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.

12-14 for my program for at least the past three years; a number of years back it was closer to 18-20.

I like how the acronym for the program that collected OSU's data is PRISM.

Never to late too join the dark side!   

Enjoy!

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22history+of+political+thought%22+enlightenment+theory+%22PhD+program%22+site%3A.edu+-academia&aq=f&oq=%22history+of+political+thought%22+enlightenment+theory+%22PhD+program%22+site%3A.edu+-academia&aqs=chrome.0.57&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8&hl=en-US&espv=1

EDIT:
Here's a better link: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22history+of+political+thought%22+enlightenment+philosophy+%22Ph.D.+program%22+OR+%22PhD+program%22+%22political+science%22+site%3A.edu+-academia&oq=%22history+of+political+thought%22+enlightenment+philosophy+%22Ph.D.+program%22+OR+%22PhD+program%22+%22political+science%22+site%3A.edu+-academia&aqs=chrome.0.57.46569048j0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

The key is to use: site:.edu in your search to restrict the results to university websites.

So let's say that you have multiple research interests in different categories (IR, CP, PT or AP)...How did you decided which one you would:

A. Write about in your SOP
B. Study Further in graduate school
C. Write your dissertation on

I have structured this question so pretty much everyone can respond somehow.

Converge them on a single plane!
 
I have structured the answer so that pretty much of your questions are responded to.

I am surprised you are even debating with yourself. Oxford is probably as good as a top 20-25 in the US. I am saying this merely because I assume your eventual goal is to get a TT job in US. In Australia, Singapore, and New Zealand, perhaps Oxford is more respected than a top 20 program in UNews. I am not sure if folks in non-north American OECD countries necessarily appreciate the value of a PhD from a top 20 marginal on UNews.
 
There are six schools that did not accept you. Too bad they all made a stupid decision. At Oxford you are guaranteed with a really great cohort (because it is Oxford) and professors who have already liked you (I assume one or two letter writers of yours teach at Oxford). 
 
Okay, now let's turn to the grandma factor. A non-CHYMPS non-Ivy League school does not carry a brand that can "make your grandma happy". You are going to be in academia most of your life. However, you do have to interact, socialize, or run into people outside of the academia who have no idea that Madison, UCSD, and OSU have world's best PhD programs despite their much lower general university ranking. I hate pedigrees, but most of normal human beings judge people along those stupid lines. LSE and Oxford can give you satisfactory pedigrees to live with. I know you too may hate pedigrees. However, again, a lot of people love pedigrees. 

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.

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.

Congratulations to everyone that received a great admission this cycle. To the rest, chin up and good luck with whatever you take on next.

Hi,
 
I saw a link on the Duck of Minerva blog today about this place and it seems to be a fantastic resource!  As chance would have it, I'm currently a PhD student in Psc at GW and in the spirit of providing information in what I remember to be a ridiculously difficult decision-making process, I thought I'd try to give as much information as I can.    Of course, this only reflects my own opinion/perception and should be taken with a grain of salt.  I certainly can't speak for everyone here.
 
I suppose I'd start by saying these are precisely the sorts of questions you should be asking yourself as you decide on a program....and I'm sure you'll get the chance to talk to faculty and students about them during admit days.  That said, here are some thoughts:
 
1.  Yes, I think GW is invested in improving its reputation, and when the new US News rankings come out, I wouldn't be surprised if GW bumps up a bit. 
 
