2018-2019 Application Thread

[nietzsche's moustache]

5 minutes ago, Theory007 said:

Congratulations! did not apply there myself

thank you! do you have acceptances? 

[oats]

Yeah I don't mean to imply that math is the key to having successful applications. But, I do think it is often over looked and when someone puts together an application packet with great GRE scores, publications, research experience, etc. but still gets rejected, a weak math background is the first thing I would look for provided they are trying to get into t1 schools.

That said I think some of you might be underestimating the role of math in current political science. Calculus and linear algebra are more than just signaling and not only relevant to methods. In cutting edge poli sci research, everyone is a methodologist. Methods aren't done for methods sake, they are done so that people in IR, CP, etc. can use them to answer questions. If you hope to do notable research in your field, you will most likely be using calculus and linear algebra or co-authoring with someone that can do it for you.

[IcedCovfefe]

11 minutes ago, oats said:

That said I think some of you might be underestimating the role of math in current political science. Calculus and linear algebra are more than just signaling and not only relevant to methods. In cutting edge poli sci research, everyone is a methodologist. Methods aren't done for methods sake, they are done so that people in IR, CP, etc. can use them to answer questions. If you hope to do notable research in your field, you will most likely be using calculus and linear algebra or co-authoring with someone that can do it for you.

Oh I'm not underestimating math in polisci at all--quant is very important.  When I said those classes are only useful in the admissions process for signaling, I was just pointing out that most programs have a methods sequence required for all students in which you'll learn the cutting edge methods you're talking about.  So to the extent that taking those classes shows that you're ready to take the methods sequence, then you have an advantage.  But everyone will have to take the methods classes anyway, as most top programs won't allow you to transfer in a linear algebra course in place of a political science methods sequence.  There are better ways to develop your application by doing research and connecting with people in your substantive interest area, rather than taking classes you'll basically have to take over again.

Edited February 6, 2019 by IcedCovfefe

[at281]

31 minutes ago, at281 said:

Given that the NYU acceptance emails were generic (according to eggsalad14) and 4 NYU posts on the Gradcafe are one after another, is it safe to assume that the one and the only batch of offers has already been made?

A friend of mine asked the grad program coordinator about this. He said that the NYU admissions process is not over yet and that GSAS will notify applicants once there is a decision made. Since the existing acceptance emails were not sent via GSAS (as per eggsalad14 and trinityshot), it is clear that those still waiting will receive the rejection letter. Sigh.

[oats]

7 minutes ago, IcedCovfefe said:

Oh I'm not underestimating math in polisci at all--quant is very important.  When I said those classes are only useful in the admissions process for signaling, I was just pointing out that most programs have a methods sequence required for all students in which you'll learn the cutting edge methods you're talking about.  So to the extent that taking those classes shows that you're ready to take the methods sequence, then you have an advantage.  But everyone will have to take the methods classes anyway, as most top programs won't allow you to transfer in a linear algebra course in place of a political science methods sequence.  There are better ways to develop your application by doing research and connecting with people in your substantive interest area, rather than taking classes you'll basically have to take over again.

This largely depends on the program. You don't transfer linear algebra courses in place of methods because the two are not the same. Math is the pre req. Some programs will help you catch up if you don't have the pre reqs, others won't. Unless you're in theory or are lined up with a qualitative mentor, that's a difficult position to be in. But, generally speaking, preference will go to those who have done the pre reqs for advanced methods courses.

[eggsalad14]

8 minutes ago, oats said:

Yeah I don't mean to imply that math is the key to having successful applications. But, I do think it is often over looked and when someone puts together an application packet with great GRE scores, publications, research experience, etc. but still gets rejected, a weak math background is the first thing I would look for provided they are trying to get into t1 schools.

That said I think some of you might be underestimating the role of math in current political science. Calculus and linear algebra are more than just signaling and not only relevant to methods. In cutting edge poli sci research, everyone is a methodologist. Methods aren't done for methods sake, they are done so that people in IR, CP, etc. can use them to answer questions. If you hope to do notable research in your field, you will most likely be using calculus and linear algebra or co-authoring with someone that can do it for you.

