lkaitlyn

I know what I said isn't fun-sounding, but I'm not going to say do the easier one just because it's easier. The writing sample is one of the most important parts of the application. It's doubly important when you need to convince the committee you know how to do sociological work because your background is not in sociology. I think not using this opportunity to demonstrate proficiency in writing sociological work by adapting an existing piece and making it sociological or writing something new will hurt you. You can choose to ignore this advice — you may get into your favorite programs anyway, and it sounds from your response like you're pretty set on using existing work — but I think it will weaken your application. I wish you the best of luck in whatever you decide.

It sounds from your phrasing like you gave these random people a choice of submitting a strong, polished journalism piece or a weak research piece. Obviously polish is better in that case, but that doesn't mean that's better than submitting a strong, polished research piece. Submitting a journalism piece instead of demonstrating an ability to conduct rigorous sociological research will substantially weaken your application. Perhaps you can rewrite one of your articles to make it sociological? Add a literature review, craft a research question and argument, etc.?
It is especially important that you show an ability to craft a sociological argument/question given that it sounds like you do not have any sociology experience. (I say this as someone who similarly had no sociology background.)

Take the PhD offer, or apply again next cycle. Do not pay $50-60k for an MA.

Take the PhD offer, or apply again next cycle. Do not pay $50-60k for an MA.

1. You only need a new writing sample if you think the old one was weak. If you don't have any new research in the works, I doubt you'll be able to have someone new and high quality so soon, so you might want to stick with what you had or maybe edit what you had more, ideally with the help of mentors in the field (professors). Make sure that you're demonstrating your ability to do sociological research.
2. Probably not, but you'll send it when it's available, just like college seniors send their semester grades after applying. It normally won't matter much unless you do poorly, or if your undergrad record was weak, in which case I'd recommend waiting a year to apply so you can show them a longer track record of academic success.
3. Not sure how your scores break down but if it's close to 160/160 (e.g., one of them is 157 or something), I'm not sure retaking this is a good use of your time, especially since most programs don't even require the GRE anymore.
4. Unless something has drastically changed in the last 2-3 years, most applicants to sociology PhD programs don't have publications, and if they do, it's generally not as a first author and in a lower-tier journal or an undergrad journal, so I wouldn't stress about that. If you have something you've been working on, see if you can submit to a conference. A lot of smaller regional conferences have fall and winter meetings with open submission deadlines right now. Also make sure you're getting research experience. In your MA program, that should happen naturally, but if you don't have anything else to do this summer while you're waiting, maybe get a research internship or help out a professor with a project of theirs!
I think forcing yourself to apply too soon is indeed quite limiting, as your questions indicate. I don't know the circumstances of your current application or situation, but if there were weaknesses and this wasn't just a fit issue (it may just be that you didn't apply to programs that were really good fits with your goals), you might want to wait to apply. That way, you can build strong relationships with new LOR writers at your MA institution (you'll want at least 1 to be from your MA institution even if you apply this year), work on a new writing sample, and expand the research experience on your CV. You'll also have an MA thesis to talk about in your application!
Oh, and if you developed any good relationships with professors at the schools you applied to, perhaps gently reach out to that person and ask if they have any feedback for what you can do to strengthen your application for the future. I'd only do this if you've developed a personal relationship, though — don't just cold email admissions.
And as a related aside, if you didn't develop any type of connection with professors, you might want to try that this time around; email a professor in each program in July/August with a personalized email about why you're interested in their research, a sentence or two about your work, etc., say you're interested in applying, and ask if they have time to talk about what they're currently working on. You'd be surprised at how many respond if you keep the email short, professional, and personalized. Even if they have no say over admissions, talking to them will help you be more specific in your SOPs about why that school is a good match for you and your research. And who knows? Maybe you'll work with them! (The person who I reached out to from the school I'm now at is still my advisor 3 years in!)

