MA in Political Science - Columbia University

[Phdforme]

Hello Forum Members,

 

I am considering enrolling in the MA in Political Science program at Columbia University for the upcoming academic year.

 

 

I would like to hear from people who have either been through the MA program, are currently in the MA program or in the PhD program.

 

In particular, I am curious as to strengths and weaknesses of the program,  how MA students are treated in the department and most importantly if the program can be used as a stepping stone for a PhD from Columbia or a top four PhD program (Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford).  Finally, with regards to using the MA as a transition degree for a PhD, any tips or advice as to how to strategically achieve this goal would be appreciated,

 

Thank you!

[cooperstreet]

What's your subfield? Methods? Whats your undergraduate gpa/research experience?

[victorydance]

I'll just piggy-back on this thread because I am going to apply there in the fall:

 

Subfield: Comparative 

Methods: a few empirical methods classes, nothing substantial (this is why I am interested in applying there), looking to do some coursework in statistics and quantitative methods.

GPA: 3.5

Research experience: About a year of RA work (with two profs), honours thesis, independent research course.

Edited May 20, 2014 by HopefulComparativist

[cooperstreet]

Their strengths are that they can take someone with no math background at all and in two years they'll be doing good quant work.

[victorydance]

That's great to hear, because it's precisely what I am looking for out of my backup MA applications.

[cooperstreet]

I do not know, however, how that works with MA students. I don't know what kind of mentorship they get or what courses they can take.

[victorydance]

From their website, it appears that MA students have access to the same courses as Ph.D. students do, unlike some other MA programs in the US. Basically you have to do two seminar classes, then the rest is pretty flexible but you have to meet some methods requirements.

 

I am not really interested in the mentorship aspect during a MA. If I don't get accepted to any Ph.D. programs, I am just looking for a chance to really beef up my quantitative methods experience.

[jazzrap]

Their strengths are that they can take someone with no math background at all and in two years they'll be doing good quant work.

Well, in my humble opinion, that would be QMSS. OP is considering the political science program. My friend who went to the political science program did not gain decent training in quantitative research. And the experiences of other people I know of suggest the same thing. 

[victorydance]

^ Hard to believe that a university that boasts profs like Shapiro and Green in methods would not be good in methodological training. If anyone comes out of Columbia with poor methods training it was probably their own doing.

[jazzrap]

^ Hard to believe that a university that boasts profs like Shapiro and Green in methods would not be good in methodological training. If anyone comes out of Columbia with poor methods training it was probably their own doing.

No I am talking about the MA programs. 

[victorydance]

No I am talking about the MA programs. 

 

MA students at Columbia have access to all Ph.D. level methods courses. In fact, you cannot even receive your MA without at least a two course sequence in graduate methods (unless you opt for a language component instead).

Edited June 1, 2014 by HopefulComparativist

[jazzrap]

MA students at Columbia have access to all Ph.D. level methods courses. In fact, you cannot even receive your MA without at least a two course sequence in graduate methods (unless you opt for a language component instead).

When I was at their open house, they introduced us to the quant sequence. It seems to me that at one point there are two courses at the same level and one is more challenging than the other. MA students usually take the less challenging one while PhD students take the more challenging one. A professor goes like this: "4912 is pretty difficult and most PhD students take it. 4911 is usually taken by MA students." I might remember the course code wrong. The point is this: a lot of MA students do not have good inside knowledge about the discipline, and therefore tend to take the easier course as they know well that master GPA will be important. When one is thrown into an environment where most of his/her peers are taking the easier class, then he/she would probably do the same thing, despite having formal access to the better course. MA students usually do not have inside knowledge sufficient to know that methods are that important. Otherwise, they would have applied to PhD directly. 

 

Hopefully, the exchange between you and me would help inform the OP about his/her access to the PhD level training in the master program, and OP will indeed take advantage of that. 

[Phdforme]

Thank you all for sharing.  I am the original poster.

 

So in summary, can I assume that if I select the various methods courses available for PhD students and excel in them, this will help me gain admission to a top four PhD program (Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford)?

