lorinho

I'm going to assume that you are for real, and not fishing for complements. I will also assume that you are not at an institution with a reputation for the "Gentlemen's A". An A- is a perfectly respectable grade. In fact, a B+ could be just fine to. In fact, maybe you could even get away with a B :-o. You don't have to be perfect to get into top schools. That said, the process is capricious, and there is no way to predict the outcome completely.

Well, there is of course the about attending outside of top programs. When looking at a program, it would be helpful to look at the faculty for a university and see if there is anyone whom you would like to work with. I think that it is generally important to focus on Full professors. Not that associate professors don't have a lot to offer, and they might be very great, but full professors have seen a lot more. Basically, not only have they already been through the whole process, they have helped several students through much of the process, perhaps all the way to becoming full professors themselves. At Howard, for some reason, they have two lists, one for all PolSci faculty and one which they classify as Graduate Faculty. Of the graduate faculty, they only list Flax, Morris, Seltzer, Hatem, and Woodard as full professors. My inclination, if you follow those links, is that those people do not do much that looks like IR, and only peripherally like Comparative Politics. In the end there may be emotional reasons you want to attend Howard (e.g. your parents both went there), and while with a BA that might be alright it doesn't cut it for a PhD. If you look at faculty list and they don't study things that you want to study it will be very hard to get them to care about your Thesis and Dissertation, and it will be hard for them to comment helpfully too far outside their area anyway. Put the emotions aside a little, and rationally calculate whether this is a good fit for you. If it is, then good luck. In the DC area the best places in general are George Washington and Georgetown. Both are historically policy oriented schools, but George Washington has been pushing back towards theory a little. George Mason and UMD which is sort of in the DC area are good schools if you plan on attending part time, and/or plan on going into (or more likely staying within) government.

Just a friendly tip here: I wouldn't get into it with Penelope. If you look back through old posts you will discover that not only is she one of the most well informed people on this board, she is also an active participant and an important resource. You can do it if you want, but ....

My advice to you, and to all of the, "my chances" types is: Don't do this to yourselves. I realize that you are hoping for some insight, or privileged information, and there may be some around, but I don't think it is going to be on this forum. There are a few people who cruise the forum that actually are on admissions committees, and they tend to have really good information... about one school. The truth is though that the process is fairly inscrutable, and subject to factors completely out of your control, and until they are studied (which they probably never will be) out of anyone's ability to accurately describe. This does not mean give up, but instead look at the facts objectively. Most schools are upfront about their minimum GPA's and scores, and what they want in students. Odds are they are not changing that. If you have that minimum, you have a shot; if you don't, you don't, so don't apply. Then look at the percentage of acceptances, and follow that with the percentages of placements in jobs that you want. Then apply as broadly as you dare, into consideration, and do your cost benefits analysis. Bear in mind that the cost of applying is fairly low, and you aren't committed. Moreover, you are like a paratrooper who is in the plane already, almost everything you can do, you have either done or not done already, and there is no going back. You can jump, or not. However, unlike a trooper, who might die if not completely prepared, you may only have to deal with some rejection. If you can't deal with that little bit of rejection, then don't apply. Bottom line, no one here knows what your chances really are, so the decision is ultimately yours. Don't torture yourself by asking others to basically guess at your chances, and don't turn your fortunes over to strangers you barely know on the internet.

Well, if you take your observation and extrapolate, you have an explanation of the pattern. PolSci M.A. focus a lot on research, and therefore research jobs like them. However, if you were to go to a place that wanted more policy generation or analysis, you would probably see a slant towards MPP's. Similar with Policy Phd's vs. PolSci PhDs. there are departments that don't care what your degree is in, but what your research is in. However, in general, people who teach in PolSci programs have PolSci degrees, and Policy Programs would prefer Policy degrees. It is just a slightly different skill set. This is just my observation, however. Oh, finally, if you are looking at the gov't (and even many NGO's) as a career path: 1) don't get a PhD, MA is plenty until late in the career, and 2) if you get one, it doesn't really matter whether it is a Policy or PoliSci Phd. As long as your research is on point, that is all they care about.

