Is a Poli Sci PhD right for me?

[abraxas]

Longtime lurker, first time poster at GradCafe!

I decided I should get some advice on my situation, which is as follows: I just graduated from UCLA, major in History, minors in Public Policy and Political Science. After frantically trying to hastily put together an application for any program I could think of last September between the end of a summer internship and the beginning of senior year, I decided to take a year off to better prepare, and I felt a little burned out from being fanatical over my GPA. I did a summer internship at the State Department and thought I might want to get a more practical MA in IR. However being out of undergrad for just one month, I'm really missing the intellectual stimulation of undergrad, and a career in academia is looking more and more appealing. I'm less interested in regional history, so i didn't go the history PhD route since I didn't want to get pigeonholed into a region and time period. I am more interested in the theory and practice behind international relations and diplomacy, so I thought a Poli Sci PhD program would be the best way to do that.

Stats:

UCLA, History with minors in Poli Sci and Pub Pol

GPA. 3.96

LORs: None yet, though I have very very strong connections with History and Poli Sci profs, and a weaker connection to a former Secretary of State

Languages: Unfortunately, took a year of Latin early in Undergrad (loved ancient history before meeting ancient history grad students...). Spoke Hindi at home growing up and teaching myself more of the language now. Also used to read Arabic but distanced myself from it after 9/11 when I was an angsty teen and I've forgotten it as a result.

Research: No senior thesis, but 4 20 page independent research projects with multiple professors on either US foreign policy or Islamic fundamentalism. Working as research assistant to a history prof on economic history now.

Haven't taken the GREs yet, though i'm working on it. I took on quarter of microecon and i'm taking a macro course via UCLA extension (UCLA for working adults). I have pretty much no quantitative experience, though, which will probably not help my case. I'm not mathematically inclined so I avoided them in college so as not to scuttle my GPA.

I'm just wondering whether or not a PoliSci PhD in International Relations Theory is attainable with that lack of quant and language skills. I'd ideally want a program that combined a strong focus on history with theory--Chicago CIR, Yale Macmillan, MsC at LSE, and Georgetown MAGIC are looking appealing in that respect, but those are all MA programs. Should I do an Poli Sci terminal MA first to make myself more competitive? If I did one of the more policy-focused MAs like SAIS or GWU, would that hurt my chances of doing a PhD later on? Could anyone recommend a program that sounds like it might be a good fit for my interests? Thanks!

[American in Beijing]

Longtime lurker, first time poster at GradCafe!

I decided I should get some advice on my situation, which is as follows: I just graduated from UCLA, major in History, minors in Public Policy and Political Science. After frantically trying to hastily put together an application for any program I could think of last September between the end of a summer internship and the beginning of senior year, I decided to take a year off to better prepare, and I felt a little burned out from being fanatical over my GPA. I did a summer internship at the State Department and thought I might want to get a more practical MA in IR. However being out of undergrad for just one month, I'm really missing the intellectual stimulation of undergrad, and a career in academia is looking more and more appealing. I'm less interested in regional history, so i didn't go the history PhD route since I didn't want to get pigeonholed into a region and time period. I am more interested in the theory and practice behind international relations and diplomacy, so I thought a Poli Sci PhD program would be the best way to do that.

Stats:

UCLA, History with minors in Poli Sci and Pub Pol

GPA. 3.96

LORs: None yet, though I have very very strong connections with History and Poli Sci profs, and a weaker connection to a former Secretary of State

Languages: Unfortunately, took a year of Latin early in Undergrad (loved ancient history before meeting ancient history grad students...). Spoke Hindi at home growing up and teaching myself more of the language now. Also used to read Arabic but distanced myself from it after 9/11 when I was an angsty teen and I've forgotten it as a result.

Research: No senior thesis, but 4 20 page independent research projects with multiple professors on either US foreign policy or Islamic fundamentalism. Working as research assistant to a history prof on economic history now.

Haven't taken the GREs yet, though i'm working on it. I took on quarter of microecon and i'm taking a macro course via UCLA extension (UCLA for working adults). I have pretty much no quantitative experience, though, which will probably not help my case. I'm not mathematically inclined so I avoided them in college so as not to scuttle my GPA.

