dawgle

My undergrad GPA was in the 2.9 range (at an elite research university, but still...) and I got 7 funded offers last year, including 1 from a top 10 department and 3 in the top 20. How? I spent 2 years making everything else in my application stand out- I got a 4.0 in my MA program (in International Studies), great recs from distinguished professors, 165/161/5.0 GRE, etc. Most importantly, though, I spent a lot of time reading, talking to my professors, and learning to think sociologically. My personal statement, writing sample, and the recs I got from professors all made it clear that I was ready to participate in the sociological community. My advice would be to find someone to mentor you through this process- a relatively young professor is usually a good bet. I had a mentor who really values education and was very honest with me about how much work I needed to do.

Visit was last week. I loved it. Amazing resources, great campus, (obviously) great faculty. I really enjoyed speaking with the current students, and they all spoke highly of the program. The funding obviously isn't fantastic, but they do an excellent job of getting grants and fellowships. Perhaps this was just me being naive, but I also thought it seemed like a very professional program. The goal is to train future professors at top universities, and they do a great job of it.

So we should use this to make a quick last-minute decision on where to attend, right?

Does anyone know what happens to pre-existing loans when one starts a PhD program? I'm thinking it will be pretty hard to pay off loans while I'm living near the poverty line...

Nope, just to let them know if I accept another offer. It was a nice email.

I was waitlisted at BU

I was accepted, but have other offers that I'm considering...

Same missed call from UCI here, with "good news."

I feel bad for getting involved in the hijacking of another thread- I really don't think that's what this forum is for. I'll bow out of this debate and spend this time more productively by reading some Bourdieu and/or Goffman.

No need for hostility. Bourdieu spent time at the Institute for Advanced Study (Princeton) and University of Pennsylvania in the early 1960s, which is where he met Erving Goffman. Goffman actually encouraged him to take a position at Penn, but Bourdieu declined. Check out David Swartz's book Culture and Power or Calhoun, Lipuma, and Postone's collection Bourdieu: Critical Perspectives. Bourdieu personally helped get Goffman's work translated into French, just as he did for Paul Willis' Learning to Labor.

Ok ok, but reworking phenomenology/structuralism after having been introduced to micro-sociology. He met Goffman in the early 1960s when he was still working on Algeria. Outline of a Theory of Practice is Bourdieu's attempt to correct what he saw as a lack of agency in structuralism. Nonetheless, I was still off on Conversation Analysis.

Good point, you got me there. I've only read one book that used CA, and it was an ethnography...they documented some of the conversations and then reconstructed them later on. On the other hand, I stand by Goffman having an influence on Bourdieu. In Outline of a Theory of Practice, Bourdieu repackages symbolic interactionism and ethnomethodology into his own theory in order to critique structuralist anthropology.

Honestly, it's what it sounds like. CA was inspired by things like ethnomethodology, Goffman, etc. (who in turn influenced Bourdieu) and usually involves very detailed studies of interaction (i.e. in hospitals, schools,...). It can be fascinating- and is by nature a very ethnographic form of research

"Grad Skool Rulz: Everything You Need to Know about Academia from Admissions to Tenure is for students in Ph.D. programs. These programs have a poor track record. Less than 50% of students who begin their Ph.D. program will leave with their degree. Many of those who graduate will needlessly spend a decade or more pursuing their degree."

I'm fairly certain conversation analysis is big at UCLA

I'm not coming from religious studies, but I'd never taken a sociology course per se and several of my letter-writers are in literature departments. I've received a few offers already, so I can't say I've been at much of a disadvantage. I would say it's a worthwhile investment to familiarize yourself with the history of sociology (I highly recommend Craig Calhoun's "Sociology in America") and the current state of the field. To the best of your ability, find a niche for yourself that plays to your strengths and interests and make sure that comes through in your application. You can show in some way that you're moderately competent in math (maybe with a decent GRE score), but in all likelihood most departments realize they can teach you that stuff later.

I must say, this whole process is delightfully random. I've been accepted to 2 highly competitive schools, and from what I can tell, did not receive offers from multiple lower "ranked" programs where I thought I had a better fit.

I'm curious because this keeps coming up in different places- what kind of information is it that you're advocating against posting? I've found this forum especially helpful for getting a sense of what types of scores, research experience, interests, etc. were helpful in gaining admission to good programs. Should we withhold basic stats?

I was one of the U of Washington acceptances...I am SO EXCITED