You'll find that many people will just tell you what it was that they did, whether or not it applies to you. That is what I am going to do. While my GPA was a little better than yours, it wasn't much better, and I too had nearly zero advanced math, so when I failed to get into any programs after undergrad, I went out and got some real world experience and it has paid off in spades. I joined the Army, which made a lot of sense for me because I am a Security Studies type. It taught me two foreign languages and gave me significant funding help. More importantly though, I now have a much better sense of what the problems are in the real world that people are grappling with, which makes coming up with research questions that people have grants for much, much easier. The Army isn't for everyone, and may not make sense for you, especially if you have lingering health issues, nonetheless real world success speaks louder than any GPA (almost), and sets you up for success in the long run regardless of where you land. There are a ton of places including non-profits, and companies that have funding for additional education that you can either do while working there or after you leave. You can beef up your CV, your GPA, and you might discover that academia isn't for you. If it turns out that it is, you will get into a program much more easily, hopefully have paid off some, if not all of your student debt, and you will be far more motivated to complete the program in a timely manner than if you just limp into the best program you can get into right now. I realize this may not be what you want to hear if you are using grad school as a way to avoid the job market, but it really does work, and it actually pays (imagine that) you. As long as you keep in touch with professors and stay dialed into academia by taking classes, it shouldn't hurt you when it comes to applications. Even community college calculus courses should be fine. After all math is math. That said, if you really want to apply, it can't hurt. But a strong plan B is usually the best way to ensure success, and I know plenty of people whose plan B turned into their plan A.

For reference, I worked in the Federal Gov't for ten years before returning to Academia, and I would say that in gov't recognition trumps academic rep a little, but neither are very important. In the DOD there are a lot of people who get MA's at American Military University, which is something like the University of Phoenix for soldiers, and wasn't even regionally accredited until recently (last 5 or so years). No one cares as long as you have the degree. Think tanks may be different, and most of the big think tank names seem to have degrees from bigger universities, but I can't speak too knowledgeably on that. I would caution however, that in most cases, at least in gov't, PhD only becomes useful at higher levels (hence my ten years before returning) and may not be worth the cost initially, since you would more likely be competing for the same entry level jobs as people who only have MA's, unless you already have experience.

Just some food for thought. In general, name recognition of schools doesn't change dramatically over time. Top schools in rankings might, but the famous names are still the famous names, and while it shouldn't matter, it does to the snobs. However, student bodies and faculties could change dramatically over short periods of time, and that is not only unpredictable but completely out of the students control. In a 5-9 year program it seems sure that almost all of the student body and some of the faculty will change, but it is unlikely that the OMG school will get a bad rep, while the somewhat well know school will suddenly become world famous. That said, there are plenty of reasons to disregard, or not consider heavily, the rankings and reputation.

I would say that you might be better off listening to the person that you know, rather than strangers on the internet. But seriously, if that is the case, MAPSS sounds like a good choice, to me.

Yes but I would caution you against spending more money on an MA in the hopes that you can get into a PhD program. If you already have one MA and it didn't help you, I don't think a second one would. You mention you did not attend an American University, so that might factor in. I would talk to the departments you are interested in, because UChicago is not cheap, and to spend another 40k minimum only to not get into a PhD program could be a huge issue. Bottom line: think long and hard before you go to more schooling. Some time away from school with real world experience might be more what the doctor ordered than another MA. (Worked for me)

I graduated from CIR, and am currently a PhD. student in the Political Science Program. Whinging is a perennial problem for all programs. Indeed, all you need to do is to check out the popular humor site PhD Comics to see that many people feel ignored by their professors. In general, the people who get paid attention to are the ones who demand attention through good ideas, hard work, and mature behavior. There may be those who are ignored, and rightly so, because they bring nothing to the table. Far more often the case is that people want a lot more help than is either realistic or merited. As an M.A. student I was able to meet with pretty much every member of the department I wanted to, to consult on my thesis. I was usually limited to 10-15 min per professor per visit, but that is plenty for anything you really need to talk about as long as you are prepared when you show up. Preceptors and colleagues are there for other more time intensive work. While true, and there are possibly differences outside of the Political Science dept, since MAPSS crosses more Depts than CIR, they are structured exactly the same and even have the same support staff, and the PolSci faculty do not distinguish between the two, and often confuse which is which so I highly doubt that there is a great deal of difference between the two when it comes to faculty. It is possible that there is a big difference with the preceptors, but the MAPSS Political Science preceptor seems to be as good as the CIR preceptors. In terms of placement I know that MAPSS places at least as many people in top programs as CIR, but it is also a much larger program, so the total percentage may not be as high, but I don't think so. In the end, for the students, I just find it hard to believe that there is a major difference between the two programs.

