Please evaluate my profile

[rob.smith255]

PROFILE:

Type of Undergrad: Small Liberal Arts (pretty unknown i suppose)

Undergrad GPA: 3.76

Type of Grad: N/A

Grad GPA: N/A

GRE: 780 Q (90 %tile), 650 V (93 %tile), 5.0 A (77%tile)

Undergrad: Economics(major)/ Math(minor)

Letters of Recommendation: Should be pretty solid

Research Experience: Senior Thesis

Teaching Experience: None

Research Interests: International Affairs

SOP: Standard

Other Info: International student doing undergrad in US

OK, so I was wondering what my chances were of getting into a top 10 or top 20 school?

[adaptations]

My thoughts are that you are right in the hunt with everyone. Your SOP and LORs will probably be the make or break between where you get in. Without additional information, I would say you are competetive, but not guaranteed for a top program.

[plisar]

My thoughts are that you are right in the hunt with everyone. Your SOP and LORs will probably be the make or break between where you get in. Without additional information, I would say you are competetive, but not guaranteed for a top program.

Completely agreed -- but then again, who can be really guaranteed for a top program? :shock:

[natofone]

Some top schools might not look at your app without a 700 in verbal, but you should do fine otherwise. Did you already apply?

[rob.smith255]

Some top schools might not look at your app without a 700 in verbal, but you should do fine otherwise. Did you already apply?

Well, I already applied but all of them are for a PhD in economics. Hehe, I recently had a brainwave and decided I would like to do poli science. So will do that next year.

[natofone]

If you apply again next year I'd focus on improving your GRE verbal score a little bit just to get your application looked at by every school. Some of the top schools don't look at applications that don't have a 700+q, 700+v, and 3.5+ gpa. Once you get past those hurdles you'll get looked at everywhere. Your scores are good enough to get you looked at most schools though.

If you do that then you'll have a really nice shot with your background in econ and, i assume, quantitative methods.

[rob.smith255]

If you apply again next year I'd focus on improving your GRE verbal score a little bit just to get your application looked at by every school. Some of the top schools don't look at applications that don't have a 700+q, 700+v, and 3.5+ gpa. Once you get past those hurdles you'll get looked at everywhere. Your scores are good enough to get you looked at most schools though.

If you do that then you'll have a really nice shot with your background in econ and, i assume, quantitative methods.

First of all, thanks all for the prompt response...Ya i didnt work as much as i should have for the verbal part since i was applying for econ programs. in econ, as you might know, even top programs dont care about verbal so long as u get around 450-500. but i probably wont take the GRE again since i have already taken it twice and also considering the fact that the 650 verbal is better than both my SAT verbal scores. it is funny how 650 verbal was overkill for econ and 780 quant was barely enough and when i come to poli sci. the 780q is overkill and the 650v is now not enough.

[plisar]

First of all, thanks all for the prompt response...Ya i didnt work as much as i should have for the verbal part since i was applying for econ programs. in econ, as you might know, even top programs dont care about verbal so long as u get around 450-500. but i probably wont take the GRE again since i have already taken it twice and also considering the fact that the 650 verbal is better than both my SAT verbal scores. it is funny how 650 verbal was overkill for econ and 780 quant was barely enough and when i come to poli sci. the 780q is overkill and the 650v is now not enough.

780Q is not overkill.

[rob.smith255]

780Q is not overkill.

oh ok..i guess i came to a hasty conclusion without much research. anyway, i also wanted to ask you guys whether submitting my econ senior thesis as a sample paper for grad. school application would work...my senior thesis is pretty much political economy stuff and my guess is that it should be quite related to a poli. sci research

[plisar]

That would be fine. Essentially they want to see that you can write and do research. Political economy, being heavily methods based, will be right in the committee's ballpark at most top 10 schools.

[expatbayern]

PROFILE:

Type of Undergrad: Small Liberal Arts (pretty unknown i suppose)

Undergrad GPA: 3.76

Type of Grad: N/A

Grad GPA: N/A

GRE: 780 Q (90 %tile), 650 V (93 %tile), 5.0 A (77%tile)

Undergrad: Economics(major)/ Math(minor)

Letters of Recommendation: Should be pretty solid

Research Experience: Senior Thesis

Teaching Experience: None

Research Interests: International Affairs

SOP: Standard

Other Info: International student doing undergrad in US

OK, so I was wondering what my chances were of getting into a top 10 or top 20 school?

Apply pretty broadly--admissions are pretty random, and one school may find something they really like in your application that puts you over the top while others (even ones that are generally lower-ranked or less selective) don't. The little-known school can hurt, less because of the degree than because committees may largely disregard your LORs if they haven't heard of the recommenders and are unable to trust their evaluations (if you're coming in from a larger or better-known school and a recommender says you're top 5%, they know what that means, but they may not be able to judge what the top 5% at your institution means)--this obviously isn't the case at top-ranked big-name SLACs, but if you're at a lower-tier regional LAC that hasn't sent a lot of students to top programs in your field, it's hard to evaluate your record.

