Welcome to the 2013-2014 Cycle

[Orlien]

Hm. I've heard that the writing sample isn't hyper-important, at least in comparison to the SOP. I feel like it would probably be better for me to focus on revising one good paper instead of churning out several mediocre ones. And also, I think it would be best for me to focus most on my SOP and making sure it's a good fit for the institution.

 

I haven't had the chance to write too many long poli sci research papers in the past (non-social science major - my thesis is going to be an interesting hybrid of poli sci and my actual major discipline). The one I'm planning to use as my writing sample isn't exactly what I want to study in grad school, it was just a cool idea that I had in my seminar and it turned out pretty well (it is the same subfield, American, but it's focusing on behavior rather than institutions).

[eponine997]

 my thesis allowed me to find a really exciting new topic (I think it is exciting....), so my original plan was to use that thesis then explain in my SOP how doing that work led me to my new topic. There will be a connection between my old and new topic, which will be discussed in my SOP (I've also taken relevant courses that supports my new topic and I have written seminar papers on the broader issue).

 

Sounds like a good plan to me, though before settling on an application strategy, I would recommend talking to your current profs/advisors (the people who do know your work best, already have PhDs, and have probably advised other students in the admissions process before) (I'd also assume these are the people who will be writing your LoR so you'll want them to be familiar with your app strategy and your research interest).  

Also, identify professors you'd like to work with at the schools where you are applying, ask them what interests they might have in your topic if you are concerned.  Some people say this has no effect on admissions, you might get no response (don't take it personally if you don't), but you might also get rather rare sliver of wisdom that allows you to make the right adjustment to your application to convey a perfect fit.

Hm. I've heard that the writing sample isn't hyper-important, at least in comparison to the SOP. I feel like it would probably be better for me to focus on revising one good paper instead of churning out several mediocre ones. And also, I think it would be best for me to focus most on my SOP and making sure it's a good fit for the institution.

 

I haven't had the chance to write too many long poli sci research papers in the past (non-social science major - my thesis is going to be an interesting hybrid of poli sci and my actual major discipline). The one I'm planning to use as my writing sample isn't exactly what I want to study in grad school, it was just a cool idea that I had in my seminar and it turned out pretty well (it is the same subfield, American, but it's focusing on behavior rather than institutions).

"Not hyper-important" true, but this shouldn't be confused with 'you can submit any political science paper and its unlikely anyone will look at it' (though some institutions may not, or it may only come into play if you are on the borderline between wait-list and admit, or between wait-list and reject - smart/qualified people get rejected from top programs, you can look at the Results page and see people with perfect GPAs and perfect GREs rejected from even middle-ranking programs, this is where fit matters).  

Again, my point wasn't that you should spend tons of time crafting custom research papers to demonstrate fit to each individual school you're applying to.  My point was that 1) you should select a writing sample (polish it up, if necessary) that conveys your fit with a given program; 2) if you find yourself running out of papers and submitting a different writing sample to each program, you should probably rethink your application strategy (read: school selection) and focus on schools that ARE a good fit with your \emph{clearly defined} research interests.  

Yes, spend a fair chunk of time writing and rewriting your SoP (then get feedback from profs, other students, etc.).  If you haven't had a chance to explore in any great depth the interests you plan on pursuing in a PhD program, talk about how the interest came about (developed from other research you've done, a specific paper, body of literature, etc.).  Generally, it sounds like you are on the right track.  The "hybrid approach" of poli sci and something else has worked extremely well for some people.  

I don't necessarily think either of you are taking the wrong approach.  Mostly with my original post on this topic I was trying to emphasize that fit matters, and writing sample can convey fit (or the opposite of that).  

Also, I'll add: it is still early.  If you haven't had a chance to explore or investigate what you plan on researching in a PhD program (a few people have mentioned this with formal theory/PE) ask one of your recent profs for some recommended readings.  If you are a senior at a school that has a PhD program and coming from another discipline, ask if you can take the intro grad seminar in the fall.  

[catchermiscount]

Thankfully, your files will be read by human beings and not by robots.  Human beings---especially those that are smart and critical enough to land jobs at PhD-granting institutions---typically have some amount of judgment, and they'd much rather read a 21 page with the list of references than a 20 page paper not knowing who got cited.

