saltlakecity2012
-
Posts
265 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by saltlakecity2012
-
-
Isn't that perhaps not the best way of looking at the GRE? It's not an intelligence test and with enough preparation should be a largely teachable skill. If you have enough time to study for it then I don't think you should limit yourself bad upon what you'd get in a practice test without any prep.
You're right, but I was just suggesting the OP try to get a feel for whether he's going to be scoring in the mid 600s or the high 700s ultimately. If you don't break 720 on both scores, you're at a disadvantage when applying to certain programs. If OP knows where s/he will probably fall on the GRE spectrum, s/he can start focusing on the schools s/he has a good chance of getting in to based on GRE and GPA, and then research what they like to see in terms of the background in incoming students.
Also - OP: you might want to ask your schools career counselor what they think about all this, or a professor who likes you in the poli sci department.
I'm super psyched. I moved a couple of weeks ago and have started hanging around my department some. The AP crowd is largely around. I assume you are just about equally excited to start your program?
Nice! Yeah, I picked out my pad in June and I'm moving in about 10 days. Insane! What an incredibly torturous process it was getting to this point... I fear more tortuous processes are in store for us as we move into this next phase
-
Hey guys!
Here's the deal:
I'm currently getting my BA and am going to apply to Grad schools for Fall 2013 (for a Masters program). I am freaking the hell out.
I don't really have any experience. I'm hoping to volunteer for a certain Presidential candidates phone back from now-Nov. But that's about it.
I don't have any expeirence because I just discovered last semester that Political Science is my one true academic love
By the time I apply my GPA should be around 3.4 with either a 4.0 or ~3.8/9 in my poly sci classes. I haven't taken my GRE yet, I plan to do that in November.
Am I completely screwed?
I'm interested in American Politics and eventually want my focus to be government/ SCOTUS.
So far the schools I've looked at are:
SUNY Stony Brook, SUNY Binghamton, UNT, American University, Georgetown, GWU, U of New Hampshire.
Should I be looking at any other schools? Do I have a chance at any of these?
I would love some help.
(Sorry for the super long post.)
First off, chill. If you haven't been studying political science but you were studying something like history, there are ways of spinning that into an acceptance. Before you know where to aim, you need to have a rough idea of where you're going to score on the GRE. I know it's a super shitty comparison, but where did you score on the SAT (the 1600 version from back in the day)? Have you taken any practice tests that might indicate a range of performance? Try to do so as soon as possible so you, if you decide to apply, can determine which schools you want to be targeting.
Secondly, there are a lot of responses that are strongly encouraging you to take some time to get work experience after school before going back to school. Let's get this clear: you're entering your senior year at School X - cover your bases for your next step! That's what I did. Jobs, schools, internships, Americorps type stuff - I had no idea who was going to want me and how I really felt about my next career move, so I tossed a lot of things in the options bag. Seriously consider working options, Peace Corps, Teach for America, AmeriCorps, etc., and the different types of graduate options that you have. If you have all of a sudden decided that you must teach eager young collegiate minds about democratization, hegemonic war and the median voter theorem, then you should be shooting for a PhD in poli sci ultimately. Sometimes an MA in poli sci is the right way to achieve this goal - sometimes, it is not. This is where you need to think strategically about work experience (engaging, research-oriented, practical experience that relates to your area of interest) and whether it might not serve you better after you graduate than paying $50 grand for a year of learning that might not make you much more impressive when you apply to PhD programs.
What is the MA going to give you? It is not required to get into a PhD. There are 2 clear things and MA can provide a person with. It can help show that a poor undergrad GPA is an aberration or it can help a person learn the field. Your GPA isn't the best, but you have a high GPA in the discipline and it seems like you know what the field is. You might do well to consider spending a year or two working instead, which might do even more to strengthen your application than an MA. Work on campaigns and in government is valuable if you can connect it to academically interesting questions. I spent 4 years in campaign management, consulting and lobbying. This did a lot to inform the questions I want to work on and has been generally quite received in my new department.
