draco.malfoy

Congrats!

Well, manageable is a universal recommendation for any program, wouldn't you think? I have a few ideas that weave together all of these things but I'm not really pinning myself down at all right now because I expect things will change when I begin.

Have you heard anything at all from Yale?

Great topic idea @montanem! I am interested in comparative-historical sociology as a methodology and cultural sociology as a theoretical perspective, with substantive research interests in politics, religion, and charisma. I'm very interested in theories of power and empire, as well as nationalism. I think my cases for research will be wide throughout time, with interests both in the early modern period as well as contemporary American politics and religion. Theoretically, I'm interested in all sorts right now. I'm just excited about theory. However, I have a general pull towards Weber and Durkheim (and their traditions), so it will be fun to continue to explore these seemingly different perspectives. As far as programs, I think Yale is probably the best fit for me. I'm really excited about the opportunity of working with Jeff Alexander and Phil Smith, with their emphasis on the Strong Program, symbolic performance, and the Center for Cultural Sociology, as well as Julia Adams and Phil Gorski for comparative-historical, and Ron Eyerman for cultural and collective trauma. I got to visit Yale in the fall and loved it, especially the CCS workshop. I think the Center for Comparative Research would be a great fit for me, too. I also think that UVA would be a great fit for me, as they now have Isaac Reed in the department. I think working with Reed might be like the early years with Alexander at Yale - the early years of an amazing program, very exciting research coming out of there. Krishan Kumar's work on English national identity would be a great fit for me, for my interests in comp-hist, Britain and nationalism. And James Hunter's research center, the Center for Advanced Studies in Culture, is exciting, although there isn't as much involvement for graduate students as there is at the CCS. I like Hunter's work on American evangelicalism and culture, though, and I think I would bring a unique ability to bridge his center and the department. We'll see! It will be fun either way. I applied to Northwestern, Berkeley (rejected), UCLA (doesn't look good), and Michigan because they all have their strengths either in comp-hist and/or cultural sociology. But for me, I think Yale and UVA are the best fits.

I'd go for UCLA.

@socnewbie Michigan for sure, I forgot that one. Culture, political and comparative-historical are my interests, and I passed on Chicago. Stanford and Harvard are, in my experience with research, meh in these areas, but that's just me. I agree with @theorynetworkculture that you should consider scholars. I, for instance, admire Jeff Alexander, Phil Gorski, Julia Adams, Phil Smith, and Ron Eyerman - so Yale made sense. I also really am interested in working with Isaac Reed and Krishan Kumar, so UVA was a must for applying.

For Cultural Sociology, Yale and Northwestern are both powerhouses. Northwestern's Jim Mahoney is great for political sociology, as well. Also, Northwestern's comparative-historical program is strong currently, and they have a strong interdisciplinary tradition with their cluster programs. Yale, of course, is renowned for comparative-historical, and they have a strong tradition in the faculty of itnerdisciplinary work in the humanities with rhetoric, history, political science, and literature.

Has anyone heard from Northwestern?

I think UCLA has emailed out all of their acceptances :/

You might consider Yale @marina16

I don't think that UVA is known for quant, but I think they want to make sure that I am capable of graduate level statistics because its required, etc. and an important methodology to have in your toolkit. I think that most programs would ask this sort of question of any student, but I'm guessing they asked me specifically because of my non-quant interests and my lower quant GRE score. Good luck with your interview!

