Fall 2010 Admission Results

[fromark17]

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

Exactly what I was thinking. I'd really like to know for sure instead of waiting around and wondering incessantly. I also thought this would be a big week for decisions, but other than Princeton and Penn, not much has happened yet. What gives?

[SBL]

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.

This is very interesting. Can we extrapolate on this and assume that not having a poli sci undergrad degree is a huge hindrance then? It might go some way to explain my (lack of) success so far. I have a non-poli sci undergrad degree so therefore no relevant thesis, though I did do a number of American politics courses (I'm foreign and studied at a foreign college so these fell under IR for me ). I do have an IR-related master's degree as well though... so I don't know.

[gsams]

Claiming first acceptance to Missouri Columbia. Appears I have gotten full funding, but it has to be officially approved by the graduate school first. *takes a deep breath!*

There will be more, I am sure, but I have one and at a school I very much like for what I am looking to do. I would be perfectly okay with it.

Anyone know what funding looks like here?

[betteryear]

This is very interesting. Can we extrapolate on this and assume that not having a poli sci undergrad degree is a huge hindrance then? It might go some way to explain my (lack of) success so far. I have a non-poli sci undergrad degree so therefore no relevant thesis, though I did do a number of American politics courses (I'm foreign and studied at a foreign college so these fell under IR for me ). I do have an IR-related master's degree as well though... so I don't know.

question for realist: as a professor, how do you see applicants who are looking to change fields? they are most likely not going to have any poli sci profs write for them, and although their research experience might be related, they are not likely to have the same level of preparation as others. i find it interesting because poli sci department websites seem to be so open to applicants from all fields.

[yellowshoes]

Claiming first acceptance to Missouri Columbia. Appears I have gotten full funding, but it has to be officially approved by the graduate school first. *takes a deep breath!*

There will be more, I am sure, but I have one and at a school I very much like for what I am looking to do. I would be perfectly okay with it.

Anyone know what funding looks like here?

Congrats!!!!

[The Realist]

This is very interesting. Can we extrapolate on this and assume that not having a poli sci undergrad degree is a huge hindrance then? It might go some way to explain my (lack of) success so far. I have a non-poli sci undergrad degree so therefore no relevant thesis, though I did do a number of American politics courses (I'm foreign and studied at a foreign college so these fell under IR for me ). I do have an IR-related master's degree as well though... so I don't know.

IR is a bit different...we consider IR to be close enough to political science to be comparable, especially in foreign universities (like many British ones) that make IR a separate department.

[gsams]

Congrats!!!!

Thanks, yellowshoes! It makes me feel very relieved to have one in the hole!

[The Realist]

question for realist: as a professor, how do you see applicants who are looking to change fields? they are most likely not going to have any poli sci profs write for them, and although their research experience might be related, they are not likely to have the same level of preparation as others. i find it interesting because poli sci department websites seem to be so open to applicants from all fields.

We of course are open to people of many different backgrounds. I myself don't have an undergraduate degree in political science. Mine was in a hard science. But I took loads of political science and econ classes so it was clear to the admissions committee that I knew what political science was. I also had letter writers who were in political science and economics, so they could vouch for me.

So I think it's important to be realistic. If you majored in chem and never took a political science course, committees are going to wonder what makes you qualified to be a poli sci grad student. (They are also going to wonder why you're applying to grad school in political science anyway.) Plus, chances are your application is going to be worse because you won't have a good idea of what to write about in your personal statement and your letter writers won't know how to sell you as a political science grad student.

Does this mean that you're out of the running if you don't have a major in political science? Not at all. If you can show that you know what our discipline requires you'll be fine. Also, many people who took time off after college to do something else are compelling because they have an interesting life story. I'll never forget a fascinating file from a couple of years ago from someone who majored in engineering and never took a social science course in his life past his gen ed requirements. He got a job building bridges somewhere in Africa, and after several years dealing with bureaucracies and corrupt officials came to realize that he was fascinated by bureaucratic politics in poor countries. He was admitted (he went elsewhere).

Also, cognate fields are something of a pass. Philosophy majors can usually credibly signal that they can be good political theory candidates. Economics and history majors often can demonstrate that they will do well in political science too. But for these fields, the importance of good letters and a killer statement is elevated. Many history undergraduates, in my experience, actually have no idea what political science is. Not that that applies to any of you, but it's part of the considerations we make.

[lev calderon]

IR is a bit different...we consider IR to be close enough to political science to be comparable, especially in foreign universities (like many British ones) that make IR a separate department.

Right, but under your algorithm someone who wants to do public law has a better shot with a rec from a plsc professor than a law professor. Or someone who wants to do political philosophy is better off with a plsc professor than a philosophy prof. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Rawls was not a phd in political science ... But I bet he'd say a lot more about one's ability to do political theory than most psci phds. In the same vein, akhil reed amar is going to be a lot better at determining who would make a great constitutional law scholar than a plsc phd. Maybe this explains why several plsc departments have phd's in philosophy and jd's on their faculties whereas no philosophy depts have plsc phds and very few law schools have them. Legal scholarship and philosophy scholarship might not be archetypal of social science research but isn't the point of grad school to train talent and isn't evidence of diligence in research ultimately more important than whether someone wrote her honors thesis on skocpol and russian politics or on house cloture rules and economic efficiency? Otherwise, how does political science progress?

