Care to advise a lawyer turned would-be grad student?

[xtina617]

Hi all -

I'm hoping for the advice/perspectives of those better acquainted with the PhD app process than I am at the moment. This seems like a much more collegial environment than some of the other grad school / PS-specific sites out there, so here goes nothing. 

About me: 

• I'm a 30 something lawyer (UG: 2010, small LAC, magna cum laude, 3.8 in major; Law school 2013, 3.3 overall) looking to take time away from the practice of law (probably/hopefully leaving the law entirely) to pursue a PhD in political science. The loss of a "lawyer's salary" is not an issue. I do not have plans to try and break into academia after the completion of my degree, if I'm successful in getting admitted to any programs. I do know enough to steer clear of that pursuit given my background! 
• I have the support (and strong LOR) of my UG advisor and two other PS faculty with whom I worked/studied closely as a student. 
• I did not publish in UG, though I've written a number of articles in high profile legal publications; to wit, I have nothing that I could use as a writing sample.
• I plan to take the GRE this summer after the completion of a 36-hour tutoring plan I just started this month (the quant is a real b!tch for this candidate, who hasn't taken a math class since high school!). Even on my best testing day, I expect high verbal / essay scores and middling at best quant scores.  

My questions: 

• Re the writing sample: Do folks dust off and revise UG papers, or spend time researching and writing a new paper altogether? I'm not remotely opposed to the latter, but would welcome any suggestions you all can offer. 
• How does work experience factor in (if at all) to an AdCom's decision making process? I don't see how someone with my background can compete with a candidate of the same age range but who got a MA in PS or worked in a similar field. I am wondering if the JD/years spent as a lawyer has any appreciable merit. (I do not harbor any illusion about how much a law degree is worth outside of, you know, the law).  
• Is it self-sabotage to state in one's SOP that one does not want to be an academic? Does the desire to pursue a non-academic career post-doc make someone with my background more or less desirable? 
• I'm leaning towards American or theory, but I've read horror stories about theory candidates having fewer options after their degrees are conferred than a HS drop out. If not pursuing a teaching pos, does the subfield matter as much? 
• Any suggestions on programs for someone with my background? I don't feel the need to pay too much attention to the rankings. I'm open to the DC, Baltimore, PA, NJ, NY areas. 

THANK YOU all in advance for your help and feedback. 

•  

Edited February 15, 2019 by xtina617

[Imperator Totius Hispaniae]

I am actually in a very similar situation as you. I graduated from UG in 2010, went to law school, graduated in 2015, but after the horrible experience that was law school and a soul sucking internship with an attorney, I decided the legal profession wasn’t for me, especially after some of the horror stories I’ve heard from lawyer friends re: hours, stress, etc. Although I haven’t applied to grad school in poli sci yet (I will be this fall), I have done over a years worth of research reading books, forums like this, blog posts, speaking with professors and current poli sci grad students. So my answers to your questions are based on responses from students and professors to questions I had similar to yours. With that out of the way, now onto your questions:

Re: a writing sample. My understanding is that faculty don’t really look too deeply into writing samples, so most people coming straight out of UG just revise a thesis paper they wrote that discusses a topic in poli sci. However, because you have been out of UG for a while, I imagine your writing has improved, so try to revise a political science paper you wrote. If you have never written a poli sci paper, I would then suggest writing a new paper on a topic in poli sci that interests you. 

Re: work experience. That really doesn’t factor much into an Adcom’s decision making process, unless it’s in a relevant field (working as a research assistant, doing research at a think tank, etc). Your legal career experience won’t be factored most likely because it signals little about your ability to conduct original, compelling research. 

Re: whether it’s self sabotage to state in your SOP that you have no interest in going into academia. The answer is a resounding YES! If you mention this in your SOP, you have almost no chance of getting into any programs, even lower ranked ones. This actually brings up a salient point I want to make regarding your decision to apply to PhD programs. If you have no desire to go into academia, I think it’s crucial to ask yourself why you are even applying to PhD programs in the first place. Why are you applying to a PhD program? What do you want to do with it if you don’t want to go into academia? I’m going to be completely honest with you: if you have no desire to go into academia I think you are wasting your time applying. The whole point of PhD programs is to socialize students into graduating with an intent to go into academia, and thus the curriculum is centered around that. Moreover, these programs teach you a fairly narrow skill of how to produce original compelling research that will contribute to the existing (and fairly esoteric) knowledge in your particular sub field. The opportunity cost of spending, on average, 7 years in a PhD program is quite high if you don’t want to go into academia, because outside of academia, your PhD in poli sci will not mean much or place you in a superior position when applying to non academic jobs. If you want to go into public policy, getting an MPA or MPP would serve you much better because a) that’s all you really need to go into public policy b) it takes less time c)the programs teach more relevant skills for a career in public policy or the private sector, and d) these careers are looking more for experience and who you know rather than your degree. 

