1too3for5

Lol good ol' @bradley610. Here's a link to a screenshot. https://ibb.co/cgqY1F

Lol where Hm. Welp, this is awkward: *explains reasoning* Huh. Yes! Whoops. I get back to my computer: a one-man show of abusive private messages for all the folks keeping score at home. It's very fun. "What a strange and sad person you are. Truly unlikable, unless you choose to stop picking idiotic fights with strangers. But hey, I bet you have a really sweet CV. Real life is better, man. I promise." - Bradley610, 30 minutes ago "Oh come on. Shouldn't you have a quip ready? That's what you do, right?" - Bradley610, 22 minutes ago "Seriously. I'm intrigued to see what sort of nonsense you're gonna dredge up. Let's go. I don't have all night." - Bradley610, 16 minutes ago "Come on. It was kinda fun. You got to pretend you're smarter than a complete stranger! Why stop now?" - Bradley, 1 minute ago "I won't lie. This is unsatisfying. I thought there were a few more rounds in the chamber, the kinda material you might come up with sad bachelor friends at soulless happy hours. You're totally that kind of dude, right?" - Bradley, Now **THREAD PAGE BREAK** "That's what I thought. When pressed you can't even answer a straightforward question like an adult. Please don't waste my time in the future." - Bradley610. Word of the wise: "Trying to offer some perspective isn't being mean. And being nice for nice's sake doesn't have a whole lot of value. I don't think what I or Oranges has said is out of bounds at all; you can demonstrate a firm, alternative viewpoint and be respectful at the same time." - @bradley610, yesterday. Night night err'body!

I know man. Not pressing the up arrow button when someone's being an ass is some real Hedonic calculus. For real though, here's an actual puzzle: what kind of person starts publicly sobbing about downvotes on a website called "the grad cafe" and then shits on someone who tries to answer their question about it? Nah I just flip a coin.

@bradley610 - I keep almost upvoting your comments about decision-making, until I hit the barbed clauses. I agree that it seems a bit small of someone to push you to make a decision before you might be ready because of their belief it will benefit them, especially if it's a decision as big as this - it can seem self-centered if you're in the lucky position of having options. But the opposite is true for folks on a wait-list: if you haven't been accepted to a program yet, and you know it's your dream, it would be stressful and shitty-feeling to watch (or imagine) people casually deliberating while the time for wait-list movement begins to dry up. I don't think the timing of your declination really influences whether or not someone will actually get into a program (unless you do so very close to April 15 and the program doesn't have time to extend other offers), but wait-listed applicants likely want to hear from schools earlier rather than later, so people in that position might be sensitive to a [somewhat callous-sounding] rejection of their request. I don't enjoy reading the hurry-it-up comments either because I definitely need to visit a few programs before I can make a decision (I'll release most of my offers soon), and the visit days for some schools are pretty late. But we're all strangers who aren't accountable to each other at all socially, so you can take all the time you need and ignore the comments insisting you decline stat. Unsolicited advice for undergrads who are stuck on wait-lists and may reapply: search for industry research jobs now! Don't wait around on the Grad Cafe expecting wait-list movement. You might not get it, and get stuck unemployed or in a job you hate for a year. Research firms are hiring now, but those doors will be closed by May.

One colossal con to Wisconsin that hasn't been discussed: tenure policies were "revised" last year in a way that has been dramatically concerning to professors at public universities across the state . Some faculty at the Madison campus have left or publicly articulated plans to leave. Given their effectively dissolved tenure system, I wouldn't be able to confidently expect that faculty I hope to interact with would stick around for 6-7 years. That's why I didn't even apply. http://www.slate.com/articles/life/education/2016/03/university_of_wisconsin_and_the_aftermath_of_destroying_professor_tenure.html This change could impact UW-Madison's rank and quality in the long run. If you have more than one offer, picking a program can be viewed as a big risk-minimization game at this point. I think UW's tenure situation is a risk that people should be aware of.

Reread my post. Nobody made that "outright" assumption. Congrats @ricorico!! Sounds like you'll be in a great program this fall

@socnewbie congrats! I might agree with @draco.malfoy (in part because of your interests but also because his/her handle is fantastic), but ask about retention when you visit. UCLA is quietly infamous for losing almost half of its students along the way - I'm sure there are plenty of reasons for this, but I think it's important to end up in a program where you feel confident you'll receive the support you need to complete your degree.

