xyz234

It sounds like you are not currently enrolled somewhere as a full-time student, but it's unclear. Broadly speaking, research experience is far more important than what courses you take. If you are enrolled somewhere, I would say it's best to take some form of research methods. Courses that provide some hard skills are the most helpful, and also often give you the opportunity to do some primary research. If you are not enrolled somewhere, I would say it is not worth it to spend money and time on courses.

Have you never read about symbolic interactionism? The Matthew Effect? Do you even sociology, bro?

The here and now absolutely matters. One should never go to a PhD program that they cannot afford. But whether or not the name of your school impresses random people you meet outside of the field you're being hired in shouldn't even be on the radar.

Flagship (and Ivy) at the undergrad level does not apply to the grad level. There are programs at satellite campuses that many would consider stronger than the flagship campus. I think it's important to remember that support for your field will differ by each department and placement is the most important thing.

Nobody can predict the future but they do can figure out how much people will get paid. Nobody is going to get rich from grad school but one should be able to live off a stipend without the need for roommates and they shouldn't have to worry about tuition waivers being withdrawn.
UIUC's administration has actually done really bad damage to its students in the past including threatening to withdraws tuition waivers back in 2017/2018 for all future students. Luckily, the Union prevented that from happening. 

This happened a few days ago:
https://www.wcia.com/news/local-news/student-says-he-was-dismissed-from-uiuc-over-covid-19-testing-non-compliance/

No worries, I think you'll be OK. Let's not forget, UIUC is the flagship state public school in Illinois so you're in good hands. That said, it is true that your network tends to be clustered where you do your PhD studies but that doesn't mean that you are bound to be regionally locked there. I think if you are able to produce great research, you are very likely to be hired anywhere. 
Good luck!

The rankings are so out of date at this point that honestly it's a bit hard to know what is where. Things have shifted in the last 5 years, but U.S. News hasn't updated things since 2017 (based on a 2016 survey). Look at placement. That's a better indication of what's going on than what was happening in U.S. News five years ago. And don't focus on Ivy vs. not Ivy — what sports league a school is in has nothing to do with placement, and you'll find that at least half a dozen public schools (if not more) place better than Yale (and Cornell).

