The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
admission stats to top 5 poli sci phd programs
Poast new message in this thread
Date: October 12th, 2008 11:55 AM Author: shaky fishy lay I've been scouring the nets for admission stats to the top 5 poli sci programs and haven't pulled up anything too amazing. Anybody recommend sites, stats, or pointers that are/would be helpful? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=867885&forum_id=2#10253064) |
 |
Date: October 12th, 2008 1:48 PM Author: laughsome jewess Yes. Don't waste your time on a Poli Sci degree. Get a real degree or just start working already. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=867885&forum_id=2#10253495) |
Date: October 12th, 2008 4:02 PM Author: Lime appetizing rigor pisswyrm 1.) 1450+ GRE. Preferably 750+ Math. 2.) 3.8+ GPA (if from lesser known school, 3.9+) 3.) Clear statement demonstrating grasp of research design. 4.) Letters from well-known/renowned political scientist(s). 5.) "Fit" with department.
6.) Depending on interests, taking multi-calc/linear algebra in advance will help.
If you meet all these, you'll have a good chance with any five programs. If you don't quite meet them, but qualify under a few, you should still apply - you never know, and may still have a good chance. |
|
Date: October 12th, 2008 8:52 PM Author: Maroon gas station can one even overcome a lower GPA (~3.6)? others here have suggested it's auto-ding. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=867885&forum_id=2#10255146) |
|
Date: October 12th, 2008 9:51 PM Author: Walnut Vibrant Base yes yes yes absolutely (esp if its from a respected school)
GREs mean little
GPA does mean a good bit -
but nothing means more than potential to do quality research (which, of course, is best demonstrated by a track record of research.....)
having respected profs go to bat for you can also make gpa/gre even less important |
|
Date: October 13th, 2008 2:48 AM Author: Exhilarant flirting address cumskin Correct (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=867885&forum_id=2#10256385) |
|
Date: October 13th, 2008 1:43 PM Author: Maroon gas station ty.
how important do you think "fit" is? the other guy listed it, and i can obviously see why it would be very important. but what i don't really understand is, what happens to solid candidates that don't fit in at any top program? are they just out of luck? |
|
Date: October 13th, 2008 2:10 PM Author: Walnut Vibrant Base i dont think any top student will find themselves unable to find a department that fits. i think people construe this too narrowly (i cant find a professor at HYPS working on the migration patterns of inner mongolia). Think of your interest area more broadly in terms of methods, theory and substance. Any place that is strong in 2 of 3 would be a good fit. (Ex: a department with good quant/demography methods training, and with folks working in immigration theory/research (tho perhaps in latin america), might still be a great fit for your inner mongolia work). Eh that example kinda fell apart but you know what i mean... (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=867885&forum_id=2#10257316) |
|
Date: October 13th, 2008 2:43 PM Author: Frozen Topaz Garrison Persian any tips on what a good statement of purpose entails? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=867885&forum_id=2#10257439) |
|
Date: October 13th, 2008 2:59 PM Author: Walnut Vibrant Base talk research. give a nod to teaching/the profession. if you have done any significant research go into a little detail about the process. you are trying to prove to them A) you "get" what it means to do pursue a research degree/career of research and B) you have the intellect/curiosity to come up with new ideas and avenues to pursue.
to them technical mastery is nothing if you cant use it to extend knowledge in the field.
