Appliaction Weaknesses?

[slacktivist]

I'm preparing my applications for 2011, and I have two major weaknesses:

1) GPA: I had a semester several years ago where I failed three of my four courses. I had health issues after the drop deadline and could not get sufficient documentation to remediate my grades to a withdrawal (worse still, all four of those classes were in political science). This means I will have a 3.3 GPA instead of 3.6 when I graduate this fall.

The strongest point in my favor is that my GPA is over 3.8 in more than 60 semester units of coursework since then. Also, my final semester will be capped by a graduate seminar and the second semester of a research assistantship for academic credit.

2) Lack of economics or calculus classes: I can't remedy this before I graduate. I think my GRE Quantitative score (should be around 750), experience in research methods (inferential statistics) and statement of purpose should demonstrate sufficient aptitude.

I'd rather not limit myself prematurely in the programs I apply to on account of this. I know I can cut it at a top-25, and would hate to think I would be disqualified outright from applying. The rest of my application is strong (GRE, statement of purpose, letters of recommendation), but how can I remedy these weaknesses?

[Aunuwyn]

Take your gre and report the actual scores. Also if you don't have any publications or an undergrad thesis its extremely unlikely you will get in a top 25 program (if admissions are tight like this year).

Simply put your file is underwhelming for those programs. Low GPA, no real quant work, no previous grad work, no pubs, no research experience, straight from undergrad. You will be fighting an uphill battle.

[slacktivist]

Take your gre and report the actual scores. Also if you don't have any publications or an undergrad thesis its extremely unlikely you will get in a top 25 program (if admissions are tight like this year).

Simply put your file is underwhelming for those programs. Low GPA, no real quant work, no previous grad work, no pubs, no research experience, straight from undergrad. You will be fighting an uphill battle.

Fair points, all. I am not harboring any illusions about competitiveness; I'm applying to three top-15 programs as reaches based on an expected GRE score of around 700 V/750 Q. (Realistically, though I'm targeting places like Maryland, UC Davis and Illinois.) I am taking a graduate seminar next semester, so I'm hoping the extra work that I am doing (relative to the opportunities available in my program) will be another point in my favor.

[Keller65]

Do an MA.

[slacktivist]

And I promise my typos ("appliaction") aren't indicative of aptitude, just a long day at work!

[slacktivist]

Do an MA.

Additional debt is not an option, so I'd have to find a terminal MA institution that gives tuition remission and/or assistantships to their top applicants, and has some faculty doing reasonably interesting work in American politics. And, yes, I've already looked at places like Marquette, Villanova and Virginia Tech.

Edited April 15, 2010 by slacktivist

[irishfan11]

You need to look outside the top 50. Everyone who applies to top 50 programs has GRE scores like yours.

Also, visit each school's website to check for stats of incoming admits. In most cases, you'll have to email the Graduate Director.

In my opinion, your expectations are not realistic. Your stats are not Top 25-40 caliber, and you'll be lucky to get funded at a school below the Top 50. Get a MA first, it's the only way to set off a low UG GPA (That's what I did).

[socialpsychg]

You need to look outside the top 50. Everyone who applies to top 50 programs has GRE scores like yours.

Also, visit each school's website to check for stats of incoming admits. In most cases, you'll have to email the Graduate Director.

In my opinion, your expectations are not realistic. Your stats are not Top 25-40 caliber, and you'll be lucky to get funded at a school below the Top 50. Get a MA first, it's the only way to set off a low UG GPA (That's what I did).

Agreed.

[plisar]

Hey Slacktivist.

Nice to see some new blood here. I couldn't disagree more with all the advice you are getting here. First of all, I'm sorry to hear about your health problems. This happens more often than people think and is completely excusable reason for the lower than expected GPA (especially if the quarter is completely on the left side of the distribution of your grades). In your case, it may be necessary for you to have at least one of your letter writers (or some documentation) that can prove your medical issues on the application. I would talk it over with a trusted advisor at your university. Your last four quarters of at 3.8 are incredible and will be a signal that you are not all talk--committees will typically recognize this.

