Welcome to the 2012-2013 cycle

[BornAndRaised]

Rejected at Bloomington. Was one of my top choices. =(

[PhDhopeful2013]

Rejected at UNC.

 Me too.  I checked the Apply Yourself website after I saw the rejection posted to the Results Board...

[doctoralgrad23]

Rejected at Bloomington. Was one of my top choices. =(

Sorry to hear that...

[raptureonfire]

Thank you all for the support and laughs through this process.  Looks like I'm a bust across the board.

 

I took a lot for granted, didn't develop POIs, didn't get my matches to schools ("fit") lined up very well, and perhaps worst of all I didn't sufficiently clarify my research area or subfield; coming from a Master's in another field, so many subfields and research areas sounded good to me!  Having 3.7 in MA, GRE composite of 324, and some other pluses, I figured some program would take me... but that's just not enough at this level!  Learned a lot from you all, and I have a great respect for what it takes to land a good spot ~ congratulations to those of you who pulled it off. 

 

I'm going to put my search results addiction to rest, but I'll check in to see where you've all gone... perhaps later this year I'll start a "round two" thread, haha.  Best of luck to you all!

 

Wemayet,

 

I'm sorry to hear that.  It really stinks to bust across the board, but don't fret; many of us here have gone through the same thing.  If anything, it will only serve to make you a much more determined, stronger candidate next year.  There seem to be competing views about POIs, but my suggestion is that it is a good thing to contact them (provided you don't annoy them or spam them with crazy emails).  If you can meet with them or talk on the phone, all the better.  My experience has been pretty good with that, at least.  In fact, I was told by a POI that it was my outreach to him that really helped put me in the top pool of candidates.  I'm not sure what would have happened if I hadn't reached out.  For others, this seems less important.  You and I have (at least at face value) exactly identical GPA and GRE.  For those of us who don't have perfect scores or grades, it is important to separate yourself from the rest of the candidates in the stack.

 

There's a good chance that you were perfectly qualified for several of the programs you applied for.  Don't let it be a commentary on you.  The word stochastic gets thrown around these boards for a reason.

 

My recommendation to you is that you start your next round of applications now.  Particularly if you are coming in from a different field of study, it is vital that you be well-read, and can explain your research interest in the language and context of political science.

 

If you want help with any of the logistical tools that might help you in your search, feel free to PM me

[tlh0223]

I am waiting for Maryland but no news..

 

IR subfield...

 

Hi guys. I hate to be possibly bearer of bad news. I spoke with the admissions director at Maryland and I'm 90% sure all of the IR offers are out (I am IR). There is a slight chance I just got the wrong impression from our conversation though. He did say that IR in particular was especially competitive this year. 

 

 

AH. I just thought of something. We spoke about funded offers, so there may be more a couple more offers going out which do not include funding/assistantships. 

Edited February 22, 2013 by tlh0223

[phdhope2013]

Hi guys. I hate to be possibly bearer of bad news. I spoke with the admissions director at Maryland and I'm 90% sure all of the IR offers are out (I am IR). There is a slight chance I just got the wrong impression from our conversation though. He did say that IR in particular was especially competitive this year. 

 

 

AH. I just thought of something. We spoke about funded offers, so there may be more a couple more offers going out which do not include funding/assistantships. 

Thanks for letting us know!

[CGMJ]

Out at Notre Dame...not a huge surprise (but these still never feel good!). Fit wasn't great but it was my supervisor's alma mater and he suggested I apply. 

[summerecho]

Well...just got rejected from Irvine. Wow, this hurts.  I'm not even sure what I'm planning to do anymore. I also got rejected from Davis. I'm waiting to hear back from Santa Cruz, but it doesn't seem too likely because it seems like they've already sent out all their acceptances.

Edited February 22, 2013 by summerecho

[Mnemonics2]

Wheeeeeeeeen will the UVa wait end?? Has anyone spoken to them?

[hopefully2013]

Anybody else ready for the admissions process to be over with??

[goforbroke33]

Anybody else ready for the admissions process to be over with??

 

+1

[student90210]

UT Austin has been so rude in this whole process... No notification via email, nothing, called the Graduate Coordinator and was told that my status will be updated. When I checked my status online, I saw a very rude message saying I was denied. 