2.  Yes, our placement is less than ideal. Why might this be the case? 
 
Generally, GW differs from other "top" phd programs in its work obligation.  PhD students (with very few exceptions) are required to either TA for roughly 60 students a semester or provide 20hrs/week of research work for faculty every semester of their tenure in the program.  These work loads are heavy and mean that by the time you have carved out half of your week to working for the faculty you have have little time to A: do your own coursework  and even less to B: work on your own research.  Unlike most programs, you won't get a year (or even semester) "off" here----(called a "fellowship year" at other places).  This costs the program quite a bit, though I'm not sure it recognizes this.  Our students don't publish as much as students at other top tier programs, largely because we simply have quite a bit less time to work on anything of our own.  This happens in the summer too.  Unlike programs that provide summer funding of a livable wage, GW pays only up to about 2,500 in summer funding (so you'll likely need a job on the side to pay those three months of DC rent) and all of that 2,500 iis tied to you coding/doing slave work/etc for faculty members (i.e. a RAship).   I didn't understand the value of having fellowship years when I started looking at PhD programs, but trust me, it's important.  And while you can learn A LOT from an RA gig, there are diminishing returns for each additional semester/summer you devote to that coding project (which is often in a completely different field than the one you work in)!
 
3.  The faculty are really fantastic here.  Sure, all departments have bad eggs, but I tend to think we have fewer here than the norm.  The profs at GW are thoughtful, creative, and interesting folks.  That's a big plus.
 
4.  GW isn't a "policy school."  I've heard this come up before, but I'm not sure why its circulating. Most students here plan to have an academic job at the end.  If they jump to the policy world it's likely more a reflection of them learning about outside options (due to living in a city with lots of think tank and policy jobs) and by the time you've been living at the poverty line long enough (grad student stipends), I guarentee you'd be interested in jumping to a livable wage too .
 
5. I don't regret my decision to come to GW.  That said, I think it's important that students make informed decisions.  If you were admitted to a place with stellar placement which doesnt' require work obligations every semester, you should look at it very seriously.  GW is a lovely place with lovely people, but if you can't get a job at the end of the day, all that loveliness isn't worth all that much.....
 
Good luck!

Given that BFB has invoked the eternal wisdom of Bill Z., there's little to add, but this is the Internet and so I won't let that stop me.
 
It's not that LORs are useless. It's that most of them contain little useful information because they vary so little. Ask yourself: would you ask someone to write your letter if you thought they thought you an idiot? No. Neither would I. So we all ask people we know like us, which means all the LORs tell us that their student is well above average. At this level, the only informative signal is a negative one (for instance, when someone ticks the box that you're in the top 50% of students they've ever taught) -- trust me, this happens, but even when it does it's striking how at odds this "objective" ranking is with the qualitative assessment in the letter which is often stuffed with superlatives. So the signal-to-noise ratio is low.
 
What I'm looking for is detail. A letter from someone who supervised your senior thesis, or for whom you served as a RA, or who knows exactly what research you did when on your study abroad -- that helps. A letter from someone who recalls you fondly as a fine student who always came to class prepared -- well, that's less helpful.
 
Finally, because YMMV as BFB points out, I'll simply say this: beware the moosehead letter.

I agree with the OSU mafia. A detailed letter that draws meaningful comparisons and speaks to a prospective student's strengths and weaknesses is terrific. Letters can also be extremely helpful when it comes to basic things... like reminding readers that an undergraduate institution does not have significant grade inflation. 
 
I'm not sure about how best to approach the larger question. It isn't just that institutions weigh elements differently; individual committee members do as well. And, as Irfan pointed out on a different thread, the structure of fellowship allocation is different -- and in consequential ways -- across different schools.
 
That's why the basic line you'll hear from us is to get your GREs as high as possible, pick writers who will produce personalized and detailed recommendations that speak specifically to your academic potential, and signal your competency to acquire necessary skills -- such as statistical methods, formal theory, languages, etc. 

+1000
 
Two other thoughts:
 
1) Dan: It's the Michigan, not OSU, mafia. We're just expanding our turf.
 
2) On the LOR question: Does the identity of the letter writer matter? Possibly. There is such a thing as source credibility after all. I mean if I get a letter from, say, Sam Huntington (yes, I know he's passed) saying that student X is the best student he's taught at Harvard in 50 years, I'm guessing it would make a much stronger impression on me than if I got a letter making the same relative claim from a professor whose name I didn't recognize at a school whose reputation I don't know as well. But disentangling the Huntington effect from the Harvard effect from the fact that said student is clearly a standout is very hard, and you can decide for yourself how you want to attribute that causality.
 
