northstar22
-
Posts
74 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by northstar22
-
-
dread locks
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
united airlines
-
I think this discussion is over. Thanks for you guys' input, I appreciate it.
-
A couple of things: first and most importantly, Marxist-critical approaches are not common in political science except in some parts of political theory. Are you sure you want to be in political science rather than another social science (sociology? anthro?) where they are more common?
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.
Second, if you want a decent chance at a teaching position somewhere you're willing to live for the rest of your career - which will last a LOT longer than six years - you would be well served to be flexible on the geography front.Fair enough, but remember that if you care about location, you need to optimize over your lifetime. What if moving to New York now for 6 years maximizes your chances of getting a job . . . ? You may or may not decide that is worth the cost if you hate NY, but you shouldn't rule it out without realizing the long term consequences.
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.
Third, your list of schools above doesn't make much sense to me. None of your reaches (as RWBG notes) are places that have a real concentration of people doing the kind of work you describe, nor do many of the big ten schools you list (to my knowledge).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.
-
After reading this thread, I am actually really confused about what it is you want to do. You have Rochester as your top "reach" school, Cornell as #4 (these two schools seem to have very little in common), but want to do critical theory? Not to mention, York isn't even on your list of Canadian schools you're considering?
York is not on my list because of its Toronto location.
Didn't you suggest in an earlier thread that you were considering specializing in political methodology?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.
-
"Indiana has one critical scholar, IIRC"
Which one?
Gardner Bovingdon.
You can't have it all ways. If you're picking a narrow field---and really taking a very strong stance not only on field but on the style of department you want---you can't say "oh my God the thought of living in <insert town here> makes me want to puke." I'd recommend a little more flexibility on both geographical and academic dimensions.
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.
-
Generally speaking, there are much more Canadian, British and continental European programs like that. I am applying for a few Canadian institutions as well, but not York. York seems purely Marxist if you check their faculty. McGill, Carleton, McMaster, and Waterloo are critical as well, but probably more comprehensive than York. I don't know much about schools in the UK, but you may want to check out Sussex.
Thanks for the info. I don't want to move overseas, so I only plan to apply to US/Canadian institutions.
The only two far-left wing American programs that I know are the New School in NYC and UMass-Amherst, but the New School does a terrible job in funding graduate students. Also, I have heard that you should be able to find all kinds of scholars at the very top programs (like top 5) in the US.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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Would adcoms really not admit someone because of their political views? Doesn't that violate some sort of law?
-
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.
-
Thanks for the information. I definitely want to avoid programs that have a practitioner (job training) focus. My master's program is like that, and it is just a really bad fit for me. I'll probably keep Kent State as a safety, but I'll look elsewhere.
-
Iowa: Requires 540 of the 1200 minimum come from verbal.
Purdue: receive a score of 600 or higher on the verbal section of the GRE. (listed on their grad school website). You should be competitive there.
Like other people have noted if the rest of your application is good, you should be competitive at quite a few programs. Don't rule something out just because one aspect of your application doesn't seem to par with their averages..
Thanks. I must have simply overlooked that information on Purdue's website.
-
What are the average scores listed for the schools that you wish to attend?
1) Michigan (my dream school) -- no averages, no listed minimums. Realistically, I probably have little to no chance of getting into Michigan.
2) Iowa (my first realistic choice) -- no averages, minimum 1200 combined.
3) Missouri -- no averages, minimum 1200 combined.
4) Southern Illinois -- no averages, minimum 1000 combined.
5) Northern Illinois -- no information on GRE scores.
6) Nebraska -- average combined score of 1100 with 4.0 analytical score -- I'd actually have an "above average" score there.
7) Illinois (Champaign-Urbana) -- no information on GRE scores.
8) Purdue -- no information on GRE scores.
9) Cornell -- no info on GRE scores, but I know I have basically no chance here.
10) Notre Dame -- average verbal 668, average quantitative 710, avg. analytical score of 5.0. I wouldn't be competitive.
-
I did study (both verbal and quant), but my study prep materials emphasized algebra and statistics more than geometry, so that's what I expected on the test. When I took the test, probably 50-60% of the math problems were geometry questions.
Also, a program "that fits me" is not necessarily a program that is ranked in the top 25. Factors like program focus, classes offered, faculty specializations, and location are more important to me than an arbitrary ranking. I'd actually prefer a smaller, lesser-known program to one of the top-10 pressure cookers.
-
You guys really don't think a 540-610 quant score is bad enough to warrant concern?
-
I'm much more quant than qual, which is why the low Q score worries me. I don't even know if it's possible to pursue my research interest from a qualitative methodology -- I'm sure it could be done, but it certainly isn't common. My actual grades in quantitative classes are high, so I don't think my GRE score is a true estimate of my mathematical abilities.
-
Not for 60 days at a minimum. Plus, the cost (both the $160 test fee and the 3 1/2 hour drive to the testing site) is too prohibitive for me.
-
I took the GRE today, and I absolutely flunked it. My preliminary scores were 540-610 on the quantitative portion and 710-800 on the verbal portion. I'm a master's student in political science, and I'm looking to get into a PhD program in the same. I guess that's not going to happen with those scores. I cannot believe I did so poorly . . . I'm usually very strong in math (algebra, statistics, etc.), but the GRE was really heavy on high-school geometry, stuff I haven't looked at in years (I wasn't even good at geometry in high school).
What do you guys think? Am I done, or do I still have a realistic shot at maybe a sub-50 program? The rest of my academic record looks really good . . . high GPA, good writing samples, solid LORs.
-
-
roman records
Keep A Word Drop A Word
in The Lobby
Posted
dead end