Chuck

With regards to the infamous GRE.... Be aware that there is some consensus among educators that expensive prep courses don't in and of themselves raise scores that much, especially compared to other study methods. There was a great discussion about this sometime in the last few years, either on Orgtheory or CHE. The general sentiment is that test-taking ability can be coached, but only to a very limited extent. The learning curve is steepest when students are first 'learning the test' - i.e. format, timing, material covered, general basic skills and test-taking strategies. Once the basic outlines of the test are mastered, the diminishing returns to test-prep set in sooner than one might think. Not surprisingly, the biggest gains are obtained by the lowest-scorers. Kaplan is known to 'teach to the middle', and those who see the most improvement are those who started at a lower level. If you're applying to Sociology PhD programs, odds are that you're going to peak nearer the upper end of GRE score distribution anyway. True, all sorts of people swear by Kaplan-like companies, but I hardly think their courses are worth the investment for most PhD applicants. I've heard many respected folks advise that someone with determination and discipline is better off spending $30 on a book and self-studying. I'm someone who has always tested fairly well without insane amounts of studying or memorization. But, I've been out of school for several years and it had been ages since I took my last standardized test. I bought 3 books to study: Kaplan (with CD), ETS's official guide, and 1 book from the Manhattan Prep series. The Kaplan book was a joke. It's heft was deceptive. It was written in size 18 font and seemed targeted to a very low common denominator. Seriously, I've read freshman textbooks that exhibited more sophistication. I couldn't read more than 20 pages without getting bored out of my mind. The CD was somewhat useful, and I did appreciate the 20 question quickie exercises it provided. The practice tests were OK, but didn't seem to replicate the format of the real GRE as well as did ETS's official practice tests (doh). Also- I bought these books very soon after the switch to the revised GRE. There were a lot of errors in the Kaplan book, both in actual test answers and also in replicating the new test format. ETS's official guide was great. I found the outline of all mathematical concepts tested on the GRE particularly helpful. It was succinct but also comprehensive. The only downside was that it didn't provide a lot of practice material. Also, if you care about this sort of thing, the formatting and tone of the text was pretty dry. The best book by far was the Manhattan Prep series. I actually only bought one of the 7 (or 8?) books they offer, each of which focuses on a different area of the test. Nevertheless, buying one book gets you access to 6 full-length practice tests online, which were very comprehensive and well thought out. They were also somewhat more difficult than the actual GRE, which I very much appreciated in the end. Manhattan Prep is written at a high level, probably targeted to those who are able to score in the 75th+ percentile on each section of the test. If you know that your abilities are in this general range, I think these are the books for you. The books are smart, no-nonsense, AND well-written. I bought only the guide to the AW section, but wished I'd gone with MP the whole way. I am happy with my results. I studied for maybe 5-10 hours a week for 6 weeks. I ended up scoring 97th%V, 87%Q, and 6.0AW. In general, and above a certain respectable threshold, I don't think GRE scores are all that important. I really don't. I can't emphasize this enough. Sure, my scores were pretty high, but I've heard from many others whose scores were much higher who didn't get into the schools I got into. Also, I've met folks with significantly lower scores who did just fine in the admissions process (many of whom also got into top schools!). I think that once you hit that sweet spot where your scores are within the bounds of the 25th-75th percentile of recently admitted cohorts, there really isn't a lot of sense in going to heroic measures to raise your score. There are plenty of more productive things you can do with your time, things that will actually substantively enhance your application. ETS's own guidelines say that fine distinctions between scores that are several points apart are essentially meaningless. Do you really think any grad admissions committee worth its salt will reject you on the basis of a few points on the GRE? Mere intellectual skill is so basic a qualification for PhD admissions that an instrument as blunt as the GRE cannot be used to determine fine distinctions among top candidates. There are so many other more revealing parts of the application. The substantive predictors of success in graduate school (research experience, writing skills, perseverance, intellectual curiosity, academic success, creativity, leadership skills...etc) are not measured by the GRE. In retrospect, I actually wish I had spent less time studying. Once I mastered the format and substance of the test, all those extra hours were just gravy. They probably only raised my score a few points. I don't think those points did much for me, and I would rather have spent the extra hours writing my SOP or reading a good book. Seriously.

