Fall 2016 Application Cycle: Conversation/Question/Discussion Thread

[gingin6789]

Hey, all! 

I thought I would start this thread, since the Acceptances thread has turned into more of a conversation thread. In order to not confuse future and current forum-goers, we can have general conversation here in this thread, and save the 2016 Acceptances thread for news and discussion on Acceptances/Rejections/Interviews/Wait-List listing, etc.

Need to vent about how tough the waiting process is for sociology programs? Vent here!

Need to ask questions about the application process that you hope other sociology forum users can answer? Ask away!

Any other sociology-related discussion is welcome!

Also, if you all feel this thread is unnecessary, let me know. I thought this would help keep the forum organized and happy.

[gingin6789]

 

Hi everyone! I am new to gradcafe and I am wondering if there is any post on what to expect for a skype interview for sociology PhD programs? What kind of conversation is this? Typical questions?

I am an international student.

I would really appreciate any information on this.

Thanks!

Anyone have any advice for @jc2404? They asked this question in the Fall 2016 Acceptances thread originally.

Edited January 14, 2016 by gingin6789
formatting

[faculty]

I can't speak for all committees or programs, but I bet that early Skype interviews with international students are often to get a sense of their language facility and comfort level studying abroad. Later in the season, departments might connect with admitted students over Skype if it's not feasible to invite them out to visit weekends.

In any Skype interview, I'd expect to be asked about research interests, why you applied, faculty you'd like to work with, and a general conversation to get a sense of your interests and your conversation skills. I would be prepared to talk about that, as well as any questions you might have about the department. 

 

[kameldinho]

On 1/16/2016 at 9:17 AM, faculty said:

I can't speak for all committees or programs, but I bet that early Skype interviews with international students are often to get a sense of their language facility and comfort level studying abroad. Later in the season, departments might connect with admitted students over Skype if it's not feasible to invite them out to visit weekends.

In any Skype interview, I'd expect to be asked about research interests, why you applied, faculty you'd like to work with, and a general conversation to get a sense of your interests and your conversation skills. I would be prepared to talk about that, as well as any questions you might have about the department. 

 

I'm surprised its been 24hrs and no one has commented on this. I said the same exact thing in another thread and was downvoted, ridiculed and eventually blocked from viewing/commenting on that thread. Maybe I need to create a sockpuppet called faculty and post from that account? The sad thing is that I do get my info from a very credible source but whenever I mention any of the harsh truths of what goes on behind close doors I get attacked because I'm crushing the idealistic notions people here have that sociology (and the academia in general) is this ultra inclusive place with a reward scheme that is meritocratic and favors diversity.

[gingin6789]

Jeez jeez you got blocked? Seriously? I thought your tone sometimes *seemed* harsh in the thread (and noted that it was likely due to me and others being unable to gauge your exact tone over the Internet) but come on, you shouldn't have been blocked from even viewing the thread! Honestly, I'm sorry you got blocked. 

Second, I think everything in that thread was a misunderstanding on both parties. We thought you were talking about all interview processes, even ones where American applicants were supposed to be interviewed, but you meant Skype interviews... Then we all kinda got snippy and others got downright mean... 

It's all really stupid to argue and be snippy with each other, and we're better than this. Kamel, you started the fall 2016 applicants thread so you obviously care about sociology and the forum. 

We're all stressed and we're never our best selves when we're stressed. So I'll take this opportunity to apologize to you, Kamel, if my response post to you in the other thread hurt you at all, because I know you were trying to give your best advice.  

Take care, all. 

Edit: in case you're wondering why I posted the person's question when you said you already answered it, it's because they posted their question a bit after you posted that particular answer. And I didn't want it re-answered in that thread so the thread could stay on the topic of acceptances, so I made this thread and reposted the question. 

Edited January 18, 2016 by gingin6789

[kameldinho]

17 hours ago, gingin6789 said:

Jeez jeez you got blocked? Seriously? I thought your tone sometimes *seemed* harsh in the thread (and noted that it was likely due to me and others being unable to gauge your exact tone over the Internet) but come on, you shouldn't have been blocked from even viewing the thread! Honestly, I'm sorry you got blocked. 

