3 Questions for Political Science PhD Application

[testingtesting]

Undergraduate in Political Science from middle-tier university with MPP from elite British university applying for PhD in Comparative Politics/Political Economy for 2015 or 2016. Nearly all post-grad work was in Economics, Statistics or Government departments, effectively giving me an MSc in social research methods.

 

(1) How should I treat poor performance in my 1st year of undergrad in my SOP/CV? My overall GPA was 3.5 but was 3.70 over my last 2 years.  Additionally, my overall Political Science GPA was 3.59, but exhibited a massively upward trend: excluding my 1st year it was 3.74 and my last year I had a 3.92 in-major. 

 

(2) Do I opt for 4 letters or drop a strong letter from a academic in sociology and pick up an okay one from someone in comparative? I have 3 amazing letters but only 2 of them are from political scientists and none are in my subfield.  The 3rd is a tenured sociologist.  I can get a good-but-not-amazing letter from an assistant professor who is a rising star in my field of interest but not tenured because VERY young.  

 

(3) Would I be competitive in any of the following tiers (see qualifications below)?

Tier 1: Stanford, Princeton, Harvard, Yale

Tier 2: Columbia, MIT, Berkeley, Michigan

Tier 3: UCLA, WUSTL, NYU, Duke

Tier 4: Wisconsin, UNC

Tier 5: Rochester, Northwestern, Texas, Cornell, Minnesota

 

_________________________________________

 

UGrad GPA: Overall: 3.50 / Last 2 Years: 3.70

UGrad Political Science GPA: Overall: 3.59 / Last Year: 3.92 / Last 2 Years: 3.71 / All Years But 1st: 3.74

MA (Public Policy) GPA: ~3.7 (Upper 2nd in British system, little grade inflation)

GRE: 168 Quantitative, 168 Qualitative

Graduate-level statistics coursework: econometrics, statistical computing, simulation methods

Mathematics: Completed through Calculus II

 

Research Experience: 1 RAship in economic research center at elite university, 1 RAship on interdisciplinary project across politics and social policy department at elite university, 1 year as government health policy researcher, 3 policy research internships in think tanks. Lots of other irrelevant experience.

 

Accomplishments: Won Best Paper Award at international public policy conference, 4 small merit-based scholarships and awards ($250  to $5,000) from non-profits and academic centers to attend seminars.

 

Publications: Nothing peer-reviewed. Wrote a large technical report for a government department (can't share report, but can acknowledge I wrote it and my name is on it) and MA thesis in comparative politics (serving as writing sample). Submitting a research note to AJPS next month. Many letters (and an op-ed) in newspapers like New York Times.

 

Presentations: Have made formal presentations of my research at graduate student conferences, before UK government, and international organizations (OECD).

 

Letters: 4 letters by young elite university faculty under 40, 3 good and 1 likely generic but from comparative politics:

-1 from well-known, tenured methodologist jointly in politics and statistics departments

-1 from tenured formal political theorist, not particularly well-known outside of the field I am applying to

-1 from non-tenured comparative politics faculty who is seen as a rising star in the field (very young)

-1 from tenured professor jointly in sociology department

 

Affiliations: Member of PhD comparative politics research seminar, APSA, university-wide faculty interdisciplinary research group

Edited June 11, 2014 by testingtesting

[victorydance]

You are competitive anywhere.

 

A few things:

 

1) Submit your three strongest LORs whether they are from a different field or not. A strong LOR from a sociologist is better than a average one from a comparativist. 

 

2) You don't need to explain your GPA, it is fine.

 

3) You have a lot of things to draw on, but don't muddle it up with irrelevant noise. Try to pick the things most relevant to your application and tie them together coherently in your SOP. 

[victorydance]

Also, places like Cornell and UNC are not "4th or 5th tiers" in comparative politics, those are two of the best programs in the country. But this also depends on what your research interests are.

 

I find it a little humorous how you have such a clear and well-written post but don't talk about your research interests/subfield, which might be the most important thing.

Edited June 11, 2014 by victorydance

[testingtesting]

Also, places like Cornell and UNC are not "4th or 5th tiers" in comparative politics, those are two of the best programs in the country. But this also depends on what your research interests are.

