PoliSci 2007-2008 Cycle

[Canadianpolsci]

Anyone have any inside info on U of Toronto? I am a student here but I feel like its a long shot anyway.

What is your subfield? Toronto takes a long time, even until April sometimes I think.

[lenin333]

For U of Toronto its IR...

[Canadianpolsci]

For U of Toronto its IR...

I have no inside knowledge. Call them, the staff are friendly (I was an undergrad there).

[lenin333]

I am a grad student in a two year MA. My experience has not been the best of late. My department is overworked as the graduate coordinator has been on sabbatical. I am scared to walk into the Poli sci office for fear of an answer.

[ordinonuovo]

Anybody else not heard from UCLA, Duke? Unlike some of the other schools that have

notified exclusively those admitted/wait-listed(Chicago, Columbia, Cornell, etc),

these two seem to have e-mailed many

that have been rejected as well. So, is there still hope if you haven't heard from them?

Starting to lunge at those last straws now..

[Hybrid Nomad]

I haven't heard anything from Duke either. I am not sure if this is because there were some problems with my application ( there might have been some transcript confusion) and so I am low priority even for the rejection letters, or if I possibly maybe eventually an acceptance is still possible. I spoke to the Department and the Graduate School and the impression that I was given was that I had been "denied" admission though. Make of that what you will, a phone call to the department may be in order.

[alanapsci]

I hate to whine... BUT when is UNC going to send out their rejections (or waitlist?)???? I know everyone who got in, got in early February. And it seems many of us never heard anything back. I know I shouldn't care about the rejection but when it has been hanging in the air for over a month it is frustrating! :evil:

Yes: UConn

Nope: UVA

Waiting... WUSTL, American, UNC

[eve2008]

Quote

Ammar--- I'm going to have to disagree with you 100%. As I've mentioned on this forum before, being awarded placement at a top (insert number here) school should neither be taken as an affirmation nor a rejection of your abilities/past performance/potential/etc.

What you are forgetting are two very important pieces of information (at least--these are just what come to mind right now):

1. How well does your topic fit with the profs at the top X schools?

2. What is the name of the school/schools you attended for your BA/MA? (note: your term "good undergraduate" generally means expensive--something many people will opt out of for a cheaper school. The prof's may be just as intelligent, the research you perform just as good, etc., but the name is they key...)

Neither of these two factors have anything to do with your objective ability/qualifications/etc.

That's not entirely true. Of course there is a correlation between the quality of the undergraduate institution and a) the quality of the student and the quality of the student's training! This does not mean that there aren't very many very bright and qualified students outside the Ivy League, but you have to remember that admitting a student--even one with top scores, top grades, and great recommendations--is always risky. The most selective programs give a full, five-year tuition waiver + funding package. In other words, they are investing $300,000 in each student. Give how glutted Ph.D admissions are, those top programs can fill their 20 slots with the safest bets. If an applicant went to a top-ranked program, they have already in a sense been pre-screened, and if the faculty writing that student's letters of recommendation are also top-ranked superstars, who probably went to graduate school with, collaborated with, or were former colleagues of members of the committee, then of course the committee is going to look favorably on that applicant. It might be unfair, but given the amount of money and time (which far exceeds in opportunity cost the explicit $300,000 layout), can you really blame them? More to the point, if this is the way the world works, what choice do you have but to do what you can to compete?

I went to a top top-ranked undergraduate program, but was poor, and so it was almost free. It was still a constant struggle, but I knew it would be worth the pain and the large amount of debt I will still have when I'm 30. If there is any possible way to make it work, always, always choose the highest-ranked program you can.

And if you really think there's an academic superstar inside you, just waiting to bust out, you should not go to a low-ranked Ph.D program! GRE scores *really* don't matter. Your GPA doesn't even matter all that much (although, you should definitely have at least a 3.0, if not a 3.5 or higher). Recommendations are everything. So suck it up, take out some loans, and get a master's degree at Columbia, or SIPA, or KSG, or WWS, or LSE, or wherever some truly top profs congregate it reasonable numbers. Stand out, distinguish yourself, and get some kick-ass letters of rec from people committees at the top 20 or top 10 programs will recognize. Getting some quant or econ skills (or truly fabulous language skills) while you're at it won't hurt.

Also, I have been meeting admits and current grad students from public schools. Granted, these are schools like UCLA or Michigan, or UW-Madison, or UVA, or UC Berkeley, or UCSD--schools I'm pretty sure most of the students attended without a clue how good the poli sci programs were or how much they would benefit from having the profs there write their letters.

Life is unfair, but there are always second chances. Be strategic!