The lack of economics and calculus classes will not hurt you in the admissions process. What will hurt you is a GRE-quant score less than 750. In your case I highly encourage you to shoot for an 800. It's an essential signal to the committees that you can do the math required of you and it is a fairly achievable goal given the amount of time you have to prepare. I can PM you with more details as to how to ensure at least a 780+.

Honestly, I think you can shoot for the moon, but it seriously depends on how many applications you can afford to send in. My advice is different if you apply to five schools versus 20. Either way, please do PM me and we can discuss things further. I'd be more than happy to help out. You seem like a smart kid, and you have absolutely NO NEED to restrict your applications to the bottom half of the top-50 or "outside of the top 50" as people have told you. That's absurdity.

PS

I'm preparing my applications for 2011, and I have two major weaknesses:

1) GPA: I had a semester several years ago where I failed three of my four courses. I had health issues after the drop deadline and could not get sufficient documentation to remediate my grades to a withdrawal (worse still, all four of those classes were in political science). This means I will have a 3.3 GPA instead of 3.6 when I graduate this fall.

The strongest point in my favor is that my GPA is over 3.8 in more than 60 semester units of coursework since then. Also, my final semester will be capped by a graduate seminar and the second semester of a research assistantship for academic credit.

2) Lack of economics or calculus classes: I can't remedy this before I graduate. I think my GRE Quantitative score (should be around 750), experience in research methods (inferential statistics) and statement of purpose should demonstrate sufficient aptitude.

I'd rather not limit myself prematurely in the programs I apply to on account of this. I know I can cut it at a top-25, and would hate to think I would be disqualified outright from applying. The rest of my application is strong (GRE, statement of purpose, letters of recommendation), but how can I remedy these weaknesses?

[natofone]

I agree with what Plisar said. You are not a sure thing at top 10 programs, but you should apply widely if you can afford it because I think that you have a very good shot at getting into a great program. One thing to consider is that American politics is a little bit less competitive than some of the other subfields. Don't lose hope.

Edited April 16, 2010 by natofone

[plisar]

And by the by, a thesis may be helpful, but no one applying to grad school in political science has published articles. No one. To think that one would be necessary to get in is absurd. People with articles published can, do, and often get declined.

A thesis is useful, but as a writing sample typically. If you write a qualitative small-N thesis and apply to any of the top-ten schools, don't think that it will push you over the edge. In my experience, your writing sample is one of those things that can only hurt you.

I will continue to say that the most important things in this process are your recommendation letters and your statement of purpose. If one or both of these factors are bad, no GPA, GRE score, thesis, article, or anything else is going to save you.

[Aunuwyn]

And by the by, a thesis may be helpful, but no one applying to grad school in political science has published articles. No one. To think that one would be necessary to get in is absurd. People with articles published can, do, and often get declined.

A thesis is useful, but as a writing sample typically. If you write a qualitative small-N thesis and apply to any of the top-ten schools, don't think that it will push you over the edge. In my experience, your writing sample is one of those things that can only hurt you.

I will continue to say that the most important things in this process are your recommendation letters and your statement of purpose. If one or both of these factors are bad, no GPA, GRE score, thesis, article, or anything else is going to save you.

I actually have several publications so that rules out what you are saying. The OP needs one of those things that I mentioned to set them-self outside of the crowd to get into a top 25, especially with a sub-par gpa like that. I know this personally because my overall was a 3.3, albeit due to two years of engineering.

I forgot to mention that the strength of your undergrad institution will factor in as well, so it would be useful to know what it is.

[Scalia]

Slacktivist,

Don't worry, you're not the only one that's fighting an uphill battle in the upcoming admissions cycle. Although I have an extremely strong gpa, I'm coming from an unknown schools and will have only completed math through calc II and stats with no econometrics. However, like you, I think that my gre scores will be strong so I'm trying to see if I can squeeze into a top 25 program. One thing that might end up working in my favor is I'm doing rudimentary research in the field of my interest with out department chair. If you have any additional questions or if I can be of help feel free to pm me.

Scalia

[slacktivist]

I actually have several publications so that rules out what you are saying. The OP needs one of those things that I mentioned to set them-self outside of the crowd to get into a top 25, especially with a sub-par gpa like that. I know this personally because my overall was a 3.3, albeit due to two years of engineering.

