Profiles and Results, SOPs, and Advice (Fall 2012)

[RWBG]

First off, a bit of an explanation of what I'm hoping for from this thread. In the past, I've found the SOP threads really helpful, but I think they would have been even more helpful if they were not devoid of context (i.e. what schools people were admitted to, what other factors may have contributed to their success, etc.). As such, I thought I would combine the SOP thread with the Profiles and Results thread this year. Moreover, I have some advice written up for next year's applicants, and I thought I would encourage others to contribute to the marketplace of ideas on this so that future applicants have a broad range of perspectives to draw upon when working on their applications. My hope is this thread will be an easily accessible and centralized resource to make this process a bit more manageable.

However, my admissions cycle isn't finished, so I don't yet feel comfortable posting my profile or my SOP! Nonetheless, given that some peoples' cycles are ending around now, I wanted to get this thread up and running before people started leaving. So here's my advice on writing SOPs, and I'll edit this post with my SOP and profile once my cycle's over. Also, I've included a helpful template from a previous year for your profile and results.

Also, here's the last thread with SOPs:

PROFILE:

Type of Undergrad Institution:

Major(s)/Minor(s):

Undergrad GPA:

Type of Grad:

Grad GPA:

GRE:

Any Special Courses:

Letters of Recommendation:

Research Experience:

Teaching Experience:

Subfield/Research Interests:

Other:

RESULTS:

Acceptances($$ or no $$):

Waitlists:

Rejections:

Pending:

Going to:

My Advice (primarily on writing an SOP):

1) The first time you finish a draft of your SOP that you think is great, it is probably awful. Seriously. If you don't have others look over your SOP and give candid comments, you will probably end up submitting something you think is way better than it is. Which leads into my next point...

2) Get people to read and give suggestions on your SOP. Moreover, when they give comments, take them seriously. Don't defensively discount them because it's not always easy to hear critiques of a short essay that is supposed to represent you as a researcher. On the other hand, don't accept comments unquestioningly; people have differing opinions on what makes a strong SOP, and you have to be careful to discount information that doesn't work with what you're writing. Several people have mentioned having Professors review your SOP; this is great, but Professors often don't have that much time to review several drafts line by line, and if they haven't served on an admissions committee lately, they can be a bit removed from the process. In my experience, current Ph.D students were probably way more helpful in their comments than the Professors who looked over my SOP. CoachRJC on this forum deserves particular mention for being very helpful over the past year in precisely this regard.

3) Choose reference letters strategically. This is not so simple as building relationships with the most senior professors possible (although starting these relationships early is a really good idea); you should also consider how each letter-writer fits into your overall application. I'm interested in studying mathematically rigorous approaches to international trade, so my letter writers included a political scientist who has done some political methodology work, a formal theorist from the econ department, and a law and economics scholar specializing in trade law. I figured the different letters could speak to different parts of my application; the political science background, ability to work with complex models, and understanding of the trade substance respectively. These considerations are (in my mind) as important as whether the scholars are senior; two of my letter-writers are Assistant Profs.

4) Work on all aspects of your application, and mention everything that could be helpful. The first time I applied, I didn't even mention that I had any experience with statistical programming. The second time, I had a well-formatted (+1 to LaTeX) C.V. documenting everything I had done which I thought might be relevant.

5) Choose a writing sample that shows your ability to think more than your knowledge of the literature. Last time, I chose a writing sample I thought was worse, but more related to political science; this time, my writing sample was better, but was basically a law and economics paper with only a brief section on political economy. However, it was comparatively theoretically sophisticated, and on a more interesting topic, so I suspect it was a better choice.

6) Signal a clear and precise research interest. Even if you have many broad interests, it can be dangerous to talk about too many of them, lest you seem unfocused. Pick an area and sell yourself within that area.

7) Know your schools' strengths and talk about them. Don't spend too much time on this, but it shouldn't take more than a paragraph to demonstrate that you've done your homework, and are not just "guessing" that School X would be a good fit.

8) Don't try to justify weaknesses in the SOP. I had one line about inconsistent grades in my first SOP, and it totally threw off the flow of the essay. You should hope letter writers will talk about it, and keep your SOP focused on your research interests and the tools you have to do that research effectively.

9) Do things that signal that you are an independent researcher. As examples: do independent studies with professors on topics you're interested in, get permission to take graduate courses in areas relevant to your research interests, etc. Don't make it seem like you're just "going with the flow," or you will not credibly signal that you can handle the independent work of a Ph.D.

10) Don't be a jerk (especially not while writing the SOP). Don't tell people how great you are. Say what you're interested in, what you've done, and let the committee draw its own inferences.

Best of luck applicants from the World of Tomorrow!

[gradcafe26]

This is just great, RWBG. This cycle has been rough for me, 2 rejections so far. But should I get into any PhD program, I will definitely post my profile/sop

[RngrDngr]

Where was this advice 7 months ago? I kid, of course. I searched the internet for advice on writing a letter and pulled from a few different sources, none of which were PoliSci. I thought I had a pretty strong letter but I've come to realize that I may have been too broad in my research interests. I tried to sell myself as an individual, not as a researcher in political science.

Great thread. I'm going to bookmark it and years down the road when I'm enjoying a spot at a 4-4 institution (I seriously think I'm the only one on GC that actually wants to be at a teaching institution), I will share it with interested undergrads.

[Ironheel!!]

Where was this advice 7 months ago? I kid, of course. I searched the internet for advice on writing a letter and pulled from a few different sources, none of which were PoliSci. I thought I had a pretty strong letter but I've come to realize that I may have been too broad in my research interests. I tried to sell myself as an individual, not as a researcher in political science.

Great thread. I'm going to bookmark it and years down the road when I'm enjoying a spot at a 4-4 institution (I seriously think I'm the only one on GC that actually wants to be at a teaching institution), I will share it with interested undergrads.

This is my intended path as well. I will share Profile in the coming weeks. Have only one notification so far, 8 left...

[whirlibird]

Where was this advice 7 months ago? I kid, of course. I searched the internet for advice on writing a letter and pulled from a few different sources, none of which were PoliSci. I thought I had a pretty strong letter but I've come to realize that I may have been too broad in my research interests. I tried to sell myself as an individual, not as a researcher in political science.

Great thread. I'm going to bookmark it and years down the road when I'm enjoying a spot at a 4-4 institution (I seriously think I'm the only one on GC that actually wants to be at a teaching institution), I will share it with interested undergrads.

This is my intended path as well. I will share Profile in the coming weeks. Have only one notification so far, 8 left...

I want to establish some research "street cred," I think, but I'm ultimately all about training little liberal arts undergrads. I'm with you guys. Awesome to know we're not alone.

[Otherworlder]

Great thread, RWBG! When I was applying the SOP thread really did help me and gave me lots of useful ideas. And all those already in PhD or teaching on this board were also very very helpful. I think I will come back to this post and write up something hopefully useful after all my decisions are in. I might be still to stuck in the situation to be rational and coherent presently, lol.

