RandomDood

Hello everybody, I am an ex graduate student in sociology who has "dropped out." I don't really know why I logged on after nearly 3 years of inactivity on this board. I guess I was just thinking about how stressed out I was 3 years ago, and how different my current life is from what I had envisioned it when I was applying to graduate school. Anyway. I just figured I'd write a post to provide a (hopefully) useful perspective from the point of view of someone who was in your situation and ended up doing something completely different with his life. These are just some things that I personally realized after 2 years of grad school; they are not meant to be universal truths, just my personal realizations that hopefully will be of use for some of you who are currently considering a career in academia and sociology. To remain in academia you truly need an extremely strong drive and self-discipline. Like, really, really strong. And mind you, it's not that you need drive to succeed...you need it even just to remain in it. Three years ago I was really convinced that I did feel an unquenchable thirst for knowledge, a deep desire to just "live the life of the mind." Also, I was always an outstanding student, I am a fairly smart person, so what could go wrong? As it turns out, these characteristics have nothing to do with what is required to make it through Grad School. I have met people who actually do have what it takes, and it's a lot more than a good brain and a hint of determination: they are the people who treat academia not just as a personal quest for truth, but as a true “calling” that requires utmost dedication. In other words, in an environment where constrains and direction are very, very weak (even the most micromanaging programs won't get even close to the level of constraint that a 9-5 job entails), you truly need to feel like there is nothing else you'd rather do in the world than be a researcher and a teacher (more on this below), and truly dedicate your time and efforts to succeed. You need to get up every morning and realize that nobody will be giving you instructions, that you need to really build your own future block by block and, more importantly, that as opposed to many (most) 9-5 jobs you get nothing for just showing up. Not everyone has the level of dedication and self-discipline. Would I have been able to figure out that I did not have this unrelenting determination to be an academic and only an academic before going to Grad School? I don’t know. But I do think that people often underestimate what an important role sheer dedication, more than anything else, plays into the ability to remain in academia. Another thing that I did not fully take into account was quite obvious: I found out that I don’t particularly enjoy teaching. I was actually surprised by how many grad students I encountered don’t actually enjoy teaching, and I feel that many prospective academics have this idea that they will be spending their time with their mind deep in data, running regressions, conducting ethnographies, and coming up with clever theories and concepts. In reality, you need to understand that, although academia places an inordinate amount weight on research, the bulk of your time will be spent teaching. And teaching is a very specific kind of job, I would say unlike any other: some people can find it extremely stimulating and inspiring, while others find it fairly boring and/or frustrating. I do not regret trying to teach, as it’s a unique experience that I will definitely treasure. But at the same time I’d like everyone to be entirely conscious of how important teaching is in academia; I (perhaps naively) was not. Career prospects are not particularly bright for future academics. I know everyone is saying this, but I can guarantee you that people do not fully understand the extent of this until they are actually “in the profession.” And, sure, my department was not at the absolute top of the nation, but it is still a fairly respected one. Yet, although more élite schools certainly provide better prospects, the truth is that, regardless of rankings, making a livelihood in academia is extremely, extremely hard, and the odds of ending up working as an adjunct are very high for everyone. Landing a TT job is not impossible, but landing a good TT job (as in, decent pay in a good location) is absurdly hard. Even then, you need to be conscious that average salaries for sociologists are low; realistically, once you graduate IF you manage to land a TT job (and that’s a big IF), you will be making roughly 60k a year (of course, depending on location…but for reference, an AP at the “good” CUNY schools makes roughly 70-80k, and that’s New York!). You may look at these figures now, when you are 25 and think “wow, that’s a lot of money”, but considering that you will realistically be making that money when you are 30 (and again, only if you are the absolute top of the bunch) it’s not really a great deal. And mind you, I’m not saying this to discourage everyone; some people won’t care, namely those who really have “the calling” (see point 1) or that just don’t care that much about money. But others will care when it’s time to build a family, buy a house, pay for your children’s education, and so on. One of the reasons I took the hard decision of leaving academia is that I realized that money is not as unimportant to me as I thought it was, and I really started to learn about financial planning; please do read about these issues, and try to be entirely aware of the future implications of going to grad school. My intention is simply to make sure that people deciding about graduate school are fully aware that from a financial point of view this is a very delicate decision. At this point you probably think that my next advice will be “Oh my god, never go to grad school, it’s the worst decision you could make.” Well, yes and no. If reading points 1-3 really made you strongly doubt about your decision, I would say that perhaps it would be wise to get a “normal” job for a few years and figure out whether or not you really hate the corporate world enough to go into academia. But if what I wrote so far didn’t make you doubt, then you definitely should go ahead and try the academic path; worst case scenario you can just drop out after a few years with a good experience on your shoulders and no regrets of not trying to do what you love (or think you love). Because—and I can’t stress this enough—dropping out is not a failure! It’s simply a decision that can have great outcomes. I feel like some people remain in their programs because the idea of “leaving” feels like letting people down, like “not being good enough.” The reality is that academia is a specific career path, some people enjoy it/are good at it, some others don’t/are good at other things. There are plenty of very smart people outside of academia, and there are plenty of stimulating jobs outside of academia. I, for one, don’t regret leaving; of course, the corporate world can be frustrating and I don’t have as much free time as I used to. But I am making more money than I would have realistically made in 4/5 years, I have a good career path ahead of me and I am already saving to build a family with the woman I love. Some people wouldn’t trade this path with the freedom of academia, but I personally would not go back. All I am saying is, if you are really set on academia right now, please do keep in mind that there is a life outside of academia, and leaving may be the best option for you, no matter how much you feel like you are “giving up.” Well, this was a long post. But I hope some of you will find at least some of my advice useful. Of course, feel free to ask me anything, I’d be happy to answer any of your questions J

