Research Experience - Think Tanks

[mv0027]

I plan to apply to PhD programs to start in 2013. I currently work as a research analyst at a very well-respected think-tank in DC.

Does that help my application significantly?

I'm hoping it does because I plan to apply to top schools, with pretty low stats.

[Zahar Berkut]

I'm sure it will help, but many schools "appear" to have cut-off scores for GRE and possibly GPA to help them go through applications quickly, so you should have some confidence that your numbers are in an acceptable margin for the top tier programs.

[mv0027]

I don't buy that schools have automatic cut-offs. Sure, some stats are unredeemable, but I think adcoms are intelligent enough to look at candidates holistically. Esp when they are older (I'll be 26 when I apply). Obviously, if you are straight out of undergrad there are cut off, but that's because they have nothing else to go off. My grad GPA was a 3.45 (at a school which is hard on grading), and I TAed two master-level quantatative methods courses (which many of the pol sci PhDs actually enroll in). If profs are not willing to think-out-side-the-box enough to consider these things...we should question whether we want to spend 5 to 6 years working with these "geniuses."

Regardless, I'll apply to one or two lower-ranked (like top 20-40) programs. I want to do research, but I'd be happy to end up working at a teaching-focused institution as well.

[Zahar Berkut]

I certainly hope you're right, but low scores can present a high barrier to be overcome. Have you talked to your undergrad advisers to get their thoughts on your competitiveness?

A friend, for instance, spoke to a top 10 grad program's admission office where she did her MA, and was told (according to her version of the story, mind you) not to bother applying without a certain level quant score (it was a formal-heavy school). I imagine it was phrased more like, "you would be far less competitive than most of the students we take."

As for thinking outside the box... a lot of students talk about the heavy professionalization component of grad programs, ostensibly designed to teach you the ropes of the discipline, but in effect constraining the range of topics that your peers would be interested in. That may be the bigger concern you face as consider the PhD.

[mv0027]

Never talked to my undergrad professors. Talked to a several of my grad professors. They all encouraged me to apply. I told them I didn't have a strong undergrad background but I never felt like they really understood the extent of it because they only knew me if via their courses and experiences. We didn't really talk about specifics though (what my gpa was, what school I wanted to go to, etc). The vibe I got was TAing the courses I was TAing would be my ticket in. The TA before me (though she had a very different background) ended up going to Yale and got into everywhere she applied.

I tend to disagree with the professionalization point, could be off on that though. My masters is actually in IR (the subfield I want to pursue along with methods) from a "professional" school. While that isn't viewed as favorable, I think they will appreciate some of the skills (namely, wicked stata programming skills) I picked up, as well as the field research methods stuff. At least at where I was (UCSD) the general vibe is that the field as a whole is moving in the applied direction. They don't want people that can write long narratives, but people that can crunch numbers and run regressions. That is just based on the vibe I got from one school though.

[Penelope Higgins]

In my experience think tank jobs help candidates most because they come out with letters from people that admissions committees will take seriously, and those letters talk about the research and writing skills that the candidates have acquired. Along with the quant skills and coursework you describe, and letters from folks at UCSD, you should have a strong application if your GRE scores are strong.

I don't want to steer the discussion away from the original topic of the thread, but I want to comment just on the issue of cut-offs. Let me give you a more or less real life example to explain why they DO exist. In my subfield alone at my previous place of employment, we got about 300 applications, and were allowed to choose six students to nominate for admission with a short waiting list. If I need to find the best six files out of 300, what is the easiest way to shorten the list to the 50 or 60 that will be read carefully? Easy: GRE scores. GPA is not usually used as a cut-off because the extent of grade inflation varies across schools, and because there are reasons to reward people for taking challenging coursework like advanced economics and math classes, in which grades tend to be lower. But if your GRE scores are not in the top 50 or so, admissions committee members are willing to bet that your overall file won't be in the top six. Remember that you're not dealing with professional admissions officers. Your file, along with boxes and boxes of other files, will be read by people who want to find the most efficient way to get things done so they can get back to their real jobs. That's the sad truth of the process.

[mv0027]

No worries on changing the topic. Nobody else is going to reply Happy to hear that though. Haven't taken the GRE yet, but I'm pretty confident I'll do well. I plan to take it as many times as needed to get at least a 780 on the quant part. If not, my narrative is debunked.