[iwouldpreferanonymity]

I want to establish some research "street cred," I think, but I'm ultimately all about training little liberal arts undergrads. I'm with you guys. Awesome to know we're not alone.

I just wanted to state that I share the same ambition. While I enjoy research, I do like teaching more. Besides, this path seems more realistic at the moment. There are surely more 4-4 positions out there than 2-2 positions.

[Eudaimonia]

I'll share my profile once my admissions cycle winds down.

[shavasana]

I just wanted to state that I share the same ambition. While I enjoy research, I do like teaching more. Besides, this path seems more realistic at the moment. There are surely more 4-4 positions out there than 2-2 positions.

I'm so sorry, I'm sure this is a dumb question: what is 4-4 and 2-2?

[PoliSciEntist]

I'm so sorry, I'm sure this is a dumb question: what is 4-4 and 2-2?

It refers to teaching loads and the amount of classes taught each semester.

[shavasana]

It refers to teaching loads and the amount of classes taught each semester.

Thanks

[RWBG]

Well, it appears I can't edit my original post, so here's the SOP. I

technically

still haven't heard from a few schools, but it feels like the cycle's over for me. I also feel like the probability of this having an effect on admissions is low! I included my SOP for Michigan, given that it's the highest ranked school that I was admitted to, and thus possibly the most instructive for future applicants. This does not, however, reflect any decisions I've made about where I'm going!

"In my last year of high school, I read Robert Keohane’s

After Hegemony

, and I was intrigued by how it addressed international institutions’ role in facilitating cooperation between states in a fashion more sophisticated than the journalism with which I was familiar. Later that year, I took out an individual subscription to

International Organization.

This spurred my interest in political science research, which in turn convinced me to pursue political science at the undergraduate level, and finally to apply to an M.A. at X University. Now, I am applying to Michigan’s Ph.D program with the intention of pursuing a position at a research-oriented institution upon completion of the program. In other words, the writing has been on the wall for several years now that an academic career in political science is right for me.

As a Ph.D student, I hope to study international and comparative political economy, with a focus on linkages between domestic politics and international economic policy. I am particularly interested in pursuing mathematically rigorous approaches to the study of the political economy of international trade, using tools inclusive of game theory and statistical modelling.

In my senior thesis, under the direction of Professor X, I looked at a related question - namely, why trade policies (such as tariffs) often are used to accomplish redistributive goals that could be carried out more efficiently via non-trade policy redistributive measures (such as lump sum transfers). Generally, one would expect political actors to have an incentive to enact policies that are as efficient as possible in order to maximize the “pie” being bargained over.[1] I proposed that commitment problems in the trade lobbying process can lead to the prevalence of relatively inefficient redistributive measures that can be more credibly committed to in the long term, illustrating my logic and generating testable predictions using a reduced-form two-period lobby contribution model inspired by Grossman and Helpman’s

Protection for Sale

. I then ran a fixed-effects regression on panel data from OECD countries to show that the timing of the lagged effects of openness on public sector size and vice versa accords well with those predictions. A more formal empirical test is left for future work; strategic statistical models may prove fruitful in estimating the relationships identified in my formal model while avoiding potential misspecification pitfalls. I will present my thesis in a poster presentation at the MPSA this April.

My class with Professor Y deepened my interest in trade-related institutions, and I wrote a research paper for the class in which I assessed the desirability and political feasibility of non-proprietary rights (i.e. non-patent) incentives for innovation on an international scale, within the context of the TRIPs agreement. This is an important topic given that proprietary rights solutions entail an unavoidable trade-off between incentives to innovate and monopolistic distortions, and is a topic that I hope to pursue further at the Ph.D level.

Going forward, one research question that I am interested in pursuing is whether there are policy-induced learning effects on trade preferences. Hainmueller and Hiscox’s 2006 paper in International Organization suggested that education can have learning effects on trade preferences - essentially entailing a Bayesian update of individual beliefs about the aggregate outcomes of free trade. In a similar sense, I am curious as to whether the actual implementation of trade policies (such as free trade agreements) updates beliefs about the aggregate and distributional consequences of subsequent trade policies. By constructing an appropriate time-series of existing survey data documenting public opinion on trade before and after the implementation of major trade agreements, it may be possible to estimate the empirical significance of such effects.

I have come to appreciate that formal and statistical modelling can be employed usefully in political science research, but I am also aware that it is very easy to use such tools incorrectly, even for technically sophisticated users. Moreover, devising models that can capture complex relationships can be a difficult task. Consequently, I have gotten a head start in my training by spending much of my undergraduate degree taking courses in mathematics, calculus-based statistics, econometrics, and microeconomics. Moreover, at the graduate level, I took the Economics Department’s mathematics and statistics review, and I am currently enrolled in the first graduate sequence in microeconomic theory. At Michigan, I hope to build upon my existing knowledge of these techniques by taking as many courses as possible in formal theory and statistical methods, so that I might achieve a level of proficiency at which I will be able to create sophisticated formal models, and develop my own estimators with which to evaluate them. Formal scholars such as George Tsebelis and Arthur Lupia would be great mentors when working to integrate formal and statistical models in my research.

Additionally, I appreciate that Michigan has scholars such as Scott Page, Ken Kollman, and Robert Axelrod who are integrating agent-based models (ABMs) in political science research - an approach which has interested me since I read Professor Axelrod’s book on the Complexity of Cooperation two years ago. The implications of ABMs for international trade are not immediately obvious to me (they appear to have more obvious implications for the IPE of finance), but it seems plausible that the nonlinear dynamics often exhibited by voting behaviour may affect what trade policies are ultimately implemented by politicians. It is an area I would be interested in exploring further, and I have begun learning NetLogo in order to do so.

In addition to Michigan’s strong methodological training, I am very interested in the substantive training I would get under IR scholars inclusive of James Morrow - his work on the political economy of international trade is exceptional, as is his work more broadly in IR. Michigan is an ideal school for me because it has the resources to allow me to pursue my substantive and methodological interests to the fullest extent, and I feel its training would benefit me substantially as a scholar. I thank you for your time, and hope you will allow me the opportunity to pursue my studies further in your program.

[1] This logic is outlined in Daron Acemoglu’s paper on the Political Coase Theorem."

Edited February 21, 2012 by RWBG

[RWBG]

PROFILE:

Type of Undergrad Institution: Top 25ish

Major(s)/Minor(s): Political Science and Economics

Undergrad GPA: 3.5/4

Type of Grad: MA

Grad GPA: (no grades yet)

GRE: Q800 V740 A5.5

Any Special Courses: Math and econ courses, some econ grad courses

Letters of Recommendation: One polisci, one econ formal theorist, one trade law scholar

Research Experience: Two RA positions, mentioned starting one other in January

Teaching Experience: GMAT/GRE instructor, debate coach

Subfield/Research Interests: Formal IPE/methods

RESULTS:

Acceptances($$ or no $$): Madison ($$), UCLA ($$), Michigan ($$), Rochester ($$)

Waitlists: N/A

Rejections: Duke, Stanford, NYU*, Princeton*, Yale*

Pending: Harvard

Going to: ??????