[phdhope2013]

UT Austin has been so rude in this whole process... No notification via email, nothing, called the Graduate Coordinator and was told that my status will be updated. When I checked my status online, I saw a very rude message saying I was denied. 

Unfortunately, graduate schools can be rude when it comes to those they deny. I wish they would put some effort into their rejection letters (some do, but that is rare). At least you were admitted somewhere!

[RiffRam]

In at UFL. Wait listed for funding though.

[eponine997]

 define your goal coming out.  Do not apply to programs that offer you a poor chance of reaching that goal. Do not scoff at programs that do offer you a good chance because they are not top 10.

 

really well qualified candidates with mainstream research interests might have good luck tossing the top ten pasta at the fridge, but I think it's a bad strategy to assume that this is you.

 

The take-away here is that your admissions strategy should not simply be about admissions. It should take into account what the degree means to your career and how your career fits in with your overall happiness. (This becomes more true the older you get.)

 

Yes, yes, and yes!

 

1) I am a person who had a professor say, in his loveably austere British accent, "Go to a top ten program, or don't go." I mostly took that advice when applying to programs. My thinking was, given the competitiveness of the academic job market, grad school really only makes sense if you go somewhere with a strong placement record. Top 10 was a reasonable stand-in for that (and I didn't apply to Rochester because I'm a baby).  Although my SOP was quite specific to my particular research plan, I customized no more than 3-4 sentences of it to each school and its professors, and contacted no one prior to admission. I've gotten into Chicago, Cornell and Columbia. (It also helped to come from an undergrad institution with a strong record of placing people in Ph.D programs). And FWIW I got waitlisted on funding at U Penn, which is the only school I applied to by virtue of fit rather than ranking.

 

2) my best friend is applying to econ Ph.D programs this year. He works as an RA for a professor who was recently drafted by Stanford from Harvard; his take, from talking to his supervisors and college profs, was that the very top econ programs barely look at your Statement, because a] they think you'll probably change your research interests a lot in grad school and b] they've got enough people to cover a broad range of possibilities. So I wouldn't be too skeptical of programs that don't care much about fit. They might know a lot more than we do about the typical trajectory about an academic-to-be.

 

To your first point: When I mentioned that, not worth going if you don't go to a top program, I was referring (almost specifically) to the advice given on this forum by "Realist" (who is currently a TT prof, link on page 1 of this thread).  He and your professor are not wrong.  You are absolutely right in thinking the academic job market is ridiculously competitive, and you have a better chance at getting a good job if you graduate from a top program.  I think someone already referenced The Monkey Cage study of how 50 percent of tenure track jobs in poli sci are filled by grads from 11 programs.  You are obviously an extremely well qualified applicant because results like that are certainly not the norm.  (and on that note: Kudos! you have some happily tough decisions to make ) But you also mentioned you tailored your personal statement to each program (even if only 3-4 sentences), which suggests you looked at something that resembled fit.  This is different than someone submitting the same SoP to every top 10 school because they have a 3.9 and 95-percentile GRE scores with an otherwise average CV as they could do when applying to undergrad institutions - which is more what I was referring to.  

 

To your second point, though I think someone already mentioned this, econ is a different field.  The following is from Chris Blattman's (Columbia) blog - targeted at PhD program applicants, found here: http://chrisblattman.com/about/contact/gradschool/

 

"Economics applicants will ideally want to show A’s in all their maths (linear algebra, multivariate calculus, real analysis, statistics, etc.) There is hope for you if you don’t have these–I did not have the full range of maths and my math grades were not perfect–but I got in partly from luck I think. And admissions seem more competitive these days.

Politics PhD applicants ought to have a clear statement of research interests. It helps to have a finished research product from your thesis or post-graduate work, though this is not essential. It helps us see how you think and judge your ability to think and produce. My understanding is that economics admissions committees are much less interested in this work, and may even ignore it, because they assume you haven’t even learned the basic tools of the trade yet. Which is true. Politics has less of a fixed methodological cost of entry, and is more heterogeneous, and so early work is a better indication of future work."