Yes! I am almost paralyzed with indecision. I know that each of my remaining options is most certainly going to take me in significantly different research directions. There is certainly no one clear best option. Just different paths which I know will lead to quite different careers down the line. Sigh.

Congrats, Supernova! From what you've said about your goals, this seems like a great opportunity. I will echo what everyone else here has said by way of encouragement. You're in! You've been accepted to a PhD program, major congrats to you! As far as the potential downsides of attending this program, I don't think there are many. You seem to be very excited about starting grad school in the fall. Throughout this process, you've shown yourself to be motivated and thoughtful. So what if maybe this program won't prepare you to get a research job at an R1? That's not what you were aiming for from the get-go. It is OK that not everyone on these boards has the same goals. I do think it's important that you visit the program and spend a lot of time with both faculty and current students. Job placement stats are going to be very important. Particularly the recent placement record of your PI's students. Whether you have a synergy of research interests and working styles with potential advisor(s) is going to be extremely important. Also keep in mind that if this school is a place where you could see yourself writing an absolute bang-up MA thesis, you stand a pretty good chance of being able to transfer somewhere "better" after a few years, where better here means better for you. This option will only be available to you if you work extra hard and play your cards right, but it does happen a lot more often than you might think. Still, don't bank on it. And especially don't bank on it if you don't see this school as a place where you can be happy and successful academically right off the bat. You don't want to be starting out in an uphill battle against a department that is making you miserable. If, after you've visited and sat on the decision for a few weeks, you find yourself unenthusiastic about this school, my advice is that no good can come through you trying to 'tough it out.' As deflating as it may seem right now, you've learned so much through the application process and there is always next year. But this does sound like a potentially great opportunity. Be honest with yourself and you can't do too bad! Congrats again! And take some time to celebrate!

Take everything said on this forum with a grain of salt. Though most people here dispense advice with good intentions, we're all here ourselves in no small part due to our own cluelesness and insatiable need for answers. The admissions process remains shrouded in mystery, superstition, misinformation, accident, and hearsay. Some of us have received some very good information and advice from reputable sources. But only a few of us have any real knowledge of what it is like to apply, choose, and matriculate as a graduate student. None of us has ever served on an admissions committee. We're also coming from a wide spectrum of educational, professional, and personal backgrounds. Attempts at advice are made doubly complicated by the fact that our career goals are likely as diverse as our numbers. Gone are the days when all applicants were on a straight shot towards the gold standard of a tenure-track job at an R1. Our career goals are as diverse as our backgrounds and the trajectories we choose. No advice is "one size fits all." Above all, seek help from those who know you best and whose professional opinion you respect.

I think that Msafiri is onto something here. The visit weekends that I've been on (both T5 and all the way down the line) have all been such whirlwinds of activity and logistical exhaustion that it's been difficult to try to meet everyone, much less have a detailed discussion about research background and interests. Given the time and effort required simply to participate in these events, I very rarely find myself in the position of wanting to have a nuts and bolts discussion about research. That said, when there is significant overlap between my interests and that of another students, these conversations do happen organically. Some students are more prepared and "polished" in these conversations than others. I wonder if it's just a matter of interpersonal social skills? heh.

I have had such positive and promising interactions with faculty and students from several schools, enough to almost make me wish that I could choose two or three programs instead of narrowing it down to one. It's great to know that there are talented and eager students ready and waiting to join these programs. Thanks, Odeta, for putting all of this in perspective. I can't help you out with Maryland, but do hope that a spot opens up for you soon!

I'm with you lovenhaight. I searched and searched for tickets 3 weeks ago, and couldn't find anything under $550, and that was flying to Portland and then hopping on a bus. The grad coordinator apologized that they simply weren't able to reimburse expenses over $300. I don't take this policy as a good sign moving forward.

Congrats, avee! That's awesome!

