La_Di_Da

I haven't been online to check listings in a while, but I imagine there will be a few 9/1 apartments listed in August. To be on the safe side, though, I would begin searching now for anything coming available September 1st and just have your friend tour any listings that interest you. That's how I found my August 1st lease.
 
Cheers

Apartment secured. What a huge relief, especially as it was our first choice. 

That IS some solid advice!
 
Thank you both La_Di_Da and gilbertrollins. Both your responses made me move forward.
When my subject is done I'll make a reply about how it all went down.
 
Thank you!   

Gilbertrollins has offered you some solid advice.

I'm not familiar with the film, so I read a review or two online. Apart from the metaphorical value of a politician, who is accustomed to being 'handled', getting lost in the woods, where he must rely on his own originality and wit, it seems to me that the most sociological component of the narrative concerns reputation/image making, maintenance and repair. Unless your paper must offer a sociological analysis of a film, I would consider writing instead something on the sociology of reputation-making and management. Regarding that subject, you might wish to look at some of Gary A. Fine's work (http://www.sociology.northwestern.edu/people/faculty/gary-alan-fine.html). There is a lot of literature on image repair in communications journals, too, some of it more sociological, which may be of value to your endeavor.
 
As for the film, it's a satire, yes? So what is the message of that satire? Is it attempting to reveal the circus of political farce? What does the alteration between the protagonist's authentic 'mushrooming' self and his (assumably) disingenuous political performance convey to the audience? Is the film cautioning audiences to be politically circumspect? Is it humanizing politicians? Can film, even when a work of fiction, influence how we participate in politics, how we 'read', interact with and reproduce political dramas?
 
What is it you want to examine by way of this film?

Gilbertrollins has offered you some solid advice.

I would ground your project in your course materials and topics you've read on in sociology already.  It will (1) ensure a better grade, because (and more importantly) it will (2) force you to apply theory you've already learned.  La_Di_Da's advice is good, but you will have to do a rather elaborate dance to connect the film to professional literature, and you are likely not prepared to do that.  The paper you will write will most likely come out like an interpretive exercise in literary or cultural theory, and a fledgling one (because you're completely lost and seems like only sure you like the movie). 
 
Whatever tangents your mind has wandered to while you were reading sociological literature -- I would follow one of those.  Start from the literature, not from your personal interests.

I'm not familiar with the film, so I read a review or two online. Apart from the metaphorical value of a politician, who is accustomed to being 'handled', getting lost in the woods, where he must rely on his own originality and wit, it seems to me that the most sociological component of the narrative concerns reputation/image making, maintenance and repair. Unless your paper must offer a sociological analysis of a film, I would consider writing instead something on the sociology of reputation-making and management. Regarding that subject, you might wish to look at some of Gary A. Fine's work (http://www.sociology.northwestern.edu/people/faculty/gary-alan-fine.html). There is a lot of literature on image repair in communications journals, too, some of it more sociological, which may be of value to your endeavor.
 
As for the film, it's a satire, yes? So what is the message of that satire? Is it attempting to reveal the circus of political farce? What does the alteration between the protagonist's authentic 'mushrooming' self and his (assumably) disingenuous political performance convey to the audience? Is the film cautioning audiences to be politically circumspect? Is it humanizing politicians? Can film, even when a work of fiction, influence how we participate in politics, how we 'read', interact with and reproduce political dramas?
 
What is it you want to examine by way of this film?

Thanks! I bookmarked the page and will be going through the newsletter. Hopefully I remember to check it.

Doug Maynard at UW-Madison. They have CA classes and even a CA prelim. 

Glad to hear it amlobo! 

Hello all!  Now that this year’s application season is over, I just wanted to take a moment to express my appreciation to all of the members of the Soc board for their guidance over the past year.
 
A little over a year ago, I came to gradcafe seeking support and information in my quest to change careers.  When I joined gradcafe, I was 6 years out of undergrad, 3 years out of law school, and had never taken a sociology class in my life.  Basically, I was clueless about just about everything.  I did not think I would be applying this year, but my circumstances changed and, with them, my plans.  I suddenly found myself feeling dreadfully unprepared for the application season that awaited… and this board was really my only source of information for sociology admissions.  Everyone on the board was incredibly patient and helpful over the long and stressful months that followed.
 
