Help gauging competitiveness for PhD in IR/Poli Sci?

[Natesmith1016]

Firstly, I am aware that the community doesn't like these questions as they depend on a lot of variables and specific programmes, however all of the programmes I am interested in have told me they don't have admitted student profiles, so I would really appreciate some resources  could consult or if anyone here has done a PhD poli sci and could give feedback.

 I have tried emailing and calling all the institutions. As I said, I would be doing my PhD in Political Science, with an emphasis on International Relations, specific Far East Asian studies. The places I'm interested in are NYU(was accepted into their MA IR), Stanford and Columbia. As I said, they all told me they didn't have anything online where I could compare my credentials/GRE/GPA to admitted students. 

I have an MA in Linguistics with Merit from the University of Glasgow(equivalent to US 3.7). I'm originally from the states. Appreciate any support that could be given. If you need any clarification on anything, feel free to let me know.

Edit: Should note my Gre Scores, 156 Verbal, 142 Quant(weak spot I know), 4.5 writing.

Research Experience: None.

 

I also currently have an admit to USC's price for my MPA, still deciding if I want to do that or defer for a year and go straight for PhD next year.

[Imperator Totius Hispaniae]

I have not done a PhD in political science, but I will be applying to PhD programs in the fall and I have consulted numerous sources on getting into top PhD Poli Sci programs, including current grad students and professors.  I've had the good fortune of chatting with numerous Stanford Poli Sci grad students and professors in person, so I feel I have a pretty good idea of what is needed for admission into top programs. However, since im not a current Poli sci grad student, feel free to take what I have to say with a grain of salt.

Before I get into my advice, I just want to ask, why the switch to poli sci?  what about it, and Far East Asian studies interests you?  How do you become interested in this topic? What is your plan after graduating with your PhD in poli sci?

As far as your competitiveness is concerned, it's a bit hard to gauge based on the limited info you have provided. But based on the limited info you gave, if im being completely honest with you, as it stands you are not competitive for the schools you want to apply to, especially Stanford and Columbia.  However, this doesn't mean you can't get competitive.  There are things you have within your control that can greatly help increase your odds.  As someone who is also applying to poli sci PhD programs coming from a different field (history for me), I think it's first important to be sure that you are familiar with the poli sci literature in IR, Far East Asian studies.  This familiarity will be crucial for your SOP (statement of purpose), especially for someone such as yourself coming from linguistics, because admissions committees need to know that you have a good grasp on what the current state of the literature is and how your own research interests fit in and add to the current state of research.  If you cannot articulate this in your SOP, you will have a very hard time getting into top programs such as Stanford and Columbia.  Have you read any articles from the leading journals in the field--APSR, the Journal of Politics, and the AJPS?  Have you read any books on IR, specifically in East Asian studies?  I would highly recommend doing so if you haven't.  I think your level of familiarity with the literature will also determine whether or not you should defer for a year or go straight into a PhD program.  If you aren't very familiar, or only have a cursory understanding, I would definitely hold off a year to do some research, and perhaps even work on an independent research project that you could use as a writing sample, just to show the ad coms your understanding of how to do political science research.  

For people like you and me applying to poli sci from a different field, it's going to be a bit of a challenge, though not impossible.  For you, GRE, Letters of Rec, and Statement of Purpose are going to be crucial in convincing ad coms you are highly qualified for rigorous poli sci research.  You will be competing with hundreds of other highly qualified applicants in top programs, so you have to find a way to stand out positively to ad coms.  Because there are so many applicants and few open spots for admission, ad coms will be looking for reasons to reject you, especially at places like Stanford (ranked #1), and Columbia (ranked #7).  Just as a warning, even people who have perfect GPA's and perfect/almost perfect GRE scores still don't get into top programs like Stanford or Harvard, so don't be disappointed if you aren't accepted into those programs. Beyond GPA and GRE scores, ad coms are looking for fit, and how well a student's research interests fit with the research interests and strengths of the department. 

