Welcome to the 2016-17 cycle!

[Monody]

1 hour ago, polscimajor said:

Hi @Determinedandnervous, would it be possible for you to tell us your basic profile and which schools you got into?

I'm sorry if I'm asking something too personal-- you can always say no =)

Thanks.

Third or fourth post. Hope that's okay.

 

[waterloo715]

1 hour ago, Comparativist said:

I scored 162V, 153Q, 6.0AW the first time and recently 159V, 158Q, 6.0AW. Do you guys think I should just send both of the scores? The upside is that it's nice to show that I can hit the 90th percentile in verbal and it shows some growth in math skills. The downside is that it tells them that I did score only 50th percentile on math once (two years ago). 

 

I am in a similar situation. I took it for a second time the other day and saw a solid increase in math but my verbal dropped.  Does anyone know if departments let you combine scores from different tests? Or perhaps average the two? I doubt many allow this, but I am curious. 

@Comparativist Maybe you can reach out to departments and ask what they do with multiple scores in a file?  FWIW, I am leaning towards sending both.

[resDQ]

8 minutes ago, waterloo715 said:

 

I am in a similar situation. I took it for a second time the other day and saw a solid increase in math but my verbal dropped.  Does anyone know if departments let you combine scores from different tests? Or perhaps average the two? I doubt many allow this, but I am curious. 

@Comparativist Maybe you can reach out to departments and ask what they do with multiple scores in a file?  FWIW, I am leaning towards sending both.

It is my understanding that they do not combine scores from different tests.

[PoliticalOrder]

40 minutes ago, waterloo715 said:

 

I am in a similar situation. I took it for a second time the other day and saw a solid increase in math but my verbal dropped.  Does anyone know if departments let you combine scores from different tests? Or perhaps average the two? I doubt many allow this, but I am curious. 

@Comparativist Maybe you can reach out to departments and ask what they do with multiple scores in a file?  FWIW, I am leaning towards sending both.

So I did a quick search through all the application FAQs of the programs I applied to. This is the basic rundown:

- 4 stated they take the take the highest scores from each section (this would help you)

- The rest didn't state anything.

Looking at some other sites that compiled a bunch of different statements from departments, basically there are four approaches: 1) take the best scores from each section, 2) look at any improvement, 3) look at most recent test, 4) look at best single test score (probably most common approach along with #3). 

It doesn't appear like averaging is a large practice whatsoever.

Considering what I gathered, there isn't much downside for people like you guys to not to report both scores considering the high end reward - a higher overall composite score - and little downside.

Edited October 28, 2016 by PoliticalOrder

[polscimajor]

13 hours ago, Monody said:

Third or fourth post. Hope that's okay.

 

Oh my bad for not seeing it.

Thanks!

[resDQ]

For the CV, are you guys only including academic related items? I don't see the point in including work experience, which, of course, is non-academic.

[kaboom987]

29 minutes ago, resDQ said:

For the CV, are you guys only including academic related items? I don't see the point in including work experience, which, of course, is non-academic.

I included work experience because I've worked as management in a store and lead teams/groups of people.

Might be relevant fr teamwork/initiative. 

[resDQ]

2 minutes ago, kaboom987 said:

I included work experience because I've worked as management in a store and lead teams/groups of people.

Might be relevant fr teamwork/initiative. 

 

That is a good point. I guess it depends on framing. 

 

[Monody]

I included internships in parliament that are related to the subfield I am interested in. It probably hardly matters, but I don't think that it hurts either.

[resDQ]

thoughts on a table of contents for the writing sample? I currently do not have one, but it is unlikely for the whole sample to be read. Thought it may be easier for them to jump to certain sections that they are interested in and my be helpful for those not in my sub sub-field.

[Monody]

I excluded it in mine, because it takes away a whole page without adding anything. In Latex I just used paragraph subtitles through the whole text to compensate. Also, in your introduction you probably talk about the structure of the writing sample so you theoretically have this covered either way.

Maybe to add to this, I included a link to an online-appendix with the figures, the graphs, the bibliography, and replication files. This also saves a lot of pages.

Edited November 1, 2016 by Monody

[resDQ]

25 minutes ago, Monody said:

I excluded it in mine, because it takes away a whole page without adding anything. In Latex I just used paragraph subtitles through the whole text to compensate. Also, in your introduction you probably talk about the structure of the writing sample so you theoretically have this covered either way.

Maybe to add to this, I included a link to an online-appendix with the figures, the graphs, the bibliography, and replication files. This also saves a lot of pages.

 

I've done the same as you (minus the link, which is a great idea). Hope that is enough.

