leetchisgod

Much harder to get funding in the UK if you're not an Brit/European. Plus they pretty much require you to have a fully detailed research proposal for admissions, which isn't always the easiest thing to work on. But other than that, Britain is AWESOME.

The way I see it, as some of the money I'm getting from the school isn't taxed, and the rest coming from my ra/taship doesn't come anywhere close to the 41,000+ minimum for the second tax bracket, federally I'll be paying around 15%. Unfortunately, the province of Alberta is not a fan of poor people and imposes a 10% provincial flat tax in addition to that. 25% altogether isn't too bad, would be better if I were studying in a more progressive taxing province where it would be closer to the 20% in the US (if you include the state taxes). The high gas prices might be a concern though.

I just checked out my health/dental/vision and travel insurance program with Alberta's graduate student union. $329 a YEAR. Holy schniiikes! As someone who hasn't been able to afford US healthcare insurance, I love Canada already!

Time is beginning to fly faster, but still, one and a half month away and so much to still do. I'm just waiting to get the official date for the orientation for me to pack up and go.

Did you look at programs in Canada, I think Canadian schools are a far easier transition for Brits, as they tend to follow the British school of IR. I guess it would also matter where you did your undergrad, I'm sure students from some programs in the UK would look like a better addition for departments than others.

My first effort took about 2-3 months, the longest portion of which actually involved finding a research topic that was suitable. In the UK, you basically need to provide a complete research proposal, so the literature review also took a while. That attempt was a failure, I got rejected from two schools. The current effort took about a week, e-mailed an informal outline of my ideas which were bouncing in my head for a while to a few potential supervisors, got a good response and formalized the general concepts into a SOP. It was easier applying to Canada because they didn't really require a very detailed research proposal, with a positive result. I think it basically depends on how well you connect with the research you want to do and what's required by the schools.

Well, that might be a problem, I'm about as left wing liberal as they come. I'm sure there will be culture shock, but I'm currently in the reddest part of New York so I'm hoping I'll have some adjustment ahead of time.

Well there must be some hippies on campus, the political science department seems fairly liberal. My supervisor said the southern part of Alberta is where it's bizzaro world, filled with religious fundies, but Edmonton, especially the university area is alright. I think they have a NDP MP, which is pretty sweet.

Hm, apparently the taxes in Alberta, for those earning less than 38,000 are 4-5% higher than either Ontario or BC. Flat taxes suck! http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/ndvdls/fq/txrts-eng.html

BU is okay. The only great thing about BU is broomball and the ultimate frisbee team. I went to the school of management and I can fairly honestly say that its pratty student body is unfairly favored over other schools.

I joined as soon as I got my university e-mail account set up. I want to get to know something about the people who'll be around the department before I show up.

I think canobeans pretty much put into context my problems with things like regression analysis. I don't believe researchers are omniscient and can't possibly take into account all the important inputs that can result in a particular action taking place. There is far too much variance out there. I think a large part of this problem is to do with the fact that research is based on other research, whether it be methodologically or ideologically, because of that there's a tunnel vision affect. Past research sets out the conditions, limits and means by which "acceptable" research can be created. Since the past laws set these conditions, often times they trap future research into a particular strand, research that varies, doesn't really have the capability of fully express itself because it will never be taken seriously. All of this is on the precondition that past research was done in a perfectly valid way and past results are the gold standard and most importantly, that they are to be taken as truths. So the sun still should revolve around the earth, which at the end of the day is flat. Obviously, that isn't true today, but it took some work and some dogmatic rejections before we got around to that being false, and you know what, I would leave that even open. In a way, when doing research is this manner, we're just map makers and not the actual explorers, improving the map, using different colors but not finding new territory. I know for many of you this is looney toons, but I don't think you can completely throw out this argument without some pause. As for statistics (NOT ALL MATH, unless all math is statistics, which I didn't think was the case), yes, I do have a major problem with how they are utilized in social sciences. I think to demonstrate what my problem is I have to use some of Taleb's ideas because he puts them in such a simple manner. Stats are based on a Guassian thinking and the bell curve is too often misapplied and people don't realize this misapplication. The example that Taleb gives is as follows. Take 1,000 random people in the world, measure their height come up with the average. Throw in the tallest man in the world, how much does your average change? Miniscule. Take 1,000 random people in the world, measure their wealth. Throw in Bill Gates, how much does your average change? In those terms, taking into account the bell curve, people of Bill Gates' wealth class should be far less likely to statistically exist than they actually do. Now if you apply the same logic to history, there have been historical events like market failures which have statistically, according to Guassian models occur far less frequently and yet they do. In terms of qualitative history, decision making like Hitler's was highly unpredictable, no one would have thought someone would be that crazy, and yet, it happens over and over again. We constantly limit the realm of possibilities when we apply statistics to reality. Going back to and looking at these events, we plant our own reasons to explain why the happened. Yet when you look at the writing that occurred before the event happened, you see that they were completely oblivious to it. Predicting things is difficult, because you know, unpredictable shit happens. But we seem to think, because we can scratch a few numbers together we've solved the problem and can move forward as if we're definitely correct. I mean I say that IPE should be the big thing to research in the future, but something could happen tomorrow that will out weigh that.