If you want to go the hybrid route (which I personally would not, given that cloud storage allows for constant syncronization across dedicated devices...but that's just my opinion) your best bet is probably the Dell Venue 11 Pro.

Yay, I love technology topics! So, being the geek that I am, in the months prior to September 2013 I probably spent more time thinking about a good technological workflow for academic work than preparing for grad school itself. This is what I came up with: iPad with this (http://tinyurl.com/nstmsn3) keyboard. This is what I usually carry around on a day-to-day basis. I found that I have no need for a notebook for 99% of my tasks, and none of the 1% is something I need to do daily. The apps I have installed for academic use are: - Zotpad: An iPad client for Zotero. The advantage of Zotero over most other reference managers is that it exists on practically any mobile or desktop platform, and that it allows you to sync pdfs using box.com (which means that a) You essentially get 50GB of storage for free No matter what, even if you decide to change reference manager you will always have your pdf files with all the annotations intact). I find reading and annotating PDFs on the iPad way better than reading them on a notebook. - iAnnotate: Rather pricey, but has the useful function of adding a note containing the highlighted text to every highlight. This allows to use any desktop or mobile program to generate advanced annotation reports. - Pages: Cleanest interface among the document processors on iPad. Has webdav support, which is nice combined with box.com. (Textilus deserves an honorable mention when it comes to apps with this kind of functions) - Outline+ for taking notes. It's a fully functional software that allows you to view and edit OneNote files (as usual, syncs with box.com). OneNote is, in my opinion, the best and most flexible note-taking software around. - Jump: An app that gives you access to your PC or Mac from your iPad. - iStudiez Pro for assignment management. It is quite simply the best at what it does, period. Lenovo X200t. I bought this--used, but in perfect conditions--for less than 200 dollars on eBay. I have not yet found any particular justification to spend more than 200 dollars on a notebook, given that the iPad basically does everything I need, apart from very few things which do not require particular horsepower (this may change if you do a lot of HEAVY data-mining, for example). Most days I just leave it at home and access it through Jump Desktop if I really really need to use it, but most of the tasks are no so urgent that they can't wait until evening when I go back home. I have installed the following programs for academic purposes: - Zotero: Obviously, it allows me to access my pdf and reference database from the PC. - PDF X-Change: By far the best PDF reader. Fast, reliable, hundreds of functions, allows to generate advanced annotation summaries. - Office: Duh, still the best productivity suite around. As I said, OneNote is great for note-taking, and your files will automatically sync with Outline+ on your iPad. - SPSS: Works just fine on the notebook for what I need it to do. - Jump Desktop: To access my PC from my iPad at any time. The advantages of this setup are that it's fairly cheap (less than 800 dollars, which is less than a MacBook Air alone), everything is constantly synced on the cloud (I found box.com to be more flexible than dropbox), and none of the programs "lock me down," in the sense that if one day for some reason I decide to get an Android tablet/a Mac/whatever, I will have full access to all of my files. God, I love talking about technology.

