2020-2021 Application Thread

[HobbesianKant]

1 hour ago, gingerantelope said:

Hi! Thank you so much for sharing your insight as a past applicant. I had read this on some of the old forums, so I'm trying not to be overly optimistic about my admission.

Would you be willing to share approximately the time of year that you did hear about your funding package (or lack thereof)? I've been trying to dig into the old forums for a better picture of the timeline but haven't found anything extremely helpful.

Thanks again for your help! Always grateful for the help of those who have already gone through all of this

 

1 hour ago, Barry B. Benson said:

From what I gather, it seems that OSU usually sends the official letter (w/ funding) mid-to-late February. I also read that they sometimes invite their admits to the open house with some of them still waitlisted for funding (I would appreciate it if someone in the know would correct me if I'm wrong), which sounds kinda bad. So I guess it's a matter of waiting.

From my experience, the timeline is that you should receive an email within week or two weeks informing you of your acceptance and how to navigate the process of accepting. They will reference the process for funding, but they do not provide specific dates as to when you could hear back. The most irritating part of the OSU's funding process is that it can take months to actually figure out if you will get funding. I believe if you are accepted in the first round of the scholarship review it will be communicated you by late February. With that said, for those who are not accepted for funding in the first round, they will keep you guessing by informing you that there is a possibility to receiving funding as the previously funded applicants decide to attend other programs. This is why it is important for everyone to decline quickly other offers if they know they will not be attending.

Edited January 21, 2021 by HobbesianKant

[gingerantelope]

Just now, HobbesianKant said:

 

From my experience, the timeline is that you should receive an email within around a week informing you of your acceptance and how to navigate the process of accepting. They will reference the process for funding, but they do not provide specific dates as to when you could hear back. The most irritating part of the OSU's funding process is that it can take months to actually figure out if you will get funding. I believe if you are accepted in the first round of the scholarship review it will be communicated you by late February. With that said, for those who are not accepted for funding in the first round, they will keep you guessing by informing you that there is a possibility to receiving funding as the previously funded applicants decide to attend other programs. This is why it is important for everyone to decline quickly other offers if they know they will not be attending.

Super helpful! Thank you! I appreciate this advice so much.

[brickinthewall]

18 minutes ago, scarletwitch said:

Hi there,

Quick q - Does anyone know when decisions are usually released for most schools? I’ve applied for History and Political Science/Government PhDs. Is the first couple weeks of Feb this year the best bet? Thanks in advance. 

 

11 minutes ago, Sad Politics said:

Martin Devaux's app is the best reference for that (https://martindevaux.com/2020/11/political-science-phd-admission-decisions/). While there may be some variation this year because of the pandemic, it seems that several programs are following their usual schedule. 

For what it's worth, I also find the following app useful. (I found it either on a thread here or on reddit, I think). It includes some GRE/GPA ranges as well as results for other disciplines, so will provide results for the History programs you mentioned as well @scarletwitch! 

https://fretpwner.shinyapps.io/GradCafeStatistics/

(Yes, I recognize how obsessive this makes me triangulating previous cycles across multiple applications lol?)

Edited January 21, 2021 by brickinthewall

[Maguire]

1 minute ago, brickinthewall said:

 

For what it's worth, I also find the following app useful. (I found it either on a thread here or on reddit, I think). It includes some GRE/GPA ranges as well as results for other disciplines, so will provide results for the History programs you mentioned as well @scarletwitch! 

https://fretpwner.shinyapps.io/GradCafeStatistics/

(Yes, I recognize how anal this makes me triangulating previous cycles across multiple applications lol?)

Thanks so much! ?

[HobbesianKant]

9 minutes ago, gingerantelope said:

Super helpful! Thank you! I appreciate this advice so much.

One last warning I would provide for OSU is that they seem to be the only program who accepts more people than they can fund. The seemingly general rule of grad school admissions, from my experience, is that programs only accept the amount of applicants for which they are certain that they can supply a full funding package. While they do not expect every applicant to accept their offer, they are prepared if such an event were to occur. Duke, for example, did not take applicants last year supposedly because they had a massive yield rate among their applicants the prior year. The reason why cohorts, and thereby accepted applicant pools, are likely to be so small this year is that, with the pandemic, they can only provide funding for a small group of applicants.

Edited January 21, 2021 by HobbesianKant

[plus]

Does anyone know the conversion rate of interviews to offers (ie. the % interviewees that actually get offers)? Perhaps applicants from the last cycle?

[Sad Politics]

7 minutes ago, plus said:

ie. the % interviewees that actually get offers

I would also like to know this but honestly, this process will likely be very different. Some programs are interviewing candidates for the first time in several years, so it is hard to say. Perhaps this question can be answered for programs that regularly interview applicants (e.g. Wisconsin?) but apart from that, we cannot know.

