annetod

Yeah, from what I understand it'd be very unusual for them to hold onto decisions for 2 weeks (and I also have never heard of a professor telling a student this far in advance of decisions being sent out). I guess I don't doubt it happened, but I'm a little skeptical about the details/circumstances? Just seems a bit odd.

Wow congrats!! That's an amazing program. I didn't realize professors would release individual decisions like that weeks before they send out the mass decisions...maybe I should send some emails myself...

@toolkitsocio if you could please clarify, that would be really helpful--if I remember correctly, you also announced that Northwestern decisions were out when it was really Northeastern...

Wait Michigan has been sent out??

I'll be a dissenting voice here, because rank is (by far) my primary motivation, since I am already thinking about the type of job I want to get after the PhD, which is a job as a professor at an R1 university. And I posted these a week or two ago, but these threads I found show how difficult it is to get an R1 job at a program outside the top 20...only 21% of graduates in programs ranked 20-30 got an R1 job and 12% of graduates at programs in the 30-40 ranking. Those are very low numbers, and for me, making such an investment time and finance-wise in getting a PhD, everything I do will revolve around getting as good of a job as I can get. Everyone's ideas of a "good job" are different, but for those who want to be a professor at a research-oriented university, I think it makes a lot of sense to primarily care about program ranking and placement record. https://www.socjobrumors.com/topic/job-placement-records-for-programs-ranked-20-30-31 https://www.socjobrumors.com/topic/job-placement-records-for-programs-ranked-30-40-way-too-long-post

Well for your specific example, those two programs are nearly identical in ranking, hence why it's useful to think about ranking in tiers.

I'm also not sure why people mention that in the results page. I'll say again that "safety school" is more of a moniker for undergrad, and that it doesn't really actually mean anything. But I'll also say Notre Dame might be a good example related to the other discussion that was happening on here about QS rankings, and the difference between a school's reputation (typically tied to undergrad) and a specific program's reputation. Notre Dame is a perfectly good program, but it's probably a little lower ranked than many would expect given how elite the school as a whole is. For thinking about graduate program rankings in any discipline, you have to somewhat disregard the reputation of the entire school. Does that make sense?

Responding to your edits: yes, placement is definitely pretty strongly correlated with ranking, but some programs are known as placing better than they're ranked (and others are the opposite). Safety school is a term more commonly used for applying to undergraduate institutions, they're for schools that you're fairly confident you'll be accepted, and it's hard to ever be fairly confident of acceptance to any PhD program. But it's all relative to your perception of your own status as an applicant.

"Better" is a relative term, so I'm not sure how to answer that. Someone just posted aggregate placement record scores from the past 5 years, may be worth looking at that post.

I see, and perhaps that's true in some countries outside the US, I'm not sure about that for specific countries although I know Canada and the UK both are tuned into appropriate US program rankings. QS seems like a very poor way to go about it, given that those are typically more about undergrad and have nothing to do with how specific programs at the graduate level are ranked (those who rely on QS rankings would be shocked to learn that Indiana and Texas soc programs are much better than Brown and Yale, for example).

There's a general consensus that the tiers are roughly: 1-5 is the most elite tier, then 5-15, then 15-30, then 30-45ish, then 45+. Or others just think of it in tens: top 10, 10-20, 20-30, and so on. But I think the first way is a little more precise.

I mean this in the most helpful way possible: you might want to do a little more research on programs if you think UNC is in the same category as Vanderbilt and Northeastern, and if you think of UNC as a safety school. UNC the 6th best program in the country...Vanderbilt is ranked #32, and Northeastern is ranked #47. All three of them are probably in different tiers altogether (some may argue Vandy and Northeastern are in the same "middle" tier), but regardless, UNC is in a different stratosphere than the other two. UNC isn't a safety school for even the best applicant in the country.

*****NORTHEASTERN********* Holy shi** you just gave me (and probably a bunch of other people) a f*****g heart attack.

Someone just sent me these threads and while I've heard that Socjobrumors should be avoided, the information in the threads is definitely of interest to everyone here: https://www.socjobrumors.com/topic/job-placement-records-for-programs-ranked-20-30-31 "TOTALS FOR 20-30 RANKED PROGRAMS: 104 graduates 21.2% got a TT R1 job (compared to 12.6% of 30-40) 28.8% got a lecturer/VAP/P-D position (25.2% of 30-40) 24.0% got a non-R1 academic job (compared to 22.3% of 30-40) 26% got a job outside academia (39.9% of 30-40)" https://www.socjobrumors.com/topic/job-placement-records-for-programs-ranked-30-40-way-too-long-post "TOTALS [for 30-40 ranked programs]: 103 graduates 12.6% got a TT R1 job 25.2% got a lecturer/VAP/P-D position 22.3% got a non-R1 TT job at an R2, CC, or non-selective liberal arts college 39.9% got a job outside of academia"

Lol I just read this back to myself and realized I said the opposite of what I meant: I intended to say it probably will NOT provide a significant enough boost. I think other than those top couple places, name recognition probably won't carry enough weight. Sorry about that.

I will say though--you've said you work for a think tank now, right? As long as you're developing useful skills there, a different one will provide a significant enough boost to your CV to make it worth the time and effort of interviewing, moving, etc. Places like Brookings, RAND, and Urban could be worth it, maybe Mathematica too, but the others probably aren't a significant enough "upgrade" although I don't know where you are now, obviously.

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

Can anyone claim the Harvard Sociology and Social Policy admit? Says it was by phone...guessing that means all their calls will go out today.

Anyone else still waiting to hear from Harvard Sociology and Social Policy? How have they still not released decisions yet?!?!?!?

I just read this new paper, and would encourage everyone here to do the same: "How Much Do You Have to Publish to Get a Job in a Top Sociology Department? Or to Get Tenure? Trends over a Generation" https://www.sociologicalscience.com/articles-v6-7-172/ "First, sociology departments are producing more PhDs but (at least the top) departments are not hiring more new assistant professors or promoting more assistant professors to the associate level." "In the end, my conclusions leave me concerned that rising publication expectations—driven by issues related to the supply of new PhDs, the demand for new faculty, and the attractiveness of more lucrative interdisciplinary subfields—are doing long-term damage to the discipline and those who aspire to work in it."

Did anyone here apply to the Sociology and Social Policy program at either Harvard or Princeton and/or does anyone have any insight about them in general? What makes them more/less appealing than just a regular sociology program?