Which leads me to my next point.  I'm not sure if you were only giving a small sample of schools you want to apply to, but if those are the only schools you are applying to, you should really be applying to a much broader range of schools within and outside the top 20.  Because the application process is so competitive, you will be significantly lowering your odds of getting into grad school if you're only applying to 3 programs, two of which are in the top 10.  Also, why do you want to apply to NYU, Stanford, and Colombia?  You really should be applying to schools that fit your research interests.  Not saying that those schools don't, but I feel there are probably other schools that have just as strong, if not stronger, faculty doing Far East Asian studies.  Grad school will be at least 6 years, so you want to make sure that you're attending a school that will have faculty and potential advisors who are interested in similar research topics as you, or else you will be miserable trying to work with scholars who cannot really help or advise you on your research topic.  Perhaps you should spend more time reading faculty profiles at different schools and the articles/books they've published to find a school that's a right fit for you, and not just selecting schools because they are in the top 15 or 20.  

As far as letters of rec, if the best you can do is getting letters from linguistics professors, that's ok.  Make sure those professors will write you glowing letters of rec, on the order of "this person is one of the best students I've ever worked with".  Also if these professors can attest to your research capabilities, this will be helpful as it will demonstrate to ad coms your propensity for research.  If you could somehow get letters of rec from poli sci professor that are familiar with you and your work, that would be better of course.  

Your SOP will be crucial for you.  This will be your chance to demonstrate your propensity for research in political science, your familiarity with the literature, how your studies have lead to your interest in Far East Asian studies, and how your research interests will contribute to and push past the frontiers of research in your sub field. Although this statement of purpose was written for a PhD history department, it's still an exceptional example of a statement of purpose that you can use as a template for your own statement of purpose (obviously modifying it to fit political science and your own personal situation): http://ls.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/statement_of_purpose.pdf

Finally, as you mention, your quant GRE score is not great, however neither is your verbal GRE score.  If you really want to get into Stanford or Columbia, you will need 160+ in both the verbal and quant, preferably a 165+ in both.  Most schools have an implicit cut score just to make it past the first round, so that's why it's important to get as high a GRE score as possible.  Also, if you want to get into top 20 programs and you have no math/quant experience, your quant GRE score will be especially important as someone coming from a different field, because ad coms use this GRE quant score to determine whether or not you would be able to survive the school's quant methods sequence.  Also, poli sci as a field is becoming increasingly quant heavy (even in IR, though it depends on what specifically your research interests are), so be prepared that you will have to take quant methods sequences, especially in the top programs.  You will be reading journals with a lot of math and you will be expected to output in your research quant methods, especially if you want to be published in a top journal. It's very difficult to do qual only work and there are very few scholars who do qual only work.  Even the qual leaning scholars still use mixed methods.      

Hope this helps.  If you have any more questions let me know

[PolPhil]

Neoinstitutionalist hit all the main points, but I want to emphasize a few things.

1. Your GRE scores aren't even close for the schools you mentioned. Your quant is completely prohibitive (I would be surprised if they even looked at your application) and your verbal is far below the cut. You need to a least be in the 90th percentile for both (roughly 163 for verbal and 166 for quant), especially since you're coming from outside of the discipline and your GPA, while not bad, is not stellar either. Take 2 months to master GRE material and then retake the test.

2. If you can afford it, do a master's program in political science. This will show ad-coms that you know what political science is, and that you can actually do the coursework. It will also provide you with contacts who can offer letters of recommendation and advice.

3. As it stands now, I would be surprised if you got into a top-50 program, let alone a top-10 program. You need to think about what schools are realistic for you outside of the top-20 and/or dramatically improve your profile. Success in a good master's program and top GRE scores will help a great deal, as will a solid writing sample (a master's thesis would be perfect), SOP (profs in a master's program could help with this) and letters of recommendation.

[Sigaba]

@bhabhafk, I think that you are offering strongly worded guidance without providing an adequate amount of background that allows readers to understand the basis for that guidance. 

[Natesmith1016]

11 hours ago, Sigaba said:

@bhabhafk, I think that you are offering strongly worded guidance without providing an adequate amount of background that allows readers to understand the basis for that guidance. 

Yea, definitely. I actually just saw all of these posts, did not get notifications. "3.7, while not bad, isn't stellar" I mean, it's on a  4.0 scale.. not to toot my own horn, but... GRE could be improved for sure though.