1. You only need a new writing sample if you think the old one was weak. If you don't have any new research in the works, I doubt you'll be able to have someone new and high quality so soon, so you might want to stick with what you had or maybe edit what you had more, ideally with the help of mentors in the field (professors). Make sure that you're demonstrating your ability to do sociological research.
2. Probably not, but you'll send it when it's available, just like college seniors send their semester grades after applying. It normally won't matter much unless you do poorly, or if your undergrad record was weak, in which case I'd recommend waiting a year to apply so you can show them a longer track record of academic success.
3. Not sure how your scores break down but if it's close to 160/160 (e.g., one of them is 157 or something), I'm not sure retaking this is a good use of your time, especially since most programs don't even require the GRE anymore.
4. Unless something has drastically changed in the last 2-3 years, most applicants to sociology PhD programs don't have publications, and if they do, it's generally not as a first author and in a lower-tier journal or an undergrad journal, so I wouldn't stress about that. If you have something you've been working on, see if you can submit to a conference. A lot of smaller regional conferences have fall and winter meetings with open submission deadlines right now. Also make sure you're getting research experience. In your MA program, that should happen naturally, but if you don't have anything else to do this summer while you're waiting, maybe get a research internship or help out a professor with a project of theirs!
I think forcing yourself to apply too soon is indeed quite limiting, as your questions indicate. I don't know the circumstances of your current application or situation, but if there were weaknesses and this wasn't just a fit issue (it may just be that you didn't apply to programs that were really good fits with your goals), you might want to wait to apply. That way, you can build strong relationships with new LOR writers at your MA institution (you'll want at least 1 to be from your MA institution even if you apply this year), work on a new writing sample, and expand the research experience on your CV. You'll also have an MA thesis to talk about in your application!
Oh, and if you developed any good relationships with professors at the schools you applied to, perhaps gently reach out to that person and ask if they have any feedback for what you can do to strengthen your application for the future. I'd only do this if you've developed a personal relationship, though — don't just cold email admissions.
And as a related aside, if you didn't develop any type of connection with professors, you might want to try that this time around; email a professor in each program in July/August with a personalized email about why you're interested in their research, a sentence or two about your work, etc., say you're interested in applying, and ask if they have time to talk about what they're currently working on. You'd be surprised at how many respond if you keep the email short, professional, and personalized. Even if they have no say over admissions, talking to them will help you be more specific in your SOPs about why that school is a good match for you and your research. And who knows? Maybe you'll work with them! (The person who I reached out to from the school I'm now at is still my advisor 3 years in!)

Some kind, neurotic soul from last year made this nifty spreadsheet (thank you, person in old thread!), if anyone wants to obsess more. FYI, the first to post about last year was ~11:15 EST.
Edit: Also check out that thread for detailed analyses regarding average time between maintenance starting and results being released.

Re: strikes at UC affecting offers (someone asked in the thread) - definitely. UC doesn't want to allocate more money to grad students, so they're trying to find ways to cut down the grad student population or try to get around the contract. For example, there's a rumor about UCI Social Sciences (school that oversees Sociology) trying to fuss around with fellowship-type funding because they're under the (mistaken) belief that it's exempted from the union contract (which is funny, because it's not, so you all might just wind up with more fellowship money with UC getting absolutely no financial benefit from it; karma!).
Can't speak for other UCs but I do know that has been affecting admissions here at UCI re: funding offers, how many offers can go out, etc., since the department is trying to figure out how much money they'll get from Social Sciences. In the department's defense, to be clear, they do not control this.

I received an email from DGS accepting me, formal letter and funding details to come later.

I received an email an hour ago from a POI, so I assume the timing depends on each professor

I got my invite a couple years back around a week after everyone else. I was convinced I was rejected at that point. Not trying to keep you clinging to false hope, but I wouldn't assume it's over until we're well into February. It also somewhat matters on professor. My advisor (who is great) takes a little longer than some others to do administrative stuff sometimes. Knowing him now, I'm thoroughly unsurprised that I heard later than others.
Edit: I have no real inside info on this, though. Just explaining my personal experience.

FYI, I have heard that UCI is taking a smaller cohort this year, though I don't know the exact size. (But they're funding those people better than they funded people when they admitted larger cohorts, though I know that's not comforting for everyone waiting.)

