Comparative Politics

[Wallerstein]

Hey there,

I've made a list of the departments I'd like to apply in comparative politics and would like to read some opinions about it. I have the feeling that I might be aiming too high, although after looking at the rankings some of the big names in my list were not close to the top...

The schools are:

Berkeley

Brown

Chicago

Cornell

Columbia

CUNY

Johns Hopkins

Northwestern

WUSTL

Yale

I'm planing to study Europe, probably both Western and Eastern, and those departments seemed to have many interesting faculty members doing research on topics related to what I'd like to work on.

i have a decent background:

Very quantitative undergraduate program, 2 year master in PoliSci with classes in comparative and theory (mainly continental theory) with a 3.95 GPA, 1450 on my GRE (800q, 650v), I speak the languages of the countries I'm interested in studying and hope to get some good LOR ( though not so sure about that yet.)

But not sure if it is enough for those schools.

So, my questions are:

a. I'm I aiming too high?

b. Should I add other schools to that list?

c. If so, what other schools would you recommend me? I'm looking for decently ranked schools with good comparative departments which aren't too quantitative... not afraid of numbers, but tend to prefer more qualitative/historical approaches. And I'd also like having a good theory department around, with some continental theory professors.

[IRmiester666]

You can apply anywhere and have a good shot. But to add context to your GPA, what type of college/university was it? No specific names, just ball park. Like flagship state school, etc.

[APGradApplicant]

FYI Rochester has some very strong comparativists who study Western Europe; this includes Bonnie Meguid, whose recent book on niche party competition and emergence in W. Europe has been pretty highly praised. I don't see any reason not to add it to your list.

For more info on that particular subfield at U of R: http://www.rochester...sc/cp/index.php

Update: I just saw that you said "not too quantitative" after the fact. Fair enough although I'm not sure I'd let this stop you from applying to such a strong program. The discipline is moving more and more in this direction and strong quant skills, even if you're looking to do more standard empirical work, are a very valuable asset to have on the job market.

Edited September 7, 2010 by APGradApplicant

[Penelope Higgins]

I'd add Harvard to your list; Hall, Ekiert, and Ziblatt (to name just 3) cover a wide range of Europe-related questions and are qual-friendly; and Iversen and others also work on the area. Plus the Center for European Studies is an amazing resource as a graduate student.

Your raw numbers make it look like a reasonable candidate for many of the schools you've listed, and I can't think of any you've left out except maybe Duke/UNC, but hopefully folks who do more Europe-related work (not my area...) will chime in.

[Wallerstein]

You can apply anywhere and have a good shot. But to add context to your GPA, what type of college/university was it? No specific names, just ball park. Like flagship state school, etc.

it is from a private university, kind of known for its good theory faculty, but unranked anyway. I guess this should make the letters more valuable than the GPA, doesn't it?

[mrmirv]

it is from a private university, kind of known for its good theory faculty, but unranked anyway. I guess this should make the letters more valuable than the GPA, doesn't it?

I honestly would die for your numbers. If you have good LOA and a good SOP...your are a good candidate anywhere. I would apply to harvard with you stats no doubt

[Wallerstein]

I'd add Harvard to your list; Hall, Ekiert, and Ziblatt (to name just 3) cover a wide range of Europe-related questions and are qual-friendly; and Iversen and others also work on the area. Plus the Center for European Studies is an amazing resource as a graduate student.

Your raw numbers make it look like a reasonable candidate for many of the schools you've listed, and I can't think of any you've left out except maybe Duke/UNC, but hopefully folks who do more Europe-related work (not my area...) will chime in.

Sure, Harvard would be great. I didn't include it on my list because I thought it is nearly impossible to be admitted there. I thought only Ivy League students or brilliant people get accepted there. I know many people who applied there but only one who got in, and she was a Yale grad.

[mrmirv]

Sure, Harvard would be great. I didn't include it on my list because I thought it is nearly impossible to be admitted there. I thought only Ivy League students or brilliant people get accepted there. I know many people who applied there but only one who got in, and she was a Yale grad.

With your stats...i think you should apply to all the school you can afford and dream of. Have very strong LOA and SOP and i think you would get into at least 35% of the schools you apply too.

[APGradApplicant]

With your stats...i think you should apply to all the school you can afford and dream of. Have very strong LOA and SOP and i think you would get into at least 35% of the schools you apply too.

