Advice from an actual PhD

[Canadianpolsci]

I want to add something to this thread, but concerning the admissions process. I am going to make a generalization but I ask that you consider the general truth of this statement: MOST 21 year old university seniors, as well as most 22-27 year olds who are now apply to grad school after some time off working, or in a different MA, etc. (that is, 95% of applicants), MOST applicants to programs do not know the proper and professional way to apply.

Basically, applications are similar to a job search, to job applications -- in as much as it is a very hard process and one that takes time to get the hang of. However, you have not time to learn; you have no experience. And you have little help.

I have studied with at least a dozen extremely bright people in my field (political theory), who when they applied to grad schools had far less luck than they hoped for. I do not think these people's grades or intelligence was the problem. Mostly, they did not know how to apply, and they did not know at age 19 what you need to do throughout your BA to be able to apply.

There are certain people who I know who are simply stars, who are the finest student in whatever class they take, every time, and who are universally praised with superlatives by people. These people do not need any tips.

Then there are the rest of us. We need ALOT of help. The application has a HUGE number of aspects.

Letters of reference cannot be acquired quickly; to get into a top ten program 3 profs must say you are pretty much as good as any sbudent they have ever had at this stage of your life (undergrad), AND usually these profs need to be people the committee members have heard of, or at schools that elicit respect regardless. GPAs cannot be kept above 3.7 easily and below 3.7 can hurt. GREs must be above 650, or it can hurt. Going to a school that is not ranked in the top 20 in the US, or about at that level but international, is a HUGE problem that requires enormous 3-4 year efforts to overcome (to get into a top 10 PhD program.

Then, you have to write a statement of purpose that is extremely strong, appeals to a wide audience AND convinces subfield committee members you fit.

Then you may have to have a writing sample, a very serious issue since you may in fact tick off people with your approach, and not even know it (and there are dozens of other issues).

Then you have to figure out how to target specific people at specific schools in your application, to show fit. And you must weigh whether they will be deciding, if they are taking more students, if you might perhaps seem TOO narrow.

You must do all this pretty much alone. Your professors are 45-60 years old, are extremely successful (in that they have a tenured post at your school), and will not really know how to apply. For, after all, when they applied it was much different.

Your friends can only help so much. You have to do this, and you get basically one or two shots, tops. Most people simply don't have a clue. I have read statements from friends and been simply shocked. People say things like "I have a good start in political theory." Well, they are being honest. They consider it a life's work to understand much about political theory. But that phrase, "good start", is absolute POISON on a statement of purpose.

Other people do not identify 3 profs by the end of third year who can write letters. They have a very serious problem.

It goes on and on. Ask someone looking for a very good job in New York City how many resumes they've done, cover letters, drafts of CVs. This is not a game, this is a job search, and job searching is the toughest of all jobs.

But over here in the ivory tower, people lay there cards on the table and "hope they get in." By and large there is little professionalism in application. I base this even on the applications I have seen of people who did get in. Sometimes they got in in spite of their application.

Applying is a bloodsport. This is not a game, it is an extremely competitive process, which actually begins with undergraduate applications, in the most competitive and richest nation in the history of the human race. People should know this. They should realize, for example, that their 1000 word statement of purpose, if it does get them into a top ten school (if it helps I mean), is word for word the most important thing they may ever right, in terms of its impact on their own life.

[Canadianpolsci]

By the way, please do not judge me by my spelling and typos. Please...

[Canadianpolsci]

This is not a game, it is an extremely competitive process, which actually begins with undergraduate applications, in the most competitive and richest nation in the history of the human race.

Actually only the richest. Sparta, etc., was probably more competitive. They had more bloody blood sports, etc.

[polisciphd]

So what you are saying is that for those of us who can't go to a top 20 undergraduate, whether due to a lack of resources (in my case) or just bad luck when applying or having to work full time to support a family or any 1000 of other reasons, then we have no shot of getting into a top ten phd program, and therefore our hopes of being a successful political scientist are useless?

Or is it that because I didn't know what I wanted to do with my life at 19 years old, as you suggest, then I am now screwed at age 29 when I have finally figured it out?

