Faculty perspectives

[Straightoutta]

On January 7, 2016 at 8:10 PM, BFB said:

You're welcome!

I do think transparency would help, but not the statistics you mention. Posting that information would be really misleading because it doesn't matter that much. We pass up students with GREs in the 90th percentile if (for example) they're a bad fit, or their statement strikes us as not reflecting the quality of mind that we're looking for. We also pursue students with GREs in the 40th percentile, or GPAs in the low 2s, if their advisors swear they walk on water / it's a great statement / the reasons for the bad grades make sense / etc. GREs and GPAs tend to correlate with things that interest us, it's true—but far more loosely than most people believe.

I'd like to get your opinion on the low GRE thing a bit more. I will be up front, my GRE score was 40th percentile in quant and 90% in verbal. I am a graduating senior at one of the top five universities in the U.S., and my GPA is around 3.6-3.7 (depending on how one factors in the few graduate courses I took). I have been involved in a research apprenticeship with a pretty well known professor (LOR writer), and also did a research fellowship. I've also got a bit of recognition from APSA (invited to present research). I've got three VERY VERY solid letters of recommendations from really great professors. I'm also receiving some outside funding (not much), and will have a letter of support sent from a fellowship to the graduate programs I've applied to. I've also been told by some faculty at the schools I've applied that I am a good fit, and have a very strong writing sample with evidence of some experience with R. I'm wondering (perhaps you have answered this in the past) how much GRE scores as low as mine in quant can weigh an application down in American politics. Will my GRE be my downfall?  

Edited January 21, 2016 by Straightoutta

[BFB]

On January 21, 2016 at 4:52 PM, Straightoutta said:

I'd like to get your opinion on the low GRE thing a bit more. I will be up front, my GRE score was 40th percentile in quant and 90% in verbal. I am a graduating senior at one of the top five universities in the U.S., and my GPA is around 3.6-3.7 (depending on how one factors in the few graduate courses I took). I have been involved in a research apprenticeship with a pretty well known professor (LOR writer), and also did a research fellowship. I've also got a bit of recognition from APSA (invited to present research). I've got three VERY VERY solid letters of recommendations from really great professors. I'm also receiving some outside funding (not much), and will have a letter of support sent from a fellowship to the graduate programs I've applied to. I've also been told by some faculty at the schools I've applied that I am a good fit, and have a very strong writing sample with evidence of some experience with R. I'm wondering (perhaps you have answered this in the past) how much GRE scores as low as mine in quant can weigh an application down in American politics. Will my GRE be my downfall?  

If you're a good fit, I wouldn't pass you up, myself. Research experience and fit matter a lot. But in our system, anyway, it would depend a lot on the preferences of your POI. Some do come back to me with "The quant GRE score is worrisome" in cases like this, and I generally respect their wishes. So it's not an automatic deal-killer, but yes, it's a vulnerability.

[wb3060]

Hi BFB, 

How are transfer PhD students considered in the admissions process? Is there an automatic strike against them? 

I am in the second year of a direct admit PhD program at a lower ranked university (I will complete my master's-in-passing at the end of this semester). I decided to pursue applications to other programs for a couple reasons. Faculty with similar research interests to mine have left. I want to get a more comprehensive methods training than my program offers. I also just want the better prospects a higher ranked program offers. 

I have done very well in my program thus far and I think my applications will be competitive. But I have heard admission committees are often reluctant to accept transfer students. 

Thanks! 

[GradSchoolTruther]

Most programs limit how many credits you can transfer over, so you're essentially starting from scratch.

[wb3060]

@GradSchoolTruther I have accepted that I will lose many of my credits. I know I will certainly have to repeat the methods sequence. I'm hoping that about a year (of my two years) will transfer so I only have to take about 2 years of classes at the new program. But I've made my peace with the fact I may have to start completely from scratch. I think ultimately it would be worth it. I am still concerned about the actual admissions itself though. I have heard mixed advice on the willingness of programs to accept transfers. 

[BFB]

3 hours ago, wb3060 said:

Hi BFB, 

How are transfer PhD students considered in the admissions process? Is there an automatic strike against them? 