I have to disagree. Someone with a gre of over 225 and 3.7+ from recognizable schools getting rejected everywhere in the top 20 likely has issues in their statement of purpose, writing sample, or letters. Of course, those are the parts we rarely ever see on gradcafe.

 

It helps, but people are not getting denied based on not having calc 3. Literally every school has a math camp/something of that sort because the expectation is that they have to teach most students these things. 

[oats]

2 minutes ago, eggsalad14 said:

I have to disagree. Someone with a gre of over 225 and 3.7+ from recognizable schools getting rejected everywhere in the top 20 likely has issues in their statement of purpose, writing sample, or letters. Of course, those are the parts we rarely ever see on gradcafe. 

 

It helps, but people are not getting denied based on not having calc 3. Literally every school has a math camp/something of that sort because the expectation is that they have to teach most students these things.  

I did not say people are getting denied because they don't have 3 semesters of calculus. Nor did I say math was the issue. Just the most obvious thing to look at from my experience. Calc 3 and linear algebra is an ideal scenario. Not many students have that (and those that do are usually the ones that go to the top ranked schools) so it won't automatically disqualify you. What will cause a problem though is a single semester of calculus. Especially if you got anything less than an A, and don't have any other quant skills to bring to the table like econometrics or a programming language. Again, doesn't immediately disqualify you; so much depends on your field, potential mentors, the other people in the applicant pool, and how the stars align.

The point is this: applicants tend to think of their application in terms of GRE, resume, publications, letters, statement. If you're applying to top 10 schools math is just as important. So when someone lists off all the great things about their application and says nothing of math, look at what's under that rock first.

[Forest53]

Has anyone heard from UC Davis?

[scdaaljobe]

2 minutes ago, Forest53 said:

Has anyone heard from UC Davis?

Or UCSD?

[eggsalad14]

Just now, oats said:

I did not say people are getting denied because they don't have 3 semesters of calculus. Nor did I say math was the issue. Just the most obvious thing to look at from my experience. Calc 3 and linear algebra is an ideal scenario. Not many students have that (and those that do are usually the ones that go to the top ranked schools) so it won't automatically disqualify you. What will cause a problem though is a single semester of calculus. Especially if you got anything less than an A, and don't have any other quant skills to bring to the table like econometrics or a programming language. Again, doesn't immediately disqualify you; so much depends on your field, potential mentors, the other people in the applicant pool, and how the stars align.

The point is this: applicants tend to think of their application in terms of GRE, resume, publications, letters, statement. If you're applying to top 10 schools math is just as important. So when someone lists off all the great things about their application and says nothing of math, look at what's under that rock first.

 

Fair enough, I think we can at least find common ground that mediocre grades in "easier" math classes (intro stats, calc 1 or God forbid anything under calc 1, any undergrad methods courses) is a big red flag which people on gradcafe rarely ever bring up. 

[TheBunny]

1 hour ago, scdaaljobe said:

I'm in the same boat as acmnny and have a minor in statistics along with the linear algebra and a year of calculus. I'm still holding out hope for my remaining schools though, not ready to have to face possibility of not going to grad school this year i guess. 

I have 3 semester of Calculus, 2 semester of statistics (undergrad and grad) yet only got into 1 program until now. I know that Harvard has some requirements for math and probably MIT. Except that, I do not know any schools which specifically looks for math background. However, I did not apply any UCs so I do not have an idea on that. 