 

I find it a little humorous how you have such a clear and well-written post but don't talk about your research interests/subfield, which might be the most important thing.

 

Thank you very much for your reply. I'm just trying to get a sense of whether I even have a shot at a place like Stanford or whether I shouldn't apply.  I am very busy this summer and don't think I can submit 20 perfect applications, but could submit 8 perhaps.

I am very interested in two areas and my research proposal will link them both:

 

(1) Voter Turnout.  Specifically: class-biases in cross-country electoral turnout. Two areas I'm very keen to explore following my MA dissertation, which examined this phenomenon in national elections, are the causes of class-biased turnout in hybrid regimes and in European Parliamentary elections. 

 

(2) Political Economy (emphasis on redistribution).  In particular, exploring the role of capital mobility in shaping voting and redistributive institutions post-democratization.

 

Methodologically I feel comfortable with basic formal theory but I would be interested in learning more.  My strengths are cross-national quantitative modeling however and I hope to do more research in that area.  Hate qualitative research.

 

The biggest problem is that I don't really have a specific region I want to focus on because (1) I don't have existing expertise in a region, (2) my language abilities are limited, (3) my focus has been on methodological training rather than topical knowledge, (4) I'm interested in cross-national research where 1 region alone is not sufficient sample size. My interests are in Switzerland and most of Latin America for their unique political institutions and Eastern Europe for democratic context.

 

Those tiers took a couple of consideration into account. Tier 1 are automatic.  I think Columbia and Berkeley are the best programs for my interests in Tier 2, but the other 2 universities (while on the decline) are too reputable to place in Tier 3.  I'm a bit obsessed with NYU but it has a terrible placement record and WUSTL/UCLA are excellent in Tier 3.  I'm not impressed with Duke's comparative but I am not well-informed.  The Tier 4 and Tier 5 universities have faculty I would be very interested in studying under but poor placement records or I don't feel the department itself has many strong faculty in my research area.  For example, Barry Burden at Wisconsin is great, but I'm hesitant about their whole department. Am I mistaken in my beliefs?

[victorydance]

That's actually pretty funny because when I was reading your post I was like "NYU is perfect for this person," but yes, their placement is a little iffy compared to others in its ranking. Although, I think Przeworski has a decent placement record as a chair and fits pretty well with your research interests. 

 

I have somewhat similar interests to you (political economy - inequality/party systems/institutions) so I have been looking at probably the same programs you have, but I am very Latin American focused. 

 

Duke hasn't impressed me either, and I also think that depending on what people's research interests are, Yale and MIT aren't as strong as they appear in comparative politics. 

 

I think Cornell and Rochester are pretty good fits for you. Rochester is boss for your methodology, and Cornell has a strong political economy faculty (albeit more multi-methods focused). Columbia is a great fit, for a number of reasons and profs, and Berkeley is always good for comparative politics. I also think Minnesota is a good program, but I am kind of on the fence with them because really only one prof fits my research interests.

 

After re-thinking it, I don't necessarily "disagree" with your rankings. I would say that Berkeley, Stanford, Rochester, Cornell, Harvard, Columbia, and Princeton are must apply for you. The rest depends on if you like a few profs or not. I don't know much about Washington U or UCLA.

 

That being said, I think you are competitive. And my personal belief is if you are competitive, you go big or go home. Better to put your name in all the top hats and have a go then shoot yourself short. 

Edited June 12, 2014 by victorydance

[testingtesting]

On 6/11/2014 at 8:57 PM, victorydance said:

That's actually pretty funny because when I was reading your post I was like "NYU is perfect for this person," but yes, their placement is a little iffy compared to others in its ranking. Although, I think Przeworski has a decent placement record as a chair and fits pretty well with your research interests. 

 

I have somewhat similar interests to you (political economy - inequality/party systems/institutions) so I have been looking at probably the same programs you have, but I am very Latin American focused. 

 

Duke hasn't impressed me either, and I also think that depending on what people's research interests are, Yale and MIT aren't as strong as they appear in comparative politics. 

