Marxist or critical analysis, or at least have a few professors that specialize in those areas? So far, of most of the programs that I have looked at, all have capitalist / neoliberal leanings and tend to emphasize rational choice theory.
  10. I'm sorry for being overly vehement. For me, it's hard to remain academic and unemotional on this issue because it is something that I am deeply passionate about.
  11. Would adcoms really not admit someone because of their political views? Doesn't that violate some sort of law?
  12. I cannot believe how right-leaning this forum is. You would think that graduate students and future academics would be intelligent enough to see through the propaganda and lies spewed by the mainstream media, Michael Savage, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and the other neocon corporatist hacks. The OWS protesters are doing what we should have done years ago -- standing up for our rights against the corrupt, crony-capitalist, oligarchic politicians and their masters, the super-wealthy individuals and the multinational corporations. The "Tea Party" and the conservatives are not for you and me, they are for the richest and most powerful people in this country, and they are more than willing to destroy your livelihood (and the livelihoods of your families, friends, and communities) in order to make themselves a few pennies richer. They don't care about you, they care about feeding their maniacal avarice and ravenous appetite for more money and power. The OWS movement is finally getting our politicians to take notice of the 99% who don't fall into the wealthy class, and you guys are posting in support of the gun-toting, religion-deluded, ignorant, uneducated, greedy, corporatist, brainwashed right-wing teabagger nutjobs who are sucking you and me dry and are contributing to the downfall of this nation and this planet. As for capitalism, it is an inherently corrupt economic system that must go in order for financial justice to exist. Under a "liberal" trade structure and capitalistic economy, the wealth gap between the rich and poor is destined to grow, with the fat cats becoming fatter, the middle class becoming poor, and the poor becoming destitute. Eventually, if left unchecked, you end up with an enormous, destitute peasant class who has nothing and a very small class of fabulously wealthy elites. Basically, you return to the feudalism of the dark ages. Capitalism must go in order for our society to move forward. Democratic socialism is the only option for a just society.
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.