Edited February 18, 2010 by lev calderon

[SBL]

IR is a bit different...we consider IR to be close enough to political science to be comparable, especially in foreign universities (like many British ones) that make IR a separate department.

Thanks for this, though I should clarify for everyone (I wasn't very clear) that my undergraduate degree was not in IR either, just I took some IR/politics courses as part of it. My degree was an interdisciplinary social sciences degree.

[The Realist]

Right, but under your algorithm someone who wants to do public law has a better shot with a rec from a plsc professor than a law professor. Or someone who wants to do political philosophy is better off with a plsc professor than a philosophy prof. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Rawls was not a phd in political science ... But I bet he'd say a lot more about one's ability to do political theory than most psci phds. In the same vein, akhil reed amar is going to be a lot better at determining who would make a great constitutional law scholar than a plsc phd. Maybe this explains why several plsc departments have phd's in philosophy and jd's on their faculties whereas no philosophy depts have plsc phds and very few law schools have them. Legal scholarship and philosophy scholarship might not be archetypal of social science research but isn't the point of grad school to train talent and isn't evidence of diligence in research ultimately more important than whether someone wrote her honors thesis on skocpol and russian politics or on house cloture rules and economic efficiency? Otherwise, how does political science progress?

You should read the post that I wrote in response to betteryear.

On your concern about whether or not to train talent, yes, of course we would like to just find the best future political scientists and train them. But we can't tell who they are from our current perspective. So we use the information that we have. These informational shortcuts are imperfect and we make mistakes, but I'm not sure what other options we have.

[lev calderon]

My solution:

The admissions committee invites the "top 60" candidates to a multi-day tournament where applicants sit on panels of 5 and have to answer questions from the faculty committee based on pre-assigned reading while also being evaluated on how well they critique the others' responses as well as the questions they form.

[card28]

no one else in at Maryland yet? I didn't see any other acceptances on the results page.

[HarrisonWinslow]

So, if we haven't heard from Michigan State or Chicago yet, should we consider ourselves out? (I have been away from the forum for a couple of days [GASP!], so I am completely out of the loop--congrats to everyone everywehere, though!)

[It'sgonnabeme]

I'm wondering about Princeton as well--and Berkeley, for that matter.

If you haven't heard from a school, don't assume a rejection. It isn't over until it's over.

At least that's what I keep telling myself.

I second that kind of positive attitude, C.

UPenn might possibly have an yet to be announced waitlist. So I keep telling myself it's not over till it's over.

[Shere Khan]

In at Yale.

No surprise there. Doesn't it get boring after a while, getting all those acceptance letters?

[Ziz]

I'm wondering about Princeton as well--and Berkeley, for that matter.

If you haven't heard from a school, don't assume a rejection. It isn't over until it's over.

At least that's what I keep telling myself.

What I have come up wtih to make myself feel better...

Every other year Princeton notified all admits on one day and rejects the next. This year they notifed some people they got in (we don't know whether it's all or not) but sent no rejections. This fact alone means that this year's admissions process is not identical to previous years. Hence, it is possible that not all admits were sent on the same day. Of course, they prboably were adn they just haven't gotten around to the rejection emails yet, but a girl can hope can't she?

[kmp34]

Maybe they're sending paper letters instead of emails... but i hope you're right about a different process!

[rustytrix]

I'm wondering about Princeton as well--and Berkeley, for that matter.

If you haven't heard from a school, don't assume a rejection. It isn't over until it's over.

At least that's what I keep telling myself.

im taking the opposite road ... ive convinced myself that all "no shows" are rejections so i wont feel the pain when they finally arrive ... and if one of em turns out to be an acceptance, now wouldnt that be gangsta!

Edited February 18, 2010 by rustytrix

[Ziz]

Maybe they're sending paper letters instead of emails... but i hope you're right about a different process!

Damn, I didn't even think about paper letters. You're probably right.

[Bobb Cobb]

Claiming first acceptance to Missouri Columbia. Appears I have gotten full funding, but it has to be officially approved by the graduate school first. *takes a deep breath!*

There will be more, I am sure, but I have one and at a school I very much like for what I am looking to do. I would be perfectly okay with it.

Anyone know what funding looks like here?

Not top ten, who cares? Sorry couldn't help it.

Seriously, Mizzou has a good department. I think it is underrated, although this partly depends on your subfield. One of my thesis committee members went there, and he does quite well. He knows methods very well. He is also well published, and has a few more in the pipeline for top journals in CP. I think their funding is pretty standard for the regular GA slots, at least that is my recollection from him. By that I mean 15-16. Congrats on a good school!

[gsams]

Bobb Cobb,

I really like Mizzou. Both of my cousins from St. Louis went there and loved it (they are both very intelligent). I am doing CP. I am pleased with the sort of talent there and I think it is either a 14k or 16k stipend. I will see when the official letter comes, I guess!

[natofone]

no one else in at Maryland yet? I didn't see any other acceptances on the results page.

I'm in. Just got the email this morning. Congrats.

[It'sgonnabeme]

I'm in. Just got the email this morning. Congrats.

Congrats!

By the way Natofone, if I'm not mistaken, you got in a good program last year, right? You're transfering this year?

Edited February 18, 2010 by It'sgonnabeme

[natofone]

Congrats!

By the way Natofone, if I'm not mistaken, you got in a good program last year, right? You're going to transfer this year?

Thanks. No, I struck out last year, so I am excited to get into Maryland (and maybe live in dc!).