2017-18 Cycle Profiles and Advice Thread

[CandyCanes]

7 minutes ago, Comparativist said:

Yes.

Do they reject 3.9+ GPAs from top schools too? What if someone had both 3.9+ and 335+?

Edited March 14, 2018 by CandyCanes

[not@prof_yet]

I imagine they would if you have little to no research experience, subpar letters of recommendation, a poor writing sample and statement of purpose, or an uninformed research agenda.

[guest56436]

48 minutes ago, CandyCanes said:

Do they reject 3.9+ GPAs from top schools too? What if someone had both 3.9+ and 335+?

Yes.

You have to think of your application as a holistic package. In order to get into top 20 programs, much less CHYMPS, requires strength across all or almost all categories. Perfect GPAs and GRE scores don't cut it; this is how law school applications work, but it's not how Ph.D. applications function. 

[apolloscreed]

Type of Undergrad Institution: Big-10 State School
Majors/Minors: Political Science/History
Undergrad GPA: 3.4
Type of Grad: MA with a security studies concentration at a DC-based policy school
Grad GPA: 4.0
GRE: 163 157Q 5.5A 
Any Special Courses: Graduate level applied statistics
Letters of Recommendation: Three graduate school professors and my research center director
Research Experience: Extensive applied research in my field for a number of high profile organizations
Teaching Experience: 
Subfield/Research Interests: International Relations / Security Studies
Other: A few years of work experience after undergrad. RA internships throughout grad school. Applied to PhD right out of Master's. Multiple field-specific publications and current employment as a research director at an Ivy-League university research center. 

RESULTS: PM me for specifics if curious.
Acceptances ($$ or no $$): 1 USNWR top-3 ($$$), 1 middle-ranked policy-leaning program ($$)
Waitlists: 1 highly-ranked policy-leaning IR program
Rejections: 6 USNWR top-30 programs
Pending: Georgetown
Going to: top-3 program

LESSONS LEARNED:

1) Apply widely and to a lot of schools if possible: I knew that my chances at most top schools were slim; however, because of my refined research interests and experience working on the same research agenda in a number of professional roles, I felt I had a good shot at making it in somewhere in the upper echelon. 

2) Fit matters: This is why you should apply widely. You may have amazing stats and tons of experience, but your interests might not align with the department at all or nobody may be currently willing to support your research. Likewise, your stats may be less than stellar (like myself) and you may be an excellent fit for a particular program that sees promise in your research and is keen to support your scholarship.

3) Find a way to stand out: This can be accomplished any number of ways. But the bottom line is, your application is in a pile with hundreds of others (perhaps even just within your subfield!). Speaking as someone who conducts hiring for research positions on a regular basis, those candidates that stand out for one reason or another are much more likely to get serious consideration--even if based on metrics alone they are less competitive. 

4) Network: Academia isn't the corporate world, but it is a small, very connected world and who you know can make you stand out. If you're able to get in direct contact with a professor you want to work with, then do it! The worst that happens is they say no. If you know someone who worked with or studied under someone you want to work with, leverage that to your advantage. Again, it is all about standing out. 

[artibasos]

Type of Undergrad Institution: very small elite tech school
Majors/Minors: Physics
Undergrad GPA: 2.9
Type of Grad: MS, physics
Grad GPA: 3.56, 4.0 in social science classes
GRE: 169 V 168 Q 5.5A 
Any Special Courses: first-year PhD courses in political science at top 10 school, some policy school classes
Letters of Recommendation: big name conflict prof, two political science profs at top 10 school, physics adviser
Research Experience: a metric fuckton of theoretical astrophysics research.  So, no relevant research.
Teaching Experience: none
Subfield/Research Interests: conflict, methods

RESULTS: PM me for specifics if curious.
Acceptances ($$ or no $$): UC Davis ($$), UCSD ($$), NYU ($$), RAND ($$), IHEID (MA), Columbia (MA)
Waitlists: none
Rejections: HKS, Princeton, Yale, MIT, Chicago Harris, Stanford, Berkeley econ, MIT econ
Going to: honestly, I have no idea

Lessons learned: don't get nearly die during undergrad, get half a PhD in physics and then decide to become a political scientist?  or do; I mean, I got into some respectable schools, though I did aim a bit high.

