Welcome to the 2016-17 cycle!

[SPartin]

In the case of UVA and other programs that allow the applicant to be considered for an MA if denied for the PhD, does a generic rejection email mean that the applicant is not being considered for the MA, either? Or is it more probably just regarding the PhD application?

[guest56436]

I doubt programs will give you much of an answer.

One thing you could do potentially is ask one of your letter writers to look over everything.

[minoxum]

Hello everyone!  A newbie here (although I wish I had found GradCafe much earlier).  As the application cycle might take a bit of a lull in the long weekend, I thought I'd ask for some information on Michigan and Columbia.  If you have any insider information about the two schools, or have lived in Ann Arbor or Manhattan, please share!  Here is the thread I created for that purpose:  

 

 

Thank you all in advance!

[dih2]

Got a yale acceptance! theory!

[polisci13542]

10 minutes ago, dih2 said:

Got a yale acceptance! theory!

Did you just get an email today?? Congrats!!

Edited February 18, 2017 by polisci13542

[dih2]

1 minute ago, polisci13542 said:

Did you just get an email today?? Congrats!!

yep! just got it this morning

[The0ry]

Claiming Johns Hopkins acceptance! Theory! Email from the POI. So excited. Best fit.

[Mike_Novick]

3 hours ago, VMcJ said:

I did not do that, and I regret it. I don't think most programs would answer, but if you don't try how can you know? Perhaps the Faculty Perspectives topic may be of help in that regard, although I don't remember seeing a question about that.

 

3 hours ago, resDQ said:

 

I don't think there is a single program (that I can think of) that would answer that question. Putting aside qualities of an applicant, there may be internal restraints. For example, maybe too many people accepted offers the previous year and they can only admit a limited number this year, maybe your main POI is not taking on new students, maybe the POI is leaving, etc. 

 

2 hours ago, Comparativist said:

I doubt programs will give you much of an answer.

One thing you could do potentially is ask one of your letter writers to look over everything.

Thank you guys for your insights. When so many schools give you the same negative answer, it seems clear to me that the problem is situated in one or more critical elements of the application - objective measures aside, like GRE, GPA and TOEFL. Perhaps an error in choosing something that is pivotal to your success, like the scope of the proposed research or even the department to which you should have applied (interdisciplinary approaches may suffer the burden of depending on multiple agreements from potential POIs ... idk). If I ever discover what happened to me, I'll post here, as I think it would be helpful to other applicants.

Edited February 18, 2017 by Mike_Novick
typo

[VMcJ]

13 minutes ago, Mike_Novick said:

Thank you guys for your insights. When so many schools give you the same negative answer, it seems clear to me that the problem is situated in one or more critical elements of the application - objective measures aside, like GRE, GPA and TOEFL. Perhaps an error in choosing something that is pivotal to your success, like the scope of the proposed research or even the department to which you should have applied (interdisciplinary approaches may suffer the burden of depending on multiple agreements from potential POIs ... idk). If I ever discover what happened to me, I'll post here, as I think it would be helpful to other applicants.

I think the major reason I failed on every Top 10 school is my GPA. And it's a shame, because I cannot improve that anymore, and it is not easy to convey how International GPAs (or their equivalents) do not really translate to the American system. You hope LORs may help with that, but I think it is usually a long shot.

What I think I really improved from last cycle were basically three things: 1) research interests; 2) SOPs; 3) much more strategy in choosing programs to apply.

On 1, last cycle I aimed for Political Theory, and it is extra hard to get something in this subfield. Comparative suited me better AND is more attractive.

On 2, I focused much more on my strenghts and pointing to them, trying to convey open research possibilities and listing my major accomplishments. Last cycle I tried to explain why I was changing from Literary Theory to Political Science; this cycle I tried to show all the reasons why this should not be a concern to the programs, hardly discussing it at all.

On 3, I definitely aimed too high last cycle, trying almost only Top 10 programs. This year I did a balanced strategy and it paid off better than I expected. Still didn't get Michigan or Duke, but got very good options and probably some of the best in my subfield area (Latin American politics). If you ask me if I'd trade all my options for a Duke acceptance, the answer would probably be yes, but it is very unlikely to get accepted by a Top 10 without getting into a couple of Top 30 as well.

As the process is somewhat decided by luck, everybody should get the best strategy possible, although I would not recommend anyone to apply to a low ranked school only as safety. It has to be a program you clearly want to go if it is your only offer in the cycle, and where you think your learning and your research will be highly developed. Fortunately, there are many highly qualified programs out there.

[dih2]

26 minutes ago, VMcJ said:

I think the major reason I failed on every Top 10 school is my GPA. And it's a shame, because I cannot improve that anymore, and it is not easy to convey how International GPAs (or their equivalents) do not really translate to the American system. You hope LORs may help with that, but I think it is usually a long shot.

What I think I really improved from last cycle were basically three things: 1) research interests; 2) SOPs; 3) much more strategy in choosing programs to apply.

On 1, last cycle I aimed for Political Theory, and it is extra hard to get something in this subfield. Comparative suited me better AND is more attractive.

On 2, I focused much more on my strenghts and pointing to them, trying to convey open research possibilities and listing my major accomplishments. Last cycle I tried to explain why I was changing from Literary Theory to Political Science; this cycle I tried to show all the reasons why this should not be a concern to the programs, hardly discussing it at all.

On 3, I definitely aimed too high last cycle, trying almost only Top 10 programs. This year I did a balanced strategy and it paid off better than I expected. Still didn't get Michigan or Duke, but got very good options and probably some of the best in my subfield area (Latin American politics). If you ask me if I'd trade all my options for a Duke acceptance, the answer would probably be yes, but it is very unlikely to get accepted by a Top 10 without getting into a couple of Top 30 as well.

