I Feel Inadequate!

[NEPA]

After reading so many grad forums, I'm feeling a bit inadequate because I'm not applying to a ton of top-tier schools. I'm looking to focus in Comparative Politics focusing on the Middle East (Arab-Israeli conflict/democratic transitions). My qualifications are 3.86 GPA, 4.0 major GPA, semester abroad in Amman on a Department of Defense language scholarship, 690V/560Q (yes, "5")/5.0W GRE, not a ton of experience in research. I've applied to Rutgers, which is my top choice (I have visited), George Mason, Penn State, GW, Syracuse, and Boston College. Honestly, I was pretty comfortable with my choices, but am I selling myself short? Am I wasting my time getting a Ph.D. in Political Science if I maybe couldn't get into any top schools?

[JustChill]

Your basic stats sound good, so you probably could've afforded to add a couple of top-tier schools. However, there is no one to say that any ivy or other elite is going to be "better" than the ones you've chosen. This choice, obviously, is completely up to you, so if Rutgers is your top choice, that shouldn't bother or worry you. Post graduation employment, though, is a different discussion all together...

[natofone]

Are you feeling inadequate, or overly adequate for the list of schools that you applied to? If you think that you want to go to a higher-ranked school, then you can defer your offers and then apply again with much less stress.

[NEPA]

Are you feeling inadequate, or overly adequate for the list of schools that you applied to? If you think that you want to go to a higher-ranked school, then you can defer your offers and then apply again with much less stress.

I guess I'm wondering whether I should regret not putting more attention into higher-ranked schools; for instance, whether it could hurt my job prospects in the future.

[ladedodaday]

I guess I'm wondering whether I should regret not putting more attention into higher-ranked schools; for instance, whether it could hurt my job prospects in the future.

You'll certainly get lots of different opinions on this, but you seem to have applied to reasonable schools. If you were able to bump your GRE quant score over 600, you'd have certainly been competitive at higher ranked schools, but as is, your schools seem like good choices (and aren't exactly easy to get into).

As for whether you are wasting your time getting a PhD from a non-elite school, it depends. If you are hoping to be a professor at Harvard or Stanford, you probably are out of luck, but if you are looking for a career in government or as a professor at a liberal arts college, that's quite feasible. But, if you want to work in academia, it's a good idea to look at placement records. For example, a school like New Mexico, which is unranked by USNWR, has managed to place people at top 20 programs because of certain professors.

All in all, attending a higher ranked school would obviously help your job prospects (as with undergrad), but if you are great at what you do, you'll usually get a job.

[natofone]

When you get your acceptances, really push the schools to figure out their placement rates and see where their graduate students end up. If it isn't looking too promising then take a GRE course and get your math over 700 and apply again next year. If you can get your math above 700 (but 750+ would be best) and have a clear SOP/research agenda you'll be very competitive at the top schools.

[natofone]

I really disagree with the emphasis placed on the Quant score in this forum. OP: your current quant score is too low for you to be competitive at top schools. however, if you can get it up to around 700 (680+), you will have no problem being competitive at top school

What emphasis? We said the same thing.

[natofone]

This process is very random and largely dependent upon the personal proclivities of the rotating admissions committee at each school. It also obviously depends on the methodological orientation of specific schools, who ends up on the committee, which sub-field you're targeting, how much the school emphasizes the GRE, how many slots each school has for that year, how many candidates apply, etc. There is no formula. It is a very random process, so it helps to have everything in line to maximize your chances...especially at "top-tier" schools.

The reason why I suggested 750+ is because I've heard (on PSJR for what it is worth) that some schools take a combined average of scores if you've taken the test multiple times.

[plisar]

Ah, I see; that makes more sense, considering the average rule.

Schools do place a strong emphasis on the quant scores, and a 700 (likely 750+) is important, especially for any school that makes students take quantitative methods at any point in their career. For what it's worth, the methods classes at most programs are more demanding than any question faced on the GRE quant. Engineering departments won't even admit students who score below a 790--don't underestimate how easy the faculty perceive the GRE quant to be.