 

I think Cornell and Rochester are pretty good fits for you. Rochester is boss for your methodology, and Cornell has a strong political economy faculty (albeit more multi-methods focused). Columbia is a great fit, for a number of reasons and profs, and Berkeley is always good for comparative politics. I also think Minnesota is a good program, but I am kind of on the fence with them because really only one prof fits my research interests.

 

After re-thinking it, I don't necessarily "disagree" with your rankings. I would say that Berkeley, Stanford, Rochester, Cornell, Harvard, Columbia, and Princeton are must apply for you. The rest depends on if you like a few profs or not. I don't know much about Washington U or UCLA.

 

That being said, I think you are competitive. And my personal belief is if you are competitive, you go big or go home. Better to put your name in all the top hats and have a go then shoot yourself short. 

Stokes, Swensen, and Rosenbluth are decent enough at Yale. I was very interested in working under Heinmueller at MIT because he just does EVERYTHING but he just left for Stanford. Rochester is on the decline however, and their obsessions with formal theory makes me averse to applying. While I enjoy all of the old Riker stuff, I imagine I don't have the mathematics background necessary to become ah davy formal theory user. Also, Washington University in St. Louis has an amazing placement record and some decent faculty since Doug North attracted lots of faculty at the intersection of politics and economics.

[testingtesting]

Bump to see if anyone else has any thoughts.

[DKSL]

Thank you very much for your reply. I'm just trying to get a sense of whether I even have a shot at a place like Stanford or whether I shouldn't apply.  I am very busy this summer and don't think I can submit 20 perfect applications, but could submit 8 perhaps.

I am very interested in two areas and my research proposal will link them both:

 

(1) Voter Turnout.  Specifically: class-biases in cross-country electoral turnout. Two areas I'm very keen to explore following my MA dissertation, which examined this phenomenon in national elections, are the causes of class-biased turnout in hybrid regimes and in European Parliamentary elections. 

 

(2) Political Economy (emphasis on redistribution).  In particular, exploring the role of capital mobility in shaping voting and redistributive institutions post-democratization.

 

Methodologically I feel comfortable with basic formal theory but I would be interested in learning more.  My strengths are cross-national quantitative modeling however and I hope to do more research in that area.  Hate qualitative research.

 

The biggest problem is that I don't really have a specific region I want to focus on because (1) I don't have existing expertise in a region, (2) my language abilities are limited, (3) my focus has been on methodological training rather than topical knowledge, (4) I'm interested in cross-national research where 1 region alone is not sufficient sample size. My interests are in Switzerland and most of Latin America for their unique political institutions and Eastern Europe for democratic context.

 

Those tiers took a couple of consideration into account. Tier 1 are automatic.  I think Columbia and Berkeley are the best programs for my interests in Tier 2, but the other 2 universities (while on the decline) are too reputable to place in Tier 3.  I'm a bit obsessed with NYU but it has a terrible placement record and WUSTL/UCLA are excellent in Tier 3.  I'm not impressed with Duke's comparative but I am not well-informed.  The Tier 4 and Tier 5 universities have faculty I would be very interested in studying under but poor placement records or I don't feel the department itself has many strong faculty in my research area.  For example, Barry Burden at Wisconsin is great, but I'm hesitant about their whole department. Am I mistaken in my beliefs?

 

You said you want to do comparative politics, but then you mentioned Barry who is an Americanist. I was at Wisconsin during the visitation weekend (didn't end up there because of family reasons), but it is a great program (I kind of regret not choosing to go there). I think placements, at least in the IR subfield, should be on the rise because the awesome hires they made over the past 5 years or so (it takes a while for new hires to have an impact on placement). The comparative politics faculty, in particular Melanie and Scott, are fantastic.

A caution about judging schools solely on placement: I know for a few schools you mentioned (NYU and Wisconsin, for example) some of the students they placed were severally restricted geographically, which makes things difficult in academia. Some had options to go to great R1's, but chose lesser schools because of their restrictions. 

[DKSL]

oh and you have a great background and your GRE scores are great, so don't worry so much about that. Just polish up your SOP and writing sample. 

Edited June 13, 2014 by DKSL