Or is it because I have been out of school now for a while and scored less than 650 on the verbal section of my gre and therefore must be incompetent, or unintelligent, or unable to write or speak clearly? (I assure you this is not the case)

What you are describing is a flawed system, a system set up for those rich, very lucky people that can afford to go to top 20 schools. Try being raised in one of the worst public school systems in the country (rural mississippi), pay for your way through both undergrad and grad, and them come back to me with this ivory tower bullshit.

[Quarex]

Did a quick Google search ... 291, if you include international relations programs (many are pretty obscure programs!)

Now, while that would be great if it were true, and maybe it is, everything I have seen puts the number much closer to 125-150; do you think the lists you found included departments with terminal master's programs in addition to doctorates?

I want to add something to this thread, but concerning the admissions process. I am going to make a generalization but I ask that you consider the general truth of this statement: MOST 21 year old university seniors, as well as most 22-27 year olds who are now apply to grad school after some time off working, or in a different MA, etc. (that is, 95% of applicants), MOST applicants to programs do not know the proper and professional way to apply.

It is obvious that you are a very talented person, and likely well-qualified to comment on these subjects (and I will refrain from making fun of your typos, as requested). But ultimately, the problem with even wanting to take your advice to heart is that plenty of us are past the point when we could. I thought college was just high school v.2, grades 13-16, and have the GPA to prove it. There was no hope for me getting into a "top" undergraduate school (though I did end up at UIUC, somehow), let alone a "top" graduate school, because I had no idea what I was doing and no idea how to get there even if I did.

Now, in the last year, I have tried to make up for my previous years of failure, even though I know it is incredibly difficult. Is there any hope for those of us who are basically trying to re-boot our academic careers? I mean, if I end up in an M.A. degree at a, say, "30-40th" ranked school, would any amount of work and effort and energy expenditure actually make admissions committees ignore my mediocre at best undergraduate record (in a totally different field)? Is it sort of like the idea behind law school, where if you do not go to a top school, you at least have to finish first in your class to have any hope for the future? Obviously, there are not going to be any set rules, and everyone thinks he/she will be the exception to any rule anyway. But is it really all people from top 25 undergraduate/master's programs ending up in top 25 Ph.D. programs?

I see Tidefan has a few things to say on the issue as well. I do not even want to get into the upbringing issue, because it is safe to say both that I lacked 90% of the resources that wealthy families in bustling urban areas had ... and that plenty of people had it far worse, too. Like you, apparently, Tidefan. And you are still stomping me in admissions this time around.

[zephyr]

So what you are saying is that for those of us who can't go to a top 20 undergraduate, whether due to a lack of resources (in my case) or just bad luck when applying or having to work full time to support a family or any 1000 of other reasons, then we have no shot of getting into a top ten phd program, and therefore our hopes of being a successful political scientist are useless?

Or is it that because I didn't know what I wanted to do with my life at 19 years old, as you suggest, then I am now screwed at age 29 when I have finally figured it out?

Or is it because I have been out of school now for a while and scored less than 650 on the verbal section of my gre and therefore must be incompetent, or unintelligent, or unable to write or speak clearly? (I assure you this is not the case)

What you are describing is a flawed system, a system set up for those rich, very lucky people that can afford to go to top 20 schools. Try being raised in one of the worst public school systems in the country (rural mississippi), pay for your way through both undergrad and grad, and them come back to me with this ivory tower bullshit.

i tend to agree w/ canadianpolisci in the fact that most people do not approach the process properly. BUT, i do think that once you get rid of people who don't have strong enough grades/scores/SOPs/LORs, the process can be a little random and flawed. i have to imagine that each top department goes from 300-600 applicants, down to 50-75 who they really like and want to admit. so some will get caught up in the numbers game. profs at the best department have warned me about this. and yes, i do think sometimes that not going to a top 10 undergrad school, or not knowing at an early stage that you wanted to study politics can screw you. doesn't have to, by any means, but it can. and it really shouldn't.

