jeffreylongbootom

But you're the one continuing to express such frustration in your responses. Whiney little thing, Bradley. The major point I made, regarding theory and it's relationship to the discipline, wasn't "corrected." So you have a low criteria for achieving "moron" status. You have such a great and powerful mind so I'm sure you'll "construct" so much awesome theory as a first year grad student next year. You'll rival Marx and Weber after your first semester. Please send me a signed copy of your Wisconsin emails so I can say I was trolled by our species's best social theorist in over one hundred years. Anticipate the mods shutting this weird interaction down any moment now. Perhaps you just childishly feel the need to get the last word since you have your identity attached to your profile.

Lol. Right. After. You.

Me saying Emirbayer is one of the best theorists in the country is unnecessary in a post asking about places to study theory? Bothering? You attacked me first after I simply said the discipline is hardly concerned with theory anymore. If you think I'm "wrong" about that relationship, all you have to do is take a look at the job boards and you'll see a.) quantoids get all the jobs and b.) they ignorantly bash anything theory related. Sorry if you feel "bothered," by all that, sunshine. But if you want people to leave you alone, the best way to achieve that is to not attack them or to just simply stop responding. You're pointless.

Ahh, forgot all about Goldberg and Ermakoff. Wright might be approaching retirement age, though. Nevertheless, I still stand by my point regarding the relationship between theory and the discipline.

I don't think anyone has been rejected from UCLA. At least not based on my search of the results.

Not sure why you're getting all worked up nor is it clear why you're putting words in my mouth/making insults. My only point is that the discipline neglects theory and embraces positivist (or post positivists as they often refer to themselves) research. I'm not trying to sound any particular way. Do an empirical study on how many soc students can interpret the most elementary of social theory if you must. Also, I didn't "add in unnecessary bits of information about professors..." as I simply added to your point about Wisconsin. I praised Emirbayer for being one of the top theorists in the discipline. Also, not sure of the relevance regarding if I ever worked with him or not. Is it just another attempt by you to brag about sharing an email or two with him? Go ahead, put it on your CV if you think anyone cares (they don't). That doesn't negate the fact that the department's emphasis on theory doesn't go much beyond him. And insulting someone right before you tell them to "let it go" doesn't make you look like the bigger or moral person if that's what you were aiming for.

"Crafting theory" is not a part of the job anymore, although it certainly should be. American sociology has all but done away with theory.

Crafting your own theory might be a bit of a stretch as a graduate student. And the places you mention are still dependent upon the theoretical tradition one wants to be trained. For example, Wisconsin is primarily a quant oriented department. Their primary theorist, Emirbayer, is probably one of the best people in the world to learn Durkheim from.

Very few. Berkeley comes to mind. Most of it depends on the theoretical tradition you're interested in.

Ha, I'm not the optimistic type. I know the "no news is good news" slogan seems to be the popular one around here, but for admissions, it's not really based in any reality unless the school is known to do things in "waves," which most aren't. As someone who's worked for a department and helped out with admissions in the past, the departments normally personally send out acceptances and relegate the rejections to the graduate school itself. The graduate school, because it's dealing with every department on campus, normally takes a few days/weeks to getting around to changing the application statuses to rejected as they're obviously not a top priority.

Ahh makes sense. Sounds like everyone who didn't get accepted initially will soon be rejected then as there's no indication based on past years that Texas has any sort of waitlist or acceptance "waves."

Did it seem like an automated email coming from the application system or was it personalized? It's my top choice and I was really disappointed when I wasn't in the initial wave of acceptances. Also, condolences on the rejection. I've had my share of them as well!

Will someone claim the Texas rejection and what you mean by, "rest of the admission decisions is coming soon?" I didn't receive an acceptance, but I haven't been rejected either. Makes me think the grad school just hasn't sent out the rejections yet.