 

Interesting, helpful, and in my mind, a good illustration of the differences.  I was friendly with some of the econ PhD students as an undergrad, most of them had math degrees.  The impression I got was that if you really liked econ, you were almost better off going the quantitative poli-sci route, and that econ grad study was more like math or physics.  Though, if you look at Blattman, he is trained as an economist and employed as a political scientist so there is obviously LOTS of overlap... but from the sound of it, moreso at outcome than entry with grad school.  

 

"Go to a top ten program, or don't go"

I have no idea what the field of IR would have been like if Alexander Wendt did not go to graduate school. Just a thought. 

 

Not a bad thought, but honestly, we all want to believe we will be that one superstar who will buck the trend, and perhaps one of us will.  The truth is, this is unlikely.  As much as I hate to say it  The best response I have to this is to think seriously about outcome.  Consider the worst possible, you are in an adjunct or JC instructor position for several years, the only TT position you can find is at Northeastern Nebraska State or University of Alaska at Nome (whatever your most undesirable location is) - will you still be happy?  or will you only be happy if you are that rockstar scholar who goes from an unheard of program to the forefront of the field?  If the latter is true, I would think long and hard about whether this is really a good idea for you.  

 

The fact is you are more likely to be placed at Stanford if you attended Harvard than if you attended UC Davis and more likely to be placed at Washington if you attended Cornell than if you attended Florida State.  

 

Superstars are going to stand out no matter where they are. A different professor told me "If you have questions you want to study, study them! The point of graduate school is not to get a job, it's to write a dissertation. You won't understand the opportunity costs of a decision until way later," and then told me about a recent star grad from Amherst who was getting a lot of attention. I too believe in pursuing our dreams! But let's be real about how hard the road is going to be. A well-ranked program is a head start, nothing more. But it is a head start.

 

"A recent star grad from Amherst..." note this is single example and even the plural of anecdote is anecdotes, not data.  What does getting a lot of attention mean?  Job offers from Harvard and Princeton? or just several job offers from places similar to Amherst and a lot of citations of their work?  It is possible to still do well at middle ranked programs, but the limits are worth acknowledging.  One of my advisors made a very similar comment: "just make sure your dissertation/book project is awesome, if you have an awesome book project, that's what will get you a job" though he added, "there will be people from top programs who might have done less than you, who will get better job offers, and that happens."  This isn't to say people at top programs don't deserve the jobs they get; they wouldn't have gotten into those programs to begin with if they weren't smart and willing to work hard, but being there is a much more substantial 'head start' than what you are suggesting.  

 

This all may seem completely contradictory to my original post which started this conversation, so I'll say this in conclusion.  Fit matters when selecting where to apply (as they are probably more likely to accept you if you fit in well).  That aside, once you are accepted (assuming you have a choice) you should picked the program that is most highly ranked (it doesn't matter if the weather sucks, if its a boring town, if your scholarly crush happens to be elsewhere (since it's common for productive faculty to move around, picking a program based on ONE advisor is generally not the best plan)) since that is what is most likely to get you a job at the end of it.  And no matter what you say now, you will want a job when this is all over.  It is one thing to have a great job in the field and think "gosh I really wish I'd followed my heart and written my dissertation about that topic that makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside!" but quite another to be miserably employed or not employed at all and have a cool project that took up 3-4 years of your life.  

I've rambled long enough... 

[jnt777]

Anyone hear anything from Princeton?

[jcross9]

Anyone hear anything from Princeton?

 

I don't think so. No one has posted anything on the grad cafe admissions list, and Princeton traditionally waits until about now to start notifying applicants anyway.

 

I right there with you tho... really wish they would just tell me my status, so that I can officially decide between the schools to which I have been accepted!

[brkrgal85]

Yes, yes, and yes!

 

 

To your first point: When I mentioned that, not worth going if you don't go to a top program, I was referring (almost specifically) to the advice given on this forum by "Realist" (who is currently a TT prof, link on page 1 of this thread).  He and your professor are not wrong.  You are absolutely right in thinking the academic job market is ridiculously competitive, and you have a better chance at getting a good job if you graduate from a top program.  I think someone already referenced The Monkey Cage study of how 50 percent of tenure track jobs in poli sci are filled by grads from 11 programs.  You are obviously an extremely well qualified applicant because results like that are certainly not the norm.  (and on that note: Kudos! you have some happily tough decisions to make ) But you also mentioned you tailored your personal statement to each program (even if only 3-4 sentences), which suggests you looked at something that resembled fit.  This is different than someone submitting the same SoP to every top 10 school because they have a 3.9 and 95-percentile GRE scores with an otherwise average CV as they could do when applying to undergrad institutions - which is more what I was referring to.  

