cybe2001

Well, I am. Without something meaningful to do, that is. So, here's the stats: If you look at the following universities (LIST1): Berkeley Chapel Hill Chicago Columbia Cornell Duke Harvard Indiana Michigan Northwestern NYU UPenn Princeton Stanford UCLA Wisconsin Yale And discern the following PhD-granting institutions (LIST2): Arizona Austin Berkeley Boston Brandeis Brown Chapel Hill Chicago Columbia Cornell Duke Florida Harvard Indiana John Hopkins Michigan Minnesota Missouri MIT Northwestern NYU UPenn Penn State Princeton Purdue Rutgers Santa Barbara Stanford SUNY UCLA Washington Wisconsin Yale The top institutes (LIST2) granting PhDs to top universities (LIST1) are: 1. Harvard 55 2. Chicago 51 3. Berkeley 49 4. Michigan 33 5. Wisconsin 32 6. Princeton 26 7. Columbia 21 8. UCLA 20 9. Stanford 18 10. UPenn 17 Using these data, we can rank universities by the % faculty with a top-three (LIST1) degree: 1. Northwestern 58% 2. Berkeley 48% 2. Chicago 48% 4. UPenn 46% 5. NYU 44% 6. Cornell 38% 7. Harvard 37% 8. Stanford 30% 9. Wisconsin 27% 10. Columbia 25% Expanding this to top-five, we get: 1. Northwestern 65% 1. Berkeley 65% 3. UPenn 63% 4. Chicago 56% 4. Cornell 56% 4. Michigan 56% 7. Stanford 50% 8. NYU 47% 9. Columbia 42% 9. Harvard 42% And, for top-10: 1. UPenn 88% 2. Stanford 80% 3. Michigan 77% 3. Northwestern 77% 5. Columbia 75% 6. Berkeley 74% 7. NYU 72% 7. Princeton 72% 9. Cornell 69% 10. Chicago 68% Which, translates into an average-based overall top-10 of: 1. Northwestern 2. UPenn 3. Berkeley 4. Chicago 5. NYU 6. Cornell 6. Michigan 8. Stanford 9. Columbia 9. Harvard

That's absolutely right. The approach I took rests on first identifying 'top universities.' That means it can be easily expanded to include more universities, but also that there is no non-arbitrary limit.

Yeah, second that. In terms of visa exchange with the US, you'd probably have to look at the treaty on 'highly skilled workers', not students. (On another note: in countries like the Netherlands, as I stated above, someone working towards a PhD is called an assistant, employed at the university, rather than a student). I know of more than one American national to be in such a position in the Netherlands.

Or better yet: apply for PhD funding and spend your (€€€) time in Mongolia

I guess I feel kinda forced now to defend the European option, although I just wanted to mention the alternative Anyway, you're comparing apples to pears. Yes, it could be a stretch. But, compare that predicament (i.e. being able to pay for your living expenses, travels and debt payments, through doing your PhD research) to the alternative of having to pay for your studies and increasing your debt.

Thanks for the post, dant.gwyrdd, but your sketch of the situation might be somewhat off target. What I am referring to is the position of what the Dutch call 'Assistant in Training' which is a position in which you are offered 4 years of employment to work towards your PhD degree (85%) and are required to do some teaching (15%). In the Netherlands, you'd be paid approx. € 24.504 (before taxes), annually in the first year, increasing to about € 31.344 in the fourth. English and German programs usually last three years, do not offer formal employment, but do tend to come with a fellowship. For instance, the University of Mannheim, known for its solid training in quantitative Sociology, offers annual scholarships to all incoming PhD students ammounting to € 14.400 free from taxes (see http://cdss.uni-mannheim.de/198.html). The famous École Normale Supérieure in Paris offers three year scholarships for foreign students of € 12.000 tax free (see http://www.ens.fr/spip.php?rubrique29). Let me stress this point: there is no tuition in such programs. PhD training is considered as a job and or an investment in itself. The university pays for your education.

Wow, this conversation took a very sharp turn to psychology... makes my comment look like a callous-rationalist one. Thanks for sharing though!

So... do you want to be a big fish in a big pond or a big fish in a small pond? The pond itself might attract more employers, but the small pond would definitely give you the chance to excel; to get some pretty awesome letters of recommendation, etc. -- given that you've got potential that is, which seems obvious from having been accepted in a prestigious university. So why not be happy AND work towards a career?

The solution is simple: do the Master's at the New School. Excel. Have fun/ be young. Then apply to a European PhD program - i.e. in France, England or in the Netherlands. That way you get paid for getting your PhD, and can pay off the debt while working. I know for a fact that in Paris and in Amsterdam, the New School is very highly regarded, so you'd have a good chance to get in. Did I mention you'd get paid in euros?

