victorydance

Columbia, Harvard, Stanford, NYU, Rochester, Michigan, and Princeton.

I think 8-10 is the sweet spot.

They're all pretty much the same.

Most profs that I know don't actually keep track of your hours. It's more the amount of work done well that they are going to keep track of. I wasn't even in the country for most of my two assistant-ships. Depending on what you are doing, there really isn't much of a reason you can't do the work remotely.

Possible, but fairly unrealistic. You would virtually have to finish your coursework + comps + write a dissertation very quickly. Also, I doubt this would be that beneficial anyways because it doesn't leave much time for preparing for the market and/or publishing anything.

Yeah, but you were coming from law were you not? Like I said if you are coming from a political science program and you were studying IR, there's no reason you shouldn't have more than one LOR from an IR prof.

I think anywhere from 20-40% (perhaps even higher but not sure) of admitted students of Ph.D. programs come straight from undergrad. So it shouldn't be a concern if you have a strong application. The only thing that worries me is that you say you are interested in going into IR, but yet only one of your LORs will come from IR profs and your writing sample may or may not be in IR. Ideally, you want all three of your LORs coming from IR profs if you are currently studying IR and want to continue studying IR. Of course, you don't need all three that's just the ideal situation but having one from an adjunct theorist and one from a separate discipline is kind of alarming. If I were you I would definitely try to do the honours thesis with a IR prof different from your RA prof. This means that not only can you use a section of your thesis as your writing sample but you will also get another solid letter from someone from IR instead of the political theory prof. Having two letters from profs you have been an RA for + honours thesis adviser is solid.

"The thing is that I don't feel like individuals who decide to have children despite the inability to really provide for them should be supported any more than someone who decides not to have children. If an individual is incapable of working due to disability or whatever, then fine, but that's not the case here. I don't think having children while being in grad school is a good life decision. It can be done and if they can make it work all the power to them but that doesn't mean they should be supported anymore than someone who doesn't make that decision." This is my exact statement. I don't see how I have really changed anything. Perhaps added more nuance to it but nothing contradictory to what I stated before. Crafter > the point of my previous post was to point out (and the fact that you ignored the actual question leads to me believe you agree) is there are certain times when having a child is not necessarily in the person's best interests or more particularly the interests of that future child. The main difference is we may have different perceptions on when that situation is. As in, I don't think grad school is a good time to have a child. You don't necessarily agree with that and that's fine; people have different opinions.

Well for occupations that require postdocs I don't see anything wrong with having a kid then. And it also entirely depends on what the (if there is one) spouse is doing as well. I mean, it doesn't necessarily mean that he/she couldn't have a perfectly stable job and provide support. In that situation it could actually be beneficial because a grad student has a lot of downtime and ability to work from home more than typical occupations. And like I said before, I don't actually care if people do, if they want to have children all the power to them. I am not the official decider over who has children or not. I am not sure why you guys are taking this so personally.

So let's disentangle this a bit. If there is some family (or perhaps single parent) that is working minimum wage or something marginally better than that, do you think it is a good choice to have a child on purpose? And I am not talking about political correct, "sure! it's their choice I won't judge" I am talking about what you actually feel here. Because I don't think it is the right choice and I am not afraid to state that. Raising a child in this economic environment is a serious decision not to be taken lightly. If I was to want to have a child I would make sure I have a stable and decent paying occupation in order to start a family. And that isn't what academia is unless you are in TT territory. And I am not singling out academia either, this applies to any occupation or field where making money and job security is scarce.

But that doesn't make sense if there is not a market force related to funding. Because funding structure is very similar for humanities vs. social sciences. So why is there a pay gap between this spectrum of disciplines? On average, a social science grad student has a higher stipend than a humanities one. If they have very similar funding structures why is this the case? It's one thing to argue that the pay structures of natural science students are different than others, but then why is the same pay gaps represented between the social sciences and humanities? You can even see the differences within social sciences. With economics and political science majors getting higher stipends than say anthropology or criminology majors.

I mean, yes, you held a RA position for two semesters for a prof, that is sufficient right there. Plus a handful of other research assistant positions, whether those are totally relevant to your research interests is not clear but they certainly don't hurt. Honours thesis. Plus a few internal grants for research. This is very solid and fairly close to my personal research experience as well. The important thing is to leverage those LORs (preferably only from professors) and tie in your experience into your research interests so it's cohesive to an admission committee. The wording is a bit confusing, but did you get authorship credit on the paper, or just help him/her get it published? Because a publication at this stage of the game is a major boon to your application.

Thank you, now I understand. Although my experience with social sciences is that professors do often get grants for their research, but it definitely is dispersed more sporadically in terms of isolated RA positions for students. There are also a lot of internal fellowships available outside of typical TA positions as well. But this comes back to what I was saying before? That because certain fields pull in more money from funding either federal or private sources that students in those departments get paid more? So wouldn't that mean it's not necessarily a funding structure thing, it's more to do with the available funds in the department?

I find it a logical leap to state that natural sciences stipends are solely higher because funding goes through a PI than through a department.

Two things: - Don't get lost in your past achievements. While you have a good record of accomplishments, many of the ones on the list really have no bearing on whether you get admitted or not. For example, most of the stuff listed under 'activities' is completely irrelevant to grad admissions. What matters above all is research experience. Only focus on the most relevant things related to your research interests out of the list of past achievements to highlight in your CV and SOP. - Just focus on the things you can control: writing sample, SOP, and GRE scores.