 

To your second point, though I think someone already mentioned this, econ is a different field.  The following is from Chris Blattman's (Columbia) blog - targeted at PhD program applicants, found here: http://chrisblattman.com/about/contact/gradschool/

 

"Economics applicants will ideally want to show A’s in all their maths (linear algebra, multivariate calculus, real analysis, statistics, etc.) There is hope for you if you don’t have these–I did not have the full range of maths and my math grades were not perfect–but I got in partly from luck I think. And admissions seem more competitive these days.

Politics PhD applicants ought to have a clear statement of research interests. It helps to have a finished research product from your thesis or post-graduate work, though this is not essential. It helps us see how you think and judge your ability to think and produce. My understanding is that economics admissions committees are much less interested in this work, and may even ignore it, because they assume you haven’t even learned the basic tools of the trade yet. Which is true. Politics has less of a fixed methodological cost of entry, and is more heterogeneous, and so early work is a better indication of future work."

 

Interesting, helpful, and in my mind, a good illustration of the differences.  I was friendly with some of the econ PhD students as an undergrad, most of them had math degrees.  The impression I got was that if you really liked econ, you were almost better off going the quantitative poli-sci route, and that econ grad study was more like math or physics.  Though, if you look at Blattman, he is trained as an economist and employed as a political scientist so there is obviously LOTS of overlap... but from the sound of it, moreso at outcome than entry with grad school.  

 

 

Not a bad thought, but honestly, we all want to believe we will be that one superstar who will buck the trend, and perhaps one of us will.  The truth is, this is unlikely.  As much as I hate to say it  The best response I have to this is to think seriously about outcome.  Consider the worst possible, you are in an adjunct or JC instructor position for several years, the only TT position you can find is at Northeastern Nebraska State or University of Alaska at Nome (whatever your most undesirable location is) - will you still be happy?  or will you only be happy if you are that rockstar scholar who goes from an unheard of program to the forefront of the field?  If the latter is true, I would think long and hard about whether this is really a good idea for you.  

 

The fact is you are more likely to be placed at Stanford if you attended Harvard than if you attended UC Davis and more likely to be placed at Washington if you attended Cornell than if you attended Florida State.  

 

 

"A recent star grad from Amherst..." note this is single example and even the plural of anecdote is anecdotes, not data.  What does getting a lot of attention mean?  Job offers from Harvard and Princeton? or just several job offers from places similar to Amherst and a lot of citations of their work?  It is possible to still do well at middle ranked programs, but the limits are worth acknowledging.  One of my advisors made a very similar comment: "just make sure your dissertation/book project is awesome, if you have an awesome book project, that's what will get you a job" though he added, "there will be people from top programs who might have done less than you, who will get better job offers, and that happens."  This isn't to say people at top programs don't deserve the jobs they get; they wouldn't have gotten into those programs to begin with if they weren't smart and willing to work hard, but being there is a much more substantial 'head start' than what you are suggesting.  

 

This all may seem completely contradictory to my original post which started this conversation, so I'll say this in conclusion.  Fit matters when selecting where to apply (as they are probably more likely to accept you if you fit in well).  That aside, once you are accepted (assuming you have a choice) you should picked the program that is most highly ranked (it doesn't matter if the weather sucks, if its a boring town, if your scholarly crush happens to be elsewhere (since it's common for productive faculty to move around, picking a program based on ONE advisor is generally not the best plan)) since that is what is most likely to get you a job at the end of it.  And no matter what you say now, you will want a job when this is all over.  It is one thing to have a great job in the field and think "gosh I really wish I'd followed my heart and written my dissertation about that topic that makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside!" but quite another to be miserably employed or not employed at all and have a cool project that took up 3-4 years of your life.  

I've rambled long enough... 