Since this question gets asked quite often around here I will just go ahead and link an answer I posted in another thread, which I think is mostly valid for you too: Long story short: It's still very early in the process. You should retake it, but only if you have the time and resources to do so. The thing with the "new" GRE is that there is absolutely no drawback in taking it multiple times; you can submit the score you feel more satisfied with. Also, while the GRE is not the only factor in an application, the whole admissions process is so competitive that if you have any chance of making your application stronger you should take it.

Dear TheTruth, I am just answering because I mostly disagree with you (although not completely), and I don't want other prospective applicants to read your post and freak out. For full disclosure, I am probably biased because, as you can see, I am not enrolled in a "top 20" program. There is absolutely no question that as a general rule of thumb being in a top ranked program is better than being in a low-ranked one. 999 cases out of 1000, going to Princeton is a much better career decision than going to CUNY. That being said, I think you are overlooking a few things. As sociologists, we often tend to favor structural explanations over individual ones. Yet, contrary to popular belief (and by "popular" I mean "on this board"), going to a great program will not get you a job in itself. It's not like you do well on the GRE, write a great personal statement, get into Harvard and five years later Harvard will find a job for you. As an academic on the job market, what will ultimately make a real, tangible difference in where you get an interview is a combination of your publication and grants record, as well as your advisor's network/his willingness to vouch for you within his network. The latter factor is mostly independent from ranking, in the sense that many well-known professors are in good-but-not-top schools, and being in a "lower" program will decrease peer competition and thus increase the likelihood of him/her betting on you as "their" student. Ultimately, I think that it's probably better to have a well-known advisor who treats you as his best student than having a superstar advisor who sees you as one of the many good students he has mentored throughout the years. Concerning publications and grants, especially within sociology--where review is blind--prestige has little to do with your individual performance. While it's definitely true that certain departments put you in a better situation than others when it comes to publishing--less teaching loads, more funding for fieldwork, but also more departmental pressure to do research and publish early--the quality of your work will mostly depend on your own ability as a researcher, and partially on your advisor's ability as a mentor. If you are disciplined and really make a point of starting your research early on with the resources that are given to you, chances are that you will manage to get more than a few publications out by the time you graduate. Similarly, if you keep track of all the possible funding opportunities, cast a wide net and apply on time, you will probably manage to get your hands on some grant money one way or another. Both factors are, I think, way more important than just having "Harvard" or "Princeton" on your CV, although going to these schools will undoubtedly put you in a better spot when it comes to writing for publication and applying for grants. As one of the students of my program who got a job at a top university (thus defying the "iron law" that often haunts this forum) told me, it is certainly true that top universities tend to hire people from top programs, but that has less to do with prestige than it has to do with how top programs professionalize their students. In this perspective, a top program will professionalize you, but there is nothing that prevents you from being proactive and learn things your own way if you are in a lower ranked program. Ultimately, giving a look at who gets jobs in top departments, there is one variable that seems to me way more relevant than where they got their phd from; they all have ridiculously excellent publication and grant records. Like, at least three-four articles, with one article in one of the top journals in the discipline and/or forthcoming books based on their dissertation. Merely "going to a top program" will not get you those jobs, and "going to a lower-ranked program" will not itself prevent you from getting one. Being disciplined, proactive and carefully planning your career will definitely make a difference, and while top programs will encourage you and set you up in an ideal situation to do so, building your own career is ultimately up to you, not to the institution that finances you. Just my two cents, as usual :-)

Magoosh (http://gre.magoosh.com) is an excellent resource. Also, GRE For Dummies is a surprisingly cheap and good book.

