What are my chances?

[johnnehm]

I just received my GRE scores today and I have been thoroughly disappointed. They were Verbal: 164 (94%) Math: 150 (53%) and AW 4.5 (72)

The rest of my application is as such: I have a 10.35/13 GPA from a mid-range Canadian university, which is a B+ (10 is B+ and 11 is A-) in my undergrad. Additionally, I have an 11.33 GPA in my Master's from the same university. Both degrees are in Political Science.

I have research experience since first year that was at a Track II diplomacy project. Additionally, I have three conferences attended, two of which were grad conferences, one will be next week end, which is the Middle East Studies Association.

I was assured that my letters are strong (who's aren't).

My question is that I think I have a fairly.... mediocre, application, and with this is mind, what are my chances at some of these listed schools.

Schools:

Columbia

Brown

Georgetown

George Washington

University of Virginia

McGill

University of British Columbia

University of Wisconsin

Johns Hopkins

University of Penn

What are some of the schools that are so clearly out of my range? I suspect, columbia, Georgetown should be scrapped.

Thoughts?

[tt503]

I have a little lower GRE verbal than you (the math and AW are comparable) and I decided to put my applications off until next year to pull up my scores to have a decent chance at Columbia. Then again, you might have a great fit, so these things are hard to tell. I'd say go for it, but don't think you're an auto-admit. :-)

[johnnehm]

Anyone else have an idea? I keep looking at GRE averages at other schools and I am about where I need to be for verbal, and about 25% below (at least) for math.

[catchermiscount]

Subfield?

[johnnehm]

Ah yes, my subfield is IR.

[catchermiscount]

I am guessing from the schools you listed that you're interested in more traditional IR.

It would be smart to consider which master's programs would put you in the best position for PhD admissions moving forward. If you're interested in doing the traditional stuff, then there are some good options (Georgetown's Center for Peace and Security Studies, Columbia SIPA, Chicago CIR, Hopkin SAIS).

If you're interested in mainstream political science, you can use the resources in many master's programs to beef up your application in terms of technique. While SIPA or CIR may seem like bastions of traditional stuff, their graduates are often able to move to academic PhD departments with success. At present, one of my colleagues at Rochester is a CIR grad, and two are SIPA grads. I have friends from CIR that are getting PhDs at Michigan and Princeton. And so on. Columbia and Chicago probably offer the most access to good mainstream folks---for example, if you're interested in theory, you can take a class with Ethan BdM over at Harris at Chicago, etc.

Your contingency plans come down to what kind of stuff you want to do. And if you intend to go mainstream, you'll probably want to retake the GRE to bump up the math score.

[AlphabetSoup]

The real concern is that some aspects of your application may raise red flags for an admissions committee (quant score, GPA). Sometimes I think it isn't about being "the best" (there are lots of applicants with great GRE scores, GPAs, experience etc.) it is about blending in with the pack while they filter and then standing out from that pack when they look for unique features of each applicant (i.e. after they have narrowed the field).

Retaking the GRE is a good idea, so is attending an MA program (although it seems as though you already have). Maybe you could consider taking a year off and working in research to improve your standout skills in that area before taking the GRE again and re-applying.

That being said, applications can be such a crapshoot, why not apply and see what feedback you can get!

[CooCooCachoo]

Your choice for Oxford is completely nonsensical if you want to specialize in comparative political economy. You will be at the wrong department entirely. The department is also not known for its theoretical or methodological rigour. It also has no focus whatsoever on the USSR. This doesn't mean the MPhil isn't good - most people that I know in the MPhil are quite pleased with it - but it strikes me as out of tune with the rest of the programmes you listed. If you want a thorough grounding in methodology, applying for the MPhil in Comparative Government at the DPIR is a much more logical move. I can't tell you much about LSE or Cambridge, but I suspect that the same holds true there. Cambridge, in any case, is not held in high regard when it comes to Development Studies.

Other than that, your stats are difficult to perfect, but I presume you know this already.

[balderdash]

Cambridge, in any case, is not held in high regard when it comes to Development Studies.

Factually incorrect.

[CooCooCachoo]

Factually incorrect.

Just relaying what I have been told by friends in the Oxford course. I assume(d) they would know. But I have very limited knowledge of the field, so I'm answering based on hearsay.

Edited December 9, 2011 by Martijn

[balderdash]

Just relaying what I have been told by friends in the Oxford course. I assume(d) they would know. But I have very limited knowledge of the field, so I'm answering based on hearsay.