Also, what sort of MA program are you looking at? A terminal masters in poli sci like MAPSS or a professional masters like an MPA/MPP? The former will probably do more for you app than the latter.
Second, Max Power, nice to see you hanging around the boards! You psyched to be starting your program? We'll practically be neighbors - perhaps I'll see you at a conference soon.
-
A lot of people start out with the MIA from Columbia and then go on to do the PhD in political science - I don't know as much about the MPA or MPP, but I think a fair number of people do that at the Harvard Kennedy School (MPA/MPP to PhD). I think the utility of the master's degree varies according to your research interests and your other experiences. You could also do Chicago's CIR or MAPSS, or Columbia's QMSS. All master's level programs that funnel people into poli sci PhDs.
Obviously a master's is expensive, though, so be thorough in considering all the other ways to get into a PhD program. People come in from different undergrad focuses fairly often, so I wouldn't rule yourself out of the running just because your degree is in history. If you have some interesting work after undergrad and can put together a convincing statement demonstrating that you know what poli sci is, you should be fine.
Good luck!
-
one other note - make sure that if you choose MN bc its theory placement is better than UCLA's (I have no idea if that's true), you're 95% committed to theory. don't choose the lower-ranked school if you think you might end up wanting to do some stuff in comparative or american - although MN is an excellent school, so I don't think you'd be in a bad situation either way.
-
-
look at the placement in theory. like orst said, theory is highly competitive, so you want to be pretty careful about maximizing your future job options. if program b's overall placement is slightly better but not in theory, program a might be a better choice (purely along professional lines). also look at who your advisor would probably be at both places. if you visited and connected with potential advisors, which did you like better? where do you think you'd produce more creative and rigorous work?
good luck!!!
-
I've wrapped up my cycle and will be attending a PhD program in fall 2012, but I wanted to put it out there (for when this thread really kicks into gear) that I'm happy to pass on the information that helped me this cycle to anyone who's interested. PM me if you have any questions a recent applicant might be able to help with - I'm obviously no expert, but the offer stands. Good luck to everyone!
- orst11, AuldReekie and balthasar
-
3
-
I think it depends on whether you mean a PhD through a policy school like SIPA or SAIS in ID or a PhD in Development Studies (mostly done in the UK). I'd say that if you want to teach in the US, unless you want to teach in a policy school (and even then, actually), do the PhD in political science. Most faculty I know at policy schools actually have PhDs in poli sci, econ, etc. There's also lots of dual degree options that could make you more palatable - depending on what area of development you want to focus on, you could try to go to a school with a good international law program, or with a good environmental studies school, or a good regional institute... I think as long as you take internships during grad school with INGOs, you'll be in good shape with a poli sci PhD.
-
Congrats to all who have made their choices
-
Anna87, be sure to consider the fact that this 20% all have top percentile GRE quant scores and a strong undergrad/MA quant background, with coursework in PE, Math, Econ, etc.
Of course, but this is true pretty much anywhere in the top 30 nowadays.
-
-
I know the conversation has shifted a little bit from the posting of data about the specific schools, but I thought I'd give a thought or two about Michigan. I'd read some stuff on this board and heard rumors from others that the departmental culture was really competitive, and supervision wasn't that close, but my impressions while visiting were precisely the opposite. Everyone there seemed really, really friendly, and extremely invested in their students. Moreover, when talking to grad students, they often mentioned the accessibility of the faculty as one of the biggest strengths of the department. My impression is that the training there is really great, and there appears to be a departmental culture of emphasizing epistemic rigor in the work of faculty and students, irrespective of whether they're qual/quant/formal (for instance, amongst the formal types, there was a lot of self-conscious discussion about when models can be epistemically valuable). Personally, I really liked Michigan.
This.