|
|
Date: October 13th, 2008 3:54 PM Author: Frozen Topaz Garrison Persian sounds great. how important is it to contact the professors in advance that you'd like to work with? i contacted a few of them, but they haven't responded :( (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=867885&forum_id=2#10257752) |
|
Date: October 13th, 2008 5:00 PM Author: Walnut Vibrant Base i was very sporadic about that...and i didnt notice any patterns in acceptances. i think its very important in the sciences where there is a lab/mentor thing, but less so for the social sciences. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=867885&forum_id=2#10257982) |
|
Date: October 13th, 2008 2:58 PM Author: Maroon gas station i see what you mean. ty again. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=867885&forum_id=2#10257521) |
|
Date: October 13th, 2008 8:23 AM Author: Pea-brained Crotch Why in the world do you need multivariate calculus or linear algebra for political science? I can't imagine there ever being a need for anything more than multiple linear regression. Is this a result of the trend of the social sciences trying to emulate economics' success by using more quantitative methods? Even the success of quantitative research in economics is doubted. It's kind of retarded to think that you'd need anything more than statistics in political science. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=867885&forum_id=2#10256607) |
|
Date: October 13th, 2008 9:13 AM Author: Exhilarant flirting address cumskin Linear Alg and multivariate calc were both covered in our math review course before the start of the program. Yes, trend is more quant in poli sci, and it's sort of a losing battle to fight it (ie, hard to get a job if lacking the quant). (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=867885&forum_id=2#10256631) |
|
Date: October 13th, 2008 3:54 PM Author: Heady Bipolar Rehab Quant is big in some programs now. yes, because the other social sciences were extremely gay and limp-wristed, however there is always good applications and poor applications. I think it is hard to doubt the effects that quant has had in econ, the problem, as always, is people use it for evil.. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=867885&forum_id=2#10257754) |
|
Date: October 13th, 2008 7:46 PM Author: Pea-brained Crotch While economics has been criticized for trying to emulate the physical sciences by relying heavily on advanced mathematics, it at least makes sense for fields such as financial economics, monetary theory, etc. I think some of the criticims of its over-reliance on quantitative methods in areas such as game theory and econometrics are valid, although any economist worth his salt will admit that mathematical models are oversimplifications of real world events and used best to test theory.
However, I can't for the life of me imagine how political science could benefit from multivariable calculus, linear algebra, and game theory. I'm sure multivariate statistics are crucial up to a point--though I can't see political scientists developing models like in econometrics--but it doesn't seem like you can successfully quantify that field of study. Maybe I'm just ignorant on the subject, but it seems like the other social sciences' inferiority complex is driving them to try and duplicate economics' success haphazardly. |
|
Date: October 14th, 2008 1:04 AM Author: Comical center Subject: as a poli sci major they are inferior in the sense that they dont provide you the 'lens' to see the world.
sociology, political science, communication and other 'social' studies majors get to learn their stuff by reading the literature of the discipline. thats all good in the sense that it provides the students the knowledge of the world, but it seldom provides them with a concrete 'lens' to analyze the world unlike economics. the result, students often use their gained 'knowledge' to propagate their 'reasoning' which are usually biased, leading to crappy incoherent arguments.
any decent economics major would be able to see the world through the lens of economics, that is not true for sociology, or political science majors. i my self found intermediate microeconomics more helpful than any other poli sci courses in understanding politics as it is in the real world... it provides a tool that greatly helps in analyzing politics. this is something that other social science - or social 'literature' as i like to call them - can not and does not provide.
other social sciences' inferiority complex is understandable, and their effort to strengthen their rigor may initially seem haphazard to some, but it is the right thing to do for the future of the discipline in the long term. |
|
Date: October 14th, 2008 4:48 AM Author: Pea-brained Crotch "other social sciences' inferiority complex is understandable, and their effort to strengthen their rigor may initially seem haphazard to some, but it is the right thing to do for the future of the discipline in the long term."
Forcing math into the subject is not necessarily a wise thing. Most fields of mathematics were developed for the physical sciences or for pure math's sake, not for studying human behavior. Economics is criticized by many philosophers and scientists for trying to make human behavior seem Newtonian in the sense that it can be explained through mathematical analysis and that there exists some natural equilibrium. Some argue that economic theory is not falsifiable. That is whey there has been a surge in subfields like behavioral and experimental economics lately. Whether or not these will ever be a serious challenge to neoclassical economics still up in the air, but it is unlikely so far since mathematics has become so entrenched in the field.
Although the use of mathematics makes more sense in economics when it comes to things like finance, output, capital (it is arguable for things like utility, etc.), but I don't see how political science can quantify it's field of study successfully without encroaching on what economics already covers. Like I said, I can understand the use of multivariate statistical analysis and believe that social science graduate students should learn it, but I don't understand why they need multivariate calculus and linear algebra; they ought to become statisticians if they are so concerned with quantitative methods. |
|
Date: October 14th, 2008 6:19 AM Author: Exhilarant flirting address cumskin you've gotten all serious on me, sailor (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=867885&forum_id=2#10259869) |
|
Date: October 14th, 2008 1:57 PM Author: Pea-brained Crotch Eh, it's just really from being at LSE and attending all these "Is 'Social Science' Really Science?" lectures and what not. I've got more to say about the social sciences now than I ever thought I would. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=867885&forum_id=2#10260560) |
|
Date: October 15th, 2008 2:06 AM Author: Exhilarant flirting address cumskin Is it science?` (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=867885&forum_id=2#10263041) |
|
Date: October 18th, 2008 3:40 PM Author: Pea-brained Crotch The debate hasn't been settled yet ;)
But, of course, its being a social science institute, the faculty at LSE have a lot interesting insights on the future of social science in general. They also acknowledge the critics as well.
