For those who reapplied:

[packrat]

Still waiting on several results but want to cover my bases just in case before people start to drop off these boards and move on to grad school.

 

For those who reapplied, what do you think were the most important factors for getting in the second time around? What areas did you try to improve? Did you address the fact that you'd applied previously in your application, and if so, how? Did you ask committees for ways to improve your application?

 

Any general insights or advice on how to strengthen an app the second time around would I'm sure be helpful to anyone who follows.

 

Thank you! 

[Nords]

Still waiting on several results but want to cover my bases just in case before people start to drop off these boards and move on to grad school.

 

For those who reapplied, what do you think were the most important factors for getting in the second time around? What areas did you try to improve? Did you address the fact that you'd applied previously in your application, and if so, how? Did you ask committees for ways to improve your application?

 

Any general insights or advice on how to strengthen an app the second time around would I'm sure be helpful to anyone who follows.

 

Thank you! 

Can't say my GPA or GRE scores were all too different the second time around. What WAS different was that I actually had a good idea of what research I wanted to pursue. That helped me pick schools that were better fits and it definitely showed in my statement of purpose. I was pissed when I didn't get in on my first cycle, but in retrospect I'm pretty happy about it. Each of the schools I applied to this time was a much better fit than the ones I applied to last year. 

[cupofnimbus]

Seconding this question! I'm still a little anxious about this cycle, but I'm comfortable getting ready for another. Hanging around here has brought a few programs onto my radar for next cycle that may be better fitting.

[jazzrap]

Technically, I am not a second cycle applicant, but in my "first" cycle (applying for fall 2013) I estimated my strength and decided to take a semester off to "avoid" applying. 

What I did in the past year: my senior thesis won award. I got a higher GPA. Took more methods courses. Got a near perfect GRE score. More importantly, however, I figured out what an SOP should be like. I did know that an SOP should talk about research questions, but the past year I was so immersed into the literature that I could actually write an SOP that really speaks to the frontier. 

[jeudepaume]

1) I second Nords. I worked a lot on my research interests, fit, and my statement. This time I applied only to (a limited number of) schools that were absolutely appropriate to my research question and approach. Each of them I found by looking up where people whose work I like currently work, but I also made sure that those programs had other attractive resources (e.g. interdisciplinary certificates). I made sure to clearly explain my interest in the faculty and additional resources of the program in my statement.

 

2) I reworked my statement. Last year I had it more biographical, talking mostly about my qualifications, past research, and career plans (and just broadly stating my intended research area). This year I focused on my research problem. 35% of my statement was a description of my intended dissertation; 40% were talking about why I am qualified to write it (description of my Master's thesis, previous research and training), and the rest 25% explained my fit with the department.

 

3) I actually contacted my potential advisers this year. I generally feel awkward about it, but I discovered that asking whether they accept students for the next year and whether they would be interested in supervising your research is not such a bad idea. First, you may discover they do not/would not—then it might spare you from wasting your resources and time in vain. Second, you may find some of these interactions quite useful and encouraging.

 

4) I researched the process of application a lot. I talked to my professors in much more detail about the process, departments I want to apply to and people I want to work with. But even more than that I googled. You'd be surprised what you may find if you just google "successful PhD statement political science" or something like that. I discovered Berkeley, Ivy League universities and other good schools have a lot of tips and information on what a good statement should like, and how to approach your application. It was very useful for me to find specific examples of successful statements in (more or less) my subfield (not a lot of qualitative research statements here on grad cafe), and see how other people structure their narratives.

 

5) I don't know how relevant this is, but I also significantly improved my GRE. (not the AW part though; this one I will never comprehend)

 

P.S. I'm not sure how useful I can be, but if anybody has any specific question, PM me. I'll be glad to help if I can.

Edited February 20, 2014 by jeudepaume

[TheGnome]

Good points above. I will try not to be too repetitive. I can't say I was hugely successful this cycle, though I think I did fine so far.

 

1) My previous cycle wasn't last year. I have a better grad GPA and some stats courses this time around. I think stats courses (and good grades on them) helped.

 

2) I have a better GRE with a full quant score. However my previous scores were good too, so I am skeptical whether this changed much.

 

3) New set of letter writers. No idea whether this changed anything. I am sure they were very good, but than again most people's are. None of them were big names.

 

4) New stuff on the CV, like conference presentations and a few relevant items. Very skeptical if that matters at all.

 

5) New SOP, new research interests. Much more familiar with the field this time around. Everyone says a good SOP is very important but I think the key to write a good SOP is about doing your homework and familiarizing yourself with the literature in your area of interest. If you know what kind of questions are being asked in the literature, what kinds of tools people use to address them, where the gaps are, what the debates are etc. it shows in the SOP. Maybe not directly, but if you know your stuff, people who read your SOP will know that you know your stuff. Or to put it more accurately, they know that you did your homework, and they need people who do their homework. The rest of the "read your SOP 120312 times, make others critique it etc" suggestions are really more about toning than substance. Both are necessary, but the former is ultimately more important - at least that is what I think. This cycle I believe I was more successful in this respect. 