More generally, we can't control the identity of our letter writers in ways that would truly matter. I attended Ohio Wesleyan, a decent liberal arts university. My letter writers would not have been recognizable to the average committee member (for one thing, none of them were political scientists). It's irrelevant whether a letter from Huntington would have been better for me; that wasn't an option. So my goal was to give my letter writers the most ammunition I could so they could write the best letter they were willing to write (in other words, I followed Dan's advice above to the extent possible).

As for staying clear of the area completely, I personally don't think you have to exercise that much caution. Oakland is home to a variety of things to see and things to do. Here are is hastily put together list:
- Oakland Museum (admission is free on the first Sunday of every month)
- Oakland Zoo (for animal lovers)
- Oakland Chinatown (super cheap groceries, authentic Chinese restaurants, and bakeries with delicious pastries)
- Lake Chabot (it's huge and it's perfect for hiking)
- Lake Chabot Golf Course (they offer golf lessons)
- Lake Merrit (you can visit the boat house and rent a kayak for 2 people or a pedal boat for 3 people for some fun exercise on the lake)
- Oracle Arena & Oakland Coliseum (people come here to watch the Oakland A's, Golden State Warriors, and Oakland Raiders. Off the top of my head, I also remember that Rihanna performed here in 2011 and that Alicia Keys is coming here next week on March 10th.)
- There are also tons of really great and highly recommended restaurants in Oakland, but you'll have to check Yelp for that information.
 
Again, I want to say that you should always be careful and be smart, wherever you are. Go with a group, don't flaunt your wealth (leave valuables at home), and don't stumble around looking like you're a lost tourist (plan and search for directions before heading out).

There are some parts of Oakland that you may want to avoid if you are new and unfamiliar to the area, but there are also really great and "safe" places to live in Oakland too! You may want to look into the following places:
North Oakland  - especially the lovely and vibrant Rockridge and Temescal districts
Oakland Hills - the air and the scenery in the secluded Oakland Hills is wonderful and they have a gorgeous park with an amphitheater (Joaquin Miller Park). The rent is quite a bit higher though.
Piedmont - this is technically it's own separate city but it's located right in the middle of Oakland and it is considered to be a very nice area.
 
Alameda  - this is a nearby island city that you can reach by simply crossing a tunnel or bridge from Oakland. Alameda is a great place to live, but it can be pricey and you may want to purchase a car. It is, of course, possible to take the bus for free (using your student ID) to the Berkeley campus, but our public transportation system is not the most efficient and most people tend to drive here in the Bay Area. The bus ride will take about an hour since you'll need to change buses once.
 
I also want to remind everyone that crime and robbery can happen anywhere in the world, even if you're in a place that is usually labeled "safe." When you're out at night, remember to always watch your surroundings, keep your iphone in your pocket, and walk purposely as if you have someone to meet and some place to be. 
 
If you are in the Berkeley area and you don't feel safe walking somewhere alone, you can call BearWALK for an escort to take you to where you need to go. After 2:00 AM, you can even catch a night shuttle that will drive you to your destiantion. More information can be found here: http://police.berkeley.edu/programsandservices/campus_safety/index.html

Thanks for pointing us to the site! With that, I'm officially done with this cycle.
 
Certainly wish I did a better job this application season, but after reading the conversation above, I figure that we should all take some time to look at how far we've come. Rejections might be demoralizing, but they don't determine your worth. Way too many factors come into play, and some of them are just simply out of our hands.

Yes, the Northside area is generally safer and more graduate students live there. All of the engineering and science buildings are on the north and northeast sides of campus, so you will also be very close to your civil engineering department. However, northside also has significantly less people walking around during both the daytime and nighttime (compared to the major hustle and bustle of Telegraph Ave and downtown Berkeley), so I would advise that you remain extra cautious when going through this area. Berkeley is home to a diverse mix of all types of people and, as IRFuture stated, the campus itself is kept very open and integrated with the city that surrounds it.
 