I forgot to mention that the strength of your undergrad institution will factor in as well, so it would be useful to know what it is.

I'm in the CSU system, so that's not going to be any help.

[Mearsheimer's Minion]

You're going to have to MA. You'll get into a PhD program somewhere if you apply, but if your goal is to get in "somewhere," you are already too far behind.

[ipsqq]

I agree with the pessimistic posters. The only thing that could get you into a top 25 based on what you said is if multiple letter writers, who are themselves well-known prominent political scientists (whom the admissions committee will recognize) explain in their letters the specific details of your situation and why, despite that, you have redeemed yourself as one of the best students they have ever seen.

High GRE quant is nowhere near demonstrating aptitude the way taking a few tough econ, stats and calc classes (even if the grades were less than stellar.) It is a signal that you didn't care to study this before, so why would you put the needed effort into mastering quant skills in grad school? (Doesn't matter if you are going into theory or an explicitly qual program.)

At top 25 programs, you will be competing with many people who have perfect GRE scores, strong GPAs, better schools, and better prep. You need to figure out quickly what very unique and stellar thing you can do to distinguish yourself - I agree that an MA may be your only option.

[lorinho]

You'll find that many people will just tell you what it was that they did, whether or not it applies to you. That is what I am going to do.

While my GPA was a little better than yours, it wasn't much better, and I too had nearly zero advanced math, so when I failed to get into any programs after undergrad, I went out and got some real world experience and it has paid off in spades. I joined the Army, which made a lot of sense for me because I am a Security Studies type. It taught me two foreign languages and gave me significant funding help. More importantly though, I now have a much better sense of what the problems are in the real world that people are grappling with, which makes coming up with research questions that people have grants for much, much easier.

The Army isn't for everyone, and may not make sense for you, especially if you have lingering health issues, nonetheless real world success speaks louder than any GPA (almost), and sets you up for success in the long run regardless of where you land. There are a ton of places including non-profits, and companies that have funding for additional education that you can either do while working there or after you leave. You can beef up your CV, your GPA, and you might discover that academia isn't for you. If it turns out that it is, you will get into a program much more easily, hopefully have paid off some, if not all of your student debt, and you will be far more motivated to complete the program in a timely manner than if you just limp into the best program you can get into right now.

I realize this may not be what you want to hear if you are using grad school as a way to avoid the job market, but it really does work, and it actually pays (imagine that) you. As long as you keep in touch with professors and stay dialed into academia by taking classes, it shouldn't hurt you when it comes to applications. Even community college calculus courses should be fine. After all math is math.

That said, if you really want to apply, it can't hurt. But a strong plan B is usually the best way to ensure success, and I know plenty of people whose plan B turned into their plan A.

[Midwestern]

I'm in the CSU system, so that's not going to be any help.

Hi Slacktivist--

For what it's worth, I got my BA at a CSU and now have funded offers at a variety of schools, one which is in the top 25. BUT, I had a 4.0 GPA and still needed to do an MA before I was admitted (I had no luck coming from a BA the first round of apps). The CSU card is a difficult one to overcome, but I ended up getting my MA on scholarship also through the CSUs, showed that I could cut it in grad classes, improved my GREs, and then was happy with the admissions results.

So, my advice would be to make sure you apply to some back-up MAs. You don't have to go to some fancy, expensive school. Stay at the CSUs if you want. You'll just need to work really hard, pull a near-perfect GPA, take econ courses in the MA (I took several), and show you can cut it in the grad. environment. And solid, glowing rec letters really do matter, even if they're from profs that nobody has heard of...

Good luck!

[The Realist]

On published articles--

Please, please, please do not worry about these. Not all published articles are the same. When people on this board are talking about "published articles," they mean lots of things. For your professors on admission committees, the only kind that matters is an article in a peer-reviewed journal of some reputable quality. The vast majority of accepted students, even at the very top departments, do not have these. Trust me on this one.