[polisciphd]

Grades and performance is another thing that really bothers me. My first three years of school, I studies electrical engineering. I HATED EVERY SECOND OF IT. But, coming from a very poor family, the prospect of being able to make 50k my first year out of school was extremely appealing. However, the fact that I hated it showed in my grades. I had a 2.6 gpa after my junior year. You have to understand, I had one B throughout high school, the rest were A's and A-'s. So I realized that there was a major disconnect. So I switched majors to something as far away from EE as possible, Asian Studies.

I LOVED EVERY SECOND of Asian Studies, and had one B for the next five semesters I was in undergrad. I then went to the Elliott School at GW where I had two b's in 2 years. So cumulatively for the last 4.5 years of school I have had a total of 3 b's and the rest A's.

The problem is that even though I have shown that I can kick some major butt when studying something I actually like, my undergraduate gpa only got up to a 3.02 by the time I graduated. There is nothing I can do about that, what's done is done. Now, I got into UIUC in spite of my low gpa, but I have already been told by two Iveys that I applied to that my low gpa was what kept me from being accepted (I know profs at both Yale and Cornell from working at a think tank in D.C.).

So you tell me what kind of a system that is...

[Canadianpolsci]

Now, in the last year, I have tried to make up for my previous years of failure, even though I know it is incredibly difficult. Is there any hope for those of us who are basically trying to re-boot our academic careers? I mean, if I end up in an M.A. degree at a, say, "30-40th" ranked school, would any amount of work and effort and energy expenditure actually make admissions committees ignore my mediocre at best undergraduate record (in a totally different field)? I

I really can't answer this question. I don't mean to lecture anyone on this forum. Actually I think what I say should be heartening to all, since the application PROCESS can be worked on by all, and everyone can improve.

If I was in your situation, I would skip an MA in a 35th ranked school unless you are doing this simply to learn and for a small professional advantage. I would try to find a really impressive think tank job for 2 years. Or I would go to law school and then apply with a law degree to a PhD. Or I would try to go work for an important researcher in the field, taking time off, with the purpose of getting a letter.

[sundaymonday]

I, for one, am going to try to refrain from getting too carried away by all of this "I'll never get a job unless I get into a top 25 program" stuff. The schools I got into with funding are questionably in the top 25. They are great programs with excellent faculty and resources. I'm going to get a great education, regardless of whether or not they're ranked 24 in 2004, 23 in 2006 or 29 in 2008. And I'm going to get a job afterward. It might not be at Harvard, but then again, but who ever said teaching at Harvard was the best working environment in the world anyway?

I've found myself reading over these posts and falling prey to this negative mindset of, "My God, I'm going to go through this competitive, rigorous, all-consuming program, give up this this and this in my life, force my partner to move here here and here - all for a lackluster position at Po Dunk U making 2K a semester teaching Intro to Politics for the rest of my life." ENOUGH ALREADY. To everyone who got in anywhere - congratulations. You worked hard, you got in, and everything is going to be okay. And to those who didn't and want to try again next year, do what you can to learn from your mistakes this go-around, perhaps apply to a few more backup schools, distinguish yourself from the 400 other applicants by making personal contacts with those profs you'd like to work with, and I'll bet you do a lot better.

The fact is, the hiring process is just as subjective and random as the application acceptance process. Some places are just off limits - we get it. And yes, it looks good if your CV says you have a PhD from a top ten school, but your personality or area of interest or age or bodily smell or hair color or marital status just might not gel with the department, and the job might go to someone from UNC who gave a stellar job talk and who reminds the Chair of his favorite aunt. There will be plenty of time to worry about finding a job five years from now. In the meantime, I'm just going to try to get through the first year.

[iheartplato]

Grades and performance is another thing that really bothers me. My first three years of school, I studies electrical engineering. I HATED EVERY SECOND OF IT. But, coming from a very poor family, the prospect of being able to make 50k my first year out of school was extremely appealing. However, the fact that I hated it showed in my grades. I had a 2.6 gpa after my junior year. You have to understand, I had one B throughout high school, the rest were A's and A-'s. So I realized that there was a major disconnect. So I switched majors to something as far away from EE as possible, Asian Studies.