[mcm1]

PROFILE:
Type of Undergrad Institution: Public state university in the US
Major(s)/Minor(s): International Studies
Undergrad GPA: 3.7
Type of Grad: MA International Relations, top European university
Grad GPA: 4.0
GRE: 165V, 160Q, 5.5W
Any Special Courses: A few methodology courses
Letters of Recommendation: 2 tenured professors and one visiting assistant professor
Research Experience: 2 research internships in Middle East think tanks, plus research assistant for 2 years in undergrad
Teaching Experience: none
Subfield/Research Interests: International relations of the Middle East, US foreign policy in the Middle East
Other: Book chapter publication, multiple conference papers, a few published op-eds

RESULTS:
Acceptances($$ or no $$): None
Waitlists: GWU
Rejections: Princeton, Yale, Cornell, Johns Hopkins, Northwestern, Chicago, WashU, Wisconsin-Madison, Ohio State
Pending: Georgetown
Going to: Nowhere. Wasn't accepted.

 

LESSONS LEARNED:

 This is my second cycle applications, and my second cycle of only getting rejections. Figured since I've read almost all of these threads without ever hearing from anyone who was totally rejected I ought to pitch in my experience.

My first cycle I applied to five universities straight out of my BA, which I believed was the main reason I was rejected everywhere. I tried applying more broadly (11 this time around), upped my GRE from 316 to 325, got in a publication and finished an MA. Thought that would put me at least in the competitive field. Was I still too ambitious? Apparently.

Recently at conferences, I met with some professors from the programs that I applied to after I got my rejections. Heard a variety of potential reasons I was rejected ranging from the fact that one of my POIs hasn't had a grad student in years (why don't they publish these things online?), but nothing concrete. Should I have emailed them beforehand? Probably, but I've heard so much conflicting information on the wisdom of bothering POIs as a prospective that I didn't take the risk.

I do have a fairly specialized field that I work in, and all my published work has specifically focused on my sub-sub-subfield. There's no big US university that is specifically tailored to what I want to work on, so I'm not sure how much that killed my chances.

Anyway, the main lesson is that I have learned zero lessons because I've only received ambiguous signals from anyone I have asked. I'm going to do a third round of applications next cycle (I'll bankrupt myself applying to 20+ this time if I have to), and be less ambitious in the rankings I guess.

SOP:

I think mine was fairly standard, around 500 words. Most was the same for each application, with a "fit" section at the end where I tried to tie my work in with some of the papers that my POIs had written recently. Given the results I got, it must suck though.

[diter91]

2 hours ago, mcm1 said:

PROFILE:
Type of Undergrad Institution: Public state university in the US
Major(s)/Minor(s): International Studies
Undergrad GPA: 3.7
Type of Grad: MA International Relations, top European university
Grad GPA: 4.0
GRE: 165V, 160Q, 5.5W
Any Special Courses: A few methodology courses
Letters of Recommendation: 2 tenured professors and one visiting assistant professor
Research Experience: 2 research internships in Middle East think tanks, plus research assistant for 2 years in undergrad
Teaching Experience: none
Subfield/Research Interests: International relations of the Middle East, US foreign policy in the Middle East
Other: Book chapter publication, multiple conference papers, a few published op-eds

RESULTS:
Acceptances($$ or no $$): None
Waitlists: GWU
Rejections: Princeton, Yale, Cornell, Johns Hopkins, Northwestern, Chicago, Rice, Wisconsin-Madison, Ohio State
Pending: Georgetown
Going to: Nowhere. Wasn't accepted.

 

LESSONS LEARNED:

 This is my second cycle applications, and my second cycle of only getting rejections. Figured since I've read almost all of these threads without ever hearing from anyone who was totally rejected I ought to pitch in my experience.

My first cycle I applied to five universities straight out of my BA, which I believed was the main reason I was rejected everywhere. I tried applying more broadly (11 this time around), upped my GRE from 316 to 325, got in a publication and finished an MA. Thought that would put me at least in the competitive field. Was I still too ambitious? Apparently.

Recently at conferences, I met with some professors from the programs that I applied to after I got my rejections. Heard a variety of potential reasons I was rejected ranging from the fact that one of my POIs hasn't had a grad student in years (why don't they publish these things online?), but nothing concrete. Should I have emailed them beforehand? Probably, but I've heard so much conflicting information on the wisdom of bothering POIs as a prospective that I didn't take the risk.

I do have a fairly specialized field that I work in, and all my published work has specifically focused on my sub-sub-subfield. There's no big US university that is specifically tailored to what I want to work on, so I'm not sure how much that killed my chances.

Anyway, the main lesson is that I have learned zero lessons because I've only received ambiguous signals from anyone I have asked. I'm going to do a third round of applications next cycle (I'll bankrupt myself applying to 20+ this time if I have to), and be less ambitious in the rankings I guess.