I know that the pandemic has really messed things up for a lot of you. Your dream program might have cancelled admissions this year or you are looking at an even more competitive market because there will be fewer programs accepting students. This might mean that you choose to take this year off and wait to apply next year OR that you want improve your skills and increase your chances of success in a program. I am writing this post to suggest skills you can develop on your own, without being in a program, but that will make your life better when you get there if you learn them beforehand.  They will also make you more attractive to programs that expect their students enter with certain kinds of skills/knowledge. 
The first thing you should do is learn to use R. If you don't know where to start a really good textbook is Discovering Stats Using R by Field, Miles, and Field. This text is great because it will give you a refresh on your stats knowledge and will teach you to use a free stats program. The learning curve for it is pretty big, you have to learn to speak its language- but if you can teach yourself how to use this your life will be so much easier later. A lot of people might say that learning R first is a bad idea, but if you learn to use R then using state, SPSS, or SAS later is a breeze. Plus the R community is amazing and there are so many free tutorials out in the world if the book is confusing. 
The second skill you can develop on your own is practice regression models (learning the code to run them, to interpret them, learning what you use various types of models for...). This is super important if you want to be a qualitative person. What? You might be asking. Yes, I am serious. Many programs will expect you to be competent in every method so going in knowing how to do quant work will mean less push back for your qual dreams. There are lots of textbooks you can use, my program uses Regression Models by Example by Chatterjee and Hadi. But anyone can teach themselves to do this as well. Download free data (CPS is pretty easy to work with if you are just starting out) and play. 
The third skill you can develop on your own is the ability to use python. There are lots of online programs that my peers have used to learn this skill (I, honestly, have not). I do know that as you progress in your quant skills that eventually this becomes something you'll want to know how to use. I work with survey data/not crazy huge datasets so I've been able to avoid it, but this might be something to think about. 
A lot of posts on here suggest doing things like learning theory, but from my experience you have no idea what theory will be covered in the program you end up accepted to. You could spend an entire semester learning Talcott Parsons or you could get a general overview or you might just cover Marx/Weber/Durkheim. My point there is I wouldn't bother. I would download as many pdfs of peer reviewed research articles on the area you are interested in writing your thesis on NOW while you still have access to your undergrad institution and to start building a literature review. Make sure to do specific searches of major journals (AJS, ASR...) If you don't have access get your hands on as many "free" sources as possible and make it your goal to read at least a couple books in your interest area. Make sure to save the citation information, the gist of the article, and any quotes you think you might later use (I do this in excel spreadsheets). Even just saving them to a PDF is a good starting place though. This will help you when you finally do get to that point in your career. Your interests might change, but it never hurts to have a solid lit review started. You will be able to pull from that for class papers if you don't use it for your thesis someday. 
I know that not being able to apply is going to be super stressful for many of you and that it will probably mean working a job during this time which is why I gave a list but with varying levels of commitment or time attached to the tasks. I'd suggest doing ANY of these things- but if you don't do anything that is ok too. We are living through a global pandemic and it is ok to not be ok. The thought here is that these are good ways to build on your skills while you figure things out (let's be real knowing how to do statistics or use python are great skills to have on a resume anyways anymore).
I am so sorry this is happening to everyone who is at this point in your grad school journey, I login to this site like idk every 4 or so months so if you DM me I won't answer for a while, but I promise I will eventually reply if you have any questions about what grad school is like or about how to go about any of these suggestions I have made. I did this because after advising a student from my summer class I realized that she is far from the only person thinking "what now" so I hope this helps. 
A side note: obviously polishing your application materials will help too. An extra year to craft the perfect letter of intent might be a blessing for someone who is still wrapping up their BA. 
Also I hope other current grad students share their insights. I am ABD in my program and nearly done so people earlier in the process might remember some things I don't or have insights from their programs or other books to recommend

To preface, I don't know the field of chemistry at all and it sounds like you have a tough decision between two great programs. Congratulations! I will, however, say that you should consider editing some of the more self-identifying information out of your post, especially since you say some not-so-flattering things about a potential advisor by name. I don't mean to sound condescending and I wish I could offer you more help on the decision itself, but I do think this is good practice on the internet in general.

As far as I've been told the structure of UK PhD programs tends to be rather different than those in the US, and US programs have a definite bias towards hiring US PhDs. If your end goal is a TT job in the US, options 2 and 3 might be safer bets. 

You should look at this list, put out every year by a professor at Penn: https://repository.upenn.edu/think_tanks/
According to him and his methods, these are the top 10 think tanks in the US: 
1. Brookings Institution (United States)
2. Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) (United States)
3. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (United States)
4. Heritage Foundation (United States)
5. Wilson Center, FKA Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars (United States)
6. RAND Corporation (United States)
7. Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE) (United States)
8. Center for American Progress (CAP) (United States)
9. Urban Institute (United States)
10. Atlantic Council (United States)
Any of those would be awesome, although a few (PIIE, Carnegie, Wilson) are less social policy oriented. You'll see a ton of current sociology (and similar degree) students come from just Brookings, RAND, and Urban alone. 
Off the top of my head, other potentially relevant think tanks/research orgs (some aren't classified technically as think tanks) are: MDRC, Mathematica, American Institutes for Research, Pew Research Center, The Century Foundation, Human Rights Watch, Brennan Center, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Aspen Institute, Congressional Research Service, Child Trends, RTI

One thing to keep in mind is that the spread can be in part due to how schools notify you of acceptance. For example, UNC has some variation, but it's all in a week or so period. This is because they have a faculty member you listed on your SoP call you, so it depends on that professor's schedule. Other schools will do it by email, so it all goes out at once. I'm sure these things also change year to year.
This is mostly to say that it is not worth getting stressed and assuming you've been rejected somewhere just because some people have already gotten in. I had schools where I thought this was the case and I just got a phone call a couple days later entirely due to scheduling.

