2023-2024 Application Thread

[Anonymous8_8]

6 minutes ago, llmoula said:

seconding that. It came out when I woke up today at 8AM EST (7AM CST) which makes me a little suspicious. my status on the portal hasn't been updated yet, fwiw. maybe it's a troll

I do wonder what will be the unconventional top 3 universities in Asia lol 

[ugh08]

6 minutes ago, llmoula said:

seconding that. It came out when I woke up today at 8AM EST (7AM CST) which makes me a little suspicious. my status on the portal hasn't been updated yet, fwiw. maybe it's a troll

There's been so many weird ones lately. This random one from UChicago and then also just one person getting into Ohio State yesterday. I don't know what is going on 😂

[fizzan]

some of them might be legit, but I'm always sus when it's just one result as they usually come in batches

[WWCand]

54 minutes ago, Anonymous8_8 said:

I do wonder what will be the unconventional top 3 universities in Asia lol 

I’m a little suspicious as well. Top 2 university in the UK should mean Oxbridge. If so, neither have a Master’s in Political Science.  Cambs has an MPhil in Politics and IR while Oxford offers and MPhil in Politics (Comparative Government).  I understand this is close but most Oxbridge grads I have met are quite specific about an MPhil/MSc and their specific degree title. 

[fizzan]

15 minutes ago, WWCand said:

I’m a little suspicious as well. Top 2 university in the UK should mean Oxbridge. If so, neither have a Master’s in Political Science.  Cambs has an MPhil in Politics and IR while Oxford offers and MPhil in Politics (Comparative Government).  I understand this is close but most Oxbridge grads I have met are quite specific about an MPhil/MSc and their specific degree title. 

It could also be st andrews/kings/LSE etc which are generally regarded as top IR schools in the UK and do have masters programmes

[lawpowpow]

19 minutes ago, WWCand said:

I’m a little suspicious as well. Top 2 university in the UK should mean Oxbridge. If so, neither have a Master’s in Political Science.  Cambs has an MPhil in Politics and IR while Oxford offers and MPhil in Politics (Comparative Government).  I understand this is close but most Oxbridge grads I have met are quite specific about an MPhil/MSc and their specific degree title. 

Maybe he/she clicked U Chicago instead of UIC when uploading results

Edited January 26 by lawpowpow

[london_boy]

13 minutes ago, WWCand said:

I’m a little suspicious as well. Top 2 university in the UK should mean Oxbridge. If so, neither have a Master’s in Political Science.  Cambs has an MPhil in Politics and IR while Oxford offers and MPhil in Politics (Comparative Government).  I understand this is close but most Oxbridge grads I have met are quite specific about an MPhil/MSc and their specific degree title. 

I also think it's a fake tbh cause they often come in batches. But I'm wondering if it's top 2 in political science, which in this sense Cambridge is certainly nowhere near the top 5 even. 

[fizzan]

2 minutes ago, lawpowpow said:

Maybe it's UIC not U Chicago 

ooooh that's a good shout, there was another UIC acceptance!

 

2 minutes ago, london_boy said:

I also think it's a fake tbh cause they often come in batches. But I'm wondering if it's top 2 in political science, which in this sense Cambridge is certainly nowhere near the top 5 even. 

Second this, I think it's fake if it's supposed to be UChicago, but top two in the uk for politics/IR doesn't usually mean oxbridge

[Anonymous8_8]

1 minute ago, fizzan said:

ooooh that's a good shout, there was another UIC acceptance!

 

Second this, I think it's fake if it's supposed to be UChicago, but top two in the uk for politics/IR doesn't usually mean oxbridge

Exactly my point; even Oxbridge is not unconventional top 2 how can one school say that it should be top 3 in Asia lol-

Although I do believe that the UIC analysis is very convincing, probably just a typo situation

[fizzan]

and there's another UIC acceptance! likely that.

[Samzz]

Anyone had interviews? I have one coming for Georgetown. Any advice? Thank you!!

[WWCand]

Haha. Honestly, if it is a troll then they won since we are discussing it here. 

[fizzan]

2 minutes ago, Samzz said:

Anyone had interviews? I have one coming for Georgetown. Any advice? Thank you!!

I interviewed for Wisconsin, they mainly asked about

- Past research experience

- Why that programme in particular

- Why a phd

- What challenges do you anticipate with a phd programme

- What experiences have prepared you for the programme

- What is your aim post phd 

 

I didn't actually get asked much about research interests, but I'd prep for that one too!

[Anonymous8_8]

27 minutes ago, Samzz said:

Anyone had interviews? I have one coming for Georgetown. Any advice? Thank you!!