* = expected, not official yet.

[shavasana]

Hey all! My cycle isn't actually done, but close enough to done for me to at least post this before I forget. I included my SOP from one school, but the school name is removed.

PROFILE:

Type of Undergrad Institution: Top 15

Major(s)/Minor(s): Journalism, Political Science

Undergrad GPA: 3.778/4.000

Type of Grad: n/a

Grad GPA: n/a

GRE: 750Q 720V 5.0W

Any Special Courses: Graduate seminars in IR Theory, Media and Communication

Letters of Recommendation: Tenured IR professor, Tenure-track IR/Security asst. professor, Tenured ME History prof (Tel Aviv Uni)

Research Experience: Senior honors thesis

Teaching Experience: none

Subfield/Research Interests: IR Theory, Security Studies, Middle Eastern Studies, Media and Public Opinion

 

RESULTS:

Acceptances($$ or no $$): Stanford ($$), Chicago ($$), Yale ($$)

Waitlists: Duke

Rejections: Columbia, WashU

Pending: Harvard, Georgetown

Going to: No Idea Yet

My commitment to [insert school here] doctoral program is due to both its strength in my research interests as well as its reputation in the academic community. I am most interested in media and international relations with an emphasis on transnational security issues. I hope to continue to delve deeper into how media influences the international structure and security policies of individual states during my time at [insert school here].

My academic concentration in both Journalism and Political Science have thoroughly prepared me to conduct research in Middle Eastern media. My primary major gave me practical and real experience in how media is created and excellent interview skills which will help greatly in future research. And my major in Political Science allowed me to explore many aspects of the discipline through both breadth classes and seminars. As an undergraduate, my interest in international relations was solidified during a graduate seminar on International Relations Theory with Professor X. My seminar papers focused on issues of norms and international security dilemmas from the perspective of less powerful states and what consequences decisions of these states have on the international structure and Great Power decision making.

A seminar with Professor Y deepened my knowledge of public opinion and media literature as well as methodology. Although the seminar was focused on American politics, I was encouraged to explore my interest in non-Western media for my seminar paper. The paper focused on the used of private security companies in current conflicts in the Middle East, and I am currently editing the paper for potential publication in a scholarly journal.

My senior honors thesis, supervised by Professor Z, focused on Middle Eastern public opinion of the American use of private security companies in the Iraq war. I was able to analyze media discourse about similar incidents of violence against civilians committed by American military forces and private security contractors in 2007 using sources in both English and Arabic. I concluded that Middle Eastern media sources create a narrative of abuse against Iraqi civilians by private military contractors. This lies in contrast to coverage of instances of violence against civilians committed by American soldiers, which are treated as isolated incidents. My paper suggests that the extensive use of private contractors, therefore, undermines the American counterinsurgency strategy in Iraq. The paper was nominated for High Honors in my department and the work was supported by an Undergraduate Research Grant from Q University.

My language skills make me a rare candidate for a political science program. In addition to bi-lingual research for my thesis, I have undertaken extensive language preparation in Persian (Farsi). Four years of Modern Standard Arabic and three years of Classical Persian at Q University were supplemented with in-country language experience in both Jordan and Tajikistan. My travels have allowed me to gain not only reading and writing ability in my target languages, but an ability to communicate orally which will be an asset in my current field work. My study of Persian was supported by a Critical Language Scholarship from the Council of Overseas American Research Centers.

During my final quarter of coursework, I plan to strengthen knowledge and skills in preparation for [insert school here]’s doctoral program. I will participate in a graduate seminar with Professor Will Reno on conflict and international development and strengthen my skills in quantitative analysis through a course centered on learned the statistical package R. My course load will also include a class giving an overview of the American magazine industry to prepare me for work experience in the spring.

During spring 2012 I will gain real world knowledge that will serve as the beginning of field work training for my eventual doctoral dissertation. As an editorial intern at Qatar Today, a leading business and political publication in Doha, I will gain first-hand knowledge of the process of media formation in the Middle East. The location and nature of my work will allow me to form professional connections that may assist me in further scholarly work.

My primary research interest is in Middle Eastern media and public opinion regarding transnational security issues. I am also interested in how the interplay of public opinion and media affects state decision making in the region and the international community as a whole. Specifically, I would like to investigate the changing nature of the media environment in the Middle East and what relationship this has to security polities implemented by the United States and regional actors such as Saudi Arabia and Iran. A few scholars have examined the rise of media giants such as Al-Jazeera, but because of the recent genesis of a relatively free press in the region little work has been published about the intersection of media and public opinion in the Middle East. I aim to adapt current methods of media and public opinion analysis used to study Western media to more fully understand the changing face and influence of media in this strategically important region.

In addition to my academic interests, I am deeply involved on campus. During my tenure as managing editor of Northwestern’s campus magazine, it was named the Best Student Magazine in American by the Society of Professional Journalists. My interest in politics and media overlapped when I helped to found weekly publication Politics & Policy which provided undergraduate students an opportunity to provide commentary on political phenomena and engage in in-depth research on topics ranging from defense procurement to Latin American economic policy. I also served as Captain of the women’s rugby team, which strengthened my teaching and coaching skills over four years.

My commitment to both teaching and research have deeply informed my choice of a doctoral program. Both my experience tutoring fellow students in language as well as coaching have affirmed my desire to become a professor. My previous coursework and work experience have uniquely qualified me to continue my studies of Middle Eastern media and the effect it has on state decision making. I look forward to continuing my work and education at [insert school here].

[kolja00]

PROFILE:

Undergrad Institution: UChicago

Major(s)/Minor(s): Political Science

Undergrad GPA: 3.90

Type of Grad:N/A

Grad GPA:N/A

GRE: 163v 159q 5.5aw

Any Special Courses:1st class of microeconomics sequence, stats, few grad classes in IR

Letters of Recommendation: 2 from big IR profs, 1 from a visiting professor I had for 2 classes

Research Experience: 3 years as an RA for a professor, Honors Thesis

Teaching Experience: N/A

Subfield/Research Interests: Substate Violence

RESULTS:

Acceptances: Chicago, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Madison

Waitlists: Duke, Princeton

Rejections: MIT, Stanford, Columbia

Pending: Berkeley, Yale, Georgetown, and Maryland

Going to: We'll see!

SOP:(If I could re-do my SOP It would be much more about research I want to do in the future instead of things I have done in the past)

My name is <> and I am applying to Columbia University as a candidate for your Ph.D program in Political Science, with a concentration in International Relations and Methodology. I believe that my passion and curiosity, along with my academic success and research experience in the field makes me a suitable candidate and valuable investment for your program over the next five years.