I am in the second year of a direct admit PhD program at a lower ranked university (I will complete my master's-in-passing at the end of this semester). I decided to pursue applications to other programs for a couple reasons. Faculty with similar research interests to mine have left. I want to get a more comprehensive methods training than my program offers. I also just want the better prospects a higher ranked program offers. 

I have done very well in my program thus far and I think my applications will be competitive. But I have heard admission committees are often reluctant to accept transfer students. 

Thanks! 

It really depends. On the plus side, people who are transferring generally have better GRE scores and are more professionalized. Some even have papers in the works, which puts them in good stead. On the minus side, the rank of the existing university can send a signal, and the question of why someone is departing always comes up sooner or later. On balance, being a transfer student can be a plus or a minus, to my mind, depending on these sorts of issues.

As to transfer credit, you should be able to apply to the Department for some credit, at least. I doubt any Dept. will let you course out of everything and go straight to comps, because then you haven't really had any exposure to the people you're coming there to work with (and vice-versa), so you'd be in a pretty difficult position when it comes to writing a dissertation ("Hi, you haven't met me and neither of us has really had a chance to get to know how the other thinks, but would you commit to advising me on this book that I'm writing?") So you're likely to lose some credit, but you shouldn't have to lose all of it.

[chrisb1234]

Hi,

I was wondering if any faculty members could offer advice on how to pick which program to attend. For all the programs I applied to I have professors that I would be excited to work with. In particular, I am interested in:

1. How important is program ranking on the job market?
2. Which program ranking is the most widely recognized?
3. How many years of guaranteed funding is a typical offer?

Thank you!
 

[BFB]

7 minutes ago, chrisb1234 said:

Hi,

I was wondering if any faculty members could offer advice on how to pick which program to attend. For all the programs I applied to I have professors that I would be excited to work with. In particular, I am interested in:

1. How important is program ranking on the job market?
2. Which program ranking is the most widely recognized?
3. How many years of guaranteed funding is a typical offer?

Thank you!
 

I can try.

1. My take is that program ranking matters, but not nearly as much as applicants think it does. What I tell our applicants is that our letterhead will get your file read anywhere; given that that's the case, you should choose the place that will give you the best possible file six or so years from now. That's much more a question of fit and advisor than it is of program ranking.

2. US News, pretty clearly.

3. People here who have been through the process probably have a better sense than I do! But my sense is that 5 years of support, typically involving n years of teaching or TAships, is fairly standard.

[panama]

Hi,

I am a 2016 fall PhD applicant, but I guess I will fail all schools in this year. I really wish your advice for next year which will be my last trial.

I thought I have a good shot because my advisers in my school told me I could get in at least one among the schools that I applied this year.

I applied Harvard, Princeton, Yale, UCB, UCLA, UCSD, Wisconsin, Stanford, Michigan-ann arbor, Duke, Vanderbilt, and Columbia. 

So far I am rejected from almost all schools and waiting for top schools that I could not get in with high chance.

These are my brief specs:

UGPA: 3.89 (one of UC that I applied this year), Summa Cum laude, highest honors in political science

GRE (V: 159, Q:166, 4.0)

I have worked as a RA in one of Harvard, Yale, Princeton for an interdisciplinary project.(we produced publishable outcomes, so we submitted the article in Machine learning conference in this year.- I worked with Phd Students and professors at there) 

I am trying to develop my senior thesis from undergrad and to publish at Plos One in political science because it has relatively low threshold for B.A. degree holder in this year. 

I want to study American politics. And I am an international student.

In next year, what should I prepare more to get in a good school? I need to go back to my country after may 2016 because of my visa. I am currently working at my undergrad institution as a research assistant.

In this year, I got rejected from even my undergrad institution(UC).

I wish I could some advice for next year.

Thanks for reading and advice.

 

 

 

 

Edited February 6, 2016 by panama

[joseon4th]

35 minutes ago, panama said:

Hi,

I am a 2016 fall PhD applicant, but I guess I will fail all schools in this year. I really wish your advice for next year which will be my last trial.

