Rosettaspoon

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!

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. 

Most programs don't even look at AW ... or require the GRE this year. Send your recent score (164/161). Your AW is fine.

If you end up applying to programs next year, at WSU, Kmec has been known to chair committees for students doing historical/document analysis type research (or, at least, I know of one student who recently graduated). Otherwise I seriously suggest you consider a PhD in Anthropology. They share a lot of theory with Sociology, but you'll find far more emphasis on history, context, and culture-- and huge emphasis and excellent training in qualitative methods (multiple courses likely offered and field schools to practice before its your thesis or dissertation on the line). I have grad degrees in both/know the differences well. Hope this helps! 

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.

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.

I just had a professor who sits on admissions committees look over my SOP.

My introduction was talking about how I liked to go to museums as a child and was fascinated by the ancient world. He said that starting out like this is a huge mistake. Obviously if you are applying to study archaeology at the graduate level, it's pretty much assumed that you're fascinated by the ancient world and probably enjoy museums. But so do lots of people. What makes you unique. Attempt to illustrate your passion for the field without really telling some kind of silly story about your childhood. This is also an approach that many people take, and if you really want a strong SOP you'll find a better, more mature, and more creative way to say it.

The next point is, whether or not to talk about the negatives on your application. I wrote mine this year mentioning them extremely briefly and moving on. My thought behind this was to simply focus heavily on all the points that make me a competitive applicant. However, some graduate programs explicitly say that your SOP is the place on your application to mention your negatives and why the committee should overlook them. Obviously, this should not be the focus of your SOP. What the committees are looking for here is growth and improvement above all. Do not make excuses for poor grades, weak GRE scores, or a spotty work record. Do, however, point out how you have grown, how the committee can see improvement, and then highlight the things that make you a fabulous candidate.

The last thing I will mention is also very important, particularly for PhDs. Make sure that you know who you are applying to study under, and what your project is. Demonstrate that you would fit into the department like a glove and that you read Dr. Octopus' latest article on the newest theory, etc. etc. etc. Also, have a concise project in mind. Remember, you're not married to this idea, but you need to show the committee that you can ask the right kind of questions concerning your proposed research and that the project is something that the faculty could help you on based off of their interests and previous work. Do not make this project a carbon-copy of something they have previously accomplished, but a project that complements the research they have already performed. It is also highly advisable, since your job as a PhD student is essentially to perform lots of independent research, to demonstrate that you are capable of performing independent research. Although you want to show that you are a good fit for the program, you do not want to appear as though your adviser will have to hold your hand for the next five years.

Hope that helps! I'm no expert, but these are simply my thoughts on the process.