In my case, I enrolled in a statistic course at one of the top 2 Chilean universities; tough in Spanish, I published a book review from a U.S. professor, a collective paper was published, got my second experience working as an R.A., led a course at University. But, to be honest, the most important thing that changed was my SOP: it is completely different from last year's. (I got a lot of help from a professor from a certain top 10 U.S. University and also from @lkaitlyn) Also, I sent another W.S., a work-in-progress paper from interviews I've done on my own. 
In any case, I still don't know if this worked.

Why not? If they ask, I see no reason to not fill it out. That seems kind of lazy to me, personally.

I definitely think expanding upon Goffman would be interesting! If there are videos/Tweets/social media about tent cities in your area, that could be a really cool way of modernizing the Goffman study. Either way, this sounds very interesting!

Listen to your supervisor! (Sidenote, but that's the key to grad school, it turns out.)
Personally, I like doing more empirical projects and yours sounds very theory-heavy at first. Is that what you're supposed to do, or is the thesis supposed to be empirical? Either way, I encourage you to simplify language when trying to describe your research so you fully understand what it is that you're doing.
You mention maybe doing a content analysis of media portrayals of homelessness, which sounds super interesting to me and is empirical research. I'd sort out whether you're looking at how the pandemic has affected homelessness portrayals in the media (sidenote: pick a country, because it will be too complicated cross-nationally; also figure out how you're going to define "media" and which sources you'll use) or how the media portrays homelessness generally ... but not both. Also figure out what you'd look at within media (photographs? writing? article titles? videos?).
One problem is I'm not sure how you'll show a causal connection between the media and changes in public stigma around homelessness. I think maybe rather than focus on how the media has changed stigma, focus on how the media does or does not stigmatize homelessness (and talk about hypotheses you have about how that might translate to real life), but be careful not to make a causal argument you can't support with your data. Your advisor should be able to help you sort out what you can and can't prove.

I'm not sure what programs you saw formally require stats. When I applied in 2020, that wasn't required for any of the T25 programs, though it's obviously, like taking previous sociology classes, a good idea.
Some ways you can demonstrate stats competency: take a stats class and get a solid grade, nail the quant part of the GRE (not as good as the other options here), show a sample of your research that has (correctly) used statistics.
Since it sounds like you can't do that third option, I'd focus on taking a stats course (even a short one — you can then update them on your grade in December) and nail the GRE. If you can't afford to take a course at a local community college or something similar, see if you can find something self-paced online that's meant to be a semester that you can get a completion certificate or grade for.

I did this two different ways over two different years (was going to apply in 2019, but ended up going on last minute medical leave after emailing professors). First year, I had a 10% response rate. Second year, my response rate was 75%. Here's an example of one of mine from the year I got 75% responses, which is the format I used for every email (names redacted):
----
"Dear Professor X,

I am a rising senior at SCHOOL studying Women's, Gender, and Sexuality Studies, and I am applying to Sociology Ph.D. programs this fall.

I read your article, "ARTICLE NAME," when I was conducting research on RELATED TOPIC. I was particularly appreciative of your attention to SOMETHING IN THE ARTICLE. Your work appears to intersect with my research interests; I plan on studying MY TOPIC IN HALF A SENTENCE PORTRAYED IN A WAY THAT INTERSECTS WITH THE PROFESSOR'S INTERESTS.

I know you are probably busy, but after reading about your work, I wanted to ask if you will be taking on new graduate students for Fall 2020.

Thank you so much for your time.

Best,
MY NAME
MY SCHOOL Class of 2020
email address
P.S. I have attached my CV for your convenience." ----   That's it! The trick is to keep it short, and email one professor at each school instead of several (unless the first doesn't respond in a month, in which case change up the email format before emailing the second one). My first year emailing, my emails were maybe double this length with longer paragraphs on the professor's research, my research, etc., and the response rate was much lower. I also tried asking research-related questions, which could make me sound like an idiot much more easily, though feel free to go that route if you know what you're doing. Most responses I got included something like, "We don't admit by advisor" (which I knew), but many included invitations to do a Zoom or phone call, questions about my research, and other valuable information on whether or not the professor was leaving or overloaded with advisees.   Also, I recommend emailing on a Tuesday or Wednesday during business hours at the professor's institution, preferably sometime in the morning, so it doesn't get lost in the weekend email backlog. If you have a .edu email, that is more likely to make it past spam filters. Attaching the CV is optional — if you do it, attach it as a PDF so virus scanners have an easier time okaying it, and make sure it is formatted nicely like the CVs of current grad students at the institution.

