Pol Sci 2024-25 / Waitlisted Candidates

[A Dalek]

5 minutes ago, Omkar Poojari said:

Thanks for the insight. Is it fair to assume that even among the few school that might use a waitlist- the chances of a school that has not over admitted is more likely to go to the waitlist?

It's hard to say. What I can say is that there tends to be a lot of movement the last week, as people confirm/turn down programs and a few last spots open up. So there is some chance for those of you hoping for a last minute admit... But if you already have another OK admit, I think I'd recommend accepting it unless it's a big difference in ranking.

[PolPsychGal11]

11 minutes ago, Omkar Poojari said:

Thanks for the insight. Is it fair to assume that even among the few school that might use a waitlist- the chances of a school that has not over admitted is more likely to go to the waitlist?

Omkar - I understand that you're anxious about waitlist and hoping that things work out, but (1) this is the most uncertain period we've seen in decades, and no one knows what is going to happen. As people have mentioned on other threads, offers are being rescinded, funding is uncertain, and it is an all around shit show. Trying to read the tea leaves is never a useful exercise, but it's especially perilous right now. (2) No. Waitlists are going to be incredibly rare this year. As many people have explained before, programs are going to err on the side of much smaller cohorts, because of the funding uncertainty. Almost every school over admits -- some by handfuls, some by just a few. Even schools that somehow exactly calculated their yield correctly (such that all admits accept, and that was the cohort size they wanted) are not going to go to the waitlist. 

If you have an offer that you are excited about, I think it's worth accepting it. If you have no acceptances and are waitlisted, I'm sorry to say that things are unlikely to get better this year. It's not worth spending the time and effort trying to predict what programs are going to do, especially since it sounds like you're unfamiliar with how university funding works (which is ok! no one expects you to be an expert in this!); asking the same question again and again isn't going to change the outcome of admissions this year -- it's just clogging up the threads and risks spreading inaccurate information. 

[Omkar Poojari]

1 hour ago, A Dalek said:

It's hard to say. What I can say is that there tends to be a lot of movement the last week, as people confirm/turn down programs and a few last spots open up. So there is some chance for those of you hoping for a last minute admit... But if you already have another OK admit, I think I'd recommend accepting it unless it's a big difference in ranking.

Thank you very much for this, Prof. I do not have another offer currently - so that is the reason why I am looking forward to something happening. Having said that I understand it is beyond control at this stage and only waiting till the last week- as you suggested could make things clear. Thanks for sharing your perspective!

[Omkar Poojari]

1 hour ago, PolPsychGal11 said:

Omkar - I understand that you're anxious about waitlist and hoping that things work out, but (1) this is the most uncertain period we've seen in decades, and no one knows what is going to happen. As people have mentioned on other threads, offers are being rescinded, funding is uncertain, and it is an all around shit show. Trying to read the tea leaves is never a useful exercise, but it's especially perilous right now. (2) No. Waitlists are going to be incredibly rare this year. As many people have explained before, programs are going to err on the side of much smaller cohorts, because of the funding uncertainty. Almost every school over admits -- some by handfuls, some by just a few. Even schools that somehow exactly calculated their yield correctly (such that all admits accept, and that was the cohort size they wanted) are not going to go to the waitlist. 

If you have an offer that you are excited about, I think it's worth accepting it. If you have no acceptances and are waitlisted, I'm sorry to say that things are unlikely to get better this year. It's not worth spending the time and effort trying to predict what programs are going to do, especially since it sounds like you're unfamiliar with how university funding works (which is ok! no one expects you to be an expert in this!); asking the same question again and again isn't going to change the outcome of admissions this year -- it's just clogging up the threads and risks spreading inaccurate information. 

Hi Prof,

 

Many thanks for this extremely detailed advice. I understand that this is a period uncertainty and waitlists are unlikely to move at most places this cycle. I don't have other offers- hence I've been more on the edge. But you are right- it is futile to think too much about this given it is beyond one's control at this point. I appreciate you taking time to write this. 

 

I had one question- more so out of curiosity. I understand that I might have got it wrong about thinking how funding works- but is it fair to say that social sciences and political sciences have been a little more unlucky. To my understanding federal funds and grants are predominantly for STEM. Now, that much of it has gone, universities are adjusting for the lost revenue by also cutting cohorts and budgets of soc science programs. I don't wish to make this a "us v them" narrative- but I've been thinking about this. I would be happy to be corrected if I am flawed in my assumptions here. Thank you.

