Question about quant pre-reqs

[annae]

Forgive the stupid question please, I'm still a little bit new in this area -

 

I've been exploring the requirements of some of the top-ranked programs (just to get an idea of where I could land next year) and saw that some of them require math through calculus. I'm a little bit confused about whether this applies to less quant-heavy, theory-oriented disciplines in pols. 

 

I've been reading about the importance of GRE quant scores in selection and it sounds like, based on these discussions, that this high level of math can't possibly be used as an absolute cut-off across departments. Forgive my ignorance, but if it's a requirement to study through calc II at top programs, how could anyone applying there have issues with their GRE quant scores if they're just basic math? I know that the GRE math is supposed to be easier for people with less math - maybe because we overthink it? - but this still seems strange to me. This leads me to believe that the math requirements are what the average admit has, as political science is becoming more quantitative and less qualitative. Is this a correct assumption?

 

I hope this makes sense. I'm not really in a position to take more math classes at this point so I am really banking on the GRE!

 

Thanks!

 

[cooperstreet]

 "Forgive my ignorance, but if it's a requirement to study through calc II at top programs"

 

its not

[esotericish]

I took calculus A/B in high school, which was almost 10 years ago now, and got into a couple top ~20 programs. That was the last math class I took. So no that is not an expectation

[rwillh11]

From your post its not clear if you want to do the Political Theory subfield, or if instead you plan on carrying out empirical research that is less quantitatively oriented. If it is the former, I can't imagine that your quant matters much, but if it is the latter then I think to get into a top program you would need to send some kind of signal that you can do math, either by finding a way to take math classes (some of my calc was done at a community college, it was ~$600 a course) or by acing the quant GRE.

[law2phd]

Anyone should be able to pull around a 90th percentile on the GRE quant with a background in high school level precalculus and a couple weeks of dedicated practice (from personal experience).  That should be a sufficient signal for most top programs that you aren't mathematically impaired enough to be denied admission on that basis.

 

You most certainly do not need to have taken Calc II.

[NYCBluenose]

I'm even stupider than "anyone", and got a q-score of 158 (I think it was in the mid 70s as a percentile), and am going to a top-20. You might well need 90th percentile across the board to get into a top-10, but in the event you are more of a qualitative person, don't be discouraged! 

 

You don't need to be crazily strong in math to get into a good program. I nearly failed pre-calc in high school and did as little math as I possibly could in college. You do still need to show strengths in other areas to compensate though (research experience, knowledgeable SOP etc.)

[svan]

A complementary experience reinforcing the idea that math isn't the admissions panacea it's sometimes made out to be: 

 

I have taken (and received A's in) math courses through Calc III and Linear Algebra, and I scored ~90% on the Quant portion of the GRE.  In this cycle, I was either rejected from or admitted without funding to the five schools I applied to [all in the 10-25 range]. 

Edited April 29, 2015 by svan

[annae]

Wow, okay! I feel much better. Thank you. I'm still not entirely sure what focus I will take, but it's good to know that there are still attractive options for the less math-inclined. I re-read some of the information I saw before and I did see that I misinterpreted it.

 

English-language mathematics courses are not a fundable nor available option at my institution this year as I'm doing my master's abroad. It sounds like it won't be as limiting as I thought so long as I choose my topic wisely. The only alternative would be to assist some professors with quantitative work, but maybe this isn't absolutely necessary if I don't intend to go that direction in a PhD. 

 

[NYCBluenose]

Annae, one thing you should keep in mind is that many programs have very defined quantitative profiles, and others are more allowing of qualitative work. So if you do want to go in a more qualitative direction, i'd suggest avoiding Stanford, Princeton, NYU, and Rochester in particular (maybe Michigan as well). 

Programs which are more accepting of qualitative stuff (from faculty and reputation): Harvard, Berkeley, Northwestern, Washington University in St. Louis, Georgetown, Johns Hopkins.  

Good luck! 
 

On 4/30/2015 at 3:00 AM, annae said:

Wow, okay! I feel much better. Thank you. I'm still not entirely sure what focus I will take, but it's good to know that there are still attractive options for the less math-inclined. I re-read some of the information I saw before and I did see that I misinterpreted it.

 

English-language mathematics courses are not a fundable nor available option at my institution this year as I'm doing my master's abroad. It sounds like it won't be as limiting as I thought so long as I choose my topic wisely. The only alternative would be to assist some professors with quantitative work, but maybe this isn't absolutely necessary if I don't intend to go that direction in a PhD. 

[law2phd]

While it's true that some schools will allow you to avoid doing a lot of quantitative/formal coursework, I wonder how many jobs there will be in the field going forward for people who are completely math averse.

 

OP, if your last post suggests that you were worried about being able to get into a program without doing a lot of math, I think this thread should have been enough to allay those concerns.  And it's true that there are plenty of top programs which will not force you to take an advanced methods sequence against your will.  

 

If you're math averse in the sense that you really do not want to do math going forward at all, however, the field is probably going to leave you behind.  Likely exceptions: theory and the few pockets of qual-based comparative and IR that might survive

[victorydance]

While it's true that some schools will allow you to avoid doing a lot of quantitative/formal coursework, I wonder how many jobs there will be in the field going forward for people who are completely math averse.

 

Not many. You basically have to be a up and coming rock-star to get any solely qualitative jobs these days. If you can't hack it as at least a mixed methods person, the chances of succeeding in academia in political science in the current climate is very low. 

[cooperstreet]

I think if you're going to only do exclusively qualitative work you really need to justify why you are doing so and why you dont want to employ the methods that the majority of the discipline uses in their current research. If youre asking different types of questions that can't be answered using quantitative methods, that's fine, but anyone saying "I'm only going to use process tracing, case studies, or interviews" to do research on current topics is severely limiting themselves.

 

Learning how to actually do quantitative analysis isn't that difficult and is more conceptual and concerned with research design rather than math based. If you have a great idea and plenty of evidence from case studies, a larger-N statistical analysis could really strengthen your argument.

[AuldReekie]

https://www.wm.edu/offices/itpir/_documents/trip/trip_around_the_world_2011.pdf< Page 34. Quantitative analysis isn't so dominant - in IR at least - as you might think. Not that I really disagree with the advice above.. quant is definitely hot right now in the US. Just being pernickity.

 

I've gone from being math-phobic to being excited about the possibilities it offers in just a few months. So keep an open mind.