I ended accepting an offer at Columbia University for an MA with a half tuition scholarship. I successfully deferred until Fall of 2021. Thank you all!
This is a good idea-- thank you!
I'm having a whirlwind weekend. I got my full funding scholarship, accepted my offer, and was notified today that I'm going to be published!
A lot can be said for the collegiality of the dept. Last year, I was choosing between two top 10 programs, but one was slightly higher ranked. On the visit day for the better program, I saw that students hated each other, the professors, and the administration. 3 students said that they were transferring out to other programs because of the lack of support from their advisors. That was a HUGE red flag to me. 6th and 7th year funding also seemed to be incredibly contentious and competitive. I couldn't see myself being happy there for next 5-8 years.
When I visited the program that I am now attending (the slightly lower ranked one) the students and faculty both stressed how much collegiality there was in the department. Now that I'm here, I can absolutely attest to that. Obviously, more went into my decision than just whether people were happy, but at the end of the day, with all other things being relatively equal, it's ok to choose the place where you'd be happy and where others seem happy.
There is something to be said about choosing a program where you would be happy, especially because this is a process which will consume your life for the next 5-8+ years. The job market is terrible for all of us, so in some instances, choose the place where you would be the happiest and most supported because that is the place where you are going to get the best work done. If you're going to be miserable at X school, you'll be more likely to drop out and your work will likely suffer.
Well, my cycle is pretty much over so here is my stuff.
PROFILE:
Type of Undergrad Institution: UC Berkeley
Major(s)/Minor(s): Sociology/Economics (double major)
Undergrad GPA: 3.91 (major GPA in both are actually a bit lower
Type of Grad: N/A
Grad GPA: N/A
GRE: 800Q 800V 4.5AW
Any Special Courses: nothing you won't expect for my major
Letters of Recommendation: Senior Comparative/Political econ prof, newly tenured soc prof, specialization is on immigration, senior soc prof China expert
Research Experience: One project on immigration, one project on the political economy of climate change, a couple conference presentation and "think-tank" type of publication (all co-authorship).
Teaching Experience: None
Subfield/Research Interests: Comparatives, legitimacy & regime change, China focus
RESULTS:
Acceptances($$ or no $$): University of Michigan, MIT, Harvard (all $)
Waitlists:
Rejections: Emory, Stanford, Princeton
Pending: University of Washington, University of Toronto
Going to: we'll see
Just one thing I learned about this whole process: yes, it is true, fit matters, a LOT. For me, my top 3 choices are Harvard, Michigan and MIT, for specific faculties (more than one in each school) as well as their strength in comparative studies and Chinese issues. I admit my "back-up" schools are actually not that great of a fit for me. To be perfectly honest, I chose Emory for its overall ranking (hence what I judged to be "relatively easy to get into and still good") and fairly generous funding level. When I was looking over Emory's faculty list I thought that there isn't any prof who is a great fit for me, and it doesn't seem like the right place. But I applied anyway thinking it's a lower ranked school and hence the "back-up". Emory is my very first rejection, way before people are contacted for interviews and everything. I always thought that Harvard really is a great fit for me, probably the best, but didn't want say that, because.... well it's Harvard >.< But I think in the end the fit won. I actually screwed up my Harvard app a bit. It was the very first I submitted, and I didn't get any feedback on my CV at that point. After I submitted my file, one of my letter writers gave me a whole sheet of comments and fixes for my CV, saying that it's too short and didn't include everything, and I really need to use stronger words to describe my skills.... I think I lost hope then and there... But it worked out in the end.
PS: two of my letter writers received their PhD at Harvard, and the other MIT. That might have been a factor.
Now the SOP. This is the Harvard Version:
“The empire, long divided, must unite; long united, must divide,” so begins my favorite book from childhood, the Chinese historical novel Romance of the Three Kingdoms. The crumpling of the ancient Han Empire and the emergence of new political forces described in the novel have long intrigued me. I was fascinated by the descriptions of good policies and failed ones, of rebellions and coups, and of the slow and painful transition to a new political order. Though the term “political science” was unfamiliar to me then, I was already pondering what makes a governing institution legitimate in the eyes of the governed and why once glorious empires disintegrate.
These questions remain relevant for today’s China, since many uncertainties remain about the current communist government’s legitimacy and longevity. Growing up in post-reform China, I experienced much of the tremendous economic and social liberalizations first hand and wondered why political reform was not forthcoming. Max Weber famously theorized that a modern state claims legitimacy through its legality and rationality: that means equal applications of law, bureaucratic form of organization, and ultimately, democracy. Yet these features are mostly absent in China today. Does that mean the current Chinese government has no claim to sustainable legitimacy, or that it has established an alternative source of legitimacy that is less dependent on legality and democracy? How will the legitimacy question shape China’s political transition? How is China similar or different to other authoritarian countries that have undergone democratic transitions? These are the types of questions I plan to pursue in my graduate studies. Such questions will become increasingly important, as Chinese trade and diplomacy expand their reach and begin to influence how governments operate beyond China’s borders.
