<p>hi
i'm trying to figure out what one needs to be considered competitive for top PhD programs in polysci. i'm interested in studying IR, but honestly have no clue what constitutes being competitive at the top 5/10/20 schools. i know tons of people apply (many top programs have between 300-600 applicants, which is nuts for a PhD program). here's my background...graduated w/ a 3.35 from a pretty respectable undergrad school w/ a degree in anatomy (hence the lower gpa), got a masters in policy from u-michigan (w/ a 3.8), have worked as a policy analyst for 4 years in dc (mostly domestic stuff) - i've coauthored quite a few papers, and have been lead author on one or two. i've done a bit of foreign policy "organizing" while in undergrad, and am well-read in the field, even though most of my "professional" background is domestic policy. my GREs are 670V, 790M. so, what i'm wondering is, do i have a reasonable shot at top 10 schools? top 20? my list right now is columbia, chicago, mit, georgetown, american, and gwu.</p>
<p>Providing you have good letters of rec, I would think you have a shot at the top programs. Keep in mind that since it is competitive, a lot will rest on your statement of purpose as well. You will be competitive with applicants to top schools, but that doesn't guarantee a place, unfortunately. Sometimes, I swear they just play darts with our CVs.</p>
<p>yeah, it seems like a very muddled process...i'm just trying to gather what constitutes being competitive at a top school. it seems you probably want at least a 1400 GRE, a mid-to-high 3-something GPA, maybe a masters degree, and some work experience and papers to make yourself a competitive candidate for top 10 schools, right?</p>
<p>You seem like a quite competitive candidate but you are right that an outrageous number of people apply for a very small number of slots. I'm actually a grad student at Chicago in the IR department (masters program) and I know that we get more than 300 applications from which about 20 are admitted. But the website says "The average GRE score for those admitted over the last three years is 661 Verbal, 700 Quantitative, and 5.25 Analytic" so you seem in good shape there. You also have the advantage of work experience which is very much valued here, in my program almost no one is straight out of undergrad and everyone has relevant experience. If you have any questions about Chicago or things you want me to find out I would be happy to do so, I also know a bit about GW because I went to undergrad there and was accepted there grad.</p>
<p>josephine/I'm a 2nd year undergrad student at Chicago. Your program is Committee on International Relations right? Although I'm majoring in econ, my primary academic interest is IR. So I am thinking of applying to joint BA/MA program in IR. What are classes like? Are they open to undergrad students?</p>
<p>Yup, CIR in lovely Pick Hall. It is hard to make an overall generalization about the classes because one of the things I like most about the program is that you have a lot of choice and flexibility to pursue what interests you. There are two required seminars, one on IR theory (right now it's Order and Security). I didn't have a background in theory before I came to Chicago so I have found it a bit challenging but for someone with more background (and your econ. background will help) it would be a different situation. The other required seminar is Int'l Political Economy but you could probably be exempted from that since you've covered the material before. Other than that, you just have to pick courses of a fairly substantial approved list and take at least three courses in each of two fields (out of International Relations Theory, Security, and History; International Political Economy and Development; Regional Studies and Nationalism; and Human Rights, Environment, & International Law). As for classes, CIR doesn't have too many classes of its own, mostly we just take classes in other departments.</p>
<p>fp06,</p>
<p>I think you can work up toward some better programs...that is if you want to go academic. I would say that you should be looking at top 10 to 15 programs, not top 20. Your quant score is VERY good, and your verbal score is more than good enough. It sounds to me like you have a decent plan for what you want to do, and could get some good letters of rec. </p>
<p>If you're interested in IR, look at Harvard, Columbia, Cal, UCLA, Stanford, UCSD, Michigan, Yale, and Princeton. Chicago is also good, lest josephine send a hitman to take me out.</p>
<p>What region are you interested in? Are you serious about the PhD? What are your long-term goals? I tend to believe that PhD programs should be partially valued based on placements of grads. After all, if you want to be a professor, you want to go to a program that's successful at graduating professors.</p>
<p>hey UCLAri
thanks for the feedback...i guess i get a little wary because a) i don't have a degree in polysci or IR, and b) the number of people applying to PhD programs in polysci/IR are insanely high. i know my "numbers" are pretty good, but i suspect i'll be competing against people with the same stats, coupled with degrees in IR. in addition, in dc, tons of people w/ foreign govt. experience apply to georgetown and sais so that makes the competition even tougher. hence why i picked the schools i did...4 in the top 15, 2 in the 20's.
yeah, i definitely want to be a professor, though with my dc background, want to be a policy advisor at some point. but definitely academia. and not just a random prof...i want to be a pretty influential one if possible, so obviously going to a top school would be very beneficial. while the cali schools are excellent (i honestly wonder if i'd ever study if i lived on the left coast, though!), i opted for the northeast. chicago is the furthest west i'm applying, and only because the professors are phenomenal. plus, i figured if i could get into ucsd, berkeley, or stanford, i'd be able to get into columbia, chicago, mit, or georgetown.</p>
<p>fp06,</p>
<p>Trust me...I study. A lot. </p>
<p>I don't know that I'd discount the California schools so quickly. UCSD and Stanford in particular have GREAT placement, and it's always better in my opinion to have more options available.</p>
<p>Do you have any particular area of IR you're interested in? A region? A name?</p>
<p>Don't worry about your lack of a poli sci undergrad degree. It's not that important, especially since you've demonstrated policy experience and interest. Your MA will help mitigate any concerns. </p>
<p>I've found that numbers are less important than experience, writing, LoRs, and your statement of purpose. Besides, I wouldn't really compare the MA application experience to the PhD experience. Don't worry yourself with what the applicants to MA programs are doing. They have NO bearing on what you're doing, really. </p>
<p>Northeast schools are obviously good, but I'd really look into placement. Georgetown's not doing as well as Columbia, and Columbia can't really keep up with Harvard, Princeton, or Yale.</p>
<p>Oh, and MIT and Rochester might not be bad schools to consider.</p>
<p>thanks for the thoughts, UCLAri.