[Natesmith1016]

On 6/27/2019 at 1:46 PM, Neo_Institutionalist said:

I have not done a PhD in political science, but I will be applying to PhD programs in the fall and I have consulted numerous sources on getting into top PhD Poli Sci programs, including current grad students and professors.  I've had the good fortune of chatting with numerous Stanford Poli Sci grad students and professors in person, so I feel I have a pretty good idea of what is needed for admission into top programs. However, since im not a current Poli sci grad student, feel free to take what I have to say with a grain of salt.

Before I get into my advice, I just want to ask, why the switch to poli sci?  what about it, and Far East Asian studies interests you?  How do you become interested in this topic? What is your plan after graduating with your PhD in poli sci?

As far as your competitiveness is concerned, it's a bit hard to gauge based on the limited info you have provided. But based on the limited info you gave, if im being completely honest with you, as it stands you are not competitive for the schools you want to apply to, especially Stanford and Columbia.  However, this doesn't mean you can't get competitive.  There are things you have within your control that can greatly help increase your odds.  As someone who is also applying to poli sci PhD programs coming from a different field (history for me), I think it's first important to be sure that you are familiar with the poli sci literature in IR, Far East Asian studies.  This familiarity will be crucial for your SOP (statement of purpose), especially for someone such as yourself coming from linguistics, because admissions committees need to know that you have a good grasp on what the current state of the literature is and how your own research interests fit in and add to the current state of research.  If you cannot articulate this in your SOP, you will have a very hard time getting into top programs such as Stanford and Columbia.  Have you read any articles from the leading journals in the field--APSR, the Journal of Politics, and the AJPS?  Have you read any books on IR, specifically in East Asian studies?  I would highly recommend doing so if you haven't.  I think your level of familiarity with the literature will also determine whether or not you should defer for a year or go straight into a PhD program.  If you aren't very familiar, or only have a cursory understanding, I would definitely hold off a year to do some research, and perhaps even work on an independent research project that you could use as a writing sample, just to show the ad coms your understanding of how to do political science research.  

For people like you and me applying to poli sci from a different field, it's going to be a bit of a challenge, though not impossible.  For you, GRE, Letters of Rec, and Statement of Purpose are going to be crucial in convincing ad coms you are highly qualified for rigorous poli sci research.  You will be competing with hundreds of other highly qualified applicants in top programs, so you have to find a way to stand out positively to ad coms.  Because there are so many applicants and few open spots for admission, ad coms will be looking for reasons to reject you, especially at places like Stanford (ranked #1), and Columbia (ranked #7).  Just as a warning, even people who have perfect GPA's and perfect/almost perfect GRE scores still don't get into top programs like Stanford or Harvard, so don't be disappointed if you aren't accepted into those programs. Beyond GPA and GRE scores, ad coms are looking for fit, and how well a student's research interests fit with the research interests and strengths of the department. 

Which leads me to my next point.  I'm not sure if you were only giving a small sample of schools you want to apply to, but if those are the only schools you are applying to, you should really be applying to a much broader range of schools within and outside the top 20.  Because the application process is so competitive, you will be significantly lowering your odds of getting into grad school if you're only applying to 3 programs, two of which are in the top 10.  Also, why do you want to apply to NYU, Stanford, and Colombia?  You really should be applying to schools that fit your research interests.  Not saying that those schools don't, but I feel there are probably other schools that have just as strong, if not stronger, faculty doing Far East Asian studies.  Grad school will be at least 6 years, so you want to make sure that you're attending a school that will have faculty and potential advisors who are interested in similar research topics as you, or else you will be miserable trying to work with scholars who cannot really help or advise you on your research topic.  Perhaps you should spend more time reading faculty profiles at different schools and the articles/books they've published to find a school that's a right fit for you, and not just selecting schools because they are in the top 15 or 20.  

As far as letters of rec, if the best you can do is getting letters from linguistics professors, that's ok.  Make sure those professors will write you glowing letters of rec, on the order of "this person is one of the best students I've ever worked with".  Also if these professors can attest to your research capabilities, this will be helpful as it will demonstrate to ad coms your propensity for research.  If you could somehow get letters of rec from poli sci professor that are familiar with you and your work, that would be better of course.  