[PolPsychGal11]

Just now, Omkar Poojari said:

I had one question- more so out of curiosity. I understand that I might have got it wrong about thinking how funding works- but is it fair to say that social sciences and political sciences have been a little more unlucky. To my understanding federal funds and grants are predominantly for STEM. Now, that much of it has gone, universities are adjusting for the lost revenue by also cutting cohorts and budgets of soc science programs. I don't wish to make this a "us v them" narrative- but I've been thinking about this. I would be happy to be corrected if I am flawed in my assumptions here. Thank you.

There are some NSF grants that support political science, and grants from other US government departments, like DoD (Minerva). But indirect costs -- which can be as much as 60% of the grant -- support research across the university. Some of that gets directed back to the PI that got the grant. But most of it is taken by the university to support the grants office. It's kind of like taxes: in the US, wealthy states basically subsidize the poorer states (California sends money to Wyoming, essentially). Same principle, though of course a bit more complicated. As funding dries up all over, the ENTIRE university enterprise has to cut back. It's not just grad admissions. We have hiring freezes, some universities are talking about trying to cut pay/benefits, and some are talking about layoffs. 

It's really not an us vs them at all, and I'd encourage to abandon that line of thought. Social sciences and STEM are getting screwed by Trump. Research grants brought in are one of the major sources of revenue for universities, which means that STEM grants support social science, and vice versa. But at the end of the day, most social science programs don't need expensive labs or equipment, so we're actually a bit better positioned to get through the coming shit storm. All we need is a laptop and occasionally a bit of funding for fieldwork. We don't need to buy genetically modified mice, or expensive equipment, or chemicals. 

So again: it's not us vs them. It has rarely been that way. And it's not helpful to go around thinking that or spreading it. Try to separate your disappointment at not getting an offer this cycle from making sweeping generalizations or trying to find correlations or other "insights" into the admissions process. 

[Omkar Poojari]

11 minutes ago, PolPsychGal11 said:

There are some NSF grants that support political science, and grants from other US government departments, like DoD (Minerva). But indirect costs -- which can be as much as 60% of the grant -- support research across the university. Some of that gets directed back to the PI that got the grant. But most of it is taken by the university to support the grants office. It's kind of like taxes: in the US, wealthy states basically subsidize the poorer states (California sends money to Wyoming, essentially). Same principle, though of course a bit more complicated. As funding dries up all over, the ENTIRE university enterprise has to cut back. It's not just grad admissions. We have hiring freezes, some universities are talking about trying to cut pay/benefits, and some are talking about layoffs. 

It's really not an us vs them at all, and I'd encourage to abandon that line of thought. Social sciences and STEM are getting screwed by Trump. Research grants brought in are one of the major sources of revenue for universities, which means that STEM grants support social science, and vice versa. But at the end of the day, most social science programs don't need expensive labs or equipment, so we're actually a bit better positioned to get through the coming shit storm. All we need is a laptop and occasionally a bit of funding for fieldwork. We don't need to buy genetically modified mice, or expensive equipment, or chemicals. 

So again: it's not us vs them. It has rarely been that way. And it's not helpful to go around thinking that or spreading it. Try to separate your disappointment at not getting an offer this cycle from making sweeping generalizations or trying to find correlations or other "insights" into the admissions process. 

This clarifies a lot of doubts and puts things into perspective. Thanks for the detailed explanation!

[smoothoperator77]

4 hours ago, PolPsychGal11 said:

Omkar - I understand that you're anxious about waitlist and hoping that things work out, but (1) this is the most uncertain period we've seen in decades, and no one knows what is going to happen. As people have mentioned on other threads, offers are being rescinded, funding is uncertain, and it is an all around shit show. Trying to read the tea leaves is never a useful exercise, but it's especially perilous right now. (2) No. Waitlists are going to be incredibly rare this year. As many people have explained before, programs are going to err on the side of much smaller cohorts, because of the funding uncertainty. Almost every school over admits -- some by handfuls, some by just a few. Even schools that somehow exactly calculated their yield correctly (such that all admits accept, and that was the cohort size they wanted) are not going to go to the waitlist. 

If you have an offer that you are excited about, I think it's worth accepting it. If you have no acceptances and are waitlisted, I'm sorry to say that things are unlikely to get better this year. It's not worth spending the time and effort trying to predict what programs are going to do, especially since it sounds like you're unfamiliar with how university funding works (which is ok! no one expects you to be an expert in this!); asking the same question again and again isn't going to change the outcome of admissions this year -- it's just clogging up the threads and risks spreading inaccurate information. 

With all due respect, I don't think Omkar is clogging up the threads and spreading inaccurate information. I wish people could understand students in this situation with more compassion. Some of us really want to do this, and this is not even a job that meets the minimum wage, which tells how much we want this, and things are pretty desperate for many. Being in the seat of an insider is not a good reason to discourage the right of an outsider to have concerns and ask questions.