You hit the nail right on its head: we have to be 'lucky' to get some feedback. In other words: the selection committee has no one to hold them accountable for their decisions. So... why are we so eager to blame (i.e. no fit, not 'competitive') rejection on ourselves, and why should we "take their word for it" when we have no guarantee whatsoever that we were meritocratically selected/rejected? (Let me stress, at this point, that my comments do not reflect sour grapes. I have been accepted at a top-ranked university and am very grateful for that.)

I still find that somewhat hard to believe. Most top university faculty, as small as some of them might be (i.e. Stanford/ Harvard) explicitly try to cover a wide variety of substantive topics, so that for virtual any topic bordering on inequality/race/migration/culture/networks/organization 'fit' can be found -- let alone at such large departments as Berkeley, Ann Arbor, Wisconsin, and Chapel Hill. West, for instance, do you think you were rejected at Stanford, Harvard, Columbia, Georgetown for lack of such 'fit'?

Despite loving him, tt seems that, at some level of consciousness, you already account for the possibility that your relationship won't last forever. Go with your feeling!

OK so there's 'fit' once you know that there's at least one able-minded faculty member willing to work with you on the topic you're interested in? That sounds very, very basic. I mean, I'd go with that; it sounds very common sensical. But then, if 'fit' is so straightforward, why is it discussed as something you can establish only after extensive research, and why is it still mentioned (and accepted) as a major reason an applicant is rejected admission?

I think you should go to rehab!

Many people seem to be very sure of their case: it's mainly the 'fit' or 'match' you have with certain members of faculty or the department that gets you into graduate school. I myself have heard professors use that term in very positive ways. I however have some reason for doubt. First, I have heard faculty members, often the same ones mentioning 'fit', express their concerns with the practice of 'cloning' - i.e. when professors take in students through which they seek to replicate their own ideas and continue their research. To say the least, this practice is frowned upon. Second, the 'fit' or 'match' thing seems like a very good excuse to turn down an applicant. (With some reflectivity, it seems that we - the applicants - are doing just that: convincing others and ourselves that it is the lack 'fit' that cost us the position). Taking seriously the works of Bourdieu & Passeron, Bowles & Gintis, Collins, and the like (i.e. similar in this regard), implies keeping open the possibility that 'fit' is just a way of saying you're not the kind of student they want because of your background, (political) color, or whatever reason they can come up with but are unwilling to share with you. I'd be very interested to hear your views on this, especially your definition of the concept of 'fit', and/or any concrete examples you might have to illustrate. Thanks!

Then again, if you look at placement at top departments, you get this list, where the third column is the number of faculty graduated from that university's sociology department who currently teaches at a top department. The data are complied from 336 faculty member websites at the following universities: Columbia, NYU, Harvard, Berkeley, Stanford, Princeton, Penn, Chicago, Wisconsin, Yale, UCLA. More could be added, but I doubt it changes the ranking. 1 Harvard 43 2 Chicago 36 3 Berkeley 34 4 Wisconsin 21 5 Columbia 20 6 UCLA 15 7 Penn 14 8 Princeton 13 9 Stanford 12 10 Yale 3 11 NYU 2

Sorry for not responding earlier. My stats are 700Q, 640V, 4.0 AW. No GPA, for I am a foreign student. I guess I did well primarily in other ways than stats.

I got into three top programs with a 640V 700Q and 4.0AW, and no GPA (for I am a foreigner). I did have some publications, was probably a good 'match', and seem to have impressed the committee with my experience, motivation and letters of recommendation (from non-Americans). Although the whole process is still somewhat of a mystery to me, taking in the experiences of my fellow applicants and myself, I believe that practically no one did well on all dimensions of the ideal grad profile. Also, the importance of a 'match', while often mentioned by students and faculty might be overestimated. That is, I heard faculty members say that they looked down on professors looking to 'clone' themselves through their students. Also most of them stressed that they sought in students the autonomy, self-confidence and creativity to develop their own ideas and manage their own project(s).

Don't worry about it too much. Remember: this is the time where WE get to make THEM want, wait and weep..

What the person before me said. Also, don't be afraid to give them a feel of your predicament, without being too specific. I mean they're probably sensible people and their reaction will be telling (i.e. formal which gives you little hope or positive which should make you... positive )

It'd be hilarious if the phrasing of your acceptance would get you rejected

Being one of the people who had the luxury to choose, I can tell you that I have just now submitted my letter of acceptance and two letters of declination (by e-mail and by air mail). In my defence, and to give you a rationale behind what other people in my situation might be doing: I did so just after 'admit day', visiting the universities I had a choice between. Hang in there!

No interview; just an acceptance call for me.

I'm one of the lucky ones. What do you want to know?

The acceptance rate for Harvard is actually 4.1% if I am to believe the Admission Committee.