JohnBom

Landril, I think the contrary: NGO work and non-profit managerial experience, in terms of sociology programs, is viewed in a separate light than other professional experience. For instance, a person who goes into the Peace Corps and does volunteer work for some time, even if it is outside their research area, would definitely have a competitive advantage over someone who, let's say, held a sales position for the last couple of years. Thus, put more politely, I think admissions committees are going to care how many starving children in Africa you have saved. This tells more about someones character than their personal statement or other parts of their application. Research experience is not the only experience that will help you get your foot into a sociology graduate program, other (professional) experience is valued too. That is, even if such experience cannot be 'weaved' into your particular research interests or career goals.

The point was that you may be looking for tenure track jobs in very unfamiliar places if you get a PhD from less known program. While some people may be fine with that, I would personally rather have more options not less. It's one thing to choose to take a job in a particular place for xyz reason, it's another to be forced to take one because you don't have any other choice. Also no, my "there" was clearly very specific. I am friends with the individual I was referring to and get regular updates. These weren't just "speculations about Africa" but very specific things that happened to a very specific person, in a very specific university in a very specific country in Africa. If you actually read my original post on the topic you would realize that instead of just jumping into some condescending rant. You're barking up the wrong tree here, I more than understand the politics of colonization, not to mention the fact that I currently live somewhere that continues to be illegally occupied by the United States.

Your condescending antiracism 101 post was completely unnecessary. read DarthVegan's post correctly before lecturing us (on things we all know here, thanks).

for me it'll be a couple days extra.
damn international mail :'(

First off, I have to admit that I don't totally get the upvote and downvote system and don't use it.

But I do think that the information you shared doesn't really jive with the rest of our experiences. Of course, most if not all of the people here are people who have recently been through the admissions process and are sharing information based on advice we received along the way. That being said, I'll repeat that all of the advice I've gotten from professors, advisors, and grad students at several top universities (I spoke to several grad students from other universities who had served on admissions committees before applying) is that if it doesn't have anything to do with your academic life or research, it's not really relevant. Yes, it might be interesting to have a musician or a painter or an athlete or a swing dancing enthusiast around the department, but taking part in any of those activities as an undergraduate will not help you get into a PhD program in sociology.

That doesn't mean that applications are done strictly by the numbers. There are lots of activities that you could participate in that strengthen your application, particularly anything to do with teaching/tutoring and involvement in activities directly related to your research interests. Interested in housing issues in the U.S. and spent two years volunteering for Habitat for Humanity? Probably makes sense to discuss that one. Interested in housing issues in the U.S. and spent two years in a modern dance performance group? Maybe a little less helpful.

Anyway, I'm not saying that there are no outliers in this process, and it's totally possible that some professors here and there might like to see "well-rounded" applicants. I am saying that it's counterproductive to get in the mindset of someone applying for undergrad and start thinking "If only I become the president of every club, then they will definitely let me in!" If you're interested in making yourself more competitive to an admissions committee, focus on getting research experience, presenting at conferences, and doing well in your courses. And don't sweat it if you weren't president of any clubs in college-- no one will care.

The only thing I have to add is that whenever I talked with potential faculty, they would talk about my research interests and research background from my SoP but none have yet to mention my extracurriculars, even in casual conversation. But of course that's not going to be a universal experience.

This isn't true. One of my letter writers who is on the grad comm said she explicitly looks for those kind of things because she wants a well-rounded person. She wants someone who has worked before and shows they have had prior responsibilities so being a ta/ra isn't a slap in the face when there are duties and deadlines one has to meet.

Like I said, there isn't a clear cut answer to anything. You're better off including things that someone might just overlook than excluding things that might catch someones attention.

It's not to say it's a make or break on an application but it can certainly help you be remembered more or just give you a little bit of character to your application.

With regards to what largo said on Cornell: I got into Cornell with absolutely no extra-curriculars (save for editing the undergraduate sociology journal). In general, grad school commitees do not care about extra curriculars (unless they are extraordinary). Research, fit, and numbers are much, much more important.

The short answer: they don't.

You're applying for an academic research degree, so for the most part admissions committees will be looking at evidence that you can succeed as an academic. Extracurriculars can be icing on the cake, and they can maybe show indirect things about your ambition and leadership and etc that might put you in a positive light, but it's not like undergrad. Nobody cares if you did sports, etc. Volunteer and work experience is only really relevant if it has something to do with your academic/research interests.

This was asked in 2010. Just saying.

O.M.G.! Are you allowed to TA during your first year? How does Teaching Assistant positions work? I assume that only desirable candidates get this type of funding, then there are the others who were accepted but weren't good enough to get funding. I love discussion oriented classes, as long as there are no ignorant comments. Currently with my undergrad classes I have two scenarios - the teacher hates me because I call people out for saying racist, sexist, ignorant comments, or the students hate me because I am the only one who participates. Is participation apart of the grade? Or is it just something that is expected?

Off to Ann Arbor! Huzzah!

@spunkrag, Really? Michael Young and Javier Auyero are doing amazing work in social movements and latin america. There are plenty of great faculty at UT-Austin not doing work in demography. Frankly I think demography is boring as hell.