My favorite talk was actually one given by George Soros. He came to talk about the credit crunch, but he went on to critique economics and said that its theories are not falsifiable. He majored in philosophy, so it was interesting to hear his perspective.
I'm sure you could find the podcast of his talk on the LSE website if you wanted to hear it. |
|
Date: October 14th, 2008 3:18 AM Author: Unholy chrome therapy "but it seems like the other social sciences' inferiority complex is driving them to try and duplicate economics' success haphazardly."
bingo. |
|
Date: October 14th, 2008 12:10 PM Author: Lime appetizing rigor pisswyrm Empirical social science only helps us to better understand the world if it is conducted through the use of testable hypotheses. If our inquiries aren't structured in some such replicable way, then what have we really shown? Formalization disciplines our reasoning (see, for instance, the literature on credible commitment), econometrics done right can help make us accountable for our claims. That's a huge oversimplification, but I think it cuts to the heart of the matter. These are tools for the (potential) advancement of our understanding of political relationships.
The methods of the '70's (i.e. developing qualitative distinctions out of thin air or constructing theories of ideal types) gave us theories that weren't testable and were "non-standard" in that engaging with such claims involves adopting the author's own vocabulary/typologies/etc.
Nobody in this thread has said that you need multi-calc or linear algebra to succeed. I only suggested that, depending on your interests (particularly if you're going into AP or methods) it would make you a more attractive candidate if you have it. |
|
Date: October 14th, 2008 2:11 PM Author: Pea-brained Crotch The social sciences can rarely be empirical. One can't create a controlled experiment with a national economy or a government. For things like experimental or behavioural economics studies in labs, they borrow most of their methodology from psychology--cognitive, social, etc. Neuroeconomics is a completely different beast all together. Econometrics isn't concerned with observations from controlled experiments--it attempts to find relationships between naturally observed data and one can manipulate analyses pretty easily.
The funny thing is that a lot of the major theories of economics have been derived intuitively. Some economists and mathematicians may have supported them through mathematical modelling, but not without criticism.
I know that. I was responding to a trend I've seen social sciences trying to emulate economics' success. I think the rush to incorporate more mathematics in order to make their fields seem more rigorous misses the point, especially since the success of mathematics in economics is often drawn into question. Like I said, multivariate statistics should be a course required for any social science graduate student, but going into pure maths for social sciences seems like a bit much at this point. |
|
Date: October 15th, 2008 8:50 AM Author: Massive Canary Institution Voyeur You can't imagine how political science could benefit from game theory?? There's a pretty sizable body of poli sci lit that uses game theory to model strategic situations, both explaining and predicting policy decisions. Check out bueno de mesquita's record of predicting political developments with game theory models. it's impressive.
Of course, game theory in political science is far less technical than in economics, but it's undeniably useful. |
|
Date: October 15th, 2008 12:58 PM Author: Pea-brained Crotch I am aware of the applications of game theory to political science. I never took a game theory course, but from what I taught myself and the arguments I've read against game theory, it's hardly scientific. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=867885&forum_id=2#10263962) |
|
Date: October 15th, 2008 1:32 PM Author: Lime appetizing rigor pisswyrm A lot of this is jumping right past the issue of what is actually being studied in political science and the methods employed in the various subfields. Regardless, you have a distorted idea of what constitutes science. Improving understanding through statistical testing of observable implications raised by provisional hypotheses about political behavior (producing probabilistic results) is getting there, if you ask me. The fact that the standard errors are larger than when testing natural/physical phenomena is more than a little beside the point.
An aside: your comments re: game theory show a lack of understanding. Game theory is not a science, it's a tool by which to model the interactions of rational actors on the basis of parameterized assumptions about human motivations and "payoffs". There's nothing "scientific" about it in practice (though it is used in the sciences) - it's pure applied math. Furthermore, it's not something you can "argue against" as a mathematical method. You can argue against its use in certain contexts or against the assumptions employed in a particular model, but my experience has been that those who do employ it in their research are well aware of the fact that we live in a probabilistic universe, and that not all individuals behave rationally in the sense asserted by any given model.
|
|
Date: October 17th, 2008 4:14 PM Author: Pea-brained Crotch "Regardless, you have a distorted idea of what constitutes science. Improving understanding through statistical testing of observable implications raised by provisional hypotheses about political behavior (producing probabilistic results) is getting there, if you ask me."
