faculty

I will echo jacib's tough love. To put it another way, be sure that you're moving from economics to sociology not because you don't seem to fit in economics, but because there's something specific that speaks to you in sociology. In other words, you're not repelled, but drawn in. That sentiment is not only imporant to convey in your statement and materials, but in your reasons for applying. Sociology programs are full of students who weren't sociology undergraduates and/or who pursued graduate work in other disciplines. From my experience, these cross-overs end up flourishing or struggling, with few falling in between. The ones who struggle are the ones who wonder why we sociologists don't see the world like their old discipline. They throw out obscure references during seminars and argue that sociologists have it all wrong. They pay more attention to how everything fits with their prior understanding rather than appreciate it in its own right. This perspective amplifies the perpetual graduate student problem of missing forest for the trees. If these students stick around, they choose to do work that is less sociological and become less easy to mentor and less marketable in the long run. The ones who flourish have similar backgrounds, but they see sociology as a new approach and a new perspective. They thoughtfully take in what it has to offer, appreciating that it has its own history, assumptions, goals, and strengths. They use their former reading as background reading, not foundational work. In other words, they don't try to fit sociology on top of their previous knowledge, but let the two co-exist. With this orientation, once they have sociology under their belt, these students can merge the two disciplines and generate innnovative, important questions, methods, and understandings. They are often the superstars. It's not that I don't think that a sociology program is for you, but think hard about why you want to pursue sociology over economics (or something else).

I agree with the above posters that recommend that you apply to the schools that are the best fit for you professionally and then figure out which of those - during visits, informal conversations, benefit explanations, etc. - works well for your family plans. Anita Harker Armstrong's work finds that policies are nice, but mentors and colleagues in programs who are supportive are most important. Interestingly based on an above post, she uses a comparison of Canadian and American universities to support that argument.

I'm sorry if I came off as critical, Ladril. I didn't assume you'd disagree with me. Your post simply reminded me of a piece of advice that I would share with someone in person, so thought it was worth posting here.

I have seen so many students disappointed by the loss of *the* faculty member that they want to work with. For students who are currently applying to schools, I recommend not applying to a school where you aren't also excited about the program in general. People leave, even people who aren't close to retirement and even people who told you - whether in an email, over the phone, or at the recruitment weekend or another visit - that they were going to stay in that school forever. People end up on sabbatical or busy or have other students who they take a larger interest in. The best programs aren't necessarily programs with a superstar who fits your specific interests, they are programs that train you well and have a wide variety of active faculty members who are invested in their students, regardless of their own - or those students' - area of interest.

Duke could be a good fit, too (Healy, Moody, Keister, Ruef, etc.)

Sociology is quite different from other sciences in this respect. Most mainstream sociology departments follow the accept and then assign to an assistantship/faculty member model, with little input from faculty (who aren't on the committee) in initial decisions. In fact, to put someone down who you want to work with only increases the chances that the committee will think to themselves that the particular professor already has too many students, etc. (related to what msafiri says above). In the two departments - and 10 years - that I have served on grad recruitment committees, I can't think of a single person who was admitted because a faculty member initiated an invitation (particularly one that wouldn't have otherwise been made just based on their file) because a student contacted them. Having an advisor contact the faculty is a different story entirely. That can make a difference (although not always). For what it's worth, as a faculty member who is an accept and assign department and who isn't currently on the committee making such decisions, I find contact from POIs more of an inconvenience than anything else.

Toronto would be a place with both culture and social networks. Harvard, too. Irvine and Duke are strong for social networks. Notre Dame has a burgeoning strength in culture and some of those faculty are working in an interdisciplinary center on social networks. Have you also thought about moving outside of sociology? Carnegie Mellon (with Kathleen Carley and others) seems like a natural fit, but they don't offer straight sociology. Instead it's a Social and Decision Sciences Ph.D. with a particular focus. Schools of information in universities with strong sociology departments and/or affiliated sociology faculty might also be a place to look (e.g., Michigan, Washington, Berkeley, although they are likely more applied than your interests seem to be).