I still believe that, in general, MA programs can be quite valuable. I know many people who are extremely happy with their decision to complete an MA or professional degree- whether as a precursor to the PhD/a professional goal, or simply to fulfill an intellectual itch. The benefits of a successful masters degree can be qualitatively different than anything available in a PhD program. Some of the most interesting people in academia are career changers, field changers, dabblers, recovered failures, etc. A well-chosen and well timed masters degree can certainly be a springboard into any number of rewarding and successful futures. I have posted on this forum about this a few times in the past, so maybe I will leave my general defense of master's degrees at that. No, they're not for everyone, but I love 'em! And they are certainly nothing to look down one's nose upon. That said, I think there is vast variance of type and quality in master's programs. If it is your dearest intention to go on to the PhD, you're going to have to choose a program with care. Using the MA as a springboard to a PhD program is a very specific purpose. By definition, you're not trying to pursue a professional credential or scratch some obscure intellectual itch. You'd really rather be in a PhD program, but you either can't get into one, or you can't get into the one you want. This means that there are aspects of your application which you believe will be enhanced by what is essentially an academic "gap year" (now is when you should be thinking "can I strengthen my application without doing an MA?"). You think, with proper supervision and resources, you can come up with a better writing sample, strong recommendations from connected people, refinements to your research question, etc. You're a smart person who just needs a little time and help to put your best face forward in an application. And, you may be right. Or, you may be wrong. The MA as springboard is a gamble with no sure guarantees. These programs are host to a spectrum of students - people headed to top PhD programs, people headed to law school, people who will not go on to PhD programs, people who are just there to scratch an intellectual itch. If you fail out, quit, learn that research is not for you, decide that you hate social science, you can't imagine 6 more years of the same, etc, then great! You know more about yourself and you've saved the time, effort, and expense of applying to PhD programs, suffering through the admissions process, and even more years of a difficult lifestyle. If you succeed- learn multivariate stats, write a fantastic thesis, present at the ASA, and make strong connections with influential letter writers.. well, good for you! You still have to apply to PhD programs! And this is why I think that funding is absolutely crucial to your decision, and that the pedigree of the institution where you pursue an MA should perhaps be the least important factor inspiring your interest. If I were in the position of choosing an MA program (with the intention of using it as a springboard to the PhD), here is what I would consider: 1- Admissions: Faculty on admissions committees say that the most important criterion in evaluating a sea of seemingly qualified candidates is an intangible one. They are trying to determine whether the candidate can complete the PhD and secure a tenure-track job. There is no test or credential that can demonstrate this quality. Applicants must be intelligent, creative, determined, and successful, yes. But they must also possess something more. Admissions committees review each year literally hundreds of applicants with top credentials. Most of these candidates no doubt also have stellar letters of reference, attesting to their superhuman academic skills. The best reference writers speak to an applicant's ability to undertake and complete brilliant creative PhD research. This assertion is most believable when corroborated with a strong writing sample, and supporting references in other parts of the application. But it also needs to be contextualized. The strongest letters are not those that are simply strong- but those that come from faculty known to the department. A letter that says "Janie wrote the best senior thesis at the University of East Timbuktu" is (unfortunately, for those coming from lesser-known schools) essentially meaningless. A conscientious letter writer can be more specific by adding "The East Timbuktu sociology department, though rather small, has a strong record of success in top-20 PhD placement. Janie's work in the department not only places her at the top of her graduating class, it is as good as that of John Smith and Sarah Jones, both of whom were granted admission to your department and have gone on to successful academic careers." Context is important. Networks are important. Therefore, building relationships is important. Fortunately, there are many ways to do it. If any faculty in your undergrad department have connections, these connections are going to be your best bet for standing out in the admissions process. Note that you do not need to be at a "pedigree" school (either for undergrad or your MA) to do this. It probably doesn't hurt, but I really don't think it's necessary. What is necessary is to find an MA program where you can reasonably be assured of an academic environment that will facilitate you strengthening your application to be the best it can be. You need access to meaningful dialogue with the right people. 2 - Placement: It will likely not be easy to get an answer to this question, but this is the question you want to ask any prospective MA program: "What is your placement rate in funded PhD programs, and which programs are they?" Many programs will instead answer the question "Of people who decided to go on to the PhD, what is your placement rate in (funded?) PhD programs, and which programs are they?" MAPSS answers the question: "Of people who decided to apply to PhD programs, and whose applications we supported, here are the programs to which they gained admission:" http://mapss.uchicago.edu/graduates/phds.shtml. Notice that the stats posted exclude potentially telling portions of their population. What does it mean that they only record data on the applications they "supported"? With any MA program, you're going to be most successful if you go in asking hard questions - and don't let up during your entire career as a student there. You're at the bottom of the grad student totem poll, with precious little time and resources to get what you came for. 3 - Academics: Being at the bottom of the totem poll in a graduate college geared primarily toward PhD students (or, lets, face it, often primarily toward producing academic research), is likely going to be a difficult experience. How much access are you going to have to the professors you came there to work with? Who will realistically advise your research? Are you going to be dealing mostly with an advanced PhD student, adjunct faculty member, or do tenured faculty actually teach and advise masters students? Speak to current students about their experience. Are they forming the relationships with key faculty that they were promised? Are they optimistic about their prospects of PhD admission? Are they happy? 4 - Funding: Funded master's programs are out there. The FLAS grant (from the state department, for the study of certain critical languages) is a big option at several schools. Many faculty have NSF-type grants with specific provisions for the support of masters students. TA-ships at public universities almost always grant a passable funding package. Many truly strong faculty members can be found at Masters-granting institutions, especially recent PhD graduates of the top programs you are considering. Do your homework. Figure out the academic lineages. You may not be able to study with Superstar X, but you will likely find out that her recent graduates are spread far and wide at MA granting institutions. And they're likely hungry for a strong student to mentor, someone who they can groom for entrance to a PhD program - their alma mater perhaps? I'd be wary of any MA program that requires you to pay tuition (If you don't find funding with a stipend, living expenses alone are going to put you in some significant debt). I'd want some sort of guarantee for that level of investment. For any MA program, I'd ask hard questions about completion rate, placement rate, whether the department admits its own graduates, and with what success rate, etc. For some it might be worth it, but I think a lot of students end up regretting going into programs at name brand universities without doing their due diligence. Here is some good advice from a MAPSS grad a few years ago