Yeah, definitely. The first question they asked me was, with my interests in comparative-historical sociology, cultural sociology, political sociology, religion, nationalism and theory, etc..., the committee wanted me to talk about my comfort level with statistics and quantitative methods. I told them about the coursework I've taken, my grades, the topics the classes covered, and my experience using qualtrics, SPSS and multiple regression. The most important things, I think, in that answer was (1) I told them about the specific software I used and the specific statistical methods I used in my major project's analysis (chi-square, multiple regression, etc...), and (2) that the professor who taught the course is a renowned statistician and quantitative sociologist. I gave them context, essentially. I wish I would have told them about more specifics about my project, like how many participants I surveyed, how many responses I got back, etc. so that they would have a sense for the work and the experience, but that's okay. And with the professor bit, that was something my mentor encouraged me to do when answering questions like this because transcripts mean nothing in this day and age where A's are relatively easy to get (at least as an undergrad). They also have zero sense of what the course was actually like. Saying "advanced" in the SOP or something doesn't mean much to them. So I gave them a name, told them about her, made sure they knew it was not a TA, and so on. I gave them context for how rigorous the course was, and that helped. Side note: I also had a reference letter from this stats professor on purpose and asked her to give context for the class and to explain my performance. I also asked her to talk about how this says more about my abilities than my lower GRE quant score. Another question they asked me was, if my first choices for faculty to work with that I listed out in my application and SOP were not available to work with me, would I still want to go to the school. I think that's a valid question, considering sabbaticals, etc. It gave me the opportunity to show that there are more than just one or two professors in the department who are doing the kind of work I want to do, and that I am great fit for the department as a whole rather than just one person.

I had my interview with UVA today and I don't know the chances of getting in post-interview are. I'd say they're good since you had an interview, but not a done deal. They definitely asked me some difficult questions, but I was told I answered them well. We'll see! I asked what it would be like going from here, and they gave me no sense for when they'd send out offers. I'd guess it'll be three or maybe even four weeks, but who knows?

My professors have consistently told me that admissions is more about fit (and then other random things on top of that) than GPA, GRE, transcripts, etc... It may be beneficial for us as the applicants to get an MA so as to get more research experience and a clearer perspective on our research goals to then be able to describe in the statement of purpose, but I don't think that disqualifies undergraduates from being able to both gain research experience and have a clear vision for their own research to explain in the SOP. As for your question about the fairness of the application process in regards to BAs or MAs, I have no idea. I don't think that this will create problems on the whole, but if you didn't do any research in undergrad or develop a clear SOP, then maybe a MA would have helped. Some undergraduate programs encourage that sort of thing more than others.

I heard from a source (haha) that UCLA has made all but their international applicant decisions and will announce "soon," whatever that means.

I just got an email from University of Virginia (UVA) saying that the graduate committee read my application, and that they'd like to invite me on to the next stage of the process - a 20 minute Skype interview. The dates are tomorrow, 1/27, Monday, 1/30, Monday, 2/6, or Tuesday, 2/7 in the afternoons (eastern time). "The interview will address such matters (but may not be limited to) as the areas of sociology that interest you, faculty at the University of Virginia who could supervise your progress in the program, and other such academic concerns. The interview will be conducted by one, two, or three members of our admissions committee, depending on their availability," they said. I already visited UVA in the fall and met with three professors, so I didn't think I'd have to interview if I made it passed the initial stage. I wonder if I'll be talking with different profs than who I met with. Either way, I'm excited!

Congratulations! That's awesome!

Awesome, I have a personal connection with him through my mentor. I have great respect for him - you're so lucky to work with him!

Congrats!

He was my mentor's dissertation advisor, and I had the privilege of sitting down with him for a chat in the summer of 2015 when I was visiting Boston. What a great guy

Do you work with Gordie Fellman at all?

My mentor, a sociology prof, said to me today after I got rejected from Berkeley, "Bummer. But listen I've seen this from the inside. Fit is everything and lots of randomness on top of that. Nothing about admissions should be interpreted as about your long term potential or talent..." Hopefully that helps you feel better. It helped me

I haven't heard back from UCLA yet. This might be wrong, but I heard they go in alphabetical order through applicants. So, I have some waiting to do..

Rejected by Berkeley. Wasn't my first choice but it still stings. OH well.

Does anyone know anything about UCLA, Berkeley, Northwestern, Michigan, Yale or UVA?