Your SOP will be crucial for you.  This will be your chance to demonstrate your propensity for research in political science, your familiarity with the literature, how your studies have lead to your interest in Far East Asian studies, and how your research interests will contribute to and push past the frontiers of research in your sub field. Although this statement of purpose was written for a PhD history department, it's still an exceptional example of a statement of purpose that you can use as a template for your own statement of purpose (obviously modifying it to fit political science and your own personal situation): http://ls.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/statement_of_purpose.pdf

Finally, as you mention, your quant GRE score is not great, however neither is your verbal GRE score.  If you really want to get into Stanford or Columbia, you will need 160+ in both the verbal and quant, preferably a 165+ in both.  Most schools have an implicit cut score just to make it past the first round, so that's why it's important to get as high a GRE score as possible.  Also, if you want to get into top 20 programs and you have no math/quant experience, your quant GRE score will be especially important as someone coming from a different field, because ad coms use this GRE quant score to determine whether or not you would be able to survive the school's quant methods sequence.  Also, poli sci as a field is becoming increasingly quant heavy (even in IR, though it depends on what specifically your research interests are), so be prepared that you will have to take quant methods sequences, especially in the top programs.  You will be reading journals with a lot of math and you will be expected to output in your research quant methods, especially if you want to be published in a top journal. It's very difficult to do qual only work and there are very few scholars who do qual only work.  Even the qual leaning scholars still use mixed methods.      

Hope this helps.  If you have any more questions let me know

Alright, sorry for the slow reply, Gradcafe didn't show me any notifications from this for some reason. So, I am a bit late here. I'll try to respond to all of your points, but it's a big text, so sorry if I miss anything. For starters, NYU, Columbia and Stanford are great for what I'm interested in, those are the ones I've looked at so far. I got in NYU's MA IR programme and am interested in working with some of the research that some of their professors are doing. As said in the OP, I was accepted into SC's price MPA programme, so I'll most likely be doing that this year with an international specialisation. Price's MPA is highly regarded and overlaps a lot with their IR department due to my specialisation. Stats, economics and Quant analysis play big roles in that programme. Recommendations would of course be taken care of, and as part of the MPA I'll have to complete 300 hours of an internship government/admin internship.

 

>Finally, as you mention, your quant is not great, however neither is your verbal GRE score. 

 

I only took it one time, so I'm a bit unfamiliar with the scoring, to be honest. Is a difference of 4 points all there is between "not great either" and great? I'll keep in mind taking it again. 

 

>If you really want to get into Stanford and Columbia

 

I do like the research in Far East Asian Studies they're doing, but honestly NYU would be my desired place. 

 

So, now that you've got the MPA info, I think that might change some of what you were saying about getting recs from linguistic professors, quant work, etc. Basically, I'll be working towards that. Let me know if you've got any follow up questions, thoughts or comments. Thanks for taking the time to reply too. 

 

Edit: Here's a neat link for you too about MPA-> PhD poli sci stuff 

 

Edited June 29, 2019 by Natesmith1016

[Natesmith1016]

12 hours ago, bhabhafk said:

Neoinstitutionalist hit all the main points, but I want to emphasize a few things.

1. Your GRE scores aren't even close for the schools you mentioned. Your quant is completely prohibitive (I would be surprised if they even looked at your application) and your verbal is far below the cut. You need to a least be in the 90th percentile for both (roughly 163 for verbal and 166 for quant), especially since you're coming from outside of the discipline and your GPA, while not bad, is not stellar either. Take 2 months to master GRE material and then retake the test.

2. If you can afford it, do a master's program in political science. This will show ad-coms that you know what political science is, and that you can actually do the coursework. It will also provide you with contacts who can offer letters of recommendation and advice.

3. As it stands now, I would be surprised if you got into a top-50 program, let alone a top-10 program. You need to think about what schools are realistic for you outside of the top-20 and/or dramatically improve your profile. Success in a good master's program and top GRE scores will help a great deal, as will a solid writing sample (a master's thesis would be perfect), SOP (profs in a master's program could help with this) and letters of recommendation.

> I would be surprised if you got into a top 50 programme.

 

Come on now, man. You're milking it. I had a 3.7... not 2.7.... from an international university, with a different grading system from the U.S. I'm doing an MPA with international specialisation at a top 8 programme. GRE scores can certainly be improved, though. I took it once and got in both masters programmes that I wanted to,  one for IR(NYU), so I didn't give it more thought.

 

 link for you on MPA-> PhD since I feel you'll have a retort for that too. 

 

Edited June 29, 2019 by Natesmith1016

[PolPhil]

11 hours ago, Natesmith1016 said:

> I would be surprised if you got into a top 50 programme.