[ladedodaday]

Schools do place a strong emphasis on the quant scores, and a 700 (likely 750+) is important, especially for any school that makes students take quantitative methods at any point in their career. For what it's worth, the methods classes at most programs are more demanding than any question faced on the GRE quant. Engineering departments won't even admit students who score below a 790--don't underestimate how easy the faculty perceive the GRE quant to be.

With all due respect, it is demonstrably false that you need above a 700 (or 750) to be competitive at schools that have mandatory quant courses. As seen in the average scores posted on the Fall 2010 thread, no schools even have an average score of 750, nevermind having 750 as a minimum. Some top 20 schools (like Duke, Chicago and Minnesota), actually have average (not minimum) quant scores below 700!

Honestly, I wish that 750s were required! I'd be a lot less worried about admissions (because my scores were fine), but unfortunately, I will not automatically gain acceptance over those who "only" (note the sarcasm!) got a 680. Please, let's stop the foolishness. It's true, anything below a 600 is too low for many/most "top" programs, but 750? That's empirically false.

Maybe I misunderstood plisar's post, and he/she was concurring with natofone (because of score averages), but this does seem to be a common misperception. And as a last point, we should definitely take anything posted on PSJR with a huge dose of skepticism (or at least, anything from before registration was required).

[plisar]

With all due respect, it is demonstrably false that you need above a 700 (or 750) to be competitive at schools that have mandatory quant courses. As seen in the average scores posted on the Fall 2010 thread, no schools even have an average score of 750, nevermind having 750 as a minimum. Some top 20 schools (like Duke, Chicago and Minnesota), actually have average (not minimum) quant scores below 700!

Honestly, I wish that 750s were required! I'd be a lot less worried about admissions (because my scores were fine), but unfortunately, I will not automatically gain acceptance over those who "only" (note the sarcasm!) got a 680. Please, let's stop the foolishness. It's true, anything below a 600 is too low for many/most "top" programs, but 750? That's empirically false.

Maybe I misunderstood plisar's post, and he/she was concurring with natofone (because of score averages), but this does seem to be a common misperception. And as a last point, we should definitely take anything posted on PSJR with a huge dose of skepticism (or at least, anything from before registration was required).

I *never* said that you needed above a 700 or a 750, I said that it should absolutely be your goal to have those numbers because there is no reason to see your app tossed. Some of us have been through this before, some of us in multiple contexts. Anything below a 700 is going to hurt your chances of getting in. It doesn't make it impossible. Scores are weighted down by different math standards being used for different fields.

When I was applying to grad school, I was told to shoot for an 800 on my quant, and I took that goal very seriously. I attained it, and I got into a bunch of fabulous schools. Why would *multiple* professors encourage this if it is not important?

Finally, I have no idea why I'm getting yelled at for explaining my experience and my opinion on this process. The GRE is important, no matter how much it sucks. A lot of people who want to get into these programs sucked it up and either: 1) paid a ton of money to have Kaplan teahc them how to take the test or 2) spent a ton of time teaching themselves how to take the test. Those people are going to get into the 90th percentile on the math. They want it *that* bad. Does that mean that a 680 is going to sink you at Harvard? No, but you are going to likely be fighting an upward battle that will require excellent letters, a ton of research experience, and one hell of a spectacular SoP which asks a good question.

Finally, if you want to know what sinks applicants the most, it is the concept of research agenda. If you don't know what a social sciece question is, you are as sunk as one would be if they had a 500-500 on the GRE. They are going to absolutely throw out your application if you ask a qestuion like: why does Putin not like democracy, or how did the election of Barack Obama effect newspaper sales?

Point is you need a solid app:

3.5+ From a good undergraduate institution (3.8+ from a poor undergrad instituion).

3.7+ From a grad program (if you attended)

90th Percentile Verbal, 80th Percentile Quant,

Good research questions pertaining to social science puzzles

Letters of rec that make it seem like the sun comes out of your ass, because everyone else has the same phenomenon during this process.

