Profile Evaluation - International Relations

[cowboy199797af]

Hi all,

I have applied for the top 20 Political Science PhD programs in the United States (IR subfield) and want to gain some feedback on how competitive you think my profile is for admission into these elite programs/schools.

• Masters GPA: 3.93 / 4.0 (from a top IR program at a research university in the USA)
• Undergrad GPA: 4.0 / 4.0 (from university in the UK)
• One publication (a book chapter in an edited volume from a top IR publishing house)
• Experience as a Research Assistant to a globally renowned IR scholar
• Experience as a Research Assistant for a foreign policy Think Tank in DC
• Letter of Recommendation from a globally renowned IR scholar (served as their RA and they were also my thesis advisor)
• Masters Thesis at the US university (with honors), with a very original theory on a policy relevant topic
• GRE scores: 151 quant; 155 verbal; 5.0 analytical
• European citizen (I mention this because I've heard that funding constrains impact international students)

I have submitted applications to Harvard, UC San Diego, UC Berkeley, Yale, Princeton, NYU, Columbia, Georgetown, UChicago, UMichigan, Cornell, UPenn

[Senochka]

I read your profile in awe till I got halfway through. Regardless of the point I am going to raise after this, your qualifications are solid. It is visible that you are serious about and committed to your subject, you already started to contribute to the field, you have a good network. But, there are two things that might and that WILL put you at serious disadvantage. The one that "might" be a disadvantage for you... is the originality of your research topic. Seriously. Schools will invest 5-7 years in material and immaterial resources into the admitted/matriculated students, and they are more inclined to take the safer bets for that. It sounds counterintuitive, but it is true. A sure, highly legible small contribution to the field fares way better than a high risk, high reward novelty project. Also, to be completely honest, professors generally deem students not ready for such innovations. The other side of the same coin; the professors are not ready to advise such innovations.If you want to propose an innovative/novel project, propose it to the 30-50 range. They are growing, and as they go, they are hiring new, younger faculty who can understand what you are trying to do better. Tenured professorships are lifelong appointments, and much like Supreme Court justices' lifelong appointments, this creates a huge clog and slow, very slow transformation capacity for many top 20 schools that tend to employ oldies but goldies. However, this would not have been a huge problem if your GRE scores were significantly better. Topical traditionalism aside, the professors at these schools are some of the smartest people in the field, they can adapt if you know the way by heart, and they will follow to assist you, because a good portion of these people are humble too. Your GRE scores, on the other hand, would be considered acceptable only in the 40-50 range, with no guarantees. It is true that the GRE is only a part of your otherwise shining profile, but it is not as unimportant as schools advertise. MIT and Columbia have quant cutoffs and anyone under the threshold gets a desk rejection. Even at some GRE optional schools, the lack of scores, or unusually low scores put you at serious risk. Despite this, I see that you have applied to a lot of test-requiring and quant-heavy programs. These people want proof of familiarity or proof of ability to conquer them in no time. Also, I don't know what your topic is, but it cannot be a good fit for all of the T20. These schools have vastly different faculty makeups. Yale is stronger in AP and CP, Berkeley offers more breadth but their IR people are more focused on civil war, crisis mediation, MIT has an undisputed edge in security and nuclear. Princeton Politics is more lenient towards projects with a theory core than its peers etc. So, in reality, only a handful of these are actually good fits for you. I understand the motivation and post-graduation considerations in applying to T20, but applying based on name and not fit is the wrong strategy. You need to have range, I have seen profiles way better than mine apply to Missouri, Cincinnati, Virginia Tech, North Dakota, because evem the best candidates receive 3-4 acceptances and 1-3 waitlists with no conversion AT MOST. This is a gamble and we should run the game with strategy, not desire or hope. I am saying none of these to demoralize you, we have similar profiles, and I have over 90th percentile in both verbal and aw, but my quant is lower, and my advisor told me, unless you pull it up above at least 75th, ideally 80th percentile, you will have no chance at T20, and he was right. I failed so much at this that I know when I see my past mistakes, but I am still unable to prevent my present ones like submitting a novelty project this year... Good luck to us both, and if you have to do another cycle, you can read the "Lessons Learned" thread, some good stuff there. All the best...

Edited February 12 by Senochka

[Brandon222]

Check DM.