Welcome to the 2014-15 Cycle

[ARealDowner]

The hardest part for me is definitely the SOP. 70% of it is pretty straightforward, but the research interests and potential line of inquiry section has been tough. The problem is I already have very defined interests for a undergrad, so I am really going into detail on this section and it has to be good.

 

On the other hand, having well defined interests makes picking which schools to apply to really easy. I already know who the top scholars are in my area and I know where they all are. It also allows me to submit a really strong writing sample that is directly pertinent to my research interests, which I think is a nice advantage.

 

I'm basically on the other end of that spectrum, which worries me some...my research interests are not incredibly defined, and I wish they were more so, for the purposes of determining fit and being able to discuss it in more depth in my SOP. Being an American Politics guy, I know specifically I want to work with legislatures, either Congress or the state legislatures, and am interested in topics such as polarization and the effects of religious identification, but I don't know if there's a neat way to package all of that into one coherent aim, much less discuss what a potential dissertation might look like. Are all of you drafting SOPs actually posing research questions in yours? Is this a necessity?

As far as the rest of prep goes, just putting in a lot of work on my research honors project and studying for the GRE still. I'm not taking mine till mid-October, which means I probably won't get to retake before I apply, but I'm very happy with how the studying's going. Just got double 169s on the last practice test I took, and I'm continuing to work on areas I feel still need focus, so I'm feeling good about that right now!

Edited September 15, 2014 by mkistner92

[cooperstreet]

much less discuss what a potential dissertation might look like. 

 

 

You don't need to do this. In fact, you shouldn't do this.

[AuldReekie]

I gather there's a sweet spot.. but too focused and you count yourself out of places even though your interests will develop. 

 

Took the GRE a couple of weeks ago and got a decent increase over my first attempt (almost two years ago?!) but still not fantastic in the Quant section. So that's something for me to think about, but the SOP is more important for now. 

 

3-4 days to go until one half of Scotland is very annoyed!

[ARealDowner]

And potentially all of England. I can't imagine what Scotland's gonna be like the day after if they do vote Yes, I'd do anything to be back in Edinburgh for that. I've even seen the American media start talking about the impact of Scotland leaving the union and making it sound like the end of the world (as far as our relations with Europe, at least).

 

But that's good to know about the SOP. I've just seen some guides online that made it sound like part of the SOP should be a demonstration of your ability to pose an interesting research question and answer it, which I feel is just way more specific than I want to be right now. I feel like if the rest of my SOP can demonstrate my general interests and the types of questions I'd be interested in answering (as well as specific independent research I've done in my undergraduate experience), that will be enough.

[victorydance]

And potentially all of England. I can't imagine what Scotland's gonna be like the day after if they do vote Yes, I'd do anything to be back in Edinburgh for that. I've even seen the American media start talking about the impact of Scotland leaving the union and making it sound like the end of the world (as far as our relations with Europe, at least).

 

But that's good to know about the SOP. I've just seen some guides online that made it sound like part of the SOP should be a demonstration of your ability to pose an interesting research question and answer it, which I feel is just way more specific than I want to be right now. I feel like if the rest of my SOP can demonstrate my general interests and the types of questions I'd be interested in answering (as well as specific independent research I've done in my undergraduate experience), that will be enough.

 

 

 

I must say a little more about personal statements, because they often miss the point, and this is unhelpful and even painful to admissions committees.

This is not an undergrad entry essay where you describe your life’s trails and tribulations. And please do not start with the story about an epiphany, such as the day that you knew you wanted to study the subject. Especially if it involves a child in a poor country. In my opinion, this is mostly irrelevant and largely cliche.

You are applying to be a professional researcher, and this is your cover letter. Personally, I like to see some of the following:

1. Your fields of interest
2. Who you would like to work with in the department and why this is a good fit
   • Make sure they actually are there and take students–that is, that they didn’t leave last year, are actually in the department you are applying to, and are tenure-track or tenured
3. Your career objective(s)
4. Concrete research ideas (this seems to be more important in political science, which likes to see if you can develop an interesting research question and propose a way to answer it)
5. Important highlights from your CV, including any strengths that distinguish you
6. Only if necessary: Information that might help us understand any apparent weaknesses or puzzles in your application (e.g. why you studied physics but now are doing politics, or what happened in that single bad semester, or what your foreign GPA means)

 

 

http://chrisblattman.com/about/contact/gradschool/

 

I would tread lightly. Everything I have read and heard from political science professors has commented in the same way.

[cooperstreet]

Yes, you should have concrete research ideas, but not a dissertation proposal.

