readeatsleep

As I stared at the screen of the computer I took my GRE test on today, I wondered just what exactly this test measures. Clearly, it is not a test of one's aptitude and potential as a graduate student - its more of a basic skills test to see if a candidate meets minimum requirements of any competent scholar (basic analytical reasoning skills, vocabulary, reading comprehension, math math math). So, I am wondering, do you think the GRE counts for some political science graduate applicants more than it does for others? I am referring to, I don't know, the methodology kids and the theory kids in particular. Methods needs math (right? is that what methodology is?) and the theory kids need to be able to think analytically (right? is that what theory is?) Being a theorist, it behooves me to think that I will not be held accountable for my average-ish scores (680 math, 710 verbal), or that they will only be used to judge my basic competence (which I think they demonstrate). Then again, I wonder if I am fooling myself into delusion. Thoughts?

also, schools will still accept incoming information from ets after the deadline. usually you report your scores unofficially, and the official scores are only looked at farther down (i.e., later) in the process. i might take the GREs as late as december 2nd for december 2nd deadlines.=, and im not worried.

i took the gre two years ago and did poorly (i didnt study, i knew id get into the m.a. program i was applying to). now i am applying to top tier schools and am taking the gre again today (in 3 hours!!!!). i am hoping to hit 700 in each section, and if i dont come close, i am not going to hesitate signing up to take the gre again at the beginning of december.

So, as I begin to finish up the application process, im beginning to think maybe im not the academic i thought i was, and worrying that i wont get into any of the schools im applying to. so, i would like you to rate my profile, and tell me if i need to shoot a little lower, i.e., apply to more 'safety schools'. i will follow the standard formula: Undergraduate: Top Ten Liberal Arts College Double Major: Social Studies/Philosophy GPA: 3.82 Major GPA: 4.00 Highest Honors Phi Beta Kappa Best Thesis Award Graduate: M.A. Philosophy Program strong in Political Philosophy GPA: 4.00 Letters of Reccomendation: 1 Department Chair at graduate program (philosophy) 1 Department Chair at graduate program (political science) 1 Assistant Professor at a well respected polisci program elsewhere 1 Intellectual Historian GRE: Should be between 1400-1450 & 5-6 Research: A well reveived undergrad thesis (high honors/award) research assistant T.A. for three political theory classes So, im applying to basically top 7 political theory programs (chicago, yale, harvard, princeton, berkeley, northwestern, and duke). should i be applying to a lot more programs? thanks everyone. hope your applications are going well.

thats tough. while i understand your desire to explain these two events, it definitely could end up sounding like excuses. i would say, choose one of the two items to excuse, and i would choose the GRE scores. sophomore year really isnt the most important year, and the GRE excuse would be able to quickly elaborate upon. im thinking something like "i know my GRE scores are not up to snuff, im not satisfied with them either, i took them under unsualy circumstances, etc." good luck!

generally, the advice on this board has been to personalize SOP to each school as much as possible. this is alot of work, but since those of us reading this board are already working or (or even finalizing) their SOP, it is certainly possible. however, a professor recently advised me not to stress out on the personalization aspect of the SOP. she said that admission committees will know who you will be working with, given your interests, and that it is best to spend time and energy on other parts of the SOP or application. that is, she reccomended that i basically send out generic SOPs. does anyone have any further thoughts on this? her advice is attractive, not only because it involves less work, but because it reduces the awkwardness of the SOP, since inserting references to the work of professors is never easy or smooth. on the other hand, i want the schools to know that i have done my research, and thought about who i want to work with. thx!