-
I think something that people struggle with a lot on the GRE is the structure of the exam. If you didn't do any math, econ, or hard sciences in college, it can be difficult to get back into the groove of taking tests with lots of very short questions. It's very different from writing an exam. So whatever tool people use, I would strongly encourage you to spend a fair amount of time taking timed practice tests and simulating test conditions. Also - the important thing about the GRE is that the computer format can be confusing, and the scoring requires a different strategy than the SAT or ACT, for example. So buy a book and read up on overall test-taking strategies. I took it twice and my second score was up 100 points - I didn't study the material, but I did crack a book after the first test that told me how the test was structured, which I think made much more of a difference for me. If you're not worried about your skill set, focus on the specifics of the test.
- Lancelot_Yu, Anna87 and orst11
-
3
-
Apply to as many as you can afford, but don't apply to schools you wouldn't be happy going to. So if you think that you would want to try another application round if you only got into School X, rethink your priorities.
I'd also suggest you start a Fall 2012-2013 Application Cycle thread and post your stats there - that should help give you some feedback. I applied to 10 PhD programs and 2 master's level programs, and it worked out well, but I think the makeup of your list is just as crucial as the size. For example, applying to CHYMPS + the next 4 highest ranked schools is probably not a great plan if you're cash constrained, as you might end up facing another cycle. And since you're already in a master's program, that could be less than ideal for you. But again, apply to as many as you can afford and think you might go to, and structure the list carefully.
- WorldMan and adaptations
-
1
-
1
-
I just turned down the offer at MAPSS (came with full tuition). I don't know if that opens up a spot or money for anyone else, but hopefully it will help things move a bit faster for others (if they have a waitlist).
-
Also - I am officially driving myself completely insane, and therefore am going to do my best to go wherever I think I would be happiest and do the best work.
Done.
At least... done until 5 minutes from now, when, like an over-anxious squirrel, I change direction completely once again.
-
I nominate balderdash for most likely to cultivate a very sage-like beard
- potbellypete and balderdash
-
1
-
1
-
Long time lurker here, and I apologize in advance for going a little off topic. I've been extremely anxious these past few days and I decided to take advantage of this forums pool of knowledge.
I have been in contact with the professor in charge of the graduate program at my number 1 choice for a Phd in political science. On Feb 27th he told me that while he couldn't say anything official he was planning on recommending me for admission and full support to the graduate office. He said the grad office usually takes 2-3 days to turn it around and there are "a few more steps" after that. He said that ""hopefully if all goes will you should hear something official by the end of the week." That was this past Friday. Now I know I'm probably overreacting and I should just shut up and chill out but Its been extremely hard to do so. But I can't help myself... Should I be worrying? At what point do I need to contact the professor?
Any advice would be greatly appreciated
.Congrats to all those who got into their programs this cycle!
I would say that there's not much you can do, and emailing the professor is probably going to do more harm than good at this point. If you still haven't heard by early next week, maybe you can shoot him a line politely asking if he has any updates on when decisions will be made, but I would personally avoid it.
-
Having been at Yale as an undergrad a few years ago, from just a limited set of grad students who I knew, two went on to Harvard KSG, one's at GW, one's at the Maxwell School at Syracuse, one is at Northwestern, and one will be starting at Duke next fall. All these were just in comparative. So don't base any decisions off of crap data from PSJR
Wow! That's awesome, and not basing anything at all on PSJR is very good advice
- potbellypete and CooCooCachoo
-
1
-
1
-
Sure, but I suspec
Sure, but I suspect if you're at a top 10 school, your school's brand name is not going to be pivotal (maybe with Harvard...).
As a side note, I think it's a idea to get a list of students placed by your potential advisors, either by asking them or finding out through subtler means. This will give you both an idea of subfield placement, and of course, your potential advisor's connections.
Also, re: Wisconsin, at least if you're in IR/IPE I think it's really difficult to estimate future placements based on numbers from the past 5-6 years. Lisa Martin's students placed well when she was at Harvard, and I think you have a group there that's rising in stature (especially with IO moving there later this year).
