Whatishistoryanyway

Seeing how invitations weren't sent out until about 12 days before the event, I don't see how "weeks" could have gone by before they told you a Skype interview was possible. Also, it looks like you still hadn't bought a ticket 9 days before the event, so... yea. I feel silly for even responding at this point.

Starbuck, it may be wise to be a little more careful about some of the things said here. Academia, especially within sociology is a small world. Some of the things you've said here are really offensive and petty. In fact, I think I'd really consider asking the mods to delete this if I were you. Just to clarify a few things to people who are interested in the program-- I will be attending Tennessee in the fall as an MA student and I was at the recruitment event. There were about 15 of us there and word had gotten out that three or so were unable to make it because of the weather, so 18(?) invited in total. For reference purposes, the department's cohorts seem to range between 6-10 people a year. The faculty and graduate students did everything they could have done, in my opinion, to make us feel at home. It was a recruitment event, so of course faculty made it seem as if we were all really wanted. At the event, I was never told "it was a given" that I'd be admitted. The closest any of the faculty came to saying that was something like, "we really like your application, think you'd be a good fit and you're high on our list." Things along those lines, I can't remember exact quotes. Something else to consider is that we were told from the beginning that department wouldn't be able to fund everyone's entire visit. In fact, $300, from my knowledge, is much more than many (if not all?) other prospective students received. Finally, the students unable to make it elected for a Skype interview or something. Even if they didn't, plenty of programs admit students without meeting them or even contacting them first. So it's not a big deal that students who didn't show up were admitted. That's just the way admissions work. I feel the department has done nothing unprofessional. I think their current students will vouch for the faculty if any prospective students are concerned about anything presented in this silly thread.

Very valid points. Letstalkshop, I'm in agreement with pretty much everything you said. Your record this cycle proves these programs can definitely be beneficial. If they weren't, I don't see how they could exist. Alternatively, it's safe to assume some go into the program thinking the name alone will get them into a top PhD program. Others, I'm sure, may just simply fall through the cracks. I was just trying to satisfy TheoryofTheories original inquiry. That said, I think I'm somewhat confused by parts of your post, TheoryofTheories. I definitely don't see where you're getting at with this sentence: "An MA from Chicago or Columbia certainly improves your odds of finding gainful employment relative to, say, that BA in gender studies and postmodern literature that you incurred debt for in the first place." Are you referring to my undergraduate degree in particular or just generally speaking of the average prospective student? You're making a lot of assumptions here. Some would argue those degrees are about as competitive on the job market as sociology. Oftentimes, those pursuing an advance degree in sociology are wanting to study something similar to the fields you just mention, simply from a sociological perspective. Also, every position I've ever heard argues against adding more debt to one's burden, something you seem to counter here in this sentence. "Top firms from all fields recruit from top tier schools, what you actually studied ("bourgeois fields" included) playing a largely minor role." Given the context of this sentence, perhaps you meant to use scare quotes? Maybe you disagree with my usage of "bourgeois" here? Anyway, I don't disagree with you about the firms, but I think 99% of the readers in this thread are concerned about PhD programs, not private firms. If I already have ~$30k (or whatever the national average is) of debt from undergrad added to another $50k (or more?) for a year of tuition at Columbia is not a very lucrative offer. Once you add a conservative estimate of $20k or so worth of debt from living expenses in New York, that leaves me $100k in debt before even entering into a PhD program (which will surely add more debt). The reason people are "unenthusiastic" about these offers is, I believe, because $100k or more of debt is scary at a time when it's nearly impossible to get a decent job in academia. Yes, these programs have been great to many, you can emphasis that again if you want. "Depending on where you live, how you live, etc., a year or two outside of academic work may go a long way to mitigate the $75,000 price tag." I have no idea what you're trying to say here. "There may be an even higher opportunity cost of not attending an MA program." Indeed, but there are more cost-effective ways of attending an MA program. See some of the other posts, plenty of people have funded MAs elsewhere. "And, like Marx's capitalists, you've dug your own grave." Marx had capitalists? Again, even with the context that follows this quote, I dont see where you're going with it. "I think most people would rather be buried in debt than taking fast food orders or being otherwise miserable for the rest of their natural lives." Really? I don't agree. It also seems so odd that you continue to advocate for people to get so deep into debt. Regarding fast food, your statement is pretty offensive and the elitism, intentional or not, seems to be bleeding through. Global capitalism is in a crisis and if we don't do something about it, you're going to be flipping burgers too. It's also silly to imply that people working in the service sector can't be happy. I can't even imagine what kind of sociology it is you study. "Now if you find that you do love academic work and you really want to research, teach, and publish at a (major) university, then these MA programs are, in the context of the long run, an incredible opportunity to advance those life-long goals." Again, I'm in full agreement with you. But let's not forget that all these things can also be done at a more cost-efficient program. At this point in the game, I'm about 100% sure I'm going to pursue a MA at a state school. I work hard and I'm passionate about what I study. I have no reason to believe I cant be successful.

