Otherworlder

Just declined MIT and Michigan. Both offers are fully funded and my subfield is comparative. Replied through email, though official forms might take a while to mail in. Will be going to Harvard in the fall. I think Michigan definitely has a waitlist? So good luck everyone!

I know Harvard visit is going on right now, so just wondering if anyone would like to share some scoop and thoughts? I am really sad I can't go.

A Masters from LSE is definitely worth a lot of salt and not just to PhD admissions committee. Have you thought about doing a masters and then get involved with government organizations, policy research, and think tank kind of stuff? If you are considering this route, I think definitely go with LSE. Though I personally wouldn't go to LSE just to try again at a top PhD program. It just seems to drag out an already too-long process, and the financial burden just seems too much.

I am not from Boston but from somewhere far colder (Canadian oil sands, cough), so I am looking forward to better weather all around . Thick waterproof snow boots should not be hard to come by. Boots are definitely necessary. However, a pair of good sturdy sneakers will also carry you a long way as long as the ground is not covered by a foot of snow. As for extra warm clothing, as mentioned, layering up is important. Also buy a padded jacket, down is probably the best, and get one that has a hood that can be fastened. You probably won't just get by with just a pair of jeans, especially if you are from Florida and not used to it. Get stockings (the thicker cotton ones, not the really thin nylon) and leggings (thick wool/woven cotton ones, not the jeggings), over knee socks, and have fun layering them up. Normally two layers is all you need; I tramp around in stockings, leggings and a skirt all the time in winter. One more layer of sweatpants and I can walk around for half hour in -40 weather. And the last thing is you most definitely need gloves, and you probably want thicker ones too. PS: I am sure most buildings in the northeast should be properly heated, which really makes everything better. I was in Bay Area CA for 4 years, and I hated winters there. The single biggest reason is that I didn't have heating in my apartment. And when it's only a few degrees above freezing, so foggy and damp, AND no heating indoor, it makes one miserable living environment. Unfortunately there is no fix for dampness and lack of sunshine......

Yeah fit can be difficult to define. Asking your professors and other PhD students is definitely a very good way to learn more about different programs and the potential fit for you. And of course you should look through every program's faculty list, find a few that have matching research interests with you, and then look at their recent publications. This will give you an idea of what their work is like, and you can then judge whether you would actually like working with them. I know one way that I really depended on to feel out the fit was how attractive I find the faculty.

I remember Stanford requiring some sort of diversity statement. I just threw something together really; it didn't seem overwhelmingly important to me. Somehow I can't remember Michigan asking for one at all >.<.......

I went to Berkeley for undergrad, and it truly wasn't so bad. The rent is a bit horrendous I admit. I split a one-bedroom apartment with two other girls, and that's the only way we kept the rent down. And it was a ratty old apartment, so definitely not the most comfortable living. My monthly expense was around $900. I had no car, but spent the savings there on eating out a lot (sigh). If you are truly frugal I think you can keep it under 700 with no car. Though I have heard that LA and Palo Alto are much, much worse.