I don't think you should read too much into this. Departments are pushing for professionalization and a quicker clock largely because of incentives on their end, which means you'll get different info depending on who you talk to. I was told 6 years by my department when going through the application process, but I now know that's largely a joke. I certainly can't think of anyone done in 5 and the vast, vast majority are in the 7-8 range. This is at a top department with small cohorts and ample resources.
I do think it is true that different departments have different priorities on this. You're right to point out that Duke has been pushing professionalization very strongly, but my larger point is that you shouldn't look to cohort size as the main indicator or trust random information. And, at the end of the day you should expect to take longer than what the department promises you is the goal.

I don't think you should read too much into this. Departments are pushing for professionalization and a quicker clock largely because of incentives on their end, which means you'll get different info depending on who you talk to. I was told 6 years by my department when going through the application process, but I now know that's largely a joke. I certainly can't think of anyone done in 5 and the vast, vast majority are in the 7-8 range. This is at a top department with small cohorts and ample resources.
I do think it is true that different departments have different priorities on this. You're right to point out that Duke has been pushing professionalization very strongly, but my larger point is that you shouldn't look to cohort size as the main indicator or trust random information. And, at the end of the day you should expect to take longer than what the department promises you is the goal.

I think if you can make a convincing argument for why you want to study sociology, your B.A. major doesn't matter. Most departments' FAQs mention that an applicant's major doesn't need to be sociology. You could also contact programs you are interested and seek advice. 

One thing to keep in mind is that the spread can be in part due to how schools notify you of acceptance. For example, UNC has some variation, but it's all in a week or so period. This is because they have a faculty member you listed on your SoP call you, so it depends on that professor's schedule. Other schools will do it by email, so it all goes out at once. I'm sure these things also change year to year.
This is mostly to say that it is not worth getting stressed and assuming you've been rejected somewhere just because some people have already gotten in. I had schools where I thought this was the case and I just got a phone call a couple days later entirely due to scheduling.

You have nothing to worry about. Great GRE, Good GPA, and strong work experience. I think high_hopes is right both that econ by itself is not a problem (and sometimes a bonus!) but you should make sure you can give a compelling case about why you're interested in sociology. There are multiple econ undergrad students in my cohort (top 10 department) and no one even remembers exactly what everyone's major was at this point. And, because statistical skills are a big part of the field, and often criticized among incoming soc students, econ gives you a leg up.
I wouldn't worry about not having taken sociology classes either. In general the philosophy of phd programs is to turn you from a research consumer to research producer. In fact, I think too many applicants spend the whole time talking about what sociology they like (presumably from a class they took), rather than what sociology they intend to produce. The majority of your required courses in grad school or going to be methods courses, not content courses for this reason. So, if you have the foundational interest and the beginnings of the ability to research on it, this makes for a great statement of purpose. It also doesn't have to be super specific! Economic sociology makes perfect sense given your background, is a strong subfield in a wide range of departments, and is something you should plausibly be able to make the case for.

I think that if your statement of purpose makes clear why you want to pursue a sociology PhD and shows that you understand and are planning to engage with recent sociological research, you have a good chance of being admitted. It will also help if your letter writers can speak to why sociology is a good fit for you. If you can demonstrate your quant skills and are interested in quant research I think some departments will be quite interested in you -- sometimes they complain that students with sociology undergraduate degrees don't have adequate preparation to do cutting-edge statistical research. Also, fwiw, top departments won't really care about your political leanings. 