I LOVED EVERY SECOND of Asian Studies, and had one B for the next five semesters I was in undergrad. I then went to the Elliott School at GW where I had two b's in 2 years. So cumulatively for the last 4.5 years of school I have had a total of 3 b's and the rest A's.

The problem is that even though I have shown that I can kick some major butt when studying something I actually like, my undergraduate gpa only got up to a 3.02 by the time I graduated. There is nothing I can do about that, what's done is done. Now, I got into UIUC in spite of my low gpa, but I have already been told by two Iveys that I applied to that my low gpa was what kept me from being accepted (I know profs at both Yale and Cornell from working at a think tank in D.C.).

So you tell me what kind of a system that is...

I agree that's it's unfortunate that the application system is so imperfect. It truly isn't fair that the process is not more of a thorough evaluation of each applicant, as opposed to a quick snapshot of one's history and accomplishments.

But, the unfortunate truth is that that is how most of the world seems to work--if you have flaws in your record, they show up, and people aren't subjected to the explanations for them as readily as they are to the flaws themselves. Believe me, I have fallen victim to this--my first two years of undergrad in a different major, in addition to my lack of motivation and other personal circumstances, harmed my overall GPA. No matter how much light I try to shine on those last 2 years of improvement as an undergrad, i don't have the overall stellar number to show for my hard work.

I always felt that it was such a shame that it takes so much more work to recover from a slip in success than it would if the slip had never happened; but also, you do have to give yourself credit for MAKING that kind of recovery.

Fortunately, you seem to have taken advantage of every recourse you can take. You took steps to get a Masters degree from a good school, which many people never get the chance to do. You proved yourself and your ability to perform in this field, and you succeeded in getting into a VERY good phD program as a result.

As much as it sucks to have Ivy and other top-10 rejections under your belt, it does make sense that they use grades and/or GREs to essetially weed people out--they are looking for their versions of the best, and unfortunately, they make the rules on what criteria to use for evaluating this!! They probably get tons more applicants than other schools, and so can't be expected to thoroughly analyze applications that, while they may be brimming with merit otherwise, don't meet their basic numbers. I'm not saying I agree with it--I wish it were different myself!! But as the saying goes, life just ain't all that fair.

I'm trying to come to terms with this myself, but there's really only so much you can do with it. You just gotta keep pushing yourself, continuing to persevere (which you seem to have done), and make the most of the situation you are in. Success comes in many forms, and not just from Ivy Leagues--but I think you know that already!!!

[polisciphd]

I really can't answer this question. I don't mean to lecture anyone on this forum. Actually I think what I say should be heartening to all, since the application PROCESS can be worked on by all, and everyone can improve.

If I was in your situation, I would skip an MA in a 35th ranked school unless you are doing this simply to learn and for a small professional advantage. I would try to find a really impressive think tank job for 2 years. Or I would go to law school and then apply with a law degree to a PhD. Or I would try to go work for an important researcher in the field, taking time off, with the purpose of getting a letter.

.

I'm sorry to keep hammering on you, but again your advice is somewhat flawed. A really impressive think tank is not going to hire someone for a job if they have an unrelated undergraduate degree. There are plenty of people with the perfect degree out there for them to choose from. I know, I worked at one for two years (as you say) and helped hire several research associates. We would get 100's of resumes for one spot. This holds true for working with important researchers (usually found at think tanks or at universities).

And my work experience at a major think tank didn't get me into any programs in the top 20, even though I published there, had a letter of rec from my boss there, and want to do the same kind of work as a phd student that I did there...

[polisciphd]

I'm going to say this last thing and then stop posting about this. For those of you who got into top 10 programs, just be happy about it. Don't come on here and put other people down just because they weren't as lucky as you, if they even wanted to get into those schools in the first place. There are plenty of people ecstatic they got into their number 22 or 34 or 46th ranked school. Just say congrats and go on about your merry way. If you want to have a place where you can act like a harvard educated snob, then just wait until you get there and you will get plenty of it in spades.

