jortylander

Good sociologists will use qualitative methods when they're appropriate. They'll use quantitative methods when appropriate. That's the bottom line. Contrary to what the above poster said, the top ten programs each have people who employ qualitative work. In fact, higher ranked programs often frown upon people who say I prefer qualitative sociology or over quantitative sociology, or vice versa. These dichotomies are outdated, and the best schools know it. Top schools want people who can answer research questions, using whatever method is appropriate. So you better learn some statistics if you want to succeed in sociology.

Astronautika, focusing on a narrow area of interest is probably a good thing, as long as you show that you have a good understanding of the broader context in which it fits and its overall significance as an area of study. Narrow can imply insignificance, so be sure to show why what you plan to study is important, if it is indeed "narrow". In my opinion, there is a difference between a strong college paper (i.e. one for a class) and a strong writing sample. Of course, they can be one of the same, depending on what sort of class paper it is. The bottom line is that a strong writing sample develops a paper like a journal article would. It would show that you understand that scientific method and how to write an academic article, which indicates your potential to write a good dissertation. I guess some college classes put this sort of criteria for papers, but most sociology classes I have taken just require a good literature review. They aren't about production of new knowledge, which is what a good writing sample is about. I'm not really sure of this, actually, so get some other opinions. Maybe grad schools wouldn't mind a typical soc course paper as long as it's well-written and theoretically sound. Ultimately, it doesn't really matter; you'll have to submit in your best piece of academic writing, so submit whatever you have. But since you're applying for next year, you have the time to write a paper that actually produces new knowledge and is in journal-article format by next December. I'd recommend that to improve chances.

I should clarify two things, regarding "program fit" and the undergraduate institution your coming from. First, program fit is absolutely important from the department's perspective. I hope I wasn't misleading in that respect. Departments often try to match applicants with faculty advisors before the student gets there. What I was saying is that is that in my opinion, it shouldn't matter too much for the applicant (you). That is, you should be willing to adjust your interest and show every graduate school you are applying to that you are the perfect fit for their institution. So that does involve intense research and good writing, but it's worth it. is it unethical? Not in the slightest. Graduate schools want to see you make an effort to show that you fit there, because that shows that you really want to be there, and that you'll be able to finish up in a reasonable amount of time. Now, is this good advice for every single applicant out there? Probably not. Some students, as I stated earlier, have very narrow interests and wouldn't succeed except in one or two places. But from what I have seen, these are the outliers. On the second point, on undergraduate institution. It is quite important, in my view, but it's equally helpful if you graduate from a top 20 soc program OR a top 20 national program. As for small private liberal arts colleges, this is an exception to the rule, you'll be glad to hear. Most small pvt lib arts programs are just EXCELLENT, and provide far superior education than top ranked national universities. Top soc programs know this, so you're in good shape, in that respect. If you go through the backgrounds of grad students at top schools, you'll find that many of them come from liberal arts schools. Even lesser known lib arts colleges are probably valued by grads schools. They might be concerned with math records if you graduate from a lib arts college, but your score of 700 on the GRE is pretty good. So overall, I think you're in good shape.

Your record seems very strong. You have good GRE scores, "excellent" LoRs, and you have a general idea of what you want to study. I'm not sure how good the school you are in is, but that is also important. Top 10 grad schools usually take 90% of their students from top 20 undergraduate schools (that's a guess, of course, but probably a pretty accurate one). Not having a publication is no big deal; it is of course a big plus, though. But having a weak writing sample IS a problem. Note that you'll easily get into some of the weaker programs you're applying to, even with a less-than-great writing sample. But the top schools will want excellent writing samples. That will "compensate" for your lack of publications. Your personal statement is indeed very important. But note that different departments care about different things. I'm sure some of the lower-ranked programs would love to have you even if you write the most inarticulate, thoughtless personal statement, given your record. For some schools, a minimum 1400 on the GRE is almost necessary. Top ten schools, particularly ivies, care about letters of recommendations from "big names" in the field. For others, all they care about is well-articulated research interests. So it's very possible you'll get accepted and rejected by schools of equal tier, depending on your strengths/weaknesses. Here is my advice, and here's where I disagree with the above poster. "Program fit" is not as important as most people think, in my view--at least not for most people. For some people, who are interested in very narrow areas and will likely maintain those narrow interests within the next six years of a PhD program, than program fit is pretty important. But even for those people, I would recommend being more flexible. At the end of the day, your faculty advisor is going to have a limited role in your dissertation and overall research. They'll advise you, but you'll have to come up with the originality, methodology, and do the writing. They will provide you with resources, but ultimately, the best graduate students are "Internals" on the locus of control scale. You have to have self-confidence and do work on your own. You need to have a solid understanding of theory and methods, be independent, and be willing to disagree with professors 20-30 years your senior. So, if I was you, I'd apply primarily based on two factors: (1) "personal satisfaction", which includes concerns with being near family/friends, girl/boyfriend, weather, city, idiosyncrasy etc. and (2) the job placement record of the university (this includes ranking factors, prestige, etc.). Program fit should not be one of the more important factors, in my opinion, and contrary to what many smart people on here think. Most respectable programs will have experts in most areas, especially your areas of interest. Good luck!

You are being totally ridiculous, as are the other self-virtuous posters on here vehemently claiming that it's wrong and despicable to rescind one's acceptance. Are you saying that you would spend six or seven years in a place that you actually don't want to be at just because you were forced to make a decision by April 15. Until you actually do this, don't judge other people. Also note that no department will really want you to be a part of their program if you don't really want to be there. It will reflect in your work. Also note that any respectable program should have a waitlist, and why would you want to take the place of some deserving individual who wants to be at the dept more than you do. Now this isn't to say one should accept an offer lightly. Obviously, it is only ethical to really accept an offer if you intend on going. But if unforeseeable circumstances happen, then the morally right thing to do is to rescind your acceptance. Grad school is a major commitment, and YOU SHOULDN'T LISTEN TO ANY OF THE CRAP ON HERE ABOUT YOUR ACTIONS BEING DESPICABLE OR DISGUSTING. They're legitimate and moral.

I'm not sure. Do you think they'll be contacting any other interviewees?

Oh I can't say anything at this point...

That's great then! Well if I was you I wouldn't go through the headache of thinking about Stanford or Berkeley. Just wait till you hear from all of them. But assuming your research interests fit equally well at Stanford and Berkeley, I'd say Stanford hands down. Good luck!

As for the guy who said visits are helpful; I strongly disagree. Numbers are helpful. That's all you should consider. That's all I'm considering. That's assuming you can afford to move anywhere and don't have geographic concerns. If you got into Stanford and Berkeley, there's a good chance you're on the shortlist at Harvard. Are you? They conducted interviews a week or so ago, and are taking about 8 pure soc PhD students. They'll be announcing decisions very soon! Anyone know when we'll hear from Princeton?

You really need to look at two things: (1) job placement in your area of interest; (2) university prestige. The first factor, needless to say, depends on your interests and the strength of each department in those areas. If you're interested in migration, then Berkeley is probably the better choice. Stanford is excellent in social psychology/sociology, political sociology, and economic sociology. Migration is of course related to econ. sociology. But this ultimately depends on your research agenda. As for prestige, it's important. I'd say they're close to equal, but Stanford comes out on top in this regard. I also bet there is better funding at Stanford. That said (and given my particular interests), I'd go for Stanford. Of course, Princeton beats both!

Mine's coming up. Can't wait to get done with it and get some sleep.