SOP:

I think mine was fairly standard, around 500 words. Most was the same for each application, with a "fit" section at the end where I tried to tie my work in with some of the papers that my POIs had written recently. Given the results I got, it must suck though.

Thanks for sharing your experience. Have you considered applying to suitable programs outside the US? Or programs outside US News t-25 that may have faculty interested in the things you are interested in? The parts of your application that you have highlighted are strong (gpa, gre, experience). I don't know what your research interests are, but I would consider going where people have similar interests. Or change your research interests if you want to apply to the same schools.

Edited March 22, 2018 by diter91

[Sheldon2017]

3 hours ago, mcm1 said:

PROFILE:
Type of Undergrad Institution: Public state university in the US
Major(s)/Minor(s): International Studies
Undergrad GPA: 3.7
Type of Grad: MA International Relations, top European university
Grad GPA: 4.0
GRE: 165V, 160Q, 5.5W
Any Special Courses: A few methodology courses
Letters of Recommendation: 2 tenured professors and one visiting assistant professor
Research Experience: 2 research internships in Middle East think tanks, plus research assistant for 2 years in undergrad
Teaching Experience: none
Subfield/Research Interests: International relations of the Middle East, US foreign policy in the Middle East
Other: Book chapter publication, multiple conference papers, a few published op-eds

RESULTS:
Acceptances($$ or no $$): None
Waitlists: GWU
Rejections: Princeton, Yale, Cornell, Johns Hopkins, Northwestern, Chicago, Rice, Wisconsin-Madison, Ohio State
Pending: Georgetown
Going to: Nowhere. Wasn't accepted.

 

LESSONS LEARNED:

 This is my second cycle applications, and my second cycle of only getting rejections. Figured since I've read almost all of these threads without ever hearing from anyone who was totally rejected I ought to pitch in my experience.

My first cycle I applied to five universities straight out of my BA, which I believed was the main reason I was rejected everywhere. I tried applying more broadly (11 this time around), upped my GRE from 316 to 325, got in a publication and finished an MA. Thought that would put me at least in the competitive field. Was I still too ambitious? Apparently.

Recently at conferences, I met with some professors from the programs that I applied to after I got my rejections. Heard a variety of potential reasons I was rejected ranging from the fact that one of my POIs hasn't had a grad student in years (why don't they publish these things online?), but nothing concrete. Should I have emailed them beforehand? Probably, but I've heard so much conflicting information on the wisdom of bothering POIs as a prospective that I didn't take the risk.

I do have a fairly specialized field that I work in, and all my published work has specifically focused on my sub-sub-subfield. There's no big US university that is specifically tailored to what I want to work on, so I'm not sure how much that killed my chances.

Anyway, the main lesson is that I have learned zero lessons because I've only received ambiguous signals from anyone I have asked. I'm going to do a third round of applications next cycle (I'll bankrupt myself applying to 20+ this time if I have to), and be less ambitious in the rankings I guess.

SOP:

I think mine was fairly standard, around 500 words. Most was the same for each application, with a "fit" section at the end where I tried to tie my work in with some of the papers that my POIs had written recently. Given the results I got, it must suck though.

This is a great profile and logically should get you into a top 10 or at least top 20 program. I think there is something wrong with your SOP. 

Edited March 22, 2018 by Sheldon2017

[mcm1]

17 hours ago, diter91 said:

Thanks for sharing your experience. Have you considered applying to suitable programs outside the US? Or programs outside US News t-25 that may have faculty interested in the things you are interested in? The parts of your application that you have highlighted are strong (gpa, gre, experience). I don't know what your research interests are, but I would consider going where people have similar interests. Or change your research interests if you want to apply to the same schools.

Yeah, I'm definitely going to have to look outside the US and the top 25 in the next cycle. I thought I matched my interests reasonably well, nothing was a perfect match, but I could draw a number of parallels in theoretical approaches and such. I was very specific regarding what I wanted to work on in my SoP, and being more open in my research interests is the main change I think I'll make.

Luckily I've saved all my LoRs in interfolio, so I'm ready to reapply as soon as apps open back up. With an MA already though, I'm not quite sure what I should do to improve my app over the next year. Right now I'm looking around for jobs in the DC think tank circuit since I can't think of much else.