[Canadianpolsci]

I'm going to say this last thing and then stop posting about this. For those of you who got into top 10 programs, just be happy about it. Don't come on here and put other people down just because they weren't as lucky as you, if they even wanted to get into those schools in the first place. There are plenty of people ecstatic they got into their number 22 or 34 or 46th ranked school. Just say congrats and go on about your merry way. If you want to have a place where you can act like a harvard educated snob, then just wait until you get there and you will get plenty of it in spades.

This is an open forum. I do not intend to personally insult or put down anyone. I do not even know anyone here. I can see something about people if they list their acceptances, etc. But even then, I answer every post in a way I think would be useful for everyone. The reason why I and others on this board keep saying that top programs, top 10 programs, top 25 programs, are so important, is not because we are snobs. It is because we want tenure track positions as professors and are trying our best to study something we care about, and attain these very hard to attain positions, at some time in the future. If you are thrilled about your acceptances, that is excellent and I am happy for you (as happy as I can be, honestly, about the success of a near-perfect stranger.) But honestly, toughen up and lighten up. It's a open posting board about grad school admissions. What did you expect, cyber-hugs?

[Canadianpolsci]

Sorry maybe the end of my last post, to "toughen up and lighten up", was too personal. I take that back. What I meant to say is that I, and others, are just frankly discussing a professional field, its training and the job market. That is all. I don't think there is any hugely new information on this board about the importance of a degree from a top school, etc.

But I do apologize to you. It's very stressful, this application business, and you are right, as I have been successful, I have to be very careful to take into account the feelings of many others who have had many different types of experiences and outcomes. Again, I am trying to post things here that would be helpful to anyone. The hiring committees of schools where you will one day apply for positions are, I think, going to be much less nice and probably less fair in their reasoning than I am trying to be.

[flyingwalrus]

Quarex said:

But is it really all people from top 25 undergraduate/master's programs ending up in top 25 Ph.D. programs?

No. I got into three (and may eventually get into a fourth) top 25 programs and my department isn't even close to being in the same group. There are lots of others like me in this regard. Take a look at Berkeley's grad students; a lot of them came from schools ranked below the top 25.

tidefan:

WUSTL is a very good program that'll help you get a good job. They looked past your GPA and that's a huge plus for them in my eyes.

[Canadianpolsci]

I'm sorry to keep hammering on you, but again your advice is somewhat flawed. A really impressive think tank is not going to hire someone for a job if they have an unrelated undergraduate degree. There are plenty of people with the perfect degree out there for them to choose from. I know, I worked at one for two years (as you say) and helped hire several research associates. We would get 100's of resumes for one spot. This holds true for working with important researchers (usually found at think tanks or at universities).

And my work experience at a major think tank didn't get me into any programs in the top 20, even though I published there, had a letter of rec from my boss there, and want to do the same kind of work as a phd student that I did there...

Well OK perhaps you are right. It was the best I could come up with. Maybe my law school idea is more reasonable (but then, I have no clue whether others would go to law school with the idea of applying to a phd afterward in mind).

I am not sure what person X can do then.

[Canadianpolsci]

I'm going to say this last thing and then stop posting about this. For those of you who got into top 10 programs, just be happy about it. Don't come on here and put other people down just because they weren't as lucky as you, if they even wanted to get into those schools in the first place. There are plenty of people ecstatic they got into their number 22 or 34 or 46th ranked school. Just say congrats and go on about your merry way. If you want to have a place where you can act like a harvard educated snob, then just wait until you get there and you will get plenty of it in spades.

Also, I don't subscribe at all to the theory "go big or go home" -- eg., top rated program X ,or no PhD. I discussed rankings solely in terms of placement. That is all. I do not buy the arguments for "quality of education" really, because there are always exceptions, always brilliant profs at less than famous schools.

It's placement, that is the main thing. Jobs. And there are no silver bullets. It is just, IN GENERAL, statistically harder to get a job in a department not in the top X (be it top ten, or 25, etc). But this is only a GENERAL rule. I want to be clear on that: for me, the main argument in favor of going to a high ranked school over a lower one, and of concern with rankings, is job placement.

