Palito

I think these kinds of stories are important, and qualitatively different than those offered by powerful institutions before reason started disseminating through societies all over the globe. They are important because they help us to understand things, not because they are in fact those things we are seeking to understand. Mathematical models of behavior can be helpful, but we must also recognize that these models have gained a great deal of power over determining the ever unfolding events and circumstance of human life. Analysis can effect the thing under analysis, This is important to bear in mind. Add to this the admonition that the social scientist should look reflexively at the his or her own position as an observer, and how the object of analysis constructed by this indivdual is produced through the prism of a specific life process and must be weighed against the actual experience of those who have been abstracted in the analytical process, and we have ourselves a very complex game to navigate. You make a really great point about how concentrating to much on structure and concentrating to much on agency each do damage to the existentially obvious: we are human beings, not merely nodes plugged into a network, and not merely utility calculating machines. My own view is that you should let this tension inform you always. Don't try to resolve it, per se, just try to live with it as you explore all the patterns and discontinuities of social realities.

I think your definition of a rational behavior model is solid. The notion maximizing a durable set of preferences is exactly what Whitford calls into question. In essence, the argument is that this model reverses the causal flow of behavior: set ends do not cause people to look for ways to acheive those ends; instead, the process of deliberation ensues when circumstances lead individuals to identify a lack, need, problem, or deficiency. We often act of habit, and when we don't we only deliberate things according to the set of beliefs we hold as a result of past experience, and according to what we percieve are acheiveable means to realistic ends. Absolute preferences may not be an option, and form out of experience in any case. A model of rational action can account for many circumstances, but in a limited way. Whitford applies the insights of pargmatism to conclude that deploying a rationalist model of behavior may be the best option to explain behavior in certain instances, and given certain "end-in-view." But this necesarily limits our understanding of the temporal and relational aspects of behavior as analytically defined segements of life processes. You might consider how this connects with some of the approaches to contemporary sociology that seek to make the structure vs. agency conflict obsolete. Field theory and theories of problem-solving networks do this well, in my view. Mustafa Emirbayer does some great work on reconstructing these approaches in pragmatist terms. I think Tilly was the first to promote it as a specific approach to sociological understanding, but you should definitely check out Emirbayer's "Manifesto for Relational Sociology": http://ssc.wisc.edu/~emirbaye/Mustafa_Emirbayer/ARTICLES.html There, he outlines a strong argument for the ontological basis of adopting a relational framework of understanding. I think one of the key differences between this sort of approach is that it favors explanation over prediction. One of the strengths of economics as a discipline is that it is offers sophisticated tools for predicting behavior, as that is a general focus of the discipline. Sociology is a little more broad in the sense that some sects within the discipline are still actively engaged in constructing and reconstructing theories of behavior in particular contexts -- with time and relationality as key factors in understanding behavior. As you transition in to sociology (and I must advertise that I am doing so myself) I think it will benefit you to consider models of explanation that show preference to description. You seem to be really strong in economic theory, but that will only take you so far in sociology because the discipline has a larger tolerance for ambiguity and irony.

@econosocio, I don't think theories that recognize incentives, benefits, and costs are strictly rationalist model of behavior. One compelling counter to rational actor theory roots itself in American Pragmatism. You mentioned Mead in an earlier post, so I'm going to guess you're already somewhat familiar with this school of philosophy. Josh Whitford offers a strong argument for folding rationally derived action into the more flexible explanatory model offered by pragmatist theory. Check out Pragmatism and the untenable dualism of means and ends: http://joshwhitford.org/articles/.

One of my recommenders noted to me that the application process most likely occurs in stages, with more easily judged factors like GRE scores and GPA used to thin out the crowd initially. This is certainly not a new thought (that point has been made on this forum over and over) but the follow-up point bears repeating: if AD COM members are not likely to read a lengthy writing sample until they have sorted out who is a competitive, the weight of this document will only come into play if other indicators pass the initial sorting filters. I get the impression that a good writing sample -- one that demonstrates clear thinking, good writing, and intellectual promise -- could be the thing that makes the greatest impression on those considering the application (as SOCgrad987's mentioned above). However, only so many applicants will have the opportunity for a writing sample to be the thing that makes them standout, whereas GRE scores will probably be in consideration every step of the way. I guess I mean to say that, based on what I have read and heard, the writing sample can very significant weight, but that other factors impact the decision process in a more consistent way.

UT Austin UW Madison Brown Northwestern UMass Amherst CUNY IU Bloomington UC San Diego GPA: 3.9 167 v, 153 q, 4.5 aw

I emailed last week and called this week to follow up. It seems that UCLA's privacy policy prohibits the Grad Coordinator from sharing decision information over the phone. So it seems that you may have to sit tight and wait for this one. On the plus side, I'm right there with ya', nervous as hell.