Agreed that Harvard is worth a shot. However, know that the "Big 6" in particular- or CHYMPS as some call them (Cal-Berkeley, Harvard, Yale, Michigan, Stanford and Princeton)- are incredibly picky about who they take. For instance, a 650V is a great score and from what I remember that puts you in something like the 93rd percentile. That said, you should know that admitted applicants at Harvard I would guess average a little above 700 (or certainly close to it) on the GRE Verbal. Another thing I didn't really understand until I talked to people who actually serve on admissions committees is this: LORs are important less so for what they say than for who is saying it. Or let me put it differently: virtually every file they see is going to have letters from professors that say good things about the student. Yes, it's helpful that they're personalized and that it's clear the professor actually knows the student and isn't just writing a form letter. That said, what most profs sitting on an admissions committee are going to ask themselves is whether or not they know personally or more likely, know of the professor who's writing the letter and if so, is this somebody who does well-regarded work in the discipline and for whom they have respect? This makes it difficult for people coming from lesser-known undergraduate schools in the sense that these departments often aren't the ones whose faculty are publishing in the top journals or who are well-known in their fields. Is this fair? Probably not. But it's a piece of the puzzle to the admissions game that's important to know about.

Thus, in no way am I trying to say that you won't get into Harvard or another CHYMPS program; I just think it's important to put this whole process in perspective and not to set oneself up for a disappointment.

I should also clarify that this is not directed at you specifically, Wallerstein. If anything it seems that you're taking a very measured and level-headed attitude to this whole process and that you're doing all the right things by "casting a wide net" (so to speak) when it comes to schools to apply to. You're also asking all of the right questions; I have no doubt that you'll do quite well in this process. The caveats I'm giving above are more just directed at the general pool of applicants who are gearing up to apply this cycle. Realize that there is indeed life outside of CHYMPS and that great numbers are a great asset but that unfortunately you're going to be far from the only one who has them. Anyhow, I guess that's my shtick on "What I Wish I Knew a Year Ago"!

[Wallerstein]

Agreed that Harvard is worth a shot. However, know that the "Big 6" in particular- or CHYMPS as some call them (Cal-Berkeley, Harvard, Yale, Michigan, Stanford and Princeton)- are incredibly picky about who they take. For instance, a 650V is a great score and from what I remember that puts you in something like the 93rd percentile. That said, you should know that admitted applicants at Harvard I would guess average a little above 700 (or certainly close to it) on the GRE Verbal. Another thing I didn't really understand until I talked to people who actually serve on admissions committees is this: LORs are important less so for what they say than for who is saying it. Or let me put it differently: virtually every file they see is going to have letters from professors that say good things about the student. Yes, it's helpful that they're personalized and that it's clear the professor actually knows the student and isn't just writing a form letter. That said, what most profs sitting on an admissions committee are going to ask themselves is whether or not they know personally or more likely, know of the professor who's writing the letter and if so, is this somebody who does well-regarded work in the discipline and for whom they have respect? This makes it difficult for people coming from lesser-known undergraduate schools in the sense that these departments often aren't the ones whose faculty are publishing in the top journals or who are well-known in their fields. Is this fair? Probably not. But it's a piece of the puzzle to the admissions game that's important to know about.

Thus, in no way am I trying to say that you won't get into Harvard or another CHYMPS program; I just think it's important to put this whole process in perspective and not to set oneself up for a disappointment.

I should also clarify that this is not directed at you specifically, Wallerstein. If anything it seems that you're taking a very measured and level-headed attitude to this whole process and that you're doing all the right things by "casting a wide net" (so to speak) when it comes to schools to apply to. You're also asking all of the right questions; I have no doubt that you'll do quite well in this process. The caveats I'm giving above are more just directed at the general pool of applicants who are gearing up to apply this cycle. Realize that there is indeed life outside of CHYMPS and that great numbers are a great asset but that unfortunately you're going to be far from the only one who has them. Anyhow, I guess that's my shtick on "What I Wish I Knew a Year Ago"!

Thanks a lot for your reply! Given what you said, I would like to ask you a few other questions concerning the LOR.

I don't really have a very close relationship with any of my past professors, but I wrote decent papers and was a good student in their disciplines. Some of them liked my work and even offered me help for this application process. So:

a. How should I weight the professors' willingness to help me out with how famous/important he is? Meaning, should I ask LOR to professors who were more open and friendly to me or to the big names in the discipline? more specifically, a friendly young non-tenure prof. X a grumpy old professor with a big name?

b. Is it ok to have LOR from prof. outside the subfield, as a from a theorist for example?

c. is it ok to have letters from someone outside the discipline (historian or sociologist) who works in relevant topics?

d. and, kind of pushing too far, is a letter from a really big name whose work has nothing to do with mine worth something?