[elnovice]

2 hours ago, Cassatrass said:

Anyone claiming the BU or UVA acceptances? Were they standard acceptance emails or personalized from people at the school?

I don't see a UVA acceptance on the results page? Has UVA started sending out results already?

[BrownSugar]

3 minutes ago, elnovice said:

I don't see a UVA acceptance on the results page? Has UVA started sending out results already?

A UVA acceptance was posted yesterday, under ‘politics’ 

[Cassatrass]

3 minutes ago, elnovice said:

I don't see a UVA acceptance on the results page? Has UVA started sending out results already?

Using this search term "(Politic*|gov) -london" there's one result from yesterday

[elnovice]

Congratulations to the person who received that acceptance, assuming it's real. This is very concerning, as UVA was a target school for me in regard to research fit

Edited January 21, 2021 by elnovice

[brickinthewall]

53 minutes ago, Sad Politics said:

I would also like to know this but honestly, this process will likely be very different. Some programs are interviewing candidates for the first time in several years, so it is hard to say. Perhaps this question can be answered for programs that regularly interview applicants (e.g. Wisconsin?) but apart from that, we cannot know.

Duke is a program that comes to mind as one that appears to be interviewing for the first time in a while. Are there other programs that you are referencing here as not historically interviewing candidates (but seem to be doing so this cycle)? 

[Sad Politics]

14 minutes ago, brickinthewall said:

Are there other programs that you are referencing here as not historically interviewing candidates (but seem to be doing so this cycle)? 

There is one post of a Georgetown interview, but so far nothing else has been posted. I do not know if Georgetown will interview several candidates this year or if it is an isolated case.  

[funfetti]

My advisors just informed me that their department did experience the widely-discussed huge increase in applications.

They waived the GRE and saw a considerable number of applications from people who appear to have applied just because they could. In other words, a decent portion of this year's marginal applicants were unprepared for graduate study and seemed to lack an understanding of what it means to be a doctoral student and to conduct political science research.

This is just one university, but it made me feel a little better. It affirms what someone on this thread previously noted: just because applications doubled does not mean that the competitiveness of admissions doubled. 

ETA: this info was given to me by people I trust but it was given in a general and vague sense... I don't have a super specific insider knowledge. I hope this info is encouraging to others as it was to me, but take my word with a grain of salt. 

Edited January 21, 2021 by _nutella_

[Crossed_fingers]

21 minutes ago, _nutella_ said:

My advisors just informed me that their department did experience the widely-discussed huge increase in applications.

They waived the GRE and saw a considerable number of applications from people who appear to have applied just because they could. In other words, a decent portion of this year's marginal applicants were unprepared for graduate study and seemed to lack an understanding of what it means to be a doctoral student and to conduct political science research.

This is just one university, but it made me feel a little better. It affirms what someone on this thread previously noted: just because applications doubled does not mean that the competitiveness of admissions doubled. 

Any specifics regarding the size of the increase or the proportion of which were  “competitive” applicants in the sense they understood political science research and what the PhD includes?

[guest789]

32 minutes ago, _nutella_ said:

My advisors just informed me that their department did experience the widely-discussed huge increase in applications.

They waived the GRE and saw a considerable number of applications from people who appear to have applied just because they could. In other words, a decent portion of this year's marginal applicants were unprepared for graduate study and seemed to lack an understanding of what it means to be a doctoral student and to conduct political science research.

This is just one university, but it made me feel a little better. It affirms what someone on this thread previously noted: just because applications doubled does not mean that the competitiveness of admissions doubled. 

Does this impact how they view apps without GRE scores? If someone is competitive but did not submit a GRE score, will they still take the application seriously?

Secondly, what does this mean in terms of turn around - do they expect a delay in reporting admissions? Or given the increase in marginal candidates, does that have little impact on reporting times?

ETA: I think most departments will reinstate the GRE next year haha - they can't be happy about this.

Edited January 21, 2021 by timeseries

[funfetti]

10 minutes ago, Crossed_fingers said:

Any specifics regarding the size of the increase or the proportion of which were  “competitive” applicants in the sense they understood political science research and what the PhD includes?

I don't have specifics on that ? Sorry! 

[funfetti]

8 minutes ago, timeseries said:

Does this impact how they view apps without GRE scores? If someone is competitive but did not submit a GRE score, will they still take the application seriously?

Secondly, what does this mean in terms of turn around - do they expect a delay in reporting admissions? Or given the increase in marginal candidates, does that have little impact on reporting times?

ETA: I think most departments will reinstate the GRE next year haha - they can't be happy about this.

First, in no way was it suggested to me that No GRE --> Not a Serious Applicant in the eyes of the department. I think there were serious applicants who didn't submit the GRE because 2020, and then there were just random people who applied and also didn't submit a GRE. I think they're understanding of the former category (and, ethically, they ought to be considering that they stated the GRE was optional!) and can very well distinguish between the serious applicant who couldn't take the GRE due to the circumstances and the person whose heart wasn't in it.