Cautionary tale: I was in a similar situation out of undergrad--little-known LAC, strong LORs but from relatively unknown professors. Here were my stats:

GPA: 3.89 (undergrad majors in International Affairs and German, significant Econ coursework)

GRE: 800Q, 720V, 5.5W

I applied to just 4 places (all top-10), partly because I wasn't really certain what I wanted to do yet (which probably means my SOP wasn't very strong), and didn't get in anywhere. I've since done an MA at a top-10 place, got all new LORs (two from relatively big-name people), and have a much stronger SOP (as well as a solid writing sample in my MA thesis). It's certainly something to consider if you have difficulty getting into the top places.

[HarrisonWinslow]

Type of Undergrad: Private US University

Undergrad GPA: ~3.69

Type of Grad: N/A

Grad GPA: N/A

GRE: 600Q, 600V 5.5 A (I will retake it this Summer). :oops:

Undergrad: Political Science

Letters of Recommendation: "Amazing" they all said. Two of my professors said they absolutely loved me and I worked with them for two years+ doing independent studies in the history of political philosophy. The third professor is not in political theory, but he invited me to take his graduate seminars in jurisprudence. And a possible fourth, also in legal theory. In terms of Pedigree: Harvard, Chicago, Stanford, Oxford PhDs (respectively) all studied under top names in their fields. The Chicago and Harvard PhDs are specifically in Political Philosophy.

Research Experience: N/A (Unless you want to include my independent studies, which amounts to about 24 academic hours.)

Teaching Experience: I have TAed for three semesters in our University's General Education curriculum--All of them under the above professors.

Research Interests: The history of political philosophy.

SOP: I was told to expand on the "research" I did for the past two years. My professors helped me for the most part.

Other Info: I am applying to political philosophy programs next cycle (2009/2010). I have met with all of the big names in my specific field and subfields and will be applying to:

Chicago, Boston College, Harvard, Yale, Texas, Duke, Virginia, Toronto, Vanderbilt and WashU.

I have general questions about political philosophy applicants at these programs--what do these places weigh the most? What are "our" averages? Are they above/below/same as the general polisci departments?

I just previewed my post: I don't mean to sound pompous, I just thought it is important to know some real specifics--simply "Standard," etc. is not helpful to you, my potential reviewers.

[rob.smith255]

damn dude start your own thread for your profile .... this my area homie... lol just messin .... anyway, i also wanted to ask you guys whether i will get some leeway regarding the 650 verbal and 5.0 analytical score considering the fact that im an international student from a non english speaking country

[jackassjim]

damn dude start your own thread for your profile .... this my area homie... lol just messin .... anyway, i also wanted to ask you guys whether i will get some leeway regarding the 650verbal and 5.0 analytical score considering the fact that im an international student from a non english speaking country

I don't think you should expect any leeway. It might somehow positively affect your application if you get a great score despite it being your 2nd or 3rd language (even that is not at all clear). However, I do not think there is (or should be) favorable discrimination toward foreign students with regard to how they look at the gre scores (btw, I am also from a non-english speaking country).

Make sure you ace the TOEFL

[gradster]

For econ post:

Your stats are not that great. 650 v isn't great. no one cares about analytic. Your GPA, while good, is from a small unknown school, so it will be discounted (i.e. same GPA from Harvard counts more). Given how competitive things are, I would be surprised if you got into several top 10 programs, but you may get into one or two, probably the one or two that don't care about GRE scores as much. Also, having an econ background and doing IPE is going to help you. They don't have that many students applying for that and always want some. So you need to make your SOP really really good.

For the political philosophy post;

FIrst of all, not to be mean I'm just being picky,in political science we refer to it as political theory, not political philosophy, which is a subfield in philosophy departments. They usually have less numbers of theorists come in as they tend to be the smaller subfield in most schools. At the same time there are less applications for theory than other subfields so you end up with the same chances as someone doing something else. The problem for you is your GRE scores, pretty low for some of the top schools. However, I think theorists probably care less about GREs than other subfields and it will ultimately come down to how competitive the pool is and how strong your SOP is. Also your GRE is good but it depends what school you went to. If it's a top famous school your GPA looks better. Given that you have good letters and advice on your SOP your chances should be good.

[plisar]

Am I the only one of the opinion that if you have over 90th percentile on the verbal, you're probably going to get looked at? I mean we're talking about a section of the test where only 3% of students get over a 700.

I think the quantitative is much more alarming if it falls below a 750 than a verbal below a 700...

[jackassjim]

Am I the only one of the opinion that if you have over 90th percentile on the verbal, you're probably going to get looked at? I mean we're talking about a section of the test where only 3% of students get over a 700.

I think the quantitative is much more alarming if it falls below a 750 than a verbal below a 700...

