Jump to content

Rosettaspoon

Members
  • Posts

    13
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Rosettaspoon

  1. CUNY is good on quali studies... but I'm not so sure about historical studies. Many of CUNY's researches evolve around NYC itself (studies on urban and immigration are the two subjects immediately pop up). I'd have to second @THS on this, you may have better luck in the anthropology department. Oh and also check out UChicago, quali has kind of been their tradition good luck!
  2. I'd object. If you're looking for a program to test the water. Try UChicago one's. that's a better bet, and they offer (though limited) funding opportunities even to master students. Columbia's MA is too pricy. If you must stay in NYC, or still thinking about Columbia, the QMSS program is better.
  3. -another possbile way is to write to a professor whose research you're interested in -- they might recommend other *better fit* professors to you. - also related to the anthropology vs. sociology issue... you might want to also take into account that the mainstream sociology (in the US) has this tendency of "if you don't count, you don't count." If you're interested in qualitative methods and found yourself more comfortable doing ethnography or alike. Anthrology could turn out to be a better fit.
  4. ahhh, thank you, I got another waitlist today... Well, Albany emailed and offered admission, however I'm on waitlist for funding. You know the drill... no funding no go...
  5. Got my first official rejection today. . Based on the results posted on gradcafe, I assume at least other 4 rejections on the way. So far no offers, only got into two waitlist. Exhuasted and frustrated.
  6. Hi guys, first of all, thanks for anyone who can bear to read through this post because I screwed up big time and have been panicking for months. Any advise would be appreciated, thanks so very much --So, I asked two of my professors to write my recommendation last December. Unfortunately, I didn’t get to anywhere and I have been too ashamed and awkward to write back to them. (Then I was caught up in hospital… but I don’t think I should/ want to “use” it as a pretext for procrastination and avoidance…) Then it just came to the point that I don’t even know how and what to email them. But the stress and tension with myself has been killing me. Also I’m struggling on re-apply this fall. More importantly, they are the two professors that I respect much and they have been very kind and supportive to me, which only makes me more guilty and ashamed. Either way I feel the urge to at least apologize and say thank. But I don’t know how or whether I should do it or just forget about it and be a coward to the end. I really suck on socializing. Any advise would help.
  7. Program: PhD in Sociology Schools Applying To: NYU, Cornell, UChicago, Northwestern, UPenn, Yale, Berkeley, Long-listed Schools: UCLA, UCSB, U Texas -Austin, Brown, UTronto & ??? Interests: culture, urban (space/community forming process); stratification* & inequality – social mobility, social control & regulation, social class, gender; *to be more specific I’m hoping to study how and why individuals are stratified through internal choices but more importantly external forces. Or, how social structure** controls and restrains individual’s social mobility. ** so-called social structure may be replaced by culture, social policy, critical events Also, I have been interested in works of Foucault (esp. power relationship; the concept of penopticon: individuals internalize imposed regulation and learned to self-regulate even without supervision); and; Marx & Engels (labor relationship, how workers are alienated from their work & the product they produce; further how workers potentially could establish solidarity and resist against capital). (if you have any thoughts on my research interests, please do comment/ PM me, thanks!) Expectations from Programs: *Method: qualitative & quantitative, rather than heavily (or solely) quantitative Graduate Institution: China. Language related major. Graduate Major/Degree: MA in Sociology, qualitative focused program, one of the ivy leagues (if that means anything), *master thesis based on independent research will be used for writing sample The thesis mainly examines how gender stereotypes are presented and talked as a form of “equality” (e.g. in the name of “protection”, “scientific” etc.) Other notes? : Won a national scholarship to make masters’ study possible Graduate GPA: 85/100 for undergrad; 3.67/4.0 for masters GRE: V 163/ Q 164 / AW 4.0 TOEFL: 109 (iBT) Age: 24 Languages: English, Chinese Work & Research Experience: > 1 year research experience in industry – have been mainly conducting quantitative studies > Participated in a national survey project (1 month fieldwork: completed questionnaires + interviews) > Led two research projects during undergrad (though not directly related to social science) > Have presented in two international conferences with master thesis since last year SoP: Draft done, working on tailing it for different programs LORs: 2 from masters’ professors (no “big names”, but know me well – took two classes with each prof and went to office hour every month at least); 1 from Professor who I met last year at seminar and have kept in touch Can obtain 1 from undergrad prof Concerns: 1. No publications yet 2. Test scores are not impressive 3. Limited knowledge on programs, may miss suitable programs or choose the ones doesn’t fit 3.1 Still trying to decide programs to apply to; I am mostly worried right now I’m aiming too high and should add a few “safety school” Would appreciate any comments and critics, particularly suggestions and recommendations on program choosing! (Feel like I might have blown my cover here – hi to everyone who is now thinking “ah, I know this guy” )