the fact that you must misrepresent my argument indicates the extent to which you are not being intellectually honest. i dont think giving a scientific description of political science is mutually exclusive with other descriptions. like i said, im a philosopher - A PHILOSOPHER - and i emphasize the philosophical aspects of political science. but the fact is that there is also alot of scientific approaches to political science. i never said i want to prove "that the entire discipline is scientific", rather, those elements that are scientific deserve funding from appropriate source. its a simple, honest observation, and you are getting into trouble by trying to make abstract generalizations (a problem with young theory-oriented thinkers!) i dont see what i do as somehow competitive with more scientific approaches, as if we are playing a zero sum game. comparing my claim to biology is willful ignorance. armed with this data, we would have never invaded iraq in the first place. im not saying political scientists are in charge of our strategic military decisions, just like regular scientists are not in charge of our emissions standards. rather, politicians make all these decisions. again, wilfully misrepresenting the facts to win an argument. no, marx's sense of science (dialectical materialism) is the exact apposite of what i am referring to as critical science, since marx's dia-mat was rigid and didnt have the means to theorize marx's own position, as a theorist, within the historical constellation. post-marxist approaches to marxism, i am thinking largely of benjamin, adorno, and althusser, are much more sensitive to this way of thinking.

well, obviously it would be beneficial to abandon the idea of science altogether, particularly for a field of study that deals with normative and moral claims (claims i dont think are available to scientific analysis). but its the NSF, and to justify political science to the NSF means to think about political science as it relates to science qua science. im a philosopher - not a quantitative statistician - but i also know that it doesnt help to be rigidly opposed to any description of academic activity, or unnecessarily quixotic. the reality of the situation is that funding is scarce, and i am interested in securing funds for research in political science. real world politic sometimes requires compromise, and i dont feel we need some somber conspiracy theory about over-emphasizing scientific descriptions of political science to get grant money... the fields of political economy and comparative politics, i think, has made large steps towards formalizing the process by which developing nations acquire political stability as well as economic viability, within or outside of participatory structures of governance. i also think game theoretic approaches have made substantial formal models for predicting decision making, although these models are obviously limited in their own way, as any scientific model is. im proposing that we can think of political science, particularly in its more qualitative forms, as a self-reflective science in that the same way horkheimer imagined crtical theory to be a self-critical science. so, i mean that political science qua critical theory can also theorize its coordinates within the social system it is describing. a critical approach to game theory would insist on the limits of game theory, the places where it shows its description not to be hermetic (for example, collective action). a critical approach to marxism might question the practical use of intellectual approaches to politics in general, the tendency for the ivory tower to impede progressive reform. poetry and painting and journalism can be self-reflective in this sense, but they are not usually also geared towards social analysis in the same rigorous way that political science is, so they are merely self-reflective, not self-reflective sciences.

i agree with mwash - to characterize political science as 'not science' or 'not scientific' is to cede too much ground to our detractors. political science is either scientific in the traditional sense or in a self-conscious sense. in the traditional sense, political scientists apply theories to observations in order to garner information from those observations and make predictions according to these theories. this kind of science is useful in creating peace and prosperity because it introduces predictability into otherwise chaotic situations. in the self-conscious sense, political science is scientific because it criticizes the assumptions of traditional political science. in this way, political science is scientific because it is interested in providing the best description of the state of affairs we are observing. being conscious of the errors of our ways of describing the world is good because it prevents us from seeing our values as 'true', and scapegoating elements of the world that dont conform to these descriptions as 'untrue.'

ziz, what are your research interests?

First, yes, Political Science is a little better. You have no idea how hard it is to get into top Philosophy programs. Now, to the OP. I graduated with BAs in political science and philosophy, but was never interested in the kind of philosophy you wrote your thesis on. that is, straight up american analytic philosophy. i was always only interested in continental and political philosophy. i am doing my MA in philosophy now, and will be applying to PhD programs in political science this fall. so, we are in similar positions somewhat. if you want to study political thought, you will have to abandon your interests in materialism. that is for sure. it might not be a bad idea to enroll in an MA Program in either political philosophy or political science. a good place to study hegel, for example, is the new school for social research, in either the political science or philosophy departments. i entered an MA program to test the philosophy academic world to see if it was compatible with my interests. it is not. i have discovered political science to be a much better realm of inquiry for my interests than philosophy. HOWEVER, being in an MA program also has helped my application. i have now have a 4.0 graduate GPA, reccomendations from two department chairs, a better writing sample, and a coherent research project. this, with phi beta kappa and other undergrad awards, with a decent undergrad gpa of 3.8, i think will make me compettive for top political science phd programs. however, without my masters degree and, more importantly, the experience i earned earning it, i wouldnt be nearly as strong a candidate. so, if your grades and writing sample arent where you want them to be, graduate school could help. so, for this reason, a masters program was good for me. in your case, i think a master program in political science or philosophy would help you estimate your level of dedication to academia, and your ability to become a professional academic. it would also give you some time to consider which direction you want to go in, that is, philosophy or polisci. on the other hand, i know students who have earned masters degrees in philosophy to make themselves more competitive for top philosophy programs and still struck out on applications.