[peggy.olson]

Something that might be helpful is taking the time to learn a bit of quantitative and programming skills (R, arcGIS/QGIS, Python, SQL, etc) and re-write a writing sample that features them heavily (maps! autoregressions! etc) , and focus on it in the SoP (and write something on how you are eager to learn more, etc!). It's easier/more fun than taking a bunch of math classes, and signals at least an interest and/or intent to learn quant methods! Just a thought

 

EDIT: especially if you are, say, trying to make up for a weaker quant GRE or a lack of math in undergrad

Edited February 6, 2019 by peggy.olson

[Pancho Villa]

1 hour ago, IcedCovfefe said:

I think this is a bit of an overstatement and possibly subfield dependent (more important for American, perhaps).  Having a strong math background is definitely an advantage and I agree that linear algebra and calc iii can make someone a stronger applicant.  However, I think all of us here are putting too much weight on easily observable things like GPA, GRE, and which classes we’ve taken, while SOP, letters, and writing sample are really doing the heavy lifting.  I know of quite a few people who don’t have that kind of math background who are doing extremely well this cycle. 

I agree completely, even for those in American.

[Theory007]

1 hour ago, nietzsche's moustache said:

thank you! do you have acceptances? 

I'm waitlisted at two competitive programs currently, rejected from none and with 5 pending. So no, not yet - but hoping very much

[Theory007]

23 minutes ago, scdaaljobe said:

Or UCSD?

They told me they would send out notifications by late this week (guessing Friday) or early the next (guessing Monday)

[scdaaljobe]

Just now, Theory007 said:

They told me they would send out notifications by late this week (guessing Friday) or early the next (guessing Monday)

Thanks! out of curiosity, who told you that? did you call the admissions office or something like that?

[Theory007]

Just now, scdaaljobe said:

Thanks! out of curiosity, who told you that? did you call the admissions office or something like that?

I got an email after 8 days from the email address listed when you login to your application and click 'view application' which take you to the application status. Hope that makes snese

[scdaaljobe]

1 minute ago, Theory007 said:

I got an email after 8 days from the email address listed when you login to your application and click 'view application' which take you to the application status. Hope that makes snese

ehh... not really. they sent you an email out of blue 8 days ago? Or you emailed that address and got a response 8 days ago? sorry, just a bit confused. 

[Theory007]

I emailed them and they sent me a response 8 days later

[Pancho Villa]

1 hour ago, eggsalad14 said:

 

Fair enough, I think we can at least find common ground that mediocre grades in "easier" math classes (intro stats, calc 1 or God forbid anything under calc 1, any undergrad methods courses) is a big red flag which people on gradcafe rarely ever bring up. 

As someone who has worked in graduate school admissions, and with undergraduate programs aimed at sending students to graduate school, at two tippy top schools (for all fields falling within arts and science), I can confidently say you are both overestimating the impact of math classes (for all but physical sciences, math, and economics), at least as it relates to admission to the Ph.D. You are probably also overestimating the importance of quant GRE, which is often overlooked if it meets some threshold - often around 155 - as long as some other evidence of quant skill is presented (I discuss forms this can take further down). Having a bunch of math will always look good. Still, if you have math but have difficulty forming an interesting research question, or if you're not able to elaborate at all on how that question might be answered, you will not be competitive. On the other hand, if you have almost no math (and I mean no math whatsoever in college, aside from maybe a semester of intro to stats), but you have a strong handle on how to develop and answer an interesting research question, and this comes across convincingly in your application, all things equal (GRE, GPA, letters, and sample), MOST departments, and MOST subdisciplines, will rather have you than the former. I have seen this over, and over (and over) - students accepted to all subfields of political science (and most disciplines in arts and science) at top 1-5 schools, and also at places like Caltec, MIT, NYU, WashU, etc. Still, it's important to note that it's somewhat uncommon to find someone with little math preparation (or interest) who can confidently put it all together. It's easier, probably, if you have at least a semester of calculus, and definitely you must be enthusiastic and thoughtful about methods either way. [Note: having two semesters of calc 1, earning an F the first time around and a B- the second, is not necessarily bad for your application (except for the ding to your GPA, though nobody cares much about GPA either). Tenacity is undervalued throughout most of the entries here. Like movie-goers, schools love a story about sticktoitiveness!] Doing well in a graduate methods class at a decent school, and securing from that professor a strong recommendation that compares you favorably to matriculated grad students? Now that is likely to provide you with a nice advantage, but calc 3 or even linear algebra? I haven't seen it. With regard to the GRE, it's not at all unusual to find someone scoring at or near 170 who has only had geometry. Surely those who get top scores often have more math, and that familiarity makes the test easier for them in general, but the test only actually calls upon your math knowledge up to geometry. If you're comfortable with algebra and basic geometry, studying the little idiotic tricks that the test for some reason includes could get you a long way. Finally, I do think, all else equal, great if you have a lot of math. You will be admired and dreaded all at once when you sail through math camp, and you might well be sought after as a coauthor for those of us who have pretty good questions but limited intuition when it comes to readily identifying techniques for answering them. 

