Advice for Next Year

[GopherGrad]

I'm thinking I'm going to get wiped out this application season and I have an inkling why:

My BA grades are far below average (~3.5) and I've taken relatively few direct political science classes. My JD grades look terrible (2.9), but they are good on my school's curve, which was very competitive. Observing conversation around this place, it's pretty clear that I'm not as knowledgeable about research in my field as I could be.* None of my letter writers were political scientists.

I plan to ask around after the admissions season dies off, but assuming I've properly diagnosed my weakness, I see two options.

First, I could re-register at my alma mater and complete a political science BA. I could probably do that in a year (20-24 credits) and could bump my GPA almost .1.

Second, I have also applied to one Master's program that specializes in prepping future Ph.D. candidates.

Assuming I am admitted to the Master's program, which should I do? Completing the BA would be faster, cheaper and wouldn't require me to move. Time to get new letters is short and the bump to my GPA is minimal, but maybe that doesn't matter if my polisci/final two years GPA really jumps. Master's programs have inflated grades anyway...

Which is a better investment?

*In a move that would make SOG proud, I relied primarily on my JD and familiarity with the law review-type research in my field to fill in the gaps of my theatre background.

[Gradhorn]

GopherGrad, my thoughts are that you should go into a terminal master's program.

In my case I had a poor academic record many years ago, left school, came back later at another school and did very well. After that I picked up a master's at a third university. Proven performance at the graduate level can offset some concerns about a spotty undergraduate record.

That being said, I still haven't been accepted anywhere yet either, so you may want to wait and see how my applications turn out before you put much stock in my advice.

[newms]

I'm not in your field so take my advice with a grain of salt. Firstly, I do hope you're successful this year. But if you're not, I would go with the Master's option, since adcomms usually look for preparedness for PhD programs when they consider applicants and if the Master's program does what it says in prepping future PhD candidates then I think that would be the best route. That's not to say that completing your BA in Poli Sci wouldn't help you - I think it would, and would probably help you a lot too, but I think demonstrating 'success'. i.e research experience/potential, in a graduate school environment would give your application a bigger boost. Perhaps someone in your field could give their opinion as well.

[Aunuwyn]

Depends, where are you applying now? Its possible you can go to a top 30 program do the masters, and then transfer somewhere better. Of course, you might end up liking it at a top 30 program or decide the lost time of restarting at a newer school may not be worth it.

[Wesson]

I agree with the others that the Master's is probably your best bet. There are Master's programs that will give you funded offers. They are not at the level of Ph.D. funding packages, but they'll pay tuition and a small stipend. The faculty at those programs mostly received their Ph.D.s at the sorts of places you probably want to apply. They will be your new letter-writers. Also, you may be able to transfer two or three of your Master's courses to your Ph.D. program, meaning the time getting the Master's is not entirely lost. Lastly, getting a Master's is a relatively painless way to confirm that more graduate school is right for you.

[oasis]

First, its still early, and there's still hope. You might find that fate has something special in store for you soon.

Second, it's good that you're thinking of contingencies this early. Fortunately, you still have lots of time to prepare one: AFAIK terminal MA app deadlines are mostly in April, so you should know your app outcomes by then.

Between another BA and an MA, without more information on your background and preferences, it's hard to say for certain. It could have been your letters or your grades, or it could have been scores, pubs, SOP, fit... Another degree, whichever it is, may only impact the latter indirectly.

My two cents is that another BA after your JD is highly unconventional and may raise red flags.

Another, less costly option is to work in a traditional feeder job: think tanks, IGO/NGOs, polling, risk consulting. Preferably one related to your research agenda. I'm sure you're more than qualified for the typical entry-level research analyst position with a JD. It would pay, you'd have relevant work experience, and time to improve your profile. If you have some savings to live on, you could even trade off income for prestige and get something unpaid but otherwise awesome - like being a staffer on the hill or a UN intern. If you were willing to pay tuition for paper qualifications, you should also be willing to pay living expenses for resume padding.

[GopherGrad]

Thanks for all the advice so far. I'm impressed by how unanimous it is. I think it's intuitive that a Master's program will be better preparation; it sounds like you all think the difference generally justifies the added expense. I will look into other MA programs and get applications ready in case it's necessary. What programs might you suggest?

I tried for a bunch of internship-style entry level gigs out of law school and had very little response. I decided to pursue further education for that purpose. I only applied to really competitive schools because I already spent so much time and money on a JD; I think every program I applied to is top 30. I applied to a couple schools with marginal fit, but otherwise I'd be delighted to attend anywhere I applied all the way through.