 

In my department (and at many others), the admission committee sends around a short paragraph about each of the admitted applicants to prepare us for interactions.  This year, half of the blurbs made mention of the writing sample.  Of those, over half made mention of the kind of analysis in the writing sample (formal theory, large-N empirical, whatever).  This is typical for our annual blurbs.  So, the writing sample at least registers enough to be mentioned in something like that.  Our department is weird in a lot of ways, but I think that's probably similar across departments.

 

For those of you that want to do what might be called orthodox, modern, non-philosophical work (that is, that want to do data analysis or formal theory or something else along those lines), using technique in your writing sample is neither necessary nor sufficient for admission, but it does send a signal that you have some sense of what you're getting yourself into.

 

Now, the best you can do is act on an expectation about a committee's relative weighting of things in your profile.  As an extreme example, one of the professors with whom I'm close here doesn't care very much about the SoP, because a vast majority of incoming students have no idea what the business really looks like or what they really want to study.  If your dissertation ends up looking like what you mentioned in your SoP, then either (1) you got lucky, or (2) you didn't get a whole lot of value added out of your graduate training.  So, the professor looks at the writing sample hard to see whether you can write, can think critically, can thoughtfully apply technique to an interesting question.  This professor is an outlier, and I'm NOT advocating any given strategy. 

 

On subject:  the writing sample is a chance to do a number of things.  One thing might be to demonstrate that you have a relatively thorough understanding of an orthodox literature in political science.  Another might be that you can come up with novel things.  Those are both good goals, and sometimes they work against one another.  That's fine.  The most important thing is to demonstrate that you can think and write.  One of our admitted applicants this year hadn't ever taken political science and had advanced degrees in hard sciences.  The writing sample was about hard science.  So, yeah.

 

On a completely trivial note:  it's never too early to work on LaTeXing your writing sample.  It sends a weakly positive signal.

[zzzzzz]

Hey y'all,

A few things:

1) I would not stress too much about having an overly long writing sample. Mine was 25 pages single spaced and in smallish font because i felt i had to include everything, and i feel like had a good admissions cycle. several profs at the institution i will attending told me they enjoyed my sample, even though the application specifically requested a short one. so, yes you should try to stick to the requirements, but if you feel like you need to go a little bit over to keep the important stuff, i would do it.

2) GRE scores: try not to worry so much about combined scores - obviously you should aim to do the absolute best you can do, but I think 160+ in both categories is good target. for what its worth, I had a combined score of 327 and am attending a top five...so try not to stress out about breaking this 330 barrier (where did this idea come from, anyway?).

3) I've seen a lot of different advice about SOPs, and most people say that you should demonstrate that you can think like a political scientist. this is absolutely true, i think, but i think that it is even more important to write about what you know. only if you fully understand a topic will you clearly be able to discuss the merits and failures of an idea and how you would go about investigating it. i wrote about research i had already done - it was more sociology-y than related to political science, but i was able to clearly articulate my ideas and also convey passion.

bottom line: so yes, the details are important - make sure you get your recs in and send all of your scores and proofread and all of that, but i would worry most about conveying actual meaning.

hope this was more helpful than annoying!

Edited May 28, 2013 by zzzzzz

[jazzrap]

Hey y'all,

A few things:

1) I would not stress too much about having an overly long writing sample. Mine was 25 pages single spaced and in smallish font because i felt i had to include everything, and i feel like had a good admissions cycle. several profs at the institution i will attending told me they enjoyed my sample, even though the application specifically requested a short one. so, yes you should try to stick to the requirements, but if you feel like you need to go a little bit over to keep the important stuff, i would do it.

2) GRE scores: try not to worry so much about combined scores - obviously you should aim to do the absolute best you can do, but I think 160+ in both categories is good target. for what its worth, I had a combined score of 327 and am attending a top five...so try not to stress out about breaking this 330 barrier (where did this idea come from, anyway?).

3) I've seen a lot of different advice about SOPs, and most people say that you should demonstrate that you can think like a political scientist. this is absolutely true, i think, but i think that it is even more important to write about what you know. only if you fully understand a topic will you clearly be able to discuss the merits and failures of an idea and how you would go about investigating it. i wrote about research i had already done - it was more sociology-y than related to political science, but i was able to clearly articulate my ideas and also convey passion.

bottom line: so yes, the details are important - make sure you get your recs in and send all of your scores and proofread and all of that, but i would worry most about conveying actual meaning.

hope this was more helpful than annoying!

