OK, in Episode I, your humble blogger talked about what undergraduates should and should not do to get into a quality Ph.D. program in political science.  In this exciting sequel, the natural question to ask is, "what if I'm not an undergraduate?" 

To explain the advice I'm about to give, however, let me begin with a small parable.  Consider two applicants, Johnny Undergrad and Jenny Postgrad.  By a strange coincidence, Johnny and Jenny matriculated at the same undergraduate institution, received identical grades during their time as undergraduates, and both wrote fine theses.  They both followed the guidance provided in my dos and don'ts post to the letter.  The only difference is that Jenny is four years out of college, while Johnny is not.  The latter, a senior, is now applying to grad programs.  So is Jenny, but she's spent the past four years earning some coin and collecting some very relevant work experience for an important government/multinational corporation/NGO/think tank organization.  

Now, you would think, ceteris paribus, that Jenny would have the stronger application for a Ph.D. admissions committee - she's more mature, more seasoned, and possesses an identical academic record.  But you would likely be wrong. 

See, Johnny has been in more recent contact with his undergrad professors.  Since their memory of Johnny is likely stronger than Jenny, their letters of recommendation will be less bland and boilerplate.  Johnny hasn't signaled that callings other than being a professor might tempt him, since he applied straight out of undergrad.  Johnny's grades are an accurate reflection of his abilities, whereas Jenny's academic skills atrophy with every year out of the ivory tower (pro tip:  if you don't know what ceteris paribus means, you're in trouble).  Any thesis that Johnny has written is more up-to date. 

This is the challenge you face if you are a post-baccalaureate applicant - and with each year further away from your graduation date, these problems get worse.  So, if you want to be admitted, Jenny's goal should be to do everything possible to her file resemble something that blows Johnny out of the water.  How does she do that?  Here are five useful tips: 

1.  Reconnect with your professors. You need to have strong letters of recommendation, and almost all of those letters should come from people inside the academy. Fair or not, admissions committees will discount letters from people who themselves do not have a Ph.D.. If you're thinking of applying to a Ph.D. program, start by making sure the profs who you worked closely with as an undergraduate have a sharp memory of you. Remind them of what you were interested in as an undergrad and update them on what's your interests are now. If you've collaborated with academics during your post-bac jobs, make sure they write you a letter. You will need one recommendation from your supervisor/boss even if they don't have a Ph.D. - but make damn sure that, besides praising your overall competence and maturity, they talk about your burning desire to go back to the academy.

2.  Ace your GREs.  The GREs are a good first approximation of whether you have the intellectual chops to cut it in a doctoral program.  If you've been out of school for a while, they might count a bit more, because there is that question of whether you're really ready to go back to school.  An outstanding GRE score will not automatically get you admitted, but it can allay any fears about your abilities to earn a Ph.D.

3.  Craft your personal statement with care.  You have a more interesting tale to tell than undergraduate applicants, because you're like, older and stuff.  That said, the statement also needs to signal an admissions committee that you know exactly what you are getting yourself into, and are eager for the challenge.  Sure, you can talk about how your research interests are born out of your real-world experience, but make sure you also phrase your research interests in the context of the relevant literature.  Again, this signals to an admissions committee that you know your interests from multiple perspectives.  Furthermore, as a twentysomething, you have the luxury of reading up on the relevant academic literature and not being intimidated by big words like when you were 18 years old.  Use that intellectual maturity to your advantage in your statement!! 

4.  Publish, publish, publish!  You know that phrase "publish or perish?"  It's not just for professors anymore.  Demonstrating an ability to publish - even if the publication is not a peer-reviewed academic journal - is a signal to an admissions committee that you understand what you're getting yourself into.  Publishing in a policy journal, or a think tank report, can count for something - particularly if it's a sustained piece of research.  So, if your job requires you to write, try to get that writing into the public domain. 

5.  Get a master's degree.  OK, let's say that your undergraduate performance was... less than stellar.  Or, it's been a long time (more than five years) since you were in college.  These are the situations when getting either a professional or terminal master's degree makes some sense -and a two-year program is a better option than a one-year program.  If you know you want to get a Ph.D., then make sure you indicate that fact to the professors closest to your area of interest at the outset, take their courses, and have them supervise your thesis.  Oh, and write a sharp M.A. thesis and think about getting it published.  Strong letters from professors indicating that you did well in graduate school are the ultimate trump card, and are the one way that Jenny's application packet can blow Johnny's out of the water.  With a good M.A. degree, Jenny can ensure that she is a better, stronger, faster version of Johnny. 

Now, I'm still a bit reluctant to proffer this last recommendation, for a few reasons.  First, a terminal master's ain't cheap.  This means accruing a decent amount of debt and then going to graduate school for a few more years and then, if you're lucky, getting a job that won't help all that much in paying down your debt.  Second, this approach takes at least two years to execute.  You can't apply to a Ph.D. program in your first year of an M.A. program, because applications need to be in by January and your master's program profs won't know you well enough to draft good letters (that's why a two-year program is superior).  Furthermore, as crazy as this sounds, for most Ph.D. programs, your M.A. coursework won't count - you'll often need to do a certain number of course requirements (it does help intellectually, however).  And with all of this, there's still no guarantee you get accepted. 