really? math is more important than verbal? i kind of doubt it. maybe if you are going into quantitative analysis, but i think verbal is at least equally important. ...or am i wrong?

i feel like your other two scores are so good that nay negative impact with your analytic score will be mollified by the other. as long as your writing sample is solid, im sure it wont kill your app for top programs. you could always address the score in your sop.

hey all, i would appreciate some preliminary comments on my statement of purpose. my specific questions are: 1. do i include too much information about my academic background? if so, what should i eliminate? 2. are the outlines of my research interests too vague or too specific? should i limit myself to only one topic? 3. is the statement itself too long? most applications ask for between 1,000 and 1,500 words - mine is only 1,375. 4. is it sufficient to add which professors i want to work with at the end of each research-oriented paragraph? 5. any other advice would be great! if anyone wouldn't mind helping me out, please PM me. perhaps i can do the same for you and we can help each other out. thanks!

hey everyone; so, a VERY prominent professor has *basically* asked me to write my own rec. i am to give hir a page and a half summary of my acievements, written in the third person, so be the "core" of hir recommendation. any advice? can anyone point me to example recommendation for general format? most importantly, has anyone else had to do this? its hard! -thanks

hello all; i have decided i am going to do a bit of travelling as i finish my applications for this year. i'd like to visit a few of the institutions I would really like to attend, check out the general ethic of the grad students there, and visit with a few of the professors I'd like to work with. is this weird? do you think visiting might help my chances? has anyone done this before? what are some good conversation starters? more importantly, is there any way to find out who is on admission committees, so that i can visit them? i feel that one of the things i have going for me when it comes to applications is my attitude and personality. however, i cant demonstrate this on paper very well. this is one reason for visiting. please comment! thanks

it seems like your biggest problem is commitment. im sure you will be able to get into a philosophy PhD program, but the question is whether or not that is the right decision for you. myself, i knew i wanted to pursue philosophy since i was about 17 years old. since then, ive been an avid reader, but that doesnt mean im perfect. i procrastinate, too, but not everytime. i always read what is assigned, and usually more. if you can't motivate yourself to go the extra mile, or cant even motivate yourself to do what is required, you may not have the enthusiasm necessary to really make a career out of academics. dont get me wrong: no one is perfect. i procrastinate, i smoke pot, i am lazy. but i also work my ass off. i think those who will succeed are those who, despite working hard most of the time, still dont think of themselves as hard workers. that makes them work harder. i graduated high honors, phi betta kappa, 3.9, best thesis award from a top 10 american liberal arts college, and i dont see this as enough. i am driven. if you are not driven, i dont think you have what it takes to really make it. then again, the same goes for law school, too. in the end, noone will ever be *sure* they are making the right decisions, or *sure* that theyve got what it takes. you will only find out at the end. take a long honest and painfully realistic look at yourself. you also do not need to go straight from undergraduate to graduate work. sounds like some time off is just what you need. and remember: you dont need to be a professional academic to read and think about philosophy. however, in order to be a professional academic, you need to read and think about philosophy.

thanks son of cioran, you have proven that you know a few Hegelian buzzwords. everything you said is completely obvious. i would appreciate it if you withheld your advice forthwith.