[Ayerbender]

Just now, mcm1 said:

PROFILE:
Type of Undergrad Institution: Public state university in the US
Major(s)/Minor(s): International Studies
Undergrad GPA: 3.7
Type of Grad: MA International Relations, top European university
Grad GPA: 4.0
GRE: 165V, 160Q, 5.5W
Any Special Courses: A few methodology courses
Letters of Recommendation: 2 tenured professors and one visiting assistant professor
Research Experience: 2 research internships in Middle East think tanks, plus research assistant for 2 years in undergrad
Teaching Experience: none
Subfield/Research Interests: International relations of the Middle East, US foreign policy in the Middle East
Other: Book chapter publication, multiple conference papers, a few published op-eds

RESULTS:
Acceptances($$ or no $$): None
Waitlists: GWU
Rejections: Princeton, Yale, Cornell, Johns Hopkins, Northwestern, Chicago, Rice, Wisconsin-Madison, Ohio State
Pending: Georgetown
Going to: Nowhere. Wasn't accepted.

 

LESSONS LEARNED:

 This is my second cycle applications, and my second cycle of only getting rejections. Figured since I've read almost all of these threads without ever hearing from anyone who was totally rejected I ought to pitch in my experience.

My first cycle I applied to five universities straight out of my BA, which I believed was the main reason I was rejected everywhere. I tried applying more broadly (11 this time around), upped my GRE from 316 to 325, got in a publication and finished an MA. Thought that would put me at least in the competitive field. Was I still too ambitious? Apparently.

Recently at conferences, I met with some professors from the programs that I applied to after I got my rejections. Heard a variety of potential reasons I was rejected ranging from the fact that one of my POIs hasn't had a grad student in years (why don't they publish these things online?), but nothing concrete. Should I have emailed them beforehand? Probably, but I've heard so much conflicting information on the wisdom of bothering POIs as a prospective that I didn't take the risk.

I do have a fairly specialized field that I work in, and all my published work has specifically focused on my sub-sub-subfield. There's no big US university that is specifically tailored to what I want to work on, so I'm not sure how much that killed my chances.

Anyway, the main lesson is that I have learned zero lessons because I've only received ambiguous signals from anyone I have asked. I'm going to do a third round of applications next cycle (I'll bankrupt myself applying to 20+ this time if I have to), and be less ambitious in the rankings I guess.

SOP:

I think mine was fairly standard, around 500 words. Most was the same for each application, with a "fit" section at the end where I tried to tie my work in with some of the papers that my POIs had written recently. Given the results I got, it must suck though.

I think 500 words is far too short.  That's something 1 page singe-spaced/2 pages double-spaced, right?  My "fit" section in my SOPs was 250 words alone; each of my SOPs was roughly 1000 words (2 pages single-spaced).  I don't think you can sell yourself successfully with such a short SOP :/

Edited March 23, 2018 by Ayerbender

[deutsch1997bw]

5 hours ago, Ayerbender said:

I think 500 words is far too short.  That's something 1 page singe-spaced/2 pages double-spaced, right?  My "fit" section in my SOPs was 250 words alone; each of my SOPs was roughly 1000 words (2 pages single-spaced).  I don't think you can sell yourself successfully with such a short SOP :/

This depends on the program, though. Some programs require an SOP of only 500 words.

[Ayerbender]

5 hours ago, deutsch1997bw said:

This depends on the program, though. Some programs require an SOP of only 500 words.

Yeah, but it's not standard :/

[CarefreeWritingsontheWall]

15 hours ago, mcm1 said:

Yeah, I'm definitely going to have to look outside the US and the top 25 in the next cycle. I thought I matched my interests reasonably well, nothing was a perfect match, but I could draw a number of parallels in theoretical approaches and such. I was very specific regarding what I wanted to work on in my SoP, and being more open in my research interests is the main change I think I'll make.

Luckily I've saved all my LoRs in interfolio, so I'm ready to reapply as soon as apps open back up. With an MA already though, I'm not quite sure what I should do to improve my app over the next year. Right now I'm looking around for jobs in the DC think tank circuit since I can't think of much else.

I had a failed application cycle right out of undergrad but to MPA/MPP programs. I realized ex-post that my SOP was a mess and that my interests laid in academia, not policy work. I also realized that my LOR writers were great people, but their letters may not have reflected my passions or given that much information about me and my potential as a PhD student. I was convinced to do an MA and the process of stepping back had me land on a very specific topic of interest. 