Thank you!! The 330 is a random target I theorized in a not so rigid way:(

[jazzrap]

Thankfully, your files will be read by human beings and not by robots.  Human beings---especially those that are smart and critical enough to land jobs at PhD-granting institutions---typically have some amount of judgment, and they'd much rather read a 21 page with the list of references than a 20 page paper not knowing who got cited.

 

In my department (and at many others), the admission committee sends around a short paragraph about each of the admitted applicants to prepare us for interactions.  This year, half of the blurbs made mention of the writing sample.  Of those, over half made mention of the kind of analysis in the writing sample (formal theory, large-N empirical, whatever).  This is typical for our annual blurbs.  So, the writing sample at least registers enough to be mentioned in something like that.  Our department is weird in a lot of ways, but I think that's probably similar across departments.

 

For those of you that want to do what might be called orthodox, modern, non-philosophical work (that is, that want to do data analysis or formal theory or something else along those lines), using technique in your writing sample is neither necessary nor sufficient for admission, but it does send a signal that you have some sense of what you're getting yourself into.

 

Now, the best you can do is act on an expectation about a committee's relative weighting of things in your profile.  As an extreme example, one of the professors with whom I'm close here doesn't care very much about the SoP, because a vast majority of incoming students have no idea what the business really looks like or what they really want to study.  If your dissertation ends up looking like what you mentioned in your SoP, then either (1) you got lucky, or (2) you didn't get a whole lot of value added out of your graduate training.  So, the professor looks at the writing sample hard to see whether you can write, can think critically, can thoughtfully apply technique to an interesting question.  This professor is an outlier, and I'm NOT advocating any given strategy. 

 

On subject:  the writing sample is a chance to do a number of things.  One thing might be to demonstrate that you have a relatively thorough understanding of an orthodox literature in political science.  Another might be that you can come up with novel things.  Those are both good goals, and sometimes they work against one another.  That's fine.  The most important thing is to demonstrate that you can think and write.  One of our admitted applicants this year hadn't ever taken political science and had advanced degrees in hard sciences.  The writing sample was about hard science.  So, yeah.

 

On a completely trivial note:  it's never too early to work on LaTeXing your writing sample.  It sends a weakly positive signal.

Great, thanks!! Now I know what I am going to do. BTW, I guess I was freaking out about the page limits because I assumed the requirements to be double-spaced (as this is the way college students usually write). But now I feel that if I can do single-spaced writing sample, it would be easily condensed into a 15-25 page thing including the list of references. Do you think that is helpful? Or do you think professors are tired examining writing samples so that they would rather want a long double spaced sample to read more easily?

Edited May 28, 2013 by jazzrap

[aecp]

Hello All!

 

In preparation for the upcoming PhD application season I plan on taking the GRE this summer.  Please share with me GRE tips, recommendations on best prep books, prep methods, prep tools, prep classes to use to prepare for the GRE.

 

Many thanks!

[Quigley]

http://forum.thegradcafe.com/forum/68-gregmatetc/ A couple short tips: -Those vocab words really do show up on the test. -Time seems to go a lot faster when you're taking the actual test versus practice. -I blew off studying for writing the first time and got a 4.5 and then did a lot of practice with 30 min drills and 5 min outline drills and scored a 5.5 the second time. Many people say AW doesn't count for much with adcomms, though. Either way, all of the potential essay questions are listed on the ETS website for advance practice. -the Kaplan vocab flash cards were a great tool for me. -It has been demonstrated that longer essay length is directly correlated with higher scores.

[aecp]

http://forum.thegradcafe.com/forum/68-gregmatetc/ A couple short tips: -Those vocab words really do show up on the test. -Time seems to go a lot faster when you're taking the actual test versus practice. -I blew off studying for writing the first time and got a 4.5 and then did a lot of practice with 30 min drills and 5 min outline drills and scored a 5.5 the second time. Many people say AW doesn't count for much with adcomms, though. Either way, all of the potential essay questions are listed on the ETS website for advance practice. -the Kaplan vocab flash cards were a great tool for me. -It has been demonstrated that longer essay length is directly correlated with higher scores.

Thanks Quigley.

 

To all:  Please keep the tips and recommendations coming.