your points on the cali schools are valid, but again, the point comes up that if i could get into ucsd, berkeley, or stanford, i should be able to get into columbia and MIT. i might throw an app to ucla, though. seems to be below top 10 schools, but above top 20.
interests...i want to look at the intersection between coercive policy of dominant powers (specifically the US) and violent political movements arising to counter said coercive policy. so, basically, international security, largely focused on the US and the middle east, kind of following work by pape and mearsheimer at chicago, eland at the independent institute, and walt at ksg.
harvard govt faculty have the opposite views i hold, so no interest in applying there. i might think about princeton, but probably not yale - after 2 years in ann arbor, i realized i need to find top programs in cities for my own sanity.</p>
<p>Chicago is also good, lest josephine send a hitman to take me out.</p>
<p>Nah, no worries, I wouldn't do that, I have plenty of my own issues with my program.</p>
<p>I would not apply to UCLA, they have virtually no IR faculty right now. I would seriously consider Princeton, which is probably hands down the best IR department in the country. I wouldn't apply to Harvard not because you have faculty who don't agree, but because there are very few international security faculty. Also I would be very careful to pigeonhole yourself into one very specific area of study because your interests do change in grad school, so you want to go to the very best one you can, and not one where you specifically go to work with Mearsheimer or Pape. Not to say Chicago isn't a good program, but their program has been going downhill for years.</p>
<p>fp06,</p>
<p>In IR, yeah...UCLA's not top 10. Oh, but some of the comparative and American faculty! :)</p>
<p>I think you'd have no problem getting into UCSD. Want a good word thrown around? ;)</p>
<p>UCLAri and stolper
appreciate the comments - very useful! stolper, yeah, i already know harvard's international security wasn't really that interesting to me, but on top of it, i think some of what i want to do would directly contradict their faculty's research. as for pigeonholing myself, no, definitely don't want to do it. i get somewhat specific in my statement of purpose in terms of what i want to research, but the basic gist is US/dominant powers' foreign policy and resistance/terrorism, which is pretty broad.
UCLAri, as for UCSD - i take it you're in the PhD program at UCSD. are their good profs in the broad field i'm interested in? i wasn't sure looking at their research interests.
as for admissions - you really think i have a decent shot at UCSD and princeton? i thought columbia, chicago, and MIT might be a bit of a reach for me, and i was under the impression that UCSD and princeton were even more competitive. anyway, if so, i'd definitely consider applying - both have deadlines that i can meet and have great reputations.</p>
<p>I think you might have more trouble getting into UCSD than Princeton, although neither is easy. UCSD has a very small and selective program, which fluctuates from year to year. Princeton is getting very selective, but is probably slightly easier to get in than UCSD or Stanford because they usually admit a larger class. As for your chances, a lot will depend on your recs and to a certain extent, your personal statement. Fit is also important. Your GREs are good enough, but your GPA may be a little low, so you will need good recs and PS to compensate for it.</p>
<p>stolper
thanks...i guess one question about GPA i'm wondering is whether they will take into account the major and university. i say this because my anatomy major at a rigorous school for undergrad was the only reason i didn't have a much higher gpa - and actually, it was only my first 2 years, chem and biochem courses killed me. because if they won't consider that and see a 3.35, yeah, that doesn't look that great. of course the 3.8 for my masters is significantly better, but you know, almost nobody comes out of a graduate program w/ a poor gpa.</p>
<p>Yea I think a low GPA in anatomy is not as bad as a low GPA in political science, but its not as good as a high GPA. And like you said, everybody gets a good GPA in graduate school. GPAs aren't that important per se in admissions, but it's an indicator that you can or cannot do well. Committees will want to see proof that you can be successful, something which you really have not demonstrated very well. With that said, GPAs are not that important and your 3.8 at least shows that you can possibly succeed.</p>
<p>true, true...i think i'll focus my time on having a really strong statement of purpose. the letters of rec will all be very strong, so i'm not worried about that. hopefully they see the GRE scores and the high GPA from my masters as better academic indicators.</p>
<p>I'm sure you know this, fp, but it bears repeating. The quality of a PhD program and its success in academic placements is a lot more specific than for undergrad or master's programs. If your specialty is Baltic/Swedish relations, and Prof. Hickelburger is the world's leader on the subject, and chooses to teach at Washington State because she loves grouse hunting -- you should consider WASU, even if the rest of the IR program is nothing special. (Or maybe WASU has six endowed chairs in Swedish/Baltic studies.)</p>
<p>There are certainly large trends, but it really helps to know exactly what you want to do, and exactly what the programs to which you are applying are especially good at. "International Relations and Political Science" is not nearly specific enough to suss this out.</p>
<p>Like I said, you probably already know this...</p>
<p>no, definitely, i've already narrowed down schools based on them having top people in my area of interest. i ended up scratching a lot of highly-reputable places off my list because they just don't have scholars in the type of US foreign policy/international security issues i want to study. i'm not one of those 21 year old kids who sees the us news top 25 and applies based on that!</p>