Jesus, the rankings themselves are not useful except for this. I can GO TO THE LIBRARY AND READ THE SCHOLARSHIP OF PROFS AT EACH SCHOOL. I do not need US News to figure out the general quality of these programs. But as a Canadian I was shocked to learn that rankings of US schools, in the US, are EXTREMELY important in job placement. I did not know this until last year, now I do, and I think it's important info.

Anyway congrats on Illinois. I don't know about the program but I would never meant to imply you or anyone else at any such program is doomed or even in bad shape in any way.

[polisciapp]

Well OK perhaps you are right. It was the best I could come up with. Maybe my law school idea is more reasonable (but then, I have no clue whether others would go to law school with the idea of applying to a phd afterward in mind).

This is exactly what I did.

[grtgmeloser]

Tidefan,

You rock. I like your attitude. Plus, you came up with asswhore, which makes me smile everytime I log in to this silly forum.

[eve2008]

Whatever the rank of your program, if you have full funding and they have a decent placement record, strong faculty, and you think you can get the kind of training you want, then go.

If not, then for the love of God, apply again!

But first, do one or more of the following:

1) Get an MA at the best program you can possibly get into. This is especially true for those people with weak recommendation letters or no research experience. I was shocked to hear people griping on the other thread about submitting a 30-page writing sample. Didn't everyone here write a thesis? If you have never have done any poli sci research, or any research at all for that matter, how on earth can you convince anyone you're cut out for this or, more to the point, how do you know this is what you want to do? Whether you have stellar letters and demonstrate research potential will make or break your application, says this applicant, who rocked a 2.7 at one point in her college career. If you didn't get into a school of your choice, these are likely the weakest parts of your application, and if you do really well in your MA, I think it can make a huge difference.

2) Unless you're a theory person, take math and stats classes and get As in them. Pol sci departments are eating up applicants with Econ BAs and job candidates with Econ PhDs. You may not like it, but that's what's trendy. You'll be a stronger candidate for having that background.

3) Learn a foreign language.

4) Retake the GREs (no, they really won't get you into grad school, but below a 650 or 600 for most top programs, they will start to worry about you, especially if you also have low grades)

5) Rock your statement of purpose. My advisers told me again and again that 90% of applicants "don't know what a social science research question looks like" and if you can show that you do in your statement of purpose, you are ahead of the game. I still don't know what that means exactly, but make sure your statement of purpose is about your research interests, that you tailor your statement a bit to each program, that you talk about which faculty you want to work with and why, that you show some degree of savvy and sophistication. It might even help to read your potential advisers' research, or demonstrate some familiarity with the research that has most influenced you and how that has helped to frame the questions that interest you.

6) Email the professors you really wanted to work with at the programs where your application was not successful (but do keep it short!) and say that you plan on improving your application and reapplying, and what were the weakest components of your file?

7) You should also think about who wrote your letters of recommendation and if you would like to use all of the same letters again. How well did you really know them and how enthusiastic were they about you? You really want letters written by people who are gunning for you. (If they themselves are famous, that helps, too!) I stayed in touch with faculty long after I graduated, and when it came time to apply, sent them all my latest CV and resent my old research and papers, just in case they needed those extra materials to make their recommendation concrete and vivid. You might even directly ask them how strong of a recommendation they were able to write you, and how they think you could improve your application.

I really think everyone can improve their application, and if you're serious about pursuing an academic career, I am of the mind you have to get into the highest-ranked program you possibly can. This is easy for me to say because I've done well this cycle, but I also fully intended on applying twice, and psychologically prepared myself for that from the outset. Why? Because I have friends who are smarter than I am, with higher grades and test scores, and more awards who, for whatever reason, did not get into a single school the year they applied. I'm pretty sure it had nothing to do with their grades or how "random" the process is, and everything to do with the quality of their applications and their application strategy. Some of them gave up, others learned what they could from the experience, applied again and did quite well.