[MyUSofWhatever]

At the risk of generalizing from my personal experience, many people's "best" writing sample will be written on something they're interested in studying in grad school. If your interests have changed between your "best" work and your application, then as other people have said, you want to show that you can write well and think critically. Either way, I wouldn't get spun up trying to fit a writing sample to each of your schools - especially since fit is a fairly nebulous concept anyways.

[Mnemonics2]

At the risk of generalizing from my personal experience, many people's "best" writing sample will be written on something they're interested in studying in grad school. If your interests have changed between your "best" work and your application, then as other people have said, you want to show that you can write well and think critically. Either way, I wouldn't get spun up trying to fit a writing sample to each of your schools - especially since fit is a fairly nebulous concept anyways.

 

I agree that a writing sample done differently for each schools is a bit much...particularly if you sensibly apply for a broad range. But changing a few times for big differences (a general polisci program versus a policy-oriented program versus a methods-heavy place) is definitely something to be done.

 

I would also say that the substantively most appropriate essay sometimes isn't the best, if the alternative is something that demonstrates badass methodological skills. That being said, that is probably a rare enough situation.

[IRToni]

I have a question about my SOP:

I'm currently in the process of writing my first draft, and have heard/read that you don't wanna be too specific. Now, I'm pretty sure of what I want to study, and am also applying to Europe, where I have to hand in a detailed proposal. Should I then have my US SOPs be more general, or put exactly what I want to study in there?

[NBM]

I have a question about my SOP:

I'm currently in the process of writing my first draft, and have heard/read that you don't wanna be too specific. Now, I'm pretty sure of what I want to study, and am also applying to Europe, where I have to hand in a detailed proposal. Should I then have my US SOPs be more general, or put exactly what I want to study in there?

 

I am thinking that if there's a good faculty fit, being specific won't hurt you. The upside is that you'll be able to show your ability to frame, structure, and develop an idea properly. That said, since your POI might not be on the ad comm (in my case, my POI had never read my application), it is to your advantage to write at least part of your SOP in a way that would appeal to a wider audience. E.g. Before you dive into the specifics, do mention the broader theoretical puzzle/debate and how your project could contribute to that discussion.

 

Lastly, given that there's usually a page/word limit for the SOP, the actual difference between a "more general" and "specific" approach might not be as vast as you've imagined. (I might be wrong, though.)

[PoliSwede]

I think that the advice from NBM is largely right.

 

However, from my interaction with AdCom's I have the impression that it is better to be more specific than not. That's because they'll want to see that you've actually thought about the subject, can pose questions/problems, and know what you're getting yourself into. 

 

And while I guess that it is obvious, you definitely should make a different SOP for each program that you apply to.

[NBM]

And while I guess that it is obvious, you definitely should make a different SOP for each program that you apply to.

 

I second that. Can't emphasize enough the importance of fit in the admissions process!

[jazzrap]

I know the GRE won't gain you admission, but doesn't anyone find it odd that the average GRE for Stanford is 155 quant and 166 verbal? I was told that one should aim for 160 in both categories at a minimum. 

I assume those admitted students below the average score have other skills that make them competitive. 

[jazzrap]

I know the GRE won't gain you admission, but doesn't anyone find it odd that the average GRE for Stanford is 155 quant and 166 verbal? I was told that one should aim for 160 in both categories at a minimum. 

"Although we have no official score requirement, admitted students typically have GRE scores of 166+ verbal, 155+ quantitative, and a score of 5.5 in the Analytical section".

From this sentence, we should infer that 155 is probably the lowest possible score an admitted student at Stanford would have.  

[Thompson]

Hey everyone: I recently discovered this forum, and although its killing my productivity at work, the forum has done wonders to structure my search and contradict a lot of my false assumptions about the application process. Thank you everyone for providing valuable information to people like me.

 

I'm going to apply broadly to most of the top programs, and a few select ones in the 25-50 range. I am four years out of undergrad and two years out of graduate school, where I earned an MPP from a mid-ranked Public Policy school in DC. The nice thing about the Masters program was that classes were at night, so I spent those two years working a combination of part time jobs in DC and internships. For just over two years so far, I've been working at a fairly influential research and advocacy NGO in a lobbying/communications role.

 

I've always wanted to teach at the college level, and that remains my primary end goal. Ideally, I would like to pursue a job at a small liberal arts college with a 3/3 or occasional 3/2 load, allowing some time for research. I'm narrowing my research interests into a more focused research question right now, but broadly I'm interested in lobbying, party networks, and interest groups, and how they inform and guide the policy process. I also have a strong interest in political corruption at the state and local levels.

