Help Me Not Panic

[UTKBob]

Hey guys, I'm a new member seeking a little reassurance and guidance. I hope I'm not annoying, and I hope I'm not like a typical new member.

Here's my situation. I've been accepted to, and funded at, the University of Tennessee-Knoxville for this fall, into the Political Science Ph.D. program.

I am coming from a History BA program at a small, public Liberal Arts program in Virginia. I've been out of school for a year, after a brief flirtation with law firm life left me - at risk of sounding hilariously cliche - craving intellectual challenge again.

Here's what I'm concerned about: my undergraduate program was not easy by a long shot. I had professors from public Ivy's who were entirely committed to being amazing, challenging professors. This wasn't a community college by any stretch. Even in this atmosphere, I had a 4.0 from fall 2010 until my graduation in 2013.

However, a few problems. First, my actual political science background is limited to basic American government classes, two political theory classes, and a single comparative politics course. I made A's in these classes, but I somehow still feel woefully unprepared.

My biggest concern is quantitative. I basically... Have little to no experience. A failed distance learning program in high school ruined my math confidence and I haven't truly tried since. I made a C in elementary statistics at college. However, I did make A's in both elementary Macro and Micro economics.

Strangely, my focus is the car industry. I've written extensively about the correlation of industry and geopolitical power. I'm just worried that my a) switching of fields and relatively lax quantitative training will torpedo me from the get go.

What I'm basically asking for here is advice on what I can do, on my own time this summer, to ensure I maintain the 3.5 gpa necessary to not flunk out of grad school... And honestly, some reassurance that I need to be here in the first place. I mean, they saw my transcript. They wouldn't have let me in if they were a super quantitative program, right?

[fuzzylogician]

This is not exactly what you asked for (I am not a political science student), but I have some advice about what to expect once you're in school.

 

In my experience as a TA for a technical class where some students tend to come with very extensive backgrounds and others come with little or no background, the difference between the students who make it through the class and those who struggle is this: The ones who are not shy and ask for help as soon as they stop following the class do just fine. (Sometimes these students need more help than other times, but what's important is keeping with the class and not falling behind.) The ones who let themselves quietly fall behind have a very hard time. Sometimes the instructors are able to identify these students early and help them, but those who just sit there without understanding what's going on for even 2-3 classes can come very close to not being able to make up for what they've lost.

 

The moral of the story is: yes, it's possible that you'll have a class where some other students have more background than you. However, that is not a good reason to despair. The instructors' goal is for everyone to pass the class and understand the material. Ask questions. In class, if you're comfortable doing so, or outside otherwise. Take advantage of the TA and instructor, go to office hours. Furthermore, unless you're the only one there with less background (and probably even then!), I guarantee you that if you are not following something, others are having trouble too. You will not be alone in finding some of the material difficult. It's not extraordinary and it says nothing negative about you. People will thank you for stopping an instructor from talking over the class's head for an hour, and just asking a clarification question.

[jazzrap]

Those who flunk out of a Political Science PhD program usually fail for one reason only: they work considerably less than their peers. 

 

I don't see you being one of those who don't work hard. This is the last summer you can relax yourself, and you decided to worry about grad school and post it on gradcafe. I don't intend to use "worry" as a good word, because it certainly is not. However, I believe that those who worry a bit about their career and life tend to excel in the near future. The fact that you post here at this particular time means that you have the mentality to work hard in grad school. 

 

Sure, you might not have fancy quant skills at this point, but you must have some other skills to make it up. Otherwise, why would UTK professors give you offer in the first place? These folks do not know you as a person as well as you do. However, they know your potential as a political scientist a lot better than you do.  

[catchermiscount]

You work, and you work, and you work.  You work in the office.  You take laps around the office every now and again to make sure that you're seen.  You demonstrate that you're perceptive, hard-working, and collegial on a daily basis:  in classes, in the office, everywhere. 

 

You do that, and you do just fine.  You have more background than some of us did (myself included).

 

This is the last summer that you'll get to do a lot of things, and you should do them.  You should read for fun.  You should spend time with folks you care about.  And you should just keep breathing, which is the most important skill of all.

 

ETA:  as noted above, it is very important to ask for help.  But, it is also important to learn the skill of self-sufficiency.  You should ask for help when you need it, but not without struggling for at least an hour by yourself.  This practice ensures that (1) the problem is important enough to have warranted that kind of time investment on your part; (2) the answer is not embarrassingly obvious, thus saving you on precious reputation costs; and (3) you have enough experience with the problem that you can meaningfully convey your question(s) is reasonable depth and detail. 

Edited June 3, 2014 by coachrjc

[AuldReekie]

David Siegel from USC has just put up an online course on math for Political Science with ~30 hours of lectures on Youtube + practice sets & answers. I've only just started it, but it looks like it might be useful for you? I gather that it's modelled on the 'Math Camps' that some universities have. http://people.duke.edu/~das76/MooSieBook.html

Edited June 3, 2014 by RLemkin

[UTKBob]

David Siegel from USC has just put up an online course on math for Political Science with ~30 hours of lectures on Youtube + practice sets & answers. I've only just started it, but it looks like it might be useful for you? I gather that it's modelled on the 'Math Camps' that some universities have. http://people.duke.edu/~das76/MooSieBook.html

Thanks a ton for this. I had been looking for something like this, but obviously there's a lot stuff of very dubious quality attempting to get more clicks on the internet. I've also bought a book - aimed at undergrads and first year graduate students - to attempt to familiarize myself better with... stuff.