Professors tell you all sorts of things to be nice. They say you didn't meet the GPA cut-off (when maybe you were just all around a weak applicant), they say the process is random and they try to temper expectations. From what I've seen, the process is far from random at the top 5 programs. Harvard, Stanford, Berkeley, Yale, Princeton and Michigan admit some subset of the same 60 or 70 applicants. At Stanford, maybe a third or more of the applicants (not to mention the current students) were deciding between Harvard, Stanford and Berkeley, while others it was Stanford, Princeton and Michigan, or Stanford, Harvard, and Yale. I think many of the applicants who got into one of those schools got into almost all of them. What I mean to say, is that the top schools all looked for the same something and they determined, independently, that these same students all had that something.

This is not to say that if you did not get into a top 5, top 10, or top 25 program, it was because you don't deserve to or could not do exceptionally well in one. Rather, there is probably more of a logic to this than you might like to think. That shouldn't dishearten you; on the contrary, most people, if they can find ways to demonstrate more of those qualities top programs are looking for, can probably do better in the application process on a second go. So no, I don't think it is simply a lottery, although it can sometimes feel like that. Lottery implies that you, the applicant, have no control over the process--far from true!--and so might as well carpet bomb the top 30 in the hopes your application will "stick" somewhere--a surefire way to get yourself universally rejected.

Finally, and this may sound harsh, I'd rather try to alter a negative outcome than rationalize it. I've received exactly two grades in my life, one in high school and one in college, that were unfair. Every single other grade--and there were plenty of Bs and Cs on my transcript--I more than deserved. It was figuring out what I did to merit the C and figuring out what I needed to do to merit an A (and deciding it was worth the required pain) that made the difference.

Again, whatever the rank of your program, if you have full funding and they have a decent placement record, strong faculty, and you think you can get the kind of training you want, then go. Unless you think you can do better.

[Quarex]

This forum is great. Vibrant, impassioned debate! Flaring emotions! New obscenities! We have it all.

While I appreciate the law school advice (and considered law school at one point), I am pretty sure that if it would be more advantageous to spend three years studying something I am only tangentially interested in researching, rather than two years ideally working in a department that shares my interests while maybe even presenting conference papers and publishing something, then it starts to sound really confusing. Keep in mind, now, I have no political science background. I am coming from a completely different field, with precisely one actual political science class to my name. That I was accepted to any programs at all should probably amaze me (but I always set my sights as high as humanly possible). But I really feel like actually having a degree in the field (while I have been told it is not necessarily essential in the social sciences) is going to help more than a law degree to go with my other two degrees from unrelated disciplines would.

PoliSciApp: I think we talked before about how you went to law school first; how much does it seem to have helped your application over an M.A.? Not that you are likely to know the answer to that.

This page is chock full of great advice. You are all fantastic.

[polisciapp]

This forum is great. Vibrant, impassioned debate! Flaring emotions! New obscenities! We have it all.

While I appreciate the law school advice (and considered law school at one point), I am pretty sure that if it would be more advantageous to spend three years studying something I am only tangentially interested in researching, rather than two years ideally working in a department that shares my interests while maybe even presenting conference papers and publishing something, then it starts to sound really confusing. Keep in mind, now, I have no political science background. I am coming from a completely different field, with precisely one actual political science class to my name. That I was accepted to any programs at all should probably amaze me (but I always set my sights as high as humanly possible). But I really feel like actually having a degree in the field (while I have been told it is not necessarily essential in the social sciences) is going to help more than a law degree to go with my other two degrees from unrelated disciplines would.

PoliSciApp: I think we talked before about how you went to law school first; how much does it seem to have helped your application over an M.A.? Not that you are likely to know the answer to that.

This page is chock full of great advice. You are all fantastic.

I'm really glad you made that last comment--the one about me not really knowing the answer. The truth is that none of us really know the answers to these questions, we are just speaking from out limited experience. It kind of irks me when people who got into X suddenly think they know everything there is to know about how to get into school X (or other schools like school X). But I digress . . . .