 

Right now, I'm narrowing down a universe of about 30 or so schools into about 15 schools that I will apply to. So far, I have particular interest in Brandeis, UNC-Chapel Hill, UCSD, UCLA, Michigan and Maryland, but schools are being added to that list every day.

 

I just took the GREs, and pulled in a 169 V, 158 Q. I think that if I worked very hard, I could pull that Q score up to 165 or so. I'm going to see how August goes, and if I'll be able to get that study time in.

 

My undergrad GPA (generic New England small liberal arts Catholic school) sucked: under 3.5. This concerns me quite a bit, even with a much better high-3s in the MPP program.

 

I'm counting on a strong SOP and the DC work experience to carry me a little bit. And, hopefully, the hard work to make each of 15 SOPs feel purposeful and unique.

Edited July 15, 2013 by James4

[Quigley]

Good luck with your applications -- it is a long, stressful process and this community will be an excellent resource for you in the coming months.  

 

Also, be aware that members of admissions committees from many (most?) programs do frequent this site.  Few post openly while most do not.  Your post includes a lot of personal information and certainly enough to link your application file to your username.  Some users are fine with this, others prefer to maintain their anonymity on this site.  

 

Edit: You are correct that a strong and compelling SOP will help balance out your GPA.  I would add, however, that I was told by faculty at at least two programs that they were less interested in post-undergrad work experience unless it somehow demonstrates your ability to be successful in graduate school.  Providing perspective and interesting life experience is nice, but it doesn't necessarily mean you will do well in academia.  So, unless this is the case, I would suggest that you avoid dedicating too much space in your SOP to discussing your work experience.

Edited July 15, 2013 by Quigley

[Thompson]

The username is a pseudonym, and I'm generally fine with an admissions committee linking my posts on this site to my application, but point taken.

[Thompson]

Quigley:

 

I'm curious about how different programs view real world work experience in their selection process. My understanding has always been that while most departments/individuals on committees do not place much weight on it, some do. At that point, I can start to recognize that I'm not trying to appeal to 100% of admissions committees, but rather the minority whose values line up with my strengths. Also, I don't intend for it to substitute for having a good command of the literature, writing ability, ability to handle academic rigor, etc.

 

Right now, the SOP strategy that I'm hoping to follow is to mention my work experience, and then use it as a segue into talking about my research interests and some literature which has influenced me. I've actually used a decent amount of political science research on the job over the last four years, with a surprising amount of success. I don't intend for this SOP to look like a cover letter for a new job.

Edited July 15, 2013 by James4

[AmericanQuant]

"Although we have no official score requirement, admitted students typically have GRE scores of 166+ verbal, 155+ quantitative, and a score of 5.5 in the Analytical section".

From this sentence, we should infer that 155 is probably the lowest possible score an admitted student at Stanford would have.  

 

You guys are taking those FAQs too seriously!  If you look up those scores in the GRE concordance tables, you'll notice that a 166V and a 155Q both map to a 700 on the old scale.  My guess is that it used to say that you needed to have a 700 on both (which was a ridiculous rule of thumb), and then, when the scales changed, someone translated it to the new scale without giving further thought to whether those cutoffs made sense.

 

No one really cares about anything but your quant score, BUT even if they did care about the verbal, a 166 is way too high to set as a minimum (though it could plausibly be the average verbal score for admits.)

 

On the other hand, a 155 in quant is probably way too low.  About 40% of all GRE test-takers score better than that on the quant section, so I'd be surprised if anyone in Stanford's incoming class had a 155. Indeed, Simon Jackman's 2004 PA paper on Stanford's admissions put the mean Q score for applicants at 680 (see p41).

 

The only other believable official source on GRE scores for Poli Sci admissions that comes to mind is on the UCSD website. If the average admitted UCSD student has a 162Q, then it seems unlikely that 155 is useful either as any kind of a guide.  

 

A much better source of scores is the results page on the grad cafe.  There might be some reporting bias but at least you get to see the distribution.

Edited July 16, 2013 by AmericanQuant

[IRToni]

I agree on taking the official reported scores with a grain of salt, but why shouldn't Stanford have admitted someone with 155 for their PhD? While Stanford (in IR) is quite methods-heavy, it is a full department, and also has theory peeps. I can imagine that for theory, a quant of 155 is enough, all else being an outstanding application. I agree that 155Q/166V don't seem to fit together, though.