 

[Monody]

Apparently, depending on the kind of online storage you use, you can also see who accessed it (to succumb to disappointment if nobody ever looked at the material you carefully prepared).

[krapp]

Retook the GRE yesterday, which is a huge weight off my shoulders going into the last month of application writing. My unofficial scores (170V, 154Q) weren't everything I had hoped for (the quant is still dangerously low I think) but my verbal shot up. I'm hoping my AWA will at least match from my last taking of it (162V, 153Q, 5.5AWA). 

But, at least it's done! Time to turn more fully to those obnoxious SoPs...

[resDQ]

3 hours ago, krapp said:

Retook the GRE yesterday, which is a huge weight off my shoulders going into the last month of application writing. My unofficial scores (170V, 154Q) weren't everything I had hoped for (the quant is still dangerously low I think) but my verbal shot up. I'm hoping my AWA will at least match from my last taking of it (162V, 153Q, 5.5AWA). 

But, at least it's done! Time to turn more fully to those obnoxious SoPs...

Congrats on the improvement!

[krapp]

Thanks! I was shocked by the verbal score. I had pretty much only reviewed quantitative material for the last month, so I really wasn't expecting that!

[Determinedandnervous]

On 11/1/2016 at 0:13 PM, Monody said:

I included internships in parliament that are related to the subfield I am interested in. It probably hardly matters, but I don't think that it hurts either.

This actually helped me last year. I interned in the Canadian Parliament and it piqued the interest of people at one of the schools I was choosing between. It will likely help you.

 

On 11/1/2016 at 11:35 AM, resDQ said:

For the CV, are you guys only including academic related items? I don't see the point in including work experience, which, of course, is non-academic.

If you don't have anything else, I'm sure your work experience (if you can spin it as applied/practicum experience) wouldn't hurt.

[krapp]

On a related topic, how long are your CVs for this?

My "general" CV is about two full pages. That includes my educations (undergrad and masters), conference presentations, publication, some of my work experience (1 semi-related and research focused, 1 TA'ing, rest is admin/office work - which although mostly in university settings is beyond useless for this!), and various leadership roles/activities. Not sure if I should trim it down or just polish the wording a bit on what I already have. 

Edited November 4, 2016 by krapp

[resDQ]

21 minutes ago, krapp said:

On a related topic, how long are your CVs for this?

My "general" CV is about two full pages. That includes my educations (undergrad and masters), conference presentations, publication, some of my work experience (1 semi-related and research focused, 1 TA'ing, rest is admin/office work - which although mostly in university settings is beyond useless for this!), and various leadership roles/activities. Not sure if I should trim it down or just polish the wording a bit on what I already have. 

 

Mine is 2 full pages. Don't trim it down unless necessary. Keep all academic related points towards the top and the less relevant for the end (at least that is what I am doing). 

[CarefreeWritingsontheWall]

My CV was 1 and 3/4 pages. I modeled it after academic CVs published by professors, though I added details for a number of my positions and experiences since they weren't clear (I was held multiple RAships at once during my MA, doing different things etc.)

Also - when it comes to journal submissions, I honestly wouldn't include it. It would be false to say it's under review unless you're notified that you've made it to that stage - and notifications that you've gotten past the desk-reject stage can take 3-6 months for some political science journals. Even if it's under review, it can still be rejected, or you could enter the R&R stage. Saying something is under review implies it's been accepted. Personally, I wouldn't list it as more than a working paper until it's been accepted and is formally under review for publication purposes and you've received the green light. I think this is absolutely fair -- most academics have a works in progress section on their CV and/or website. If you intend to try and publish something you've written, but are still working on, having this kind of section really doesn't hurt so long as its brief and your titles offer detail as to the contents.

[Monody]

@CarefreeWritingsontheWall

Thanks for that information. I was honestly unaware about the implication. What about including a working paper section and indicating that the paper was submitted with "(submitted)" at the end of the title? Also are their any good options to create a personal website to which one could upload the current work in progress?

On another note, I have to say that the closer the deadlines are, the more I feel like I want to rewrite the SoPs I submitted. At least those I can exchange. I am worrying that I wrote too much about what I am currently working on and provided too little detail on the research question I would like to pursue. I basically described the argument behind my current work and then sketched out the area in which I would like to conduct research while in grad school relatively precisely, but without the level of detail that I provided about my current work. Obviously, you can't give a precise statement, but considering SoPs generally, it that an issue?

[resDQ]

9 hours ago, CarefreeWritingsontheWall said:

My CV was 1 and 3/4 pages. I modeled it after academic CVs published by professors, though I added details for a number of my positions and experiences since they weren't clear (I was held multiple RAships at once during my MA, doing different things etc.)