I wouldn't worry about the GPA, but would certainly get a letter from a sociologist if you could. I don't know where you went to law school, but most of the law schools historically in the top 10 are at schools with strong sociology programs. I think that a letter appraising your sociological potential from someone notable in the field would help your application tremendously.

Like the first year of anything, the first year of grad school is really about getting your bearings and adjusting to a new life. As evidenced here in other posts, most people are living in a new place, feeling like impostors, struggling to make ends meet on a stipend, dealing with relationships and trying to make new ones with members of their cohort, and learning what graduate study in sociology is all about. People's experiences with all that vary, but don't underestimate the stress of the first year. It is hard. Programs vary on what they have students do. Like at UT-Austin, every program will make you get many of the required courses out of the way. It can make you feel a bit like a hamster on a wheel, anxious to get somewhere but just standing in place, but it actually lightens the load course-wise, as there is often less reading/writing required for stats, prosem, etc. Some of you will have the year off from any assistantships (teaching or research), others won't. Those that have them will be busier, but will also be gaining important teaching and research experience. The value of such busyness shouldn't be overlooked or taken for granted. It's good to learn how to balance either (or both) with your other academic responsibilities. Ultimately, it - like the rest of grad school - is what you make of it. You can coast through the classes by skimming the readings, contributing only sporadically and superficially to discussions in class, saving your paper for the end of the semester, and doing a lot of the things that undergraduates do. There are no requirements to present your work that first year (or really any year after that). However, you'll be establishing the habits (and reputation) that you'll carry with you throughout your time as an academic. Your professors will know who puts in the hours, who does the reading. When they choose who they want to work with on their next grant, it won't just be the passion you have for their field, but the work you put into those classes that influences whether or not they select you. If you work hard, do the readings, pay attention in classes, attend the workshops, job talks, and speaker series, submit to and attend conferences, you'll learn so much. It makes grad school much more difficult, but it influences where you end up. Don't do those things because you are in a top program, or not do them because you're not, because one of the main ways that programs move through the rankings is their graduate student placement. Regardless of where you are, act like you're at a top program, giving it your all and you are bound to not only help yourself, but could also improve the status of where you got your degree.

A long time ago, I was torn between a Women's Studies program and a Sociology one. My advisor gave me the same advice, telling me that it was easy to get a job in a Women's Studies program with a Sociology degree, but nearly impossible to get into a job - let alone a Sociology one - with a Women's Studies degree. There are many more interdisciplinary programs today, so I doubt it's as true as it was back then, but I would still side with your advisor on this one. That said, don't go into an ill-fitting program because it's the best option. I agree wiith sciencegirl here. Think about why you'd want to go into either of these and if you really want to enter a program at all this year. There is a C option, and that's deciding to do something else for a year.

While it might not make you feel better, I will say that some of the most successful people who I went to school with in my (then) Top 10 department were initially wait-listed for our graduate program. Some went on to get jobs in the Top 10 themselves. I see this in the students in my own program now. Some of our very best are students we didn't take in the first round. In other words, where you start in the "rankings" of students has absolutely nothing to do with where you are when you finish or the quality of education you get when you arrive. If you get into a program and decide to attend, you'll want to shed that sense of being so-so or somehow unlike the others or it will weigh you down. I hope you hear something positive soon. It's still really early in the decision process and schools have to know who is not coming before they can decide who else to invite.

I'm with Jen on this one. While an undergraduate journal publication is not a high status publication, it would certainly enhance an applicant's CV. The process for publication varies widely, and some undergraduate journals would be more highly regarded than others, but any experience with a journal demonstrates an understanding of the academic norms around publishing.

In general, I don't think the metric above is as skewed as some people are letting on. However, rather than choosing a school based on those numbers, I recommend checking out this sociological exploration of the structural (and individual) causes of attrition: Leaving the Ivory Tower. It's easier - and more accurate - to consider how the attributes of departments that Lovitts talks about are, or are not, currently representative of the departments you visit.

