Weight of Conferences and Publications

[GL551]

I know questions on the value of conferences and publications have been floated a number of times, but I haven't found the answers all that satisfying (in part because it clearly varies by field and also by the quality of said publications and conferences). First a bit of background: I'm applying to programs in political theory both here in the US and in Canada, I'm prepping for Round 2 of grad applications (last year was sub-par in terms of acceptances) and that has included participating in more academic conferences, trying to get a couple publications under my belt, etc. My GPA is sub-par 3.2 from an average sized state school, GRE was pretty good (165/155/6), but I've always sort of banked on the idea that I could counter balance shortcomings in both of those areas with conferences and publications. Thus far I've participated in eleven conferences, both international and regional, and a mix of undergraduate and professional. I've also managed to publish twice, with the potential for an additional publication that is currently under review. Both publications have thus far been in undergraduate journals.

Again, the motivation has always been to attempt to engage in these sorts of activities under the assumption that it would show research potential over a pretty weak GPA. But are conferences and publications in political theory or even the social sciences and humanities really weighted that heavily? Last year I only had one publication and 5 conferences I could list on my CV, which aided in securing only two (technically three if you include a laughable MA program) acceptances out of twelve with virtually no funding to speak of. I initially assumed maybe it was the quality of the conferences, but upon further investigation none of the conferences I'm participating in are at all questionable or unknown to folks in the field. Have I simply overestimated the value of these sorts of things? Is GPA really a better indicator of research potential than publications and what have you at at a undergraduate level?

Application season is still several months away, but I figure I should at least get some input on this now so I can either redouble my efforts or maybe look to strengthen other areas (e.g. retake GRE, connect with a few different profs, etc.)

[fuzzylogician]

Does "participate" mean "present" or just "show up and sit in the audience"? The former will count for something, the latter not so much. Honestly, 11 conferences at stage sounds like way too much. Five a year is not something that even seasoned researchers will do on a regular basis (caveats apply). There is no way you have enough original work to present so many times, so I assume you just go to conferences to hang out. You can meet people this way and that's not bad, but that's going to have only so much influence on your grad school applications if your actual application isn't impressive. 

Publications in undergraduate journals will likewise not count for much. Having one is fine, but pursuing multiple such publications really sounds like a waste of time. You'd do much better to have just one project on a level that would be more appropriate for graduate school. That should lead to a good writing sample, at least one strong LOR and to an ability to write a strong SOP. I notice you haven't said anything about those components of your application. If I had to bet, I would say therein lies the problem, and that is where you should spend your time for the next application cycle. 

[GL551]

Yes, "participate" does, in this case, mean "present" and typically chair a session when possible - I know it sounds like overkill right? And I've presented seven original pieces (obviously I've done double-duty on a few of them). Comically enough, I've never gone to a conference to hang-out. Granted, I have seen a number of students do this and I think it's great for networking, but I'm not sure I have the social chops to be buddy-buddy with random folks I'll see for a day or two. As far as a SOP goes: they were alright depending on the school. I had several folks look them over and several professors who had done admissions before give me some feedback - I don't anticipate they were anything outstanding, but I also can't imagine there was too much to complain about.

The writing sample I sent out last year was decent (I had another but I only sent it out to one school); it was a piece that had been published and passed around my department and received a number of edits from profs. It may have been a bit two comparative and less theoretical than it otherwise could have been, but I wouldn't call the piece "bad" by any means. The LOR's are just an X-factor to me. I don't know what my department heads or professors wrote. They are all folks who are well published I guess, so I figure that counts for something. 

Edited May 21, 2016 by GL551

[fuzzylogician]

Listen, if you have actually presented seven high quality different pieces of work and published three times and have a strong SOP and a strong writing sample and at least decent LORs, then there is not much that we can tell you other than that you should get in, and you should keep trying. I repeat my thoughts that eleven presentations is too many and that undergraduate journals aren't what you should target with your work.

[GL551]

Cheers, that was sort of my concern as well - I've thought about trying to get some work into American Political Science Association journals this summer. Of course for all I know I have one professor who secretly hates me writing terrible letters - no idea. The only consistent feedback I was hearing last year post-rejection season was comments on "fit" and how it related to my research. Which, okay, yeah, is admittedly a wee bit of a problem given most of the my conference presentations and publications are centered around European issues and schools of thought and not North American ones. Whether the the relative "weight" of conferences and publications is that contingent on geographical location or type of theory or not is a mystery to me. But maybe it's code for "apply to European schools"...

[fuzzylogician]

That is a good point that they have there. Why are you applying to American programs is your research is incompatible with theirs? It doesn't matter how strong you are, if they can't support your research, they won't admit you. And if that is the case, then whatever else you might think, your SOP is not strong.