@ricorico, this comment is difficult to palate because it comes across as both very pretentious and altogether ignorant of the admissions process for doctoral degree programs. I have three quick points - hopefully some of these will resonate constructively, at least with respect to how you view the admissions process or choose to present yourself to potential colleagues. Unless you have truly significant research experience (i.e., not just an undergraduate senior thesis or some second-author paper), you are not significantly distinguishable from many of the 400 people who applied to NYU this fall. Perhaps your letters of recommendation come from prominent faculty in the field, or you believe the contents of these letters ring superlative - this is still far from unique. Maybe a high GPA and exceptional GRE scores service the belief that you could simply walk into NYU or Berkeley; unfortunately, you're definitely still one of many applicants who can boast of the same credentials. I hope this doesn't sound rude - these characteristics are certainly accomplishments to be proud of, but they don't really set you apart from other highly-qualified applicants. Above a certain threshold, none of what I described above actually matters, as the pool of people with these qualifications doesn't distinguish any applicant in particular at a program with a 0.5-2.0% acceptance rate. If you clear these baseline hurdles, faculty will really care about your research interests. Really care. In a far more meticulous fashion than the broad categories of "labor, social movements, and comparative-historical sociology" you've described. Faculty will not care that you are pleased with quality of the "Marxist profs" in each program, or even that you have some amount of fluency in Marxist theory, as this will be taught in a graduate classroom. If you cannot articulate personal research questions that relate to the body of knowledge specific faculty members plan to develop during the 5-8 years of your doctoral training, you will not be admitted. Even if you do this successfully, many other people will also have done so to varying degrees of efficacy. Let's assume you have three years of relevant beyond-undergrad research experience1, that your stats are exceptional, and that you are able to establish a cogent and highly relevant research agenda in your SOP. As @nevermind mentioned, this is still not enough for a level-headed person to assume they will likely be accepted to two of the most competitive sociology PhD programs in the country. Perhaps the faculty you mention in your SOP are not on the admissions committee this year or are on leave when decisions are made, and your expertise or research interests are not appreciated by those on the panel. Perhaps your professors of interest have been scouted by other universities (I noticed no less than four faculty profiles on NYU's site that are currently inaccurate for this reason), making your well-crafted statement now look a bit sloppy at best, and utterly irrelevant to any current faculty at worst. Maybe one of these "good Marxist profs" believes you appropriated a theory incorrectly, senses you aren't interested in research enough, or doesn't like that you inaccurately capitalized "Sociology" multiple times in your statement. Beyond a certain point, highly selective admissions processes universally become fickle and arbitrary. That's not to say that people don't get into both. I have a friend who did last fall. He's a brilliant person. Brilliant people don't assume they'll win games of chance, and aren't excessively confident about the outcomes of processes they don't control. Those assumptions are most often made by people who lack critical knowledge about the mechanics of process. [1. Undergraduate research is an important exercise and a small handful of research universities do it very well, but the average age of entering students in programs like NYU and Berkeley is often 25-26 in part because meaningful research interests and technical skills are refined more effectively in full-time research positions]

@JessicaLange is spot on with her response, I think. I would add a few related considerations. Don't just look into HYPSM and Columbia. Some prestige-focused applicants who assume that universities well-known for their undergraduate selectivity must also be as in-demand for doctoral work are A] often not correct and B] can give off the appearance of being interested in PhD programs for the wrong reasons (the "right" reason according to any faculty member at a competitive school is "research" - their research). To the first point above, USNews rankings (a super blunt instrument - ranks literally come from the average scores given by faculty at competing universities), a much better indicator of "prestige" within academic disciplines, currently ranks Yale 20th in sociology, and a ton of public schools land way ahead of it. The only school you mentioned in the top 5 is Princeton. And as @JessicaLange sort of implied when citing employment stats, rank can REALLY matter. It's an okay proxy for the market outcomes of doctoral students who finish at each program. Someone interested in the academic job market, for example, might choose Berkeley, UNC, Michigan, or Wisconsin, among others, over most of the schools you have listed. To be clear, this is is a huge oversimplification of both the program selection and labor market processes: choosing a program is highly personal, related on the faculty for whom you wish to work, the ways in which your research and methodological interests connect to theirs, funding packages, regional constraints, etc. etc. etc.; getting a job in academia is insanely difficult and does not come to anyone simply because of their school or lab. The point remains, however, that an Ivy League name may not be as impressive to people in the discipline as it is to outsiders. And the people in the discipline are the people who matter (which is why I use ranking to make this point). The second point I make about purpose for applying relates to the first. Without a strong intellectual reason or interest, it is much harder to get into or get through a doctoral program. Interest in the broad subject of sociology or political science, unfortunately, is often not going to result in an admit. As the majority of a PhD student's time is spent doing research, professors typically look for applicants with well-articulated research interests, especially interests that align with their own body of work. Accordingly, successful PhD students-those who complete the degree-do not place their primary motivation for acquiring the degree in a desire to drink in knowledge from the classroom. Instead, they demonstrate an ability and interest in creating knowledge. Along these lines, I think it is actually very possible to apply to programs in more than one discipline. But only if your research interests are extremely coherent. The better you know what questions you hope to answer, the more effectively you can communicate how they fit within each academic paradigm. For example, an applicant interested in the ways in which public transportation access and utilization varies socioeconomically, and how this mediates the behaviors of a specific population, could describe their interest to a sociology program in the context of social stratification, or a political science program by considering how this might influence voting behavior. That being said, applying to more than one program type is extremely risky if you aren't certain of why you're doing so. The process of doing background research on programs is not a short-term activity, but it's really rewarding! If I were in your position, I would learn asuch as possible about the faculty and programs that may be ideal for my research and career aspirations, look at the job outcomes for alumni, and email people whose backgrounds I find compelling. Good luck!