[GopherGrad]

And, yeah, I know it's not over yet. It's like what oasis said; recognize the risks and think about contingencies.

[wannabee]

Definitely don't give up. I read over the acceptance boards from last year and there were several people who received a number of rejections over many weeks and then one or two acceptances near the very end. Remember --- it just takes one.

My own background is very different than yours but we have something in common. As an area studies major, I do not have political science references and I have "holes" in my background. I will be happy to accept an MA program if the doctorate doesn't work out. So we will both keep our fingers crossed.

[Penelope Higgins]

Of the two options you suggest, the MA is definitely the way to go. It serves two purposes: first it generates a record of strong performance in graduate coursework in political science. Second, it allows you to improve your recommendation letters by making them current and polisci relevant.

Look for an MA in a department that has faculty who are well-known enough in the discipline to write you letters that will be taken seriously, but favor places where MA students are given the time of day by faculty. Because they are often not funded, terminal MA admissions are much less competitive than PhD admissions.

I'm thinking I'm going to get wiped out this application season and I have an inkling why:

My BA grades are far below average (~3.5) and I've taken relatively few direct political science classes. My JD grades look terrible (2.9), but they are good on my school's curve, which was very competitive. Observing conversation around this place, it's pretty clear that I'm not as knowledgeable about research in my field as I could be.* None of my letter writers were political scientists.

I plan to ask around after the admissions season dies off, but assuming I've properly diagnosed my weakness, I see two options.

First, I could re-register at my alma mater and complete a political science BA. I could probably do that in a year (20-24 credits) and could bump my GPA almost .1.

Second, I have also applied to one Master's program that specializes in prepping future Ph.D. candidates.

Assuming I am admitted to the Master's program, which should I do? Completing the BA would be faster, cheaper and wouldn't require me to move. Time to get new letters is short and the bump to my GPA is minimal, but maybe that doesn't matter if my polisci/final two years GPA really jumps. Master's programs have inflated grades anyway...

Which is a better investment?

*In a move that would make SOG proud, I relied primarily on my JD and familiarity with the law review-type research in my field to fill in the gaps of my theatre background.

[Croasyjr]

Thanks for all the advice so far. I'm impressed by how unanimous it is. I think it's intuitive that a Master's program will be better preparation; it sounds like you all think the difference generally justifies the added expense. I will look into other MA programs and get applications ready in case it's necessary. What programs might you suggest?

I tried for a bunch of internship-style entry level gigs out of law school and had very little response. I decided to pursue further education for that purpose. I only applied to really competitive schools because I already spent so much time and money on a JD; I think every program I applied to is top 30. I applied to a couple schools with marginal fit, but otherwise I'd be delighted to attend anywhere I applied all the way through.

I would also be interested to hear of master's programs that are considered good options -- a program with well known faculty who won't ignore masters students seems like too much to ask, almost. Suggestions? I've already applied to Columbia's one-year masters program, hesitantly.

[Gradhorn]

It's not unheard of to get funding for a terminal master's. I was funded, although not extravagantly. Look at schools where they do not offer a PhD. Schools with a doctoral track have little interest in funding MA's but those without a doctoral program will often fund their MA students because the professors still want or need TA's and RA's. Plus, when you do get into a PhD program later you might get lucky and some of those credits might transfer.

[Penelope Higgins]

I know people who have used MAs from the following departments as a springboard to top PhD programs: Chicago, Yale International Studies, NYU, Georgetown, and Columbia. I am sure that there are others, but these are ones that come to mind as good options. Another possibility, depending on your interests, is to do an MA in something interdisciplinary (area studies, development, etc.) since these tend to be in programs where you're not competing with PhD students.

I would also be interested to hear of master's programs that are considered good options -- a program with well known faculty who won't ignore masters students seems like too much to ask, almost. Suggestions? I've already applied to Columbia's one-year masters program, hesitantly.

[GopherGrad]

My one MA application is at Marquette, which has a great faculty for my interests. I think over the weekend I'll look at the deadlines for Chicago's CIR and Yale (I already applied Ph.D. at Columbia and Georgetown, and for some reason I'd rather not double-dip) and do some further research.

I like Marquette because they don't offer a Ph.D., even though funding seems sparse.

[oasis]

There's also MAPSS and QMSS, if you're so inclined.

[RWBG]

MAPSS deadline has passed. QMSS is not until April 1, though.