Short answer: Yes, MAPSS is good for PolSci types. Long Answer: MAPSS, and its sister program CIR draw from a lot of different areas of study, so you will see a wide variety of types of people, however, people within the programs generally group together along disciplinary lines. In political science IR and Comparative usually are refered to, or apply to CIR, whereas American and Theory types land in MAPSS. There is no hard and fast rule on that, though, with the exception that pretty much all IR types land in CIR. After either program, students are very well positioned for applications to top PhD programs. Most people I know who applied after attending either program usually got into at least one top 10 program. Moreover, at the University of Chicago, you will attend the exact same classes as the PhD students, (and many undergrads for that matter). There is really no limitation to what classes you want to take, to include many law school classes, policy, or Business classes. You do need to meet the requirements for the program, so it isn't a total free for all, but there is a lot of leeway. That said, neither programs is a substitute for a good PhD program, but it can be a gateway to a good PhD program. Neither program greatly increases your chances of getting into the University of Chicago as a PhD student, but there will be plenty of other schools to attend. MAPSS actually actively discourages applying during your year of attendance (not so with CIR, but since you didn't ask I will assume that is not an option) so you should plan on a gap year. There are programs to help you find work for that time, though. I personally think that it would be better if everyone attended something like MAPSS before going to a PhD program, because it gives you a really good taste for PhD life, and it is only a year commitment. At the end of that time, if you don't want to invest 5-n years of your life for an x/100% are really well positioned for another career as well. Chicago is a great place to do that, too, because the professors are really good about treating the MA students with roughly the same equity as the PhD students, so you get a really great education.

I don't think that updating your information can hurt, but I am not optimistic that it will help all that much. As far as contacting people, at UChicago you will be expected to talk to several professors on Prospective Students Day, so I would definitely do that, but more might be a waste of your and their time (unless they ask you for it of course). Most people I have talked to say that every year universities will turn down a hundred otherwise qualified applicants for almost inscrutable reasons, so the fact that you are on the waitlist means that you beat out a bunch of people already. I don't know what could have changed in the last few months that would move you up that far. It might make you feel better though, and that isn't bad. That sounds like an imminently reasonable idea to me. I would recommend against too much overt lobbying, however, at least at Chicago. I don't know whether it can hurt you or help you, but I do know that presenting yourself rationally and professionally, which definitely includes your research interests, is far better than an 'argument' you can present. (One warning though, make sure that you deal with recent interests of Professors, and not things they did ten or twenty years ago.) More importantly, however, I think you should really figure out if Chicago is for you. Especially in your case, Rossiya, where you have already been admitted to two excellent schools. Chicago is a great school, and I love it here, but it is totally not for everybody. Chicago has their own way of doing things, which is why it has a big reputation, but that also means that not everyone thrives here, and some people hate it. It is hard to determine this in one day, but plenty of people do. I'll give a little more disclosure, on what I 'know' and how I 'know' (surmise) it. The website has said that since I first applied, in 1999, and from all that I can tell, that has been the way that it actually was up until now. Apparently about three or four years ago, almost all of the 33 people they admitted came, which at a school with a large endowment and in good times was no problem. However, since then the market crashed, and while Chicago had a fairly diversified account, and still gets a lot of donations, a lot of people got worried about 'accidentally' admitting more students than they could support, and the wait-list system was born. I do not know if they still admit the 33, but I doubt it, since that would totally defeat the purpose of the wait-list. I would believe the 'only 1 person' number,and I am that person. However, what leads me to believe that they are swapping out one for one is this: I tracked admissions on this site, and someone, I forget who, stated that she was rejecting her offer since she had so many schools to choose from, and Chicago didn't make the cut. Days later I received my formal acceptance. There are several potential extenuating circumstances, though: I came with outside funding, I was already here as an M.A. student, and I only applied here (UChicago) for personal reasons (not a good plan BTW), and the cmte knew that. It is therefore entirely conceivable, and even likely that my situation is not generalizable. Nevertheless, I think it is probably true that other students declining admission is a necessary condition for students to be taken off the waiting list, but it may not be sufficient, even though it was in my case. That said, it remains true that you will probably not be able to move yourself off the waiting list on your own. However, if you are serious about UChicago you should definitely attend prospective students day if you can. You will not help your chances, and might hurt them by skipping. Nevertheless, for your own sake, don't stress yourself to think that it is "the Academic Combine." It is not.