Specificity in a research agenda doesn't hurt you, but if there's one thing I've learned since started my PhD it's that some programs like a degree of malleability in incoming students. They like being able to shape how you see the world and the questions you're interested in (hence the value of coursework). They also want to make sure that your ontological and epistemological approach fits with theirs. American programs are very much dominated by the causal inference/potential outcomes ontology that fits broadly within a positivist approach to social science. Does your work lend itself to this perspective? This isn't to say that there aren't people working outside of these approaches at the schools you applied to, but if the wrong person was on admissions it can be a barrier. It's important to demonstrate a solid research agenda, as well as a sense of how you would pursue it, while balancing the general skills you would like to pick up and how you would apply those to a career in academia. 

On the LOR front, keep in touch with your letter writers. Have a discussion with them about this cycle. If you haven't already, have a conversation with them about what you want their letters to say about you. Some of your advisors may be able to stress your research interests better, while others can speak to your skills as a researcher and presenter. Have them contextualize how you did in their courses (if you took some with them), and the strength of your program overall relative to other departments. As you're coming from a state school and a European institution, it helps if they can contextualize what your grades mean. These are added details that can really help boost you independently of whether your advisors are known to American scholars or are active on the American conference scene. 

[not@prof_yet]

PROFILE:
Type of Undergrad Institution: Top 40-60 undergrad; big state school with a top 20 PhD polisci program
Major(s)/Minor(s): Political Science, Economics, Mathematics
Undergrad GPA: 3.785
Type of Grad: N/A
Grad GPA: N/A
GRE: 161Q/159V/4.5W
Any Special Courses: Undergrad econometrics sequence; math stats sequence; linear algebra, real analysis and other upper division math; two PhD seminars; PhD econ classes
Letters of Recommendation: PoliSci Prof I've been an RA for 2+ years; Polisci prof I took a PhD seminar with; Econ prof I took a research seminar with
Research Experience: Research assistant for 3 different profs in Polisci; seminar papers; co-authored conference paper with a prof; two conference presentations for my own papers
Teaching Experience: tutor in econ for 2 years
Subfield/Research Interests: Comparative; political economy; authoritarian regimes; populism
Other: I've been working in the private sector in a non academic position for a couple years

RESULTS:
Acceptances($$ or no $$): Chicago CIR (full tuition), Chicago Harris MACRM (partial tuition)
Waitlists: None
Rejections: UM, Princeton, Yale, NYU, Columbia, Northwestern, Chicago
Pending: None
Going to: Not sure yet, one of the two masters programs (feel free to give advice on that choice); would prefer MACRM

 

LESSONS LEARNED:

 

It was really disappointing to not get into any PhD program and I've been trying understand why (that's not to say I'm not excited about getting into some amazing masters programs ad am not confident I can succeed in two years). I think my GRE was a little low, especially considering my math major, and I wish I had taken that more seriously. So, my advice is to keep slogging through practice problems even if its boring. My GPA was on the lower side (don't catch senioritis). Ultimately, I think I needed more independent research experience (I should have written a thesis). I may have perhaps shot a little too high and didn't apply to enough schools. I also wonder whether I should have had LORs from all polisci profs. I also think I could have made my SOP better with a couple more drafts and some more focus (I have two fairly different research interests).

 

 

SOP:

About 1300 words (so longer than the usual 1000 word limit). I started with why I wanted to get a PhD followed by research interest #1 and #2 (each with specific questions I wanted to answer and methods I wanted to use and a brief mention of who I would work with).

 

[dr.strange]

PROFILE:
Type of Undergrad Institution: Low-ranked Public University from Asia
Major(s)/Minor(s): Political Science
Undergrad GPA: 3.81 (First of Class)
Type of Grad: Top Dutch research university, 2-year Research Master in Political Science & Public Administration
Grad GPA: 4.00/4.00
GRE: 155Q (shit) /160V/5.0W
Any Special Courses: Intro to Quantitative Methods (basic stuff, multiple regression), Advanced Methods (time series, intro to multi-level modelling), Intro to Qualitative Methods as part of the research master
Letters of Recommendation: Undergrad thesis supervisor that I also RAed with for the summer; Master's thesis supervisor who is well known in the field; Assistant Prof that whom I followed 3 research seminars with during the research master.
Research Experience: 1x sole author article in a peer-reviewed journal; 1x paper presentation at a major political science conference; acknowledgments for editing a journal article (unrelated to my research interests) during my summer RA;
Teaching Experience: -/-
Subfield/Research Interests: Comparative; Multi-level governance; Territorial Politics

RESULTS:
Acceptances($$ or no $$): UNC-Chapel Hill ($$), Cambridge (No $), LSE (No $), UCL (No $), NYU (MA)
Waitlists: None
Rejections: Northwestern, Penn, UCSD, Hopkins, 
Pending: Funding decision for the UK Schools, but unlikely
Going to: UNC-Chapel Hill

 

LESSONS LEARNED:

-GRE is only helpful as a life saver for weaknesses in your profile. In my case, it is the other way around - my quant experience helped cover my rather low Q score.