Just wanted to add my 0.02 to the discussion. Although it is certainly true that pedigree--as measured by the prestige of the program one has attended--matters a lot, especially in academia, we should also not forget that "pedigree" is also--and I would argue especially--a function of who one has studied with. Auyero's name, for example, gets thrown around a lot when it comes to show that people from so-called "lower tier" schools can rise to the top. Yet nobody ever bothers to mention that Auyero's advisor was Chuck Tilly (for whoever does not know who Chuck Tilly was, he basically created the field of contentious politics and is arguably the most influential historical political sociologist of the last 50 years). My point is that if we look at "PhD exchange networks" we will certainly find relevant inter-departmental ties, but we should not let this observation cloud the fact that "departments" themselves are not agentive entities; the people who form a department are. My hunch is that perhaps, especially in academia, departmental pedigree is a pretty reliable, but by no means entirely accurate proxy for advisory pedigree.

For anyone who is still waiting to hear from CUNY, I just heard that everyone who has not heard back by Thursday - with either an explicit rejection or acceptance - can consider himself on the unofficial waiting list.

I think that overall it's pretty hard to say, in the sense that you would need to be an insider to know exactly what the spirit of the department is, and (almost) nobody will come and tell you "our department is cutthroat." That being said, in the thread I linked there was a certain consensus about Chicago, UCLA and Harvard being regarded as generally competitive. Opinions about "collegial" departments are more scattered. The problem is, the whole thing probably has more to do with reputations than with factual information. I would read Jacib's post in the same thread, which (as usual) provides wise advice. Essentially, go visit and talk to graduate students. For my part, as a current graduate student at CUNY I can tell you that our department is extremely collegial and collaborative. On the one hand I think it's because of the kind of students we attract (generally very, very liberal people...more than your average sociologist, and that's saying something :-), but it also seems to me that the departmental culture overall really does not attempt to foster competitiveness as much as it tries to push people to collaborate. Even with not everyone getting equal funding, and research grants being definitely less available than at other, richer schools, I really don't feel like people here have a cutthroat mentality.

I was in the same situation last year. As amlobo said, it's basically an unofficial waitlist.

Dear TheLuckyOne, I think that it makes sense, but only under specific circumstances. Apart from the obvious ones (you have a fiancée, a wife, kids, you absolutely need to be close to your family, or whatever), from a research point of view my thoughts are the following. 1) Regardless of the location, choose the program that is best for you, that it has faculty you are interested in working with, and has good placements. And especially, do not go anywhere where for some reason or another you know for sure that you will feel miserable. Your mental state reflects in your ability to do good work, and ultimately-regardless of what "ranking-obsessed" people think-it's your ability to do quality research that gets you a job. 2) Do not operate on the assumption that you know what your dissertation will be about. You may be interested in a specific city, neighborhood, organization, social movement, but think might-and most likely will-change. If-when-that happens, you don't want to find yourself in a program that you chose over another one exclusively because of the proximity to that initial project. 3) If you are admitted to a "rich" program, location will matter even less. My gf goes to a top-notch, really rich Ivy League, and all of their students receive funding to conduct research wherever they want in year 3 or 4. Other departments barely have the money to pay their students a stipend, and funding for research is highly competitive. In that case, yes, being close to a location where you think you might have more flexibility and choice when it comes to research might be an advantage. 4) If you are really disciplined, being in a place where you think you could carry out independent research during your first and second year might be an advantage; the earlier you start researching, the earlier you start publishing, the better. As I said, though, that would require a substantial amount of discipline; coursework at the PhD level is pretty intense and you most likely will not have the time and energy to do research (my strategy is to just get over with the coursework ASAP in order to be free to do research). I know I probably did not give you the straight answer you expected, but ultimately it's a matter of personal choice/disposition. Those I mentioned are just a few points to take into consideration when you make your decision. Good luck :-)

