IRToni

Bush School is Public Policy, isn't it? If so, take a look at the Government Affairs forum, the Political Science forum is mostly for academic programs (PhD, MPhil etc.)

I agree on taking the official reported scores with a grain of salt, but why shouldn't Stanford have admitted someone with 155 for their PhD? While Stanford (in IR) is quite methods-heavy, it is a full department, and also has theory peeps. I can imagine that for theory, a quant of 155 is enough, all else being an outstanding application. I agree that 155Q/166V don't seem to fit together, though. From what I hear, getting >90 on both is ideal, making sure that GRE scores are not used to keep you out. Getting more is nice, but a perfect GRE won't get you into a school, if they don't like your application. Also note that restrictions for non-native speakers (for V and W) tend to be lower, and having good grades in quant-heavy classes can counter a "lower" quant score.

I'd say, for China's foreign relations, Singapore (especially Nanyang Technological University) is one of the best places (if not the best place) to be in Asia. NUS is pretty good as well, but they tend to focus more on domestic political economy issues.

I agree with Corvus. I am interested in Political Economy, and also quantitative methods/game theory etc. That means I have taken and continue to take methods classes in Econ, which are very rewarding. My school is pretty bad on stats for political scientists, so I'm taking the MA/PhD-level Econometrics sequence. I also took a Game theory class in undergrad in Econ (in addition to micro and macro), took a GT for PS class last semester, focusing on us writing our own research papers using Game Theory, and will take a more technical class on "Information Economics" in the Econ department next semester. I am in a European M.A. though, where classes in other departments are par for the course (compulsory), and the assignment of classes to departments is somewhat random, so I also took "history" classes that were basically Poli Sci.

I have friends studying in both HK and Singapore, and most of them left me the impression that HK is better if (1) you wanna study in English and (2) you wanna do stuff about mainland China (henceforth "China"). A friend of mine just finished his MA in Chinese in Taiwan, and while it was a great experience for him, he mentioned that he did not get an impartial view on China at all. While mainland is "rose-colored classes", he thought that his Taiwanese teachers spent a lot of time explaining why TW is better than China. Of course, that's just anecdotal evidence, but also something I heard. HK has some pretty good universities, and still has freedom of speech. However, it recently looks like BJ wants to take control, so spending 4/5 years there and hoping it stays the way it is might be risky.

Where do you want to end up? In academia? From what I understand, for academia, doing your PhD in Asia is very difficult (i.e. getting your PhD from an Asian institution). As someone working on Asia myself, I did consider doing a PhD in Asia, but it seemed like if anything, NUS in Singapore is the only school where you have a realistic chance for getting an academic job outside of Asia, and even they have mostly US-educated peeps on their faculty. Did you look into joint programs/the possibility of doing research years in China/India? I met a guy from GWU while in China, and know of at least one program in Germany that explicitly has 1 year Germany, 1 year China, co-supervision. I also believe that doing a PhD at a Chinese university is even more difficult than at an Indian uni, bc of censorship, which is real. An acquaintance of mine had to write two M.A. thesis, because the first one did not pass the censorship. For India-China, where Tibet is likely to play a role, that could be a real concern. Even if it isn't a concern for your research, it'll likely be a concern for people seeing your diploma. Fudan is amazing for IR, but (1) censorship happens even there, and (2) most of my friends doing English-language programs were quite disappointed with them, since the quality of education/supervision etc. was not what they expected.