One of the many points of the orgtheory post was that in the top-tier departments you'll get methodological training that you might not get in lower-tier departments and that such training is available through other means if you're in such a department. While everyone has a different take on the status of various methods, it's erroneous to assume that qualitative methods are only appreciated, taught, or cultivated in lower-tier departments or published in lower-tier journals or book presses. In fact, I'd assert that because of other issues brought up in the orgtheory thread, qualitative scholars have an increased chance of being successful when they attend a higher-ranked program than a lower-tier one. In just the last few years very strong qualitative people have emerged from Berkeley, Princeton, Penn, Wisconsin, Harvard, Northwestern, and other top-tier programs. There are some departments that produce very few (e.g., Texas, UNC), but they still have qualitative research happening in their programs. The best departments teach a range of methods so that students are well-versed in all of them, and able to judge quality scholarship, regardless of the methods they specialize in. The biggest problem with expressing an interest in qualitative methods is that is can be interpreted as a fear of statistics, particularly if coupled with low-quantitative scores. Programs want people who could do statistics - and who will study them - even if their real talent/inclination is toward qualitative methods.

These vary tremendously. Anything you've got, as it was originally submitted or would be (to a class, journal, etc.), is just fine. (also, related to above, there's actually an ASA format if you're going to be changing the style anyhow: http://www.asanet.org/Quick%20Style%20Guide.pdf)

Interviews are very, very rare. If there is an interview, it will be (or certainly should be) over the phone or all expenses paid by the institution. Many programs will have "prospective student weekends" where they invite accepted candidates out. The bigger programs will give assistance to defray the costs and you'll likely stay for free with a graduate student. I highly recommend these, even if they're an added cost to the application process. They were instrumental in me choosing the program I did over others that I thought I would like better.

First off, funding should not be a factor. There are still opportunity costs and the potential cost to your psyche of enduring in a situation that doesn't make you happy or satisfy you. I've seen a lot of graduate students persevere feeling like you (both as a fellow student and as a faculty member) for all sorts of reasons - inertia, uncertainty, the need to "prove" themselves, etc. What I've found is it's the people who are willing to quit and cut their losses that are the happiest. Sure, there's a chance that this is just a slump and you'll get over it and decide that sociology is your passion. I will say that the first year causes a tremendous amount of uncertainly in a lot of students because the sociology of graduate programs (and sociology as a discipline) is quite different from the undergraduate sociology classes that turned students on to the discipline in the first place. But, the further that you go into debt with student loans or put off what you'd really like to do, the more unhappy you'll be. If you were my student, I would recommend that you get that MA. It is just one more year. It lets you explore whether you feel differently when you get to explore your own interests and to get another degree under your belt. If you're in a department that doesn't offer a terminal masters, it would be ideal if you can find an ally who you can tell that you've decided to do this and who might help you tailor your MA thesis to something that would enhance post-MA job/education prospects and who you can talk to about what you'll be doing next. I realize that students are scared to admit to faculty that they feel this way or that they have aspirations other than academia, but faculty ultimately want you to succeed and be happy (and they don't want you taking years of their funding if you're not passionate about it). Good luck to you!

I do think that writing samples are important, but not always in the way that the OP assumes. It is good to see when students have done original research and some honors theses and undergraduate methods papers that get submitted are of similar quality to MA theses. This can come up in the committee's discussion. More frequently, though, and as hope for those whose writing samples might be less research-oriented, I hear people on our committee comment on the writing ability reflected in the samples rather than the data analysis or research skills. Writing samples can help alleviate concern over a disconnect between analytic and verbal scores or a low score in one of the areas. Basically, they give the faculty a sense of what they'll have to work with. Most faculty assume that they can teach students how to formulate a research question, collect the data, analyze it, and present it in the appropriate style, but teaching a students how to write is a much more elusive task for graduate programs.