The advice I received and, more importantly, the friendships I made on this board provided invaluable support and guidance over the past year.  I will be attending one of my top choices in the fall, and I know it is due in large part to all of you.  So, please accept my sincerest thanks for your role in helping me turn what I thought was a pipe dream into reality.  I am looking forward to this new adventure...

I would talk to some of your professors and get their input (which I am sure you are doing already ).  I only say this because when I was in law school, none of my professors had a PhD... it seemed like most did have some work experience in the law, though.  So, I would just really talk with professors about the best course of action for you.  It sounds like you're interested in criminal law, so maybe talking to some crim profs would be helpful.  Being at a top school is a good start on your journey, and I'd say you will definitely need to do law review (seems to be the "pet" activity for all things law), and a publication is desirable, of course.  I did law review and loved it; I published an article in law school... and I must say that the whole process is a fantastic way to get you acclimated to independent research and scholarly publication.  
 
Of course, there is no "one way" to do anything, and if you want to pursue a PhD in addition to your JD, good for you!  I am a practicing lawyer going back for a PhD, and just be forewarned - you will not get any "credit" for having a JD.  You will have to take all of the same courses as a student with a BA only.  Therefore, a PhD will add 5-8 years to your journey to academia, so just really think about weighing the costs/benefits of getting an additional degree (though I guess you could always get hired as a law prof while working on your dissertation...).  I am not particularly interested in legal academia, but I do like that my JD gives me that option!
 
I can't say that I know a ton about law-oriented soc programs, but you might also want to check out the joint policy programs (Princeton, Harvard, Michigan...).  These kinds of joint programs are incredibly competitive but might be worth a look.  If you have any other law-related questions, feel free to PM me!  Best of luck on your upcoming exams

I'm going to be honest, here.  Some programs will require a minimum GRE.  I took a brief look at the schools you mentioned, and Iowa requires a minimum of an 1100 on the GRE, which is considerably higher than your current scores (680 on old scale - check out a concordance table to convert).  So, at a school with minimum GRE requirements (which most have, even if undisclosed), yes, your GRE score will keep you from being considered.  Something to remember is that not only must the sociology department admit you, the graduate school must also admit you.  So, while a professor or department may be willing to overlook your GRE score, the graduate school probably will be more rigid in evaluating your scores.  Funding will basically be impossible, and as everyone here will tell you, do NOT do a PhD without funding.
 
What's the good news?  You have a ton of time until you apply to PhD programs!  You are just starting your MA program and won't need to apply until 2014 for PhD programs.  It will definitely be worth your while to study, study, STUDY.  Take as many practice tests as you can get your hands on, and retake the GRE - multiple times, if necessary.  I do not doubt that you are a bright and competent individual... and I understand that GRE scores are not the best indicator of a person's ability to succeed.  However, the fact is, the GRE matters and there are real cutoffs for programs that you need to be able to meet.  No one will look at your other accomplishments if you can't meet the minimum requirements for the program.  So, while you don't need to get stellar GRE scores, you need to at least meet that threshold.  It may not be fair, but it's just the way it works.

Since most of us tick all those boxes then the GRE can become the dividing factor.   If you can prove that your intangibles beats other applicants for that position then a lower (not very low) GRE would not be an issue.  Remember that fit is important. 
 
My GRE was far from stellar and I would probably have been more competitive with a higher score but I still got into my #1 choice where I fit perfectly. 

Those scores are awful, and will like other posters said dramatically impact your file at schools well outside the top 10.  If they're not indicative of your abilities, which it appears they are not, I recommend you drill hard and retake the test.  
 
Remember that many schools have cutoffs enforced by the graduate school, and not the department.  Moreover, many departments have cutoffs for GREs that an admissions secretary uses to sort the files before they even get sent to reviewers.  Your application, with that score, has a non-zero probability of ending up in a pile when going out to reviewers that will only get a second glance to make sure there isn't anything monumentally stand-out on your CV, among the names of your letter writers, or transcript.  Committees are under significant time constraints and consider the GRE an appropriate signal of ability.
 