this is confusing to me. i'm already earning a masters degree. yes, of course, i am interested in the tradition of american political theory as well. i think its clear that i want to study social and political theory. you are puzzled by the fact that i am not interested in many fields in philosophy - but this is precisely my problem - i am not sure i want to continue studying philosophy. and what does agamben have to do with what i am talking about? continental philosophy is not just trendy, contemporary thought. i am more interested in 19th century continental and political thought. maybe you don't really know what you are talking about... anyways, for those interested in my decision process or these topics, i have decided to apply mostly to political science programs that specialize in theory. this include yale, u chicago, berkeley, duke, johns hopkins, princeton (though mostly american/analytic theory at princeton) and a few others. i will also be applying to a few multidisciplinary programs, such as the committee on social thought at uchicago, the interdisciplinary program in political philosophy at princeton, and the rhetoric program at berkeley.

hello all, id like to plumb your soft supple heads for advice. i am a masters student in a philosophy program; i studied philosophy and political theory (and history) as an undergraduate and did very well. i will be doing the application dance this summer to look for a phd program. i am interested in the history of social and political theory, recognition and personal identity, critical theory, the frankfurt school, hannah arendt, nietzsche, hegel, rousseau, etc. should i be in a political science phd or philosophy? lately ive been leaning towards political science since ive been disenchanted by philosophy - too much speculation, too much useless phenomenology, to much professionalization. on the other hand, i think id like to eventually teach in a philosophy department, as i feel like that would give me free reign to pursue my interests. i imagine i could be the political philosopher of a department one day, and do hegel as well. however, i feel like one cant really specialize in philosophy if they want a job - id need to study a bunch of other topics that arent interesting to me (epistemology, metaphysics). additionally, where would i go to study social thought in a philosophy department? but a political science phd would allow me to study social and poltical thought more closely as a graduate student, and learn more about the discipline as a whole. however, im not that excited about the mandatory classes in two other subfields outside of theory that seems to be standard at all good programs. on the other hand, the political theory job market, despite being so miserable, might actually be better than the philosophy job market. so, what do you all think? i was planning on applying to the top 10 or 12 programs in each disicpline that i would be happy at, but thats like, $1,500 in application fees! so im haoping maybe i can cut that number in half by choosing a discipline. thanks everyone.

hello all, id like to plumb your soft supple heads for advice. i am a masters student in a philosophy program; i studied philosophy and political theory (and history) as an undergraduate and did very well. i will be doing the application dance this summer to look for a phd program. i am interested in the history of social and political theory, recognition and personal identity, critical theory, the frankfurt school, hannah arendt, nietzsche, hegel, rousseau, etc. should i be in a political science phd or philosophy? lately ive been leaning towards political science since ive been disenchanted by philosophy - too much speculation, too much useless phenomenology, to much professionalization. on the other hand, i think id like to eventually teach in a philosophy department, as i feel like that would give me free reign to pursue my interests. i imagine i could be the political philosopher of a department one day, and do hegel as well. but a political science phd would allow me to study social and poltical thought more closely as a graduate student, and learn more about the discipline as a whole. however, im not that excited about the mandatory classes in two other subfields outside of theory that seems to be standard at all good programs. on the other hand, the political theory job market, despite being so miserable, might actually be better than the philosophy job market. so, what do you all think? i was planning on applying to the top 10 or 12 programs in each disicpline that i would be happy at, but thats like, $1,500 in application fees! so im haoping maybe i can cut that number in half by choosing a discipline. thanks everyone.

i know a student who may be attending - one of the brightest ive ever met. sounds like itll be a blast.

so, we all know that the writing sample is an important (perhaps the most important) element of a successful application. id like to get down to the nitty gritty. 1. do you think its important that a writing sample is about one's proposed field of interest? and then, how close should it be? surely, if one is applying to study political philosophy and submits work on metaphysics, this is a bit off. but say, one wants to study hegel, and submits a paper on rousseau? 2. is it bad if one submits a piece of writing that has already been published? or that one has presented at a conference? discuss!