 

Come on now, man. You're milking it. I had a 3.7... not 2.7.... from an international university, with a different grading system from the U.S. I'm doing an MPA with international specialisation at a top 8 programme. GRE scores can certainly be improved, though. I took it once and got in both masters programmes that I wanted to,  one for IR(NYU), so I didn't give it more thought.

 

 link for you on MPA-> PhD since I feel you'll have a retort for that too. 

 

This only goes to show that you need to do much more research on PhD applications.

A 3.7 GPA is good, but not that great. It's very average for most Poli Sci students looking to get into a PhD program, and it's below average for all of the schools that you mentioned. Your GRE scores aren't just low--they're likely below the minimum cutoff for almost all schools in the top-10, and many schools in the top-20. The fact that you got into NYU's MA means very little. It's fairly easy to get into MA programs in Poli Sci. They usually have acceptance rates from 30-50%, and there's very little risk since they don't have to fund you. Those programs pretty much want as many people as possible so that they can use the tuition that you pay to pay for their PhD students. Also, an MPA is not likely to help you in getting into a PhD Poli Sci program. Of course, some people manage to do it, but they're the exceptions. Most of these people will have had GPAs and GRE scores far above yours. PhD programs in Poli Sci won't care much about your internships and "experience in local government." They're not public policy/adminstration programs, they're academic Poli Sci programs. They want to see that you can do academic research in the social sciences. A research assistantship could help in this regard.

I don't mean to be discouraging. I'm trying to be honest, and I hope that you actually consider my advice as well as that of others; otherwise, you're in for a world of disappointment come application time. Your 3.7 GPA in Linguistics isn't going to carry you. Get some graduate work done in Poli Sci, and make sure that your grad GPA is above 3.8 and that your GRE scores add up to over 330. After that, you just have to worry about the intangibles, which are also very important.

[PolPhil]

Also, having an international degree will usually hurt your case, not help it.

Lastly, you should look on the the Grad Cafe's results page for NYU, Columbia and Stanford. As you'll see, the applicants that get accepted usually have undergrad GPAs above 3.8 from top universities and have GRE total scores above 330. Many applicants with these stats will still get rejected.

Edited June 29, 2019 by bhabhafk

[Natesmith1016]

5 hours ago, bhabhafk said:

Also, having an international degree will usually hurt your case, not help it.

Lastly, you should look on the the Grad Cafe's results page for NYU, Columbia and Stanford. As you'll see, the applicants that get accepted usually have undergrad GPAs above 3.8 from top universities and have GRE total scores above 330. Many applicants with these stats will still get rejected.

A 3.7 GPA is great by any objective standards dude. That’s a fact. That’s one mark from a 4.0. Again, from a different country with tougher gearing criteria then America too. Few people get a first in the UK. Your statement that an international degree hurts is also blatantly false. As the other guy said, you’re hurling words with no background or sources.

 

i linked you an article for MPA->PhD stuff. You didn’t read it. It’s pretty common and certainly helps. 

 

>local government doesn’t help.

 

you definitely didn’t read my comment entirely because I clearly said I’m doing international specialisation and work with SC’s IR department. Yet, you’re talking about linguistics and local government? You know Ban Ki moon had an MPA, right? It’s not all local stuff, depends on your specialisation. 

 

GRE scores aren’t everything. It all depends on the applicants at the time. I was below SC’s average quant too. SOP, letters of rec, personal statements etc all contribute.

Edited June 29, 2019 by Natesmith1016

[ExponentialDecay]

You should read your own "article" for MPA-PhD stuff, because the guy with the MPA and PhD in Public Policy is perfectly right - an MPA is not good preparation for a PhD. If you attend open days or prospective applicant presentations for the top policy masters like Princeton and Harvard, their reps will tell you the same thing. The reason is not so much that a bunch of classes will be irrelevant, since curricula at these programs are pretty malleable, but that even the relevant classes are designed for practitioners, not researchers. For example, your econometrics class will focus on interpreting and understanding regression outputs, not on how to build an econometric model and apply it to data. You will also have limited opportunities to work on stuff that will make you more competitive for PhDs, like writing a great thesis or getting real tight with professors in your subfield, because the program will be focused on trotting you out to employers and getting you a job at the end. There are programs that are better geared for an academic application, like the MPA-ID or some of the Harris School's programs, but they are an obsecenely expensive option that isn't tailored to what you want, and choosing them over going to a dedicated poli sci MRes in Europe that will cost you pennies on the dollar is a strange decision. I don't think a master's is a bad idea, but if you want a PhD, don't get an MPA. 