If you're a MAPSS student having a different experience, please share it on the forum. As I said in my post, I am not writing from direct experience. What I have written here is a distillation of what a number of friends and colleagues have told me about the program, and grad student life at Chicago in general. Postings on several other threads do complement the information I have posted here. I think one of the strengths of GradCafe is that we're all able to talk openly about the graduate school experience. Every prospective student is unique and looking for something slightly different. So please share your insights openly so that prospective MAPSS students can glean insight from a variety of viewpoints.

Sciencegirl- I believe Darthvegan is interested in environmental sociology. Unless I've majorly overlooked someone, there is nobody in Sociology at Chicago doing primarily environmental work. This is true broadly of the social sciences at Chicago.

Here is a really fabulous post from the Political Science forum: The admissions process from the perspective of an admissions committee member Main Points: 1) We are dealing with a massive oversupply of qualified candidates. We make mistakes, I am sure of it. I'd say that at least 80% of the total applicants in our pool this year were plausible candidates for admission, meaning that I would have been happy to admit them. 2) Our goal is to find people--and this is important, so read carefully--who can successfully complete our program and secure a tenure-track job. That is the outcome that we are trying to achieve; we are not trying to admit the smartest, the most unique, or even the most interesting students (although we do want these people too!). 3) The challenge is that it is really difficult for us to tell what kind of applicant will be able to do this. We know that you will have to be bright, you will have to be creative, and you will have to be highly motivated. ... We have to make a bet based on imperfect information. 4) So what does it come down to? At the end of the day, it's seemingly minor things like "fit," or "interest," or "promise." Most of these are beyond your control as applicant.

