7 rejections, 1 admit, 1 waitlist - thoughts?

[Doe comma John]

I have been ravaged by this cycle (my second) and I'm not sure what to do now. I'm feeling pretty low. 

 

I applied to a wide range of programs and the only progress I made was an acceptance and a waitlist to two 60ish programs. No word on funding yet. I'm just wondering if I should walk away from the whole PhD thing. 

 

I'll provide more information if people want it, but I don't know if anyone will be interested in this topic, so I'll hold off on that for now. 

[Catria]

Wait until funding decisions arrive for the admittance you have before you walk away; you may provisionally accept the admit and, if you're denied funding, then you may walk away.

[Doe comma John]

First of all, thanks for the response. I guess my real question is more specific though: even if it's fully funded, does it make any sense to pursue a PhD at a 60ish program? I didn't expect to be considering these programs, but those are my options. Well, and two unfunded MA offers, but in May I will have an MA in economics that I managed to pay for as I went, so I don't know that another MA makes any difference.

[AuldReekie]

First of all, thanks for the response. I guess my real question is more specific though: even if it's fully funded, does it make any sense to pursue a PhD at a 60ish program? I didn't expect to be considering these programs, but those are my options. Well, and two unfunded MA offers, but in May I will have an MA in economics that I managed to pay for as I went, so I don't know that another MA makes any difference.

 

Don't worry about asking questions, it's normally quite a friendly place!

 

To start with a good rule is to only consider attending if you are fully funded.

 

What did you have in mind when you originally applied to these programs? I applied to a few programs ranked into the #50s, but only because they had an excellent fit, reasonable placement (relatively speaking ofc) and they could fit with my own goals (I do hope to go back to the UK, which is a bit less obsessed with program prestige). 

 

After that I guess it relates to your hopes and aspirations.. If an academic job is your goal then what is the placement record like and would you be happy with the kind of jobs that graduates - only a proportion of them- have managed to get from that program? We all know the academic job market is torrid/terrible/diabolical etc. etc. Smart people do seem to be able to carve out academic careers from lower ranked programs, but it's probably quite a small number and there's no denying it would likely be difficult.

 

Good luck and I hope they come through with funding for you

Edited March 16, 2015 by AuldReekie

[rwillh11]

First of all, thanks for the response. I guess my real question is more specific though: even if it's fully funded, does it make any sense to pursue a PhD at a 60ish program? I didn't expect to be considering these programs, but those are my options. Well, and two unfunded MA offers, but in May I will have an MA in economics that I managed to pay for as I went, so I don't know that another MA makes any difference.

If you don't get funding-don't go. Not worth taking out debt, especially from a lower ranked school. If you do get funding, maybe go. It depends what your goals are. If you would be OK working at a lower-ranked, non research university, or even a community college, you can go for it. Or if you have some other plan that seems achievable. However, if you are doing this because you really want to work as a TT professor doing research at a PhD granting institution after you graduate, no, it is not worth it. Every once in a while, a school from that tier will place a TT professor at a research university, but it is super rare and unrealistic to think that even the top student in a class has much of a shot in any given year. So, it really depends what your goals are. If you look at the school's placement record, consider that 1/2 or so don't finish, and then consider the median placement, and are OK with those odds, then go for it. If not, then I don't think its worth it.  

[Doe comma John]

Thanks for the responses guys. I feel terrible, but it's nice to at least share where I'm coming from. 

 

My concern is that this is just the best I'm ever going to do. My goal is federal government, though I wouldn't be upset if I ended up teaching at a small liberal arts college. I think the PhD is necessary for what I want to do in government.

 

Here's some more information:

 

-167/160 on the GRE

-Soon to be M.A. in economics with a 3.9 from a state university, concentration in econometrics because my area of interest is quantitative political economy. 

-I didn't know what I wanted to do right out of high school so I went to a CC in an honors program that paid for my first year. I had a 3.9 my freshman year and transferred to a strong, private liberal arts college for the rest of undergrad (political science). I did well my first two years there, but I dealt with personal issues my senior year and failed an entire semester (which I explained in an addendum on my applications). My undergraduate GPA is 3.3.

-I spent some time studying in MENA both during undergrad and after.