I don't think your GPA is bad at all (although I'm confused if that's a first or an upper second), but the GRE really is quite low for top programs and unfortunately they pay extra attention to that when you're not from a US school. 

[Natesmith1016]

1 hour ago, ExponentialDecay said:

You should read your own "article" for MPA-PhD stuff, because the guy with the MPA and PhD in Public Policy is perfectly right - an MPA is not good preparation for a PhD. If you attend open days or prospective applicant presentations for the top policy masters like Princeton and Harvard, their reps will tell you the same thing. The reason is not so much that a bunch of classes will be irrelevant, since curricula at these programs are pretty malleable, but that even the relevant classes are designed for practitioners, not researchers. For example, your econometrics class will focus on interpreting and understanding regression outputs, not on how to build an econometric model and apply it to data. You will also have limited opportunities to work on stuff that will make you more competitive for PhDs, like writing a great thesis or getting real tight with professors in your subfield, because the program will be focused on trotting you out to employers and getting you a job at the end. There are programs that are better geared for an academic application, like the MPA-ID or some of the Harris School's programs, but they are an obsecenely expensive option that isn't tailored to what you want, and choosing them over going to a dedicated poli sci MRes in Europe that will cost you pennies on the dollar is a strange decision. I don't think a master's is a bad idea, but if you want a PhD, don't get an MPA. 

I don't think your GPA is bad at all (although I'm confused if that's a first or an upper second), but the GRE really is quite low for top programs and unfortunately they pay extra attention to that when you're not from a US school. 

The guy with the PhD was saying that it’s not a direct preparation as in, like you said, the aims are different of what you learn. But, there’s a lot of overlap depending on programme and specialisation. In my case, my electives and specialisation are all related to the PhD I plan to do. So East Asian studies research, quant analysis and other IR courses. It’s a first. GRE scores can def be improved but don’t seem to be everything.

[uncle_socks]

Here's my two cents on everything here:

 

1. First, a 3.7 is ok. People on admissions committees are familiar enough with the UK grading system to not get their panties in twist when they see something like what I presume is upper second class honors. One chart I saw (from a different school) made it look like about 20% of students got a better grade, which is like, not the greatest but not the best. Clearly it means you're competent and stuff, but it doesn't scream "academic superstar". That being said, some of the smartest people I know don't have the best GPAs, and people are aware of that. It won't carry you, but maybe aside from Harvard or Stanford, won't sink you either, especially because it's in a different field. Plenty of ivy league near-4.0 types apply to top political science programs though, so the chances that a 3.7 will be seen as as a plus are very slim. 

2. If you go to USC and get an MPA with a GPA over 3.8, that will probably be a good thing. Recs from economists or political scientists who teach in the program will be very very good. It's not the most efficient way to end up in a political science PhD program, but I don't think it's really the worst thing to do because you'll be exposed to a lot of a fair amount of government-related research. Also it's probably much better than doing nothing.

3. I wouldn't value an MA in Political science (or the UChicago cash cow MAs) over a top MPA/MPP. Most programs that offer political science MAs are either not that great of programs in general, or treat their MAs as cash cows (Duke, NYU, Chicago without scholarship), and committees know that. The bonus of an MPA/MPP is if you decide you like what's going on in it, you'll have employment prospects when you get the degree. 

4. It is my opinion that if you go to USC and do well (3.8+ (but higher the better), very good recs, some kind of research experience), you can be in a good place to apply to PhD programs in the caliber that you want to get into. If your goal is Columbia/Stanford/NYU, will be better off doing this than directly applying without it. Bonus points if it makes you better at quantitative work and can write a quantitative writing sample. 

5. To agree with someone who posted above, your internship probably will not matter very much unless there's a research component to your work. These internships might have some kind of "cool" factor but ultimately it won't make your application. 