My unsolicited advice: Unless you are independently wealthy, and/or this is your absolute only option and you know you absolutely have to start grad school in the fall, don't do it. MAPSS is a notorious cash cow for the university. Even if they offer you a 1/3 or 1/2 (or full) scholarship, you're still looking at private school tuition, fees, and living expenses. Unlike the option of investing in a professional masters, an MA from MAPSS is a purely academic degree. It's not going to do a lot for your employment prospects if you end up not going on to finish a PhD. MAPSS is an 'onramp' with a lot of risk, expense, and no guarantees. Chicago is not an especially nurturing school, and MAPSS students are at the bottom of a steep graduate school hierarchy. They have to fight harder than first year PhD students for the attention and respect of professors. Most people in the MA cohort are hoping to use the program as a stepping stone for admission to top-20 PhD programs, and they're investing good money to ensure that outcome - there's a lot of blood, sweat, tears, and animosity with other students who are perceived to be competitors more than they are colleagues. That said, those who do come out on tops in MAPSS are successful in gaining admission into top PhD programs, so I'm sure you'll find some students for who will speak highly of the program on the basis of that outcome. To anyone who is seriously considering MAPSS, take care to do your due diligence in determining if it's going to be an environment where you can thrive and be well prepared to achieve your goals. It's certainly not for everyone. I should say that I am speaking here not from first-hand experience, but through the received wisdom of a number of friends and colleagues who are PhD students (and one MAPSS student) at Chicago.

Wow! This has been a really great discussion with regards to publications for a grad school applicant. My question was more along the lines of preparing for the job market CV (eons away for most of us, I know). Perhaps this is the wrong venue to be asking such a question. I just thought someone might have a handy reference or advice on the matter.

Congrats darthvegan! That's awesome. And, incidentally, will look great on your applications next year.

Obviously, all publications are not created equal. A non peer-reviewed undergraduate journal doesn't hold a candle to the ASA. Does anyone have a link to a resource that helps further parse the hierarchy of academic publication? I'm particularly curious as to the hierarchy of the following types of publications: Journal with high impact factor Journal with low impact factor Special edition of a journal Book chapter Book (peer reviewed, academic press) Book (general press) Commentary Book Review (in a journal) Synthesis article/literature review

At this point, research fit and advisor fit are probably the most important factors that will affect my choice of school. I've heard many horror stories about adivisor-student problems, and I want to be as diligent and thorough in my selection process as possible. Let's have a thread dedicated to advisor courtship! Right now, I'm trying to make sense of the advising situation at one of my top-choice programs (incidentally, not a sociology department). Professor X recently got tenure. Being advised by someone at this stage of their academic career is appealing to me because I perceive that Processor X is semi-secure and semi-established, but not so much so that he's carved a predictable rut in his intellectual niche. It's important to me to have an advisor who is willing to take (reasonable) intellectual risks, and encourage the same from me. My perception is that a young (untenured) advisor may be more concerned about taking the "safe" road on his/her research, and that a more established advisor may be less interested in taking on substantively different material or being more creative in their research (a big interest of mine). Obviously, I'm talking in gross generalizations here. Other than research fit, I'm looking for someone whose personality I can get along with, who has a good reputation among students, and who actually responds to my e-mails. What qualities are you looking for in an advisor?

Splitends, I see your point. And I am inclined to agree with you on the basis of the issue you've raised. I guess I am more concerned with the larger problem that encompasses both of our points. I have spent perhaps too much time on this forum over the course of the 2011-2012 application season, and have observed a lot of genuine frustration among applicants along the vein of "what are my chances?" In sociology, there's just not an easy way to evaluate this question. The reality is that the chance of admission to any specific program is both slim and extremely stochastic, and in most cases significantly variable from year to year. Applicants and admissions personnel can quote GPA's and GRE's all day, but there are so many more important not immediately quantifiable aspects of every admissions decision which I don't think get adequately communicated to prospective students. If these boards are any indication, there is even widespread misinformation about what should be included in the SOP and who would be appropriate to write LOR's. I agree, there's no real satisfactory way to determine how competitive someone is until their file is evaluated by the department in question- but a positive outcome from this reality may be more likely for applicants at the top of the spectrum. There are many people on this forum who are facing rejection from places they believed they had a good shot at. In some cases, people who were top students (at perhaps lesser known colleges) are being rejected across the board. This sort of thing has to be seen as a trend. I think a decent portion of that disconnect (and the anguish it inspires) could be remedied by a more forthright and transparent admissions process, especially for those whose background has not prepared them for the application process.