 

From what I hear, getting >90 on both is ideal, making sure that GRE scores are not used to keep you out. Getting more is nice, but a perfect GRE won't get you into a school, if they don't like your application. Also note that restrictions for non-native speakers (for V and W) tend to be lower, and having good grades in quant-heavy classes can counter a "lower" quant score.

[AmericanQuant]

I agree on taking the official reported scores with a grain of salt, but why shouldn't Stanford have admitted someone with 155 for their PhD? While Stanford (in IR) is quite methods-heavy, it is a full department, and also has theory peeps. I can imagine that for theory, a quant of 155 is enough, all else being an outstanding application. I agree that 155Q/166V don't seem to fit together, though.

 

From what I hear, getting >90 on both is ideal, making sure that GRE scores are not used to keep you out. Getting more is nice, but a perfect GRE won't get you into a school, if they don't like your application. Also note that restrictions for non-native speakers (for V and W) tend to be lower, and having good grades in quant-heavy classes can counter a "lower" quant score.

 

Stanford has a 2 course sequence in probability, math stats and generalized linear models that everyone has to take. I think there could be some concern on the adcom that someone with a weak quant background wouldn't be able to get through the sequence.  But also, when I look at the results page, I don't see any Stanford admits with a quant score below 160. Though again, there's some reporting bias.

Edited July 16, 2013 by AmericanQuant

[Quigley]

I'm curious about how different programs view real world work experience in their selection process. My understanding has always been that while most departments/individuals on committees do not place much weight on it, some do. At that point, I can start to recognize that I'm not trying to appeal to 100% of admissions committees, but rather the minority whose values line up with my strengths. Also, I don't intend for it to substitute for having a good command of the literature, writing ability, ability to handle academic rigor, etc.

 

I think you are right that it will largely depend on the program and the makeup of the admissions committee.  If you plan to contact professors that you are interested in working with (I didn't do this when I applied) then this is something you might be able to bring up with them.

 

This process can be such a roll of the dice with so many applicants for a very small number of slots available.  With that in mind, it could be entirely possible that your unique work experience may at the very least catch someone's eye enough that they give your file a second look and thereby saving it from the reject pile.  It is my impression that having a single such advocate on the committee could make all the difference for you.

 

When applying last year, I began with the thought that my professional experience after undergrad would boost the viability of my file.  As I mentioned in my earlier post, members of admissions committees at 2 schools -- both of them are on the list of schools that you mentioned as ones you might apply to -- explicitly told me that my political work experience would not/did not help my application. They both stated that while the experience would probably give me a unique perspective among my cohort and would give me interesting anecdotes to enrich my teaching, the primary concern was whether I had the necessary skills to succeed within their program.

 

That being said, your NGO work may have been more research-oriented than my own work experience, and if that is the case, you might be able to use that to your advantage when framing your SOP.  Obviously I don't know much about you so I can't really say, but you might talk to your undergrad professors/letter writers more about this.

 

I should add that when attending the visitation weekends for accepted students at two programs, I had several professors tell me that they definitely find a value in waiting at least a couple of years between undergrad and grad school.  It helps you hone in on why you actually want to do this, gives you time to do something else for a while so that you might be less at risk for burning out, allows you to develop your perspectives outside of the classroom in a real-world setting, as well as just giving you important life experiences through the job market that you otherwise might not really have until you are almost 30.  You already know all this, but the point I'm trying to make is that there are many profs at programs who will acknowledge the value in how you've spent the last few years.

 

If you ever make a visit over to www.poliscirumors.com, you will often see threads where grad students are lamenting their 5-6 years in a PhD program as a "waste" of valuable years of their youth.  As someone who spent 5 years of his 20s working 12 hour days on campaigns and in insipid 8-5 government office jobs, I take the opposite viewpoint.  Spending your 20s chained to your windowless cubicle for 9+ consecutive hours, wearing a shirt and tie, and staring at the clock all day is not as glamorous as it sounds, however, I do feel that my experiences have been valuable and I see things a bit differently than when I was bright-eyed and fresh out of school.

 

As it turns out, I will actually be attending one of the programs you listed in your earlier post.  If you're looking for more detail or info than I've provided here, feel free send me a private message.

Edited July 16, 2013 by Quigley