Chances at a Top School

[Billies97]

Hello! I'm posting this in the hopes of getting someone's take on my chances at a top 10-15 poli sci phd program. I know that fit matters a lot and that it's a crapshoot, so I'm not expecting "the truth about whether I'll get in" or whatever. Just people's honest take.

My sense is that my chances of getting into a top place are somewhere in the range of *low but not miniscule*. Does that seem about right based on my stats/record below? I suppose I'm asking because although I know I really want this, if my chances are closer to zero than I think, it might not be worth me busting my ass to try to get in. Any insights people might have would be appreciated.

Type of Undergrad Institution: Top-30 U.S. University
Major(s)/Minor(s): Poli sci
Undergrad GPA: 3.7 (Grades improved by a lot as I went on, if that helps--but that might be wishful thinking)
GRE: V: 165, Q: 160 (haven't taken yet, so I'm basing this on practice tests so far)
Any Special Courses: (1) Studied a politically relevant language throughout college (2) one grad-level poli sci class
Letters of Recommendation: Two from poli sci profs that should be strong, third should also be very positive but sadly not from a poli sci prof
Research Experience: Senior thesis for which I got Magna Cum Laude. Attempting to get a chapter of it published (in an undergrad journal if nothing else) by apps time.

 

[uncle_socks]

Your chances, based on what you've written here, is pretty decent. Definitely stand a chance and assuming that you have cohesive and not-too-weird research interests, and write a standard personal statement and I'd be pretty surprised if you blanket applied to the top 20 and didn't get in anywhere. CMU and Wake Forest aside (and I know you didn't go to CMU because they don't have poli sci), the schools in the top 20-30 in US News all have very well-connected people in political science, which is a plus. Bonus points if you went to Michigan because they're top 6 in political science lol. 

That being said, there definitely are things you can and should do to improve your profile. Work the Q score -- the V is completely fine and if you get a 165 on test day, awesome. Q is generally the easiest section to improve, and I think breaking 330 really can put you into an elite category of applicants. Also, if latin honors are based entirely on your thesis work, ask people why you didn't get summa and use that criticism to improve your sample. If that's not how it worked, ignore what I just said (my school did latin honors by gpa only so I'm not familiar with how other systems work). 

[Billies97]

Thank you! This is encouraging for me. I will definitely work hard on that quant, as well as the writing sample. Seems like a simple thing, but your anonymous vote of confidence is really meaningful as I try to reaffirm my decision to go for it. Thanks!!!

Edited August 3, 2019 by Billies97

[politolog]

I received interviews/waitlists at top-10 programs with a much lower quant score. I think you have a strong profile.

[PolPhil]

"low but not miniscule" seems like a reasonable assessment to me. You're probably a step and a half behind the top candidates, but you clearly have a strong profile that should find you a home somewhere 

[Billies97]

Thank you for your honest feedback! It's very helpful for me as I consider my way forward.

[tacos95]

I'm piggy-backing on this question. My background isn't nearly as impressive, but I'd like to know my odds for a top 30 school.

Type of Undergrad Institution: Nationally ranked liberal arts college, but only in the top150 range
Major(s)/Minor(s): Econ/English
Undergrad GPA: 3.5 (major was 3.8, but idk if that means anything at all)
GRE: V: 166, Q: 162 (based on a few practice tests)
Any Special Courses: n/a
Letters of Recommendation: Two from econ profs that should be pretty favorable but not well-known, third probably from employer/owner of consulting firm
Research Experience: Senior thesis about domestic policy econ stuff, professional quant consulting, but I'm not sure how much that counts

Work experience after undergrad in analytic consulting. I'm interested in the theory track, but I think I'm well-suited to methods/other quant stuff, maybe as a minor. 

I can handle whatever must be said. Like I mentioned, I'm shooting for top 30. If that's not feasible, would like to know what my expected range should be.

Thanks. 

[uncle_socks]

30 minutes ago, tacos95 said:

I'm piggy-backing on this question. My background isn't nearly as impressive, but I'd like to know my odds for a top 30 school.

