sociopolitic

I think content is the most important thing. If the admissions committee isn’t interested after the first however-many words, they’ll stop reading. If they are, they’ll continue. My SOP was nearly twice the length it should have been for my NYU application, and somehow I still got in. 
 
But to answer your question more directly: you probably don’t need to worry. I was accepted to UCLA last cycle and my SOP was definitely definitely definitely longer than 500 words. 

Wow, congrats on improving your GREs so much! From what I understand, GRE scores are more salient in adcomms' decisions regarding whether to admit international students, so it sounds to me like you've already strengthened your profile an awful lot. 
I guess I would also advise to cast your net wide, so to speak. If I remember correctly from the last cycle, you only applied to a handful of departments. I think I would recommend applying to at least 8 this cycle. That said, I can't offer you much advice regarding where you'd be a good fit since I'm not familiar with your research interests. Would you mind sharing a little more about what you hope to study? And out of curiosity, where did you apply last year?
With a profile like yours, I think you're very competitive. It's very much possible that your GRE scores were the biggest factor holding you back last year. I think that to make this cycle as successful as possible, you really need to concentrate on 1) applying to departments where fit is really great, and 2) taking care to explain that fit in your SOPs. 
 

Just want to point out that while this may be true in STEM, it is untrue in the social sciences. 

Hm, I'm not sure whether it is or not. It's probably about the same? But I'm pretty sure you can send both scores, which I think I definitely would in your case. 

By the way, since your AW score is a tad low, make sure that your writing sample really shows that you know how to write! From what I understand, writing samples tend to mostly be skimmed to verify that the faculty won't have to teach you how to write. For domestic applicants, this usually means that their samples aren't looked at very long; international applicants tend to have these scrutinized a bit more closely, though.

@chrismooch91See-https://econ.ucsb.edu/~startz/A Guide for UCSB Undergraduates Considering a PhD in Economics.pdf

If you have a Professor writing you a recommendation, they aren't going to mind looking over your SOP and providing some pointers. Go into the prior application cycle threads and see what people have to say about what they thought made their applications successful or not. Some people put in those threads that they are willing to share SOPs. 

Since you're coming from outside the discipline, I should also mention that your SOP is by far the most important part of your application. You need to exhibit that you can understand sociological research and demonstrate that you have the potential to contribute to sociological knowledge. Adcomms want to see you do that in your SOP, and you'll be in an even better position if you're lucky enough to legitimately pique some of the faculty's interest with your research statement. 

This only goes to show that you need to do much more research on PhD applications.
A 3.7 GPA is good, but not that great. It's very average for most Poli Sci students looking to get into a PhD program, and it's below average for all of the schools that you mentioned. Your GRE scores aren't just low--they're likely below the minimum cutoff for almost all schools in the top-10, and many schools in the top-20. The fact that you got into NYU's MA means very little. It's fairly easy to get into MA programs in Poli Sci. They usually have acceptance rates from 30-50%, and there's very little risk since they don't have to fund you. Those programs pretty much want as many people as possible so that they can use the tuition that you pay to pay for their PhD students. Also, an MPA is not likely to help you in getting into a PhD Poli Sci program. Of course, some people manage to do it, but they're the exceptions. Most of these people will have had GPAs and GRE scores far above yours. PhD programs in Poli Sci won't care much about your internships and "experience in local government." They're not public policy/adminstration programs, they're academic Poli Sci programs. They want to see that you can do academic research in the social sciences. A research assistantship could help in this regard.
I don't mean to be discouraging. I'm trying to be honest, and I hope that you actually consider my advice as well as that of others; otherwise, you're in for a world of disappointment come application time. Your 3.7 GPA in Linguistics isn't going to carry you. Get some graduate work done in Poli Sci, and make sure that your grad GPA is above 3.8 and that your GRE scores add up to over 330. After that, you just have to worry about the intangibles, which are also very important.

A 3.7 GPA is great by any objective standards dude. That’s a fact. That’s one mark from a 4.0. Again, from a different country with tougher gearing criteria then America too. Few people get a first in the UK. Your statement that an international degree hurts is also blatantly false. As the other guy said, you’re hurling words with no background or sources.
 
i linked you an article for MPA->PhD stuff. You didn’t read it. It’s pretty common and certainly helps. 
 
>local government doesn’t help.
 
you definitely didn’t read my comment entirely because I clearly said I’m doing international specialisation and work with SC’s IR department. Yet, you’re talking about linguistics and local government? You know Ban Ki moon had an MPA, right? It’s not all local stuff, depends on your specialisation. 
 
GRE scores aren’t everything. It all depends on the applicants at the time. I was below SC’s average quant too. SOP, letters of rec, personal statements etc all contribute.