Hi all, So, I will answer your questions one by one. Umniah, I apologize but I have no idea about when the adcomm meets and makes decisions. It is my understanding that here at the Graduate Center (I probably should have specified that in the title) we only have a PhD program, and Masters are managed by the different colleges. The timeframes for Masters admissions can therefore vary widely across the CUNY system. Jdsoc, I know for a fact that our department is FULL of people doing urban ethnography, both students and faculty. The vast majority of course does work on NYC, but I know of students who are studying Paris and have studied Berlin in the past...and of course they are both way further away than Detroit :-) That being said, I do not know if any faculty has a specific expertise on Detroit specifically, and if you are absolutely set about the location being so far away from your field site might end up being a problem if you are not sure that you will have way of traveling and living in Michigan without spending too much money (as a personal word of advice, do not choose your PhD program based exclusively on the fact that you-think you-are sure about where you will conduct your fieldwork. Plans can and most likely will change.) SocGirl and Squelchebesir, congratulations on getting in! :-) I was in your situation last year: admitted but on the waitlist for funding. Getting funding at this stage is definitely not impossible; I was offered a Graduate Center Fellowship (25k + Tuition) in mid May, basically 24 hours before final decisions day. Fun times, those two months were not stressful at all :-) I honestly have no idea whatsoever about how they make decisions about funding, I just know that people definitely get off the wait list for funding because that happened to me. What I personally did was email my main POI and the chair of the department to reiterate my interest in the program (well, I did that a few times actually, I might have been overreacting:-). I do not know if it made any difference, but that's just what I did. Good luck to everyone who is in the same situation, hang in there!

As others have said, you absolutely do not need to retake it, yours is a more than respectable GRE score (dat quant!). BUT, since you are a still junior, IF you have the financial resources and the time I would go ahead and try to retake it when you have time. Not because you need to (as xdarthveganx said, that GRE will definitely not put you in any department's discard pile), but because in the current system there is really no downside to retaking the GRE, apart from the money and time you put into it; you will be able to keep or discard the score, and ultimately choose which one to send to schools. Now, let's say you manage to increase your verbal score by 5 points, you would approximately be top 5% V and top 1% Q; that will not automatically get you in anywhere, but I think that as much as low scores can keep you out, really high ones represent a powerful signaling mechanism. That being said, focus on impressing your current professors, getting a good GPA and working on your SOP (by both doing some research about the literatures you are interested in and looking at prospective programs). Those things are all way more important than 5 extra points in verbal. But IF you have the time and financial resources, retaking it cannot hurt.

Following xdarthveganx's example I will go ahead and start a thread for anyone who was admitted to CUNY and wants some more information (although I've only seen like 3 admits on the results search, which is kind of weird). Best, RD

There is already a thread from last year about this: To sum up: Most top departments will have at least a few people doing qualitative work, and most will have an ethnographer. That being said, if you are looking for departments with a distinct qualitative/ethnographic flavor overall in the top 30, those that come to my mind are Berkeley, Harvard, UCLA, UT-Austin, NYU, Yale, UC Irvine, CUNY, Rutgers. That being said, the main question when applying to PhD programs should probably be the topic you want to study and the theoretical approach you want to take, rather than just a qualitative-quantitative dichotomy. Eg, if you really want to do urban ethnography you will most likely also want to look at Princeton (Duneier) or Columbia (Venkatesh), regardless of the methodological leanings of the department overall.

