focused

Who's the other Berkeley admit that posted on the results page? Congrats to whomever it is, and if you see this post - are you attending the admit visit weekend?

Congratulations, Astronautka!

Congrats to all of the other Wisconsin (and any others - looks like one UCSB) admits!

Thank you, EdPolicy. Congratulations to you, as well! That is great news!

Thanks for all of the congratulatory messages. I prefer not to post funding details because this is a public forum, so I hope you'll understand. The Berkeley visit weekend is March 5-8. Good luck to everyone!

I just received an acceptance call from Berkeley! (I posted on the results page.)

Thanks everyone!

That was me. It seems like they just started making calls (and I didn't get called until around 4pm (EST)), so I don't think you need to worry.

It seems the contentions are typically between quantitative ("hard") and qualitative ("soft"). Any arbitrary judgment about a particular substantive subfield being "harder" or "softer" seems curious to me, especially since gender and family were mentioned as softer. There is a ton of quantitative, including lab, research in those subfields. Why would one consider those soft fields?

The two most annoying parts for me were finding conflicting information between the department websites and the online applications (and even within the department websites themselves) and now the waiting. This is miserable. The SoP, the LoRs, the transcripts, etc. were not half as bad as this waiting game!

Agreed. I'm not in your field, but the admitted students in the top social science schools often break 1400. Surely, some of them score below this, but they likely have other elements to balance it out (very high GPA, exceptional research experience, potentially publications, etc). You mentioned the rest of your application is solid, but it's hard to know what that really means since definitions of "solid" can vary quite a bit. In any case, I think trying to exceed the 1400 mark is good advice.

I think the jealousy and tension often arises when a person who doesn't receive full funding (and who isn't independently wealthy) is in a cohort with someone who did receive full funding. The person who wasn't fully-funded may have to take on more TAships or jobs in order to cover living expenses, which takes away time from research. I have heard that unequal funding packages and the subsequent tensions reduce the exchange of ideas and collaboration on projects among graduate students.

Way to go, Rogue! I can imagine that the feeling of relief with the first acceptance is nearly as good as the excitement. I know that is how it will be for me. I just want one with full funding so that at least I know I can begin in the fall. Of course, I want my first choice, but even more, I just want relief. In any case, congrats!

Agreed, although I was thinking it could also add to the group processes research in sociology.

Agreed!

Stanford and UNC

That's correct. I called the Soc grad admissions coordinator last week to confirm.

Exactly - it is contrary to all of the advice I have received, as well. After the initial cuts, why would any prof ever value the GRE over a writing sample? You're going to grad school to research and publish, not to find antonyms and the hypotenuse of a triangle.

Would other parts of your application (e.g. CV) identify the undergrad paper as, indeed, an undergrad paper? I assume it was your senior thesis, and so you have likely described the project somewhere else on your application. But if not, and it is your best work, then it seems that adcomms wouldn't necessarily know whether you completed it as an undergrad or a Master's student.

I certainly don't think you'll gain anything from it, and you may very well hurt yourself with it. But in fact, I don't necessarily think the adcomms will find it humorous; they may just consider it a poorly-suited quote for a professional statement. If you think it's important to convey the essence of the quote, perhaps express it through either your own words or examples.

I would definitely include it, but indicate only "Under review," not "Under review at Journal X." Some people note where their manuscripts are under review, but this is generally considered poor form. Perhaps this varies among disciplines. If you receive an R&R, you can then indicate, "Revise and Resubmit at Journal X." But I would not indicate the journal until that point.

Is it possible that your recommenders may submit their letters online? Most of the programs to which I'm applying actually strongly encourage that applicant submit online all materials, including letters of recommendation. That way, you'll be able to track online when your recommenders have submitted their letters, and your transcript will be the only item you'll need to send via courier.

Also, although the Princeton program as a whole is not particularly qualitatively-oriented, Mitchell Duneier's work seems to fit with your interests. Personally, I would not apply to a program for only one faculty member, but the program has others who specialize in inequality (though they don't necessarily do qualitative work). Perhaps you're already applying, but just thought I'd point it out.

Berkeley is generally considered more qualitatively-oriented. The average length of time to complete their program is also longer than other programs, as many students conduct ethnographic field research for their dissertations. However, if that is not a concern, the department has several professors who employ qualitative methods to study the substantive research areas you mentioned.