I don't know too much about the University Village, but I do know that there is a bus line (line 52) that will bring you directly to campus from there. You will be able to ride all AC Transit buses for free with a Class Pass sticker that you get from the student ID (Cal 1 Card) office.
 
A lot of undergraduate students (mostly freshmen who are coming out from the dorms) will look for apartments from the end of March to May, mainly because they want to secure a place before the semester officially ends in May and they'll have to head back home for summer vacation. Leases can usually start at whichever month you with, although most landlords will want you to commit to a full year of renting. My roomates and I saved some money on our apartment by avoiding the rush and contacting landlords towards the end of summer when they were getting worried about being left with remaining unrented apartments for an entire school year. We were able to negotiate $200 off by doing this. However, this plan is only plausible if you have a friend to stay with while you do the apartment hunting and if you are not too choosy with the options.

I'd go a little farther than this: it can be to your advantage to reveal other offers, no matter who the competition is.
 
If it's an institution that's reasonably close to ours, as Irfan says, we have an incentive to match.
 
If it's an institution that's ranked well above ours, we don't give up—especially if, as is the case with a couple of prospectives this year, we sincerely believe that we're a better fit, and therefore a better choice. We'll find some way to send you a costly signal to that effect.
 
If we're clearly your first choice, we might send a fellowship year from the Graduate School to you so that they pay your salary for another year and we don't—especially if that fellowship year can't be used to fund someone else.
 
In short, no matter what your situation is, there is a justification in our system for throwing more money your way when we're putting together an offer letter. Obviously, we cannot do all of these things simultaneously, and which ones we can do depends on a bizarrely convoluted set of circumstances—it's basically unpredictable a priori, even to us. But none of these incentives—zero—apply to you if we don't know anything at all about your situation.

Woah. OSU faculty infestation! (If you're the real deal)

I understand. It's 17 years since my spring of admission decisions, but it still hurts that I went just 3/15. But 1 is all that you need.

I'm going to leave the rest of this post alone—unprofessional to comment, really. But this line struck a nerve.
 
You're not "spending money and time in applying" to a school. You are offering to spend a very significant percentage of your life at a school, studying under the people who work there. The fact that you're offering to do that isn't an inconvenience. It's an honor.

First of all, congrats on getting into such great programs! While I agree with--and share--some of your frustrations with the vagaries of the application process, your anger at UChicago seems a bit misplaced. As BFB's posts have shown, the application process is difficult and complicated for both applicants and admissions committees, and there's a lot that happens that we aren't aware of. Do I think that schools could be more transparent about the process? Absolutely. However, I do not agree that schools owe their applicants a particular response because they have invested time and money in applying (as BFB has much more eloquently shown). That both misrecognizes what you are doing when you apply to a school and how the admissions process works (a process that is even more complicated at UChicago because of the addition of MAPSS/CIR). Typically, the job of fielding phone calls and responding to emails falls to the department secretary, whose time is already stretched pretty thin. This isn't to excuse not replying to applicant queries, but rather to put it in perspective (they also receive over 500 applications, which is a huge number for a department with a relatively limited staff). I highly doubt that UChicago is deliberately not responding to you because of something you said here or on PSJR. And, at the risk of exposing my own identity, I would take the comment about profs laughing at applicants with a grain of salt--at this point, it's third hand information. I have never heard professors here laugh or otherwise make fun of perspective students. At the end of the day, there are any number of frustrating, nonsensical, and completely arbitrary reasons that you do or don't get into a program. Trying to find a reason behind the madness is just going to make you more frustrated (not to mention that you got into some fabulous programs).
 
Best of Luck!

Claiming a GWU admit! My first admittance. Thought for sure I was going to get shut out. On the wait list for funding. Very excited

Sure, no problem!