Mediocre GPA/High GRE; Chances/Worth doing an MA first?

[RWBG]

Hi everyone,

After obsessing for a long time in private, and extensively lurking these forums, I thought I'd post one of these chances threads, along with a request for advice about a masters. So essentially:

Double Major: Political Science and Economics, Top 20 school

CGPA: 3.5. Political Science GPA: 3.8+

GRE: Q: 800 V: 740 AWA: 5.5

Some RA experience. Working on but haven't completed a senior thesis on political economy of int'l trade, did an independent study with a prof last year in which I covered most the lit review. About four half year graduate courses in polisci.

One referee is my supervisor and employer, who is an assistant prof from a top 20ish school, but has been winning APSA and MPSA awards since completing his Ph.D, and has published papers in top 3 journals. My other referees are a former deputy director at the IMF with a Ph.D from MIT, and a former president of the American Law and Economics Association.

My SOP should be fairly good, and basically markets myself as a quant/formal modeling applicant, and describes my senior thesis. Unfortunately, my marks in quant courses are very inconsistent. Like, I got 100% in one economics course, As to A+s in some other math and economics courses, and then a D- and some Bs in others when I got caught up with nonacademic commitments. The poor marks are not correlated with the harder courses. Incidentally, this is also what led to my low CGPA.

Writing sample is good (I think) and includes a pretty rudimentary formal model, using a paucity of calculus.

Applying to: PhD's: Harvard, Princeton, University of Michigan, NYU, Yale, MIT, Stanford.

Also applying to a few MAs.

So my thought with all this was that if I don't get into one of my top Ph.D programs (which to me seems likely), I would rather just do a master's and reapply in a later year with an (almost certainly) higher GPA than go now to one of my less-preferred schools. Given that I think the rest of my application is decent, my main stopping factor for getting into the schools is going to be my GPA. So in addition to having people rate my chances at those Ph.D programs, I'm also wondering if anyone has any thoughts on the value of doing a master's to increase one's GPA. For sake of argument, work off the assumption that the master's is not at a school I'm applying to for a Ph.D, and will likely not get me more/better reference letters. Also, please discount the cost issue.

Any other good faith advice would be appreciated as well.

Thanks.

[applying12010]

Maybe also look at WashU, Rochester, UCLA and UCSD? All four schools are pretty decent in quant, and all have pretty good IPE people too, especially UCSD with David Lake and Lawrence Broz. Additionally, I have you have a good chance of getting into the three programs given your stats. They might not be the most prestigious programs, but they train their students really well (maybe even better compared to one of the top 5-6 programs), and graduates from the four programs do pretty well on the job market. To be honest, I would probably go to UCSD instead of MIT or even Yale (although Ken Scheve is there) if I want to study IPE/ formal (actually, I do study IPE, haha).

The GPA factor is a real concern. Among your original list, I think all the schools aside from NYU will be tricky. The fact that you have been taking a lot of econ/ math classes will help with the GPA problem, but a lot of people nowadays are applying to the top programs with extremely strong econ/ math background. In the end, a lot of it will be based on luck and the "intangibles" (SOP, letters).

A master's will probably help. What kind of Master's are you thinking about applying to? LSE has a Master's in Political Economy that would probably be a good fit for you...only thing is that I think it requires a 2:1 (or around 3.7 GPA).

Good luck!

Hi everyone,

After obsessing for a long time in private, and extensively lurking these forums, I thought I'd post one of these chances threads, along with a request for advice about a masters. So essentially:

Double Major: Political Science and Economics, Top 20 school

CGPA: 3.5. Political Science GPA: 3.8+

GRE: Q: 800 V: 740 AWA: 5.5

Some RA experience. Working on but haven't completed a senior thesis on political economy of int'l trade, did an independent study with a prof last year in which I covered most the lit review. About four half year graduate courses in polisci.

One referee is my supervisor and employer, who is an assistant prof from a top 20ish school, but has been winning APSA and MPSA awards since completing his Ph.D, and has published papers in top 3 journals. My other referees are a former deputy director at the IMF with a Ph.D from MIT, and a former president of the American Law and Economics Association.