I thought I have a good shot because my advisers in my school told me I could get in at least one among the schools that I applied this year.

I applied Harvard, Princeton, Yale, UCB, UCLA, UCSD, Wisconsin, Stanford, Michigan-ann arbor, Duke, Vanderbilt, and Columbia. 

So far I am rejected from almost all schools and waiting for top schools that I could not get in with high chance.

These are my brief specs:

UGPA: 3.89 (one of UC that I applied this year), Summa Cum laude, highest honors in political science

GRE (V: 159, Q:166, 4.0)

I have worked as a RA in one of Harvard, Yale, Princeton for an interdisciplinary project.(we produced publishable outcomes, so we submitted the article in Machine learning conference in this year.- I worked with Phd Students and professors at there) 

I am trying to develop my senior thesis from undergrad and to publish at Plos One in political science because it has relatively low threshold for B.A. degree holder in this year. 

I want to study American politics. And I am an international student.

In next year, what should I prepare more to get in a good school? I need to go back to my country after may 2016 because of my visa. I am currently working at my undergrad institution as a research assistant.

In this year, I got rejected from even my undergrad institution(UC).

I wish I could some advice for next year.

Thanks for reading and advice.

 

 

 

 

My immediate response to your query is this: English clearly is not your first language, and that no doubt comes across to adcoms. Political Science -- as with most Social Science -- is often thought of as a solely quantitative field. On this count, your GRE is superb and much, much higher than mine. But (and a big but), Political Scientists count for little unless they are able to communicate their numerical findings in a clear, concise, and easily understood manner (read: qualitative). Politics is a discipline built upon communication, and from just your most recent post, I would say that particular attention to your written manner, style, diction and grammar would benefit you greatly if the goal is advanced research at the highest levels of the discipline. This is by no means meant to discourage, only to provide an honest appraisal. 

[panama]

2 minutes ago, joseon4th said:

My immediate response to your query is this: English clearly is not your first language, and that no doubt comes across to adcoms. Political Science -- as with most Social Science -- is often thought of as a solely quantitative field. On this count, your GRE is superb and much, much higher than mine. But (and a big but), Political Scientists count for little unless they are able to communicate their numerical findings in a clear, concise, and easily understood manner (read: qualitative). Politics is a discipline built upon communication, and from just your most recent post, I would say that particular attention to your written manner, style, diction and grammar would benefit you greatly if the goal is advanced research at the highest levels of the discipline. This is by no means meant to discourage, only to provide an honest appraisal. 

Thanks for the reply. Of course, I went to US in my age of 20. English is not my first language. 

For sure, I might write my SOP and writing sample in better language because my advisers and native friends went over it.  

Hmmm I think it is almost impossible for me to improve my English more than this. 

I think language is just a shell. The real things are reasons, claim, and the quality of my argument, if English in PhD in political science matters that much then I am disappointed. Because I am minor in Philosophy, I have decent reasoning and trained analytic writing. One of my letter writers is a philosophy professor. 

Thanks though!

[BFB]

2 hours ago, panama said:

Hi,

I am a 2016 fall PhD applicant, but I guess I will fail all schools in this year. I really wish your advice for next year which will be my last trial.

I thought I have a good shot because my advisers in my school told me I could get in at least one among the schools that I applied this year.

I applied Harvard, Princeton, Yale, UCB, UCLA, UCSD, Wisconsin, Stanford, Michigan-ann arbor, Duke, Vanderbilt, and Columbia. 

So far I am rejected from almost all schools and waiting for top schools that I could not get in with high chance.

These are my brief specs:

UGPA: 3.89 (one of UC that I applied this year), Summa Cum laude, highest honors in political science

GRE (V: 159, Q:166, 4.0)

I have worked as a RA in one of Harvard, Yale, Princeton for an interdisciplinary project.(we produced publishable outcomes, so we submitted the article in Machine learning conference in this year.- I worked with Phd Students and professors at there) 

I am trying to develop my senior thesis from undergrad and to publish at Plos One in political science because it has relatively low threshold for B.A. degree holder in this year. 