Type of Undergrad Institution: Nationally ranked liberal arts college, but only in the top150 range
Major(s)/Minor(s): Econ/English
Undergrad GPA: 3.5 (major was 3.8, but idk if that means anything at all)
GRE: V: 166, Q: 162 (based on a few practice tests)
Any Special Courses: n/a
Letters of Recommendation: Two from econ profs that should be pretty favorable but not well-known, third probably from employer/owner of consulting firm
Research Experience: Senior thesis about domestic policy econ stuff, professional quant consulting, but I'm not sure how much that counts

Work experience after undergrad in analytic consulting. I'm interested in the theory track, but I think I'm well-suited to methods/other quant stuff, maybe as a minor. 

I can handle whatever must be said. Like I mentioned, I'm shooting for top 30. If that's not feasible, would like to know what my expected range should be.

Thanks. 

GPA could potentially be a small red flag, especially coming from a school that is presumably not well-known. Higher major GPA helps. GRE scores are good -- raising the Q can't hurt but overall they aren't a problem. Professional quant consulting is good, a higher GRE Q score combined with quant work experience can make it known that you have serious quant chops. 

Here's where I think you'll get dinged:

1. Interested in theory track but none of your recs are from theory people. No one can really speak to your aptitude in political theory.

2. No one cares about professional references (the only possible exception I can think of in your case was if the employer talked about how good you are at quant stuff and you were applying as a methods applicant).

3. It's not fair that it's like this, but having unknown recommendors will hurt you. This becomes less of a problem the further down the rankings you go. There's a reason the best schools are mostly filled with students who went to prestigious undergrads/undergrads with good polisci departments, and it's not just because inherently smarter people tend to go to better undergrad departments. 

4. Seemingly no research experience in theory/not a lot of previous coursework in theory classes. I think it may be difficult to write a convincing Statement of purpose if you're not well-versed with the current literature in the field. Coming from  anon-polisci background, you're going to have to convince the admissions committees that you know what the field is all about, and that you belong in it. 

 

That being said, major GPA (given that it's econ related)+ great GRE scores + quant job make me think you'd get some bites in the 20-40 range. Check out MAPSS at Chicago too -- I think with your GRE score you could get a serious scholarship and it would allow you to simultaneously get polisci experience, get a higher GPA, and get recs from famous people in the field. 

[tacos95]

Thanks. That's all very helpful information. And I like the idea of the MAPSS at Chicago. If I could get a good scholarship, I would definitely be interested in doing that before a PhD program.

[sociopolitic]

14 hours ago, tacos95 said:

Thanks. That's all very helpful information. And I like the idea of the MAPSS at Chicago. If I could get a good scholarship, I would definitely be interested in doing that before a PhD program.

It should be noted that MAPSS is a bit of an afterthought for Chicago faculty, who are occupied with students in their own departments first and foremost. That's not to say that MAPSS isn't worth it -- you just have to be a self-starter and make it worth it. Go to talks, really take the chance to think through your interests and ask faculty good questions, and it can absolutely be worthwhile. I have friends who came out of the program and benefitted greatly from it. 

[Mixedmethodsisa4letterword]

Strongly recommend MACRM at Harris School or MACSS. 

[uncle_socks]

2 minutes ago, Mixedmethodsisa4letterword said:

Strongly recommend MACRM at Harris School or MACSS. 

Do you have any info about these programs/especially about funding for these two programs? I thought about applying to those but ultimately didn't because I couldn't find much beyond Blattman's blog post about it. 

 

They seem similar to QMSS at Columbia (I think that's what it's called) which I've seen on some CVs of CHYMPS grad students. QMSS also seems like a great quant-social science oriented master's program with a solid pipeline to awesome PhD programs, but I can't say anything about finances there either. 

[Mixedmethodsisa4letterword]

1 hour ago, BunniesInSpace said:

Do you have any info about these programs/especially about funding for these two programs? I thought about applying to those but ultimately didn't because I couldn't find much beyond Blattman's blog post about it. 

 

They seem similar to QMSS at Columbia (I think that's what it's called) which I've seen on some CVs of CHYMPS grad students. QMSS also seems like a great quant-social science oriented master's program with a solid pipeline to awesome PhD programs, but I can't say anything about finances there either. 

I know people getting full-ride at MACSS and a few others who received half-ride at MACRM. QMSS mostly does not offer scholarship/financial aids but you can work as an RA (10-20hrs/wk).