next »

[attorneycjones]

I know topics like this were addressed here several years ago but I'm looking to get maybe some opinions and perspectives as well.  I have been practicing law for six years and am now in the process of applying for Ph.D. studies in Political Science.  (I have also thought about maybe pursuing a MA/PHD progression in theology, as most of my scholarly interest is in the realm of law and religion.)

How well do you think admissions committees are apt to look upon someone who has been out of school for 6 years and practicing?  I have done a few cases before the state Supreme Court, so I think that experience should weigh in my favour, but of course that is six years outside of a classroom.  I have taught as an adjunct (in Business Law) for a technical college, but that is the only teaching experience.  

As far as my credentials, my total undergraduate GPA (two years at a community college and the other two at a university that hovers around the top 100 mark) is 3.37 and my law school GPA from a top-30 law school was just slightly under 3.0.  GRE scores are not officially reported yet, but my range on the verbal section was 750-800 and my range on the quantitative was 700-800 (old scale of course).  One of my letters of recommendation is from the professor who supervised my JD thesis - a former law clerk for a U.S. Supreme Court Justice.  

(That brings up another question - would an admissions panel look favourably upon letters of recommendation from judges or attorneys I have practiced with/against, in addition to the letter from the professor?  I know that law practice is worlds apart from academia; but on the other hand, I'm sure some committees may be wrongly thinking "He wasn't a good lawyer so he quit and wants to study" and a letter from a fellow practitioner may eliminate that potential question.)

My final question is, given all of the above, what range of schools do you think I should be looking at?  I probably would not be top-10 material even with a perfect GRE score, but Emory (ranked 30th in my program) has a Constitutional Law subfield I am really intrigued about.  Do you think that is aiming too high, or low, or just right?  

Just trying to get some perspective here, thanks very much!

[gekko]

Most grad programs are a LOT more arbitrary in their admissions criteria than Law Schools. A lot of grad programs don't even make public gre/gpa and placement in anything other than anecdotal terms so it's not unusual at all to get into "top program" and denied by "mediocre program." Someone applying to law school pretty much knows his range. Top thirty may be doable, toward the top twenty a stretch, but top three are definite wastes of time. Since graduate programs are more concerned with people who have their own interests, objective qualifications are far less important. Bottom line is you may as well apply wherever you'd like to go and see what happens. Regarding the view of your experience, a lot of academics are haters. I have an ex who did what you're trying to do and even though her field was directly related to law, there are going to be people with snide opinions who will denigrate any credential they themselves don't have. The flip side of this is that departments with members who are also attorneys will see it as a plus.

[betterslac]

1) Your experience as a lawyer might be a positive if you spin it correctly (experience reading and interpreting important cases that touch on constitutional issues; experience with the judicial system) while, simultaneously, indicating that you understand the difference between a graduate program in political science and law school. I know several people who did law school in parallel with graduate school. But just having argued cases before a state supreme court, (while better than having only dealt with traffic cases) won't make up for other problems.

2) Your GRE scores are good, but your UG and law school gpas are marginal. In particular, you must overcome your performance in law school, which makes it appear that while you have the aptitude for graduate studies, something doesn't click when you are actually in that setting.

3) Not only no, but hell no to letters from lawyers and judges. They know nothing about graduate school, and testimony that you are a good lawyer and a good ol boy won't help. You need letters from UG and law school professors that can attest to your academic potential.

4) You need a first rate statement of purpose and writing sample (one that is NOT a legal brief, but a piece of scholarly writing). Why do you want to go to graduate school? What areas of research interest you? What methodologies would you want to employ? What scholars influence your understanding of your preferred research area? With whom do you wish to study?

5) Given the state of the job market, you need to go to the highest ranking program possible and to position yourself so that you are marketable. Emory is meh. Apply to a range of places, but make sure you would actually want to attend the places to which you apply. Don't go if you have to pay to go.

6) You need to put together several subfields that would help you on the market. American will always be in demand, but comparative might also be a possibility (comparative judicial politics might be an interesting way into the market).

7) Picking up on the last point, why would you want to go this route now?  The market is not good at all. Most of the hiring I have seen this year is for IR/Comparative. Not much in any other subfields and very little for judicial politics/Con law. If you are doing this because you think the job prospects are better in academia than law, think again. If you have a burning desire to be an academic, why now and not before? You need to think through this carefully. Do you want to give up income for 5-8 years to get a degree that might not land you a job? Given your grades, do you really like the kind of work that an academic does? If you enjoy teaching, why not keep you day job and continue to adjunct?