Legitimacy is a difficult concept to define and to measure and it requires both quantitative and qualitative research tools to investigate thoroughly. Many empirical studies measure legitimacy either by surveying the opinions of the governed, or by measuring the government’s performance in areas like level of corruption, rule of law, or provision of public goods. In my future research, I plan to use both public opinions and governance performance indicators to create a composite measure of legitimacy, following the method Bruce Gilley has established in his multinational comparative study, The Right to Rule. These measures, especially the performance indicators, not only measure legitimacy, but may also in part explain legitimacy by showing institutional strengths and weaknesses. However, I do not think public opinion and performance data alone can explain fully whether an institution is legitimate and predict how it may change. Countries with similar political and economic conditions have often diverged to completely different fates, as shown by the wave of democratization (or lack thereof) after the collapse of the former Soviet Union. Notions of what is perceived to be a legitimate governing institution may provide another important piece of the explanation.
Many social scientists have investigated how beliefs and ideas have influenced institutions and impacted social and political change. The Protestant work ethic can usher in capitalism, as Weber contends, or according to Huntington, cultural similarities and differences can push the world closer to a major “clash of civilizations”. Many studies about China have also investigated the importance of political values and their impact on institutional structure and behavior. I am especially attracted to Elizabeth Perry’s study which tracks the concept of “Mandate of Heaven” throughout Chinese history and shows how peasant rebellions and other challengers to existing regimes shaped their rhetoric and strategies around this idea. Her study provides a prime example for investigating the interchange between political ideas and rhetoric, institution, and political actions. Alastair I. Johnston’s book on Chinese strategic culture and its influence on security policies was also an inspiration for me; it provides another method for empirically investigating how ideas influence political institutions and choices.
I am confident that my training in economics and sociology and research experience at UC Berkeley have prepared me well for the complex and daunting task of dissertation research. Coursework in sociology taught me the basic methods of social science research, including surveys and ethnography. My economics background gave me strong quantitative skills. I took calculus, linear algebra and econometrics and succeeded in all of these courses. I am comfortable with statistical analysis. I put all of these skills to practice at the Berkeley Roundtable of International Economy (BRIE), where I conducted research about the political and economic impact of global climate change. Under the guidance of John Zysman and in collaboration with several of his doctoral students, I produced a literature review of comparative green growth policies, which was presented at the Green Growth Leaders conference in Copenhagen in 2011. My experiences at BRIE further enhanced confidence in my ability to carry a research project from conceptualizing the research questions, to collecting and analyzing cross-national data, to drawing the lessons learned.
I am deeply attracted to Harvard University’s Department of Government because of the presence of many faculty members who have produced insightful work on legitimacy and regime change. I am especially eager to work under the tutelage of Elizabeth Perry, since her research interests and expertise are a perfect match for the project I envision. I also hope to work with Alastair Johnston and Theda Skocpol, who both have produced influential works on Chinese politics. The strength of Harvard’s comparative politics program as well as the overall quality of research and education at Harvard are another strong draw. I am interested in many aspects of comparative politics, especially the diversity of national institutional structures and the ideas and values underpinning them. For example, why did American political institutions develop differently from those in Europe? What role has differing social values played? How do different institutional arrangements affect the formulation of economic policy? At Harvard, I will be able to find the people and the resources to help explore all of my interests and curiosities. Harvard is famed for being a meeting place of the world’s brightest minds, and I hope to be at such a meeting place, working alongside other young scholars whose intellectual pursuits may inspire and challenge my own.
My personal experience with the Columbia MA program.
I applied to 7 PhD programs (political theory) last year: Harvard, Princeton, Columbia, and others, and I was rejected by all seven. On my application to Columbia, I asked them to consider me for the MA, and I was accepted. I decided to do the MA at Columbia despite the cost ($40K total tuition for the one-year MA) because I felt that I had no other way of getting into a top-notch PhD program. My plan was to use the one year to get great recommendations from theory faculty and deepen my knowledge of the field in order to improve my application.
I ended up making a good impression with two theory faculty there through my written work, and they were more than willing to write me recommendations for this year. I reapplied to four top-notch schools: Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Columbia. Last week, I was notified by those two professors that they had decided to admit me into the PhD program with fellowship. I'm still waiting to hear from the other three schools.
I know other PhD students at Columbia have followed a track similar to mine. The MA program is a great chance to prove your mettle with faculty and beef up your application. The great thing about it is that it only takes one year (I graduate this May).