I want to study American politics. And I am an international student.

In next year, what should I prepare more to get in a good school? I need to go back to my country after may 2016 because of my visa. I am currently working at my undergrad institution as a research assistant.

In this year, I got rejected from even my undergrad institution(UC).

I wish I could some advice for next year.

Thanks for reading and advice.

It's hard to say. Joseon4th might be on to part of it with the language issue, but I suspect there's something else going on too. It might be that one or more of your advisors isn't conveying the enthusiasm that your record merits, or it might be something about your statement. It's really hard to say.

One thing I can say is that it looks you're targeting departments rather than people. It's quite possible that those departments don't specialize in what you do and have concluded that the fit is just bad. I'd think more in terms of finding good people who fit your research agenda. In American politics, doing machine learning, that means people Jake Bowers at Illinois, which I notice isn't on your list. Illinois isn't quite as high-ranked as other departments on your list, but trust me, training by and a letter from Jake will get your file read at the top departments in the country.

So on the next go-'round I'd invest some more time in figuring out which specific people are a good fit for you, and try targeting those people.

[kaykaykay]

2 hours ago, panama said:

In this year, I got rejected from even my undergrad institution(UC).

I wish I could some advice for next year.

Thanks for reading and advice.

If you got rejected by your undergraduate institution maybe you can get some insider info as to the "why " part from the commitee members directly or via your recommenders. Maybe they will have an idea how to strengthen your file.

Edited February 7, 2016 by kaykaykay

[panama]

2 hours ago, BFB said:

It's hard to say. Joseon4th might be on to part of it with the language issue, but I suspect there's something else going on too. It might be that one or more of your advisors isn't conveying the enthusiasm that your record merits, or it might be something about your statement. It's really hard to say.

One thing I can say is that it looks you're targeting departments rather than people. It's quite possible that those departments don't specialize in what you do and have concluded that the fit is just bad. I'd think more in terms of finding good people who fit your research agenda. In American politics, doing machine learning, that means people Jake Bowers at Illinois, which I notice isn't on your list. Illinois isn't quite as high-ranked as other departments on your list, but trust me, training by and a letter from Jake will get your file read at the top departments in the country.

So on the next go-'round I'd invest some more time in figuring out which specific people are a good fit for you, and try targeting those people.

I really appreciate your advice. I probably underestimate the importance of fit.

I thought the fit is really difficult thing to specify in the undergrad level. It is because in case of American politics, there are many sub materials such as public opinion, representation, game theory, party, congress, presidency etc, but I am not sure how to find "good" fit by professors. Most of schools' American politics faculty study these areas. I could say some schools are famous for game theory or public opinions, but basically all schools' faculties have "good" fit for me. When I read their articles, I find them very interesting and I mention their names in each SOP. My interests are elections, campaigns and political parties, but so to speak, if I say, they are my interests, I think it is too broad. That is why I thought "fit" is less important than specs and other quantitative measurements in grad admission.  I am confused.

About the machine learning, it is not exactly about machine learning, but the conference's name is machine learning; our work in developing new statistical tools for social sciences. I am more likely interested in data science's application in political science in general. (machine learning is awesome though) I am also interested in political philosophy/theory, so I minored philosophy in undergrad. I am very serious about both fields. 

Then, actually there are a few professors who are also interested in data science/machine learning such as professor Andrew Hall at Stanford, Chad Hazlett at UCLA, Gary King at Harvard, Andrew Gelman at Columbia etc... My question is then, do you think my specs (GPA, GRE, Research experience) are too low for top schools (Suppose I more focus on fit in next year)?

I might apply top schools again next year, but if I don't have a chance, I would rather focus on less prestigious schools. 

My last question is about my status as an international student. What I heard from my adviser from my home institution is I am too expensive to bring. My tuition is triple of US citizen(resident)'s tuition, so it is really hard to bring a foreigner in American politics sub field. Almost all foreign students will be assigned to IR and comparative. 

Then, I should not apply state universities, if they are reluctant to admit foreign students, I should more focus on private schools. Do you think is that true? 