[attorneycjones]

That's a great question, one that I'm sure an admissions committee will ask.  I just do not like the practice of law; while I'm successful at it, it does wear one down pretty quickly.  Nobody goes to see a lawyer because they're happy about something - 99% of the time something cataclysmically bad (in their perspective) has happened to them.  They're going bankrupt, getting divorced, got arrested, got convicted and need to appeal, lost their job, been sued, etc.  And even if the lawyer is successful, the client leaves the office still miserable to some degree.  (You can get someone the house and kids and all the money in a divorce, but they're still dealing with the emotional pain and often stigma associated with a divorce; you can have all of someone's debts discharged in bankruptcy, but they're still poor and have to deal at least internally with the shame of having experienced what society often views as the ultimate failure, just to name a few examples.)

I think I will be able to spin my less than ideal law school GPA (which put me at about the middle of the class, and the folks at the top of the class are now clerking for U.S. Supreme Court Justices), in that most of my poor grades were in courses dealing with those more practical aspects of lawyering that have little meaning in the scholarly setting.  For instance, while I earned an A- in Constitutional Law, my C- was in Document Drafting (essentially, how to write a will, how to write a contract, etc.) 

I'm trying to get an idea of the range I need to be looking in; obviously I am not going to waste Harvard's time but as you observed I don't want to sell myself too short and end up with an unimpressive doctorate. 

 

[betterslac]

That's a great question, one that I'm sure an admissions committee will ask.  I just do not like the practice of law; while I'm successful at it, it does wear one down pretty quickly.  Nobody goes to see a lawyer because they're happy about something - 99% of the time something cataclysmically bad (in their perspective) has happened to them.  They're going bankrupt, getting divorced, got arrested, got convicted and need to appeal, lost their job, been sued, etc.  And even if the lawyer is successful, the client leaves the office still miserable to some degree.  (You can get someone the house and kids and all the money in a divorce, but they're still dealing with the emotional pain and often stigma associated with a divorce; you can have all of someone's debts discharged in bankruptcy, but they're still poor and have to deal at least internally with the shame of having experienced what society often views as the ultimate failure, just to name a few examples.)

That's understandable and explains why you don't want to keep your day job, but you shouldn't put that justification in your application. You need positive reasons why you want to enter a program that have to do with your desire to conduct research and teach and your deep interest in a field of inquiry.

I think I will be able to spin my less than ideal law school GPA (which put me at about the middle of the class, and the folks at the top of the class are now clerking for U.S. Supreme Court Justices), in that most of my poor grades were in courses dealing with those more practical aspects of lawyering that have little meaning in the scholarly setting.  For instance, while I earned an A- in Constitutional Law, my C- was in Document Drafting (essentially, how to write a will, how to write a contract, etc.) 

You can give it a shot, or better have your recommenders do it. You are going to need very strong letters and, as I noted, a strong statement of purpose.

I'm trying to get an idea of the range I need to be looking in; obviously I am not going to waste Harvard's time but as you observed I don't want to sell myself too short and end up with an unimpressive doctorate. 

Try at least one top ten program-- you might click with someone there and your GRE scores are strong. Try to think of other things that might make you stand out
 

[attorneycjones]

Here's one more question if you don't mind me continuing to draw on your experiences.  Do you think that a controversial area of scholarship would be a plus or a minus?  On one hand it shows intellectual courage (which is one of the underlying reasons for the entire tenure system in the first place); but on the other hand, controversy does tend to make enemies. 

For instance, I was president of my Right to Life chapter for a few years, and the ladies there commented to me that I was the only male in the group, which of course got us all to musing about why abortion is viewed as a "women's issue" in the political arena, which could easily lend itself to a political science paper on male political participation.  Something like that I'm sure has never really been explored in that way, but you can see how it would be controversial. 

So intellectual courage versus not making enemies - whats your pick?

[betterslac]

Here's one more question if you don't mind me continuing to draw on your experiences.  Do you think that a controversial area of scholarship would be a plus or a minus?  On one hand it shows intellectual courage (which is one of the underlying reasons for the entire tenure system in the first place); but on the other hand, controversy does tend to make enemies. 

For instance, I was president of my Right to Life chapter for a few years, and the ladies there commented to me that I was the only male in the group, which of course got us all to musing about why abortion is viewed as a "women's issue" in the political arena, which could easily lend itself to a political science paper on male political participation.  Something like that I'm sure has never really been explored in that way, but you can see how it would be controversial. 

So intellectual courage versus not making enemies - whats your pick?

Several things here:

The dichotomy you put forward is in fact more nuanced than your formulation.

In general, you want to describe your research interest as topical and interesting rather than boring and mundane. But you also don't want that description to come out as the obsession of a crank or the focus of a one-trick pony. So much of it comes down to framing, terminology and the ability to discuss relevant and convincing research.