Well, my cycle is pretty much over so here is my stuff. PROFILE: Type of Undergrad Institution: UC Berkeley Major(s)/Minor(s): Sociology/Economics (double major) Undergrad GPA: 3.91 (major GPA in both are actually a bit lower Type of Grad: N/A Grad GPA: N/A GRE: 800Q 800V 4.5AW Any Special Courses: nothing you won't expect for my major Letters of Recommendation: Senior Comparative/Political econ prof, newly tenured soc prof, specialization is on immigration, senior soc prof China expert Research Experience: One project on immigration, one project on the political economy of climate change, a couple conference presentation and "think-tank" type of publication (all co-authorship). Teaching Experience: None Subfield/Research Interests: Comparatives, legitimacy & regime change, China focus RESULTS: Acceptances($$ or no $$): University of Michigan, MIT, Harvard (all $) Waitlists: Rejections: Emory, Stanford, Princeton Pending: University of Washington, University of Toronto Going to: we'll see Just one thing I learned about this whole process: yes, it is true, fit matters, a LOT. For me, my top 3 choices are Harvard, Michigan and MIT, for specific faculties (more than one in each school) as well as their strength in comparative studies and Chinese issues. I admit my "back-up" schools are actually not that great of a fit for me. To be perfectly honest, I chose Emory for its overall ranking (hence what I judged to be "relatively easy to get into and still good") and fairly generous funding level. When I was looking over Emory's faculty list I thought that there isn't any prof who is a great fit for me, and it doesn't seem like the right place. But I applied anyway thinking it's a lower ranked school and hence the "back-up". Emory is my very first rejection, way before people are contacted for interviews and everything. I always thought that Harvard really is a great fit for me, probably the best, but didn't want say that, because.... well it's Harvard >.< But I think in the end the fit won. I actually screwed up my Harvard app a bit. It was the very first I submitted, and I didn't get any feedback on my CV at that point. After I submitted my file, one of my letter writers gave me a whole sheet of comments and fixes for my CV, saying that it's too short and didn't include everything, and I really need to use stronger words to describe my skills.... I think I lost hope then and there... But it worked out in the end. PS: two of my letter writers received their PhD at Harvard, and the other MIT. That might have been a factor. Now the SOP. This is the Harvard Version: “The empire, long divided, must unite; long united, must divide,” so begins my favorite book from childhood, the Chinese historical novel Romance of the Three Kingdoms. The crumpling of the ancient Han Empire and the emergence of new political forces described in the novel have long intrigued me. I was fascinated by the descriptions of good policies and failed ones, of rebellions and coups, and of the slow and painful transition to a new political order. Though the term “political science” was unfamiliar to me then, I was already pondering what makes a governing institution legitimate in the eyes of the governed and why once glorious empires disintegrate. These questions remain relevant for today’s China, since many uncertainties remain about the current communist government’s legitimacy and longevity. Growing up in post-reform China, I experienced much of the tremendous economic and social liberalizations first hand and wondered why political reform was not forthcoming. Max Weber famously theorized that a modern state claims legitimacy through its legality and rationality: that means equal applications of law, bureaucratic form of organization, and ultimately, democracy. Yet these features are mostly absent in China today. Does that mean the current Chinese government has no claim to sustainable legitimacy, or that it has established an alternative source of legitimacy that is less dependent on legality and democracy? How will the legitimacy question shape China’s political transition? How is China similar or different to other authoritarian countries that have undergone democratic transitions? These are the types of questions I plan to pursue in my graduate studies. Such questions will become increasingly important, as Chinese trade and diplomacy expand their reach and begin to influence how governments operate beyond China’s borders. Legitimacy is a difficult concept to define and to measure and it requires both quantitative and qualitative research tools to investigate thoroughly. Many empirical studies measure legitimacy either by surveying the opinions of the governed, or by measuring the government’s performance in areas like level of corruption, rule of law, or provision of public goods. In my future research, I plan to use both public opinions and governance performance indicators to create a composite measure of legitimacy, following the method Bruce Gilley has established in his multinational comparative study, The Right to Rule. These measures, especially the performance indicators, not only measure legitimacy, but may also in part explain legitimacy by showing institutional strengths and weaknesses. However, I do not think public opinion and performance data alone can explain fully whether an institution is legitimate and predict how it may change. Countries with similar political and economic conditions have often diverged to completely different fates, as shown by the wave of democratization (or lack thereof) after the collapse of the former Soviet Union. Notions of what is perceived to be a legitimate governing institution may provide another important piece of the explanation. Many social scientists have investigated how beliefs and ideas have influenced institutions and impacted social and political change. The Protestant work ethic can usher in capitalism, as Weber contends, or according to Huntington, cultural similarities and differences can push the world closer to a major “clash of civilizations”. Many studies about China have also investigated the importance of political values and their impact on institutional structure and behavior. I am especially attracted to Elizabeth Perry’s study which tracks the concept of “Mandate of Heaven” throughout Chinese history and shows how peasant rebellions and other challengers to existing regimes shaped their rhetoric and strategies around this idea. Her study provides a prime example for investigating the interchange between political ideas and rhetoric, institution, and political actions. Alastair I. Johnston’s book on Chinese strategic culture and its influence on security policies was also an inspiration for me; it provides another method for empirically investigating how ideas influence political institutions and choices. I am confident that my training in economics and sociology and research experience at UC Berkeley have prepared me well for the complex and daunting task of dissertation research. Coursework in sociology taught me the basic methods of social science research, including surveys and ethnography. My economics background gave me strong quantitative skills. I took calculus, linear algebra and econometrics and succeeded in all of these courses. I am comfortable with statistical analysis. I put all of these skills to practice at the Berkeley Roundtable of International Economy (BRIE), where I conducted research about the political and economic impact of global climate change. Under the guidance of John Zysman and in collaboration with several of his doctoral students, I produced a literature review of comparative green growth policies, which was presented at the Green Growth Leaders conference in Copenhagen in 2011. My experiences at BRIE further enhanced confidence in my ability to carry a research project from conceptualizing the research questions, to collecting and analyzing cross-national data, to drawing the lessons learned. I am deeply attracted to Harvard University’s Department of Government because of the presence of many faculty members who have produced insightful work on legitimacy and regime change. I am especially eager to work under the tutelage of Elizabeth Perry, since her research interests and expertise are a perfect match for the project I envision. I also hope to work with Alastair Johnston and Theda Skocpol, who both have produced influential works on Chinese politics. The strength of Harvard’s comparative politics program as well as the overall quality of research and education at Harvard are another strong draw. I am interested in many aspects of comparative politics, especially the diversity of national institutional structures and the ideas and values underpinning them. For example, why did American political institutions develop differently from those in Europe? What role has differing social values played? How do different institutional arrangements affect the formulation of economic policy? At Harvard, I will be able to find the people and the resources to help explore all of my interests and curiosities. Harvard is famed for being a meeting place of the world’s brightest minds, and I hope to be at such a meeting place, working alongside other young scholars whose intellectual pursuits may inspire and challenge my own.