 

 

- I didn't mention anything about applying again and I didn't ask committee members for ways to improve my application. 

 

I can also take PMs a la jeudepaume

[cooperstreet]

 

 

For those who reapplied, what do you think were the most important factors for getting in the second time around? What areas did you try to improve? Did you address the fact that you'd applied previously in your application, and if so, how? Did you ask committees for ways to improve your application?

 

 

Got a near perfect GPA. Presented at APSA and ISA-NE. Reworked and re-tailored my SOP to each school, got less shy and asked for more input for more people.

 

I did not mention that I reapplied, I asked committees how to improve but that was futile. One school mentioned my low undergrad GPA, which I can't change, plus I'm 30 and that was over 10 years ago. Yes I was not a good student when I was 18.

 

Also, got back on the horse. That helped. Sucks getting rejected but you only need ONE fully funded offer.

[cupofnimbus]

Cooperstreet, you are my graduate application hero, fyi.

[cooperstreet]

Thank you.

[TakeMyCoffeeBlack]

I'm not as cool as cooperstreet, but...

 

1.) Really defined my research interests

2.) Demonstrated familiarity with political science as discipline and research design/methodology in my SOP (things I glossed over in favor of biography last time)

3.) Worked on some new research (and continue to do so), which helped me do number 1 on this list and provided me with a better writing sample

4.) Got a new LoR from another political scientist with work in the same sub-sub-field as me (though he's an Americanist and I'm... well... not)

5.) Won a "prestigious" (I wish everyone knew how not prestigious it feels, but then maybe my colleagues would disagree with me) national grant to conduct research

6.) Contacted profs at some schools to talk about prospects (not sure if this mattered or not)

 

So my profile changed significantly in the last year really. I feel the same though, except that I'm going to grad school!

[cupofnimbus]

I'm not as cool as cooperstreet, but...

 

I'm pretty impressed! It takes a lot to go back to it after a rejection year!

 

Are you coming out of an undergraduate or MA program? And, if not, how did you develop research to change up your profile? I ask because my profile is closer to cooperstreet's, in that I am years removed from both my Master's program and my undergraduate and have no control over those things in the way I can improve GRE scores, write a stronger SOP and writing sample, or refine my research interests. And, importantly, does anyone think it could reflect poorly on a candidate if they have overly-specific research interests? I can't quite tell in some cases whether programs prefer that you have a topic and a plan, or if they're more interested in finding students whose topic will need more development (and will be more capable of aiding with their own research).

[IRToni]

I'm pretty impressed! It takes a lot to go back to it after a rejection year!

 

Are you coming out of an undergraduate or MA program? And, if not, how did you develop research to change up your profile? I ask because my profile is closer to cooperstreet's, in that I am years removed from both my Master's program and my undergraduate and have no control over those things in the way I can improve GRE scores, write a stronger SOP and writing sample, or refine my research interests. And, importantly, does anyone think it could reflect poorly on a candidate if they have overly-specific research interests? I can't quite tell in some cases whether programs prefer that you have a topic and a plan, or if they're more interested in finding students whose topic will need more development (and will be more capable of aiding with their own research).

 

Not a second-round applicant, but for what it's worth, the advice I received from people that got accepted was not to be overly specific. My first draft SOP was a lot more specific, and basically included a mini-proposal, which I was advised to keep out also by professors. Obviously, with more rejections rolling in, I am wondering whether I should have been more specific with my questions etc., but my cycle so far hasn't been a bust!

[cupofnimbus]

Not a second-round applicant, but for what it's worth, the advice I received from people that got accepted was not to be overly specific. My first draft SOP was a lot more specific, and basically included a mini-proposal, which I was advised to keep out also by professors. Obviously, with more rejections rolling in, I am wondering whether I should have been more specific with my questions etc., but my cycle so far hasn't been a bust!

 

I started to get that same impression after I'd finished my SOP, and it sounds like your first draft was in the same vein as my final draft (explaining my research interests, the overarching problems I would like to tackle in researching it, and how my educational/professional background led me to it and qualifies me to do this research). 

 

I guess finding that fine line between "too specific" and "not specific enough" will be difficult :\

[TakeMyCoffeeBlack]

I'm pretty impressed! It takes a lot to go back to it after a rejection year!

 

Are you coming out of an undergraduate or MA program? And, if not, how did you develop research to change up your profile? I ask because my profile is closer to cooperstreet's, in that I am years removed from both my Master's program and my undergraduate and have no control over those things in the way I can improve GRE scores, write a stronger SOP and writing sample, or refine my research interests. And, importantly, does anyone think it could reflect poorly on a candidate if they have overly-specific research interests? I can't quite tell in some cases whether programs prefer that you have a topic and a plan, or if they're more interested in finding students whose topic will need more development (and will be more capable of aiding with their own research).