 

Are there any current or past MA or PhD students who can directly comment on this part of my initial post:

 

"Finally, with regards to using the MA as a transition degree for a PhD, any tips or advice as to how to strategically achieve this goal would be appreciated"

 

Thanks.

[Phdforme]

Do you have any more info you can share on their open house.  I did not even know they had one.  When was it?

 

Thanks.

 

When I was at their open house, they introduced us to the quant sequence. It seems to me that at one point there are two courses at the same level and one is more challenging than the other. MA students usually take the less challenging one while PhD students take the more challenging one. A professor goes like this: "4912 is pretty difficult and most PhD students take it. 4911 is usually taken by MA students." I might remember the course code wrong. The point is this: a lot of MA students do not have good inside knowledge about the discipline, and therefore tend to take the easier course as they know well that master GPA will be important. When one is thrown into an environment where most of his/her peers are taking the easier class, then he/she would probably do the same thing, despite having formal access to the better course. MA students usually do not have inside knowledge sufficient to know that methods are that important. Otherwise, they would have applied to PhD directly. 

 

Hopefully, the exchange between you and me would help inform the OP about his/her access to the PhD level training in the master program, and OP will indeed take advantage of that. 

[jazzrap]

Thank you all for sharing.  I am the original poster.

 

So in summary, can I assume that if I select the various methods courses available for PhD students and excel in them, this will help me gain admission to a top four PhD program (Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford)?

It will definitely make your profile a bit stronger. However, I don't think it would do anyone good to just assume to get into a top 5 (it is perceived by a lot of people that there are six "top 5" in the discipline: Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, Michigan, Berkeley, and Yale) even if he/she has a BA from Harvard and MA at Columbia with perfect GPA and perfect GRE and three glowing letters. The admissions process could be a bit idiosyncratic and turn out unexpectedly. And it is also extremely competitive. 

 

Try your best to make every single part of your profile outstanding. Get good training at Columbia, leave great impression on those whose letters will matter, read up the frontier literature to write a professionalized SOP that asks interesting cutting-edge questions, score better than you can imagine in the GRE, and then it is up to luck. 

 

A top 5 would be good, but a top 10, top 15, or a top 20 would not hurt that much. There are occasionally folks who went to programs below top 25 and still landed great jobs. 

 

And apply to as many programs as you can. 

Edited June 2, 2014 by jazzrap

[jazzrap]

Do you have any more info you can share on their open house.  I did not even know they had one.  When was it?

 

Thanks.

The open house was for newly admitted PhD students, held in mid-March. 

[Phdforme]

The open house was for newly admitted PhD students, held in mid-March. 

Thanks Jazzrap!  Are you going to Columbia for your PhD?

[Phdforme]

Thank you!

 

It will definitely make your profile a bit stronger. However, I don't think it would do anyone good to just assume to get into a top 5 (it is perceived by a lot of people that there are six "top 5" in the discipline: Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, Michigan, Berkeley, and Yale) even if he/she has a BA from Harvard and MA at Columbia with perfect GPA and perfect GRE and three glowing letters. The admissions process could be a bit idiosyncratic and turn out unexpectedly. And it is also extremely competitive. 

 

Try your best to make every single part of your profile outstanding. Get good training at Columbia, leave great impression on those whose letters will matter, read up the frontier literature to write a professionalized SOP that asks interesting cutting-edge questions, score better than you can imagine in the GRE, and then it is up to luck. 

 

A top 5 would be good, but a top 10, top 15, or a top 20 would not hurt that much. There are occasionally folks who went to programs below top 25 and still landed great jobs. 

 

And apply to as many programs as you can. 

[AuldReekie]

This perception depends on which age group you talk to and which subfield you're in. Today, it's arguable whether the "C" honor goes to Berkeley, Chicago, Columbia, or a combination thereof.

I think the rule is whichever University you get into..  

Edited June 3, 2014 by RLemkin

[jazzrap]

Thanks Jazzrap!  Are you going to Columbia for your PhD?

No, I am not. There are programs that I might slightly fit better in terms of research interests. Columbia's program is wonderful, though.