I started this thread because I have seen that there are a lot of wait-listed students, and I am sure that you all have questions about it. Hopefully, there are a lot people out there with answers, and this thread will not die after I give my one amount of information. Really I have only one thing to say, and I hope it is helpful. Wait-lists are treated differently at each school so don't assume that the reason for a wait-list is the same at one school to another. Some places will be forthcoming about it, others will not. If you are wait-listed at the University of Chicago, I have been there (wait-listed). This is only the second year that there has been a wait-list at the University of Chicago, so they are still sorting out how they do things. I don't have explicit information, but based upon what I observed the university admits exactly as many people as they are able to take, with a wait-list backup so that they get the actual number of students they want. Last years wait-list was short, but only as many people as declined their original offers were ultimately accepted (at least that is how it seems). This year's UofC "prospective students day" is earlier than last, and I believe that both admitted students and wait-listed students are invited (your letter will tell you), but you should not view this as an opportunity to lobby for your admission. The reason this is important is that rather than running around trying to meet professors you think might be influential, you should spend your time discovering if you want to actually attend the school. The worst possible outcome is that you get off the wait-list, and then have to make a decision with little to no information on how good a fit the school and faculty is for you. I caveat all of this by saying, I am not faculty or staff, and have no inside information. If you have that information, by all means listen to it, and if it is relevant do share with others.

Having come from the policy world into the academic world, I can tell you that it doesn't matter a ton, especially for things like risk management, what kind of degree you have. Good schools are better. Related programs (so when it say, "IR, Sociology, Area studies or closely related fields" on a job listing) are better. But in general, nothing is hard and fast and what people want is a smart person, and the degree is a proof of that smartness not really preparation for the job. All of the programs you listed are good. You may wish to think about doing the shorter degree, though, so you can start earning money quicker. Very little you are going to learn at school is going to be as helpful as what you will learn on the job. If you are worried about being under credentialed, or you are not otherwise competitive in the job market (e.g. you don't have any special skills, or you don't have any real work experience) there is a dual MA program at Chicago where you can get an A.M. in International Relations and a second one in Public Policy at the University of Chicago, but if you have four years industry work that doesn't seem to apply. It only takes two years. Otherwise the IR degree only takes one year, nine months really.

I am not faculty at Chicago, so this is just my impression: If you are talking about a Harris school teacher who holds a courtesy appointment in the department it definitely would not hurt you. People who hold courtesy appointments in the PolSci department are viewed and treated as being members of the department. In fact, most of the faculty are proud of the fact that people come to the school because they wanted work with people outside the department, and of the multiple appointments within the department. It is almost required that members of your committee come from other departments. And while your chair must be in the department, they can actually hold their primary appointment in another department. So your chair could be Martha Nussbaum, or Roger Myerson. I am almost certain if you had several people outside the department you wanted to work with, that were at any school here, it would actually be a plus on your application! (I have to retract something, somewhat. All of the faculty here talk about BdM as if he has a courtesy appointment in the dept, and his classes are crosslisted into the department, but on the website he doesn't show up, so I will have to back off that claim.) Bottom line, don't think of Harris as a separate school. UofC does not think of it that way, so you are only handicapping yourself with a barrier that isn't there, here. If you want a Political Science degree, and you think that people at the University of Chicago defined broadly are teachers you would like to work with, apply to the political science department. Apply to the Harris school for the same reasons, if you want a Public Policy degree.

The way Chicago does it can be very confusing. Some of the professors have offices in Harris School, some in the Political Science building, but if they are appointed in the department, it is offered in the department. I am not sure what you mean by 'rational choice methods' but BdM does offer at least a formal theory course, and by far most of the teachers here have a rational choice model underlying their methods. That said, the methods course work is very hit or miss in terms of scheduling. So anyone who wants to be able to take five straight methods courses in the first two years, best make somewhere else their first choice. Choosing between Harris and Political Science is also sometimes confusing. If you want a public policy degree, to go on and teach Public Policy or work in policy, then Harris is totally the way to go. However if you want a political science degree, then you should apply to the Political Science program. While some of the courses are taught by the same people, and are the same class, they are not the same program. The PhD. in policy requires more classes, and classes focused on policy (e.g. labor policy), while PoliSci requires your standard PoliSci class focuses, such as IR, Comp, American etc. (e.g. Cold War Political Theory) as well as different tests. As far as the teachers and the UofC are concerned, they don't care as long as you are smart and work hard, but when you go to apply to other programs, they will see you as a Political Science PhD (Academic) or a Policy PhD (Practical). Bottom line, you would choose Harris over Political Science for similar reasons you would choose any policy focused program over an academia focused program.

Both Ashworth and BDM hold courtesy appointments to the Political Science Dept, and BDM teaches the formal methods class for both Harris and the Political Science dept. In general, at Chicago, you can work with whomever you please, regardless of school or department.