When I was waiting for results, this forum was anxiety-producing. Time away from my phone and computer was the healthiest thing I could do. Once the applications are submitted, it is out of your control. I'm realizing now that there are similar experiences throughout graduate school: waiting for news on competitive fellowships, teaching assignments, reviews of journal articles, and then applying for jobs! ? So, do your best to take some deep breaths and step away from the anxiety if at all possible. 
 
Good luck!

Thank you guys so much for your quick replies! I really do appreciate it.
I did misunderstand the GRE sending policy, so I am planning on taking it this Friday. Hopefully it goes well!
Thank you xyz234 for your kind words! When I look at the numbers I feel like I have a decent shot, but I always end up second guessing myself. Most of my recommendations, excluding #2, are also very quantitative focused and were expecting much higher GRE scores from me which made me worry a great deal.  Your comments made me feel like my chances were a little better than a shot at the moon, so thank you!

Some would say it is more about broadly understanding social processes, social institutions and also social inequality. I hope that studying those topics will benefit disadvantaged groups, but I don't think all sociological research need to be focused specifically on helping disadvantaged groups.

Ok, there's a couple things going on here, but I'll do my best.
First of all, ignoring GRE for a second, you are a very strong applicant. Good GPA, strong research experience, a clear substantive research interest/project, and strong recs. All of that is fantastic and you should feel great about it! I know it's easy to focus on the one negative aspect here. So, there's two ways to approach your problem. 1) The vast majority of your application is fantastic and your GRE scores are not disqualifying enough by any means. I think you should get into a fully-funded, and most likely top 20, program with your application as is. 2) You have a strong enough profile that you could shoot a little higher than that with a really strong GRE. Given your econ background and quantitative focus, I also believe you would be able to with adequate study time. While schools know that GRE math is not real math, it might look a little odd at the truly top end (top 5-10) to have a strong quantitative focus and have that be your weakest GRE score. This is really your judgment call as to how much you care about the top outcome of reach schools, versus how much you're happy to be at a good fully-funded school.

I'm also slightly confused by your implication of how GRE score reporting works, so I want to check my understanding. It was my belief that you can choose whether or not to send your scores. If this is the case, there's not that much downside to taking the test on Friday and seeing what happens, other than money and time. Is my understanding correct?
Lastly, regarding recs, I think this is a good problem to have. It looks like you have four potentially strong recs, two of which are very strong. I got into a top program with one very strong rec and two that I believe are about the quality of your #2; this puts you ahead of the median for sure. Personally, the advice I've always been given is to go with a professor who knows you very well, rather than one who looks slightly more impressive on paper. To me this signals using #4 over #2. I don't think there's much downside at all to having an econ professor, and in fact most sociology grad programs like econ for the strong quant methods focus. Committees care more about methods and research experience than subject area knowledge. I do think if you have apps that allow additional recs it wouldn't hurt to use #2 as well.
I hope this was helpful, and please feel free to reach out to me via pm. I'm happy to give more of my personal experience, but I don't want to dox myself.

Ok, there's a couple things going on here, but I'll do my best.
First of all, ignoring GRE for a second, you are a very strong applicant. Good GPA, strong research experience, a clear substantive research interest/project, and strong recs. All of that is fantastic and you should feel great about it! I know it's easy to focus on the one negative aspect here. So, there's two ways to approach your problem. 1) The vast majority of your application is fantastic and your GRE scores are not disqualifying enough by any means. I think you should get into a fully-funded, and most likely top 20, program with your application as is. 2) You have a strong enough profile that you could shoot a little higher than that with a really strong GRE. Given your econ background and quantitative focus, I also believe you would be able to with adequate study time. While schools know that GRE math is not real math, it might look a little odd at the truly top end (top 5-10) to have a strong quantitative focus and have that be your weakest GRE score. This is really your judgment call as to how much you care about the top outcome of reach schools, versus how much you're happy to be at a good fully-funded school.