All good tips so far. On the practical side: If you have trouble with the written portion, try working on that especially. If you're learning a non-alphabetic language (Chinese, parts of Japanese), try out different systems for learning the characters/studying. It took me about a month until I understood what the problem was with my character-learning. Since I'm not a visual type at all, I had tons of trouble with the typical "story" approach, because it relies on visual recognition and visual imagination. On the other hand, I was very successful with a story-approach based on "roots" and muscle memory. People learn differently. If you know how you learn, you can devise your own study plan. If you're learning an aphabetic language with a different alphabet (Hindi, Arabic), try to get the alphabet down so you can literally write it in your sleep. Make sure not to learn only the individual letters, but focus on how they get together. A good approach, I found, is to write out syllables and form "words" with them. They don't have to make sense, just WRITE WRITE WRITE, and not the letters in isolation, but connected. If you're learning a language using the latin alphabet, try finding out why the written portion gives you such trouble. Do you have trouble connecting writing and pronunciation in your mind? If so, use the syllable-approach above, and try to think of it as learning a new alphabet, but with the same letters. Since the language you're learning is likely to have different sounds for the same letters than English (think, e.g. of English vs. French u), this is something that helped me tremendously. Otherwise, keep your chin up, realize that languages are hard to learn, and that people have different strengths and weaknesses. If everyone in your group already has some experience with the language, try not to compare yourself to them, but instead try to work on making progress, i.e. compare yourself to yourself a week ago. I, e.g. am someone who is pretty good with languages, but I just need my time. It happened to me more than once that I didn't get something in a language I was learning, and then, two weeks later, things just popped, and my ability grew leaps and bounds. Unfortunately (or fortunately), learning a language is no linear process!

I would also be up for swapping. I'll b applying for Political Science, and am really unsure about how personal to get.

Would taking out loans be enough to live on in the region? If so, I wouldn't give up just yet. Call your loan provider and tell them that it's urgent, if you call directly, they're often able to make sure things go through a sort-of sped-up process. In addition, try looking through craigslist etc. for sublents. Sometimes, a student will spend a semester abroad and sublet their place for just a couple of months, giving you the option of staying there until you find something permanent/can apply to uni housing. When will your relatives move? Depending on when they move, there might be the possibility of staying with them, and looking for a permanent place while there, which is bound to be easier than looking for a place from far away. I wouldn't give up just yet, try to get the process sped up, get some definitive answers, and look for private housing.

Do you not want our help? I think three people have now told you the exact same thing, and whoever you contacted that told you that the faculty will choose your topic was spitting bull. It's true that they don't expect you to come in knowing everything, but they do expect you to have some idea, and they know that it's likely to change/evolve. And no, it's not impossible to find universities with faculty focusing on Russia (in Political science), it would just require you to actually do some research yourself, which I believe should be possible. What I did is look through the top 25 unis in my subfield, and check whether they have someone on staff doing something in my substantial area of interest and in my regional area of interest. If not, they were discarded, if yes, they got onto some preliminary list that I'm then cutting down. I will be ignoring this post from now on, as I feel I'm just wasting my breath, and you don't really want to hear what we're saying.

If you wanna research Russia, you should have at least one faculty doing Russian/post-soviet countries, though they could also be in CP, I think. If you have a regional IR interest, it makes sense to have (at least) someone in IR who shares your substantive interests (e.g. Human Rights, Security, UN), and someone who shares your regional interests, has the language skills and connections you need. JMO, of course

I would say no. Rather, focus on one specific aspect of the relations, and then talk about how you want to explore it.

I would say it depends on where you want to end up, and what you'd like to do. Taking an advanced Stats class and getting a better grade would probably be worth it, I think, because it shows that you can do quant work, and that your C was only an abberation. Is the micro class an intermediate micro class?

@RWGB: Thanks. A lot of the programs you mentioned are definitely on my list (Berkeley instead of UCLA though, bc of my regional focus). Not Rochester either, bc they don't have so in my regional focus nor a real IPE person. My question was especially about the schools where both programs exist, i.e. Harvard, Stanford and UCSD, which one might be more appropriate, or more broadly, how to choose between two programs at the same school. Any more tips on that?