My love of Political Science doesn’t stem from a lifelong desire to work for the CIA, or to teach at a prestigious university, but instead, it comes from something far closer and far deeper. In March 2007, my cousin enlisted with the Latvian Army and was shortly deployed to Afghanistan to assist with an American Provincial Reconstruction Team. Close to a year later, his convoy was struck by a roadside bomb in Khost Province and he lost his life serving the cause of freedom abroad. It is this circumstance that led me to my first introduction to the field of political science as a search for answers and understanding after losing a friend and beloved family member. A tragic situation guided me to the works of Waltz, Fearon, and Van Evera, among many others, in an effort to try and comprehend the complexities and causal logics of war and violence. In doing this critical research, I developed a love and passion for my field. The reason I study security issues and international politics is because my cousin’s death sparked in me a desire to look for answers, ask questions, and understand the sometimes violent world we live in. It is this crucial intellectual process that leads to enlightenment and answers to the questions we as political scientists seek. It is a process I wish to continue for the rest of my life; a process I wish to continue at Columbia.

Over the last four years I have been lucky enough to attend the University of Chicago, an institution that prides itself on asking questions and looking for answers in a rigorous fashion. In my time here, I have taken a wide range of classes that deal with subjects from grand strategy to theoretical rational choice models and have been successful in my study of them. The great variety of classes I have taken has given me a very solid background in all subfields of Political Science- a backing I wish to expand in my graduate studies. These classes have let me explore numerous issues through research, discussion, and debate, which have all been integral in my development as a scholar. I have achieved a 4.00 GPA in my major and a 3.90 GPA overall, which places me in the top 5% of my class and which shows the time and dedication I put into my work and studies. This dedication to the field led to the privilege of being one of only three undergraduate fellows in the Program on International Security Policy (PISP), which is run by John Mearsheimer, Robert Pape, and Paul Staniland. PISP has given me an opportunity to discuss upcoming security studies articles and issues with graduate students and professors of political science here at Chicago in critical and in-depth ways and it has given me an idea of the process and logic that goes into creating scholarship. Beyond that, it has introduced me to the rigors of graduate studies and has made me extremely excited to continue pursuing an education in Political Science. Imaging that one-day I may have the opportunity to present my work to workshops like PISP and to groups of bright scholars is a motivation for me as I continue learning and researching.

This year, I am undertaking a significant research project and honors thesis, advised by Professor Paul Staniland, that I hope to put forth for publication in the spring of 2012. The questions my paper looks to answer are as follows: Do Afghan Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) increase the legitimacy of the central government in the regions in which they are implemented? And, if so, what aspects of reconstruction cause population preferences to shift from the status quo (not accepting a central government) to acceptance of the central government? Despite the great wealth of counter-insurgency (COIN) literature, very little information exists on what actually causes the general populace in a province to switch allegiance during COIN operations. With Afghanistan, what causes people to move from status-quo support of the Taliban or neutrality to recognition of a central national government? My paper endeavors to find a causal logic that can explain shifts in population preferences in failed states. My paper will use PRTs in Afghanistan as a case study to look for the mechanism that creates government legitimacy in these types of states. PRTs are especially useful lenses at looking at COIN effectiveness because they use a combination of political, military, and economic mechanisms in differing regions all across Afghanistan. If we can locate when and under what conditions shifts towards accepting national governance occur, we may be able to better understand the nature of COIN strategy and the process of creating legitimacy in “failed” regions of the world.

My experience with security issues and political science extends beyond the lecture hall and workshop room. My two years of work with the Chicago Project on Security and Terrorism (CPOST), directed by Robert Pape, has given me in-depth experience with the process of academic research, writing, and publishing. One of the most challenging, yet exciting assignments I undertook was getting to work in-depth on Pape’s book, Cutting The Fuse: The Rise of Suicide Terrorism and How to Stop It. I led the effort to update the CPOST suicide terrorism database, which catalogs every suicide terror attack since 1983. This required significant research not only of the attacks themselves, but also of attacker demographics, organizational information, along with many other metrics. I also played a crucial role researching, writing, and editing sections of the book on Chechen suicide terror campaigns against the Russian Federation. This process directly taught me the significance of theoretical academic writing, which greatly helped me think in critical and causal ways in my work afterward. Beyond that, I have researched and wrote on numerous security issues in my time at CPOST: from an analytical look at the effect of sanctions on Iran and an analysis of Afghan development projects and the creation of civil society, to more theoretical discussions of the anarchic world system we live in. These writings not only expanded my knowledge on certain arguments and issues in Political Science, but they also sparked in me an even greater interest to undertake my own critical academic research going forward and they created more questions that I wish to analyze and answer as I enter graduate school and pursue my career goal of becoming a professor.

I believe that the purpose of graduate school is not only to become well versed in a specific area through the process of writing a dissertation, but to also become knowledgeable in the entire field that one is studying. My main research interest lies in studying terror groups from the aspect of operations and tactics, specifically using rational choice models and quantitative methods to explain actions and “grand” strategies of these non-state actors. A question I have great interest in exploring is why do insurgent groups and governments deliberately target religious sites and what impact does this have on the opposition groups after these operations? During the next two quarters of my undergraduate career, I plan on taking numerous statistics and quantitative methods courses to better prepare for graduate studies and to augment my knowledge of R, STATA and SPSS. I also hope to continue my study of statistics going forward at the graduate level and beyond which will be critical to the questions I want to ask in the future. Even though the study of terror may be a specific interest I have, I am extremely excited and committed to continue broadening my knowledge of political science in the great intellectual space at Columbia. My undergraduate career at the University of Chicago has instilled in me the desire for continued learning and inquiry and I want to remain on this quest for knowledge going forward. I want to explore a broad range of topics, alongside my dissertation and main research interests while engaging in critical discourse with my colleagues through classes, workshops, and writings.

What intrigues me most about studying at Columbia is being able to work with some of the most respected scholars in the field of Political Science who constantly push the field forward and change the way that we all think about the world. Reading academic journals such as the APSR, International Security and International Organization, along with a wide variety of books and articles over the years, it is obvious that the department at Columbia is the leader in Security Studies and International Relations research today. Professors like Richard Betts, Robert Jervis, Michael Doyle, and Jack Snyder, along with the other distinguished faculty, are significant contributors to the field and push it forward to better help the world understand political phenomena. Reading works like The Cost of Empty Threats: A Penny, Not a Pound by Professor Snyder and getting to discuss Professor Doyle’s critical work on peace building at the Program on International Security Policy have been driving factors in leading me to apply to Columbia and have been hugely influential in the research that I have been doing and questions I have been asking. Getting the chance to work with the faculty here would be hugely helpful for the research that I want to do going forward. The quality of the research, writing, and discussion at this institution is something that I wish to take part in over the next five years. Being in this type of environment is exactly what I desire from a graduate program, because in many ways it is exactly what I want to do with my life. I want to push boundaries and challenge conceptions within the field. I want to be challenged by the best in the business and I want to challenge those same professors and students on ideas they hold, and be equally challenged in return. The stimulating environment at Columbia will allow me to grow professionally and intellectually over the next five years, a quality that is most important in my selection for a school.