[freshwater_smelt]

Along the same lines as this current discussion: many schools force you to choose a subfield on your application. But what if your research interests draw from two subfields (in my case, political theory and American politics)? Should your SOP cater towards one subfield or can you discuss the interdisciplinary nature of your interests?

[cooperstreet]

crossing subfields isn't interdisciplinary.  don't worry too much about subfield, some things of study like conflict are on the cp/ir divide and thats ok

[freshwater_smelt]

Thanks cooperstreet.

[AuldReekie]

And potentially all of England. I can't imagine what Scotland's gonna be like the day after if they do vote Yes, I'd do anything to be back in Edinburgh for that. I've even seen the American media start talking about the impact of Scotland leaving the union and making it sound like the end of the world (as far as our relations with Europe, at least).

 

It's been quite fun in Edinburgh, but the urban/rural and rich/poor divide is astounding. I remember been taught about the demise of class based voting from about age 15 . Three polls today, all 52% No, 48% Yes  .  

 

 

Suffice to say there's not much point in me trying to do anything related to my applications over the next 72 hours...

 

========

 

However, I shall try to offer something other than just "squee, independence referendum". 

 

In my word doc on SOPs I have collected a few bits from the forum and elsewhere, here's what I can find on research statements etc.

 

 

Bear Braumoeller - OSU

 

If you know you've got a strong project and a strong direction, write about it, and run a draft past at least one professor for feedback. Questions are safer, but they're also (slightly) lower payoff.

 

The main things you want to convey are professionalization and quality of mind. Those trump project vs. question, IMO. Most people don't stick with a project or a question all the way through graduate school anyway—if they did, we wouldn't be doing a very good job.

 

Dan Nexon - Georgetown

 

 

First, it demonstrates that you have a clue about what political-science research is about. This means being able to lay out puzzles or problems, relate them to general literatures, and say something vaguely plausible about how you might address them. However, recall that the committee knows that — with the possible exception of your regional interests — your research statement will be totally obsolete after a year or two in graduate school. Thus, you should avoid being overly specific lest you (a) come across as crazy and ( zero out the number of professors we think you might wind up working with

 

Nuno Monteiro - Yale

 

 

 

Note that schools are not interested in your dissertation plans. In fact, too narrow an area of interests may count against you, as you may seem too pre-formatted, and not willing or able to grow in grad school. Mention a few ideas, a broad theme or two, questions that interest you, arguments you’d like to try out, books that nag you, that sort of stuff. I

Edited September 16, 2014 by RLemkin

[ARealDowner]

Thanks Rlemkin, those viewpoints are actually very helpful, I think I have a better idea for what they're looking for now. Now I just need to keep digging through people department by department. Definitely been lots of article reading this past month.

 

[Poli92]

Thank everything that is good in the world, the GRE is done! 

[AuldReekie]

Crazy campaigning today, up to 90% turnout in some parts of Edinburgh and a dictatorship worthy 100% in some areas. I'm definitely reminded why I don't want to be involved in politics any more... Still it'll be an interesting night as the results come in. Probably a No from Scotland. 

Edited September 18, 2014 by RLemkin

[ARealDowner]

Disappointed by the vote, definitely, but greatly encouraged by the demographic splits...16-17 years olds voting Yes at 70+%, and the Nos coming primarily from the 55 and older crowd. While it didn't end up being particularly close this time around, a revisit of the issue a generation from now could have a decidedly different outcome.

[AuldReekie]

Disappointed by the vote, definitely, but greatly encouraged by the demographic splits...16-17 years olds voting Yes at 70+%, and the Nos coming primarily from the 55 and older crowd. While it didn't end up being particularly close this time around, a revisit of the issue a generation from now could have a decidedly different outcome.

 

Already the devolution proposals are getting caught up in political football between Labour and the Conservatives.. right time to switch off, it's not going to get better. Still it was an amazing exercise, so many people voting and getting involved in politics for the first time.

 

I'm looking forward to the election study data coming out, some incentive to get better at using R

[victorydance]

I'd like to see the correlation between income and voting. Have only really seen the ages and geographic breakdown so far.

[AuldReekie]

I'd like to see the correlation between income and voting. Have only really seen the ages and geographic breakdown so far.

 

I've only seen this from @SuseJohnston on income/voting. Individual voter level data will be released in a few months.

 

[esotericish]

Of course I discovered this thread after making a new topic. So, cross post below!

 

 

I'm looking at certain schools, mostly based on geography (the fiance has to be ok with the location). Particularly, UC-Boulder, University of Washington (Seattle), UT-Austin and probably Duke. 