In Ohhello's, defense...I feel like the issue being addressed here might not be the specificity of research interests per se, as much as it might be about what I imagine will be the touchy subject of the "quality" of the cohort at the schools you're considering. "Quality" is the word a professor used when giving me this advice, which I think he meant as a metric of how smart/interesting do you find your prospective cohort. I don't think this is necessarily an absolute measure, but I do think it's important to feel intellectually stimulated by your colleagues and/or supported in whatever arenas you value.

Of course, I'm totally reading into the original comment, and this might not be what Ohhello meant at all. But I do see how specificity of research interests coming into the program could be (though isn't necessarily) a proxy for how familiar students are with the field of Sociology in general, or how serious they have been as students (especially if they're not coming from another discipline), which could be a proxy for "quality". This might not matter in the long run as you'd all end up with similar training, but I think it's totally reasonable to be concerned about feeling like a big fish in a small pond while others play catchup. In more general (and maybe slightly less arrogant sounding) terms, I think it's reasonable to be concerned if you feel like you're not intellectually or otherwise on the same page with your cohort, whatever that might mean.

Accepted Berkeley and Madison but chose FIU. Interesting.

This is mostly false. PM me if you got into mapss and want to talk about it.

Your advice is sound for people who "just want to pursue graduate studies." For those who are interested in getting a job in academia and pursuing sociology professionally after graduation, please think twice about terminal degrees and non-ranked schools.

Hey everybody,

I appreciate the feedback, and I have some responses/ additions, although I stand by most of what I said.

With regards to my "freedom to do research quote" I agree that I over generalized. There are always a million limiting factors that play into the research you are able to do. I was speaking more in terms of the long run. If I am able to get tenure somewhere someday, it will allow me a great deal more academic freedom.

With regards to the hubbub on elitism, I am speaking from a purely pragmatic standpoint. I want to get a tenure track job after getting my PhD, and that is incredibly hard to do right now. Going to a top ranked institution (and working as hard as I can while there) increases the odds of that happening. Also, my interests are broad enough right now that I felt comfortable applying to a few different top ranked programs. If you want to specialize in something specific, then that is certainly a reason to shoot for a specific program, but I am not willing to pigeonhole myself into a topic this early in my career. The "Historical Comparative Economic sociology" definition is about as specific as I want to get.

I'm sorry if I offended anybody, but I stand by what I said. It is an incredibly competitive market out there. I would say the the top 30 sociology programs graduate 300-350 PhDs every year, and there are simply not 300-350 tenure track openings in sociology departments every year. I don't have any stats to back that up, but I would be surprised if I am wrong. If your goal is to land a tenure track job, you need to go to as prestigious of a school as possible, work as hard as you can, and get lucky.

Edit: Also, the comment from my professors about "top ten schools" came when they asked me what I wanted to do with a PhD, and I said get tenure at a school, so I do have a specific process in mind that somewhat qualifies that statement.

Your advice is sound for people who "just want to pursue graduate studies." For those who are interested in getting a job in academia and pursuing sociology professionally after graduation, please think twice about terminal degrees and non-ranked schools.

Your advice is sound for people who "just want to pursue graduate studies." For those who are interested in getting a job in academia and pursuing sociology professionally after graduation, please think twice about terminal degrees and non-ranked schools.

Your advice is sound for people who "just want to pursue graduate studies." For those who are interested in getting a job in academia and pursuing sociology professionally after graduation, please think twice about terminal degrees and non-ranked schools.

@Sociolog86

I'm sure there are exceptions, but sociologists themselves find the prestige of a school matters a whole lot when being hired. All three of my letter of recommendation professors told me, with no uncertainty, that unless I could get into a Top 10 program with funding, they could not in good conscious recommend going to graduate school in sociology in the state it is in now. Thankfully, it worked out for me.

I want to have absolute freedom to do my research, write books, and publish articles, and for me, that means going to a top tier grad school, and being adequately prepared for the even tougher crapshoot that is the hiring process after graduate school. Idealism aside, I fully intend to make a career out of sociology, and I plan on doing everything I can to make that happen, within reason. Doing an unfunded masters at any level, and then doing an unfunded Phd is, to me, ludicrous. I love the research I do, but I would never go into crippling debt for it. As I have been told, if you can not get somebody to pay you to do something, then that is a clue it should remain a hobby.

I realize people have different aspirations, and every case is different, but I think many, many applicants need a healthy dose of realism when approaching the application process for graduate school in sociology. I am very glad I had professors who, early in my undergraduate career, told me what I needed to do to get into a top graduate school and explained what I should expect when approaching sociology as a profession

Sorry to be the grammar police. But, Sleepycat, you mean lower "than" the top 20. A lot of people don't know the difference between then and than. Google it.

I think the whole concept of having a safety school is very problematic when applied to grad programs. In my opinion, there is no reason why anyone needs to be desperate to enroll into a doctoral program. If it doesn't work this year with any of your top choices, it might work next time.

Hey all,
I am looking for some opinion from folks who spent some time at both places. I got fully funded acceptances from both. I am pretty much thrilled with the academic caliber and the research match at both. I think it is a good idea to investigate living quality at each in order to help me decide. Obviously, I plan to visit, but I doubt that I will get a fair sense of what it is like living there after three days.

If you could choose, where would you go?
Thanks for your wise insights.