FWIW, in an effort to gather as much information as I can about various programs, I've been revisiting several departmental websites. Perhaps especially among the "more competitive" departments, I'm noticing a profusion of highly encouraging language directed at perspective applicants. Most of these departments go out of their way to emphasize how 'holistic' their admissions process is. The picture they paint is one where each candidate will be viewed in his/her best light as a respected and unique human being and potential scholar. "Not to worry! A less than stellar GRE/GPA/whatever can and 'often is' offset by strength in another area." The message these departments are sending is: "we want YOU!", "you've all got a chance!" In contrast, at 'less competitive' departments (which still often admit on the order of only 20% of applicants, fyi) this language is notably absent. Emphasis instead seems to be put on how rigorous the application process is, with hard cut-offs more emphasized, perhaps in an attempt to assert the strength of the department. Perhaps I'm being cynical here, but I wonder how much of this language among the 'top' departments is more reflective of an effort to "keep the hope alive" for the masses, encouraging the perpetuation of a gargantuan deluge of applications, which in turn all but ensures the searing rate of rejection which 'top' schools seem to relish so much. All this is to say that, in actuality, it is truly truly difficult to get into most programs. While technically true, this "you've got a chance" rhetoric being spouted by admissions professionals is not a realistic characterization of the admissions process. Nobody should feel ashamed or defective for not making the cut anywhere with a 5% (or 10% or 20% or whatever) acceptance rate. Easier said than done, I know.

Since you say "I basically perceive this Masters as a stepping stone to doing a PhD in Sociology," Splitends has good advice here. It looks like you have a very solid application, and well-framed previous graduate study/work experience will do wonders for your SOP. Splitends is correct that the pluralism of sociology as a discipline renders an MA a bit superfluous in a situation where you're already well qualified to be applying for the PhD and when you know that the PhD is what you want now. That said, I would rigorously disagree with the flippant disregard for master's degrees coming through in the advice of Splitends' professors. There is no one best way to be a sociologist. And there is no PhD program that can be all intellectual things to all people. Or, as I think is increasingly becoming apparent, all intellectual things for one person. Perhaps the caveat here should be that Splitends happens to be an extremely motivated and singularly focused undergraduate intent on a straight-shot efficient trajectory through his/her chosen discipline. This is the more traditional paradigm for sociology, as it has been in most disciplines. Professors who themselves found success in this approach tend to council their bright motivated undergraduates to choose the path that they did. But the straight-shot is far from the only way to be successful in academia. Take note that, as a pluralist discipline, some of the strongest contributions to sociology have come from cross-pollination with other intellectual and practical pursuits. Where do you think some of the best places to acquire these backgrounds might be? You can bet that an MA/MS/MPP/MEM/MPA/MSc/MBA/JD/MD/MSW is going to enhance someones intellectual understanding of sociological questions in a qualitatively different way than they could get from any PhD program. Not to mention the maturity, perspective, and real-world skills gained (hopefully) through professional work experience. Some of the most interesting and intelligent sociology grad students and prospective students I've been meeting are coming from radically different backgrounds than one might 'traditionally' expect. And I hope these people join my cohort so that my perspective might be broadened as well!