Other than, nothing more is going to help you. You aren't going to impress the admissions committee because you were president of Phi Beta Kappa or because you have wanted to be a professor since you were five (they're probably going to laugh pretty hard if you actually do say that).

Tell them you have a passion for research, explain why you're better than the other guy, explain what you want to do and why School X is the place for you to do it. And at that point, any peripherals that you have control of better be as high as possible.

Good luck, since my opinion is not valued here, I see no reason in wasting my time posting any further.

-PS

[plisar]

I agree with everything else that you're saying in terms of the components of a strong application; however, again, some of us have heard slightly different stories in terms of the rigidity with which the 700 rule for GRE scores is followed. I actually would not be surprised if schools first sort apps by field and then, perhaps, use the GRE to toss a chunk of them. In that case, the quant methods pile would, most likely, have higher quant scores in it than, say, the comp politics or theory pile. Just a theory.

I'd agree that this is the case, but in most programs at this point, all fields (with the exception of political theory) are really thought to be quant methods fields. You're not going to be able to walk out of a program without being able to run some sort of quantitaitve test to show causality, even in comparative politics. This doesn't mean you have to be a prolific formal theorist, using deductive mathematics to model something, but it does mean that you will likely need to have a good grasp of some advanced statistical techniques.

The above is neither here nor there on the GRE question. The GRE quant is completely learnable. For those of you applying next year with a goal of going to a top program, make the math your top priority. Give yourselves two months over the summer to learn it and LEARN IT. You can probably guarantee yourself a 750 doing this and prevent the GRE from being a negative. The verbal is important, but ultimately more of a crap shoot. The ideal GRE scores are going to be the following: 650+ Verbal, 730+ Quant. That being said, your right, a 680 is not going to disqualify you at a lot of the schools your applying to, but things change from year to year. Last year, a friend of mine got declined across the board with the following profile:

3.99 GPA from a major R1 in the South

790V, 800Q

Great recommendations from three tenured professors at the same R1

A well crafted personal statement, tbh, at least as good as mine.

Essentially, this process is a crap shoot. Nato and I are arguing that you give yourself every advantage in this mess. I know at this point, it's too late to change it, so I guess I'm doing a poor job being supportive. My apologies.

[applying12010]

I *never* said that you needed above a 700 or a 750, I said that it should absolutely be your goal to have those numbers because there is no reason to see your app tossed. Some of us have been through this before, some of us in multiple contexts. Anything below a 700 is going to hurt your chances of getting in. It doesn't make it impossible. Scores are weighted down by different math standards being used for different fields.

When I was applying to grad school, I was told to shoot for an 800 on my quant, and I took that goal very seriously. I attained it, and I got into a bunch of fabulous schools. Why would *multiple* professors encourage this if it is not important?

Finally, I have no idea why I'm getting yelled at for explaining my experience and my opinion on this process. The GRE is important, no matter how much it sucks. A lot of people who want to get into these programs sucked it up and either: 1) paid a ton of money to have Kaplan teahc them how to take the test or 2) spent a ton of time teaching themselves how to take the test. Those people are going to get into the 90th percentile on the math. They want it *that* bad. Does that mean that a 680 is going to sink you at Harvard? No, but you are going to likely be fighting an upward battle that will require excellent letters, a ton of research experience, and one hell of a spectacular SoP which asks a good question.

Finally, if you want to know what sinks applicants the most, it is the concept of research agenda. If you don't know what a social sciece question is, you are as sunk as one would be if they had a 500-500 on the GRE. They are going to absolutely throw out your application if you ask a qestuion like: why does Putin not like democracy, or how did the election of Barack Obama effect newspaper sales?

Point is you need a solid app:

3.5+ From a good undergraduate institution (3.8+ from a poor undergrad instituion).