I had one recently and I bombed it bc I forgot some model setup from my writing sample on the spot; I got questioned for ~30 mins about it and didn’t really deliver a good answer by the end. I think many people out there would say that faculties don’t read ur writing sample carefully and you should mostly be prepared to pitch ur identity and SOP quickly, I would caution against that. 

Edited January 26 by Anonymous8_8

[PolPsychGal11]

7 hours ago, Maverickz said:

What's your honest opinion about Carbondale, there is full funding for students but nothing like graduate placements page on the departmental website.

I would not attend that program. Very small faculty, and programs that don't fund all of their graduate students are programs that don't have a business having a PhD program. Either fund all of the PhD students or don't have a program. Otherwise it sets up a caste system of the haves and have-nots, and can lead to a really crappy competitive environment. 

They also are not a full-service department, which means that PhD students coming out of that program will not be broadly trained in the subfields, and will have a hard time making the case that they can teach -- thoroughly -- the classes that most universities will want them to teach. The benefit of US PhD programs is that you spend the first few years taking classes and get broad exposure to ideas and core research in the subfield, especially those ideas that are not going to be directly included in their dissertation. But when a department has a limited number of faculty, and in very niche areas, they can't really do the broad teaching that we expect US PhD graduates to have.

It is also quite concerning that they don't list their recent placements. Google "Harvard PhD political science placement" and you'll see what you should expect from every PhD program. Places that don't have this usually have poor placement records. 

If you want to stay in academia, I would not go to Carbondale. You really need to go to a top school, and barring that, a school that is a full service political science program and guarantees funding to every student. But even then, it's a risk to go to a place like Carbondale (or Buffalo). That's my honest opinion. There are a lot of schools that get mentioned on this sub each year that I think do a wild disservice by continuing to admit PhD students, and I always hesitate whether or not to warn students. So I hope this doesn't come off as too harsh or mean, but I do think that students -- especially those coming from outside of the US -- need to have a stronger understanding of the problems with mediocre PhD programs.

[ugh08]

4 minutes ago, PolPsychGal11 said:

I would not attend that program. Very small faculty, and programs that don't fund all of their graduate students are programs that don't have a business having a PhD program. Either fund all of the PhD students or don't have a program. Otherwise it sets up a caste system of the haves and have-nots, and can lead to a really crappy competitive environment. 

They also are not a full-service department, which means that PhD students coming out of that program will not be broadly trained in the subfields, and will have a hard time making the case that they can teach -- thoroughly -- the classes that most universities will want them to teach. The benefit of US PhD programs is that you spend the first few years taking classes and get broad exposure to ideas and core research in the subfield, especially those ideas that are not going to be directly included in their dissertation. But when a department has a limited number of faculty, and in very niche areas, they can't really do the broad teaching that we expect US PhD graduates to have.

It is also quite concerning that they don't list their recent placements. Google "Harvard PhD political science placement" and you'll see what you should expect from every PhD program. Places that don't have this usually have poor placement records. 

If you want to stay in academia, I would not go to Carbondale. You really need to go to a top school, and barring that, a school that is a full service political science program and guarantees funding to every student. But even then, it's a risk to go to a place like Carbondale (or Buffalo). That's my honest opinion. There are a lot of schools that get mentioned on this sub each year that I think do a wild disservice by continuing to admit PhD students, and I always hesitate whether or not to warn students. So I hope this doesn't come off as too harsh or mean, but I do think that students -- especially those coming from outside of the US -- need to have a stronger understanding of the problems with mediocre PhD programs.

It is important to know your career expectations. There are limited spots in R1, but it is very very very rare to get a job in R1 or R2 if you're getting your PhD at an R2. But if your career goals aren't centered completely around working in R1 academia, then schools like Carbondale may be a good fit. They do fund all their students, and primarily place at teaching colleges and government positions like I said in my post above. You just need to be realistic about your expectations. SIU Carbondale is not a cash grab like some schools, but it isn't going to get you an amazing job at a top research university.

Edited January 26 by ugh08

[fizzan]

4 minutes ago, PolPsychGal11 said:

I would not attend that program. Very small faculty, and programs that don't fund all of their graduate students are programs that don't have a business having a PhD program. Either fund all of the PhD students or don't have a program. Otherwise it sets up a caste system of the haves and have-nots, and can lead to a really crappy competitive environment. 