-I spent some time in politics (campaign manager, worked in state government, lobbied)

-I applied to PhD programs in 2012 and was rejected from everywhere, which lead me to my M.A. program to see if I could make up for my undergrad issues.

-I applied to 9 programs this year and, again, it didn't go well.

-My statement of purpose was very good, though I may have been too specific as to what I want to study (Georgetown, NYU, and Princeton were all really "good fits" and I was rejected. Not that I am surprised by NYU or Princeton. Offered the terminal M.A. at NYU, which I don't think is a good option.)

-My writing sample was a quantitative economic paper that I'm working on publishing.

-One of the LORs was used to get me into my M.A, program, so I think that was solid. The other two are from current economics professors who seem to like me and be impressed with me. They both offered to write letters without me asking, so I take that as a good sign.

 

My current professors are at a loss to explain why I'm getting raked over the coals, but they're economists, so I don't know if I should rely on their assessments here.

 

So, it comes down to this: is my undergraduate GPA an albatross that I will never overcome?

 

I have other options as far as career, but the issue is that learning makes me happy and very little else does.  

[hgp]

I'm in sociology so I'm not sure if what political science looks for is different - but it does seem like you have an impressive application package. If the #60 program is funded, I say take the first step and see what other doors open. Particularly for your professional goals, I think the PhD will be worth it. You're in control of the quality and quantity of work you do and the connections you make no matter what tier school you go to. I think 8 years from now when you're at your government position you're gonna look back on this time of anxiety, smile and say, hey it all really does work out. 

Edited March 17, 2015 by hgp

[Doe comma John]

I think I'm just done.

Edited March 17, 2015 by aronburn

[Doe comma John]

My suspicion was just confirmed: the offer I have will not be funded. The DGS actually suggested that I "Check with the library for assistantships." 

 

I promptly withdrew. 

 

"I appreciate the offer, thought that this is what I wanted. Rather be a starving artist than succeed at getting fucked."

[law2phd]

Was the 160 GRE your verbal or quantitative score?  It is quite low for an elite program in political economy if it's quantitative, and you might have better luck improving it.  I don't see anything else in your application which could explain your admissions performance.  I would have to think that your MA GPA would make up for the undergrad GPA, especially given your concentration.  

[Doe comma John]

167 is verbal, 160 is quant. 

 

It's unrealistic to think I can improve the quant. I've spent two years in PhD courses with economists and statisticians (I'm at an engineering school; our stats program is quite good) and my grades evince that I can keep up, but no, I can't do math as quickly as them. I think it's unrealistic to think I could improve the 160 since those are the kind of people taking the GRE and pushing a 160 down to the 80th percentile. I think I'm just screwed.     

[Doorkeeper]

You really need to improve that quant score since you're not a theory candidate.

 

All I have to say is that it's ok applying multiple cycles - I applied to 3 different cycles and it wasn't until my third cycle that I made real progress.  Spend the year making progress to improve your file, especially whatever weaknesses you may have in your application.

 

Also, having multiple LORs from people outside of political science might not be a wise move.  I know that many top schools pay particular notice to applications that have LORs from professors that they know and/or respect in Political Science - there's a much lesser likelihood of that occurring with your file if you have 2 recommenders from Economics (unless those two recommenders are people that are well known to political scientists).

[Doe comma John]

Yup, I'm sure that will be the silver bullet. That and all those other silver bullets. Maybe this explains the rejections from the top end, but it doesn't explain my whole cycle. And it's not like this is my first cycle. 

[victorydance]

160 really isn't that bad and it probably hits very close or slightly lower than the median quant scores for accepted students at most schools. 