You definitely have a shot at top 20 departments. If your heart is set on UChicago, I probably would recommend trying for a higher GRE score, as that should help compensate for your GPAs being ever so slightly on the low side for PhD applications. 

Wow, congrats on improving your GREs so much! From what I understand, GRE scores are more salient in adcomms' decisions regarding whether to admit international students, so it sounds to me like you've already strengthened your profile an awful lot. 
I guess I would also advise to cast your net wide, so to speak. If I remember correctly from the last cycle, you only applied to a handful of departments. I think I would recommend applying to at least 8 this cycle. That said, I can't offer you much advice regarding where you'd be a good fit since I'm not familiar with your research interests. Would you mind sharing a little more about what you hope to study? And out of curiosity, where did you apply last year?
With a profile like yours, I think you're very competitive. It's very much possible that your GRE scores were the biggest factor holding you back last year. I think that to make this cycle as successful as possible, you really need to concentrate on 1) applying to departments where fit is really great, and 2) taking care to explain that fit in your SOPs. 
 

Just look at the results board
https://www.thegradcafe.com/survey/index.php?q=sociology

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. 

Congratulations! I'm no expert, just a fellow applicant, but my impression is that Oxford is seen as a great school and offers you similar chances at postdocs and faculty positions as top US programs.

I don't think you need to worry about seeming too UK-centric, if that is your worry.

2) sounds quite bad to me. I think 3) only makes sense if you will do something in the meantime that will make you significantly more competitive, and I can't really assess that factor without more information.

I personally don't consider this as an issue as long as people do not post inappropriate comments on schools/departments. 

AHHHHH I got into UT Austin. So excited. It was the only school I applied to and I was on the waitlist. I committed. Who else will be in the incoming cohort?

I’m glad that this application cycle is finally drawing to a close ... it’s been a lot of stress, but knowing other people have been going through it too has been helpful (at least for me). Best of luck to everyone, whether you’re starting a program in the fall or pursuing other opportunities!

Applying to programs based on how easy they are to get into rather than based on the research their faculty do is probably not going to result in a very successful admissions cycle. Being able to convincingly articulate fit was, at least in my experience, effectively what determined whether or not I got into a program. I had the same GRE scores you mentioned on the soc forum as well as 2-3 years of research experience and the programs I didn't get admitted to are the ones for which I was least excited about preparing my application. 
In other words, you're a strong applicant and worrying about which program is "easiest" to get into is kind of a waste of your time. You're better off perusing faculty rosters at any department which you think might be a good intellectual home for you until you've developed a list of programs whose faculty do work that really gets you excited. Geeking out a bit was what distinguished my successful SOPs from my unsuccessful SOPs. 
In any case, I'm not convinced that at the level of the top 5 or 10, programs across these disciplines are really any more competitive than one another. Maybe you can make a case for differences the quality of the "average" PhD student in that discipline, but I think that these differences are more rooted in the philosophical orientations of the disciplines themselves (and therefore the socialization structures they create) than in intrinsic differences between their students. Either that, or students self-select into disciplines based on these philosophical orientations. 

adcomms will see you as someone who thinks that a "low-ranked" university is in the top 40 and that's how they'll deny you. your pretentious attitude aside, any experience is good experience.

Applying to programs based on how easy they are to get into rather than based on the research their faculty do is probably not going to result in a very successful admissions cycle. Being able to convincingly articulate fit was, at least in my experience, effectively what determined whether or not I got into a program. I had the same GRE scores you mentioned on the soc forum as well as 2-3 years of research experience and the programs I didn't get admitted to are the ones for which I was least excited about preparing my application. 
In other words, you're a strong applicant and worrying about which program is "easiest" to get into is kind of a waste of your time. You're better off perusing faculty rosters at any department which you think might be a good intellectual home for you until you've developed a list of programs whose faculty do work that really gets you excited. Geeking out a bit was what distinguished my successful SOPs from my unsuccessful SOPs. 
In any case, I'm not convinced that at the level of the top 5 or 10, programs across these disciplines are really any more competitive than one another. Maybe you can make a case for differences the quality of the "average" PhD student in that discipline, but I think that these differences are more rooted in the philosophical orientations of the disciplines themselves (and therefore the socialization structures they create) than in intrinsic differences between their students. Either that, or students self-select into disciplines based on these philosophical orientations. 