 

Undergrad: UNC-Chapel Hill, political science and European studies. 3.6 GPA with an honors thesis.

Graduate: MA in Poli Sci also from UNC (comparative focus) with no GPA...they do a pass/fail thing. Took a couple PhD seminars as well.

My GRE from my MA application: 610 verbal, 680 QR, 4.0 AW (160/153 according to the GRE website).

Work experience post-MA includes international development nonprofit, Hill internship, a social science association (think APSA), and some communications stuff.

 

My main concern is the GRE. I think I can get the scores up, especially QR. I have great recommendations lined up. My focus is in comparative politics and IPE. Also, any schools I should add to this list?

 

Thanks for the help!

[AuldReekie]

Of course I discovered this thread after making a new topic. So, cross post below!

 

 

I'm looking at certain schools, mostly based on geography (the fiance has to be ok with the location). Particularly, UC-Boulder, University of Washington (Seattle), UT-Austin and probably Duke. 

 

Undergrad: UNC-Chapel Hill, political science and European studies. 3.6 GPA with an honors thesis.

Graduate: MA in Poli Sci also from UNC (comparative focus) with no GPA...they do a pass/fail thing. Took a couple PhD seminars as well.

My GRE from my MA application: 610 verbal, 680 QR, 4.0 AW (160/153 according to the GRE website).

Work experience post-MA includes international development nonprofit, Hill internship, a social science association (think APSA), and some communications stuff.

 

My main concern is the GRE. I think I can get the scores up, especially QR. I have great recommendations lined up. My focus is in comparative politics and IPE. Also, any schools I should add to this list?

 

Thanks for the help!

 

I gather that Q is on the low side, especially as IPE can be pretty quant heavy. Boulder, Washington and UT-Austin have average GRE scores hidden away on their websites, so have a look there. Suffice to say if you think you can improve your scores without impinging on prep for other areas of your applications then do it. 

[Alex604]

Hi all, I'm facing a somewhat unfortunate situation as I approach applying for a MA.  I wonder if any of you can give me any guidance.

 

My cumulative undergraduate GPA is miserable all as a result of a terrible first two years at university (3.3).  In my 3rd and 4th year of study my GPA was much higher (3.8), so there is a very obvious upward trend in my grades.  Still, my overall GPA, to put it mildly, sucks.

 

That said, I have a very competitive GRE score, three highly personalized and strong letters of recommendation each from well known faculty members, two international internships in the field I want to go in to, a research assistant position, and publications in a couple undergraduate political science journals.  

 

My research interests revolve primarily around post-conflict studies and transitional justice, especially in the East African context. I'm passionate about this stuff and would give an arm and a leg to get into a competitive program where I can really pursue this.  I am extremely concerned about my very lousy GPA, though.  I have this terrible feeling that I may have burned some bridges a long time ago and that I need to come to terms with that and start thinking about other paths.

 

Any thoughts on the viability of a top or upper-middle tier program in a situation like this?  Have any of you faced this situation before?  What strategies have you used to emphasize your qualifications when your GPA was lacking?

 

Thanks so much everyone! 

[victorydance]

Dude, a 3.5+ isn't even that bad of a GPA. Especially considering you are just applying for MAs. I really wouldn't worry about it so much.

 

I have a similar GPA and am only applying to top 20 US Ph.D. programs and a few top MA programs.

Edited September 25, 2014 by victorydance

[esotericish]

Yeah that's a really solid GPA. Especially if you have good GREs and recommendations. Don't let it keep you from applying anywhere.

[Alex604]

Thanks for the votes of confidence.  Just to reiterate, though, my cumulative GPA right now is not 3.8.  It is 3.3.  If only the second half of my BA is considered (years 3 and 4) it is 3.8. 

[twinsora]

Honestly, I've been thinking about acceptances and whatnot - How likely is it to get accepted with a subpar GPA and Last two years? By sub par I mean 3.1 CGPA and about a 3.3-3.4 last two?

[HopefulNeurotic]

On the topic of GPAs... My first year's worth (went to community college on and off for several years) of undergrad credits are pretty dismal (we're talking like a 2.4). However, for my final 3 years (continuously enrolled) I maintained above a 3.9... Should I mention the first year at all? The general consensus seems to say no, but one of my professors warned me that there's a chance my less-than-stellar first year and intermittent attendance could come off as flaky to an adcomm. Clearly, once I made the conscious decision to pursue my educational goals I excelled, but I'm hesitant to include some corny line in my SOPs about how I always wanted to pursue a PhD in political science, but it took some maturity and life experience to get there (even though it's true). Thoughts?