-Fit is extremely important. In fact, you should only apply to schools that fit you strictly, otherwise it's just a waste of the application fees. I believe the reason for my admit at Chapel Hill is that my research interests completely align with the department over there. I have talked to my POIs afterwards and they have also emphasised this during the meeting.

-The UK funding process is just painful. Don't even think about doing it. The fact that they get your hopes high up then crush you by declining you funding is the worst; or they are just slow af so it's impossible to choose between waiting for them, or to go to a funded program in the US instead. I'd rather receive a rejection.

SOP:

Standard 500 words SOP. Available on request.

Edited March 28, 2018 by dr.strange

[theprincessleia]

PROFILE:
Type of Undergrad Institution: Small private liberal arts college in the US
Major(s)/Minor(s): Major: Political Science/Minors:Public Health & Public Policy
Undergrad GPA:3.5
Type of Grad:None
Grad GPA:None
GRE: 159V, 151Q, 4.5W (really crap)
Any Special Courses: 8 credit course + internship at State House (if that counts)
Letters of Recommendation: 3 political science professors and 1 from employer
Research Experience: 1 summer program at Columbia (political science)
Teaching Experience: None
Subfield/Research Interests: public opinion, political behavior, public policy
Other: semester internship at Harvard (public opinion/polio), 1 and half years research experience at non-profit (healthcare transparency), presented at 3 symposiums

RESULTS:
Acceptances($$ or no $$): UIUC (PhD $$), American (MA in IR, Partial $$), Boston College (MA, no info on funding)
Waitlists: 
Rejections: Columbia (PhD), American (PhD), Brown (PhD), UMich (PhD), UChicago (PhD), George Washington (PhD), Boston College (PhD), Brandeis (PhD)
Pending: Northeastern
Going to: UIUC

 

LESSONS LEARNED:

-GRE scores: 

I'm sure my low GRE scores kept me out of a lot of top programs as I sort of expected. I took a Kaplan class and had GRE books but didn't take a test until at least a year later (because life). Definitely don't wait too long after studying material and devote your time to studying the GRE months in advance. Though I did spend a few months studying, time was definitely still an issue, so practice taking timed tests, especially if you're not a standardized test person. Kaplan offers free online courses/timed practice tests. If UIUC wasn't one of my top choices, I would probably spend the rest of the year studying to improve my GRE scores.

-Coursework:

I didn't take many quant courses as an undergrad (only took stat 101 and pre-calc).  If you're an undergrad/grad student, definitely take more quant courses & any methodology courses if possible. Grades are important but also seek research opportunities if possible.

-Fit:

As I've been told, I think fit is one of the most important aspects about your application. I did try to apply broadly but there were many professors who's work didn't exactly align with mine. I'm not sure that there needs to be an exact fit but I think the better the fit, the higher your chances. I think it's great to apply to top schools but also keep in mind your overall fit with a professor or professors and the department.

-Recommendation letters

Ask for recommendation letters from professors who really know you and can speak to your growth, strengths, etc. I asked a professor who saw me do poorly in one of their classes but bounce right back the next semester. I had also taken a few classes that I did relatively well in with the other 2 professors that I asked. I also asked my employer to write a recommendation for me for a few of the applications. Though this is usually not required for PhDs, I asked because I work in research position.

-Backup plan

Have a backup plan. As a backup, I asked to be considered for the MA program on my PhD applications (some schools ask this). 

SOP:

Slightly customized for each application. I basically talked about what got me interested in research, broad research topics I'm interested in, why I decided to work after undergrad, and then about the program/professors.

PM me for more detail.

[toad1]

I'm not going to post a whole thing, but just want to share my one biggest piece of advice after having gone through the process:

*** Apply VERY broadly ***
...At least as broadly as humanly possible without sacrificing the quality of your applications. The more applications, ceteris paribus, the better. There was very little rhyme or reason to my application season and I suspect I am not alone. I will be going to a top program but was denied from many programs that were in the 10-40 range.