I'm just wondering whether or not a PoliSci PhD in International Relations Theory is attainable with that lack of quant and language skills. I'd ideally want a program that combined a strong focus on history with theory--Chicago CIR, Yale Macmillan, MsC at LSE, and Georgetown MAGIC are looking appealing in that respect, but those are all MA programs. Should I do an Poli Sci terminal MA first to make myself more competitive? If I did one of the more policy-focused MAs like SAIS or GWU, would that hurt my chances of doing a PhD later on? Could anyone recommend a program that sounds like it might be a good fit for my interests? Thanks!

I just wanted to point out that not all History PhDs "pigeon-hole" you into one specific field. I actually chose Berkeley because I would come out with a broader knowledge and understanding of the histories of other areas of the world. Berkeley's History PhD program requires both a first field (for example, American History) and a second field that can be either another region or time (e.g. Early Modern Europe) or a comparative field across 3 regions (e.g. rural history in England, China, and the Middle East). However, these 3 regions cannot include your primary area of focus. Also, you're required to take at least one course outside of the department as your 3rd field. So in the end, you come out having taken a lot of different courses.

If you're really hesitant about a Political Science PhD, I would take another look at some of the History PhD programs. It can't hurt to apply for both, !

[Charlie2010]

With your GPA (and presumably strong letters) you should have a good shot at a top-ten poli sci PhD, although we will certainly notice that you avoided quant material. If you are willing to work hard, you can remedy that now by getting a 760-plus math GRE, or over the course of the next year by taking the math courses you've been avoiding (even at night school/community college) to show that you're serious and at least better than a C-student in math. This isn't to say that you have to take an aggressively quant approach in grad school, but you'll have to do a little and we don't want you to burn out. Languages are helpful but not at all required for IR. Having a historical bent is also no problem--we aren't historians, but we aren't journalists, either. Looking into the past is a good way to develop or examine a theory.

And it would probably hurt to apply for both history and poli sci PhDs, since it shows a lack of focus, and this will come through in your letters and your recommendations. Poli sci job prospects both in and out of academic are much better than history, although neither is a golden ticket.

[adaptations]

I'll focus on your question of whether or not to apply to a terminal masters to make yourself more competitive for a PhD program later. Given your background, you have a reasonable chance at getting into a strong PhD program, and so I would advise against the terminal MA as a first option. If you apply to places like Chicago are are denied to the PhD program, they will almost certainly consider you for CIR. The masters can certainly make you a stronger PhD applicant, but if you can skip that step and save a lot of money, there's not a lot of reasons to do the MA, assuming you are really confident you want to get a PhD and go into academia.

[abraxas]

And it would probably hurt to apply for both history and poli sci PhDs, since it shows a lack of focus, and this will come through in your letters and your recommendations. Poli sci job prospects both in and out of academic are much better than history, although neither is a golden ticket.

A lot of the programs I've been looking at are similar, history or PhD. For instance, I'm interested in the IR PhD, but a lot of the Transnational and comparative history PhDs have similar emphases. Should I get multiple letters from multiple professors if I try for both?

[IRmiester666]

Go for it.

And since UCLA is a top 10 in poli sci, LORs from PS professors will help. Although, it is arguably one of the best programs out there for American political behavior/campaigns and elections as well as comparative politics, but IR is considered UCLA's weakness.

But I wouldn't let that stop you. Aim high, given you're profile.

[IRmiester666]

I re-read your original post more closely, and I have a couple more comments:

Language skills aren't really that important in IR. They are more of a CP skill. Also, the terminal MA programs you are referring to do international affairs, not poli sci IR. In those programs, language is more important since those who enroll are practitioners in the field.

But, quant skills are very important to poli sci IR, and since you have no math classes (that's OK by the way), your quant abilities will be judged solely on your GRE. If you do poorly, AdComms will think you won't be able to handle the rigor. I'd recommend the Princeton Review GRE prep book. I found their quant prep to be the best, and it assumes no training beyond high school. Literally memorize all the tricks in that book, and your score will drastically improve.

Lastly, do NOT get a letter of rec from someone at State. They have absolutely no perspective on your academic ability. It means nothing to PhD programs (but would be ideal for terminal international affairs programs). LORs should come from all professors (the more established, the better).