theorynetworkculture

Accepted by UNC Chapel Hill via email this morning! Details are still hazy, but they mentioned ~20k of funding for 5 years, via fellowships or possibly TA-ships. It make the Berkeley rejection easier to take for sure. 

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!

@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]

I can claim one of the UT Austin acceptances! It's my first acceptance, and I'm feeling incredibly grateful.

Done with my Chicago interview: it was an unmitigated disaster.
Still, my interviewer told me to expect results in about three weeks. So sit tight, everyone who applied to Chicago.

I thought I would write up a bit about the interviews I did in the fall since a lot of people have been asking about them so hopefully this helps you and a few others. I was really nervous before the two that I did, but in hindsight, now feel that they went really well. I haven't heard back from any of the schools I've applied to yet, so I know for some that may seem like I don't have the evidence to prove how well they went, but the point is that I feel like I did the best I can which is all we can ever hope for. 
I felt at first like I needed to read all of the work by the faculty members I would be meeting with before the interview, but this is just not realistic. I'd say, think about why you want to work with that person, and then read one (maybe two) major papers by that person. If their major text is a book, read book reviews, and at tops a few chapters. Don't overdo it - it's unnecessary. Believe me, I was the person saying to myself, 'Sure, sure, OTHER people may not read the collected works of the faculty of each school their applying to, but I WILL.' I didn't. I'm an overachiever, and I didn't. Be compassionate with yourself. Have enough to be familiar with their research and interests, and so that you can ask them questions about where their research is headed. This will also help you in understanding the agenda of the department, or of the research center you're applying to, if that is pertinent. If the program does have an agenda, like Yale's Center for Cultural Sociology does with the Strong Program, then read up on that mission. If you know any grad students, talk to them first about the program and the faculty and their interests, because they'll be able to give you the most updated info sometimes. This happened for me at Northwestern - one faculty member I was really interested in, it turns out, might retire soon and the focus of their research is not really in line with the work they've done in the past that excited me - and I gleaned that all from a current PhD student. 
Review your own research interests, and if you have it, your thesis or major papers. If you haven't written any major papers, use your writing sample. Think about the questions that really interest you, and practice giving an "elevator pitch" describing those questions and your vision for yourself. If possible, show how you're aware of the questions place in the larger scheme of Sociology and the department itself. 
In the interviews that I did, there was a wide variety to how the conversations went. I met with 7 faculty members total for two school visits, and one of the interviews was really short (only 20 minutes) and I felt like I had to be really quick on my feet to answer questions. Another one lasted two hours, and ended with the faculty member giving me a tour of campus. I'd say, give yourself some flexibility when making appts with faculty if you're visiting the campus, and be clear with them about your expectations for time at the beginning so that they have the opportunity to either agree or tell you that it'll be longer or shorter. That way, you can gauge how much time you have, and if you have less than you desired, you can get right to the heart of your goals and interests right away. 
Most of the faculty members just wanted to know more about me, why I have two BA's, why I landed on the research questions I did, how I came up with my thesis question, if I had any statistical research experience. No one asked about GREs or GPA. So, that's why it is essential to practice your "elevator pitch" before you go. Really get to the heart of what you want to do. No one asked me my opinion on Weber or positivism or interpretive sociology... no. Some theory came up naturally as I explained my passions, but it was not a quiz about my intellect. They know we don't know everything - that's why we're applying for a PhD! They want to mold our minds - we need to show we are at least somewhat malleable. And then ask them about what they plan to do, too. What's up next for them? How might you be able to work with them on those projects? Also, don't be afraid to stand up for your own opinions. I had two professors challenge the generalizability of a quant paper I wrote and my research design, and I was very candid and forward about my views on generalizability and my goal for the paper. I defended my work and my beliefs, and they're looking for that. 
If you're visiting campus (and haven't been offered admission yet - and if your admission would depend on your visit), and sitting in on a class or a workshop, ask the professor beforehand if you are allowed to participate in the conversation. If possible, get a copy of that day's reading before and know your stuff. Ask questions, participate in the conversation, offer your opinion. This will give them an opportunity to really see your mind work. 
This was a bit of a stream of consciousness. I hope it helps! It's hard to give good advice without knowing everyone and their specific cases, but hopefully this helps a bit

A professor from UC Santa Barbara called a moment ago; I've been accepted with funding (details forthcoming?), and they offered to fly me out for an early March open house. 

And to the initial post...this is what grad school looks like.

A number of programs appear to be doing Skype interviews this year — this seems to be a recent development in sociology. I was curious what people's experiences with Skype interviews have been, and what advice they'd give.

Just heard back from Emory! They are flying me out to visit with their program for a weekend, they said I am a top applicant...Certainly did not expect this since I was freaking out yesterday!

Just about every top program will have excellent training in quantitative and qualitative methods, and "mixed methods." I second Illusio80's suggestion: just look for programs with scholars doing both qualitative and quantitative work. Mario Small had an excellent article on mixed methods in the Annual Review a few years back, you might want to check that out.

Just about every top program will have excellent training in quantitative and qualitative methods, and "mixed methods." I second Illusio80's suggestion: just look for programs with scholars doing both qualitative and quantitative work. Mario Small had an excellent article on mixed methods in the Annual Review a few years back, you might want to check that out.

In a sociology PhD program they are going to make you do at least two quarters or a year of stats.  Depending on the department, you may be free to use the stats in your work or not use it.  The program I used to be in had optional advanced stats for after the basic sequence, as well as various qualitative and quantitative methods sequences.  I strongly urge you to take the methods sequence that is of most interest to you in the first year, if that is how your program is structured.  You will need it to draw from in the process of writing whatever MA requirement there is.  In my experience, methods training is far more important early on than topical seminars, because once you hit the second year, you are pretty much on your own in terms of coming up with a substantial paper, and it would be helpful to be able to follow some kind of standard procedure, whatever that may be, so you have a somewhat smaller chance of getting laughed out of the room.  The MA is not the time for avant garde experimentation, I found out.  Devise something doable, crank it through the methodological sausage grinder of your choice, present the results, and be done with it.  It all goes way faster than you could believe.  People were telling me first year to chill out, that I had plenty of time to worry about a project.  I thought they were wrong at the time, and now I know just how wrong they were.  Assuming your program has some kind of MA thesis, start thinking about it as soon as you can.  Ideally, spin it off one of your seminar papers.  Try to select a committee that is going to actually help you when you need it.  (Judging this can be easier said than done.)  Good luck and feel free to follow up with questions!

Pretty rude. I hope you don't act this petty if you enter a PhD program. Academia does not have time and space for immature childish behavior. Very unprofessional.