  8. So... I've received great advice through PM And, under his/her permission, I'm posting it below ↓ For Argument prompts, there are 3 types of errors to tackle in almost ANY prompt 1. Causal assumptions: Event A leads to event B. (A training course was provided to workers. The sales increased. It is the training that improves sales) Ways to attack: give examples of OTHER CAUSES + In the given pretext, there is no way to ascertain that the provided training is in fact the causal force behind the improved sales. A number of unmentioned circumstances that might coincide time-wise with the training might have driven the sales up: there was an upwards shift of the market's demand curve, or the price tag itself might drop that encouraged more transactions, etc. Without viable ways to eliminate other possible causes, we should deem the training course no better than a correlation with the sale jump - worse yet, it might just be an accidental coincidence. 2. Analogy assumptions: This event happened to place B. The same event should also happen to place B (We should follow company A and provide training to our own workers in company B and see the same sale jump) Attack: Point out that there are DIFFERENCES in the two settings that may prevent applications from one to carry over to another. + It is imprudent to blindly apply company A's training policy on our workers, given that there are possible, fundamental differences between the two companies. It might be the case that the workers from A were initially too under-skilled as compared to our current workers, making the marginal benefit of additional training for A's workers much greater than it could be for our B workers. Attack: Even in case of no difference (which will NEVER be the case), point out that application from one to another is not that beneficial + Even in the case that additional training might indeed help to increase our workers' skills, it might still not be wise to apply the policy. Extra research needs to be carried out in order to assert whether the additional revenue generated might adequately explain for the cost of training, and at what rate. Otherwise we would risk diluting workers's time and productivity with activities that do not justify their worths in both the financial and time-management senses. 3. Statistic: The training at A increases their computer sales by 30% - we know it because we surveyed customers and 30% more said they would definitely come back to purchase. Since we are an electronic company that sells both computer and watches, we should see increases in both departments. REMEMBER: Whatever stats they throw, just say it is dubious no matter what Attack: How the data is collected and analyzed? + We have to question the validity of the data. It is critical to know if the sale increase is a monthly, quarterly, yearly, or worse - weekly observation, and whether it applies to all stores and all cities. + Question the sample size: How many survey participants, what demographics, how long the survey lasts, etc. Argue that either the sample size is too small, not representative of the population (selection bias: maybe they only ask wealthy people, people already have the same brand of computers before, etc.), or there are shady collection methods (people tend to say yes, I will come back to purchase, if asked directly. they might say no if anonymously asked, however) + Circle back to the 2 flaws: even when the statistic might be right, there is no guarantee it would work again (i.e we also sell watches; the training that works with computers might not work with watches) Ok, so here is the outline 1. Introduction: - Main point: Paraphrase the prompt (The prompt advises that company B should copy company A in providing training to workers in order to drive up sales) - Go over the premises: Paraphrase the prompt (The advice is based on the premises that, company A has successfully driven the sales up after their workers were subjected to additional training, with 30% sales up based on surveys of visiting customers) - Point out flaws: There are in fact a number of serious flaws with this line of logic, ranging from errors in identifying causal and analogous relationships to the validity of statistical evidences. (ALWAYS AIM TO HAVE ALL 3 IF YOU CAN) - Intention: The essay will analyze the logical errors so as to (repeat the task of the prompt) 2. Flaw 1. Refer to type of errors above 3. Flaw 2. Refer to type of errors above 4. Flaw 3. Refer to type of errors above 5. Conclusion - In summary, this argument is flawed - Take credit: The essay has clearly demonstrated the 3 types of flaws (insert summary) - Recommendations: It is therefore advised that company B should not apply the policy unless the true causal relationship between the training and the sale increase is factually established, which is in the only occasion that all other possible causes are justifiably eliminated. In such case, further research is to be done to ensure that the marginal benefit of training - with regards to both the time and money it would cost the company and its workers - is of great worth. (Otherwise it is against logics to blindly follow company A into providing training that might be unnecessary, even costly and counterproductive) SUPER NOTE: In drafting up counter example, go with the LEAST amount of hypothetical assumptions you need to make, and pad your sentences with as much "might have been/possible/given the possibility/happen to be" as you can.
  9. -- if you have completed paper at hand, you could try to publish it. Typically, the time need to publish an article is 6 months or so, there's still time. If you managed to get you paper ACCEPTED by a journal, that could also work. Good luck
  10. Just a brief comment -- you might want to write a longer essay... 500 words or so
  11. Hi there, I'm preparing for the application in sociology too and already took the G ( though probably would re-take one later) I made a spreadsheet as well...
  12. Hi guys, so... I've took the exam and got good enough scores on verbal and quant (165+)... The problem is I'm stuck on AW with a 3.5 . Since I'll be applying for social science and I saw that admitted students average score is around 5.0... I'll probably re-take the exam, but before that I need to figure out how to improve the AW while but I'm having trouble to grapple with the writing required by ETS For argument, my method is to 1) briefly summarize the logic fellow of the passage 2) points out the fallacies committed by the author 3) detail analysis of 3-4 fallacies with alternative explanation and examples 4) summary For issue, it's basically the same: 1) summarize and introduce the topic/ problem + state my stand 2) build argument from 2 aspects 3) +one refutation/ alternative option 4) summary ——I'm not sure whether this is an applicable strategy —— or maybe it's because I did not give enough examples? or maybe my logic is weak? If so, what are the more reasonable (effective) ways to construct the essay and build argument instead? (or maybe...I'm just a terrible writer???...) well, I'm confused and any suggestion would help, thanks P.S. the attachment are my practice writings, one for issue, and, one for argument. sample Rspoon.txt
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. See our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use