Canadianpolsci

I am sure that certain schools, certain programs, have minimums. But yes, they are significantly lower than the average score of ADMITTED applicants. Mr. 'I hate the GRE' is a regular on these forums. We know his problem: he screwed up the GRE. Still, he is going to plunK down 60 bucks, 5 times over, to apply to schools that admit less than 15% of applicants. Why? He is taking a chance. Mr. 'I hate the GRE': do you best. Some places will screw you early, most will omit you from the final cut list. You will never even know who, what or why. My advice to this type of dude: if you don't suceed, re-apply with new GRE scores. Can't get GRE score of over 650 in each category and a 5 in writing (and you are not a foreigner): don't go to grad school. You think these applications are rough, wait till you see the job application competition. What the difference between a PhD application process, and a Academic Job process --competition wise: THAT EASY! EVERY LAST DARN FELLOW AND LADY APPLYING FOR JOBS ALREADY GOT INTO GRAD SCHOOL -- EITHER WITH GOOD GRE SCORES (DUH) OR BAD ONES (WOW!) The PhD application process is not quite the real world. It gets HARDER from here.

It really is true that most schools no official cut offs. However, GPA and GRE are the easiest comparable data sets. Every competitive program needs to weed 30-50%, or more, of the applications; this is natural, as, aside from a few "for sure admit" starts of each round, a lot of applicants are going to fall into the "strong middle" category, and it requires effort, ratings, discussion, the works, to figure out which strong applicants to reject. This means that, whether it's one poor junior prof., or each member individually, there has to be a weed out phase. In a way, it does not matter if there is a rule: "GPAs under 3.5, GREs under 1250 combined" or if it is ad hoc: the result is about the same. Put yourself in the committee member's shoes, and you can see how it works. You have a pile of fresh applications no one has seen. They have either been sorted by sub-category (eg., in political science: theory applicants, IR applicants, etc.), or they have not. Either way, what does Junior Professor Smiley do with each app? The same thing: first he checks: a)what school the applicant went to b)GPA and GRE c)does he know any of the letter of reference writer's or recognize any names at least. Immediately all of the above info results in the frame of mind decision: the applicant looks a)very strong b)strong (here, which school you went to is crucial...'He went you Yale'=he is certainly not DUMB) c)the scores are a bit low, and the school ain't so great d)the scores are too low, and the school ain't so great. Then he has to weed. He will weed all the D)s. He will then likely weed half of the C)s. If everything looks in order EXCEPT one main date-point, he checks: school pedigree. In all cases where he can't easily arrive at a c or d, he reads the statement of purpose. In the cases where he is almost sure it is a c or d (weed or weed with great prejudice), he reads the statement of purpose QUICKLY. If you are in the A) or "frame", he reads your application in its entirety CAREFULLY. If you are a C) or D), he reads everything as well, but he does so QUICKLY. At the end of reading EVERY App in its entirety (or for some schools, only the A)s and B)s and some C)s ), he assigns a numerical value. The ranking system and breakdown varies. According to a paper published in a political science journal on the "Science of Political Science Admissions" in 1995, Harvard Government would rank out of 14. Why 14? Because 1/14 is about 7%, and that is also the average acceptance rate. In other words, you better get 11-14 to make it to serious final round debates in full committee. How about the final rounds? For the low GPA/GRE folks: you better have an incredible reason to have gotten this far!! How does the final round work? That's not clear. Certainly there are a small handful of students who just knocked the socks off everyone who read their app. They are in. That is maybe 1/4 to 1/5 of the spots. The rest are haggled over. Either you appeal to a few profs, or one prof in your area maybe just loves you, and fights for you. And the rest, as they say, is history.

I am applying to 7 political science phd programs, all in the US North East (except for Chicago and Duke). I am from Toronto but currently work and live overseas. I hope to be admitted to a few programs, and to visit each place I am admitted. It seems many programs have "admitted applicant" visit day(s), where they host you and you can meet students, etc. I am not sure when each of the schools I hope to be admitted to will hold such days. But I have to plan my trip back to North America now, before I know either where I am admitted, or when these schools are having these visit events. When do these things normally take place? Is it really make such a difference if one visits during the official visit thing, or a little earlier or later by yourself (presuming its before deadline to accept/decline)? Any advice on this matter? I can come back once, for 2 weeks, any time between March 10 and April 10 or so. Most programs I am applying to seems to have made most decisions by March 10 last year. Thoughts??

If you have spaces between the paragraphs and it's single spaced, you can omit the indentations. It's up to you; it won't be what makes the difference in gettin in, that's fa sure.

You GRE verbal score is going to hurt. You have, I am sorry to say, I think zero chance at a top-10 University PhD program. Your analytic score of 6 helps a bit, but your verbal is just astonishingly low. There really is no excuse. Everyone is nervous taking the test. Did you take practice tests? If you scores were so low, its a shame you did not leave time to take the GRE a second time. Perhaps you can take it again, and re-apply to graduate programs next year. MA programs might take you now, but you will have to pay for them. Finally, things will also depend on whether your small college is a known college -- whether admissions people will have heard of it and associate it with quality. Your GPA and CV look excellent, but it makes a HUGE difference whether they were achieved at Smith College, at least a top ten liberal arts college, or at a lower ranked school people haven't heard of.

I think that your undergrad GPA will be an issue. A reviewer will want to know: why was it low? What changed that you got a 3.8 in the MA? If you can answer especially the second question directly or implicitly, that will take of the first question. I think the MA degree compensates for the BA marks -- but what is also key is just how strong letter(s) of recommendation are. Unfortunately, I think that any serious weakness (undergrad GPA very low is one) means you will have a very hard time at hyper-competitive schools--the very top 5-6, such as Princeton. This is because with these schools, they have so many strong applications, they are forced to LOOK for ways to eliminate many good people. A major weakness gives them this chances, as does their view that a candidate with perfect stats doesn't "fit". But for schools below this very top, you should be fine: at any rate, I doubt that, say, a 3.7 undergrad GPA, if you had it, would make much difference one way or the other, except at the very top schools.

Hi fellow polsci applicants. Just wanted your feeback and to share: MY INFO: BA University of Toronto (Political Science, emphasis on theory, also studied classical Greek, German) UGPA: 3.87 MA Hebrew University of Jerusalem (focus on medieval and early modern political philosophy; granted by department of religious studies, a Hebrew Univ. department that has a better reputation internationally than political science) GPA: 3.99 GRE: verbal 700 (97%) math 710 (74%) writing 6/6 One published article in a journal in my field. A number of undergraduate and graduate awards. 2 letters from senior political theorists at Toronto. 2 letters from Israeli professors (1 pol. theorist, one professor of religious thought). Applying to study political theory at: Harvard Yale Duke Princeton Georgetown Columbia What are my chances at each school? What kind of reputation does the Unversity of Toronto have among Americans? How hard is Columbia to get into for political theory specifically?

BA Toronto. MA overseas GRE: verbal 700 (97%) math 710 (74%) writing 6/6 One published article in a journal in my field. A number of undergraduate and graduate awards. Applying to study political theory at: Harvard Yale Duke Princeton Columbia What are my chances at each school? What kind of reputation does the Unversity of Toronto have among Americans? How hard is Columbia to get into for political theory specifically?