[Quarex]

So suck it up, take out some loans, and get a master's degree at Columbia, or SIPA, or KSG, or WWS, or LSE, or wherever some truly top profs congregate it reasonable numbers. Stand out, distinguish yourself, and get some kick-ass letters of rec from people committees at the top 20 or top 10 programs will recognize. Getting some quant or econ skills (or truly fabulous language skills) while you're at it won't hurt.

Haha. But some of us are trying to do exactly this. It is not as easy as you might think to get accepted at any level, even the master's, to some of these programs, particularly when your entire scholastic life was in shambles until you suddenly realized how much you loved academia. Seriously, until I started writing my master's thesis, I had never considered that research and academia could be all that entertaining; ever since then, I have not been able to imagine why I would do anything else. But this does nothing to make up for my years of sub-par at best academic performance when I was in a field I hated.

Now, granted, I did not actually apply directly to M.A. programs at any of those schools; are you saying it is much easier to get in at that level? The advice I heard was that if you apply to the Ph.D., it is functionally like applying to the M.A. anyway (which seems to bear out considering the M.A. admissions I have already been offered).

[sundaymonday]

GRE scores *really* don't matter. Your GPA doesn't even matter all that much (although, you should definitely have at least a 3.0, if not a 3.5 or higher). Recommendations are everything.

I have to disagree here. I've mentioned on the board that I work in the office of a top tier program (not poli sci, but another social science dept), and I just intimately participated in the graduate selection process on an administrative level. If applicants didn't score above a certain number on the GRE, or had a low GPA (under 3.5), their files were tossed back in the box. I'm not saying that all committees do this, but ours did.

[Peter]

Eve, I understand that graduate programs are risk-adverse. Certainly, if I were to be investing lots of money into a student (especially in a discipline like POLS, where very little of consequence has arisen in the past couple decades) I would want to know that they were the best candidate for the investment.

My argument is, of course, with how "best candidate" is determined. Your points are well-taken--YES, this is how it is done. I disagree however that there is a direct correlation with quality of instruction/better students at the better schools. That may be be true as a whole, but I think there are enough exceptions to warrant serious reconsideration. Inbreeding has its downsides :wink: and the discipline could benefit from a bit more of an open-mind.

The heavy hitting schools may have some nobel prize winners, but notice that many of those who win such awards did not THEMSELVES attend these top schools. Also, having big names at your school absolutely doesn't mean you'll work with them (hail the TA's), and the grade inflation at these places can be, at times, sickening. My public high school places lots of students at Ivy's (I myself applied to 9 schools and was fortunate to be admitted everywhere, tho', again, chose the fully funded state option) and equivalent and woe to the stories of hastily written papers from my Harvard friend who pulls A's with papers full of grammatical errors/content issues/etc. because her prof doesn't actually read them and because the parents pressure for good grades to the administration.

Also, I disagree about loans. I've mentioned before I turned down an unfunded MA at Chicago for a literally no-name state school. I have no interest in funneling money into continuing a severely flawed cycle of buying admission to PHD programs. Seriously, if it has had reached the point where you have to PAY TO GET INTO A GOOD PHD PROGRAM (i.e. the hidden prereq of the expensive undergrad) then something has gone terribly wrong...

And, frankly, some of the most important research academics need to conduct will require researchers to be mobile and able to take very low paying positions . I'd like a good part of my own research to take place in sub-Saharan Africa. Loans will tie my hands to more lucrative jobs/positions, and some fields/interests require a person to be debt free (or relatively) or the opportunity cost (to your own research) will be too high.

Look at the writing sample, the SOP, read the LORs for character and scholarly potential, examine the student's record, and make your decision. The name of the school they attended should be left out.

[JordanJames]

Peter said:

I understand that graduate programs are risk-averse.

Damn it, we need more venture capitalists running graduate admissions.

[yoon7724]

Re: Notre Dame Decision

From a credible source, I heard that the committee will not finalize their decision, at least, until the second week of March. So, it may well go into the third week until we hear anything. With regard to the Peace program, I have no idea. But the department seems to be putting quite a bit of money into its poorly ranked subfields--American and IR--as it does so with Compar. and Theory, the latter of which I believe is its forte and selling point.

[polisciphd]

Congrats to whoever just got the WUSTL acceptance posted on the survey board. The campus is georgious, and I am hoping that in five years I will be able to get a job there. Check out a restaurant called Charlie Gitto's On the Hill, best Italian you will ever eat.

[spin]

Wow, I just received my funding decision from Berkeley; it's very generous by Berkeley's standards -

Full five year funding, annual stipend of $21,000, two year $4,000 summer stipend, and here's the kicker: only one year of TAing (third year).

I was very worried about funding at Berkeley as the department is known for either offering very little or expecting grad students to take a heavy TAing load (it is, after all, a state funded school and Political Science is the second largest department on campus).