Applying to programs based on how easy they are to get into rather than based on the research their faculty do is probably not going to result in a very successful admissions cycle. Being able to convincingly articulate fit was, at least in my experience, effectively what determined whether or not I got into a program. I had the same GRE scores you mentioned on the soc forum as well as 2-3 years of research experience and the programs I didn't get admitted to are the ones for which I was least excited about preparing my application. 
In other words, you're a strong applicant and worrying about which program is "easiest" to get into is kind of a waste of your time. You're better off perusing faculty rosters at any department which you think might be a good intellectual home for you until you've developed a list of programs whose faculty do work that really gets you excited. Geeking out a bit was what distinguished my successful SOPs from my unsuccessful SOPs. 
In any case, I'm not convinced that at the level of the top 5 or 10, programs across these disciplines are really any more competitive than one another. Maybe you can make a case for differences the quality of the "average" PhD student in that discipline, but I think that these differences are more rooted in the philosophical orientations of the disciplines themselves (and therefore the socialization structures they create) than in intrinsic differences between their students. Either that, or students self-select into disciplines based on these philosophical orientations. 

Applying to programs based on how easy they are to get into rather than based on the research their faculty do is probably not going to result in a very successful admissions cycle. Being able to convincingly articulate fit was, at least in my experience, effectively what determined whether or not I got into a program. I had the same GRE scores you mentioned on the soc forum as well as 2-3 years of research experience and the programs I didn't get admitted to are the ones for which I was least excited about preparing my application. 
In other words, you're a strong applicant and worrying about which program is "easiest" to get into is kind of a waste of your time. You're better off perusing faculty rosters at any department which you think might be a good intellectual home for you until you've developed a list of programs whose faculty do work that really gets you excited. Geeking out a bit was what distinguished my successful SOPs from my unsuccessful SOPs. 
In any case, I'm not convinced that at the level of the top 5 or 10, programs across these disciplines are really any more competitive than one another. Maybe you can make a case for differences the quality of the "average" PhD student in that discipline, but I think that these differences are more rooted in the philosophical orientations of the disciplines themselves (and therefore the socialization structures they create) than in intrinsic differences between their students. Either that, or students self-select into disciplines based on these philosophical orientations. 

Applying to programs based on how easy they are to get into rather than based on the research their faculty do is probably not going to result in a very successful admissions cycle. Being able to convincingly articulate fit was, at least in my experience, effectively what determined whether or not I got into a program. I had the same GRE scores you mentioned on the soc forum as well as 2-3 years of research experience and the programs I didn't get admitted to are the ones for which I was least excited about preparing my application. 
In other words, you're a strong applicant and worrying about which program is "easiest" to get into is kind of a waste of your time. You're better off perusing faculty rosters at any department which you think might be a good intellectual home for you until you've developed a list of programs whose faculty do work that really gets you excited. Geeking out a bit was what distinguished my successful SOPs from my unsuccessful SOPs. 
In any case, I'm not convinced that at the level of the top 5 or 10, programs across these disciplines are really any more competitive than one another. Maybe you can make a case for differences the quality of the "average" PhD student in that discipline, but I think that these differences are more rooted in the philosophical orientations of the disciplines themselves (and therefore the socialization structures they create) than in intrinsic differences between their students. Either that, or students self-select into disciplines based on these philosophical orientations. 

Hi all,
Sorry to hear about all the tough news. I am also in this camp - 2 rejections, 1 TBD (but likely rejection, since the school is ranked higher than one of the other ones that rejected me). I'm definitely really bummed, but a part of me is actually...relieved? I'm slightly older than most of you (30...argh!), and I've been really stressed about making ends meet financially, if i were to go back to school. While I make a decent salary, the cost of living in SoCal is just SO expensive that I'm barely making ends meet as it is - and going back to school would mean over a 50% pay cut. 
That said, I am very curious about why I got rejected. I have a BA from a top research university, a MS in Education, published articles (not academic, but for major US publications), work experience in policy/journalism, and a great SOP/writing sample. The only thing I felt was subpar was my GRE quant score (145 or something like that), though my verbal and writing were both around 90th percentile. I know I should have studied for it, but honestly standardized tests are by no means a measure of intelligence, and I thought it was a waste of time (of course, I then read the AdComm chain here and realized how important it is). Regardless, I know I did my best in all of the other areas, so I guess it's just not meant to be.
Truthfully, though, I think we should all look at this with the glass half full mentality. When I was originally debating going to PhD right after graduation, every other grad student I spoke to told me if there was ANYTHING else I'd rather do - even in the SLIGHTEST -- to do that instead of a PhD because of the lousy job market, poverty wages, and ivory tower/groupthink mentality (seriously, I have spoken to current grad students who literally have to grovel and worship their dissertation chair just to get a moment of their attention....no thanks). I have spent almost a decade in the workforce, and while I by no means LOVE my job everyday, I love being able to have the resources to live a healthy and fulfilling life.
For those of you who really, truly can't see doing anything other than academia, take this year to strengthen your application for the next cycle. For others who, like me, are moving on to other areas: best of luck!