I can tell you only what I have been told; I have no idea how i affected my application. Professors have told me that JDs used to be looked down upon, but it is becoming more fashionable now. Nevertheless, I think it created more hurtles than opened doors. Many people question your dedication to political science and the quantitative method--assuming that you want to focus on doctrinal legal concepts. Political science is not the place to do this--though political theory may lend itself to this a bit more. On the positive side, I think it shows a dedication to a particular topic, if not a focus within that area. Professors seem to take your interests seriously after you have spent three years going to professional school only to forego that very profession.

Personally, I think law school showed me how much I would enjoy political science. It showed me what I would be doing if I was a lawyer, gave me the skills to do that, and encouraged me not to practice those skills in my profession. Instead, I felt I would be better served intellectual if I could apply at least some of those skills to a different discipline but study the same area, law, from a different perspective.

[eve2008]

It kind of irks me when people who got into X suddenly think they know everything there is to know about how to get into school X (or other schools like school X). But I digress . . . .

All advice offered on anonymous message boards should be filtered through your own common sense, but no need to feel irked. What I've written here is simply what I've learned; right or not, it's information I wish I would have known when I was starting college. It comes with the best intentions of helping out applicants in future cycles and quashing a bit of the fatalism that has gripped this board. There are some things that are gone and over that you can't control or change, like your undergraduate GPA, but there are still other things you can do to become a more competitive applicant. I apologize for my forthright tone offends, but I don't believe in the passive voice.

Of course if you think what I've written is grossly inaccurate, that's another story.

I can tell you only what I have been told; I have no idea how i affected my application. Professors have told me that JDs used to be looked down upon, but it is becoming more fashionable now. Nevertheless, I think it created more hurtles than opened doors. Many people question your dedication to political science and the quantitative method--assuming that you want to focus on doctrinal legal concepts. Political science is not the place to do this--though political theory may lend itself to this a bit more. On the positive side, I think it shows a dedication to a particular topic, if not a focus within that area. Professors seem to take your interests seriously after you have spent three years going to professional school only to forego that very profession.

I'm surprised to learn a JD could hurt you in the past, considering how JD/PhD programs have become much more common in recent years. I'm sure you'll be able to leverage what you learned in law school in exciting ways in your future learning and research.

Personally, I wouldn't get a JD as a PhD application strategy, as another poster suggested. Get a JD if you want to study American law and become an American lawyer, or someday train other American lawyers. If you want to get a Ph.D, it's much better (and probably much cheaper) to get an MA in your field, develop your interests and produce some great research.

* * *

Even if all anecdotal, I think when you add up what you've been told, what you've directly experienced, and what you have observed, you probably get at something approaching the truth.

[polisciapp]

All advice offered on anonymous message boards should be filtered through your own common sense, but no need to feel irked. What I've written here is simply what I've learned; right or not, it's information I wish I would have known when I was starting college. It comes with the best intentions of helping out applicants in future cycles and quashing a bit of the fatalism that has gripped this board. There are some things that are gone and over that you can't control or change, like your undergraduate GPA, but there are still other things you can do to become a more competitive applicant. I apologize for my forthright tone offends, but I don't believe in the passive voice.

Of course if you think what I've written is grossly inaccurate, that's another story.

It's not that I am offended by your tone, or that my comment was directed only at you. But you sound surprising like a lawyer!

[Canadianpolsci]

I word about "qualifications" or lack-there-of to give any advice about admissions. I think I owe the admissions success I had to a large "brain trust" of friends (some of who are grad students or young professors, some of whom are lawyers, some of whom are into poetry) and my professors. I took advice from dozens of people, especially on my statement of purpose. These people have gone through application processes themselves and have also seen all of their friends do it. All together, I received countless tips, small and large, and some of them were decisively important, I think, for my making the final cut at the schools I was admitted to.

So when I offer advice, it is NOT based on simply on the fact that I was admitted into school X. It is, rather, the advice which I RECEIVED from others, and which I estimate worked for me, to some degree, and would work for most others.

Think: "brain trust." And go build yourself one as best you can. That's the secret.