misterpat

Nah, I'm a funding alternate at both schools. I'm leaning towards Missouri, though, since it's an MA (they have a PhD program, but I'd need to apply for it) and it might make my life easier to try to get into a better school for PhD.

Sounds like they're trying to bully you into making a decision sooner than later, kind of like when a cop tries to make you do something you don't have to do (surrender information, come to the station, etc.), counting on the fact you won't know your rights and object. As a person on two funding-waitlists, I can't say I mind Universities trying to get decisions out of people before April 15. But they could probably go about it in a better way.

Hahaha. Maybe I wouldn't be so brave if I hadn't had classes with him before and know that he has a good sense of humor. Did you decide where you're going yet? Chapel Hill, maybe?

Sociology programs generally welcome non-sociology majors with open-arms. Someone even told me before they almost prefer people with majors that are considered more difficult (probably with some soc. coursework, though), since a lot of Universities requirements for a Sociology major aren't very difficult. [Please note before you attack me for claiming that "sociology is simplistic, bullshit, not a real discipline etc." (which I didn't say, anyway) that sociology was one of my majors AND that the ASA on their website encourages departments to make the requirement for a sociology major more rigorous, AND provides a list of tips to encourage smarter students to major in sociology.] Sub-topic: Perhaps one of you folks can explain to me why someone would choose Sociology of Religion over, say, Religious Studies or even History of Religion. Is there a fundamental difference in outlook (say, is soc. more of a critical perspective)? Would Religious Studies be more based on interpretation of scripture, and thus have more difficult language requirements? Is it a relative-comeptitiveness issue? I asked my roommate this last year (who was a R.S. major) and he really couldn't provide me with a satisfactory explanation (though he abhorred Sociology in general).

The way you put it is pretty general, and could go either way. If his or her objections are in fact academic and not political, you should be able to work together. I could even see it possibly improving your understanding of your own position by giving you a deep understanding of the opposing side. However, if the adviser conflates academic and political issues, then I see a much larger potential for him or her to throw a hissy-fit and kind of treat you as a burdern rather than giving you the attention you'll need. Personally, one of my prospective advisers is a big admirer of Ronald Reagan (my focus is on the New Right). Though I doubt he'll turn me into a supply-sider, I think having someone smarter than me represent the opposing position will keep me in check, and prevent my from lapsing into simplistic criticisms that might be possible if you're surrounded only by like-minded people. Granted, I haven't started the program yet, but I think having a divergent opinion from my adviser will make me less susceptible to group-think.

There are probably plenty of advisors out there with different political beliefs than you have who would still do a fine job. I doubt most Professors would throw a fit if you don't agree with them, despite what David Horowitz might tell you.

My guess is that the MA would be a better idea than going into a doctoral program without funding. There have been some people on these boards from cycles past that did Masters in Humanities/Liberal Arts/Social Science degrees at Harvard/NYU... Perhaps you could dig them up and PM them and inquire whether their admissions cycles went better the second time around with their expensive MAs. My guess is that the MA would show you are commited to your discipline, would possibly give you access to better Professors who will write you LORs, and will give you the possibility to produce a new Writing Sample under the supervision of a faculty member. In other words, I would think that the MA is going to be what you make of it. But it's still a gamble, and not a gamble I am willing to take. If Georgetown said they can't fund you during your first year, but said after that you may have funding available, that may be a different story. But I would think that if you are enough of a sucker to enroll in their PhD program and pay for it, they're going to milk you for every last dime.

Thanks, it was to be expected though. I think I could have dealt with the no-fun-allowed atmosphere while I was at school and sought refuge in other, more fun, areas of the city. I was just at the South Side Irish Parade yesterday, which I would recommend any student attending a Chicago school next year check out. My friend was dressed up as Green Man, from It's Always Sunnny In Philadelphia. He was treated like a minor celebrity. Even if you are adamantly opposed to ethnic stereotypes, a visit to this parade will likely convince you that the Irish's reputation of being a bunch of drunks and public-urinators is well-deserved (in a good way).

