puddle

Sorry... comparative. Still, I wish the best for you!

If it follows the trend (i.e. Grad Cafe Results Page notes) from a few years ago (2009) then your funding package should look something like 25K for 5 years and 2 summers at 4K. Unclear how the Cali budget crisis might impact this funding but it probably just means they accept less students and pay them the same amount. Sweet deal!

Yikes! That's a big grad class. Explains why they don't offer the greatest funding package, I suppose.

I'm not sure how the wait list works at UofT but if it is general (i.e. not sub-divided by field), a spot is going to open up in the program in a few days. I hope you or another Grad Cafe-er gets it!

I certainly don't disagree, however; I was suggesting that the differences (however substantial they appear in this format) between topranked schools with great reputations might be explained by a bunch of factors that are not shown in a list of placements. In unrelated news... if placement is about networking as you argue here, then should we not chose the schools based on the employment and scholastic history of our potential advisors? So... instead of looking at where people leaving School X placed, we could take a look at where people working at School X came from. Yale's not looking so bad now, eh?

Holy Shamoley... 75 grand for field experiments... yes. I can see it now... (*meep pictures herself having enough money to pay for fuel during research trips)

ps. did you guys notice that this: Saito,Jun,Yale,2006,Yale is the only case where someone got hired by the same university they graduated from? Apparently Harvard won't even hire people with Harvard Degrees (from what I hear... they only hire humanoid robots created in a lab at MIT)

For better or worse, I just don't find this information that relevant. I guess it would be interesting if you could see the number of people brought in for an interview at different schools (and then somehow sub-divide them by area of study, number of other interviews, performance at the graduate level, external grants, number of publications, awards given for dissertation, scholarly network, spousal placement, etc.) What I am saying is that placement records need to be taken with a grain of salt and an eye for the many, many individual characteristics that a school cannot be held responsible for. For example, these raw counts do not say anything about the number of people that left the program early, entered the private sector, went into government, decided to start a family, realised that political science was not for them etc. etc. etc. I also find this approach to chosing a graduate program overly deterministic (am I going to get down voted for saying this? mayyybee). Lets just say that there are 10 universities (or 20, or 30, or whatever) in the world at which you will receive comprable methods and substantive training, excellent funding, good supervision, etc. Now, one of those universities may have a better placement record than the others but that really says nothing about YOUR chances of placing well with a PhD from that school vs. any other comprable school. You control your own fate! Even if you do buy into the "placement record" method, you would have to know placements as a percent of graduates on the job market. Also, did 5 grads end up in a top 20 and the rest get no offers (this might indicate a sink-or-swim environment that allows some students to drown) or did 1 end up in a top 20 and the rest in top 100s or with job offers from NGOs etc. The bottom line: there are tonnes of factors that would have to be figured into a "placement-based choice model". Do not let the above list determine your choice of Graduate School!

Just a note on summer language programmes... many schools offer a seperate (and easy to attain) funding pool for this type of off-campus training. I know several PhD students at HYPS (first time I have ever used this achronym. good times) who have received 3-4 grand on top of their regular annual stipend for summer language training in foreign countries. For example, Yale has the MacMillan Center which frequently "makes it rain" with supplemental dissertation scholarships, summer research grants, and language training funds. If you happen to study comparative or IR, you may find it cost-effective (and really, in your best interests as a scholar) to sublet your expensive apartment in N.America and take off to a country of interest for the summer.

But... but... Will Reno! Hendrik Spruyt! Okay, in all fairness I am just jealous because I got a stone-cold rejection from Northwestern. Best of luck with your future studies! I hope you get into your dream school after re-applying.

A lesson you learn in graduate school... "talking shop" outside of class time, study time, or research time will drive you bonkers. If you do not want to be driven mad and if you do not want to drive your cohort mad, you keep the poli-sci and politics chatter to a minimum during off-hours. Just a thought from the peanut gallery.

Yeah... I saw this offer too. U of T is skimpin on the dough! UBC's offer is much better (18,000 a year for 4 yrs + a full tuition stipend and TAs + RAs available for additional funding at any point).

This is why I suggest that you memorize the building blocks for these questions first (i.e. try doing the exercises in the ETS practice book -- if you have not purchased this yet, it is a good buy). Trust me, the more familiar you are with basic steps, the more likely you are to be able to solve the problems systematically.

The first time I took the math section (in an at-home practice test), I got less than 500. When I took the test for real 6 weeks later, I got 790 on the quant section. The first step is to tell yourself that it can be done. You also should know that being "bad at math" or even (as was the case with me) "good at math" is not a predictor of your performance on this test. I could run multivariate regressions, do mathematic proofs, had taken some college level calculus and statistics classes... but I could not multiply 8 by 7 without really thinking about it. Trust me, being "bad at math" is not a hindrance to your performance on this section. On the other hand, doing well on the GRE quant may signal to graduate schools that you have superior problem solving abilities (and in the case of Philosophy, that you are prepared to do some logic at the graduate level... though I am assuming that this is not your focus). Essentially what the GRE requires is that you use simple skills and logical reasoning to decide how to solve "trick questions". This means that the tests the same level of "skill" as an 8th grade mathematics exam but requires a much higher level of problem solving ability (i.e. which of the basic techniques do I need to use in order to answer this question). With that in mind, I suggest that you become very familiar with the basic building blocks first as this will help you solve problems more quickly. By this I mean memorizing the rules for manipulating exponents, working with fractions, geometry patterns, and even basic multiplication and division. Once you have memorized the basic rules, you should do a whole bunch of problems to practice your basic skills and, more importantly, to get a better sense for how the wording of particular questions indicates the type of skill you will need to use to solve the problem. After you have memorized for speed and practiced for familiarity, it is absolutely vital that you trust in your preparation on test-day. Do NOT tell yourself that you are bad at math. Frankly, it is immaterial. Instead, tell yourself that you are more than prepared for the GRE Quant section. So, my "real" strategy for performing well on this section is: MEMORIZE - for speed PRACTICE - for familiarity and BE CONFIDENT - for sanity