Dear all, so far, you've been a tremendous help, so I thought I would collect some more opinions/info about the interdisciplinary vs disciplinary PhD divide. My interests lie in Political Economy, where a number of schools offer specialized PhD programs (Harvard, Stanford, UCSD come to mind immediately), and I'm currently struggling with deciding where to apply. I'm currently doing a M.A. in Political Science, and many of the courses that I'm taking are comparable to PhD courses in the US (European M.A., where M.A. and PhD students take mostly the same classes - I also checked using some online syllabi from UCSD, many of them are very similar in terms of workload and content). My current interest is the foreign economic policy, especially the political economy of foreign investment from emerging countries. I definitely want to look at it from a focused political-economic POV, but also employ Game Theory and econometric analysis, so taking advanced Econ classes would be really beneficial to me. I also think that since I already have a M.A. in Political Science, getting a M.A. in Econ/Pol Econ might be useful, especially if academia doesn't work out. My language skills and topic can also translate into a good priivate sector career, and this might be a stepping stone. On the other hand, I would prefer to stay in academia/the Think tank world, and would, I think, prefer teaching Political Science/international affairs to teaching economics... My top program currently is the Princeton program, where I can do the Political Scince PhD with a major in Political Economy, and, I heard, also get an Econ master en route, assuming I take the appropriate coursework. NYU also has a designated field, which I like, but for UCSD, Harvard and Stanford, I'm struggling. At UCSD, my ideal supervisor is in the IR/PS school, but I heard they're allowed to supervise both. For Stanford, my POIs are mostly located in the PoliSci school, so I'm not sure. Harvard is pretty much an even split, and I just don't really see where to apply at these three schools. Thanks in advance, IRToni

Why don't you just tell him that you feel uncomfortable with him including your disability in the letter? I personally would say that it's a good thing if he brings it up in your LOR, because it speaks for you that you still managed to make it work, despite all the hardships. It doesn't take away anything from your achievements, but only makes them more impressive. I don't think it will hinder your chances, I think it might help them more. At the same time, I can understand if you don't want to come into a program and have everyone know about your disability off the bat, because that might make it uncomfortable for you! But yeah, talking to him is, I think, your best recourse.

I have a question about my SOP: I'm currently in the process of writing my first draft, and have heard/read that you don't wanna be too specific. Now, I'm pretty sure of what I want to study, and am also applying to Europe, where I have to hand in a detailed proposal. Should I then have my US SOPs be more general, or put exactly what I want to study in there?

If you're interested in health issues, you might consider the Graduate Institute in Geneva as well. With the WHO right here, we have a lot of people focusing on health, and also a really good gender program.

Are you looking at actual academic PhD programs or more at policy PhDs (like SAIS, Fletcher etc.)

I would say it depends on what you want to do, and how much you think you'll end up using Stats, aside from programming experience etc. STATA has a GUI, and is therefore usually easier to deal with as a beginner (and more similar to SPSS, I believe). The learning curve for R is, IMO, a lot more steep, and if you've never used programs without GUI, it might be harder to use. At the same time, STATA can be annoying exactly because of this issue, the GUI, I find, can get in the way, and using do-files doesn't necessarily help. If you're planning on using a lot of stats in your research, biting the bullet and learning R migt be worth it in the long run. Otherwise, STATA is, IMO, easier to learn.

GWU has David Shambaugh, who's a real expert. Also, it's an up-and-coming department, and due to their location, they regularly place people in think tanks.

In-text citations meaning Harvard (name and year in brackets)? If so, you can't leave out a reference page, since it's not at all clear (often, you'll have the same person writing two pieces in a year, or someone of the same surname writing a piece in the same year). Using footnote citations means you can leave out a reference page, I would say.

TBH, when reading your post, it sounds like you want to go to GWU, but are a little torn because you now got into Fletcher. It doesn't sound like you actually wanna go to Fletcher, but more like "I got in, so I should at least think about it", maybe mixed with the idea that Fletcher's prestige is higher. If that actually is true, I say take GWU and don't look back. It's an amazing school with much more of an emphasis on interning during the semester than Fletcher, by all accounts.

I'd say any essay with 15 to 25 pages usually includes a reference list/bibliography. Using footnotes instead of the traditional page at the end is, I think, possible. Otherwise, I usually singlespace my references, so they don't take up too much room.

UCSD for Asia-Pacific. Stanford also has someone doing China. Harvard of course! UC Berkely is quite big on China, UWisconsin as well (especially IPE). UTexas at Austin has someone with IR and Japan, which I believe is quite rare. Definitely echoing Princeton and Michigan as well! BUT: It also depends on your substantive interests and to some degree your ontological etc. priors. Cornell, last I checked, was quite post-positivist in most of the stuff they do, e.g.