I hope this helps. I don’t mean to be harsh, I’m just being honest and trying to save you time and money. If you have any other questions feel free to DM me. 

[xtina617]

Wow, thank you for this incredibly detailed (and helpful!) response. Are you applying this upcoming fall? I'd love to chat more (whether publicly or via DM) since we have such similar backgrounds. 

 

[Imperator Totius Hispaniae]

Ya of course! If I can help someone else who is in a similar situation as me then I’m gonna do it. And yes I am applying this fall. I would be more than happy to chat with you more, so feel free to get in contact with me either here or DM. 

[IcedCovfefe]

I'm just curious: what do you want a Ph.D. for, career-wise?  How do you see yourself using a Ph.D. in Political Theory?

[amyvt98]

12 hours ago, Neo_Institutionalist said:

I am actually in a very similar situation as you. I graduated from UG in 2010, went to law school, graduated in 2015, but after the horrible experience that was law school and a soul sucking internship with an attorney, I decided the legal profession wasn’t for me, especially after some of the horror stories I’ve heard from lawyer friends re: hours, stress, etc. Although I haven’t applied to grad school in poli sci yet (I will be this fall), I have done over a years worth of research reading books, forums like this, blog posts, speaking with professors and current poli sci grad students. So my answers to your questions are based on responses from students and professors to questions I had similar to yours. With that out of the way, now onto your questions:

Re: a writing sample. My understanding is that faculty don’t really look too deeply into writing samples, so most people coming straight out of UG just revise a thesis paper they wrote that discusses a topic in poli sci. However, because you have been out of UG for a while, I imagine your writing has improved, so try to revise a political science paper you wrote. If you have never written a poli sci paper, I would then suggest writing a new paper on a topic in poli sci that interests you. 

Re: work experience. That really doesn’t factor much into an Adcom’s decision making process, unless it’s in a relevant field (working as a research assistant, doing research at a think tank, etc). Your legal career experience won’t be factored most likely because it signals little about your ability to conduct original, compelling research. 

Re: whether it’s self sabotage to state in your SOP that you have no interest in going into academia. The answer is a resounding YES! If you mention this in your SOP, you have almost no chance of getting into any programs, even lower ranked ones. This actually brings up a salient point I want to make regarding your decision to apply to PhD programs. If you have no desire to go into academia, I think it’s crucial to ask yourself why you are even applying to PhD programs in the first place. Why are you applying to a PhD program? What do you want to do with it if you don’t want to go into academia? I’m going to be completely honest with you: if you have no desire to go into academia I think you are wasting your time applying. The whole point of PhD programs is to socialize students into graduating with an intent to go into academia, and thus the curriculum is centered around that. Moreover, these programs teach you a fairly narrow skill of how to produce original compelling research that will contribute to the existing (and fairly esoteric) knowledge in your particular sub field. The opportunity cost of spending, on average, 7 years in a PhD program is quite high if you don’t want to go into academia, because outside of academia, your PhD in poli sci will not mean much or place you in a superior position when applying to non academic jobs. If you want to go into public policy, getting an MPA or MPP would serve you much better because a) that’s all you really need to go into public policy b) it takes less time c)the programs teach more relevant skills for a career in public policy or the private sector, and d) these careers are looking more for experience and who you know rather than your degree. 

I hope this helps. I don’t mean to be harsh, I’m just being honest and trying to save you time and money. If you have any other questions feel free to DM me. 

Hi there! I'm in a somewhat similar situation (not an attorney, but I'm an older student with a lot of career experience making a career change). I did a lot of due diligence before applying, including taking a bunch of professors out to coffee and picking their brains, meeting with grad directors, and talking to friends who have been through the process and now have tenure. and have been accepted at a few places and I thought it would be helpful if I passed along my experiences.  Feel free to DM me if you have any specific questions.

I'm going to preface this by telling you that I didn't apply to any Top 10 programs - all of my schools are in the 20-50 range, and even those schools had different reactions to an older student seeking to make a career change. So if you're looking to go to Princeton, I don't have anything for you. But on the whole, the best advice I can give you is to think about your entire application package (your work experience, your research interests, your writing samples) as a story that you are trying to tell the admissions committee. Are you seeking to study something related to your work as an attorney? Has something you've dealt with in your career sparked a question that you want to answer? All of that can build a compelling narrative that can turn something that could be seen as a downside into a huge upside for you. Spend a lot of time thinking about how you want to package yourself, and each of the elements in your application package should support that narrative. In real world terms, you are writing a proposal to a potential client - you are trying to sell them on you. 