 

I finished my undergrad last year (and was an undergrad when applying last year). I'm on my grant now, so I'm still affiliated with a university (abroad), which of course makes it easy for me to stay "in" it all. But this has no effect on my GPA or anything like that (though my GPA was too good to be true anyway, which I'd just chalk up to grade inflation ). But I think the SOP, writing sample and research interests will really be the "make" (who knows what the break is) of getting in. 

 

For what it's worth, I talked about a lot of interests, but also how they're all interconnected. I wanted to demonstrate that I had ideas for specific projects (e.g. a dissertation) but that I'm open to more and could possibly change directions (which they expect to happen anyway). You're right, it is a difficult balance, but in some ways it's a good way for us to kind of think in broader terms too (just to try and justify these darned things outside of admissions).

[cupofnimbus]

I finished my undergrad last year (and was an undergrad when applying last year). I'm on my grant now, so I'm still affiliated with a university (abroad), which of course makes it easy for me to stay "in" it all. But this has no effect on my GPA or anything like that (though my GPA was too good to be true anyway, which I'd just chalk up to grade inflation ). But I think the SOP, writing sample and research interests will really be the "make" (who knows what the break is) of getting in. 

 

For what it's worth, I talked about a lot of interests, but also how they're all interconnected. I wanted to demonstrate that I had ideas for specific projects (e.g. a dissertation) but that I'm open to more and could possibly change directions (which they expect to happen anyway). You're right, it is a difficult balance, but in some ways it's a good way for us to kind of think in broader terms too (just to try and justify these darned things outside of admissions).

 

I'm perfectly happy to take responsibility for my grades, even if things were not great at the time for me. I turned out okay, and became a little smarter, organized and hard working for it! And there's no use crying over spilled grade points It just means I have to do what I can to demonstrate that I am a fearsome candidate on my own. 

 

 

I think you're right about interests, though. If anyone else has some insight to chime in with on how to strike the right tone in an SOP that doesn't eliminate possibilities for expanding or shifting research focus, but establishes that there's a particular area of interest to be explored at length? I don't want to come across too strong, and I also don't want to make it seem like I have no idea what I want to study. (Not much chance of that, really...)

[jeudepaume]

I think you're right about interests, though. If anyone else has some insight to chime in with on how to strike the right tone in an SOP that doesn't eliminate possibilities for expanding or shifting research focus, but establishes that there's a particular area of interest to be explored at length? I don't want to come across too strong, and I also don't want to make it seem like I have no idea what I want to study. (Not much chance of that, really...)

Well, I did the following. I talked at length about the question that I want to study (essentially briefly describing the state of the field, mentioning approaches that I am interested in (and specific names), and the general direction that I want to take). After that I simply threw a transition paragraph, talking about how this problem is multifaceted, and how I am open to changing it in the future, and even expect it, given that I am going to a PhD program exactly for the purpose of developing. 

After that I talked about what other research topics I worked on before and am still interested to work on (vaguely connected to my dissertation topic though). 

 

I am in theory though. I don't know how that approach would work with a quantitative proposal.

[Cazorla]

This is great advice, thanks everyone. My cycle is not over but I'm starting to get the feeling that I'm going to be shut out. This thread makes me feel better, you all seem to have done very well on your second cycles.

[cupofnimbus]

I am in theory though. I don't know how that approach would work with a quantitative proposal.

 

I feel like I should duck before I say that I'm interested in mixed methods, so maybe there's something there, too. (I didn't mention this in my SOP.) The trouble is, it's hard to collect data on what would be my first choice in dissertation topic, and I even think I mentioned it in my SOP, with some alternative topics that would be thematically similar. So.  

[anxious2151]

In my SOP I gave an overarching area I'm interested in, two subtopics that I could see myself working on, and within those subtopics, several questions per subtopic that could be interesting. I then vaguely described the research method that I might use to solve some of these questions. Then my background/research work that could help me examine such questions. Last paragraph ends with, oh but I want to keep an open mind and learn tons of cool things in grad school, some skills i'd like to work on (ex. more game theory), amazing profs that I've been idolizing since birth, please take me thanks.

[phd_prospie]

Formatted my CV to make it look extra sexy. That was it.

[jeudepaume]

Formatted my CV to make it look extra sexy. That was it.

green up green up!

[Carlpolisci]

Did you guys change your research interests completely or did you just rewrite your SOPs it?

[TheGnome]

I changed my research interests completely. Though as I said earlier, my previous cycle was two years ago, not last year. Also, it was not a strategic decision, I am just interested in a different set of questions now. So naturally my SOP was  completely different from the previous one. Come to think of it, not sure if it can be a strategic decision - unless your previous topic was really (but really) a fringe topic that you know nobody in the discipline cares about.

[IRTheoryNerd]

I changed my research interests completely. 

 

Yes! Well, more accurately, the theoretical and methodological lens through which I see my substantive interests changed quite dramatically.