What started as a way to look for answers after losing a friend and family member has turned into something much more- it is something I wish to devote the rest of my life to. I hope that my introduction to you has been able to capture my passion and qualifications for the field of political science and for the Ph.D program at Columbia. I hope that I can share this passion, along with my desire to learn and question, next fall in New York and over the next five years and beyond.

Edited February 21, 2012 by kolja00

[grantman]

I will post my statement of purpose to Michigan State, where I did not get in just for the record. Since I still have a shot at the University of Denver, I will refrain from putting my status up at this point in time.

While I was undertaking my Bachelor’s degree in Political Science, my interests initially focused on American Politics, particularly on the Presidency, so much so that I joined and participated in a research project focusing on the 2008 Presidential Election. However, in my senior year I began to become more interested in International Affairs mainly international political economy, international security, and non-state actors. The catalyst for this change in interest was a class on international political economy as well as an independent study in which I researched militant groups in Sri Lanka, India, and Pakistan.

When I matriculated to the Masters in Public Administration program, I sought to combine my interests in post-conflict reconstruction and non-state actors and merge them into a focus of International Development which a special emphasis on rebuilding post-conflict societies. Throughout my time at the graduate level I have gained practical knowledge as it relates to international development and apply these theoretical skills into a real world environment. By taking classes in public policy, public personnel administration, as well as a seminar class on international development, I was able to gain perspective that otherwise I might not have learned through a traditional political science program. Using these skills I have gained I have begun to apply them into my graduate thesis. My thesis takes an innovative approach through the use of original data that I have collected on the governors of all of Afghanistan’s 34 provinces from 2002 to present and with other data I have collected on terrorist attacks in each of these provinces. Using this dataset, my hypothesis will be tested to see if there is any correlation to the change in governors in each of these providences, as well as their origins, are having any effect in either curbing the insurgency or allowing it to blossom. The working thesis behind this work is the governors were either strongmen in their provinces or had direct ties to Hamid Karzai tended to have high rates of insurgent activity in their provinces. The belief is that those governors who were strongmen in their provinces tended to favor individuals and tribes associated with them and those other tribes and other minorities living in these provinces have become marginalized. As a consequence, the marginalization of these peoples has allowed them to become disassociated with the central government so much so they become either sympathizers of the Taliban or becoming knowing participants in their insurgency.

As I began to research and know more about this I have become fascinated with terrorist organizations, specifically their methods and operations, as well as trying to understand more about how state-building works and what conceivable obstacles can impede reconstruction. As a result, my research interests reflect this fascination. My first overall research interest is focused on non-state actors, especially how terrorist groups and militias use emerging technology to help aid in their operations. With technology becoming all the more important in everyone’s daily lives, terrorists are similarly becoming more skillful in using laptops and cell phones, rather than rifles and bullets, to carry out their actions. With technology greatly increasing one’s ability to communicate, conduct business, as well as socialize with one another from halfway around the world, it would then be a interesting research topic as to how terrorist groups and militias use this same technology to coordinate their activities, gain access to new funds and resources, as well as use it to distribute propaganda and recruit new members. The other area of potential research interest is surrounding the reemerging concept of state-building. While there has been a great deal of examination of post-conflict states and regions, these studies have mainly focused on why the conflict occurred and how best to reconcile the belligerent parties so that people can have a degree of normalcy returned in their daily lives. The area in which my research will instead focus on will be on the establishment of state bureaucracy and building state capacity. As we have seen in the U.S. experience in Afghanistan and Iraq, for a state to continue to run properly it must be able to run without international assistance on the ground. My regional focus for examining both these concentrations will lie many in East/Central Asia as well as in the Middle East where both there is a large concentration of both non-state actors and the need to state-build particularly after the Arab Spring.

I feel that by obtaining a doctorate in political science, particularly from Michigan State, will enable me to fulfill both my research goals as well as my professional aspirations. While many in my current degree program tend to stop their education as soon as they obtain their masters, I always felt unfilled because of the limitations that are placed on a master’s program. As a result of this void, I decided long ago to pursue my doctorate in political science so I could continue to learn and mature both as a future scholar and a future practitioner. By continuing my education at the doctoral level, I feel that I will become more familiar with new concepts and gain new insight and think along new lines that otherwise might remain foreign to me. I content if I am admitted into your program this zeal that I have for self-improvement will become realized as I undertake new courses and interact with fellow individuals who share the same passions that I do in this diverse field. What I hope to take from this program is to not only help expand academic knowledge as it relates to my research goals, but to also help encourage and prepare those individuals who may wish to pursue a doctorate in their career paths. I feel the best way to accomplish both of these desires is to seek employment at a research-intensive university where not only I can conduct further research but also have contact with political science students who have just as interested in the field as I am today.

I believe Michigan State’s first-rate political science program, especially in the fields of comparative politics and international relations, will enable me to reach these goals that I have set out to accomplish. While Michigan State has a nationally ranked program, I have chosen this program because it not only because the faculty have expertise that parallel’s my research interests, but also its commitment to aiding its graduate students as they begin to undertake research as well as helping prepare them step out in the real world to become professionals themselves. In terms of what I can bring to Michigan State is my analytic ability as well as desire conduct scholarly research that I plan to continue onwards after I depart Michigan State. I also hope to use my life’s experiences to help my fellow colleagues in their own academic pursuits as well as gaining new perspectives by working with other fellow graduate students in their own projects and interests.

By working closely with Michigan State’s experienced and accomplished faculty this will allow me to become an accomplished scholar myself after I depart MSU. The expertise of Professor Michael Bratton, both as an academic as well as a practitioner, examining state-building in Africa will give me a new understanding on the complications relating to building a new state particularly after a prolonged conflict. Furthermore, by working with Professor Bratton, I feel I could successfully transfer his expertise in Africa politics, as it relates to state-building and democratization, into my focus on the Middle East and Asia. Professor Michael Colaresi’s expertise as it relates interstate conflict along with his skill in the use of quantitative methods will aid me in my understanding on conflict but also help me to quantify my data and gain new insights on techniques that I was only acutely aware of when entering the program. The work of Professor Mohammed Ayoob, whose own knowledge in investigating conflict in South Asia along with the Middle East will support my understanding of these regions, which will be the main regional focus of my research. Additionally, Professor Ayoob’s extensive background in this area will help me formulate a realistic model for state-building for those Middle Eastern countries now faced with building a new government. Finally, Professor Eric Chang’s research in East Asia along with his studies examining corruption and democratization will help greatly to my graduate education experience at Michigan State, and by given the opportunity to work with him I feel I can obtain a greater knowledge of East Asia as well as gaining greater depth in the complexities of electoral systems. I would like to conclude by reiterating that I believe Michigan State would be an excellent school for me to complete my doctorate and I feel that the university will be a great stepping stone as I enter the next stage of my life.