To sum up I have two questions:

1. Are my specs low for top schools (suppose I find good fit for next year)?

2. Should I focus on private schools to apply ? Does an international student have strong disadvantages in state schools?

Thanks again.

 

 

Edited February 7, 2016 by panama

[panama]

2 hours ago, kaykaykay said:

If you got rejected by your undergraduate institution maybe you can get some insider info as to the "why " part from the commitee members directly or via your recommenders. Maybe they will have an idea how to strengthen your file.

Thanks. What I heard is because I am a foreigner. In terms of limited funding, it is better to admit three Americans than me. The price is same. It makes sense, but I cannot/do not want to change my citizenship. lol. Also there is no way that I can get residency in here. 

I am wondering is that the only reason though. I will ask them again for next year.

Edited February 7, 2016 by panama

[BFB]

9 minutes ago, panama said:

1. Are my specs low for top schools (suppose I find good fit for next year)?

2. Should I focus on private schools to apply ? Does an international student have strong disadvantages in state schools?

Thanks again.

 

 

1. I doubt it, but your track record this year suggests that something's a problem. Doesn't hurt to apply, though.

2. I can only speak for my own state school, but I don't believe foreign students are at a disadvantage. Out-of-state students pay higher tuition at the undergraduate level, but I'm not sure about the graduate level—I seem to recall hearing that they do, but only until they establish residency (1 year). It's moot, though, as virtually none of our students actually pay their own tuition: they get tuition waivers from scholarships, TAing, etc.

[panama]

16 minutes ago, BFB said:

1. I doubt it, but your track record this year suggests that something's a problem. Doesn't hurt to apply, though.

2. I can only speak for my own state school, but I don't believe foreign students are at a disadvantage. Out-of-state students pay higher tuition at the undergraduate level, but I'm not sure about the graduate level—I seem to recall hearing that they do, but only until they establish residency (1 year). It's moot, though, as virtually none of our students actually pay their own tuition: they get tuition waivers from scholarships, TAing, etc.

Amazing. I really appreciate it again.

I got it. Then, I suspect my SOP. I emphasized three parts in my SOP: My interest in political science such as a question like what is the effect of campaigning in primaries. My interest in political philosophy such as what should be just rules of campaigning. My interest in the application of data science in political science such as how I am trained to do quantitative work. I focused on showing what I have done rather than what I want to do in grad school. Maybe that's the problem. Actually I am not sure what is my problem... 

My emphasis on interest on philosophy could be a problem..... I love political science, but I equally love philosophy, and I reveal my loves in SOP. I carefully suspect quantitative people may not like my dual interests (Though I am capable of quantitative work. ). 

I don't think my advisers gave me not good letters. They are really helpful and supportive. I am working for them now. 

I sincerely appreciate your advice. I need to wait for some schools' decisions, but in realistic view, I would start to think about next year application.

Thanks again.

(As far as I know 1 year residency out of state student rule does not apply to a foreigner in UC schools.)

Edited February 7, 2016 by panama

[kaykaykay]

2 hours ago, panama said:

Thanks. What I heard is because I am a foreigner. In terms of limited funding, it is better to admit three Americans than me. The price is same. It makes sense, but I cannot/do not want to change my citizenship. lol. Also there is no way that I can get residency in here. 

I am wondering is that the only reason though. I will ask them again for next year.

As a foreigner I have to say that is probably not the reason. If you have any doubt look through the current grad student list there will be plenty of international students. And i would recommend if you are still at that school talk to people right now till they do not forget your application. I did not make it in one application cycle either and I managed to talk to some people so I knew how to adjust my application for the next year (by the way the problem was fit as BFB suggested). Also be careful when your POI is an assistant professor., ask around whether they are taking students. Good luck! And this cycle is not over so who knows...

Edited February 7, 2016 by kaykaykay

[panama]

4 minutes ago, kaykaykay said:

As a foreigner I have to say that is probably not the reason. If you have any doubt look through the current grad student list there will be plenty of international students. And i would recommend if you are still at that school talk to people right now till they do not forget your application. I did not make it in one application cycle either and I managed to talk to some people so I knew what to adjust my application for the next year (by the way the problem was fit as BFB suggested). Good luck! And this cycle is not over so who knows...