This is going into the whole debate of whether or not the social sciences can truly be considered science. If we're talking about the ability to produce empirical experiments that yield findings that can be replicated, then the social sciences cannot do that with great success. Any studies in the social sciences that have tried to mirror the natural sciences' empirical success have utilized laboratory methods from psychology, neuroscience, etc.
"Furthermore, it's not something you can "argue against" as a mathematical method. You can argue against its use in certain contexts or against the assumptions employed in a particular model"
That's what I was bringing up, not arguing against it as a mathematical method. Sorry I didn't expand on that or specify its application to economics and political science. |
|
Date: October 17th, 2008 7:47 PM Author: Comical center Subject: social science and social literature But then if 'social science' is not striving to become science regardless of the difficulties, why are they calling themselves 'social science' instead of 'social literature', 'social studies', or 'social commentary'??
It always bothered me while studying political science that some profs essentially thought it was more of an art than science and yet called themselves political scientists... I feel that if they were to use 'science' to describe their discipline they should at least have decency to 'try' emulate science(science) as best as they could regardless of the difficulties. Maybe semantics dont really matter, but I personally feel they do.
For those who want to study poli sci at grad level, get an econ ba rather than poli sci ba. Poli sci ba is only better for law school, as its easier to get higher grades. |
|
Date: October 17th, 2008 10:12 PM Author: Pea-brained Crotch You ought to read some philosophy of science/social science literature. It's interesting stuff. There's still debates on the natural sciences, too.
I wouldn't be bothered by your professors' comments. Hell, a lot of theoretical mathematicians will claim what they do is more of an art. Besides, he is right in that political science had largely been considered an art until recently.
I think there has been a bit of rash trend to make the social sciences appear more rigorous by adding more and more quantitative analysis in order to emulate economics' dominance. It's perfectly demonstrated on this board by the number of people who blow their loads over quantitative content; unless you aim to be a statistician or theoretical economist/econometrician, I don't think you shouldn worry about advanced math/statistics all that much.
I think that if academics in the social sciences really want their work to be seen as scientific, they ought to look at the empirical work being done in neuroeconomics, and experimental and behavioural economics. But of course the latter two draw in the question how scientific psychology is. |
|
Date: October 14th, 2008 8:35 AM Author: chestnut free-loading factory reset button Subject: what I don't quite get about the math... is the gap btw the undergraduate and graduate curricula in poli sci.
I graduated from a top 25 liberal arts college and the poli sci program required a basic stats course (mostly focused on t tests instead of regression analysis) and a methods course, which had even more basic math. This was the norm among 95% of poli sci majors that didn't double major in econ.
Never did my professors--who would really like me to study for a PhD--advise me to take calculus, much less linear algebra, etc for PhD admissions. I got the award for best thesis in the dept, have something like a 3.95 GPA in major, and could probably get a 1500 on the GRE.
I don't mind math at all--I'm pretty sure I could learn it, believe it has really explanatory power for poli sci, and have interests in areas that def. require math (public policy, pol. psychology, comp. political institutions)--but do I have to learn it before I apply? Tim Smith said they covered linear algebra in his math review, which I assume means they expected you to have a background in it. Or do they teach it to you? |
|
Date: October 14th, 2008 9:02 AM Author: Exhilarant flirting address cumskin They teach it. Don't worry, it's not like the theory types were a bunch of quants. They don't expect you to have had linear algebra or multivariate calc, although some calc would certainly be nice. I think math helps in admissions and job prospects, but it's not required. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=867885&forum_id=2#10259922) |
|
Date: October 14th, 2008 11:29 AM Author: chestnut free-loading factory reset button understood except for the mention of "theory types"--I want to do comparative politics/political psych, so pretty empirical work, and normative political theory bores me (Rawls, Plato, etc.).