[Evgeny55]

If you want to try next cycle, shoot for higher quantitative scores on GRE. 160 is pretty decent, even a year ago I saw non-theory applicants with 160 (or 161) score who were admitted to top-10 programs. However, the higher the better, and score above 165 will bolster your chances significantly. Your M.A. in economics is an advantage, since modern political science is leaning more and more towards econ-fashioned research. Change your SOP. If your LORs were good, SOP was probably the main reason for rejection, which means you have to write a new one. From my experience (recent and not highly encouraging), you should avoid writing SOP with narrow focused research agenda. For instance, instead of writing "I want to study indiscriminate violence in civil wars" you should write "I want to study political economy of violence". Then you may write a little bit on research idea that you have in mind, again avoiding too narrow agenda. Personally. I think that admission committees should start to pay less attention to SOP, since there is always high risk that SOP will be misrepresented information. We all write how awesome we are, but credibility of this information is typically low. But it is the best poor admission system that we have at hand right now. I overstrategized my SOP and directed it to fulfil the goal of providing evidence that I really can think like scholar. Apparently, they were more interested in some general words about research, why do you want to study in this particular university etc. Tailing essay to university is apparently very important thing. You should write about fit of research agenda to what particular department is doing. Also, don't write famous names as POI inasmuch there is very high competition for working with them, and Ivy League graduates with 4.0 GPA will always have an edge in competition for work with top professors. 

[Doe comma John]

Thank you for the encouragement and strategy thoughts. I certainly welcome any other thoughts. I'm not sure what I'm planning to do yet. I just need to drink and be alone for a while.

[law2phd]

160 really isn't that bad and it probably hits very close or slightly lower than the median quant scores for accepted students at most schools. 

 

Hopefully my prior comment wasn't overly negative.  I agree that 160 isn't bad, but it would fully explain the NYU and Princeton rejections, especially considering a game theory-heavy expected concentration.  I don't know anything about the other programs which have been mentioned.  It's also the only thing below median in OP's application which can reasonably be brought up: changing letter writers usually means another degree (not worth it), and nothing can be done about the undergrad GPA that OP hasn't already done.

 

OP, I'm very sorry about your luck.  I had a pretty disappointing application cycle the first time I applied to law school, so I know how it feels.  Evgeny's advice for next cycle is generally good, although I would caution against being too general in your next SoP.  Especially since you have an advanced degree already, you need to display that you understand the field and what a meaningful research project in it would look like.  It should still be general enough that there are several people at each department who could plausibly advise you in case someone is going on extended sabbatical, leaving the department, etc.  There's a fine balance to be struck.

 

Best of luck next cycle, if you choose to apply again.

Edited March 19, 2015 by law2phd

[Doe comma John]

I want to reiterate how much I appreciate everyone's advice and support. I keep vacillating between wanting to work harder next time and maybe just walking away. Part of my concern is that no matter what I do there's still a large chance I'll never move past the 60 range. I'm still waiting to hear from the 60 where I'm wait listed and if I get in, I'm not sure if I'll take it or keep trying for a 15-40 program. The 60 I'm waiting on fully funds all it's students so it might be hard to turn down the bird in the hand. Then again, I may not even have that option.

In keeping with my rambling, I had never heard of Stanford GSB's political economy program (don't know how I missed that) and now, regardless of the evidence, I'm having delusions of grandeur. It seems like Mecca. I don't know where I'm going with this, just observing that I would probably trade 10 years of my life for that opportunity.

I think I'm getting too caught up in rankings, especially since my goal isn't teaching at a research university. This is the problem with small communities like this one: we all end up valuing the same things regardless of what we walked in with. Friends, I don't know.

[kaykaykay]

I think the admission process is somewhat random. A lot of great people apply and the departments have to select somehow. People just concentrate on having the right numbers but in itself that will just get you past the initial selection process.  In one cycle I got nothing (ok as you I got a department which is not ranked) in the second one I got several admissions from  top tens and  top 20 departments. Not a single thing changed in my numbers, I did not even change my SOP significantly except for explaining my year.

 

What I changed: I asked a trusted professor to recommend me departments where I could be a good fit. Some of these departments were not even on my radar (and some of them were not that highly ranked but were strong in the field I wanted to pursue). I chose a different set of recommenders. They were closer to the field I wanted to pursue so they could address my capabilities there. I changed my writing sample to something really close to the things I said I wanted to pursue in grad school. (that paper was not ready when I applied first). I think my file looked much more focused at the end and the set of departments I was applying made sense for the people who read my file. My writing sample made sense. My recommenders made sense. Everyone kept asking me why did I skip their school in the previous application season.

 

So my advice: first, you can transfer or drop out later so you might want to check out that program if they offer you funding. second, try to evaluate your application file as a whole. And do not underestimate the competition. I am surprised how many intelligent and interesting people I meet when I meet colleagues from other departments and I met on my admit weekends. 