People are correct to note that the GRE is an insufficient criterion for admissions -- bear in mind that it is still necessary.

Achievement motivation and achievement behavior

David McClelland of Wesleyan developed a theory called "need achievement." This did not occur in a vacuum as Henry Murray had previously outlined a taxonomy of human needs, one of which was the need for achievement. McClelland was interested in outlining why some people demonstrate higher levels of both achievement motivation and achievement behaviors than others. He framed it, as Murray did, as a learned motive, but added that it could vary based on the experiences of childhood based on culture, class, and parental attitudes. His approach was the story writing technique, in which subjects would write about ambiguous scenes involving work or study. The resulting texts would be graded for achievement imagery, and then validated against independent measures of actual achievement.

The next step was to generalize this theory validation. McClelland scored the stories in the readers used in primary grades in more than twenty countries in the same way that the story writing samples were graded. Readers from 1920-1950 were scored, and the achievement imagery in those books correlated (r=+.53) with increases in economic productivity during subsequent years. It is important to remember that correlation is not causation, and a third variable (or combination of such variables) could precede both. However, the reverse (increases in production produce achievement imagery in readers) was not supported, which in and of itself still does not establish causality.

Atkinson's response to need achievement theory

Instead of a third variable, Atkinson postulated two competing variables: the motive to achieve success (Ms) and the motive to avoid failure (Maf). Basically, a hypothetical Subject #1 with a strong Ms can be overcome by a stronger Maf such that his achievement behaviors are lower than Subject #2 with a relatively weak Maf and a Ms that is objectively weaker Ms than Subject #1's.

Furthermore, Atkinson argued that the value one places on any success one might gain is an important determinant of achievement behavior. This emphasis on values in addition to motives was shared by Crandall, who pointed out that areas of achievement might not be those generally associated with success by society. For example, a gang member might place a very high value on peer identification and affiliation, and exhibit extremes in achievement behavior in that particular domain, to the exclusion of most socially acceptable forms of behavior.

Raynor's experimental validation of Atkinson

Raynor built off of both of these theorists experimentally when he evaluated introductory psychology students with respect to Ms, Maf, and level of relevance (value) the course had for their futures. His results supported Atkinson since GPA in the course varied in expected ways, with dominant Maf scored significantly lower when their value score was high, and actually score slightly higher than their dominant Ms counterparts when their value scores were low. In layman's terms, fear of failure was, especially in situations where the personal stakes are high, a severe inhibitor of success behaviors.

Perhaps this might be the issue with the subpar GRE scores when all other indicators are positive? High Maf or Motive to avoid failure.

If you've not heard back yet, I would echo others and say look for work/research experiences that will make you a stronger applicant in the next round. 
 
As to why you may have not been successful this cycle, you're definitely a strong applicant, so my first thought would be fit, fit, fit. 
Were there multiple faculty at each program with whom your research interests aligned? Did your application materials clearly articulate why you were a strong match for the program?
 
Next though would be weak LORs or a weak SOP.
You mentioned to us that you're involved in many extracurriculars - did you mention this in your SOP? My general understanding is that programs care very little (if any) about extracurriculars. It's fine to have them on your resume but generally should not be mentioned in your SOP. Colleges may be looking for "well-rounded" applicants but graduate programs really don't care about that stuff. Your SOP should primarily be about your scholarly development, your research interests, and why the program is a strong fit for your future studies.
Finding out whether LORs were weak is a bit more challenging, but it's worth considering if there are little other explanations, since if you end up reapplying, you'll want to make sure these are even stronger. I sent my SOP to my recommenders so they could expound on and highlight relevant experiences in their letters. I asked for their feedback on my letter and I also explained how I thought my work with each of them came together to make me a strong applicant (my sitch was a bit unique, I was not a soc major and had one letter from a prof in my major field, one from a soc prof I took many classes with, and one from my current employer). 
 
It's hard, but we have to remember that many, many applicants have high GPAs, high GRE scores, and research experience. Those just get us into the review pile. They don't earn us an admissions offer.