Sure, having a quant/formal methods background is important. I don't think that having a quant-weak background is a red flag but knowing R/STATA, having taken some higher level quant classes, a strong GRE Q score, and even some data management experience may help you stand out from the crowd of 3.8+, Phi Beta Kappa, Honours etc. applicants out there.

Agreed. I also suggest you try downloading the ETS practicet tests & exams. I think this system is free but if not, the ETS book with the practice paper tests is also pretty useful (not for technique but defineltly for practice exercises). If you decide that you are going to re-apply to graduate school, getting your GRE scores up is going to be vital. As doorkeeper mentioned, many schools (possibly all schools?) have a cutoff score that allows them to filter the high number of applications down to a more manageable number. It sucks, but it is important to take these features of the system into account. Good luck with your future applications!

I am definetly not funnier but I did develop a more wry sense of humour (mostly driven by basic and thus amusing observations about the most mundane things happening at any given moment). Also, RWBG... you have schooled me. This is a perfect example of how I haven't gotten any funnier over the years. If I had a dime for every time someone said "I was joking" and then gave me THE LOOK (the one RWBG had when he/she read my comment), I would have at least enough money to bribe a few admissions committees.

RWBG, you should read some of the newer work by Ted Miguel and company about the dangers of this kind of work. Basically, if you include absolutely everything in a survey or model, chances are you will see net results purely by chance. Trust me, I love a good model. The difference is that I had a Pre-Analysis plan (in this case, a pre-application plan) and this sort of discussion leans towards the "pick-and-choose" variables that yield the result I wanted in the first place. Juuuust saying. In other news, drunk baby red pandas are so twee!

Also. This is one of the many reasons Vancouver rocks: And. This is why sea otters are wicked-cute:

Maybe I would have better ideas about how to pick between schools if I had more options to chose from. That being said, I think that creating a model that controlls for every possible aspect of program-fit would just drive you bat-shit crazy. You probably have a pretty good instinct about whether a program will be good for you academically (after all, you applied to the program and they accepted you... that covers most possibilities). After that, I reckon anything short of "a miserable city with petty insecure people and a stipend that won't cover my daily Cup-O-Noodles" is pretty darn good. Also, consider this: if you go to a school with great funding (one big reason to pick a top-ranked program & reputation-heavy school over a lower ranked/smaller and more specialized department) you have the opportunity to spend time in other departments or somewhere else in the world while you are completing/doing research for your dissertation. Sure, there are a ton of questions about funding and track records and inter-department politics ... on the other hand, I occasionally think that I would go to graduate school at the bottom of a deep hole if it meant I could pursue a career in research and teaching. Suggestion: when I was being recruited to undergraduate unis (for athletics), I picked the school that just "felt right" after a 2 day visit. It was highly ranked enough to be comprable to my other options and it had a certain je ne sais quois that drew me in. Though my time there was chaotic, imperfect, demanding, disillusioning, etc... I have NO regrets. Hope this helps... If not, this should:

Wow, congrats. Did they explain the odd timing?

Saltlake, lifestyle is also important to me. While I am serious about not having many schools to decide between, certain things have made the "decision" much easier. These include: the presence of a club water polo team, a boathouse (in case I ever decide to start rowing again), proximity to my homeland (Canada), proximity to major cities, athletics culture, proximity to quality music-scene etc. If a school scores high on these things, I am about 3-54 times more likely to want to go there. So we all can stop bickering... here is a video of ducks.

HOT DAMN! That dog is mighty cute. This just reinforces my approach to chosing a graduate program... finding a nearby appartment that will allow me to get a pet (in my case, a kitten). Actually, I'm kidding... as anyone who has read my posts already knows, my decision was made much easier by the 9 or so admissions committees that rejected me .

The most "unhappy" people in my department are the ones a. writing comps/quals or b. 6 ft deep in reading they have yet to complete. They are also the most out-spoken. Take "happiness" with a grain of salt. People have a tendency to complain, exaggerate, and emphasize the negative. Some people are also just not suited for graduate school!

A few months ago, I purchased a dress online. It looked great in the catalogue and reviews were overwhelmingly positive. When the dress showed up at my door, I was pleased as punch to find that the fabric felt soft and expensive and that the colour was exactly as it appeared online. I tried the dress on and returned it to the store the next day. The moral of this story: you can't be sure of fit until you try it on for size. Note: The big difference between applications and buying something online is that after you submit a few applications and send them your hard-earned cash, a group of people sit around and decide whether they want to send you a package. If the cuteness-elves that work at Anthropologie spent weeks assessing whether I "fit" a certain dress, I would probably sue them. Okay, okay, I know that this was a silly analogy and that I have taken it too far but there is a point to all this crazy. I applied to a bunch of schools that seemed great fits (following the instructions posted above about reading work done by profs in the department) and was rejected. A few schools decided to admit me. When all is said and done, fit did not appear to be the deciding factor in these decisions. And no, I have NO idea what determined my success at some schools and dismal failure at others.