[camcgee97]

Another, less costly option is to work in a traditional feeder job: think tanks, IGO/NGOs, polling, risk consulting. Preferably one related to your research agenda. I'm sure you're more than qualified for the typical entry-level research analyst position with a JD. It would pay, you'd have relevant work experience, and time to improve your profile. If you have some savings to live on, you could even trade off income for prestige and get something unpaid but otherwise awesome - like being a staffer on the hill or a UN intern. If you were willing to pay tuition for paper qualifications, you should also be willing to pay living expenses for resume padding.

Just to clarify this comment, you can work on the Hill and be paid, especially if you have a JD and any kind of policy expertise. I've worked on the Hill for around three years, and while I did intern for around 6 months (paid), I was just a lowly BA at the time.

[Cicero]

My one MA application is at Marquette, which has a great faculty for my interests. I think over the weekend I'll look at the deadlines for Chicago's CIR and Yale (I already applied Ph.D. at Columbia and Georgetown, and for some reason I'd rather not double-dip) and do some further research.

I like Marquette because they don't offer a Ph.D., even though funding seems sparse.

Just FYI to save yourself the hassle and the $ of more applications, Georgetown and Chicago are known to make masters offers to PhD applicants that they didn't accept. So, if you already applied to those schools for PhD, save yourself the time and money!

Good luck! I hope you hear good news soon!

Edited February 7, 2011 by Cicero

[GopherGrad]

Cicero,

That's really helpful, thanks.

Just to clarify this comment, you can work on the Hill and be paid, especially if you have a JD and any kind of policy expertise. I've worked on the Hill for around three years, and while I did intern for around 6 months (paid), I was just a lowly BA at the time.

Cam and oasis,

I do think that's great advice and I will look more into think-tank and government service in the coming weeks. But part of the reason I'm pursuing a Ph.D. is that I applied for quite a few jobs like that and came up blank. I have several theories as to why that might be and they largely parallel the reasons I'm concerned about my Ph.D. applications: my grades are not impressive and I am not well networked. Your suggestions would alleviate those issues, but, as with Ph.D. applications, getting in is hindered by them.

[Zahar Berkut]

I am glad you brought regional studies up, Penelope-- when evaluating these degrees, how important is it to see a large number of polisci courses? Area studies are, of course, interdisciplinary, but one of my hopefuls seems to emphasize history and literature/culture as much as or more than political science. Would such a mix matter greatly?

I know people who have used MAs from the following departments as a springboard to top PhD programs: Chicago, Yale International Studies, NYU, Georgetown, and Columbia. I am sure that there are others, but these are ones that come to mind as good options. Another possibility, depending on your interests, is to do an MA in something interdisciplinary (area studies, development, etc.) since these tend to be in programs where you're not competing with PhD students.

[Penelope Higgins]

Sorry not to reply sooner - missed this post.

The answer is "it depends." It depends on the PhD program: some value area studies knowledge in their comparativists, some value methods and theoretical training. Here's how I would think about enrolling in one of these programs: does it give you the opportunity to work with some scholars who will be known quantities to political scientists, and will you get to work closely enough with them to get strong recommendation letters from them?

I did an area studies MA because my undergrad was quite weak. Of my 3 letters, only one was from a PhD in political science. That probably got me rejected from some departments, but it helped me get admitted to several others. A strong letter from a big name historian or sociologist or anthropologist who studies your region of interest will help your file at many departments, so long as you can explain in your statement why you want to study political science.

I am glad you brought regional studies up, Penelope-- when evaluating these degrees, how important is it to see a large number of polisci courses? Area studies are, of course, interdisciplinary, but one of my hopefuls seems to emphasize history and literature/culture as much as or more than political science. Would such a mix matter greatly?

[wannabee]

I can say from a personal perspective that I majored in an area studies undergrad and then decided that I wanted to adopt a disciplinary approach to the region because it seemed to really offer some focus. After I decided that my heart really lay in political science I applied to a bunch of poli sci Phd. and MA programs where there were people who specialized in my area. I had never really taken any poli sci courses in my area and had only taken one political science course total and none of my references came from political scientists. I did have a strong background in the language and culture of my area and had done some outside language programs where i studied in the region. I have been accepted to two very good programs and am waiting for more replies. Additionally, I applied to one are studies MA as a backup plan.

Hope this helps.

I am glad you brought regional studies up, Penelope-- when evaluating these degrees, how important is it to see a large number of polisci courses? Area studies are, of course, interdisciplinary, but one of my hopefuls seems to emphasize history and literature/culture as much as or more than political science. Would such a mix matter greatly?