My SOP should be fairly good, and basically markets myself as a quant/formal modeling applicant, and describes my senior thesis. Unfortunately, my marks in quant courses are very inconsistent. Like, I got 100% in one economics course, As to A+s in some other math and economics courses, and then a D- and some Bs in others when I got caught up with nonacademic commitments. The poor marks are not correlated with the harder courses. Incidentally, this is also what led to my low CGPA.

Writing sample is good (I think) and includes a pretty rudimentary formal model, using a paucity of calculus.

Applying to: PhD's: Harvard, Princeton, University of Michigan, NYU, Yale, MIT, Stanford.

Also applying to a few MAs.

So my thought with all this was that if I don't get into one of my top Ph.D programs (which to me seems likely), I would rather just do a master's and reapply in a later year with an (almost certainly) higher GPA than go now to one of my less-preferred schools. Given that I think the rest of my application is decent, my main stopping factor for getting into the schools is going to be my GPA. So in addition to having people rate my chances at those Ph.D programs, I'm also wondering if anyone has any thoughts on the value of doing a master's to increase one's GPA. For sake of argument, work off the assumption that the master's is not at a school I'm applying to for a Ph.D, and will likely not get me more/better reference letters. Also, please discount the cost issue.

Any other good faith advice would be appreciated as well.

Thanks.

Edited December 11, 2010 by applying12010

[RWBG]

Thanks for the response. I really appreciate it.

All of those schools are on my expanded list of schools to apply to next year except UCSD. It was originally on my main list of applications (as I was also impressed with the program), but I'm not a U.S. citizen, and UCSD's program has this to say on non-citizens:

"Non-US citizens are responsible for tuition and fee payments that total close to $28,000 per year for every year in residence. Unlike many other state universities, this tuition is not waived for students receiving teaching assistantships, which is the primary source of graduate student funding in the Department of Political Science. In almost all cases neither the University nor the Department of Political Science has the funds to cover these payments. As a consequence, very few non-citizens enroll in the program. Please keep this in mind when deciding whether or not to request the application."

That was indeed one of the MAs I had in mind, although their compulsory methods courses seem to cover content I've already covered. Assuming you mean this one:

http://www2.lse.ac.u...calEconomy.aspx

They also have an Msc in IPE which appealed to me less. Additionally, I'm looking at a couple master's programs in top 30ish schools that look like they provide some flexibility in taking courses in a cognate discipline (in my case, I would probably take grad microeconomics and econometrics.)

Any thoughts on whether the high variance in my grades will be a positive or negative factor when compared to an applicant with the same GPA but lower variance?

[applying12010]

Ahh, that sucks about UCSD. I actually ran into the same issue when I was looking at UCSD. I forgot one more school - Wisconsin-Madison. Great department with good IR/ IPE people (Lisa Martin, Andrew Kydd, John Pevehouse etc.).

For LSE political economy, the methods course you might be able to opt out. Try apply, get in and then talk to the professors about taking more advanced methods course. LSE has plenty of difficult econometrics classes that you are take.

Good point about variance, I don't think I know enough about admissions to comment on the issue though. However, I think the main thing that you have to bear in mind is that you will be competing with a bunch of people who have 3.8/ 3.9 GPAs with low variance and straight As in econ/ math. I think the most important thing you can do now is to make sure that you have an absolutely brilliant personal statement (ask for your professors to read your draft if they have free time!). The rec letters you can't influence, and your GRE scores are really good already. Writing samples don't matter as much.

By the way, you can always enter a Ph.D program, and then transfer later. This way you can avoid accruing a lot of debt (Master's are generally unfunded). This is not uncommon.

Best of luck! You sound very qualified Hope the variance in your GPA won't raise red flags in the programs you apply to...Let me know if you need help with your SOP. I have my finals right now but I might be able to read through it quickly and give you some comments.

Thanks for the response. I really appreciate it.