I'm not trying to be rude, but I think we are all over analyzing this big time.  I'm just fine with my choice to go to Florida State, because the IR/Comparative area is very strong there, and if I teach in SEC schools for the rest of my life, that's fine with me.  They have placements at University of Georgia and very nice towns afterward.  If you are really passionate about Political Science research, I would seriously think that you'd be happy to get somewhere on a Tenure Track job, even if it isn't in the Ivy League tower.

[eponine997]

I'm not trying to be rude, but I think we are all over analyzing this big time.  I'm just fine with my choice to go to Florida State, because the IR/Comparative area is very strong there, and if I teach in SEC schools for the rest of my life, that's fine with me.  They have placements at University of Georgia and very nice towns afterward.  If you are really passionate about Political Science research, I would seriously think that you'd be happy to get somewhere on a Tenure Track job, even if it isn't in the Ivy League tower.

Perhaps, but the cost of making the wrong decision in this case is pretty high (5-7 years of your life at a very low paying job that leaves you inappropriately-/over-qualified for many jobs).  Congrats on FSU, they DO have a great placement record and some interesting IR/Comp people .  You sound like you have a good head on your shoulders and have considered both the decision to attend and the outcome, which was really my main point.  

 

This really is one of the few places where we can vent, ramble, seek advice, and commiserate with people who are going through the same thing we are.  Truthfully, I am trying to work out for myself whether to pursue a PhD now or build my resume doing other poli sci research and reapply when my application is stronger... rambling + feedback is helpful, and I'm hoping its at least worth thinking about for others.  

[jcross9]

Perhaps, but the cost of making the wrong decision in this case is pretty high (5-7 years of your life at a very low paying job that leaves you inappropriately-/over-qualified for many jobs).  Congrats on FSU, they DO have a great placement record and some interesting IR/Comp people .  You sound like you have a good head on your shoulders and have considered both the decision to attend and the outcome, which was really my main point.  

 

This really is one of the few places where we can vent, ramble, seek advice, and commiserate with people who are going through the same thing we are.  Truthfully, I am trying to work out for myself whether to pursue a PhD now or build my resume doing other poli sci research and reapply when my application is stronger... rambling + feedback is helpful, and I'm hoping its at least worth thinking about for others.  

 

While I don't know anything about your stats, interests, experience, etc., I would just say this: if you aren't satisfied with the places you got into, then go into the field and build your resume. If you really are passionate about going back to get your PhD, then there is really no down side to taking time off. Look for a RAship at an AEI, Brookings, RAND, WW, etc.--they are great places that offer great experience, and they will definitely help you get into your dream school down the road!!

[pingsmile]

OMG!!! I got in with UVA!!! Burst with tears after this looooong wait. got rejected by MIT, Cornell and UPenn but all those dont matter now 'cause UVA has always been my favorite. Now whatever happens with Princeton and Harvard, I'm already relieved!!

 

[brkrgal85]

Perhaps, but the cost of making the wrong decision in this case is pretty high (5-7 years of your life at a very low paying job that leaves you inappropriately-/over-qualified for many jobs).  Congrats on FSU, they DO have a great placement record and some interesting IR/Comp people .  You sound like you have a good head on your shoulders and have considered both the decision to attend and the outcome, which was really my main point.  

 

This really is one of the few places where we can vent, ramble, seek advice, and commiserate with people who are going through the same thing we are.  Truthfully, I am trying to work out for myself whether to pursue a PhD now or build my resume doing other poli sci research and reapply when my application is stronger... rambling + feedback is helpful, and I'm hoping its at least worth thinking about for others.  

Very true - I see your point!  I have just seen people make huge mistakes the other way around, too, and end up leaving their "dream" schools.  It happens! 

[teamind]

OMG!!! I got in with UVA!!! Burst with tears after this looooong wait. got rejected by MIT, Cornell and UPenn but all those dont matter now 'cause UVA has always been my favorite. Now whatever happens with Princeton and Harvard, I'm already relieved!!

 

::dies inside::

 

Ahh, jealous! Congrats!!! 

[rkmattson]

::dies inside::

Ahh, jealous! Congrats!!!

Agreed on all fronts! Congrats though! Mind me asking your subfield?

[jcross9]

Anyone here get into Cornell or Michigan who will also be going to either school's admitted-students days?