Fall 2010 Admission Results

[Bobb Cobb]

Some feedback on how it looks from my end. We are still going through files now.

• Applications are up a bit from years before. So it's a bit more competitive. We are going to offer slots to well under 5% of our applicants.
• We are not a top-10 department. Since we are realistic about our chances at recruiting the top students, we sometimes don't admit the very best candidates unless we have good reason to think that they'd actually attend.
• Lots of students have a 3.9 GPA and great GREs. Even at a non-top-10 department like ours, those sorts of stats are insufficient to guarantee admission to our program.
• A lot depends on your letter writers. Not that they're famous, but that they write you strong letters. Letters must be glowing. Letters writers can't just say that you're smart or that you got good grades in Intro to whatever, they have to convince us that you'll become a good academic political scientist. There's a lot to read between the lines. Also, letters from political science professors are a lot more credible than letters from other professors (language instructors, literature professors, etc.).
• A lot also depends on your statement. Not because we care so much about what you plan to study, although that matters some for judging whether or not you understand what political science is, but because it tells us how well you can express yourself.
• We honestly are less impressed with where you did your undergrad than we are at how well you did there. I just compared two files, one from a large public university that is decidedly not the best one in its state, and one from an Ivy. The latter student was obviously smart, but the former student had a consistent record of high marks in a range of social science classes and made a much better case that s/he understood political science and would make it in our program. We're going with the former.
• Admissions standards vary a ton across subfields. My department is best at comparative. It's just easier to get into our program for other subfields than it is for comparative

One more thing: I can honestly say that there is a large stochastic component to this process. Lots of wonderful candidates get passed over. We wish it could be otherwise, but it's just the nature of the game. Try not to read too much into it (although I remember how hard that was all those years ago when I got rejected at half the schools where I applied...)

Thanks Realist, This is a great insight to the process. I actually look forward to the day where I can understand the process from your side of things.

[Yes]

Happiness is also relative. If you really think about it, we are all extremely lucky to even be in this position. The possibility of getting a PhD would be an impossibility for most people in the world; they never had half the opportunities or support we did. You have to make the most with what you're given and keep everything in perspective. Don't assume that if you don't do precisely what you pictured for yourself happiness will elude you.

Well said. Reminds me of a talk on saw on TED (great source of procrastinations with useful side effects, btw).

[Shere Khan]

• Admissions standards vary a ton across subfields. My department is best at comparative. It's just easier to get into our program for other subfields than it is for comparative

Hmm. As it is not that difficult to change subfield after you've been accepted, would systematically targeting the "weaker" subfields of a program make sense as an application strategy?

[kmp34]

But life is what you make of it! Life hands you cards, it is what you DO with them that counts. Will I be upset if I don't get accepted? Hellz yeah. But some other door will open. Nothing is the end of the world.

amen

[backstreets]

Yeah, I didn't mean to complain so much, especially when I've got two good offers. It's just so frustrating applying in such an incredibly competitive time when most of us would be looking at more options in most other years. Oh well.

[anxiousmike]

Rejected at Indiana. This year must be insane. I swear I'm a good enough candidate.

[SBL]

I feel better after talking to a member of one of the adcom's I have applied to. It's a joint program and he says that they are still deciding, but I am hopeful. He also gave me some insight into another part of the admissions process. He is from a big state school (that is all I will say) and says that often it is a balance of knowing how badly that applicant wants to go to big state school. If you are one of the strongest applicants, you may not get offered money simply because they will assume you will go Ivy and leave them. A tier 2 school would rather offer someone middle of the road often times because that person is likely to stay with them and not leave it until April 15th. Thus, they are often hesitant to pick the best applicant for fear they will defect and choose another school.

He also told me I would not be living in a cardboard box come August and that he is confident I will do fine. Oye. I wish there would be some news.

Edited for spelling.

Classic Tufts Syndrome!

[ploxis9999]

anyone claiming the Yale acceptance?

[someone else]

Rejected at Indiana. This year must be insane. I swear I'm a good enough candidate.

Since I have yet to hear from Indiana, I guess the rejection email is on its way.

[readeatsleep]

I was told yesterday the admissions process is ongoing, but then a small squirt of people were admitted yesterday afternoon (well, really only one I know of, but it was purportedly a form email). So I don't know what to believe. We are on tenterhooks.

I was offered admssion to ND yesterday for political theory. Form email with a personalized attachment, followed closely by a very nice email from a theorist there and information on booking plane tickets with their travel agency.

Recruitment weekend isn't until the end of march, so presumably there is still alot of time left to send acceptances.

Apparently, it was very competitive this year (no surprise there...)

Edited February 17, 2010 by readeatsleep

[kmp34]

anyone claiming the Yale acceptance?

i second that question

Was it an informal email from a prof or a generic department email?

Also, subfields if you don't mind sharing?

Edited February 17, 2010 by kmp34

[The Realist]

Hmm. As it is not that difficult to change subfield after you've been accepted, would systematically targeting the "weaker" subfields of a program make sense as an application strategy?

Obviously I'm going to tell you "no" because I don't want anyone doing that when they apply to our department.

But even ignoring my own selfish motivations, it's probably not a good idea. An application that claims, say, that you're a theorist when you've written a thesis on American politics and taken mostly Am pol classes probably won't make it through the first cut. You're undercutting your chance of a legitimate admission by gambling on a subfield where you don't have the right preparation.

Could it work? I can imagine a couple of schools where it might. But you're not the first one who's thought of it, and I've never heard of it working.

[yellowshoes]

Some feedback on how it looks from my end. We are still going through files now.