Second, I think everything in that thread was a misunderstanding on both parties. We thought you were talking about all interview processes, even ones where American applicants were supposed to be interviewed, but you meant Skype interviews... Then we all kinda got snippy and others got downright mean... 

It's all really stupid to argue and be snippy with each other, and we're better than this. Kamel, you started the fall 2016 applicants thread so you obviously care about sociology and the forum. 

We're all stressed and we're never our best selves when we're stressed. So I'll take this opportunity to apologize to you, Kamel, if my response post to you in the other thread hurt you at all, because I know you were trying to give your best advice.  

Take care, all. 

Edit: in case you're wondering why I posted the person's question when you said you already answered it, it's because they posted their question a bit after you posted that particular answer. And I didn't want it re-answered in that thread so the thread could stay on the topic of acceptances, so I made this thread and reposted the question. 

No worries. I stopped caring about contributing to this forum. Even after I clarified my initial post (which in my opinion was already pretty clear if people took the time out to read) I was still vilified. I probably will deactivate this account soon.

Honestly if you think the tone of my posts are harsh wait until you start presenting papers at conferences and submitting them for review. This is especially true if you do anything quant related: there is always some problem with your model/data and no matter how minor it is people will nitpick and use it to sink your entire paper even if the results are valid.

Good luck to you folks. 

[qeta]

5 minutes ago, kameldinho said:

Honestly if you think the tone of my posts are harsh wait until you start presenting papers at conferences and submitting them for review. This is especially true if you do anything quant related: there is always some problem with your model/data and no matter how minor it is people will nitpick and use it to sink your entire paper even if the results are valid.

So since the tone of anonymous reviewers at journals and conference attendees is generally harsh, we should make absolutely sure to set the tone of every venue associated with academia accordingly? And I ask this as someone who has presented at conferences and workshops and has gone through the review process.

As a prospective peer, one can only hope that you are able to distinguish between various academic fora, their differing objectives, and the different tones they might require. Bringing in mean-spirited SocSciJobRumors abbreviations and rumors about faculty (like your "insight" about Jeffrey Alexander that was verbatim copied from SSJR) does nothing to enhance the discussion at a forum meant for prospective and beginning grad students.

[gingin6789]

37 minutes ago, kameldinho said:

No worries. I stopped caring about contributing to this forum. Even after I clarified my initial post (which in my opinion was already pretty clear if people took the time out to read) I was still vilified. I probably will deactivate this account soon.

Honestly if you think the tone of my posts are harsh wait until you start presenting papers at conferences and submitting them for review. This is especially true if you do anything quant related: there is always some problem with your model/data and no matter how minor it is people will nitpick and use it to sink your entire paper even if the results are valid.

Good luck to you folks. 

I might not be reading your post correctly, but it sounds like you're using the fact that "people at conferences and academic journals are harsh and nitpicky" to justify your apparent harsh tone in this and other threads. If so, I have to respectfully disagree here with that justification.

Of course I know that people are gonna nitpick everything I do, especially those at conferences and those at academic journals. I've presented at conferences and have submitted quantitative work to journals, and while I've run into nitpicky-ness, I haven't experienced mean-spirited harshness and rudeness. I am aware that every conference and journal is different though, and that mean people exist.

But this is Grad Cafe.

The soc forum is a place where I seek friendly, good conversation with people. When I posted here two years ago, looking for community and people to talk to because I needed support from folks going through what I was going through, I found some great friends. 

I just kinda wanted the forum to be a place where everyone felt welcome again. That's why I informed you that you sounded mean-spirited in some of your posts from the previous threads, and then reached out and apologized in my last post, because I realize I could've come across as mean-spirited to you, too.

Hopefully what I said makes sense. But I could just be misunderstanding your post again.

Edited January 18, 2016 by gingin6789

[kameldinho]

29 minutes ago, qeta said:

So since the tone of anonymous reviewers at journals and conference attendees is generally harsh, we should make absolutely sure to set the tone of every venue associated with academia accordingly? And I ask this as someone who has presented at conferences and workshops and has gone through the review process.