Perhaps, but is it not the adcom who admits students knowing of the unethical costs associated with it? I won't pretend to be smarter than people in those positions, so perhaps it's just a misinterpreted situation on my end.

I've gotten advice from some people who went through the program and there are definitely plenty of positive things to say about the experience and opportunities the MAs at places like Columbia and Chicago have to offer. With that said, I've concluded that I can't take $50k-$100k out in loans to finance a program that may lead me nowhere. Even if guaranteed success, I can't see how I could justify that much debt in addition to old undergrad debt and eventual doctoral debt that will surely come later. Perhaps things would be different if I had family that could help with the disgusting (and in my opinion, unethical) pricetag. But if that were the case, I'm sure I'd have more interest in pursuing some bourgeois field (pretending for a moment sociology isn't one). By no means am I trying to offend anyone who pursued an MA at a place like Columbia. They've always given me solid and helpful advice. As someone who contemplated doing it, I was just hoping to explain why some people can't.

A gazillion of us applied to work with Robinson. Sometimes you just gotta go down a different path.

Could be today, could be April 15th. There are a variety of different factors at play. Last year I said on the waitlist at ucsb for months.

At what point did I pose an alternative future? In addition, no one ever said that adjunct positions will be the only options. You can't deny the current condition of academia and if your only evidence of a better future is the fact that "baby boomers" are retiring, you have a long road ahead of you. Global capitalism is in crisis and has been for some time now. Finally, what seems idiotic to you may seem like a dream to others. I don't think I'm the only one pursing a PhD for reasons beyond dreams of tenure.

You seem to be speculating though. Your prediction about academia concludes that it will find away to return to the glory days despite the current situation proving otherwise. We aren't fortune tellers, so I think it'd be a bad idea to pretend everything will be alright despite academia's current transformation. When the "baby boomers" retire, there will be plenty of good candidates willing to work for less because where else are they going to go? Sure you're going to have some good people land in great conditions, but so what? And I disagree with your last point completly. I'd be willing to bet that tons of current tenured faculty would be willing to give your a pessimistic view on the future of the field.

I hear this a lot, but in reality, it looks like many universities are just filling those positions with adjuncts, no? The glory days of tenure seem to be diminishing

Anyone else applying to Brown? Has anyone gotten any word back from them or know anything about their process?

Anyone claiming either of the ucsb posts?

political economy, globalization, development, and theory

Ahhh all this UCSB talk makes me think they received a gazillion applications again this year. It looks like they typically notify people toward the last week of Jan/first week of Feb, so no need to freak out just yet.

Thanks for this useful perspective. I haven't even thought to contact any current students at the programs I'm interested in. I think my last email was about two paragraphs, most of which was explaining why I was interested in what I want to do. Perhaps it was too long! Anyway, thanks for the advice.