Dear Heliosphan, Here are my two cents: a) When it comes to applications, I think that your curiosity is probably irrelevant. The point of the personal statement is to show that you "did your homework"; that is, that you are able to read a relevant academic conversation, identify specific problems/flaws/openings to further research, and come up with a convincing argument and project that would contribute to it (or, of course, open new conversations). I think it's pretty much assumed that, as an academic, you are a curious individual and have many interests; in the application process the point is to show that you would be able to convert that "general curiosity" into serious scholarship. It doesn't hurt to underline that you are a curious individual, but for your personal statement you need to go beyond that by engaging with specific scholarship. a) That being said I understand that once you are in a program your question becomes relevant on a very different level, especially when it concerns "changing research topics". In this regard, my answer will probably not be of any help but...it really depends on three things; the extent of the shift, the department and the advisor. First, of course, switching from "organizations" to "social movements" will not be that big of a shift as, say, moving from "criminal justice" to "classical theory". But I would argue that it has even less to do with the topic than it has to do with your scholarly approach to the topic at hand; the latter shift would probably be more acceptable that moving from a functionalist approach to a post-structuralist one, of from a big data statistical project to an ethnographic approach, regardless of the area of study. In this regard, you can be interested in "social science", but your outlook matters more than the specific topic you are interested in. Second, different departments/faculty have different views when it comes to flexibility. I myself have moved away quite substantially from what I had mentioned in my personal statement just a year ago (while still remaining in the broad realm of "political sociology"), and my advisor seems very excited about my new idea. On the other hand, I know of other people at other programs who are receiving quite a bit of pressure to "stay on topic"; I don't think they would NOT be able to change if they really decided to go for it, but they are certainly encountering more resistance than I am. As I said, I don't know it's department-specific or advisor specific, but as always I'm sure that it's a combination of both. My perception is that the two relevant variables are how much the program is "structured" (as in, they require you to start doing fieldwork early, they push you to publish early, etc) and whether the emphasis is put on being a grad student "of the department" or "of individual faculty" (I remember reading somewhere that a great example of this is the Berkeley-Stanford dyad, Berkeley being an example of the former and Stanford of the latter). Structured, faculty-focused departments would probably prefer people with clearly formed research interests, while unstructured, department-focused ones will probably offer greater flexibility. TL;DR: Of course you are curious and interested in the social science, but for your personal statement you should be specific and show that you have "done your homework." Once you are in a program, the extent to which you will be allowed to be flexible really depends on your department/advisor. Hope this helps, RD

Dear Samaj, I think you are definitely not aiming too high. True, the GRE scores could be better, but as everyone on this board keeps repeating, they are just one part of the application, and I do not think that they are so low that they would put you in the "discard pile" of adcomms at the schools you mentioned. The article(s) and presentation definitely will be a big plus; what I would do at this point is work on your personal statement as much as you can and make it perfect...I really think that a personal statement is what makes or breaks applications once they get on the review table. FertMigMort has amazing advice in his pinned post! Concerning other schools you could look at, I know I am starting to sound like a professional advertiser, but give a look at CUNY Graduate Center. Pamela Stone and Cynthia Epstein do work on gender, work and family, and I think that the department definitely punches above its weight in immigration (with people like Alba, Foner and Kasinitz).

I am sorry you feel this way. I am not sure I feel entirely comfortable telling you that you definitely should not apply to certain programs - there is always a chance, you can never know. But if you want brutal pragmatism - which seems to me is what you are looking for here - I would scratch Columbia, Cornell and NYU off the list. Irvine too perhaps. Don't let yourself down though; work on making the rest of your application as strong as possible (in particular, work on your personal statement, write as many drafts as you can, I have learned the hard way that it is perhaps the single most important part of an application package). Also, consider applying to a few extra schools in order to compensate for the ones you end up scratching off the list. Good luck!

Have you looked into NYU (Eric Klinenberg specifically?)...he sounds like a great fit for your interests.

I would give a look at Santa Cruz and CUNY-GC. In the latter they offer a Women Studies Certificate, and many faculty have interests that might be compatible with the ones you stated (namely, Lynn Chancer, Patricia Clough, Barbara Katz-Rothman and Hester Eisenstein).

If you are not aiming for top-top departments you might want to give a look at CUNY-Graduate Center. Specifically at Bryan Turner and--given your interests--especially John Torpey. I heard that admissions have become more selective in order to fix the funding problems they've been having, but I think you might give it a shot.

Hey! Anyone else attending CUNY in September? I'm an European student and was admitted to the PhD program, and will be moving to NY in July... Please do get in touch with me if you will be attending too! :-)

What's the deal with programs that "may" send out final decisions after the April 15 deadline? Is it appropriate to ask the other potential program to push the deadline back or should I just accept the other offer and think about it later, if I ever got off the waitlist and was offered admission to my first choice? By the way, may I just ask everyone who has an offer to try to make decisions as soon as possible, and immediately decline if you are sure you are not going to accept the offer? Other people's mental sanity depends on it :-)

Hi all! I just wanted to ask if someone who attended Stanford's open house in the last few days wanted to share his impressions :-) Thank you in advance, best, RD

Next week???? Awwwwwww... That's true...I'm still in the running...yaaaaaaaaay! I'm on an emotional rollercoaster.