Finally got my Chicago rejection. They offered me admission to their cash-cow MA in the Social Sciences program, with a scholarship to waive 1/3 of the ridiculously priced tuition. It was difficult to explain to my mother how that program exists to bring in money for the university, and that it probably wouldn't do me any good. She read the packet they sent me for like 20 minutes, and seemed more upset about it than I was.

I really do hate it when people do this.

Thanks for letting me know that. I hadn't heard this yet, and it's a pretty valuable bit of info. I'd heard uniformly negative comments about the North Philly campus, which are now mostly irrelevant. I would agree with that. Even the sports columnists for the Inquirer are cringe-inducingly negative. I'd love to hear the sports talk radio around there, it's probably a riot.

Yeah, that AHR office is a sweet little bonus for Indiana. Your quality of life will probably be a lot better in Indiana, minus weather and dealing with Indiana-folk (I think I recall you saying you were a native, but you've obviously transcended your home-state). Just found out thought that I am ALSO on the funding wait-list at Temple... Hrmph. So, no guarunteed funding from either program. Fiddlesticks. I think Temple's TAs get 13k and Mizozu's graders get 6k, and my rent could be under 300 a month in Columbia, where it would be at least double that and probably more in Philly. So it's a tough call, money-wise, if I do end up getting off of both lists.

Tough call. I'm not too familar with most of Penn's faculty except for David Grazian and Randall Collins (who are both awesome). I'd probably go with Princeton, though. (Keep in mind I have no idea what sub-field you are in)

Agreed. I found out one Professor I was interested in was retiring and that a couple others were changing programs. So, if you want to be conservative, maybe contact but focus your inquiry on whether or not they are planning on taking on more graduate students. This seems like a pretty practical question, and will make you appear less "OMG i liek history" than if you had asked a question about research interests that is vague in the extreme.

I don't know if you're going to get a LOR out of that.

I've heard taking a course in a school's summer program can be of help. I don't know how common this is for History, but I read about in a book about Graduate Admissions Essays. Seems like it would make for some great SOP material, too. Also, if you think you could substantially improve your GREs, that might help. Probably need to go up at least 100 points for it to make a difference, though.

Thanks again. You're playing your cards a little closer to your chest now, so I don't really know where you weren't accepted to, but choosing between UCSB and Indiana has got to be difficult. Wehter I am more keen on Temple or Mizzou is a tough call; it's unfortunately probably going to come down to money. Mizzou is an MA and Temple a PhD, so there's the issue we were discussing previously about possibly transferring. But I think I might be in good shape for placement at Temple with David Farber as my adviser; I'm a big fan of his work, and he seems to be pretty well-known. My Mizzou adivser is great too, though. Soooo I've got some thinking to do. The only school I've yet to hear (read: be rejected) from is UChicago. I'm starting to think that letter got lost in the mail. Maybe I entered my address wrong on the application.

Yes, that was me. I was accepted via Owlnet, which kind of surprised me. I assume I'll get some kind of letter in the mail, too. I'm tempted to e-mail the Professor I was in conact with prior to applying to see if he's my advisor and can provide me any funding info.

Just got in at Temple. Since I'm a funding-alternate at Missouri, this makes it a tough decision. I guess I'll have to wait and see what kind of funding package Temple awarded me. Hopefully people will be quick about rejecting their offers at Missouri so I can know by April 15.

I was just admitted to Temple via website. No word on funding on the site; I expect that will come via post in the next few days.

Would this over-fragment the board into tiny enclaves?

Thank you. I get the feeling that Mizzou is a back-up school for many applicants, so some of the people who were awarded funding ahead of me will be turning them down for other offers. Another positive: it's an MA program, unlike the other program I predict I will be admitted to. I'll probably want to try and go somewhere else after 2 years, which I think has a chance of irritating the other school if I am in their PhD program.

Way to go, brah. That your #1?

Finally got in somewhere! University of Missouri, where I did my undergrad. I'm on the funding wait-list, but they made it sound like there is a very good chance of getting off of it.

Plus, Evanston has been run in a kind of conservative manner for a long time. I'm pretty sure they didn't have bars until a few decades ago (they still only have a few, and they suck). There really isn't much suburban sprawl, either.