All of those schools are on my expanded list of schools to apply to next year except UCSD. It was originally on my main list of applications (as I was also impressed with the program), but I'm not a U.S. citizen, and UCSD's program has this to say on non-citizens:

"Non-US citizens are responsible for tuition and fee payments that total close to $28,000 per year for every year in residence. Unlike many other state universities, this tuition is not waived for students receiving teaching assistantships, which is the primary source of graduate student funding in the Department of Political Science. In almost all cases neither the University nor the Department of Political Science has the funds to cover these payments. As a consequence, very few non-citizens enroll in the program. Please keep this in mind when deciding whether or not to request the application."

That was indeed one of the MAs I had in mind, although their compulsory methods courses seem to cover content I've already covered. Assuming you mean this one:

http://www2.lse.ac.u...calEconomy.aspx

They also have an Msc in IPE which appealed to me less. Additionally, I'm looking at a couple master's programs in top 30ish schools that look like they provide some flexibility in taking courses in a cognate discipline (in my case, I would probably take grad microeconomics and econometrics.)

Any thoughts on whether the high variance in my grades will be a positive or negative factor when compared to an applicant with the same GPA but lower variance?

Edited December 12, 2010 by applying12010

[adaptations]

Given what I've read, I suspect that you will be competitive, but it will really depend on your SOP/LORs to overcome the grade blemishes. I suspect it will also make a difference when you received the lesser grades (freshman year or more recently). I am also curious who you are interested in working with at MIT for IPE? I chose to leave them off my list because I didn't find them to have the of depth faculty in IPE, but perhaps we have different subspecialties. You may also want to add Ohio State U. to your list. They have very strong methods training and you could work with Verdier or Thompson on some of the IPE stuff.

As for the questions about earning a masters, I think it can greatly enhance your application and help you overcome specific shortcomings. The first time I applied to PhD programs, I got into 1 (unfunded) and was then offered a partially funded MA from U. of Chicago (CIR). I took the MA and immediately applied to PhD programs while completing my first quarter. Having one quarter of grades, a much better focus in my SOP, and LORs from well respected faculty in the field helped a great deal. I got into 4 good programs and wait listed at 1. So, my personal experience is that the MA can give you more opportunities and help you overcome weaknesses.

Edited December 12, 2010 by adaptations

[GopherGrad]

However, I think the main thing that you have to bear in mind is that you will be competing with a bunch of people who have 3.8/ 3.9 GPAs with low variance and straight As in econ/ math.

I have similar a similar GRE/GPA and this has been my take-away, too. Numbers like yours will still get a good look from the best schools, but you'll have to find a way to differentiate yourself at that stage. If someone else is otherwise similar with a higher GPA, they'll probably jump ahead in line.

By the way, you can always enter a Ph.D program, and then transfer later. This way you can avoid accruing a lot of debt (Master's are generally unfunded). This is not uncommon.

I keep hearing about this. I heard similar things about applying to law school, but once in law school it became pretty apparent that transfers are rare (I think I only knew two students that transferred successfully; one was a "lateral" move to a similarly ranked school made for family reasons).

What does "not uncommon" mean? Do you know of any places to get information about transfers?

[RWBG]

Wisconsin-Madison is actually a great suggestion that I hadn't thought of. I somehow missed that Lisa Martin was there. I'll certainly consider it, though realistically, it'll probably be added to my broader list of schools to apply to next year if I don't get into any Ph.D programs this year.

Let me know if you need help with your SOP. I have my finals right now but I might be able to read through it quickly and give you some comments.

This is an extremely generous offer, and I would be a fool not to take you up on it. I will forward you a copy of my SOP via PM in a little bit, and any quick comments you could give me would be much appreciated.

MIT was a late addition to my list mainly because I like Hainmueller's work, and the small class size. As far as Ohio State; it's a good program, but most of the scholars there (from my impression) seem more interested in security-focused IPE, or IPE of finance, which while interesting, aren't really amongst my core research interests. I haven't looked into their program in that much depth though, so maybe my impressions are wrong.

Thanks for sharing your experiences with taking an MA! That is encouraging.