Time to do a lil dance...

[ampersand]

Wow, I just received my funding decision from Berkeley; it's very generous by Berkeley's standards -

Full five year funding, annual stipend of $21,000, two year $4,000 summer stipend, and here's the kicker: only one year of TAing (third year).

I was very worried about funding at Berkeley as the department is known for either offering very little or expecting grad students to take a heavy TAing load (it is, after all, a state funded school and Political Science is the second largest department on campus).

Time to do a lil dance...

Niiiiiiice. Congrats!

[slickj07]

ignore this, wont let me clear my comments

[iulixa]

Columbia rejection.. Decision posted on applyyourself.

Not at all sad about it!

[alegriapura]

Columbia rejection.. Decision posted on applyyourself.

Not at all sad about it!

Thanks for the heads up. I just checked and I got the same message. What a long wait for them to refer us to freaking Apply Yourself. Oh well! I share your sentiment.

[bluewhenitsgray]

I had the exact opposite Columbia/Princeton experience: got accepted at the former, rejected at the latter. Guess it worked out for both of us. By the way, where did you find the message at Apply Yourself? I've seen a couple of people note they found messages there for various schools, but I really can't seem to find anything.

[alegriapura]

I had the exact opposite Columbia/Princeton experience: got accepted at the former, rejected at the latter. Guess it worked out for both of us. By the way, where did you find the message at Apply Yourself? I've seen a couple of people note they found messages there for various schools, but I really can't seem to find anything.

You have to use the school-specific Apply Yourself page, the same page where you went to fill out your application. Just enter the login and password you used to apply and there should be a link that says something like "Decision now available."

[silencio1982]

Thanks for the heads up. I just checked and I got the same message. What a long wait for them to refer us to freaking Apply Yourself. Oh well! I share your sentiment.

isn't it ironic that with all these fancy schmancy online updating systems, notifications don't come any faster and half of the schools don't even use the online option anyhow? i haven't gotten a single notification through the web. as someone said earlier on this board, i am convinced they created these things to cut down on the amount of calls they receive from applicants.

[gradster]

isn't it ironic that with all these fancy schmancy online updating systems, notifications don't come any faster and half of the schools don't even use the online option anyhow? i haven't gotten a single notification through the web. as someone said earlier on this board, i am convinced they created these things to cut down on the amount of calls they receive from applicants.

It depends on the school, but at my school the department makes its own choices as to admissions, but once they have decided, they have to inform the head grad school offices of the outcome and the central office is in charge of the rejections. So the department has to send back all the files back to the graduate school and doesn't have anything more to do with the process. There are something like 600 rejections from my department, so even with the fancy schmancy online updating, it takes time to input the information. Why does it take a long time? Well, they have to have two people double check the list so they do not accidentally accept or reject someone by mistake. Moreover, the central office is processing rejections from other departments as well. So you see, there are thousands of files that have to be processed. These online systems are a little faster.....back in the day you had to wait until end of March or April for the snail mail rejection.

[silencio1982]

It depends on the school, but at my school the department makes its own choices as to admissions, but once they have decided, they have to inform the head grad school offices of the outcome and the central office is in charge of the rejections. So the department has to send back all the files back to the graduate school and doesn't have anything more to do with the process. There are something like 600 rejections from my department, so even with the fancy schmancy online updating, it takes time to input the information. Why does it take a long time? Well, they have to have two people double check the list so they do not accidentally accept or reject someone by mistake. Moreover, the central office is processing rejections from other departments as well. So you see, there are thousands of files that have to be processed. These online systems are a little faster.....back in the day you had to wait until end of March or April for the snail mail rejection.

i understand it's a big process. my point was just that i didn't get any notifications through the online systems- i have received all but one of my notifications via snail mail anyways. so, being able to log in and check my "status" just gave me busy work while waiting for snail mail.

in my job right now, though it's not in admissions, i do tons of data entering, verification, and notification, and i know it can take forever. i just think it's funny that we applicants now have an added layer of anxiety on top of running home to check the mailbox, thanks to logging in and checking status checkers. i never realized that i was quite so neurotic or impatient until this process began. i'm not criticizing those who do the work- just pointing out the irony. the efficiency of online applications probably has less to do with a faster notification time and more to do with accuracy and ease of the school maintaining the records.

[adaptations]

For the sake of random speculation and killing time, anyone want to place bets on when Michigan sends out waitlists and rejections. It looks like they are running later than last year, but who knows when.

Perhaps next year I'll be a grad school bookie, taking bets on the over/under for dates of notifications (although fake posts could ruin the integrity of the system). Still, it might make this process a bit more interesting.

Cheers,