Yes, I totally agree about seeing where people get placed by potential advisors.
And about the school's brand name thing - that's exactly what I was saying. Once you're at the highest level of competition (not the same as the highest level of excellence always), you're competing with everyone else who is also at that highest level of competition.
-
Thanks, meep, for providing a different perspective on this. I definitely agree that being an idiot at Stanford means you're unlikely to get a good job while being a genius at Virginia means you very probably will, but when search committees are looking for candidates to invite for interviews, they look at schools that have good placement records. Obviously this is a somewhat tautological way of going about things, and candidates from schools other than the top 10s get good jobs - it's just a little bit harder for candidates from less well-respected programs to get their names out there. After all, a lot of placement is about networking - your advisor calls up member of search committee at School X because s/he went to School X, and bam! you're on a plane to School X.
-
Just to reiterate my comments (with a bit more discussion): I would advise taking the statistics for social scientists, preferably the course with a theoretical grounding. Linear algebra and calculus are important classes, but they don't directly apply to political methodology (they're nice to have but not absolutely necessary). You would be better off showing admissions committees that you can handle the statistics we use most frequently. If you had two years, then I might suggest going for all the background. But now you need to be strategic, and the best choice under those constraints is to focus on the stats you're most likely to use in a Ph.D. program.
Knowing R (and Stata, WinBUGS, JAGS, Amelia etc) is helpful, but it's perfectly possible to pick that up on your own. Take a good theoretical stats course and master the skills, and teach yourself some R on the side. In my opinion, that would make you a very strong applicant.
I have to say I agree that if you have no math background at the college level and you want to beef up your application to poli sci programs, stats classes would probably be more useful, especially if you have only 1 course. Linear Algebra is something you will take if you intend to do any formal theory (at least I hope), but if you're more interested in demonstrating that you're on board with the stats-heavy trend in poli sci, it won't be the strongest signal. But whatever class you do take, rock it.
Also, no one's mentioned this, but try to get your GRE quant score as high as possible. I don't know what you applied to your MA program with, but it can't hurt to have higher scores, especially in the quant section.
- Zahar Berkut and potbellypete
-
1
-
1
-
At this point, this is how I'm feeling:
“But our funding package is so much bigger…”
I know exactly what you mean.
- amblingnymph, potbellypete and wildviolet
-
1
-
2
-
There's a little section on the U Chicago MAPSS website that says the following, which might be useful for you:
Financing the MAPSS degree will require serious sacrifices. How can I determine if it's a wise investment?
Individual circumstances vary so much that it's impossible to give one answer equally good for all prospective students. However, we suggest you make the following calculations for yourself. How fast will you make back your investment in your graduate education after you re-enter the job market with a University of Chicago MA, as against what you will earn in the same field with your current BA? If you instead decide to go on to a Ph.D. program, how fast will you make back your investment in MAPSS if you enter with a fellowship for doctoral study, as against the level of aid you have presently been offered?
The remarkable growth of the MAPSS program in recent years and the development of clone programs in the University's humanities and physical sciences divisions testify to the positive outcome of such calculations for most Chicago students in today's career and graduate admissions environments. Once again, the April Campus Days offer the opportunity to discuss these matters with current students and recent alumni.
What Programs Am I Looking at?
in Political Science Forum
Posted
Don't be too concerned by your GPA - that 3.8 in Physics is a very clear signal to most admissions departments that you can hack it in terms of the math, and if you did very well in your Poli Sci degree too you should be fine. I got into a group of top 10 schools with a somewhat similar profile. You really want to demonstrate at this point that you have interesting ideas and will be capable of providing some value in the field - and Bdeniso is right, if you're interested in quant you should really be looking at places like Stanford, Michigan, Rochester, NYU, UCSD, UCLA - what subfield are you interested in?