Edited February 6, 2019 by PonchoVilla
*forgot econ in list of programs that love evidence of math training and added quant GRE discussion

[Pancho Villa]

59 minutes ago, peggy.olson said:

Something that might be helpful is taking the time to learn a bit of quantitative and programming skills (R, arcGIS/QGIS, Python, SQL, etc) and re-write a writing sample that features them heavily (maps! autoregressions! etc) , and focus on it in the SoP (and write something on how you are eager to learn more, etc!). It's easier/more fun than taking a bunch of math classes, and signals at least an interest and/or intent to learn quant methods! Just a thought

 

EDIT: especially if you are, say, trying to make up for a weaker quant GRE or a lack of math in undergrad

absolutely agree!

[eggsalad14]

11 minutes ago, PonchoVilla said:

As someone who has worked in graduate school admissions, and with undergraduate programs aimed at sending students to graduate school, at two tippy top schools (for all fields falling within arts and science), I can confidently say you are both overestimating the impact of math classes (for all but physical sciences, math, and economics), at least as it relates to admission to the Ph.D. You are probably also overestimating the importance of quant GRE, which is often overlooked if it meets some threshold - often around 155 - as long as some other evidence of quant skill is presented (I discuss forms this can take further down). Having a bunch of math will always look good. Still, if you have math but have difficulty forming an interesting research question, or if you're not able to elaborate at all on how that question might be answered, you will not be competitive. On the other hand, if you have almost no math (and I mean no math whatsoever in college, aside from maybe a semester of intro to stats), but you have a strong handle on how to develop and answer an interesting research question, and this comes across convincingly in your application, all things equal (GRE, GPA, letters, and sample), MOST departments, and MOST subdisciplines, will rather have you than the former. I have seen this over, and over (and over) - students accepted to all subfields of political science (and most disciplines in arts and science) at top 1-5 schools, and also at places like Caltec, MIT, NYU, WashU, etc. Still, it's important to note that it's somewhat uncommon to find someone with little math preparation (or interest) who can confidently put it all together. It's easier, probably, if you have at least a semester of calculus, and definitely you must be enthusiastic and thoughtful about methods either way. [Note: having two semesters of calc 1, earning an F the first time around and a B- the second, is not necessarily bad for your application (except for the ding to your GPA, though nobody cares much about GPA either). Tenacity is undervalued throughout most of the entries here. Like movie-goers, schools love a story about sticktoitiveness!] Doing well in a graduate methods class at a decent school, and securing from that professor a strong recommendation that compares you favorably to matriculated grad students? Now that is likely to provide you with a nice advantage, but calc 3 or even linear algebra? I haven't seen it. With regard to the GRE, it's not at all unusual to find someone scoring at or near 170 who has only had geometry. Surely those who get top scores often have more math, and that familiarity makes the test easier for them in general, but the test only actually calls upon your math knowledge up to geometry. If you're comfortable with algebra and basic geometry, studying the little idiotic tricks that the test for some reason includes could get you a long way. Finally, I do think, all else equal, great if you have a lot of math. You will be admired and dreaded all at once when you sail through math camp, and you might well be sought after as a coauthor for those of us who have pretty good questions but limited intuition when it comes to readily identifying techniques for answering them. 