Thanks. Probably you are right. 

I hope "who knows" is true! Thanks

[changeisgood]

@panama, I know from experience that a generalized SOP is not going to get you where you want to go.  You need to be as specific as possible about a) who you want to work with and b)why.  Just saying "I want to study primary campaigns" isn't going to do it. I'll be entering the cycle in AP next time round after I finish up my M.A., and my prof is helping me narrow it down.  I know from the DGSs and admissions folks that post here that SOP is the most important part of your application, followed closely by recommendations.

Also, if you are really interested in doing primarily quantitative research, there are other universities you should look into.  WashU St. Louis, SUNY Rochester, Indiana, and Ohio State should all be on your list.  Don't discount other schools who might not be in the top 15 either, many of them have excellent quantitative programs (Georgia, Washington State, etc.).

Oh, also, what's your TOEFL score like?  That can be a big deal for international students.

 

[changeisgood]

On ‎1‎/‎23‎/‎2016 at 5:15 PM, BFB said:

If you're a good fit, I wouldn't pass you up, myself. Research experience and fit matter a lot. But in our system, anyway, it would depend a lot on the preferences of your POI. Some do come back to me with "The quant GRE score is worrisome" in cases like this, and I generally respect their wishes. So it's not an automatic deal-killer, but yes, it's a vulnerability.

Just out of curiosity, is the low quant GRE score thing any less worrisome for someone with a completed M.A.?  I realize it probably depends on the school.  Would A's in grad-level stats courses help offset it?

[noumenope]

If I know that my top choice school has already sent out a round of acceptances and rejections weeks ago, but I still haven't heard anything, do you think it would be helpful at all for me to email the DGS and reiterate that it's my first choice and I would definitely go if offered admission with funding?

[BFB]

19 hours ago, noumenope said:

If I know that my top choice school has already sent out a round of acceptances and rejections weeks ago, but I still haven't heard anything, do you think it would be helpful at all for me to email the DGS and reiterate that it's my first choice and I would definitely go if offered admission with funding?

It couldn't hurt, and it might help. I suspect the probability that it'd matter is very low, but it's worth at least reaching out.

[TobTob]

Hi! I've been lucky enough to be admitted to a number of Top-30 and Top-40 programs, all of which are great fits for my research interests. However, I'm having a very difficult time choosing which program to attend. I'm not asking you to choose for me, but I would really love some faculty input on what I should be looking for:

One of the programs is a top-30 program (US News) and seems to be a bit more cutting-edge with regards to research methodology (it just seems like they place a much greater emphasis on this). The substantive fit is also pretty good, though it could be stronger, but they likely wouldn't have accepted me if they didn't have anyone who could work with my research interests. 

The other program is a top-40 program (US News) and presents a nicer substantive fit to my research interests. For instance, there are more professors that have similar research interests with whom I could potentially work. However, it seems less focused on the types of quantitative research methods that are now considered mainstream political science research -- instead, they seem more focused on things like political history.

Essentially, my question boils down to this -- is it better to attend a slightly lower ranked (though very prestigious) school with a better substantive fit or attend a slightly higher ranked program that will be slightly less substantive but seemingly much better with methodology?

 

 

Edited March 8, 2016 by TobTob

[BFB]

On March 8, 2016 at 10:08 AM, TobTob said:

Essentially, my question boils down to this -- is it better to attend a slightly lower ranked (though very prestigious) school with a better substantive fit or attend a slightly higher ranked program that will be slightly less substantive but seemingly much better with methodology?

The first thing I'd say is that rankings are really, really noisy, and if your file will get read from one place, it'll get read from the other as well. So when the rankings are reasonably close (I'd say within 10 slots, possibly even more), pretty much ignore ranking and go with the place that will make your work as good as it can be, because that's what matters most.

Now, will substantive fit or better methods make your work better? That, I don't know—that's a judgment call that you need to make. But I'd push the faculty at each place to prove that they'd make your work better than the other place would.