I'm also slightly confused by your implication of how GRE score reporting works, so I want to check my understanding. It was my belief that you can choose whether or not to send your scores. If this is the case, there's not that much downside to taking the test on Friday and seeing what happens, other than money and time. Is my understanding correct?
Lastly, regarding recs, I think this is a good problem to have. It looks like you have four potentially strong recs, two of which are very strong. I got into a top program with one very strong rec and two that I believe are about the quality of your #2; this puts you ahead of the median for sure. Personally, the advice I've always been given is to go with a professor who knows you very well, rather than one who looks slightly more impressive on paper. To me this signals using #4 over #2. I don't think there's much downside at all to having an econ professor, and in fact most sociology grad programs like econ for the strong quant methods focus. Committees care more about methods and research experience than subject area knowledge. I do think if you have apps that allow additional recs it wouldn't hurt to use #2 as well.
I hope this was helpful, and please feel free to reach out to me via pm. I'm happy to give more of my personal experience, but I don't want to dox myself.

First of all: Congratulations on taking the GRE and performing better than in practices. That is a win and every win along this journey should be celebrated.
So here goes: Of course you can still apply, but you might want to adjust the types of schools you're looking at should you apply this round. I don't know to what extent AdComms will go into the nitty gritty of your transcript (probably only if you're a fringe candidate). Bad GREs or GPAs can typically be made up for by other qualities, but these are usually either the other of the two scores or research experience. You are telling us that you have a well written SOP, but it is probably the content explaining your interest in, and experience with, research that matters much more than the sophistication of your writing. The same goes for your LORs: These are supposed to speak about your research abilities. From what you've written on here, I can't tell why you want to go to grad school or why you would be good at it (I obviously haven't read your SOP either). To be perfectly honest: With mediocre grades and scores and little research experience, you are probably facing an uphill battle. Of course that does not mean that it is impossible to get into a (good) school (as a lot of anecdotal evidence on this board proves), but your odds might not be great. 
Although this does not sound great, I don't think it should be reason to despair. From what it sounds like to me you might want to consider getting some more research experience before you apply (even if that means waiting another year). That should increase your chances and further help you figure out why (and if) you want to go into academic research. You need something to pop out of your application, and having figured out that you want to do research during on of your undergrad classes does not cut it for most of the AdComms.

I can only second what the other two said (methods, methods, methods). If you’re looking to go into serious quant, you might even want to start thinking about taking a couple math classes and then doing stats sequences that involve calculus and linear algebra (at the Econ or stats department). And the hidden benefit from taking all these methods and theses classes, that might be even more important, is that you’ll actually get to take a first look whether this whole research thing is as appealing to you as you thought. Some people start with a very romanticized idea of a PhD in their head, leading them to drop out. Getting as much experience as you possibly could before will help you decide whether this is something that you truly want to do (which is something that’s not always easy to say coming straight out of undergrad). So make sure to take stock ever so often whether you are enjoying the classes you’re taking and whether these fit with what you were hoping to do in a research program. 

Second what high_hopes says. In general, methods courses are more valuable than content-based courses. PhD programs are largely designed to turn you into research producers, rather than consumers. Most of the coursework you will have in grad school is methods based for these reasons. Any opportunity you can get to give yourself a head start there will make you a great candidate. In addition, if there's any type of course you can take that gives you an option for an independent project, thesis, or even just original research paper you should do it. You will need a writing sample for your PhD application and in general this will show ad comms that you haven't just read sociology, but can actually practice it as well. Finally, take all opportunities to meet with faculty, go to office hours, etc. I was lucky enough to have a fantastic undergrad mentor this way and I got a job working as her research assistant after graduating. My relationship with her strengthened my application enormously, as it boosted my recommendations, my resume, and gave me more primary research opportunities. Sociology is also a small world. I got into my mentor's alma mater and other schools where she has a relationship, and I don't think that's a coincidence. It's not nepotism, but a recommendation means more if the ad comms know the person it's coming from.
Feel free to pm me if you want to talk in more detail.