I think the percentiles for the gre are not actually that useful in evaluating the performance of the candidates in particular disciplines. At least, not without context. For the math section, they are deflated because many math and physics hopefuls score 800; for the verbal, they are inflated because a lot of foreign students really bomb on that section.

Also, on the polisci rumor blogs, I've read many profs say that they look at the scores, but remember very few (none?) mentioning percentiles. In my discussions with profs, the same pattern emerged.

So yeah, 700 might be a bit high to expect in the verbal section, but at TOP programs, I think it might be ok to assume that adcomms will not necessarily be impressed by a 650. Not that it's necessarily such a huge liability, but it's pretty near cut-off point.

[plisar]

I wouldn't necessarily disagree, but in my experience and conversations with faculty at top institutions, a 650 isn't going to get your app junked in most cases, especially with a good quant score. You woudln't want to go much below a 600 on the verbal, and obviously the higher the better, but I wouldn't totally stress it. Schools that show real averages show the verbal average for admitted students is often times 50-100 points lower than the quantitative average, and it is always under 700. Maybe Stanford and Yale will junk you, but I doubt the rest of them will (and I doubt those two as well).

And as for the jobrumors website--it is anonymous. The only difference between an adcomm member and a ABD having a bad day trying to scare applicants is slim at best. I take what is posted on their with a grain of salt unless i've seen it verified by other sources.

[jackassjim]

+1 for everything you just said

[spark25]

I don't know if this applies to all the admissions committees. But, my prof told me that scores were not generally considered important in making the key decisions. According to this prof, GRE, and to a certain extent, GPA scores were more utilized at the initial stages in drawing cut-off points. I am assuming that the higher ranked schools will have higher cut-off lines in comparison to some lower ranked schools. Furthermore, scores are viewed more in reflection to how one has does academically this far in his academic career. If your GRE scores are within a satisfactory range (650-750), then this shouldn't be a disadvantage however nothing of particular advantage either. In short, scores cannot be considered THE determining factor to ones admission.

If the profs claim has validity, SOPs, LORs and writing samples are much more critical in assessing an applicant's potential for the PhD program. Thus, the important questions would be: What does this candidate want to study? Is there a good fit with the faculty? Can the proposed study topic be accomplised within the given amount of time?

Then again, admissions into the PhD program is a crapshoot and a lot of factors need to be considered very randomly. Hope my point is of any help.

[mormegil]

From what I gather from conversations with faculty, Northwestern for example, they are much more lenient for international students on weaker verbal section scores. So an international student could get away with a <650 verbal score but an english speaking American applicant might not.

Another argument that the faculty member gave me for them being more forgiving on international students than American applicants regarding the verbal section is that international students are new to the kind of standardized tests like the GRE but American applicants have already had experience on these kind of tests (like SAT) and they have prepared all of their life to face such tests.

[jackassjim]

mormegil said:

international students are new to the kind of standardized tests like the GRE but American applicants have already had experience on these kind of tests (like SAT) and they have prepared all of their life to face such tests.

That's a very good point. I really freaked out when taking the gre and lsat as I had never done anything remotely similar to that before.

[HarrisonWinslow]

Rob.Smith,

I apologize. I am quite new to the forum and didn't realize the nature of this thread. I apologize. Thanks for housing my profile for a bit, though.

HW

[rob.smith255]

ok i need some more advice from you guys ...i have interests in both political philosophy and international relations and i plan on doing both of them (in grad school and beyond) but i also plan to do a lot of my reseach using quantitaive methods, econometrics and so on .... since i donot know much about how poli sci works (econ undergrad) i was just wondering if i could apply for concentration in all three, ie. poli theory (philosophy), IR and quantitative methods? or will they think im just crazy? and considering my profile, which subfield do you guys think im most likely to get into .... and one more question, since i have one year before i apply and no school what would you guys recommend i do to boost my application?

[eve2008]

LORs LORs LORs LORs

I'm pretty certain that is how one gets into a Ph.D program. GRE scores aren't that important, although they are probably used in the pre-screening process (by grad students or staff who decide which applications get to be viewed by a faculty member). I imagine (and this is just my guess) that GRE scores matter more in that pre-screening process if you come from an unknown school or have recommendations from faculty without name recognition, but they would never kill an application from a student who is clearly strong in all the areas that matter (research, research, research).

Political science is increasingly quantitative, especially the top programs, and so your Quant score matters more than your Verbal score (maybe not if you are doing theory...)

Also, the process is not entirely random. I say this because the very top programs tend to admit the exact same people. So fit does matter to a certain extent, but the admissions committee isn't throwing darts--they know what they are looking for. And I have to say that the cohorts at the very top schools are uniformly fantastic. Programs achieve this by going for the safe bets, and so for all my talk about "GRE doesn't matter," it's still a signal, and it's a good idea to give an adcom every reason to believe you are a safe bet.

I second the poster who wrote that if you don't get in on a first go and think it may be because of weak LORs or some other imperfect aspect of your record, an MA might be a chance to shore up some weaknesses (and learn some new skills).