Thanks for the perspective. Again, like I've said previously, what mostly matters is stuff outside of math and outside of the common quantifiable things like GRE and GPA (past a threshold). 

That being said, it surprises me that even an F turned B- in intro calc isn't really disqualifying (assuming you don't show better scores in further math classes). Maybe it depends on what school that B- was earned at, but I'd be really surprised if a B- from a mid-to-not ranked school would not at least raise some eyebrows.

[eggsalad14]

That being said, we need more decisions up in here so we can stop arguing about math aptitude and withdrawing from school applications ??????????

[TheBunny]

4 minutes ago, eggsalad14 said:

That being said, we need more decisions up in here so we can stop arguing about math aptitude and withdrawing from school applications ??????????

I am definitely waiting for an answer from Brown soon because it is driving me crazy. All of the other programs that Brown offers, people got their rejections and acceptances at fairly similar times, or they at most have one week between them. They also learned their results via e-mail or by checking the website. I did not hear anything about my application (me and my other friends included), and I rule out being on the waitlist because there are so many people who did not hear back from Brown for political science, yet. I wish Harvard and MIT release results early this year so I can have closure.

[oats]

29 minutes ago, PonchoVilla said:

As someone who has worked in graduate school admissions, and with undergraduate programs aimed at sending students to graduate school, at two tippy top schools (for all fields falling within arts and science), I can confidently say you are both overestimating the impact of math classes (for all but physical sciences, math, and economics), at least as it relates to admission to the Ph.D. You are probably also overestimating the importance of quant GRE, which is often overlooked if it meets some threshold - often around 155 - as long as some other evidence of quant skill is presented (I discuss forms this can take further down). Having a bunch of math will always look good. Still, if you have math but have difficulty forming an interesting research question, or if you're not able to elaborate at all on how that question might be answered, you will not be competitive. On the other hand, if you have almost no math (and I mean no math whatsoever in college, aside from maybe a semester of intro to stats), but you have a strong handle on how to develop and answer an interesting research question, and this comes across convincingly in your application, all things equal (GRE, GPA, letters, and sample), MOST departments, and MOST subdisciplines, will rather have you than the former. I have seen this over, and over (and over) - students accepted to all subfields of political science (and most disciplines in arts and science) at top 1-5 schools, and also at places like Caltec, MIT, NYU, WashU, etc. Still, it's important to note that it's somewhat uncommon to find someone with little math preparation (or interest) who can confidently put it all together. It's easier, probably, if you have at least a semester of calculus, and definitely you must be enthusiastic and thoughtful about methods either way. [Note: having two semesters of calc 1, earning an F the first time around and a B- the second, is not necessarily bad for your application (except for the ding to your GPA, though nobody cares much about GPA either). Tenacity is undervalued throughout most of the entries here. Like movie-goers, schools love a story about sticktoitiveness!] Doing well in a graduate methods class at a decent school, and securing from that professor a strong recommendation that compares you favorably to matriculated grad students? Now that is likely to provide you with a nice advantage, but calc 3 or even linear algebra? I haven't seen it. With regard to the GRE, it's not at all unusual to find someone scoring at or near 170 who has only had geometry. Surely those who get top scores often have more math, and that familiarity makes the test easier for them in general, but the test only actually calls upon your math knowledge up to geometry. If you're comfortable with algebra and basic geometry, studying the little idiotic tricks that the test for some reason includes could get you a long way. Finally, I do think, all else equal, great if you have a lot of math. You will be admired and dreaded all at once when you sail through math camp, and you might well be sought after as a coauthor for those of us who have pretty good questions but limited intuition when it comes to readily identifying techniques for answering them. 

As someone with similar experience, I completely disagree. And if you've never seen a student with linear algebra come though... I'm not sure what to even say to that.