NBM

Applying to 25 programs would cost you a fortune. But if money is not an issue, I suppose it won't hurt. Remember only to apply to schools that you wouldn't mind attending.

I second that. Can't emphasize enough the importance of fit in the admissions process!

I am thinking that if there's a good faculty fit, being specific won't hurt you. The upside is that you'll be able to show your ability to frame, structure, and develop an idea properly. That said, since your POI might not be on the ad comm (in my case, my POI had never read my application), it is to your advantage to write at least part of your SOP in a way that would appeal to a wider audience. E.g. Before you dive into the specifics, do mention the broader theoretical puzzle/debate and how your project could contribute to that discussion. Lastly, given that there's usually a page/word limit for the SOP, the actual difference between a "more general" and "specific" approach might not be as vast as you've imagined. (I might be wrong, though.)

We have ~15 this year. I was surprised to learn that attrition rates vary quite a bit: as high as 50%-60% at OSU, and as low as 15% at Stanford (for example).

Not sure if anyone has shared this foreign policy article ("So you want to get into a political science Ph.D. program") before, but that looks like sensible advice. Oh, and maybe this as well, if you've been out of school for a while. Good luck guys!

I might be wrong, but I think I read it somewhere (one of the posts by faculty members) that US programs are more traditional "feeders" for US PhD programs.

Travel a bit. Learn basic computer science. Read... read some more. And ^ this (although rather unwillingly).

Congratulations on UW, it's a wonderful program! And, good luck to all those who are on waitlists.

My two cents: (1) It might be useful to consider getting a MA first to make up for your undergrad GPA, and more importantly, to figure out if a political science PhD is really for you. It also helps overcome points #2 and #3 in your post. (2) I don't think work experience matters, well, at least it won't be used against you. Having "academic" RA experience might be nice, but not necessary. (3) What about Mainland-Hong Kong politics excite you specifically? Given that it is difficult these days to only be an area specialist (and HK isn't really an "area" [think of areas such as the post-Soviet region, China, US]), you might want to think about the broader theoretical debates that fascinate you. From what I learn this application cycle, fit is hugely important. The mere fact that very few, if not none, study Hong Kong in American poli sci departments makes admission even more difficult. It is thus doubly important that you frame your puzzle in ways that are not only interesting, but relevant to broader political science debates.

Oops, my bad for the careless diction! Those are useful responses given to an unclear question. "A letter from someone who recalls you fondly as a fine student who always came to class prepared" was PRECISELY how I described the "imagined" LOR, from the big name, to my friend when I was soliciting for advice. A common fear amongst applicants (at least I've seen the same question every now and then on the Internet) is that, on top of the content, who wrote their letter matters a great deal too. My case was* to choose between a lesser-knwon prof who knew me well (3 classes, some TA work) but not THAT well (e.g. didn't know about the changes in my methodological inclination), and a big name who knew me not so well, but well enough to promise to write a letter. In a game of imperfect information (students can't read the LORs), it's good to know at least how ad coms read recommendations. And, I thank you both for that. (* yes, my cycle is over, but this question still bothers me (and perhaps some future applicants to come).)

I'd start off by saying thank you to the faculty members who spent time in illuminating the rather mysterious admissions process. Thanks also goes to RWBG who proposed organizing this into a thread - it will be a great resource for future applicants. A question regarding the letters of recommendation - Despite the small sample we have here (BFB/irfannooruddin v. dnexon), I guess it is safe to conclude that different schools place different emphasis on LORs. Having said that, we still want to do the best we could. Which hypothetical letter would ad coms like better - a formulaic letter by a big name or a better written letter (more detailed, less generic) by a junior faculty - assuming that some of us can't get the best of two worlds?

I just had the opportunity to pay a short visit Berkeley, and against the advice of others, I took an evening stroll OUTSIDE the People's Park. It scared the heck out of me. A case in point: I saw a weird-looking man literally chasing a pedestrian, while making horrid noises (echoing, unintentionally, the ones inside the park). Since I was halfway through the block, it wouldn't make much sense just to turn around. At last I decided that walking on the road (despite the traffic) was (/felt) safer than walking on the sidewalk next to the park. ** That said, I think that was just the experience of a very inexperienced visitor. ** As you asked about crime, here's some (mapped out) data: http://www.crimemapping.com/map.aspx?aid=3f1738a8-6160-4c68-998a-ae00f597613a And, on general safety: http://police.berkeley.edu/ BellJarred, as her previous posts show, will be capable of giving FAR better answers.

BellJarred, thanks a lot for the detailed reply! That surely helped me (and probably others on the board, too) understand Oakland a little better!

All Michigan admits received a pretty persuasive email from the DGS, asking us to decline their offer as soon as we can IF they are not among our top choices. While I'll most probably not be rejecting the offer, someone might! Hope this (tiny bit of) info helps! Edit: letter sent on Mar 1

The latest GW entries on the results board are, for the lack of a better word, fun to read. (Edit: To avoid sounding insensitive - I was one of the rejects. Looks like we are not THAT upset by the news, but pissed about how the news was delivered.)