I don't think it's an academics job to cater their research so to make it more presentable for government consumption. Governments and other actors will take notice when the mathematical gold they're fed doesn't provide them the answers they need which reflect the real world. I mean just look at what they've gotten themselves into in the current situation. Remove stats out of the list of mandatory classes for college students to take and you'll see a vast improvement in political science research and analysis.

Some on say something, I don't want to be a thread killer.

I think the best advice I received regarding orthodoxy was from my MA supervisor. He had taken issue with the fact that I didn't address heavily enough many of the important thinkers in the field, I of course argued that a lot of what was in the field was stale wank and I think he agreed to some point. But he told me that in academia, you don't get anywhere without first "paying homage" to the big wigs and that what I should do is try to understand their theories inside out, address them more robustly, so no one could argue that I didn't understand the main issues involved, and then after I had built that up, I should take a sledgehammer and start swinging. Didn't really matter as much at the MA level, although it did get me a first, but definetely something to keep in mind as your academic career progresses. Don't be afraid of stepping on toes, making enemies and following your own path. Stir shit up once in a while!

BU screwed with you as well eh? SMG 2.78, turned into a 3.8 in England where they actually rewarded performance. When I applied in England for my masters I actually sent the nytimes article about BU's grade deflation. I think it helped a bit, luckily I had two great references and was switching fields. After that it was just a matter of enjoying what I was studying and the good grades followed, good enough for a phd.

Obviously, I have a major bias here, but, I think that if the rationalist accounts of economic theory are in any way impaired due to what's going on, and they are really under pressure with people like Nassim Nicholas Taleb being thrust into the spotlight as of late, the chance they stand in the political sphere is limited. I think as interesting as theoretical frameworks such as rational choice institutionalism and other rationalistic explanations are, at the end of the day, they seek to provide too much insight based on too limited an understanding of institutional structures and actors that take part in the process. The same applies to other institutional theories like those which concentrate on the historical evolution of the organizations, especially with the problem of an over reliance on path dependency. Political science is not a hard science, political scientists need to stop holding themselves to the standard of a natural science that they cannot meet, and pretending we can makes us lose credibility in the long run. I think I should stop before people catch on to the fact that I'm speaking, well typing, out of my ass. *zips it, for now*

I think the current global economic crisis is going to shape the field for the long term future, that is to say, the theorist who will be remembered in a 100 years will be those who will find the solutions and insights into the current crisis, because let's not kid ourselves, this thing is a lot bigger than we want to believe. If critical theorists play their cards right, they can tear a major gash in the current orthodox, rationalist, positivist attitudes that can be found at majority of departments in political science, and leave a lasting mark. I think the general concentration will be in IPE, because there are a lot of things that have gone wrong at a lot of different levels, which encompass differing cultural, political and economic strands and the current crisis demonstrates how they are far too interconnected to be dealt with by boxing them up individually. I also think many of the solutions will shift into physiological aspects of decision making in the political/public policy process. So, that's what I'm thinking, in fact I'm banking on it over the next 4 years.

I got into a PhD program in political science with a 2.78 overall GPA for my bachelors (business administration major), with my political science GPA being 3.35, but that was as a minor. I got accepted into a masters program in the UK with that, including some funding, ended up graduating with a 3.8ish. Was able to use that to get into the PhD program. Just make sure you let them know exactly what made your grades lag, and express some interest, work your ass off and get yourself into where ever you want to go.

"Homo" guys? This is your friend you say?

Did someone say tea bagging?

Yup, Alberta, anyone heading up in August/September?

Hm, we've done most of that in the first conversation that we had, before I was accepted. I basically let him do most of the talking as I wasn't completely sure what to ask him. That's why this time around I'm getting some help, but I think the second part definitely applies with regards to the research assistantship.

I'm having a phone conversation with my likely supervisor today (Political Science PhD). I've received a teaching assistantship as well as a research assistantship, so I'm trying to ask him the type of questions I should ask him when speaking to him today. So far I've got 3 ready, but I think I'll need some more. 1.) What is the specific nature of the research you will be doing over the summer on which I'll be assisting you? 2.) What lit. should I read up on to be able to better assist you with this research? 3.) How will the teaching assistant positions be allocated?

Type of Undergrad Institution: Top 50 US private Major(s)/Minor(s): Business Administration, Political Science Undergrad GPA: 2.78 overall, 3.40 Political Science Type of Grad: Top 20 UK Grad GPA: 3.8ish, merit overall, distinction on dissertation GRE: N/A Any Special Courses: Research Methods, Research in Practice, International Political Economy Letters of Recommendation: Head of department, program director, full time lecturer (dissertation supervisor), I'd imagine they were pretty positive Research Experience: Dissertation and a small project for research module Teaching Experience: Mostly presentations from undergrad and a student led conference at grad school Subfield/Research Interests: International political economy, critical IR, heterodox economics SOP: Pretty decent, detailed, about 5 pages when all that was required was about 2 Other: Explanation of why grades at undergrad were low and how I turned things around RESULTS: Acceptances($$ or no $$): University of Alberta - teaching assistantship, research assistantship, possible tuition waiver Waitlists: Rejections: McMaster, Carleton, Queens Pending: Going to: Alberta What would you have done differently? Not wasted my money applying to the other schools. My first choice was Alberta and I'm very happy I got in. I wish I had done this all a year earlier, could have had my phd before 30!