As the process is somewhat decided by luck, everybody should get the best strategy possible, although I would not recommend anyone to apply to a low ranked school only as safety. It has to be a program you clearly want to go if it is your only offer in the cycle, and where you think your learning and your research will be highly developed. Fortunately, there are many highly qualified programs out there.

Is it true that theory is more competitive? I got the sense all sub fields were about the same

[resDQ]

2 minutes ago, dih2 said:

Is it true that theory is more competitive? I got the sense all sub fields were about the same

I've heard that comparative and IR are the most competitive. American less so and Theory is competitive because most programs don't admit the same number of applicants as they do the other subfields. 

[VMcJ]

1 minute ago, resDQ said:

I've heard that comparative and IR are the most competitive. American less so and Theory is competitive because most programs don't admit the same number of applicants as they do the other subfields. 

Adding to that, placement usually is harder for theorists. There are fewer spots compared to other subfields.

[StrengthandHonor]

3 minutes ago, VMcJ said:

Adding to that, placement usually is harder for theorists. There are fewer spots compared to other subfields.

It's always worthwhile to look at placement records. There are some lower-ranked theory programs that have an excellent placement record in theory. 

[krapp]

7 minutes ago, resDQ said:

I've heard that comparative and IR are the most competitive. American less so and Theory is competitive because most programs don't admit the same number of applicants as they do the other subfields. 

This would make sense to me. Most topics probably fit somewhere in Comparative or IR, so more applicants are probably in one of these. American is a bit more focused, so a smaller field of interest and Theory seems to be a bit smaller in general (and like others noted, generally smaller in placements too).

[dih2]

7 minutes ago, StrengthandHonor said:

It's always worthwhile to look at placement records. There are some lower-ranked theory programs that have an excellent placement record in theory. 

Like where?

[StrengthandHonor]

7 minutes ago, dih2 said:

Like where?

Of the top of my head, I know both Baylor and Boston College have had good success with placement in TT positions.Of course, it seems like there is almost a secondary market in theory, for people of a more Straussian/Classicist bent--Notre Dame, BC, and Baylor are attractive to a lot of the same students, and to the same types of colleges for placement. 

*EDIT* Also, for instance, UNC Chapel Hill (department wide, not just theory) has better placement than U Chicago. Now, the jump between #5 and #13 is not huge, but I think that it goes to show that placement records can be more telling than ranking. 

Edited February 18, 2017 by StrengthandHonor

[magicdonhuang]

The personal JHU POI email acceptances sure are exciting...except if you don't end up getting one. 

[Wongs]

Hey bros, I am so far rejected almost by most schools, only UPenn and Harvard left (I have no hope on those two I would say). I am wondering how high the chance to get off the wait list of GWU. This is the best program I want to go to

[Bibica]

@Wongs, I don't know about the program specifically, and it would depend on how their waitlist works and how many people are ahead of you in it, but mid-tiered programs like GWU do tend to have a lot of movement in their waitlist.

I do know that they accepted ~30 people this year, and then waitlisted or rejected the rest. I don't know how many of those 30 would have to decline before they moved on to the waitlist.

[meteora]

Does anyone know the Minnesota's visit day for admitted students?

 

[Bibica]

4 minutes ago, meteora said:

Does anyone know the Minnesota's visit day for admitted students?

It's the 27th of March.

[meteora]

2 minutes ago, Bibica said:

It's the 27th of March.

Thanks for the info!

[Anxiously Awaiting]

Hi, all! Long-time lurker here. I am a bit worried because I still haven't heard from Michigan. Is anyone else still waiting to hear back from them, too? I applied to the joint PhD program in Poli Sci / Policy. Should I assume a rejection? Thanks!

[CarefreeWritingsontheWall]

Wandered back here after a long week, and thought I might post something for those looking for feedback on a bad application cycle. I was in the same boat the first time I applied out, though at the time I was applying to terminal MA programs. I struck out and opted for a 2 year MA at my alma matter. One of the most helpful things I did was debrief with a LOR writer who had been my top mentor throughout undergrad. We met a few days after I had received my final rejection. I didn't ask them to, but they emailed a few colleagues at schools I had applied to follow up on why I wasn't admitted. It was through that, and a very frank conversation about the status of my profile overall, that I really figured out where my weaknesses were. It was also a frank conversation about what I really wanted out of another program (and prompted me to switch my horizons from an MPA/MA program to a PhD). It was one way of getting better information on the status of my rejection than the blunt and generic rejection letters from programs themselves, and it was immensely helpful. I know not everyone is in this position, but I do recommend following up with mentors and LOR writers who are in the discipline for feedback. Some of my LOR writer's were blunter about my profile after the fact (surprisingly...could have used the advise in the first place). It certainly helped me prepare for a cycle that landed me in my current program and 4/8 acceptances. In retrospect, I do wish I had found a way to take time off in between my MA and my PhD (started this past September). I think I would feel far less burnt out. Time off really isn't the worse case scenario. 

 

[selectionbias]

Feeling super anxious about Yale!  Anyone else thinks it's weird acceptances albeit informal going out over the weekend...hoping it's just some enthusiastic POIs courting their most desirable admits.  Perhaps there will be more to come on Monday. 

Also, did anyone note the post on the results page from a Religious Studies (Yale) candidate who claims he or she was "recommended" for admission but ultimately rejected by GSAS?  Could be a troll or do folks think there's any truth to GSAS having more autonomy/oversight at certain institutions?

Edited February 19, 2017 by selectionbias