To address your questions specifically:

• Re the writing sample: Do folks dust off and revise UG papers, or spend time researching and writing a new paper altogether? I'm not remotely opposed to the latter, but would welcome any suggestions you all can offer. 

If you have something that you can stand behind that you wrote over 10 years ago, then you might be okay. I ended up writing something new. If you decide to write something new, think back to the work you've done as an attorney - is any of that work at all relevant to your research topic? If so, use that as a starting point and write something related to that. Then, in your personal statement, reference your writing sample, why you chose to submit it, and why it's relevant to your application. 

• How does work experience factor in (if at all) to an AdCom's decision making process? I don't see how someone with my background can compete with a candidate of the same age range but who got a MA in PS or worked in a similar field. I am wondering if the JD/years spent as a lawyer has any appreciable merit. (I do not harbor any illusion about how much a law degree is worth outside of, you know, the law).  

This is where your research interests can help. Ideally, your research subject is related in some way to your work as an attorney. You should use this to your advantage and talk about it in your personal statement. For example, talking bout how working as an attorney led you to ask questions X, Y, and Z, and now you're applying to graduate school so that you can answer those questions. OR something like that. I can tell you that two of the schools I applied to were really interested in my work experience and two of the schools didn't care. So it'll probably vary for you.

• Is it self-sabotage to state in one's SOP that one does not want to be an academic? Does the desire to pursue a non-academic career post-doc make someone with my background more or less desirable? 

Probably. Schools want to educate future scholars. They are going to be less likely to give funding to someone who doesn't plan to use their degree to do research. That doesn't necessarily mean that you need to seek a tenure track job after you finish - maybe you want to go work for a think tank or something. Based on my experience talking to different schools, some places are more okay with this than others. In the end, it would help if you asked yourself this question - why do I want to get a PhD? Based on all of the advice I've received, if the answer isn't related to wanting to do research for a living after you finish school, then you might want to reconsider applying.

• I'm leaning towards American or theory, but I've read horror stories about theory candidates having fewer options after their degrees are conferred than a HS drop out. If not pursuing a teaching pos, does the subfield matter as much? 

I can't speak to this question, but am curious if others have something to add.

• Any suggestions on programs for someone with my background? I don't feel the need to pay too much attention to the rankings. I'm open to the DC, Baltimore, PA, NJ, NY areas. 

DM me

[xtina617]

Thanks guys for your helpful responses, both in this thread and in DMs. I live pretty close to Hopkins; I'm not sure of their policy re auditing classes, but I'm wondering if it makes sense to try to audit an UG course just to meet a faculty member and reacquaint myself with the coursework (I haven't formally studied PS in 8 years!). Wondering what folks think. Is this a waste of time, or just plain ill-advised? Thoughts? 

[oats]

I'm curious as to why you would want a political science degree if you don't want to do political science.

An all too common misconception is that you get a political science Ph.D. to have an informed or authoritative opinion on politics -- to be a subject matter expert. This is not the case. Political science Ph.D.s are for people that want to be scientists. Meaning formulating and testing hypotheses, and then publishing the results of your experiments. If you don't want to do that, I don't recommend getting a Ph.D. Subject matter expertise comes with the Ph.D. true, but it also comes with extensive training in the scientific method. That scientific training is the difference between a 2 years masters and a 5-6 year Ph.D. So if you just want to be a subject matter expert and don't want to be actively doing science, I advise going for a masters degree. No need to spend 4 years of your life on scientific training if you don't want to be a scientist.

[xtina617]

2 hours ago, oats said:

I'm curious as to why you would want a political science degree if you don't want to do political science.

An all too common misconception is that you get a political science Ph.D. to have an informed or authoritative opinion on politics -- to be a subject matter expert. This is not the case. Political science Ph.D.s are for people that want to be scientists. Meaning formulating and testing hypotheses, and then publishing the results of your experiments. If you don't want to do that, I don't recommend getting a Ph.D. Subject matter expertise comes with the Ph.D. true, but it also comes with extensive training in the scientific method. That scientific training is the difference between a 2 years masters and a 5-6 year Ph.D. So if you just want to be a subject matter expert and don't want to be actively doing science, I advise going for a masters degree. No need to spend 4 years of your life on scientific training if you don't want to be a scientist.

I'm not opposed to "doing political science" in an academic arena, I just don't want to have tunnel vision about a career objective that I'm not sure is realistic (1) given my background and (2) given that I'm unlikely to be admitted to a top 20 program, which according to many posters here, is a prerequisite to a TT position. I'm open to a lot of different outcomes.