• Applications are up a bit from years before. So it's a bit more competitive. We are going to offer slots to well under 5% of our applicants.
• We are not a top-10 department. Since we are realistic about our chances at recruiting the top students, we sometimes don't admit the very best candidates unless we have good reason to think that they'd actually attend.
• Lots of students have a 3.9 GPA and great GREs. Even at a non-top-10 department like ours, those sorts of stats are insufficient to guarantee admission to our program.
• A lot depends on your letter writers. Not that they're famous, but that they write you strong letters. Letters must be glowing. Letters writers can't just say that you're smart or that you got good grades in Intro to whatever, they have to convince us that you'll become a good academic political scientist. There's a lot to read between the lines. Also, letters from political science professors are a lot more credible than letters from other professors (language instructors, literature professors, etc.).
• A lot also depends on your statement. Not because we care so much about what you plan to study, although that matters some for judging whether or not you understand what political science is, but because it tells us how well you can express yourself.
• We honestly are less impressed with where you did your undergrad than we are at how well you did there. I just compared two files, one from a large public university that is decidedly not the best one in its state, and one from an Ivy. The latter student was obviously smart, but the former student had a consistent record of high marks in a range of social science classes and made a much better case that s/he understood political science and would make it in our program. We're going with the former.
• Admissions standards vary a ton across subfields. My department is best at comparative. It's just easier to get into our program for other subfields than it is for comparative

One more thing: I can honestly say that there is a large stochastic component to this process. Lots of wonderful candidates get passed over. We wish it could be otherwise, but it's just the nature of the game. Try not to read too much into it (although I remember how hard that was all those years ago when I got rejected at half the schools where I applied...)

Thanks for this! I always wondered what departments that get applicants who are clearly using that school as a "safety" do with that applicant.

As to the points about letter writers and undergrad institutions. I'm under the impression that sometimes undergrad does matter (I was told this, actually, by a very reputable prof at an excellent school) for picking the safer of two candidates. Not that either is particularly smarter, but just that you sort of trust Stanford over Northern X.

You say that "good" letters are better than "famous" letters, but I wonder if coming from an unknown school disadvantages you on both ends. Not only are your profs not famous, but your department doesn't send many kids to grad schools, nor does it have a grad program itself. So, your profs don't see what a "good" letter looks like all the time. Any truth to that?

I do think your point about getting into a school under a less-competitive subfield is true, and I second the above poster who asked if using that as a strategy to get into a school and change subfields is doable. I think many people have considered it. Or, at least changing second fields.

EDIT: I didn't mean having done most undergrad work in American and applying for theory, but having done most undergrad work in American, applying as an Americanist, and then switching to theory once you are there, even though your record and application don't really show you as one.

Edited February 17, 2010 by yellowshoes

[SuddenlyParanoid]

In at Yale.

[mpe]

i second that question

Was it an informal email from a prof or a generic department email?

Also, subfields if you don't mind sharing?

I can claim one of the Yale acceptances. Email from a prof in my subfield. Arrived a few hours after the first one that was claimed on the results page, so they were definitely not sent at the same time.

[kmp34]

I can claim one of the Yale acceptances. Email from a prof in my subfield. Arrived a few hours after the first one that was claimed on the results page, so they were definitely not sent at the same time.

Wow congrats to you both!!

[Bobb Cobb]

I can claim one of the Yale acceptances. Email from a prof in my subfield. Arrived a few hours after the first one that was claimed on the results page, so they were definitely not sent at the same time.

Any word on the perceived low-funding issues?

[Yes]

Wow congrats to you both!!

Yes, congratulations!

[amandaaimeparis]

For those who applied to Pittsburgh: I just called the Political Science department and the secretary told me all the letters were mailed yesterday.

[kmp34]

nm..

Edited February 17, 2010 by kmp34

[Tan]

Let's not pretend that there are not other things at work here, especially in theory. Political science can be very "political." In almost all of the subfields, opposing methodological camps feel like they must invest in people who will continue to hold up their "brand." I'm at Cambridge right now, believe me, it's true...

BTW Any news on ND or what?

I think people who apply to theory programs are aware of this though, as in someone who applies for theory at Princeton or NYU is unlikely to also be applying at Northwestern, Cornell and probably Berkeley, and vice-versa.

[Cantabrigian]

hmm why weren't we rejected from P'ton today?

[BayesLives]

Any word on the perceived low-funding issues?

I'm neither in nor out of Yale so far (haven't heard either way, which I'm hoping is a good thing), but I did grow up in New Haven. It is a very cheap place to live. Rent is low. So that may be why the funding looks low (e.g. Stanford's offers look HUGE, but factor in the cost of living in Palo Alto and it turns out to be just like other offers).

[interista]

I think people who apply to theory programs are aware of this though, as in someone who applies for theory at Princeton or NYU is unlikely to also be applying at Northwestern, Cornell and probably Berkeley, and vice-versa.

I think a few of us applied to both Princeton and Northwestern. The theory market is pretty tight, so I think most of us are willing to sacrifice fit for a chance at a job. It's not like writing an undergrad thesis on Rawls limits me to studying analytic political philosophy as a grad student, even if it leads me to not consider some schools, like Berkeley.

[kmp34]

I'm neither in nor out of Yale so far (haven't heard either way, which I'm hoping is a good thing), but I did grow up in New Haven. It is a very cheap place to live. Rent is low. So that may be why the funding looks low (e.g. Stanford's offers look HUGE, but factor in the cost of living in Palo Alto and it turns out to be just like other offers).

How much is the funding package for yale?