[NCPolPsych]

• 165 posts
• Location:Southern California
• Application Season:2015 Fall
• Program:g

• Report post
•  
•  

Posted February 15

My cycle, aside from waitlists, ended today with my tenth and final decision. Seeing as things are beginning to wind down, I thought this  would be a good time to post the annual 'profile and lessons learned' thread. I found the previous installment of this thread useful, and others in the past have claimed that it aided them tremendously in the process. So if your cycle is over, please consider posting your profile and results (with as much detail as you feel comfortable) along with advice

 

The template, from previous years, is as follows:

 

PROFILE:
Type of Undergrad Institution: Large, Top-Ranked R1 University in the American South
Major(s)/Minor(s): Political Science and that's it
Undergrad GPA: 3.25
Type of Grad: n/a
Grad GPA: n/a
GRE: VR-166; QR-154; AW-4
Any Special Courses: 3 graduate seminars taken as an undergrad, three courses in the honors thesis prep series
Letters of Recommendation: One extremely well known poli sci prof not in my subfield, one very highly regarded prof who is a star in my subfield, one junior faculty in poli who is considered a "rising star" in my subfield
Research Experience: 3 years as a TA; Very involved honors thesis; one paper coauthored with two graduate students and one of the aforementioned profs
Teaching Experience: Tutored at our university's "writing center"
Subfield/Research Interests: Political Behavior broadly, political psychology specifically
Other:

RESULTS:
Acceptances($$ or no $$): Duke ($$$)
Waitlists: 
Rejections: UNC
Pending:
Going to: Duke

 

LESSONS LEARNED:

 To anyone reading this in the future that fears they have no chance at a PhD because of their GPA, please don't let that stop you. I've been very honest above and, as you can see, mine was less than what my school is used to seeing. But I worked extremely hard, got good experience and built genuine relationships with my professors (this is my biggest piece of advice-- don't just cozy up to any ol professor thinking it will help you). Similarly, don't let anyone tell you you have to apply to a certain number of schools-- the chances are slim either way. If your heart is set (like mine was) on one or two schools, just apply there. Worst case you try again next year while broadening your range, like I would have done. Best case you get to go to the school of your dreams (I am very blessed to be in that position). People reading now or in the future, feel free to PM me-- I'm happy to offer any advice I can. 

 

SOP: Opened with a personal anecdote about why I became interested in political behavior, followed by how graduate study would provide me a vehicle to answer those burning questions. Then talked about experiences from undergrad, what I'd researched and written, etc. Then talked about the core themes i would center my graduate study around. Finally, Mentioned some profs I'd like to work with and thanked them for their time.

Edited April 13, 2018 by NCPolPsych

[Hamb]

PROFILE:

Type of Undergrad Institution: Large R1, not that prestigious but respectable
Major(s)/Minor(s): Political Science, Philosophy
Undergrad GPA: 3.8
Type of Grad: Political Economy
Grad GPA: 3.7
GRE: 164/161/6
Any Special Courses:
Letters of Recommendation: 1 from Master's professor, 2 from undergrad. Chose the professors who knew me best, not the ones who's name carried the most weight necessarily.
Research Experience: Bachelor's and Master's Thesis, but importantly my master's thesis was not completed during application process which might have hurt.
Teaching Experience:
Subfield/Research Interests: IR
Other:

RESULTS:
Acceptances($$ or no $$): 3 programs in the 20-40 range, all with 5 years of funding
Waitlists:
Rejections: 6 top 10 programs, 3 ranked in the 20-40 range, 2 ranked in the 50-60 range.
Pending:
Going to: You can PM me for where I'm going and the specific schools I was accepted/rejected too.

 

LESSONS LEARNED:

1. "Research fit". Any applicant in the fall of 2018 or 2019 reading this thread will have seen this a million times. I agree with the overall consensus that it is incredibly important to your success as an applicant. The fact that so many people on ad com's have shared this fact with us is really important, so take their advice on it. However, the part I'm sad to share with you is that you can only guess research fit so much. Schools are always changing, always getting new faculty, and always adjusting their priorities. A program that you think has a great research fit may be looking to have a class that shifts it's focus slightly if they know that certain professors are retiring or leaving. They might have a new DGS or new department chair who thinks "we need to focus more on X rather than Y", but of course when you're on the outside looking in you think "Y" is their research specialty. This doesn't always happen and you should still pursue schools with good research fit, but in a certain sense I think it's overblown during your application process. If there's a school that you really like the location of, are really drawn for a variety of non-research related interests, I say apply anyway. There's a chance that your research interest is exactly what they're looking to add. This is somewhat the case with one of the schools I applied to, but at the other schools I was accepted into the research fit was as expected.