In spite of having a couple New Haven friends visit apartments on my behalf, I have still had no luck finding an affordable 1BR apartment, 500 square feet or slightly larger, in Wooster Square, West Chapel district or East Rock that is fit to live in. My friend's wife thought the entrance to my initial top-choice apartment was too dark and dangerous (though in East Rock) due to its configuration, and the other two apartments I liked ended up having some serious structural issues; e.g., bad plumbing, water damage, etc. I didn't think apartment hunting would be this difficult, not even from afar.
 
What is everyone looking for? I could keep an eye out and post leads. Who is willing to share? I come across great apartments all time that would be perfectly affordable for a couple of students splitting the rent. I, myself, prefer to live alone; I have too much stuff and a daughter who will visit me during the summers.

I was fortunate enough to be admitted to many top 5/10 programs this cycle and you have a strong profile. Just bear in mind these programs tend to really emphasize fit in the admissions process, so be prepared to give specific as to why each program could be the home for your graduate work. Best of luck!

We're in luck! While experimental studies are rare in sociology, there is indeed a study that uses experimental methods to test women's career aspirations and expectations. 
 
http://www.jstor.org/sici?sici=0003-1224%28200402%2969%3A1%3C93%3ACIPGSA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-O&
 
Under the belief that men are better at certain tasks, women tend to perform worse than their male counterparts. However, under the belief that both genders perform equally, there are no sex differences in performance. So women might be sorting out of male dominated occupations because they believe that men are better at them, leading them to perform worse on average. I'm not sure if they've done this, but it would be interesting to see perceived sex differences in performance between women in male-dominated occupations and female-dominated occupations. I would expect that the belief that men are "better" at their job is more prevalent in male-dominated occupations than female-dominated occupations, and given that male-dominated occupations pay better, this might be an important mechanism explaining the gender gap.

Interesting articles, both.  Mbrown's brings up the point that I always notice when assessing the "gender gap" in my current profession - men and women start out "equal", but as you go up the ranks, the gap emerges and widens.  I have been an attorney for 4 years, and I think the law is a particularly odd profession in regards to the gender gap.  More than half of law students are female, and I think at my law school, it was bordering on 60% female by the time I graduated.  I would say that half of incoming associates at big firms are female.  But, exactly as the article points out, as the associates climb the ranks, the women drop out.  So, by the time you get up to the equity partners, women are scarce.  And, this isn't a phenomenon related to the qualifications of women but rather the result of conscious choices of the women themselves - though, granted, choices imposed upon them due to the working conditions of their chosen fields.  
 
One of the most intelligent, accomplished, and driven women I knew in law school left her job at a big firm to be a stay-at-home mom.  She could have easily excelled in her career but chose her family over work since her husband was also an attorney at a big firm and could support the family on his salary alone.  Another woman I know was already planning her future career based on which firms offered part-time positions, so she could have children.  And, countless others went to smaller firms or government jobs because of the benefits and family leave they offered.  I also was in law school with a woman who was going back to brush up on the law because she was returning to practice after 18 years at home with her children.  It's a well-known "practice" in the law for women to work at big firms for a few years, then "transition" to much lower-paying jobs as in-house counsel or in the government because the hours are better.
 
So, I see the motherhood aspect as the major factor preventing women from rising in these fields - not because women are being slighted in some way, but because women want to have children and will often sacrifice their career goals to be what they see as a "better" mother.  I think it's unfortunate that higher earning careers are often the more demanding ones, and women who want children feel forced into making a decision between their careers and their children.  
 
But, how to address that particular gap is an interesting query.  Do we change the career culture?  Or perhaps societal expectations that women are the parent who should stay home?  I'm genuinely interested to hear what people think

When I visited UChicago I was told that all but one of the female tenured faculty members are childless. I can't confirm this independently and I don't know how much UChicago soc faculty are earning, but it does seem to conform to Kay Hymowitz's somewhat recent piece "The Plight of the Alpha Female." The gender gap (when properly assessed) may be shrinking quickly, but it won't be disappearing as long as the motherhood gap is part of it.

Made the decision that I had been expecting since before I submitted my application. Looks like I'll be a Buckeye in the fall!

Feels almost redundant to post this now, but as noted elsewhere in this forum, I accepted my invitation from Yale.