Mentioning names seems to be a common practice among many on this board, as someone who has served on a number of recruitment committees, I agree with your former professor. Students might mention someone who already has a number of students or who is known to not work with anyone. The professor you mention might actually be in administration or an adjunct and not work with students or could be leaving that next year for another job. Students also often mess up these names. I can't believe how many people say that they want to work with so-and-so because they're very familiar with their work, etc., and then mess up so-and-so's first name or last name or both! In my opinion, it's best to stick to you and why you think you'll be a great candidate.

Princeton and Notre Dame are strong in both culture and religion. However, I don't think that you need to go to a school with a strong religion program, as you could study such a topic in many culture departments.

As far as I know, sociology graduate programs are only ranked when they offer a PhD. This will be Milwaukee's first year with such a program, so only time will tell. Like I said, their MA students (at least those whose files I've read or who I've met) were quite strong. It will be interesting to see how they do with the PhD.

While I think it would be hard to get well-placed in the job market coming out of UW-Milwaukee with a PhD, the training there is top-notch. A number of students with MAs from there have applied to my program in the past and they tend to be very, very strong. It might be a good place to go get some initial grad work done and then try to transfer out to a place with a better placement record.

I agree with Going Crazy on all fronts and would add that getting your analytical writing score up would be another benefit of an additional shot at the GRE. Also related to the sociology of religion, I think that it's important that you decide what it is about sociology of religion that interests you. The schools that specialize in the area are competitive, but you can set yourself apart by demonstrating that you want to be a sociologist who studies religion and not a religious person who wants to study sociology. Is it culture and religion (Princeton), religious organizations (Duke), or something else that you would like to study? Specifying what it is that you're interested in, rather than just falling into it because you think it is what you know based on previous experience, is particularly important for someone with your background. Good luck!

Your GRE scores will help you rise to the top of any natural sorting. I would be sure to address the grades in an addendum or something, to let people know that you're aware of what went wrong. Also, I think that focusing on your unique experiences is good, but be sure that the activism is something that brought you to where you are and not what you ultimately want to do. The schools I've been at might be different than sociology as a whole (although I don't think so), but they're set on training scholars, not activists, and find that those with strong activist roots can flail in the rigid (and privileged) academic environment if their allegiances are still in activist-oriented pursuits.

As a faculty member, and one who serves on a grad admissions committee, I have got to chime in. While I don't agree fully with Maximus either, as most of the review of application materials occurs online and the multiple two hour meetings are for deciding on admittances, short lists, fellowship possibilities, etc., they're certainly correct that there's a lot going on behind the scenes and that it's not just committees or even departments that are involved. For my own school, we have acceptances, a waitlist, an unofficial waitlist pool that we're not ready to reject yet, and those who got notifications that they'd been rejected outright. Whether or not we draw on the waitlist or the waitlist pool depends on any number of factors that we can't predict and we feel that it's best to just let sleeping dogs lie (we're not sitting around devising ways to get students to stress out even more; believe it or not, we've all been on your side of the process) and not tell someone that they're rejected just to turn around in two weeks - when all of our potential gender students have turned us down and our gender scholars are hounding us about who will work with them next year - and call someone up, with our tail between our legs, and say "never mind what we said before, we'd like to make you an offer." As is clear from this board, there are a TON of great applicants out there this year (and most years) that we'd be thrilled to have. However, there is only so much funding, faculty, etc. to support those students, so it's a time-consuming and arduous process from our end too to figure out how to fill the exact number of slots we have, with diversity in areas to please the faculty. However, we feel it's only fair to "officially" waitlist those who, in past years, would likely make it into the program after that sorting. Who knows if this year will be different, or if we'll have to go really deep when it comes to gender or race or social movements? We don't, and so the unofficial waitlist is an important cushion to have so as not to get people's hopes up, but to leave open the possibility that we can make them an offer. I know it's nerve-wracking now. Trust me, it's just a prelude to the hell that is applying for jobs once you're wrapping up grad school. But really what matters is what you have heard by April 15th. I mean, really, how would it change your actions now? Would you apply to different schools, scrap the idea of school all together? By all means, apply to other schools if you'd like, but I wouldn't close up shop or write off grad school until the deadline. There's lots of movement those last few weeks. In the meantime, hang in there.