2. Prestige matters. A lot. A discussion was had in our year's general discussion thread along with an updated discussion in an older thread. The conversations were largely about how much academic prestige matters in getting an academic job. That, I feel unqualified to speak to with certainty, but as an applicant I feel as if one of the main factors which kept me out of the elite institutions was that none of the schools I attended were very prestigious. They were good, as were the professors writing LoR's, but nothing eye popping. When applicants with similar profiles from better schools apply, it's natural for them to have the edge. I don't say this with grievance, as I'm extremely proud of my background and don't regret any choices made so far, but just my opinion that might help future applicants set their expectations accordingly.

3. I had a lot of rejections. Yes, it's not the best feeling to get rejection after rejection, but I'm extremely happy knowing that I took my best shot and landed where I landed. I think it's well worth it to apply to a number of "reach schools" because if it works, great! If not, you're never wondering "what if". Be careful on sharing your applications outside of academia though. I saw a friend of mine applying to programs in another field the year before me share on social media where they applied when people asked. The problem with this is that even if you get into a school you are very happy with, people will compare it with where you were rejected from. I'd recommend not oversharing with those who don't understand how competitive these admissions are where you're applying and keep it on the down low until you decide where to go. Keep in mind that some programs even in the 30-50 range can have single digit acceptance rates. Why should I expect to have better than a 20-25% admission rate when most of the schools I applied to have under 10 or 20% acceptance rates themselves? I think it's healthy to adjust ones mindset going into these applications, they aren't like your undergrad ones.

4. This is more to do with the decision making process than application, but I would say go to as many open houses and welcome days as you can. Even programs you aren't really considering but were accepted to. The amount of information that gets shared during the visits is really helpful even if it doesn't directly apply to the school you choose, plus you get to meet some really cool people.

5. Figure out how important lifestyle is for you. You'll be spending 5 or 6 years in your mid-late 20's and often times early 30's wherever you'll live. I only applied to places that I wanted to live, which left a big gap in terms of rankings between top schools and what most would call "middle". Maybe I would have been accepted to some ranked in the teens or 20's, but I instead focused on places ranked a bit lower where I really wanted to live. For other applicants those schools are in locations that fit their personalities better, so my advice would be don't get so set on rankings that you just apply to the best schools where you think you'll get in. When you apply to a school, do so knowing that there's a chance you'd actually want to live there. If you think "this schools ranked well and has faculty I like, but I hate that location for size/weather/family", I would think twice before spending time and money applying. However for some people, where they live means a lot less, in which case I'd say focus on the schools themselves more.

6. I found it extremely helpful to post on a forum like this throughout the process in order to learn information and share my experience. However, treat this as you would any social media platform. I've attempted to only write things here that I'd be okay with professors and current students in the programs I applied to reading and figuring out who I am. Some of them do read these things, and I expect that with sharing my details regarding where I got accepted to above, professors at those departments know exactly who I am. This likely will scare some people off from posting, but I think that's an over-reaction. We all know that employers (and likely schools) check your facebook, twitter, instagram, or whatever accounts of yours they can find online, and we've adapted sharing habits to accommodate this. Do the same with this website. I found using this website to help me get through the application process in a healthy manner. So while for some "stay off grad cafe" is some of the best advice they can get, for someone like me staying on grad cafe helped make it a shared experience, one that I really appreciate.

7. Find your "sweet spot" and be realistic about it. Going in I actually thought the 20-40 range was where I landed as a candidate. Sure enough, 50% acceptance rate to the programs in this category, rejected from all 6 top 10's, and even rejected from the 2 lowest schools. I thought going in that those schools would be the most likely to accept me and also be the places where my personality would find the most success. I'm still glad that I applied to 2 "safety" schools and 6 top 10's, but I am in no way surprised about the result. What helped me is building a ranking of places I thought I was "most likely to attend" in terms of likelihood of admission combined with my interest in the school. All 6 of the 20-40 range schools were in my top 8 looking back. Maybe the surprising thing is how much post-visit considerations matter. I was accepted to the #2 school on my "most likely to attend", but ended up attending the #5 because of all the great information I learned post acceptance and post visits. In the end, my biggest piece of advice for the application process is do your best to figure out where you think you can get accepted to and would be happy. Apply to a lot of schools in that range. Then find some reach schools, a safety school or two (which a ton of people get rejected from by the way), and set your expectations accordingly.

That's all from me, I'm sure some people will disagree with some of the things I've mentioned, but this has been my experience. Thanks for everyone who shared this journey the last 8 or 9 months with me on this website!