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?

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

I was waitlisted at BU

Nope! He repackaged phenomenology and structuralism into a theory of practice. He simply admired Goffman's sensibility to micro phenomenon (he came across Goffman later in his career, after having developed his theoretical framework in the late 1950s/early 1960s).

As for the rant above: the point is not to "mock" sociology, but perhaps to give an insight (as someone who studied anthropology before and now attending a sociology grad program) about the limits of sociology and especially American sociology.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Why on earth would you do that?!!! Leaving anthropology for a predominantly a-theoretical a-historical discipline like sociology, and to study what? socio-linguistics!!! Do not make that mistake -- sociology is largely a stupid discipline (at least in the US), and unless you are willing to work hard to change that, stay in anthropology. The bunch of amateurs that are pontificating about ethnography vs. conversation analysis (and Goffman who influenced Bourdieu!!!!!!!!!) read a couple of chapters in some class and got an A and apparently built enough confidence (which is exactly why US sociology is crap) to go to grad school and even to start professing before getting there! Long-story short: do not waste your time studying such an interesting topic in a discipline like sociology in the US, unless you are applying abroad (Edingburgh?!)
 
Good luck!

CA is the analysis of audiotaped or videotaped interaction, whereas ethnography is typically more oriented to "hanging out" in the world and then taking detailed notes.  My understanding is that they are distinct methodologies.

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. 

The videos you proudly posted clearly show direct action anarchists pushing other protesters out of their way, to which you add in your comments a warning for others to not get in your way.  Is it radical news to you that the state is fundamentally coercive?  This is an idea from first-course political theory taught in every department in the nation, and one that spills over into major subfields of anthropology, economics, and sociology.  
 
You would have some currency to purchase the request people address you in a "polite and interested" manner, had you not already spent yours by addressing others like this: 
 
"yawn."
"This is so beyond offensive it's not even funny, you are so inherently bigoted towards "anarchists" there would be no point in even debating this."
"It's clear to me that you're a total prestige snob"
 
Three separate board members have sympathized with me privately that you are abusive, immature, and irresponsible in the way you behave here.  And I suspect many more stay away from dialogue with you because of your embarrassing attitude and lack of erudition.  As I pointed out in the other thread - I've known quite a few abusive, immature, and irresponsible academics.  Seemingly these people get away with it because they are otherwise brilliant and offer enormous contributions to their colleagues.  I haven't seen an insightful thought come out of your mouth yet.  You lurk on threads, posting generic one-line application advice occasionally, and otherwise chime in on debates uninvited just to throw politically-charged ad hominem around.  This apparently constitutes a "diversity of tactics" approach to political action.  
 
I don't deny that I'm arrogant and condescending.  At least I make some attempt to translate that into constructive dialogue.  Your belligerence gets channelled into pronouncements that "there is no point in even debating."
 
I've brought people into my apartment that were blind from teargas -- you are precisely the kind of idiot that instigates this sort of harm.  Your actions are the reason police fire beanbags at people.  Your politics are a disgrace, and I expect nothing but disappointment from your scholarship as well lest you spend less time flaming people on the internet, playing shoot em up video games, watching bloody fights on TV, and more time considering your own priors more deeply.