They also are not a full-service department, which means that PhD students coming out of that program will not be broadly trained in the subfields, and will have a hard time making the case that they can teach -- thoroughly -- the classes that most universities will want them to teach. The benefit of US PhD programs is that you spend the first few years taking classes and get broad exposure to ideas and core research in the subfield, especially those ideas that are not going to be directly included in their dissertation. But when a department has a limited number of faculty, and in very niche areas, they can't really do the broad teaching that we expect US PhD graduates to have.

It is also quite concerning that they don't list their recent placements. Google "Harvard PhD political science placement" and you'll see what you should expect from every PhD program. Places that don't have this usually have poor placement records. 

If you want to stay in academia, I would not go to Carbondale. You really need to go to a top school, and barring that, a school that is a full service political science program and guarantees funding to every student. But even then, it's a risk to go to a place like Carbondale (or Buffalo). That's my honest opinion. There are a lot of schools that get mentioned on this sub each year that I think do a wild disservice by continuing to admit PhD students, and I always hesitate whether or not to warn students. So I hope this doesn't come off as too harsh or mean, but I do think that students -- especially those coming from outside of the US -- need to have a stronger understanding of the problems with mediocre PhD programs.

That's a really great response and very much chimes with what I've been told by my professors/recommenders in the past. Duck of Minerva has a really good post about this and strongly warns against going to programmes that aren't fully funded for all students 

[PolPsychGal11]

7 minutes ago, ugh08 said:

It is important to know your career expectations. There are limited spots in R1, but it is very very very rare to get a job in R1 or R2 if you're getting your PhD at an R2. But if your career goals aren't centered completely around working in R1 academia, then schools like Carbondale may be a good fit. They do fund all their students, and primarily place at teaching colleges and government positions like I said in my post above. You just need to be realistic about your expectations. SIU Carbondale is not a cash grab like some schools, but it isn't going to get you an amazing job at a top research university.

Yes and no. Teaching-focused schools need people who can teach across the curriculum, which means they need the broad training. Carbondale doesn't really offer that, and because of the overproduction of PhDs, and the people making lateral moves, we are increasingly seeing R2, SLAC, directional, and teaching-focused jobs being taken by people at top programs. 

If a person is not interested in academia at all, then Carbondale is fine. But I'd encourage folks who are even considering academia not to get their PhD at an R2 or a low-ranked R1. Resources, networks, reputation, and the quality of your research all matter. Yes, there are unicorns that come out of low-ranked/R2 programs, but it is not very common. Academia is already a tough gig, and you have to move to where the jobs are. There's no reason to give yourself any more of an uphill battle by attending a meh program. 

[ugh08]

7 minutes ago, fizzan said:

That's a really great response and very much chimes with what I've been told by my professors/recommenders in the past. Duck of Minerva has a really good post about this and strongly warns against going to programmes that aren't fully funded for all students 

I have a friend who is a PhD student at SIUC and they are completely funded for PhD students. They do not accept students who they can't completely fund. Masters students are not guaranteed funding, but that is not unusual. But yes, the faculty is small and highly specialized which can be a downside. I would not classify SIUC as a sketchy program where you won't get a job. They are an R2 that offers the typical career prospects of an R2 program.

[fizzan]

17 minutes ago, PolPsychGal11 said:

Yes and no. Teaching-focused schools need people who can teach across the curriculum, which means they need the broad training. Carbondale doesn't really offer that, and because of the overproduction of PhDs, and the people making lateral moves, we are increasingly seeing R2, SLAC, directional, and teaching-focused jobs being taken by people at top programs. 

If a person is not interested in academia at all, then Carbondale is fine. But I'd encourage folks who are even considering academia not to get their PhD at an R2 or a low-ranked R1. Resources, networks, reputation, and the quality of your research all matter. Yes, there are unicorns that come out of low-ranked/R2 programs, but it is not very common. Academia is already a tough gig, and you have to move to where the jobs are. There's no reason to give yourself any more of an uphill battle by attending a meh program. 

Thanks for this perspective! This is the kind of thing I kept in mind when finalising my list of applications so this is is good to hear. 

Edited January 26 by fizzan

[Polisci882]

Out of curiosity, where did you all apply to? 

[fizzan]

Michigan, UNC, Wisconsin, Vanderbilt, Northwestern, UIUC, Rice, Pitt, Rutgers, BU. 

Mix of rankings and I didn't take the GRE for various reasons.

[Greg_app]

Is anyone here claiming Northwestern??? Someone just posted an acceptance on the admissions page. 

[RegimeObserver]

LMAO, wtf with the Northwestern acceptance on the results page. 😭💀

[fizzan]

Feels a very early, and only one. Let's try not to lose our heads about it just yet haha!