3.7+ From a grad program (if you attended)

90th Percentile Verbal, 80th Percentile Quant,

Good research questions pertaining to social science puzzles

Letters of rec that make it seem like the sun comes out of your ass, because everyone else has the same phenomenon during this process.

Other than, nothing more is going to help you. You aren't going to impress the admissions committee because you were president of Phi Beta Kappa or because you have wanted to be a professor since you were five (they're probably going to laugh pretty hard if you actually do say that).

Tell them you have a passion for research, explain why you're better than the other guy, explain what you want to do and why School X is the place for you to do it. And at that point, any peripherals that you have control of better be as high as possible.

Good luck, since my opinion is not valued here, I see no reason in wasting my time posting any further.

-PS

Reply to the original post: applying to those top schools does not mean that we'll get in, hahaha. There is no reason to feel inadequate - you are just more modest.

On the GRE, I think the fact that we need good GRE scores is just an ugly fact that many of us don't want to admit...

THer problem with GRE scores is that so many people are applying to the top programs with top scores. Yes, maybe GRE scores are not the most important, but if there is a candidate who has a comparable profile as yours, but a much higher GRE score, who do you think that the adcom will pick? I think plisar's advice is good, and we should have realistic expectations about the kind of decisions we will hear in February/ March.

[applying12010]

On 12/22/2009 at 10:13 PM, cpaige said:

It takes a lot for two applicants to have such similar profiles that a decision would be made solely on GRE scores. They would have to have gone to virtually the same undergrad institution, have LORs from very similar people that boast very similar things, have virtually the same amount of research experience and assorted awards, and match the same exact faculty members. Sure, it can happen, but it's unlikely. I agree that we all need good GRE scores, but I simply do not believe that a decision is virtually ever made based solely on GRE scores. With the number of factors going into a PhD admissions decision, it's almost always going to be possible to differentiate two candidates based on other factors. This isn't law school admissions.

It's true, it's not law school admissions. And two candidates can never be virtually the same. But if you read the stats from the previous years in grad cafe, you can be surprised at how similar we are...

For example, many people fall into similar categories - good undergrad institution, good GPA etc. Consider this imaginary candidate:

GPA: 3.7-3.85

Institution: let's say...a pretty decent R1/ pretty good state school

Research: senior thesis, and possibly one or two research assistantship

faculty match: has one/ two faculty who can be the supervisor

rec letters: indicate that the candidate is in the top 10% of the class (but not like "the best student I have ever taught in the past ten years")

SOP: coherent proposal that may be a little generic - demonstrates good knowledge of the field of the study that the candidate is interested in, but nothing exceptional.

GRE: 1400 +/- 50

A lot of the people I know who are applying this fall into similar category with this imaginary candidate. Of course, GRE is not decisive once you score above a certain threshold (which I think a lot of times people underestimate...), but given how "similar" we are, everything that make us stand out makes a difference. Especially since GRE scores is relatively easy to improve compared to the other parts of one's application, even the SOP. I think writing a SOP depends quite a lot on how much help you can get from your professors who actually know what is going on in the field, according to my own experience. I read SOPs from people who thought that they asked provocative and original questions when they have already been addressed in the literature. Our undergrad readings is not the same as "the literature". Professors are quite important to help address this issue, but they are also quite busy and often times we can only rely on our friends/ classmates for help.

Well, let's just hope for the best! We have already applied, so we can't really do anything about our applications anyway...I will be happy if I can just get into one of the nine schools I applied to!

[ladedodaday]

Well, let's just hope for the best! We have already applied, so we can't really do anything about our applications anyway...I will be happy if I can just get into one of the nine schools I applied to!

]]]

This is a wholly off-topic but quite interesting thread, but I have to agree with applying12010: we've done everything we can, so let's just cross our fingers. The scariest part of this process is that someone who does everything right can still be denied (like plisar's friend who didn't get in anywhere). It really is a crapshoot to some extent, which becomes clear looking at where people did/didn't get in last year.

Out of curiosity though (and entirely off topic), does anybody know which subfields typically get the most applications?