Claiming the latest Harvard on results survey. Now my season is officially over. I am pretty sure I am not going to be accepted by U Washington, since it seems many acceptances have already gone out. Anyway if it happens it would make me 0/2 for my back-ups and 3/3 for my top three choices. >.< I think I learned my lesson: it really is the fit. Will share my SOP and stuff now that it's over for me. And best luck everyone who is still waiting!!

Thank you for asking and sharing this information!!! Though......Mid...... March......Wow they surely take their time.

Someone in results section said Harvard Government is all done by 19th? Anyone has any idea?

I listed her too, mostly because I thought her a good match in terms of research interest. And my thing is narrow too and I had a hard time finding people in a lot of schools. Well, for better or worse... BTW Balderdash what is your research interest?

Have to agree with Megan here; have heart and wait it out. I was rejected by my safety school too (and a first rejection too), even though high ranked programs have accepted me. And I am thinking my other safety is likely to be reject too since so many heard the good news... You never know what will happen. Best of luck!

Congrats to Bauhaus! And I am now officially a nervous wreck...............

Congrats!! What an impressive roster, lol. So I am guessing you are a theorist?

Just curious: would ye happy Stanford admits tell us your subfield and research area? I think I noticed a couple IR? Might be easier to gauge is they are truly "done" to see if all subfields are accounted for. Stanford staggering is killing me.

What a package, congrats!! And congrats to RWBG too! Claiming one more MIT admit for this board; I am quite exhilarated. It's my birthday today so I don't think I need any other present. The prof told me my package in the mail should arrive today, so I hope it is there and I get to see what the funding is like.

Great thread, RWBG! When I was applying the SOP thread really did help me and gave me lots of useful ideas. And all those already in PhD or teaching on this board were also very very helpful. I think I will come back to this post and write up something hopefully useful after all my decisions are in. I might be still to stuck in the situation to be rational and coherent presently, lol.

Congratulations everyone!! Lots of great news from people today.

Congrats!! I am torn between freaking out and crossing Stanford off the list, or sit tight and just wait until the official notice hits the inbox...

I must be one of the only to have NO idea when the decision dates are........Mostly because I am working right now and enjoying my life a bit that I don't even really want to think about going back to school (sigh). I sort of just threw it ALL aside when I finished applications, didn't even bother check decision dates. Assumed that they are in early march (like undergrad). Imagine the surprise when I opend an email today to see TWO decision emails, from Feb 2nd and 3rd respectively............ At least one of the surprises is good. I did get accepted by U Michigan, which was one of my top choices, and rejected by Emory, which was my back-up. Shrug.

I finished a draft of my SoP for a poli sci PhD program, and would love to have someone else look it over and offer some thoughts. I want to know if I am on the right track. I can also review your SoP and we can do some sort of exchange. I majored economics and sociology, with research experiences in poli sci, so I am familiar with social sciences stuff. For other things, at least I can check organization and grammar and such. PM me if you would be willing to look over a SoP or do some sort of exchange review.

I am just curious, are most people who apply to poli sci PhD programs poli sci major in their undergrad as well? I did my undergrad in econ and sociology, but want to go into poli sci because I believe it is a better fit for my research interest (which is legitimacy of governing institutions). Only one of my letter writers will be a poli sci prof, and the extent of my education in poli sci would consist of one game theory course, and some research in political economy. How should I work around lacking undergrad poli sci courses? And what kind of things should I really look out for? Finally, are there any kind of primer texts that I should consider reading? Thanks a lot for the help!

Thank you very much for pointing me to PH!! Her posts helped with the immediate concerns for sure, and she also wrote a lot of very useful and interesting information about grad schools and poli sci programs. That's great stuff, and thank you again! I have been pawing around this forum, but there is simply so much stuff, and sometimes helpful pointers like yours are worth a day or two's digging.

Thanks to the above replies! They certainly helped me to calm down a little. I looked through the old posts from 2010 and before and saw generally unfavorable reports about regrades from years before, so I am hesitating over this issue. Can people who have had regrades share some experiences?