6. Your GRE scores, as-is, will get you rejected at all three programs you've mentioned. NYU and Stanford love high quant scorers. NYU loves to brag about being really hardcore with methods -- if you don't believe me read their FAQ. You need to get the quant score up. When I applied to these programs my goal was 165/165 but had decided I would settle for anything over 160/160. I recommend something similar. Is a 156 to 160 is not statistically a significant jump, but 160 seems to be some magical number that a lot of people just equate as "competent enough to read academic papers." The number used to be 700 on the old GRE, which is a much higher percentile. Are these numbers pretty much arbitrary and based off a a stupid "what is ten points beneath a perfect score" rule? Yes. Do people value these stupid magic numbers? Yes. Take a look here to see what kind of GRE/GPAs people who get into these programs have. That being said, GRE scores alone will not get you in. They'll get you rejected though. 

 

[Natesmith1016]

2 hours ago, BunniesInSpace said:

Here's my two cents on everything here:

 

1. First, a 3.7 is ok. People on admissions committees are familiar enough with the UK grading system to not get their panties in twist when they see something like what I presume is upper second class honors. One chart I saw (from a different school) made it look like about 20% of students got a better grade, which is like, not the greatest but not the best. Clearly it means you're competent and stuff, but it doesn't scream "academic superstar". That being said, some of the smartest people I know don't have the best GPAs, and people are aware of that. It won't carry you, but maybe aside from Harvard or Stanford, won't sink you either, especially because it's in a different field. Plenty of ivy league near-4.0 types apply to top political science programs though, so the chances that a 3.7 will be seen as as a plus are very slim. 

2. If you go to USC and get an MPA with a GPA over 3.8, that will probably be a good thing. Recs from economists or political scientists who teach in the program will be very very good. It's not the most efficient way to end up in a political science PhD program, but I don't think it's really the worst thing to do because you'll be exposed to a lot of a fair amount of government-related research. Also it's probably much better than doing nothing.

3. I wouldn't value an MA in Political science (or the UChicago cash cow MAs) over a top MPA/MPP. Most programs that offer political science MAs are either not that great of programs in general, or treat their MAs as cash cows (Duke, NYU, Chicago without scholarship), and committees know that. The bonus of an MPA/MPP is if you decide you like what's going on in it, you'll have employment prospects when you get the degree. 

4. It is my opinion that if you go to USC and do well (3.8+ (but higher the better), very good recs, some kind of research experience), you can be in a good place to apply to PhD programs in the caliber that you want to get into. If your goal is Columbia/Stanford/NYU, will be better off doing this than directly applying without it. Bonus points if it makes you better at quantitative work and can write a quantitative writing sample. 

5. To agree with someone who posted above, your internship probably will not matter very much unless there's a research component to your work. These internships might have some kind of "cool" factor but ultimately it won't make your application. 

6. Your GRE scores, as-is, will get you rejected at all three programs you've mentioned. NYU and Stanford love high quant scorers. NYU loves to brag about being really hardcore with methods -- if you don't believe me read their FAQ. You need to get the quant score up. When I applied to these programs my goal was 165/165 but had decided I would settle for anything over 160/160. I recommend something similar. Is a 156 to 160 is not statistically a significant jump, but 160 seems to be some magical number that a lot of people just equate as "competent enough to read academic papers." The number used to be 700 on the old GRE, which is a much higher percentile. Are these numbers pretty much arbitrary and based off a a stupid "what is ten points beneath a perfect score" rule? Yes. Do people value these stupid magic numbers? Yes. Take a look here to see what kind of GRE/GPAs people who get into these programs have. That being said, GRE scores alone will not get you in. They'll get you rejected though. 

Now, that's the type of thoroughness I was looking for, pretty much answered everything. Cheers. My internship will have a research component, everything I'm doing at SC is with PhD studies in New York in mind. I'd probably retake the GRE next year, I've got some things I want to do before starting my PhD, like teaching abroad, then I'd come back for that.

 

You said when you applied. Have you got a poli sci PhD? How did you find it?

Edited June 30, 2019 by Natesmith1016

[PolPhil]

On 6/28/2019 at 11:44 AM, Sigaba said:

@bhabhafk, I think that you are offering strongly worded guidance without providing an adequate amount of background that allows readers to understand the basis for that guidance. 

Just offering my advice man. It's not a PhD thesis, so I'm not going to spend hours looking back to where I've gathered info in order to provide citations. Take it or leave it.