I did this two different ways over two different years (was going to apply in 2019, but ended up going on last minute medical leave after emailing professors). First year, I had a 10% response rate. Second year, my response rate was 75%. Here's an example of one of mine from the year I got 75% responses, which is the format I used for every email (names redacted):
----
"Dear Professor X,

I am a rising senior at SCHOOL studying Women's, Gender, and Sexuality Studies, and I am applying to Sociology Ph.D. programs this fall.

I read your article, "ARTICLE NAME," when I was conducting research on RELATED TOPIC. I was particularly appreciative of your attention to SOMETHING IN THE ARTICLE. Your work appears to intersect with my research interests; I plan on studying MY TOPIC IN HALF A SENTENCE PORTRAYED IN A WAY THAT INTERSECTS WITH THE PROFESSOR'S INTERESTS.

I know you are probably busy, but after reading about your work, I wanted to ask if you will be taking on new graduate students for Fall 2020.

Thank you so much for your time.

Best,
MY NAME
MY SCHOOL Class of 2020
email address
P.S. I have attached my CV for your convenience." ----   That's it! The trick is to keep it short, and email one professor at each school instead of several (unless the first doesn't respond in a month, in which case change up the email format before emailing the second one). My first year emailing, my emails were maybe double this length with longer paragraphs on the professor's research, my research, etc., and the response rate was much lower. I also tried asking research-related questions, which could make me sound like an idiot much more easily, though feel free to go that route if you know what you're doing. Most responses I got included something like, "We don't admit by advisor" (which I knew), but many included invitations to do a Zoom or phone call, questions about my research, and other valuable information on whether or not the professor was leaving or overloaded with advisees.   Also, I recommend emailing on a Tuesday or Wednesday during business hours at the professor's institution, preferably sometime in the morning, so it doesn't get lost in the weekend email backlog. If you have a .edu email, that is more likely to make it past spam filters. Attaching the CV is optional — if you do it, attach it as a PDF so virus scanners have an easier time okaying it, and make sure it is formatted nicely like the CVs of current grad students at the institution.

Not applying this cycle, but wanted to wish everyone good luck! Always feel free to reach out if you have questions about the app process or want someone to scan over an SOP or something. Also happy to answer questions about NSF or UCI. ❤️

In answer to this (and as info for future applicants who have the same question): NSF uses z-scores to standardize the numerical scores that reviewers give applicants (which you don't get to see) — basically, if you get a reviewer who was harsh with everyone they reviewed, it adjusts for that, and likewise adjusts for if you got a reviewer who gave everyone high scores. This process is still a total crapshoot but the TL;DR is that the E/VG/G thing masks a numerical score, and that numerical score is further adjusted after the conclusion of the reviewing process. Also keep in mind that they try to award proportionally to broader subfields (social sciences, etc.) based on applicant volume in each subfield, so you might have just wound up in an unusually strong subfield pool.

In answer to this (and as info for future applicants who have the same question): NSF uses z-scores to standardize the numerical scores that reviewers give applicants (which you don't get to see) — basically, if you get a reviewer who was harsh with everyone they reviewed, it adjusts for that, and likewise adjusts for if you got a reviewer who gave everyone high scores. This process is still a total crapshoot but the TL;DR is that the E/VG/G thing masks a numerical score, and that numerical score is further adjusted after the conclusion of the reviewing process. Also keep in mind that they try to award proportionally to broader subfields (social sciences, etc.) based on applicant volume in each subfield, so you might have just wound up in an unusually strong subfield pool.