[applying12010]

Hmm I encourage you to actually apply to your broader list of schools this year. IMO, there's no reason to not apply to Wisconsin Madison and WashU if you are applying to MIT and NYU, given what you want to study. The latter two schools are actually weaker in IPE. Just apply to as many programs as possible this year that are: 1) good fits for you; 2) will ensure that you are employable. PhD admissions are political science are extremely competitive (and getting more competitive) now, so try to cast a wide net and pick your schools after you get in. If you are talking about Harvard, Stanford and Princeton, the admit rates are between 3.5-5%. Schools like MIT, Duke, Cornell are a bit easier, around 8-10% (according to what I know about admissions last year).

Oh, you should look at Duke too by the way. They train people very well, and people from Duke have been getting pretty decent jobs.

I am not that familiar with Ohio State. I don't think their IPE is that strong though...More security there (Bearmueller, Schweller, Wendt).

Jens Hainmueller is quite brilliant. However, note that IPE is not too strong at MIT in general, and Hainmueller is still a junior scholar. He might not have the weight to chair your dissertation committee by the time you are on the job market. And if you want training in formal theory, you have to go to Harvard since Jim Snyder just moved this year. On cohort size, MIT cohort this year has only 8 people, if I remember right. So if you like your cohort to be tiny...

Btw, I applied to an MA earlier because I wasn't sure if I want a PhD, and I just wanted to go to London and have fun for a year in Europe (I went to LSE for political economy). It sounds like you know that you want to do research, so really makes more sense for you to try to get into a PhD program.

Wisconsin-Madison is actually a great suggestion that I hadn't thought of. I somehow missed that Lisa Martin was there. I'll certainly consider it, though realistically, it'll probably be added to my broader list of schools to apply to next year if I don't get into any Ph.D programs this year.

This is an extremely generous offer, and I would be a fool not to take you up on it. I will forward you a copy of my SOP via PM in a little bit, and any quick comments you could give me would be much appreciated.

MIT was a late addition to my list mainly because I like Hainmueller's work, and the small class size. As far as Ohio State; it's a good program, but most of the scholars there (from my impression) seem more interested in security-focused IPE, or IPE of finance, which while interesting, aren't really amongst my core research interests. I haven't looked into their program in that much depth though, so maybe my impressions are wrong.

Thanks for sharing your experiences with taking an MA! That is encouraging.

Edited December 12, 2010 by applying12010

[applying12010]

I do know of people who transferred from one PhD program to another, but I don't know where to get information from on transfers. According to what I know, the main idea to just do really well in the program you got into to and demonstrate to the professors there that you will really benefit from moving to a higher ranking program.

I have similar a similar GRE/GPA and this has been my take-away, too. Numbers like yours will still get a good look from the best schools, but you'll have to find a way to differentiate yourself at that stage. If someone else is otherwise similar with a higher GPA, they'll probably jump ahead in line.

I keep hearing about this. I heard similar things about applying to law school, but once in law school it became pretty apparent that transfers are rare (I think I only knew two students that transferred successfully; one was a "lateral" move to a similarly ranked school made for family reasons).

What does "not uncommon" mean? Do you know of any places to get information about transfers?

[RWBG]

Admittedly, MIT was probably a borderline school to apply to given my interests, and if it's the only school I'm accepted to, I'll have to do some serious thinking before accepting it. Wisconsin-Madison and WashU are excellent schools, but with the exception of Lisa Martin, neither school has scholars who have been particularly influential on my current work. In contrast, NYU's program is extremely quantitatively oriented, and has a number of scholars (Michael Gilligan, for example) who have had major influence on my current work. Actually, I'm curious; what are people's opinions on NYU's program? My impression from these boards is that people here generally aren't very impressed with it, but it seems pretty strong in formal political economy/political methodology to me. Their placement records are also fairly strong.

[applying12010]

One thing to note: people's research interests in grad school often change, so have an open mind. In my opinion, it is a good idea to judge departments based on their overall strengths in your subfield (or sub-subfield), and not your "current work" done as an undergrad.

