alienatedlaborer

Not much to add here, other than to say that I think you'll be ok, too. I was in a similar situation--terrible grades, followed by a sudden switch to good grades when I got serious about school, then a transfer to a better school where I continued to get good grades--and it wasn't an issue for me at all. One note, though. If you feel compelled to explain the change in your statements, I would avoid blaming terrible professors for your early lackluster performance. Even if it's true, you'll look like you aren't taking responsibility for your own actions. You could just say that it wasn't an ideal fit for you, and focus on your later success. And as has already been noted, the most important thing is to work hard on that SOP! I think admissions committees take this much more seriously than a few bad grades your first year in school.

No need to stress. I just thought the post at scatterplot was rather timely and interesting. As everyone else has already said, just play it safe and use "Dr." or "Professor" until told you can use a first name. You really can't go wrong with this strategy.

FWIW: A timely post on Scatterplot shows that grad students aren't the only ones with anxiety over the issue of names: http://scatter.wordpress.com/2010/02/20/title-etiquette/

Granovetter, Meyer, and Hannan are all big names, and all at Stanford. MIT has Zuckerman, and a great econ soc department in general. The line between economic sociology and organizational sociology is rather blurry, so you might consider also looking at organizational soc people. In that realm, DiMaggio (Princeton), Uzzi (Northwestern), and Podolny (formerly @ Yale, now doing... something for Apple) are all big names. Of course, Cornell also has a great program for this. Granovetter and Swedberg put together an econ soc reader that contains many core readings, and is worth a look. Beware that much early econ soc was devoted to debunking basic economic (i.e., rational actor) approaches to markets and money. Once you get past the disciplinary boundary making, it's some interesting stuff.

Speaking of the Devil's games, I hope Friar.Tuck's divine quarterstaff gives him +3 protection against NSF rejection-based attacks, or he'll never advance past Level 2 Cleric.

Did anyone else happen to hear about the NSF staff members busted for surfing porn sites all day? Check it: http://www.sciam.com/blog/60-second-sci ... 2009-01-29 When we imagined that the delay had something to do with the "stimulus package," I don't think this is what we had in mind.

Who wants to come over to my place and watch Robocop? Bring beer. I'll provide the BluRay.

Verily, I'm sure we doth not seen the last of our friend the Friar, or whatever.

I miss Friar.Tuck.

I think Slothy sums it up exactly. It's also worth mentioning that, although students in the MAPSS program are encouraged to wait until they've completed before applying to PhD, the people I know spent that "extra" year doing research for professors at well known research institutes. Between the year of coursework, the master's thesis, and the extra months of research experience, I have to think that their apps looked every bit as appealing as anyone from a 2-year MA program. Your international status makes it a bit different for you, but doing research in your home country is always an option while you wait it out. In any case, as Hoobers' experience shows, any MA program is going to require you to be proactive in getting the attention of people you want to work with. If you're willing to knock on doors and make those connections, it sounds like Chicago or NYU would both be fruitful options. My personal opinion, however, is that Chicago's reputation and faculty make it the most appealing of the bunch.

Yeah, I don't know much about the program at the New School, which is why I'll reserve judgement. Search the forums here for more info on Draper and MAPSS, since I'm sure there are a lot of people making similar decisions right now. FWIW, I know a couple of people who did the MAPSS program and went on to top-tier PhD programs and other good research jobs. Of the three schools, Chicago definitely has the best reputation in the social sciences, so getting exposure to their programs, faculty, etc. would no doubt be very helpful.

I haven't heard great things about the Draper program. My impression is that it's basically a money-maker for the university, where students pay a lot of money to get a degree of questionable use. If cost is a factor here, then remember that living in NYC is going to cost you much, much more than living pretty much anywhere else, as even NYU's student housing is no bargain. Weren't you considering the UChicago MAPSS program as well? It seems like the best option if your goal is to get into a good social science program. If you're intent on picking NYU or the New School, I suppose NYU has more "big name" professors that might be helpful when applying to PhD programs. But no matter where you go, MA students will likely feel like they get less attention than PhD students. Plan on being a little assertive in order to get the attention you need. Good luck. Seems like a tough decision.

I don't think this should be a major concern. All those rejection letters that say they had more qualified applicants than they have available spaces are actually telling the truth, so the fact that you just barely got in doesn't mean you're not qualified. The school has no interest in offering admission (along with all that money) to someone they anticipate will fail. Once you're in, it's really all about how you perform, and a year down the road, it won't matter at all. If you're feeling insecure, you can always talk to professors about it, since they'll no doubt have helpful information to share. And if you're worried about how other students will react to you as the waitlisted applicant, you don't have to tell them. But for what it's worth, in my program no one cares about who got in off the waitlist and who was the top choice. All that changes the first day of class anyway. Good luck!

Over the last several years, a lot of schools have adjusted their program requirements and funding packages in hopes of getting people out in less time, but five years is still pretty optimistic. But it also depends on what kind of work you're planning on doing. Doing ethnography or collecting massive data from historical records, for instance, is going to take at least a year or two extra, whereas quantitative researchers generally have more data available from the outset, and can get started on their dissertation work more quickly. The professors I've talked to have generally preached taking the right amount of time for my project, rather than setting unreasonable goals and doing less impressive work as a result. Easy for them to say, but I think it's sound advice all the same.

I agree with all that's been said here, and it would do all soc grad students some good to remember that there's a world outside the ivory tower that would love to have us. But as a practical matter, I'd be wary of voicing your plans to someday leave academia too loudly. Simply put, a lot of professors aren't going to be interested in working with someone who they think is going to split for the private sector once their dissertation is done. They may even view you as a flight risk, since you hardly need a PhD to work for McKinsey, after all. If they think there's a good chance you won't bother finishing the program, why would they spend all that time training you? This isn't to say you should lie about your plans, but... maybe keep that part about the private sector to yourself until you're further along and know who you're dealing with. ...and then go make your millions.