Caution- this post intended for those who are admitted and now facing the anxieties of acceptance. I haven't been posting for awhile. I think a lot of my reticence has to do with being a bit self-conscious about the success I have had in this process. These boards are full of people in all stages of acceptance/rejection/searching/finding/questioning/trying again. I know what it feels like to fail at something you really believe you want, and I've tried to offer encouragement to those whose expectations have not been met this time around. I am extremely grateful for the options that lie before me. But now, paradoxically, I'm facing a whole new set of problems related to "emotions regarding acceptance." It's actually causing a great deal of anxiety. 1 - A lot of applicants talk about taking another year to improve their applications and try again (usually by retaking the GRE, working in a research lab, trying to publish an article, etc). I think it would really take a lot for any of these strategies to succeed in turning even the brightest "typical" student into some of the prospective & current students I've been meeting on visits. The cohorts I have met have been full of truly truly talented people. Without getting too specific- we're talking folks who have done things along the lines of rowing alone across oceans, winning olympic medals, earning multiple advanced degrees, litigating famous cases, published book-length research manuscripts, managing national parks, leading major labor organizations. These are people who are not simply exceptionally bright. They have blazed trails in life, they could succeed in multiple careers and multiple fields. They don't really "need" sociology. ... and for the most part these folks are truly very charming, lovely, normal people. I am blown away and humbled by these people. The prospect of going to school with any of them this fall is both exciting and terrifying. 2 - I think of all the mentors who have helped me along the way in this process. I know they must have detailed some extremely high expectations for me in their reference letters (otherwise, I would certainly not have been admitted to the programs I am now considering). It pains me to know that those who know me have placed me in such high esteem, how am I ever going to live up to their expectations? A terrible fear of failure is starting to gnaw at my psyche. 3 - How on earth am I going to buckle down and be a student again? I cherish my 9-5 job, my weekends, my real person salary, my adult friends who are getting married, having kids, and already advancing far in non-academic careers. My peer group is buying houses, owning real cars, paying off student loans. I know without doubt that I was meant to be an academic, but will I really be able to spend weekends in the library, reading journal articles and writing reading summaries on Marx and Weber? How will I come home only to have to focus on a stack of reading instead of zonking out to insipid TV? Will it feel too much like being a 20 year old college student? Will I explode with frustration at having to call myself a student again? Will professors treat me like the adult that I am? 4 - And, sweet Jesus, assuming that I do survive the next 6-9 years of PhD life, it will only be to face yet another wall of new uncertainties and anxieties. I'll be a middle-aged dude plying the dreary depths of the shaky academic job market, lucky to land a post-doc position paying $40K a year (which, even by that time, will represent my maximum annual income ever). Sigh. Anyone else having similar 'emotions regarding acceptance'?

Ok people, I'm the first to say that it's a very rough metric here! I only have one of the NRC datasets, so (as many of you have pointed out), I'm comparing a snapshot at the same time of two different groups of people. The ratio therefore works best for programs that have kept a steady admit rate. But it's far from perfect, as you all have rightly pointed out! Short of getting the data directly from the schools or tracking down the earlier NRC dataset (anyone? Bueller?) it may be the best we can do right now.

Nerd alert… Every 10 years, the NRC (National Research Council) publishes a comprehensive dataset on all PhD programs in the US. You can download the excel file and sift through the numbers on everything from % minority faculty, publications per faculty, average # of years till completion.. etc. I did this for the “top 30” programs in Sociology (see screenshot below). Each year the NRC collects information for each program on the # of students enrolling and the # of PhD’s granted. They present each value as an average over 5 years (in this case, each is from the same time range: 2002-2006). To gain a rough estimate of completion rate, I divided # of PhD’s granted by # of incoming students. *Note that Harvard’s program in Social Policy is not really graduating “183%” of incoming students, rather students are likely shifting around between Harvard’s 3 programs in sociology. Similar things must be happening at Columbia (121%), Penn (109%), & Cornell (100%). This rough methodology obviously has flaws.

THIS:

Just that, while it is certainly possible to get a wonderful education at Yale, it is really not the place for everyone. Prospective students tend to get so intoxicated by those magic 4 letters that they are blind to a lot of the negatives. And (as with any school) there are a lot of negatives. So just a word of advice to keep your head on as you head into the selection process. I'm not going to expand on this further. As with any school you'd consider spending 5-9 years of your life at, I'd just hope that everyone is doing their due diligence. That's all!