I think NYU is a rising department. Aside from Gilligan, Fiorina McGillivray also does interesting stuff on trade. Rebecca Morton and Adam Przeworski are also there. Rosendorff might also be in NYU? You should definitely apply. For me, it's heavily quantitative focus is a concern though. I do a lot of formal theory and methods, but I think theory and substance are also pretty important. Mixed-method is the way to go these days.

Oh, and a correction. Pevehouse moved to Harris school in Chicago from Wisconsin a few years ago.

On 12/12/2010 at 3:34 PM, RWBG said:

Admittedly, MIT was probably a borderline school to apply to given my interests, and if it's the only school I'm accepted to, I'll have to do some serious thinking before accepting it. Wisconsin-Madison and WashU are excellent schools, but with the exception of Lisa Martin, neither school has scholars who have been particularly influential on my current work. In contrast, NYU's program is extremely quantitatively oriented, and has a number of scholars (Michael Gilligan, for example) who have had major influence on my current work. Actually, I'm curious; what are people's opinions on NYU's program? My impression from these boards is that people here generally aren't very impressed with it, but it seems pretty strong in formal political economy/political methodology to me. Their placement records are also fairly strong.

[RWBG]

One thing to note: people's research interests in grad school often change, so have an open mind. In my opinion, it is a good idea to judge departments based on their overall strengths in your subfield (or sub-subfield), and not your "current work" done as an undergrad.

I think NYU is a rising department. Aside from Gilligan, Fiorina McGillivray also does interesting stuff on trade. Rebecca Morton and Adam Przeworski are also there. Rosendorff might also be in NYU? You should definitely apply. For me, it's heavily quantitative focus is a concern though. I do a lot of formal theory and methods, but I think theory and substance are also pretty important. Mixed-method is the way to go these days.

Oh, and a correction. Pevehouse moved to Harris school in Chicago from Wisconsin a few years ago.

That's probably fair (on research interests changing.) As a result, I've tried to go for a mixed approach; choosing departments that are broadly strong in my subfield, but also have at least a scholar or two who has done work that I have found interesting and relevant to my current work. Rosendorff is at NYU, and Przeworski is another scholar who has been a major influence on me. I also don't mind its heavy quantitative focus; I don't doubt that other methods can be valuable, but my main interest is in being thoroughly versed in quantitative approaches.

On a tragic note, Fiona McGillivray died recently of pulmonary hypertension. She was indeed an excellent scholar.

[rustytrix]

One thing to note: people's research interests in grad school often change, so have an open mind. In my opinion, it is a good idea to judge departments based on their overall strengths in your subfield (or sub-subfield), and not your "current work" done as an undergrad.

I think NYU is a rising department. Aside from Gilligan, Fiorina McGillivray also does interesting stuff on trade. Rebecca Morton and Adam Przeworski are also there. Rosendorff might also be in NYU? You should definitely apply. For me, it's heavily quantitative focus is a concern though. I do a lot of formal theory and methods, but I think theory and substance are also pretty important. Mixed-method is the way to go these days.

Oh, and a correction. Pevehouse moved to Harris school in Chicago from Wisconsin a few years ago.

Fiorina McGillivray passed away in 2008.And yes, Rosendorff is at NYU. Also, see Shanker Satyanath.

[applying12010]

Oh...that is extremely sad Her book on trade policy is really brilliant...

Thanks for reminding me of Satyanath. Let\s add David Stasavage, Brueno De Mesquita and Alastair Smith to the list too! Now I felt dumb that I didn't apply to NYU last year, haha.

Fiorina McGillivray passed away in 2008.And yes, Rosendorff is at NYU. Also, see Shanker Satyanath.

[RWBG]

Thanks for reminding me of Satyanath. Let\s add David Stasavage, Brueno De Mesquita and Alastair Smith to the list too! Now I felt dumb that I didn't apply to NYU last year, haha.

I'm glad you're seeing this as well. I was starting to feel like I must be missing something, given that NYU is one of my top schools. Like, I'd definitely got to NYU over Yale or MIT, despite Yale and MIT's reputations.