It's a lot to do with the Oxford-Cambridge rivalry. As a Tab, of course I'm biased, but I do have many friends at both institutions. Cambridge's program is much bigger (70 MPhil students as opposed to 15 at Oxford) but also much more diverse, with greater provision for historical, sociological, institutional, and political specializations (as opposed to economic, legal, or aid-based work that sort of dominates the Ox program).

Now, if we are talking Politics more widely, and Social Sciences at its broadest, then you're spot-on in that both are generally thought of as Oxford's specialization, as opposed to STEM work at Cambridge. But even then, it is wrong to say that either is "not held in high regard" in its "weak" area. Both are extremely well regarded the world over, irrespective of academic specialization, and it's only within the cozy Oxbridge College Common Rooms that such distinctions are debated.

I worked for DFID for a while. Of the 20 or so people in my department, there were 4 Cantabs and 0 Oxons. Anecdotal to be sure, but from what I heard, it wasn't out of the ordinary.

[saltlakecity2012]

I am actually applying to both MPhil programs at Oxford - dev studies and comparative gov't. I have a friend who just came through the dev studies program at Oxford and loved it - that's part of the reason I'm interested. But thanks for the feedback - I've heard the same thing about the Cambridge dev studies program, but I know people in various departments there with whom I would love to work. So I'm applying - if ultimately I have the luxury of choice, I will come back to the thread!

[saltlakecity2012]

balderdash - what's your feel on what is most highly prioritized in writing samples? i'm curious as to what in a writing sample can get one tossed in the reject pile.

[CooCooCachoo]

I am actually applying to both MPhil programs at Oxford - dev studies and comparative gov't. I have a friend who just came through the dev studies program at Oxford and loved it - that's part of the reason I'm interested. But thanks for the feedback - I've heard the same thing about the Cambridge dev studies program, but I know people in various departments there with whom I would love to work. So I'm applying - if ultimately I have the luxury of choice, I will come back to the thread!

FYI while people at QEH are overall very happy with their course and department, people at the DPIR are generally dissatisfied. You should only seriously consider the Comp Gov. MPhil if you have a background in the field and are mainly interested in methodology, because not much time will be allocated to substantive work on comparative politics.

[saltlakecity2012]

Your choice for Oxford is completely nonsensical if you want to specialize in comparative political economy. You will be at the wrong department entirely. The department is also not known for its theoretical or methodological rigour. It also has no focus whatsoever on the USSR. This doesn't mean the MPhil isn't good - most people that I know in the MPhil are quite pleased with it - but it strikes me as out of tune with the rest of the programmes you listed. If you want a thorough grounding in methodology, applying for the MPhil in Comparative Government at the DPIR is a much more logical move. I can't tell you much about LSE or Cambridge, but I suspect that the same holds true there. Cambridge, in any case, is not held in high regard when it comes to Development Studies.

Other than that, your stats are difficult to perfect, but I presume you know this already.

Another thing about Oxford is the Institute for Energy Studies - there's a whole mess of post-Soviet expertise right there even though it's from a very different perspective. Thank you for the info on the MPhil - that's good to know.

[balderdash]

FYI while people at QEH are overall very happy with their course and department, people at the DPIR are generally dissatisfied. You should only seriously consider the Comp Gov. MPhil if you have a background in the field and are mainly interested in methodology, because not much time will be allocated to substantive work on comparative politics.

I can back this up too. I know someone who left a comparative politics program after the first year because it was so methods-based.

[Zahar Berkut]

Tergellian, I'd be hard pressed to find somebody more competitive than you based on those stats. If you're worried about the GPA, don't worry-- it's good in its own right, and if you're comparing yourself to a 3.9 overall, you've compensated as much as any human being could hope to.

The SIPA and SAIS programs feel out of place if your goal is academia. With the UK programs it's at least understood that an MPhil is a stepping stone, but it's harder to say just how much you'd benefit from doing this if you intend to follow up with a PhD program. You could always replace them with other PhD programs. I also don't understand the choice of Brown, but maybe I haven't looked into their political economy faculty too closely.

Finally, it actually sounds like we have very similar interests. If you don't mind, please do PM me about your work experience in the FSU-- I'm looking to make that transition myself this coming year.

[saltlakecity2012]

Thanks for the tip on the Comp Gov MPhil - I'll probably scrap that application, then. As far as SIPA and SAIS, for various reasons it would be extremely difficult to postpone starting grad school until 2013, so I'm applying there in the hopes that if I don't get into any PhD programs I can cobble together some fellowships, do the MA or MIA, and get into a PhD program the following year. Who knows, though... such a crapshoot.