This is particularly tricky in political science because a) while we are scholars and (in some definitions) scientists, everything we deal with is transparently political and therefore has immediate political ramifications and b)most of the recent interesting and groundbreaking research on topics such as gender has had progressive ramifications.

So: "I am interested in the participation of a gender in organizations that are generally identified with the opposite gender" followed by discussions of interesting research-- ok, in part because it opens the way for thinking about the dynamics of either gender in terms of participation in particular groups. Likewise "I wish to explore the gendering of political issues". You can go many ways with this and the implications could fall an all sides of political divides, and can engage with current research.

In contrast: "I'm interested in exploring why feminists have appropriated abortion as a 'female' issue", followed by discussions of publications put out by the Eagle Forum --comes across as cranky, likely to ignore recent research, unlikely to generate new and interesting results with regard to gender in politics.

So the problem isn't controversy, or conservative issues as a proxy for controversy, or courage. The problem is in framing research interests and topics, whether they have progressive or conservative implications, in ways that are capable of engaging meaningfully with current scholarship in the discipline. Unfortunately, many students don't create such frames, and many students who are motivated to explore topics of interest to conservatives do not want to engage with current scholarship, perceiving that it is politically biased. Don't fall into that trap. There are good, interesting and influential conservative scholars in the academy (pace Horowitz) and they are there because they produce interesting research that engages with other scholarship.

Finally, with regard to the topic you mentioned:
a) Be careful about using your personal experience as the entry point to your discussion of a research topic in your statement of purpose. It may be better suited for interviews. Putting it in your statement of purpose would be tricky. Unless you can immediately transition to a way of framing that experience in terms of a larger research program, such references may project the appearance of shallowness and naivete.

b) Look at the literature. I'm thinking that there has been scholarship on this and similar topics.

[bigghostdini_tha_don]

I'm a fresh grad student myself, so you may want to take my opinion with a grain of salt, but...

You're going to be looking too old and too far removed from the academic world to get into an elite poli sci program.  You should look at public policy schools imo, they'll be more likely to look favorably on that law background.  Also I'd say look into an MA.  With legal background and the right kind of MA you could be in a strong position in the job market for public or private sector.  Don't do a PhD unless you're really into research.

Also, I wouldn't go pitching that research idea.

[attorneycjones]

Public Affairs / Public Policy is actually a great idea - thank you for that suggestion!  The University where I did my law schooling has a very high ranking public affairs school.  I do seem to be more drawn to research and writing about particular issues than about institutions as such. 

I hope to be able to spin my years away from academia as a way to minimize my substandard GPA; I only developed a strong work ethic over time and particularly through law practice, where a strong work ethic and attention to detail is demanded or the practitioner stands a very strong chance of losing the case.  And my GRE scores are more current of course, so that is more of a realistic measure of myself at this point in time.

[dale1]

The public policy programs are easily researched. Indiana has a very good one.  You may not get along with everyone there, but they will 'get' your ideas.

[tenured_feminist]

What do you want to do with the Ph.D.? It probably only makes sense if you want to teach at the end of the day.

If you're thinking public policy, be aware that the research approaches are, for the most part, very different than what you've experienced in law training and practice. If your math skills are stale, you may need a math boot camp before you start a program (this will also be true for some poli sci programs).

[forest_and_the_trees]

OP, if you consider your potential research area to be controversial, there's something you aren't getting about doctoral programs in political science.

[notezenquotes]

"How well do you think admissions committees are apt to look upon someone who has been out of school for 6 years and practicing?"

One of my classmates is a former practicing lawyer and often incorporates arcane legal references into her very exciting research. There was a lengthy wait list for full funding during her year of admission, and she was never on it -- she was admitted and funded immediately. Hope this helps.

[marlborough]

You also need to have a hard think about a couple of issues--

From your experience on other threads, it is fairly clear that you've got a personal and political belief system that, the way you express it and react to any challenge of it, is going to constitute a big brick wall in most academic departments. 

Also, becoming a graduate student means you go to the bottom of the food chain.  Having been working as a lawyer, are you going to balk at making 300 copies of an exam, or doing scut work for discussion sections?  A lot of adult who have been out working find it hard to accept the position of apprentice, with the basic stuff that goes along with it. 

[attorneycjones]

That's true; but it is better to start at the bottom of the food chain doing something I like to do than to be my own boss doing something I don't like. 

As far as my belief structure - I'm certainly not going to stop being Catholic, but I could always improve the way I discourse with people.  Being a lawyer, when someone disagrees with me I always have the tendency to start browbeating them with questions.  I will need to work on that a bit.