Also - when it comes to journal submissions, I honestly wouldn't include it. It would be false to say it's under review unless you're notified that you've made it to that stage - and notifications that you've gotten past the desk-reject stage can take 3-6 months for some political science journals. Even if it's under review, it can still be rejected, or you could enter the R&R stage. Saying something is under review implies it's been accepted. Personally, I wouldn't list it as more than a working paper until it's been accepted and is formally under review for publication purposes and you've received the green light. I think this is absolutely fair -- most academics have a works in progress section on their CV and/or website. If you intend to try and publish something you've written, but are still working on, having this kind of section really doesn't hurt so long as its brief and your titles offer detail as to the contents.

 

I disagree. Spoke to my letter writers about this. Under review =/ accepted and no one I know thinks of it this way. Does it matter more than listing it as a working paper? Probably not. As I've said before only thing that matters is an acceptance not whether it is under review, but we aren't job applicants. 

 

*edit

 

Sorry, forgot about desk rejects. If it is under review you will receive confirmation of it from one of the editors. So maybe write "submitted at" instead of "under review"? 

Edited November 5, 2016 by resDQ

[CarefreeWritingsontheWall]

@resDQ and @Monody - I would say submitted. Under review is something I have always taken to mean that a piece is, for the most part, accepted to a journal. The exact publication date could shift given how long it takes to implement comments from reviewers. This could be wrong of course but I think there's ambiguity about it. This is why I suggest a working papers section, and as you both suggested, saying it's been submitted to journal X would be clearer.

On the personal website front, there are plenty of options and it really comes down to what you're comfortable with. Squarespace has some elegant layouts. Weebly is self explanatory. I would suggest staying away from wordpress as their templates can break, and coding can fall out of date (had this happen with a research center I was apart of...). All of those hosts are easy to use on your own, or you could look into having something set up for you. Absent a website (I still don't have one yet), I've left a link to an open dropbox folder to replication files and the datasets at the end of papers before, or a note saying that I was happy to provide the files via email if desired. I don't know of anyone in my cohort who had a personal website established coming in, though a few had something hosted by their previous institutions.

When it comes to rewriting SOPs - given that you've submitted everything, I honestly wouldn't worry about it. From what you've described, you wrote something that detailed what you've done with a sense of where you want to go. It's important to be able to strongly articulate a clear research agenda, but also a degree of openness about where things can go which you've done. Everyone knows that research interests change, as might your approach to a particular topic with further training so you sound set.

[Monody]

On 11/5/2016 at 6:54 PM, CarefreeWritingsontheWall said:

@resDQ and @Monody - I would say submitted. Under review is something I have always taken to mean that a piece is, for the most part, accepted to a journal. The exact publication date could shift given how long it takes to implement comments from reviewers. This could be wrong of course but I think there's ambiguity about it. This is why I suggest a working papers section, and as you both suggested, saying it's been submitted to journal X would be clearer.

On the personal website front, there are plenty of options and it really comes down to what you're comfortable with. Squarespace has some elegant layouts. Weebly is self explanatory. I would suggest staying away from wordpress as their templates can break, and coding can fall out of date (had this happen with a research center I was apart of...). All of those hosts are easy to use on your own, or you could look into having something set up for you. Absent a website (I still don't have one yet), I've left a link to an open dropbox folder to replication files and the datasets at the end of papers before, or a note saying that I was happy to provide the files via email if desired. I don't know of anyone in my cohort who had a personal website established coming in, though a few had something hosted by their previous institutions.

When it comes to rewriting SOPs - given that you've submitted everything, I honestly wouldn't worry about it. From what you've described, you wrote something that detailed what you've done with a sense of where you want to go. It's important to be able to strongly articulate a clear research agenda, but also a degree of openness about where things can go which you've done. Everyone knows that research interests change, as might your approach to a particular topic with further training so you sound set.

Thanks for your reply. I have now finished the paper and am just running and extracting robustness checks to create an appendix. The profs who read it so far - one of them is a LoR writer - told me that I could submit it immediately to International Interactions or JCR for example, but I want to make sure that I don't waste any reviewer's time if he or she wants to see robustness checks. 

On the SoP front, I will probably go back to it a few days before the deadlines and include a sentence on the submission and adjust the CV. I thought about including a link to my Drive folder on the CV so they can have a look at it if they want to.

Lastly, I've to say that I was a bit annoyed by the election results this morning. Not extremely, but I don't like the associated uncertainty.

Edited November 9, 2016 by Monody

[krapp]

Does anyone here encounter the issue where anything you write for an SoP just ends up sounding very cliched? Maybe it's just the nature of the beast, but I feel like I keep reaching the point of "mediocre at best" in all my drafts.