[adaptations]

Oh, and a correction. Pevehouse moved to Harris school in Chicago from Wisconsin a few years ago.

FYI - Pevehouse moved back to Wisconsin.

Edited December 13, 2010 by adaptations

[applying12010]

Oops. I need to be better at stalking the big professors!

FYI - Pevehouse moved back to Wisconsin.

[flyers29]

You've gotten some good advice so far, so I only have one thing to add: at this moment, please stop being one of those people who thinks a 3.5/3.9 major GPA is "mediocre." It may be below the median of applicants at top schools, but it's not the definition of mediocre.

[oasis]

By the way, you can always enter a Ph.D program, and then transfer later. This way you can avoid accruing a lot of debt (Master's are generally unfunded). This is not uncommon.

I wouldn't count on this. You'd need a very good reason to justify jumping ship, and this field is just too small for you to burn bridges unnecessarily.

[catchermiscount]

I transferred from Department X to Department Y when faculty in my subfield left Department X. Transferring is really tough, and you should not count on doing it. In fact, you should not want to do it. I did not want to do it, but I had little choice.

For starters, as the comment above notes, you don't want to burn bridges unnecessarily. Political scientists have long memories, and some faculty members are deeply offended when students go somewhere else. I have heard a horror story of a student at Department X that wanted to transfer due to faculty attrition. S/he went to ask one of the remaining faculty members in Department X for a letter of recommendation. This faculty member had research interests that overlapped with the student, but not perfectly. The faculty member launched a twenty minute tirade on the student that resulted in some weeping and complaints to the DGS. While s/he did end up transferring successfully, his/her last year in Department X was a nightmare. The faculty members at Department X will not forget it, and neither will his/her colleagues when they get jobs elsewhere. The business is small enough that such vitriol can have real consequences on your job prospects.

I was a bit luckier, but even then it was a negative experience overall. I am very happy where I landed, but the move was not without costs. I think about my old department every single day, even though I went to a program that I love very much.

What's more, many departments will not seriously consider you for transfer unless you can come up with a compelling reason to leave---the most notable ones are faculty attrition or some kind of family concern. Few places want grad students that transfer just because they don't like a place, and few professors want to be known as "poachers."

I realize that this was not the original question, but I thought it might be a good idea to chime in.

[expatbayern]

There's lots of good advice here--I agree with the schools applying12010 has mentioned (these are mostly the schools I ended up choosing between) and believe that it's worth applying broadly among them, and that you seem like a good candidate to get into at least some of them.

I'm at Rochester doing formal IPE/IO, and would be willing to answer any more specific questions about any of these schools if one of you wants to PM me.

[RWBG]

That was definitely my concern when considering the possibility of transferring. I think a terminal masters is much more safe; no one gets offended, and it puts you in a better position when applying for Ph.D programs.

[kaykaykay]

Well financial issues aside, here are some things that people do not really advertise about permanent masters courses. In most cases MA students are considered second class citizens. You will have hard time finding guidance and help. (PhDs are ther real deal). You have to rebuild all of your professional relationships very fast and then lose them. You will have to stress about your grades while PhD students may have less to do, but for you one bad grade can mean losing everything. You have to go through one more application cycle and there are no guarantees that you will do better.

I think you should really think about applyig widely and if MA is really your best option chosing that but I am not sure how good this option is as a strategy.

[AuldReekie]

Well financial issues aside, here are some things that people do not really advertise about permanent masters courses. In most cases MA students are considered second class citizens. You will have hard time finding guidance and help. (PhDs are ther real deal). You have to rebuild all of your professional relationships very fast and then lose them. You will have to stress about your grades while PhD students may have less to do, but for you one bad grade can mean losing everything. You have to go through one more application cycle and there are no guarantees that you will do better.

I think you should really think about applyig widely and if MA is really your best option chosing that but I am not sure how good this option is as a strategy.

I'll be applying from abroad, hopefully they don't feel the same way about Undergraduate Masters which is what I'll have!