[Otherworlder]

Well, my cycle is pretty much over so here is my stuff.

PROFILE:

Type of Undergrad Institution: UC Berkeley

Major(s)/Minor(s): Sociology/Economics (double major)

Undergrad GPA: 3.91 (major GPA in both are actually a bit lower

Type of Grad: N/A

Grad GPA: N/A

GRE: 800Q 800V 4.5AW

Any Special Courses: nothing you won't expect for my major

Letters of Recommendation: Senior Comparative/Political econ prof, newly tenured soc prof, specialization is on immigration, senior soc prof China expert

Research Experience: One project on immigration, one project on the political economy of climate change, a couple conference presentation and "think-tank" type of publication (all co-authorship).

Teaching Experience: None

Subfield/Research Interests: Comparatives, legitimacy & regime change, China focus

RESULTS:

Acceptances($$ or no $$): University of Michigan, MIT, Harvard (all $)

Waitlists:

Rejections: Emory, Stanford, Princeton

Pending: University of Washington, University of Toronto

Going to: we'll see

Just one thing I learned about this whole process: yes, it is true, fit matters, a LOT. For me, my top 3 choices are Harvard, Michigan and MIT, for specific faculties (more than one in each school) as well as their strength in comparative studies and Chinese issues. I admit my "back-up" schools are actually not that great of a fit for me. To be perfectly honest, I chose Emory for its overall ranking (hence what I judged to be "relatively easy to get into and still good") and fairly generous funding level. When I was looking over Emory's faculty list I thought that there isn't any prof who is a great fit for me, and it doesn't seem like the right place. But I applied anyway thinking it's a lower ranked school and hence the "back-up". Emory is my very first rejection, way before people are contacted for interviews and everything. I always thought that Harvard really is a great fit for me, probably the best, but didn't want say that, because.... well it's Harvard >.< But I think in the end the fit won. I actually screwed up my Harvard app a bit. It was the very first I submitted, and I didn't get any feedback on my CV at that point. After I submitted my file, one of my letter writers gave me a whole sheet of comments and fixes for my CV, saying that it's too short and didn't include everything, and I really need to use stronger words to describe my skills.... I think I lost hope then and there... But it worked out in the end.

PS: two of my letter writers received their PhD at Harvard, and the other MIT. That might have been a factor.

Now the SOP. This is the Harvard Version:

“The empire, long divided, must unite; long united, must divide,” so begins my favorite book from childhood, the Chinese historical novel Romance of the Three Kingdoms. The crumpling of the ancient Han Empire and the emergence of new political forces described in the novel have long intrigued me. I was fascinated by the descriptions of good policies and failed ones, of rebellions and coups, and of the slow and painful transition to a new political order. Though the term “political science” was unfamiliar to me then, I was already pondering what makes a governing institution legitimate in the eyes of the governed and why once glorious empires disintegrate.

These questions remain relevant for today’s China, since many uncertainties remain about the current communist government’s legitimacy and longevity. Growing up in post-reform China, I experienced much of the tremendous economic and social liberalizations first hand and wondered why political reform was not forthcoming. Max Weber famously theorized that a modern state claims legitimacy through its legality and rationality: that means equal applications of law, bureaucratic form of organization, and ultimately, democracy. Yet these features are mostly absent in China today. Does that mean the current Chinese government has no claim to sustainable legitimacy, or that it has established an alternative source of legitimacy that is less dependent on legality and democracy? How will the legitimacy question shape China’s political transition? How is China similar or different to other authoritarian countries that have undergone democratic transitions? These are the types of questions I plan to pursue in my graduate studies. Such questions will become increasingly important, as Chinese trade and diplomacy expand their reach and begin to influence how governments operate beyond China’s borders.

Legitimacy is a difficult concept to define and to measure and it requires both quantitative and qualitative research tools to investigate thoroughly. Many empirical studies measure legitimacy either by surveying the opinions of the governed, or by measuring the government’s performance in areas like level of corruption, rule of law, or provision of public goods. In my future research, I plan to use both public opinions and governance performance indicators to create a composite measure of legitimacy, following the method Bruce Gilley has established in his multinational comparative study, The Right to Rule. These measures, especially the performance indicators, not only measure legitimacy, but may also in part explain legitimacy by showing institutional strengths and weaknesses. However, I do not think public opinion and performance data alone can explain fully whether an institution is legitimate and predict how it may change. Countries with similar political and economic conditions have often diverged to completely different fates, as shown by the wave of democratization (or lack thereof) after the collapse of the former Soviet Union. Notions of what is perceived to be a legitimate governing institution may provide another important piece of the explanation.

Many social scientists have investigated how beliefs and ideas have influenced institutions and impacted social and political change. The Protestant work ethic can usher in capitalism, as Weber contends, or according to Huntington, cultural similarities and differences can push the world closer to a major “clash of civilizations”. Many studies about China have also investigated the importance of political values and their impact on institutional structure and behavior. I am especially attracted to Elizabeth Perry’s study which tracks the concept of “Mandate of Heaven” throughout Chinese history and shows how peasant rebellions and other challengers to existing regimes shaped their rhetoric and strategies around this idea. Her study provides a prime example for investigating the interchange between political ideas and rhetoric, institution, and political actions. Alastair I. Johnston’s book on Chinese strategic culture and its influence on security policies was also an inspiration for me; it provides another method for empirically investigating how ideas influence political institutions and choices.

I am confident that my training in economics and sociology and research experience at UC Berkeley have prepared me well for the complex and daunting task of dissertation research. Coursework in sociology taught me the basic methods of social science research, including surveys and ethnography. My economics background gave me strong quantitative skills. I took calculus, linear algebra and econometrics and succeeded in all of these courses. I am comfortable with statistical analysis. I put all of these skills to practice at the Berkeley Roundtable of International Economy (BRIE), where I conducted research about the political and economic impact of global climate change. Under the guidance of John Zysman and in collaboration with several of his doctoral students, I produced a literature review of comparative green growth policies, which was presented at the Green Growth Leaders conference in Copenhagen in 2011. My experiences at BRIE further enhanced confidence in my ability to carry a research project from conceptualizing the research questions, to collecting and analyzing cross-national data, to drawing the lessons learned.

I am deeply attracted to Harvard University’s Department of Government because of the presence of many faculty members who have produced insightful work on legitimacy and regime change. I am especially eager to work under the tutelage of Elizabeth Perry, since her research interests and expertise are a perfect match for the project I envision. I also hope to work with Alastair Johnston and Theda Skocpol, who both have produced influential works on Chinese politics. The strength of Harvard’s comparative politics program as well as the overall quality of research and education at Harvard are another strong draw. I am interested in many aspects of comparative politics, especially the diversity of national institutional structures and the ideas and values underpinning them. For example, why did American political institutions develop differently from those in Europe? What role has differing social values played? How do different institutional arrangements affect the formulation of economic policy? At Harvard, I will be able to find the people and the resources to help explore all of my interests and curiosities. Harvard is famed for being a meeting place of the world’s brightest minds, and I hope to be at such a meeting place, working alongside other young scholars whose intellectual pursuits may inspire and challenge my own.