Edited March 19, 2015 by kaykaykay

[ImberNoctis]

I think the admission process is somewhat random. A lot of great people apply and the departments have to select somehow. People just concentrate on having the right numbers but in itself that will just get you past the initial selection process.  In one cycle I got nothing (ok as you I got a department which is not ranked) in the second one I got several admissions from  top tens and  top 20 departments. Not a single thing changed in my numbers, I did not even change my SOP significantly except for explaining my year.

 

What I changed: I asked a trusted professor to recommend me departments where I could be a good fit. Some of these departments were not even on my radar (and some of them were not that highly ranked but were strong in the field I wanted to pursue). I chose a different set of recommenders. They were closer to the field I wanted to pursue so they could address my capabilities there. I changed my writing sample to something really close to the things I said I wanted to pursue in grad school. (that paper was not ready when I applied first). I think my file looked much more focused at the end and the set of departments I was applying made sense for the people who read my file. My writing sample made sense. My recommenders made sense. Everyone kept asking me why did I skip their school in the previous application season.

 

So my advice: first, you can transfer or drop out later so you might want to check out that program if they offer you funding. second, try to evaluate your application file as a whole. And do not underestimate the competition. I am surprised how many intelligent and interesting people I meet when I meet colleagues from other departments and I met on my admit weekends. 

 

I'm not in polisci, and this conversation isn't about me, but I wanted to interject that this advice seems very sound; I will be adding it to a file to take out and read when the time for transition between masters and PhD comes around.

[Doe comma John]

Obviously I can't make any decisions until I find out about the waitlist (hopefully within the next couple weeks so I can actually concentrate on something again), but I think I'm sensing a theme in a lot of the responses: don't underestimate the effect of chance.

 

Since some aspects seem to be controllable (I would like to take the GRE again, but the amount of time that goes into that and the very real possibility that I won't do significantly better, ugh. Just ugh.) and the process is somewhat random, I'm leaning toward a third cycle. I can almost actually hear the collective grown of my loved ones. This builds character, right?

[kaykaykay]

Evgeny55 " Also, don't write famous names as POI inasmuch there is very high competition for working with them, and Ivy League graduates with 4.0 GPA will always have an edge in competition for work with top professors. "

 

Sorry but I really do not agree with this piece of advice. Political science is not a hard science with labs and all and professors do not have a student limit or a student quota. I think the departments want to know that it would make sense to take you- that you have a number of professors that you can work with etc..

Leaving out the most famous one because he/she is famous will send the reverse signal- you could not even identify the most famous, and most appropriate person in the department as a potential advisor.

Edited March 19, 2015 by kaykaykay

[BigTenPoliSci]

aronburn, 

Your best play is to walk away. You have a great degree with an MA in Econ. Your best pathway into government or NGO's is getting some work experience, working from the bottom up. A PhD from a middling institution won't give you many good connections, it will bog you down for six years, and will render you "overqualified" for a lot of jobs when it's all over.

[Doe comma John]

Bigten,

Thanks for the input, but when I say federal government, I'm not referring to what typically comes to mind and certainly not an NGO. I have done my research, and I think a PhD is necessary both as a crediential and as an opportunity to spend five years focused on learning one thing very well. My impression is that for my interest, prestige of the program matters far less than it does in academia. And continuing as a graduate student would allow me to intern in the type of position I eventually want, but that is normally only available to PhDs (or people with other specialized qualifications that I cannot get). A PhD will absolutely not make me overqualified.

Also, in terms of getting experience, I have a solid amout of professional experience (as previously mentioned, campaign, legislative, and lobbying work, and not previously mentioned, I'm an economic analyst for a fortune 300 company).

[Doe comma John]

Although, I should be less assertive, the program I'm wait listed for is a 60, but I think it's a little better in IR and has strong faculty for a particular component of my interests. It's also in a large East Coast city that I think will give me better options than the Midwest, where I am now. With that in mind and my previous post, does everyone still have the concerns about the program's rank? That's an honest question.

Side note: I think I've now given away enough information that you can probably figure out everything about me other than my social security number.