All that said, however, if you really want the Ph.D. and you're well out of college, this is the best gambit.  A strong performance in an M.A. program - professional or not - is the best signal to a Ph.D. admissions committee that you can cut it in a doctoral program.  Oh, and one last point:  as a risk-averse strategy, choose an M.A. program at a Ph.D.-granting institution, so you can always try to complete your doctorate in your home institution. 

 

BRETT

2:30 PM ET

March 23, 2012

Uh-Oh

I think that may have erased most of my interest in going for a PhD several years after my undergrad graduation.

 

MILPROF

2:56 PM ET

March 23, 2012

Another tip: apply to the right programs

Generally good points from Dan. I'm especially with him on the last point, a terminal M.A. It can help a lot in resetting the academic clock, as Dan notes, but also as he notes, that's a heck of a lot of money and time just to make your file look better!

One thing I'd add: apply to the right programs

PhD programs vary in how receptive they are to students with some work experience. For example, back when I attended my own program (one of the top 20 by every ranking), their median 1st year had been out of school a couple of years. About half of my cohort had relevant work experience, though usually not many years. The sense of our faculty (though not universally so) was that students fresh out of college were less likely to really know why they wanted a PhD and what topics they wanted to study.

On the other hand, I know the same Harvard PhD cohorts were almost 100% straight out of college. They had more 21 year olds who'd skipped a grade somewhere than 23 year olds who'd taken a year off. Even those who'd delayed a year were more likely to have been off on a Watson fellowship or something than to have work experience.

Those differences aren't easy to deduce just from admissions literature, so do research. Check out gradcafe or whatever forums you can find to get the scoop on programs. Unless you plan to send out 20 or 40 apps, it would make sense to target some schools that are more accepting of people over age 22.

 

MILPROF

3:12 PM ET

March 23, 2012

more...

I should add that there is a correlation between where a program tends to send its grads, and how they feel about time working in admissions. Programs that are more policy-oriented and send a fair number of grads to think tanks and govt jobs tend to be less focussed on fresh B.A.s, the reverse for those aimed strictly at academia.

So if you've spent five years as a flunkie on the Hill or as a research assistant at RAND, and want to get a PhD so you can stay in DC but in a better govt or think tank job, you'll find some PhD programs that are willing to take you in and give you that kind of education (including good programs like Georgetown or MIT). If you're a 30 year old corporate manager who now wants to become a professor teaching postmodern IR theory, the schools that would best prepare you for that will often the ones most likely to look negatively on your 8 year forray into the dull and dirty world of commerce.

 

SAINTIGEL

7:05 PM ET

March 28, 2012

Replying to "more"

As an almost 30 year old manager with just a BA, what programs would you recommend so that I could teach IR?

 

UBOAT53

4:08 PM ET

March 23, 2012

An interesting bias

As an engineer who is currently trying to get into grad school for astrophysics, I can testify to the odd focus the academy has.

The simple fact is that every engineering professor I had in college with industry experience was better than the ones without. Every one.

The fact is that, especially if you teach engineers or scientists, the majority of your students will be headed to the private sector. That was the motivation for me to get out and get a "real" job before returning to grad school.

One thing I can say is that I have done far more actual research in my time in the private sector than I ever did in my college days (even in the summers I spent as an actual research assistant). In college, most "research" projects are simply rehashing research that someone else has done. In industry, my research projects have actually been cutting new ground.

It's sad to see the blinkers that academia blinds itself with in respect to the private sector, but it just makes me more committed to getting in there and changing it. Not just for myself, but for every potential student who doesn't have the "perfect" academic record.

 

BLUE13326

12:34 PM ET

March 25, 2012

It was the same in law

It was the same in law school; prof who had or had had thriving practices outside academia were always the best profs.

 

DANIELJ315

7:45 PM ET

March 23, 2012

I had to google ceteris

I had to google ceteris paribus.. guess that's my chances blown.

 

FPLESER

9:14 PM ET

March 23, 2012

Non-Academic Job Market Conditions?

I've found this group of articles and the associated comments very helpful.

Given how bad the academic job market is, I'd be interested in any thoughts Dan or other readers might have about the non-academic job market for IR/comparative politics-type work for those with PhDs, e.g., with think tanks/government/similar organizations or institutions. Is the job market for positions like that significantly less unfavorable than the tenure-track academic one? Does this depend on one's particular area/focus of study in a PhD program (mine would be China)? Thanks!

 

KLULA

7:38 AM ET

March 25, 2012

Another Apocalyptic Scenerio?

Regarding point #5: I am a PhD candidate in global affairs, close to finishing. Is it ever worth it to try to do everything all over and apply to a second PhD program? Based on the information that is emerging in various forms of media, I realize that the job prospects are uncertain and this strategy carries a huge risk. From a purely economic standpoint it is a bad idea. On the other hand, my goal is to find a tenure-track academic position and the chances are slim unless my program is in one of the top schools. Should I pursue my ambitions with enthusiasm or consider my education a sunk cost? Quixotism or commitment to the field? You decide.

 

Daniel W. Drezner is professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University.

Read More