Edited February 22, 2012 by Otherworlder

[Max Power]

PROFILE:

Type of Undergrad Institution: Yale

Major(s)/Minor(s): Computer Science

Undergrad GPA: 2.97. If Harvard wasn't bothered, I won't be ashamed to post it

Type of Grad: MA QMSS at Columbia

Grad GPA: 3.92

GRE: 680V 800Q 4.5AW

Any Special Courses: Micro and macro sequence, 3 semesters of game theory (1 in poli sci, 2 in econ), multi variable calculus, linear algebra, discreet math, set theory, algorithm design and analysis, multivariate regression, 3 grad seminars (elections, legislative behavior and institutionalism, comparative democratic processes)

Letters of Recommendation: 1 from a senior Americanist at Columbia, 1 from QMSS's director, 1 from an assistant professor at a school I never attended who I worked for in the intervening years and I have a continuing relationship with as a mentor who worked in both professional campaigns and academia

Research Experience: Randomized voter turnout and registration experiments in a non-academic setting; randomized turnout experiment as a masters thesis

Teaching Experience: none

Subfield/Research Interests: American, behavior, experimental methods, methodology

Other: I'm 6 years out of undergrad. In the interim, I worked as a campaign consultant, specializing in voter targeting, a campaign manager and a lobbyist.

RESULTS:

Acceptances($$ or no $$): MIT ($$), Columbia ($$), Harvard ($$), Notre Dame ($$)

Waitlists: Wisconsin

Rejections: Michigan, Vanderbilt, Stanford, Princeton

Pending: Berkeley, Caltech

Going to: A good question

I'll echo otherworlder's thoughts on the importance of fit. When I sought the opinion of a professor who I know, but haven't worked with, he told me that he thought MIT, Columbia, Harvard and Berkeley were the best fits for me this is based on a combination of specific faculty and holistic department approaches. So far, I have 3 offers from that set and 1 offer and 1 wait list from the other 7 schools I applied to. Just some food for thought.

After thinking about it, I'm not terribly comfortable posting my SOP in a public forum. I think its a pretty good one. Based on my results, it probably is. However, it involves a few specific ideas for research projects that I have yet to begin and some fairly identifying details. I am open to sharing it on a one-on-one basis but I just don't like the idea of having it publicly posted in perpetuity.

[balderdash]

PROFILE:

Type of Undergrad Institution: Top 20 national research university known for rigor

Major(s)/Minor(s): International Studies

Undergrad GPA: 3.90.

Type of Grad: MPhil in Development Studies at the University of Cambridge

Grad GPA: 72, or ~3.85

GRE: 770V 800Q 6AW

Any Special Courses: Lots of stuff on Africa and state formation/political violence

Letters of Recommendation: 1 from semi-retired Cambridge don who supervised my thesis, 1 from young professor/former UN expert at Cambridge, and 1 from current boss and chaired professor at a top-five SLAC

Research Experience: 1 year of RA work as well as the master's dissertation

Teaching Experience: None

Subfield/Research Interests: African state formation, international development, historical sociology, qualitative methods

Other: Applied the previous year and went 0/7. A few book reviews published, some journalistic writing, and 1 conference attendance.

RESULTS:

Acceptances($$ or no $$): UCLA ($$) and Madison ($$)

Waitlists: N/A

Rejections: Stanford, Princeton, Northwestern

Pending: Yale, Berkeley, Cornell

Going to: Since Yale is almost certainly going to be a no, Madison.

Edited February 23, 2012 by balderdash

[balderdash]

Comparative Politics at Madison:

Comparative state formation in Africa has arrived at a crossroads. From the technocratic optimism of postwar development planning, the field has moved through the study of Cold War military governance to state-civil society relations in the context of apparent state “failure.” Here scholars such as Jean-Francois Bayart, Patrick Chabal and Jean-Pascal Daloz, Jeffrey Herbst, Richard Joseph, William Reno, and Crawford Young built an approach outside the new political economy, situating African elites in a distinct historical and institutional trajectory. Over the last decade, the debate shifted further: state formation as an organic process to be observed was dropped in favor of state-building as a program to be implemented. Exploring how statehood continues to evolve in Africa was lost amid debate over “best practices” and “right” institutions. Criticized as amnesic and overly deterministic by Michael Bratton, Stephen Ellis, and Nicolas Van de Walle, among others, consensus has again broken down.

While undertaking the PhD at Madison, I will explore new trajectories in the comparative politics of state formation in modern Africa. Though broadly pan-African, my focus will be on the Great Lakes region and surrounding countries, particularly the Democratic Republic of Congo, Rwanda, and Uganda. Anchored in the longue durée approach to qualitative historical sociology, both my studies and my dissertation will nevertheless delve into alternative research methodologies. Studying a range of tools, including quantitative and game-theoretic modeling, will allow me to refine my approach to best engage with the questions central to the literature: What are the processes that have brought about modern African political institutions, and how do such structures continue to evolve? How do discourse, identities, and contested histories influence these changes? What can be distilled from six decades of research on state formation, and how does recent heterodox institutionalist scholarship add to it?

[Elided personal information.] This will build on my Master’s thesis at the University of Cambridge, in which I analyzed political regimes, or groups of elites answering to neo-patrimonial constituents over whom they exercise legitimate, coercive power. Working through the experience of the Congolese conflict over the past two decades, this project interrogated how such networks emerge, compete along a spectrum from local to global politics, and alternately challenge or exploit formal statehood. My doctoral studies will be similarly interdisciplinary.

Madison’s faculty in comparative politics is specifically matched to my research interests. Professor Straus’s The Order of Genocide argues the internal dynamics of Hutu coalitions as dictating variation within the Rwandan genocide. Such work centers on ideology, legitimacy, and state capture, analyzing the themes with which I wish to engage while a student at Madison. More broadly, his research is grounded in the historical processes of institutional change in Rwanda, particularly regime transition and political violence over the last two decades, as is my project. Professor Straus’s work also combines qualitative analysis with robust quantitative tools, a close fit to the catholic methodology I wish to employ across a pan-African frame. Similarly, Professor Schatzberg has extensively studied the moral and cultural bases of statehood in Zaire and the Democratic Republic of Congo. In building a framework for comparative state formation that engages with norms and discourse, my work can benefit enormously from this expertise. In addition, his other works on the political economy of governance in Zimbabwe, Cameroon, and Kenya provide further cases to help develop my research in a pan-African perspective. For similarities in both content and approach, my work can thus benefit immeasurably from the guidance of Professors Straus and Schatzberg.

