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.

I think the idea that you'd be a "star" at Wisconsin or another talented student at Harvard is a little misguided. Harvard's program is much smaller, so you're actually likely to get more attention from faculty than you would at bigger programs like Wisconsin or Berkeley (initially, at least). Also Harvard generally offers full funding to everyone they admit, whereas competition for funding opportunities at Wisconsin might be a bit more intense. Whatever your personal funding situation, these kinds of things really do have an impact on the character of the programs, and you should talk to lots of people (students and faculty, past and present) to get a feel for what you're getting into. But I agree that different personalities excel in these kinds of environments, and it will be up to you to be honest with yourself and figure out where you belong. Of course, all of this sets aside the issue of your particular interests. What do you want to do? With whom do you want to work? Obviously, this should play a large role in your decision. In any case, it sounds like you're in a great position. Congratulations, and good luck!

Glad you appreciate the name. If you're still interested in urban ethnography, there's certainly work to be done in Denver, though you'll have to be creative. You definitely won't find anything like the Robert Taylor Homes there... plenty of dying suburbs and sprawl, though. Good luck with the decision!

Whatever you do, visit both schools. Talk with professors and students--especially those you think might have useful perspective on the issues you're weighing right now. You most definitely don't want to be somewhere that you're constantly feeling out of place, but at the same time, don't sacrifice the opportunity to work with someone great for the temporary comfort of being closer to old friends, etc. (You'll have PLENTY of time in a Ph.D. program to make new ones!) Academics aside, I spent many years in the Denver area (Boulder is only 20 minutes away). While I'm not speaking from the perspective of a minority, I find both Denver and Boulder to be very progressive and tolerant. Politically, Boulder is like the Berkeley of the Rocky Mountains (depending on your own views, this may or may not be a good thing). It's also beautiful, and I imagine it would be a great place to study. On the other hand, if urban ethnography is your thing, you might think twice. In any case, good luck with this decision. I'd be interested to hear what you decide.

I agree with nativenewyorker. I think a good statement of purpose can really help clarify why you would be a good fit for each program (and fit is generally very important to these committees), especially if your other quals aren't in the stratosphere. Also, the competition really does matter. For instance, how many others from your undergrad and grad schools applied this year, and how many other letters did your rec. letter writers write? It's rare for any top program to accept more than one person from any given school each year, and rec. letters are always ranked (if only implicitly). My advice is to: (1) Contact the schools and see if they'll give you feedback on your app. (2) Retake the GRE to improve that verbal score. (3) Contact professors at each school (if your current professors can put you in touch, that helps) to get a feel for each program. Visit campus or call them if that's not a possibility, but have good questions ready, and ask about their personal research. And of course, follow up with a thank you email. (4) Work with your professors more so that they know you and your work even better, which translates to an even better letter. Maybe ask them for help revising your thesis for publication. You might also consider a few "safety" schools (although I don't know how "safe" you can call any program with full funding, etc.), if you're really dying to get your PhD. This is completely a personal choice, but consider adding a few more schools to that list. There are a lot of great programs out there. And lastly, don't be discouraged. I applied to several top-tier schools last year and was rejected by all of them. I followed the above advice (given to my by a very successful professor who was also rejected his first time around), and had better luck this year. Best of luck!

PhDs.org has some breakdowns that might be helpful. No specific info on where people get placed, but helpful all the same: http://graduate-school.phds.org/rankings/sociology