I'd like to thank everyone else for your responses, though I don't have time to quote them all specifically.

I just feel like I'm behind where I should be. I failed out of precalc in high school, and now these professors on the internet are saying I should have two years of Calculus with linear algebra before I even start?

I looked up the requirements of my program online. They require three research methods classes, plus a research "tool" requirement, so basically four classes. That seems to me to be, thankfully, a little less number intensive than some other programs. Thoughts on that assumption?

[UTKBob]

Here's another question.

My funding package stipulates I maintain a 3.5 to keep funding. That seems pretty standard.

My question is this: do schools generally take that completely literally?

[cooperstreet]

Here's another question.

My funding package stipulates I maintain a 3.5 to keep funding. That seems pretty standard.

My question is this: do schools generally take that completely literally?

 

 

Yeah.

[catchermiscount]

That said, "the bar" is a somewhat qualitative thing, and the relationship between grades and over-the-bar-ness can go in either direction.

[UTKBob]

That said, "the bar" is a somewhat qualitative thing, and the relationship between grades and over-the-bar-ness can go in either direction.

I'm not 100% sure I'm following.

[AuldReekie]

Here's another question.

My funding package stipulates I maintain a 3.5 to keep funding. That seems pretty standard.

My question is this: do schools generally take that completely literally?

 

I suggest you have a look at the graduate handbook for your school. A quick google: http://polisci.utk.edu/pdf/ghandbook1314.pdf

 

 'All funded students must maintain at least a 3.5 

GPA. Any student who falls below that level for one semester will receive a warning. 

If the GPA remains below a 3.5 for two consecutive semesters, the student will have 

funding terminated'

[UVaSpades]

I'm not 100% sure I'm following.

In a sense, there's something of an endogenous relationship at work here, which is what I think coach was getting at (please correct me if I'm wrong, though!): the grades inform the department's general perception of you, but your department's general perception of you is also going to inform the grades they give. If they think that a given student can ultimately make it through the program, then it's doubtful that they'll give grades that they know would result in that student losing his or her funding, since the most likely response would be that viable candidate leaving, which they don't want to have happen. It's slightly more complicated than this, since I'm treating "the department" as one monolithic entity, but you get the general idea: it is desirable to keep talented/competent graduate students.

 

But honestly though, the admissions committee took you seriously enough to invest in you and thinks that you can handle the work, so you should believe that, too. You wouldn't have been brought on board if they were convinced you would fail. There's going to be a learning curve (there always is to some extent), but there's no reason to believe you won't be able to succeed with the instruction they provide and whatnot.

[catchermiscount]

That's pretty much what I was getting at, yeah.  In celebration of the upcoming job market season, I'm not letting myself use jargon, even if it's appropriate and the first word that comes to mind (e.g. endogenous).  Otherwise, my job market paper is going to be a real killer.

 

Anyway, to the point:  if you come across as a reasonably smart, reasonably nice, reasonably hardworking, reasonably creative person, "the department" (and yes, they probably talk about you, which would make them able to coordinate if they so chose) would do the right thing.  This applies to lots of things, including failing comps, missing deadlines, and so on.  These things don't go unpunished, but cutting funding is pretty drastic.  If your "true" grade was going to be a 3.4 and you had done well (and earned some advocates in faculty meetings), then you might have some options.

 

Rule number one of political science grad school:  there are 1.2k "top k" departments.  Six top fives, twelve top tens, and so on.

Rule number two of political science grad school:  it's more like Whose Line is It, Anyway? than you think.

[UTKBob]

You two both answered the question I couldn't figure out how to ask.

The professors at my undergrad loved me. There's two undergraduates history courses taught using two different papers I wrote. I know it doesn't always translate to a bigger, better school, but my teachers have always been there for that tiny bit of slack that - even if I didn't actually need it in the end - kept me from having a nervous breakdown.

I guess it turns out that being neurotic helps after all, right?

I mean, my GRE quant score was a 149. I'm a couple of points better than that, but they wouldn't have let me in if they were an overly mathy program.

You guys really are lifesavers. It's June and here I am trying to figure out what to do if I fail out of grad school.

[catchermiscount]

It happens.  You should do your best to avoid Doubt Time, but fact is, Doubt Time happens.  Doubt Time is sometimes good for you; for example, it's the thing that lets you know if an idea you thought was good last week is, in fact, terrible.  But there's an Aristotelian balance on this one.

[UTKBob]

So I went back and looked at my transcript. I was actually wrong. Freshman year of college, I made a C in an Intermediate level Statistics class that I didn't care about AT ALL that graded on no curve.

If I show any level of aptitude at all, I shouldn't have any trouble with social science, right?

Is it common to work with TA's or professors outside of class? I was basically on a first name basis with my professors in undergrad, so I think I've forgotten how it actually works.