Moreover, Professor Tripp’s studies on post-1986 Uganda analyze semi-authoritarian political authority as emerging from a combination of President Museveni’s security apparatus and elite constituencies. In addition to sharing a regional specialty, her work focuses on the interconnections among informal institutions, state structures, and policy performance, as does mine. In addition, Professor Young’s expertise on the Zairian state and the broader postcolonial evolution of African governance is unrivaled; my research would improve considerably from his insights into the historical evolution of statehood in Central Africa. Finally, the resources available to me through the African Studies Program and the Comparative Politics Colloquium will provide invaluable assistance in research design and insight into regime transitions around the world. With so many scholars studying the Great Lakes, comparative state formation, and the political economy of governance, Madison matches my research interests perfectly.

Christopher Clapham wrote in 1996 that “the international relations of statelessness have imposed themselves as an issue, not only on the management of the international system, but on the analysis of international relations,” but the literature has yet to fully unpick what statehood in Africa entails. To this end it must revisit the institutional scholarship of a decade ago and embrace recent departures from the technocratic determinism of the state-building approach. “Africa works;” exactly how is not yet known. While undertaking the PhD in Political Science at Madison, I will gain the requisite skills to engage with the emerging literature that answers these challenges. Madison’s comparative politics faculty will help me develop this research and prepare me to contribute to the academy.

[3221]

PROFILE:

Type of Undergrad Institution: research university

Major(s)/Minor(s): Political Science

Undergrad GPA: 3.75

Type of Grad: n/a

Grad GPA: n/a

GRE: 650 V 800 Q 5 AW

Any Special Courses: took a couple math classes after graduating

Letters of Recommendation: had a close relationship with all of them and I assume they were very strong

Research Experience: thesis, independent research paper, research assistant

Teaching Experience: english teacher abroad

Subfield/Research Interests: IR/CP

Other:

RESULTS:

Acceptances($$ or no $$): UCSD, UCLA, Wisconsin-Madison, Harvard, Ohio State (all $$)

Waitlists: Princeton

Rejections: Stanford, Berkeley, Chicago, Columbia, MIT, Duke

Pending: Yale

Going to:

Advice: Waiting a year or two between undergrad and applying really helped me. During this time I lived abroad and learned a new language, took math classes to show I could do quant work, and worked as a research assistant for a professor at a top ten. I think these extra things allowed me to show that I was committed to pursuing graduate studies and willing to put in as much work as needed to succeed.

At the start of this cycle I thought I had a general idea of where I would get in and where I wouldn't (based on personal connections, etc). My predictions were only somewhat accurate. I think fit is important to your success but some of the schools I thought I had the best chances/fit I was rejected from. Given this, I think that the best way to improve your chances of admission is to to make every little piece of your profile the best it can be.

Finally, I would strongly suggest applying to a lot of schools. As you can see by my results, I was only accepted to one or two schools in each ranking bracket. If I had been more limited in the schools I applied to, I might not have shelled out the extra money to apply to Harvard or UCSD, and I might not have been accepted to any schools in the top ten.

Good luck to everyone in future years!

[bauhaus]

PROFILE:

Type of Undergrad Institution: shitty public school in eastern europe

Major(s)/Minor(s): Economics

Undergrad GPA: bot convertable, but mediocre

Type of Grad: Economics MA in an OK private, american university in eastern europe

Grad GPA: ~3.6

GRE: 162 V 164Q 4.5 AW

Any Special Courses: the full MA sequence in micro & macro, full phd sequence in Econometrics + (pol.econ, voting behavior, pol psychology graduate seminars)

Letters of Recommendation: had a close relationship with all of them and I assume they were very strong but none of them is very well known. 2 econ profs (PhD Michigan & Harvard), 2 polsci profs, and the former minister for the economy in my home country

Research Experience: bunch of research papers, one publication in Electroral Studies

Teaching Experience: 2 semesters of teaching in a business school

Subfield/Research Interests: methods, behavior, polecon

Other:

RESULTS:

Acceptances($$ or no $$): Harvard PEG (no funding info yet, but shouldn t be a problem), Stanford ($$), MIT ($$)

Waitlists: Caltech, Duke

Rejections: Yale, Berkeley, Princeton, Stanford GSB Polecon,

Pending: Harvard, NYU (assumed to be a reject)

Going to: ?

Advice: A lesson is that you might have a shot in top tier school even with not so nice stats if you have some sort of extra. In my case that could have been a publication, a lot of independent research and teaching. Apparently fit was also important (even if not the way I expexted): I was rejected by some "lower ranked" schools and accepted by supposedy better ones.

[puddle]

PROFILE:

Type of Undergrad Institution: USA-'top' ranked public

Major(s)/Minor(s): Political Science

Undergrad GPA: PBK, Magna Cum Laude

Type of Grad: Political Science MA, reputable Canadian University

Grad GPA: 4.0

GRE: 710V 790Q 5.0AW

Any Special Courses: MA focus in methods and comparative

Letters of Recommendation: MA supervisor, quant specialist from MA, UG mentor and PI on some of my research projects

Research Experience: 2 summers in Africa, 5 paid RAships, 1 unpaid RAship, MA thesis

Teaching Experience: 4 semesters TAing at MA university (2 semesters Quant Methods), 2 years tutor for official UG Tutoring Dept (department supervisor in senior year)

Subfield/Research Interests: comparative, developmental political economy, experimental and quantitative methods

RESULTS:

Acceptances($$ or no $$): Yale, UBC, Texas A&M (all $$)

Waitlists: nyet

Rejections: Stanford, Harvard, NYU, WUSTL, Columbia, Northwestern, Chicago... need I go on

Pending: Toronto

Going to: ... still waiting on some official documents, a scholarship, and some visits

My advice: Contrary to popular belief, rejection from one top ranked university does not mean rejection from ALL top ranked universities. A month ago, I was awash in rejections. They rained down like manna from heaven. It sucked. I am a second time applicant and was seriously considering changing fields (I purchased an LSAT book, browsed med school entrance requirements, submitted a CV to some NGOs etc). Through all of this, I acknowledged that leaving academia would mean giving up on my two greatest passions: teaching and research (at least, giving up on having it all). Today... I have no regrets.

One other thing: fit isn't everything (at least in the sense that fit with a university does not guarantee you a spot at said university). Consider that while you are looking for fit (professors who you want to work with) so is the university admissions committee. You just have to hope that your Venn-diagrams overlap!

[CairoKid]

If anyone has an example of a POS that had a length requirement (such as Georgetown's 500 word limit or Washington Seattle's 350-500 word limit), could you please post is as a sample? Several of my programs required such short statements, and I found it very difficult to utilize such little space wisely. I think I ended up cutting out a lot of useful information and fear that it's the reason I probably seem like I lack any sort of focus on what I want to do in grad school. The samples posted so far are all so very long.

[PSApplicant12]

I think for a lot of schools, the posted word count is not a hard ceiling. I contacted one school about the limit, and they indicated it was more of a general guideline. In any case, I went significantly over the 500 word limit and was accepted.