[polisciphd]

]]]

Out of curiosity though (and entirely off topic), does anybody know which subfields typically get the most applications?

Depends almost entirely upon the school to which you are applying

[Ziz]

I would imagine IR gets a lot of applications.

[brouhaha]

I don't think you guys are really helping or responding to the OP's actual question.

No, you aren't wasting your time or money applying to those places if that's where you want to be, if the programs are a good fit, and it's financially feasible for you to go there. Just be happy. I understand the pressure to go to a top school completely- I went to a highly competitive high school where all of my friends are pretty much telling me if I'm not at a top tier school I'm inadequate, and now I go to a public university where nearly everyone stays in state and acts like I think I'm superior because of some of the places I'm applying. I'm very much stuck in the middle, which I'm convinced doesn't exist, so I have some idea what you're thinking. Just be happy. It's your future and your life, not everyone's in this forum. If those are places you think would be a good fit, then by all means apply and good luck to you.

[ladedodaday]

I don't think you guys are really helping or responding to the OP's actual question.

No, you aren't wasting your time or money applying to those places if that's where you want to be, if the programs are a good fit, and it's financially feasible for you to go there. Just be happy. I understand the pressure to go to a top school completely- I went to a highly competitive high school where all of my friends are pretty much telling me if I'm not at a top tier school I'm inadequate, and now I go to a public university where nearly everyone stays in state and acts like I think I'm superior because of some of the places I'm applying. I'm very much stuck in the middle, which I'm convinced doesn't exist, so I have some idea what you're thinking. Just be happy. It's your future and your life, not everyone's in this forum. If those are places you think would be a good fit, then by all means apply and good luck to you.

Seconded!

[natofone]

I don't think you guys are really helping or responding to the OP's actual question.

No, you aren't wasting your time or money applying to those places if that's where you want to be, if the programs are a good fit, and it's financially feasible for you to go there. Just be happy.

Obviously the OP should go wherever she/he wants, but it doesn't seem like the OP has that figured out yet at this point. Hence this thread...

If the OP is only interested in an academic career, then he/she should be very concerned about rate and quality of placement. Here is some information on placement rates: http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~chingos/rankings_paper.pdf Based on this, and looking briefly at school websites, Penn State and Boston College seem to place very well. Rutgers places at a relatively high rate, but I couldn't find the individual placements. Some schools (GW) have several academic placements per year, but they are not at great schools, so the OP needs to decide if he/she would be content at a community college or rural branch of a (less competitive) state school. The differences in pay, research support, teaching load, and location between these schools and R1s/SLACs/competitive state schools can make a huge difference in terms of quality of life. But again, this whole process (from graduate admissions to getting a tenure track position) is very random and hardly deterministic.

[NEPA]

Obviously the OP should go wherever she/he wants, but it doesn't seem like the OP has that figured out yet at this point. Hence this thread...

If the OP is only interested in an academic career, then he/she should be very concerned about rate and quality of placement. Here is some information on placement rates: http://www.people.fa...kings_paper.pdf Based on this, and looking briefly at school websites, Penn State and Boston College seem to place very well. Rutgers places at a relatively high rate, but I couldn't find the individual placements. Some schools (GW) have several academic placements per year, but they are not at great schools, so the OP needs to decide if he/she would be content at a community college or rural branch of a (less competitive) state school. The differences in pay, research support, teaching load, and location between these schools and R1s/SLACs/competitive state schools can make a huge difference in terms of quality of life. But again, this whole process (from graduate admissions to getting a tenure track position) is very random and hardly deterministic.

I think I was a bit misleading with my original post. I'm very happy with the schools where I've decided to apply; my lament was whether I should have put more time into researching and applying to more prestigious schools. Kind of falls into the "I applied, now I'm worried I messed up" category. As for my career plans, I'm hoping for either government consulting or working at a medium-sized university where I can balance teaching and research. So I'm thinking from many of the comments here that I'm basically on the right track, given my qualifications and my career plans. Thanks for helping with my stress, everybody!