As a prospective peer, one can only hope that you are able to distinguish between various academic fora, their differing objectives, and the different tones they might require. Bringing in mean-spirited SocSciJobRumors abbreviations and rumors about faculty (like your "insight" about Jeffrey Alexander that was verbatim copied from SSJR) does nothing to enhance the discussion at a forum meant for prospective and beginning grad students.

bulls**t. I never once posted about Jeffery Alexander, I don't even know who the bloke is. If you actually read my posts instead of jumping on the "bashing kameldinho" wagon you'd know this. Its blatantly obvious a lot of you don't read my posts because I regularly get accused of stuff I never did, unless I have a schizophrenic alter ego who posts from my account. That's what truly annoys me here, I don't even need to say anything controversial to get attacked by you guys. It automatically happens the minute I post in a thread and the evidence is right here in this thread, with someone else posting the exact same thing I said over a week ago without any backlash or retaliation. 

[kameldinho]

18 minutes ago, gingin6789 said:

I might not be reading your post correctly, but it sounds like you're using the fact that "people at conferences and academic journals are harsh and nitpicky" to justify your apparent harsh tone in this and other threads. If so, I have to respectfully disagree here with that justification.

Of course I know that people are gonna nitpick everything I do, especially those at conferences and those at academic journals. I've presented at conferences and have submitted quantitative work to journals, and while I've run into nitpicky-ness, I haven't experienced mean-spirited harshness and rudeness. I am aware that every conference and journal is different though, and that mean people exist.

But this is Grad Cafe.

The soc forum is a place where I seek friendly, good conversation with people. When I posted here two years ago, looking for community and people to talk to because I needed support from folks going through what I was going through, I found some great friends. 

I just kinda wanted the forum to be a place where everyone felt welcome again. That's why I informed you that you sounded mean-spirited in some of your posts from the previous threads, and then reached out and apologized in my last post, because I realize I could've come across as mean-spirited to you, too.

Hopefully what I said makes sense. But I could just be misunderstanding your post again.

I fail to grasp how I am mean-spirited: this all started when someone posted about placing in the 52% percentile in verbal and doing even more atrocious in math and everyone was providing "encouragement" by telling this person how wonderfully diverse sociology departments are and how they will understand subpar GREs because the process is holistic--and the minute I suggested this was wrong for a myriad of reasons beyond the control of the sociology department and advised the person to retake the GRE that's when the attacks started.

I recognize that I write in a pretty matter-of-fact way but to call it mean spirited is just beyond me. My tone isn't harsh, the truth is harsh. I'm sorry I don't cuddle you guys and lie to you through words of encouragement. If I ever decide to become active again I promise to use more emojis

[gingin6789]

16 minutes ago, kameldinho said:

I fail to grasp how I am mean-spirited: this all started when someone posted about placing in the 52% percentile in verbal and doing even more atrocious in math and everyone was providing "encouragement" by telling this person how wonderfully diverse sociology departments are and how they will understand subpar GREs because the process is holistic--and the minute I suggested this was wrong for a myriad of reasons beyond the control of the sociology department and advised the person to retake the GRE that's when the attacks started.

I recognize that I write in a pretty matter-of-fact way but to call it mean spirited is just beyond me. My tone isn't harsh, the truth is harsh. I'm sorry I don't cuddle you guys and lie to you through words of encouragement. If I ever decide to become active again I promise to use more emojis

I said  your posts *came across as* and *sounded* mean-spirited, not that you are a mean-spirited person. And as I said in my first post where I pointed out that *some* of your posts *came across* as mean-spirited, I noted that one cannot always tell tone over the Internet, so you probably didn't mean to sound that way.

If you're wondering what I'm referring to, I am referring to posts such as the one where you called some posters trigger-happy and eager to one-up other posters because there was a miscommunication about the interview process. Maybe saying that post "sounded mean-spirited" wasn't the best choice of words. 

So, that's really all I have to say about it. I might not post about this anymore. 

And @qeta, I think you may be thinking of iemons, not kameldinho (at least in regards to the Alexander post)

Edited January 18, 2016 by gingin6789

[fuzzylogician]

I am going to lock this thread for a bit to let everyone cool off. It's not very helpful to tone-police other posters, and this conversation is going in a bad and counter-productive direction. I will say this -- kameldinho: this board doesn't have a functionality that can prevent a user from viewing or posting in a particular thread, and I am not seeing any indication in your profile that you have been banned or that your posting privileges more generally have been restricted, so I'm not entirely sure what happened there. PM me if you want to try and figure this out.