[plisar]

On published articles--

Please, please, please do not worry about these. Not all published articles are the same. When people on this board are talking about "published articles," they mean lots of things. For your professors on admission committees, the only kind that matters is an article in a peer-reviewed journal of some reputable quality. The vast majority of accepted students, even at the very top departments, do not have these. Trust me on this one.

Thank you.

[someoneoutthere]

Thank you.

From my experience, this is definitely true. I have no publications, but some research experience, and I'm very happy with my results. I would say, though, that you should ensure that you have sufficient quant background (calc, stats and probably courses, maybe game theory), unless you want to do theory, and definitely try to get a quant score above 700.

[slacktivist]

Thanks to everyone for your responses (even if there is some dissensus)! I'm planning on applying to a wide range of programs, and my absolute fallback option is to continue with the MA program at my school. I have at least one lower ranked PhD program that is a good fit, and I'm trying to find an MA program or two that would fit, as well (unfortunately, a program like MAPSS is not something I can afford). I'd love to hear people's suggestions for MA programs.

Mearsheimer is correct -- my goal isn't simply to get in anywhere. Once the semester is up, I'll study for the GRE for a couple of months, continue a literature review for my research interests and start work on my graduate seminar paper. Basically, anything that I can control now, I will do the work to do it well. After that, all I can do is hope that it can overcome these weaknesses and get me into somewhere I'd be happy to attend.

[Wesson]

If your GREs top 1400 and your letters are strong, you'll have a good shot at a top 25. You're right to be looking at places like Davis and Illinois. You can get excellent training there, and they place their students well. I do think your odds of getting in at a top 10 or 15 are slight, but even that depends on the GREs and letters.

As to the MA option, there are plenty of places that have funded MA programs. If I were you, I would look to such a program before dipping too far below the top 25. If you have a high GPA in the MA program, plus letters from people there, you'll be in excellent shape for admission to a top 25 if the first try doesn't work.

[catchermiscount]

I am not sure if my experience is an exception, but perhaps I might be of some service. I will briefly discuss my long trip below.

At 18: had one good semester of college at a very good (top of the second tier) public university, then got all Fs the second semester (except for jazz band of course). GPA there: 1.8

At 19: didn't tell the parents about the Fs; faked going to college for a year with forged transcripts and whatnot. GPA: Still 1.8.

From 20-22: worked as an ice cream scooper for a summer and a semester; confessed to flunking out; transferred to a tier 3 midwestern Catholic university. One good semester; one semester with all Fs that were converted to Ws by a very kind dean; one other semester of all Fs converted to Ws due to the really kind dean. GPA: now somewhere in the 2.1 range.

From 22-25: move to the south; after being rejected from the military, I enroll at a directional state university that only recently went to competitive admissions. Try to flunk out again; given reprieve. Finally get my act together and don't get a B after that. Final GPA: 3.3, but from the really bad school.

So, I had no econ background; no math background save for the semester at Georgia Tech; no rigorous poli sci background (hadn't heard of regression or the APSR, AJPS, or JoP until grad school).

GRE: 700 verbal, 800 math. Apply to 10 schools throughout the midwest ranking from as high as 3 to as low as 40 or so. Get into a master's program (unfunded) and a top 25 Big Ten school (though one that was moving down in the rankings).

At 25: start the PhD program at said Big Ten school. Learn only possible advisor is taking an offer at another university. Spend two years preparing to transfer.

At 27: Apply to 14 more places with more geographic mixing but much more targeted to what I want to study. Do OK -- get into about half maybe. Eventually transfer to my current home, Rochester. Very happy here.

The point of the story is: the probabalistic nature of the admissions process can be to your advantage. A well-written SoP can be a saving grace, as can a good quantitative score on the GRE. If you have the option of getting letters from known people, that always helps. Top 10 or even Top 25 might not be probable. I am not talented, nor do I have any pedigree to help me, nor do I have any special skills. I am very, very lucky: somebody on the adcom at the place I got in the first time found something they liked amid all the stuff not to like (and there was plenty of it!). The posters before have every reason to voice cynicism, because the process is probabilistic even for the best applicants. But maybe you'll be lucky too. So apply broadly if you can; something good can come of it.

Edited April 19, 2010 by coachrjc