If I make clear that I want to do comparative politics (the type that I know is going to involve a lot of regression analysis) in my statement, I'd still be fine just having taken a calc course before I apply? |
|
Date: October 15th, 2008 2:06 AM Author: Exhilarant flirting address cumskin I had 1 year of calc and got into a top 10 econ PhD, and I don't think it hindered me in my poli sci admissions. You should be fine with that, especially if you have taken some econ/stats as well. Acing the Q on the GRE will also help. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=867885&forum_id=2#10263040) |
|
Date: October 15th, 2008 8:47 AM Author: chestnut free-loading factory reset button sweet. thanks man. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=867885&forum_id=2#10263345) |
|
Date: October 17th, 2008 10:17 PM Author: Pea-brained Crotch Did you apply to both programs at the same time? What prompted you to choose poli sci over economics?
I'm just curious. I don't plan on going the Ph.D. route right now. |
|
Date: October 14th, 2008 12:43 PM Author: laughsome jewess Poli Science is a soft major. Naturally you guys have 3.95 majoring in such bull. Economics is a real degree. One where you actually have to think and do upper level math. You can not compare GPAs from Poli Sci majors to that of Econ majors. A poli sci major with a 4.0 = Econ major with a 3.3.
Grow some balls and major in something real, or get a job already. |
|
Date: October 14th, 2008 1:55 PM Author: Pea-brained Crotch Maybe it's just me, but I don't feel like I learned anything of use from my Economics degree other than statistics/econometrics (and only the applied stuff for econometrics). I just did it for the job options. I think it is a good degree to have, but one shouldn't go into it expecting to learn anything applicable. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=867885&forum_id=2#10260556) |
|
Date: October 15th, 2008 2:40 AM Author: Exhilarant flirting address cumskin It's a good background to have and infinitely more useful on the job than poli sci. It depends on what you do, but I've used econometrics at work, for example. Knowing macro and micro might not be directly applicable, but without this background my output would be worse now, methinks. Certainly in terms of analytical skills, econ is far better than poli sci. Econ is better for anything quantitative, while poli sci helps with the argumentation/language/b.s. skills. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=867885&forum_id=2#10263079) |
|
Date: October 15th, 2008 1:02 PM Author: Pea-brained Crotch I suck at econometrics/statistics and I hope I never have to use it for a job--even though I took two advanced statistics units for my master's and used statistics in my dissertation. LOL. I'll admit that math isn't my strongest area, but I prefer pure math over statistics any day. The logic of statistics is often lost on me.
I agree that economics is still a good degree to have for jobs. It is automatically equated with a business/finance degree and employers can be fairly confident of your analytical/quantitative skills. I'm glad I studied it, but I don't think people should expect that it's going to teach them very many applicable skills other than being a researcher. |
|
Date: October 15th, 2008 3:43 AM Author: White Self-absorbed Forum Tank The unfortunate thing about economics is until you hit graduate school it gives you no real skills. Only when you (or your computer) can really start to solve / approximate key equations does it get powerful. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=867885&forum_id=2#10263181) |
|
Date: October 15th, 2008 1:03 PM Author: Pea-brained Crotch This is true. Most economics majors probably couldn't cut it in graduate school. Economics is one of the few fields I can think of where a bachelor's doesn't really prepare one for Ph.D. studies. Any time I've met an economics undergraduate who is considering a Ph.D., I've encouraged him to switch to a math major or to load up on math/statistics courses. But you never know--a Ph.D. student who led one of my economics seminars in undergrad had a BA in political science and never did a master's in econ/math/statistics. He's now an associate professor at one of the top business schools. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=867885&forum_id=2#10263974) |
|
Date: October 15th, 2008 2:42 AM Author: Exhilarant flirting address cumskin Econ is much harder, that's for sure, especially true at the graduate level. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=867885&forum_id=2#10263082) |
|
Date: October 17th, 2008 3:10 PM Author: Frozen Topaz Garrison Persian How important are the writing samples? I think I'm a strong candidate as a whole, but I don't have any stellar writing samples; for schools that list this component as "optional", would it be damaging if I didn't submit a sample? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=867885&forum_id=2#10271660) |
|
Date: October 18th, 2008 11:59 AM Author: Maroon gas station you have no stellar writing samples and you want to do a PhD? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=867885&forum_id=2#10273842) |
|
Date: October 18th, 2008 2:34 PM Author: Frozen Topaz Garrison Persian No, i have writing samples. Though whether the quality of my samples is "stellar" and somehow determinative of my desire to do a PhD is questionable, though it could just be me preferring to remain modest about my candidacy, particularly given the number of other exemplary applicants vying for admission into the same programs. Thanks for your feedback though. Good luck with the application process. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=867885&forum_id=2#10274045) |