DM me for mine. Also happy to share reviewer comments.
The lack of sociology ones is tremendously frustrating. I also found people willing to share via email from the winner list, and used the psych examples online as a guide too.

Monday, March 22, ~11:30pm Eastern was when the list came out online; the email notification that I got was the next day ~8am Eastern.

Thanks for the response. I disagree with you, but I can do that respectfully. Essentially, for this process going forward — I’ve mentally compartmentalized it to something I’ll deal with as results reveal themselves. Unfortunately, I’ve had the hone that skill given the vicissitudes of life/time, so I move on from things quickly mentally and emotionally. I’m no longer visiting the results section, so I’m not living and dying with each update. That’s been beneficial for me. Now, to your point: there’s a great book I read over the summer called, “The Inequality Machine,” by Paul Tough. The gist of the book is that our most hallowed institutions fail to be the truly transformative entities they could be, and actually causally reproduce and further propagate inequality. How so? Well, generally when these “top” schools  select applicants, they accept students from a certain background (i.e., affluent, well to-do). Even when they accept minority students, they are generally from an affluent background either domestically or internationally. Moreover, what they are actually accepting when they opt to take on students is typically students with the means to best “game” the system. People with the resources that can hire a private tutor for 6 months to study for the GRE, spend 2K on Kaplan self-study materials, take a job for two years as a research assistant making next to nothing because they can afford to do so, and so on. I read a post on Reddit before where an international application in India said that the GRE fee cost was half of his monthly salary. Think of the sheer absurdity in this statement. What does his ability/inability to know that proper fractions get smaller when multiplied by a whole number have to do with a flourishing sociological imagination? I posit nothing. 
 
 I’d like to think I’m a pretty informed applicant now, and I didn’t even know people actually email and contact professors they’re interested in to foster a relationship before they even apply until this cycle. That actually blew my mind, because here I was thinking this was some wholly impartial process in terms of decisions being meted out. Silly me. It’s a game — within a game. Additionally, so much of sociology is devoted to inequality, injustice, etc. If there is ONE academic arena where one’s historical positioning should be accounted for, I contend it’s sociology. 
 
For example, Cal Berkeley is oft seen as this paragon of inclusivity, progressive ideologies, etc. Such that, there are specific pejoratives that parties will bandy about for people that attend institutions such as Cal. Yet, even Cal Berkeley struggles to adhere to these ideals with regard to its meager black populous — and many have accounted that their time at Cal has been racially and socially charged. Now, this is occurring at Cal Berkeley! What does that denote about the rest of the world outside of Cal? When I go to these university websites, and I look at the professors, and I peruse their CV’s, I see an overwhelmingly white demographic. Now, inequality, injustice, and so forth manifests itself in various ways throughout a functioning globalized society. Whether, you’re black in Compton, white in Appalachia, or Latino in Peru. However, I know how it has directly impacted my life. Do I think most of the people I see on these websites can turn the electricity back on in their house when it’s cutoff by power company with just a clothes hanger? No. I can, though. My mother taught me that when I was 6. 
 
We all learn about Durkheim, Pierre Bourdieu, Max Weber, Mills, DuBois, et al. We all write papers on the juxtaposition of anomie to Marx’s alienation. We all have things we’re interested in and theories we’ve cultivated. We all have things we think should be researched or we intend to research, and we hope adcoms assent. Undoubtedly, I don’t think any of that is unique in some collective application sense. Sociology can be more than that. In fact, it should be. The greatest sociologists of the ages were radical in thought. I’d argue with one of my professors, how is sociology supposed to make the world a better place if we all have to write papers on the same stuff and in the same style? What is unique about people is normally their life course, and the road they’ve traveled to get to a particular point. Marx saw the world the way he did because the shit he’d been through. If sociology is ultimately really in interested in the bettering of the world vis-a-vis inequality those differences have to be taken into account. Otherwise, we’ll keep reproducing the same kind of people from the same backgrounds, and nothing will change. The best schools will continue to be a forlorn hope for certain demographics racially and socioeconomically, and the accepted will continue to be those most adept at playing the “game.” 
 
Anyways, I definitely recommend that book I mentioned.