Second, I don't know, so I'm entirely speculating. Still, I take it as a good sign that maybe the surge in applicants won't significantly delay the process as I'd imagine that irrelevant applications can be filtered out pretty quickly. Again, that's just me speculating. 

[StarkDark1]

Damn, well, guess I'm doomed.  If Northwestern and other top schools actually have only a 1 or 2% acceptance rate because of Covid....  Christ. 

[Sad Politics]

5 minutes ago, baby__yoda said:

I assumed it was always better to submit letters from faculty

  Take my opinion with a grain of salt because I am also an applicant, but I think what you did makes sense. Presenting letters from professors is the safest option, and many programs explicitly ask for letters from your professors, so I think you will be fine. Regarding Duke, it sounds like the letter from your workplace will also be very good because they do research there. 

[plus]

3 minutes ago, StarkDark1 said:

Damn, well, guess I'm doomed.  If Northwestern and other top schools actually have only a 1 or 2% acceptance rate because of Covid....  Christ. 

It seems like public universities are not reducing their cohorts as much as wealthy privates. There is still hope

[Sad Politics]

3 minutes ago, StarkDark1 said:

Damn, well, guess I'm doomed.  If Northwestern and other top schools actually have only a 1 or 2% acceptance rate because of Covid....  Christ. 

Keep in mind that the acceptance rate also went down because of the high number of (presumably) marginal applications from students who are not ready to start a Ph.D. This year will be hard, but at this point, we should stay optimistic and wait. 

[StarkDark1]

4 minutes ago, Sad Politics said:

Keep in mind that the acceptance rate also went down because of the high number of (presumably) marginal applications from students who are not ready to start a Ph.D. This year will be hard, but at this point, we should stay optimistic and wait. 

Ah well, I'll keep up my hopes then.

On another note, do you think not including a GRE score hurts your application?  I have a BA and an MA.  I took a GRE test before starting my MA and my score was 165V/155Q/5.0AW.  I didn't submit the score to my PhD applications for this round because my Quantitative score is mediocre.  Then again I want to specialize in theory, so maybe it didn't matter.  Hope the adcoms don't assume I'm a marginal application because I didn't include the GRE.

Edited January 21, 2021 by StarkDark1

[uncle_socks]

12 minutes ago, StarkDark1 said:

Ah well, I'll keep up my hopes then.

On another note, do you think not including a GRE score hurts your application?  I have a BA and an MA.  I took a GRE test before starting my MA and my score was 165V/155Q/5.0AW.  I didn't submit the score to my PhD applications for this round because my Quantitative score is mediocre.  Then again I want to specialize in theory, so maybe it didn't matter.  Hope the adcoms don't assume I'm a marginal application because I didn't include the GRE.

Well that depends! If you're a 4.0 Princeton grad who has professors who love him but scored 150/150, then leaving them off is advantageous. If you're a 3.6 (not a UC or Mich level) state school grad who has less pre-PhD "professionalization" and knows less about the keys to creating a "winning" app who could've scored 167/167, then leaving them out certainly hurts. My prediction is that the removal of the GRE is going to only help "safe" candidates who know already how to craft stellar applications and (for a lack of a better way to say this) have been groomed for a PhD, many of whom already come from positions of privilege (or at least have been eyeing the PhD for years)

 

That being said, if you're in theory and are applying to schools that don't force theorists to take the full or most of the quant sequence, then that's probably a different story because they can get a measure of your reading/writing ability through the SOP and writing sample.

[im_sleep_deprived]

25 minutes ago, StarkDark1 said:

Ah well, I'll keep up my hopes then.

On another note, do you think not including a GRE score hurts your application?  I have a BA and an MA.  I took a GRE test before starting my MA and my score was 165V/155Q/5.0AW.  I didn't submit the score to my PhD applications for this round because my Quantitative score is mediocre.  Then again I want to specialize in theory, so maybe it didn't matter.  Hope the adcoms don't assume I'm a marginal application because I didn't include the GRE.

I can't speak for all the programs (my impression of the programs), but generally they look at all portions of your application provided that you meet certain minimums. Since, the GRE is optional, it does not make sense for them to signal that it does not matter and then use it to cull applicants. Maybe some programs do this, but usually programs are balanced with how they look at the different parts of your application. They would look at your statement, recommendations, grades, and they would put more stock into these as the GRE is optional. In other words, I think that a cross applicant comparison between an applicant that submitted the GRE and an applicant that did not would mostly focus on the non-GRE portion of your application.  I am sure that you have sufficiently distinguished yourself through those parts of your application, so don't worry about not including the GRE.