Socscholar: I just saw the bomb's wake. I'm still braced to get hit with shrapnel myself... I emailed the grad coordinator last week regarding the status of my application. She said that she was expecting final decisions within the week, and that I would hear soon after. I have no idea if that is a good response, but I'm betting it isn't.

I'm curious to know how this has enlightened you, exactly. Moreover, I find it hilarious that 1) you believe I quoted Weber, when I very clearly summarized his work (you may want to master the distinction as you move on to graduate studies); 2) somehow you've arrived at the conclusion that referencing seminal sociological works is innappropriate to the discussion when the practice of referencing other authors is a basic part of the culture within which we are all seeking to carve out places; and 3) you take wrote off Weber for being a dead, white male. I understand that this group has dominated others for much of history, but does that invalidate this particular individual's contributions? Really, my point is that everything has unintended consequences, and I often wonder it the economy of incentives presented to many of us as we pursue the vocation of science, as it undergoes the changes we all seem to agree are occuring, will affect, in a generalized way and, by all means to varying degrees, our intellectual integrity to some extent. What I am gathering from Allhands and sleepycat is that others are also contemplating where the line lies, and how they can mantain intellectual integrity while also serving what they believe to be a moral imperative.

I recently read Weber's essay on Science as a Vocation. Two points strike me as esspecially relevant to this discussion. First, Weber discusses at length his view of politicizing the academic stage. While he doesn't suggest that social scientists should try to be a-political, he does argue, very much in agreement with allhandsonthebadone's point, that introducing political concerns to scientific research is highly undesirable. Our moral convictions may very well influence what facts we search out, which ones we pass over or forget, or simply how we interpret them. To be totally forthright, I'm a bit conflicted on where to draw the line between producing knowledge and informing practice. But I'm entertaining the question precisely because it is inconvenient. Second, Weber argues that science cannot prove its own worth. In fact this question is not seriously entertained because arguments attempting to justify it as "good', or those decrying it as "evil" base themselves in non-scientific modes thinking and persuasion. He considers this question in the realm of leadership, which is driven by charisma. Ultimately, citing Tolstoi, Weber asks us to consider that there is no logical way to ensure that your life is valuable, one must resort to the principles that they hold. And facts do not speak for themselves. If you think that, you must not see all of the insane discourses going on in the world.

Precisely. I don't mean to say that this is necessarily true for all commited to this particular shift in orientation to, and application of sociological research, but that there has been a noticiable correlation in individuals I have encountered, or otherwise interacted with. I am suggesting that a driving concern for social justice, as a higher moral purpose, motivates research for those individuals I have observed, and that the desire to serve this end gives them incentive to look over inconvenient facts.

The "public sociology" movement does seem to be gaining more and more footing in highly emulated universities and young, burgeoning minds alike. I think this points to a movement toward a generalized shift in the discipline's pedagogy. In my experience, many of the students most dedicated to a morally directed application of sociological knowledge are not careful thinkers/researchers. As a citizen, I see a great need for rigorous research to guide public policy. As an academic, I wonder if such a paradigm shift will negatively affect intellectual integrity?

DustSNK: trenchant advice. As it so happens, Auyero was my POI at UT Austin. I've been following his work for some time and got in contact with him regarding my application. We had a good exchange, chatted on the phone for awhile, and I was feeling confident that he would be my faculty connect in the event that I made it to that stage of the selection process. Unfortunately, he has a lot on his plate right now and can't take on more students, according to the Grad Coordinator. I was led to believe that this was a clear factor in my being denied by the program. If you find Auyero's work compelling, you should also check out Dr. Gianpaolo Baiocchi at Brown. He also espouses a "relational" approach to sociological inquiry and primarily utilizes ethnography, though his focus is on how Brazilians "do politics".

I'm now starting to feel the weight of eminant rejection. Does anybody know of any good MA programs that have late and/or rolling admissions? I'm mostly interested in political sociology in the Latin American context as it intersects with issues of development.

THisSlumgullionIsSoVapid: I also used a religious trope in my SOP, though mine developed a theory of my own intellectual trajectory as influenced by the diverse religious cultures and doctorines that I was exposed to growing up. It was meant as a kind of nod to Weber's basic argument in "The Protestant Ethic and The Spirit of Capitalism". However, I was told during my chat with the Grad Coordinator at UT that the religious tone, which was limited to the first paragraph, may have put me in a category as a scholar focused on religion. It just so happens, as skyehigh alluded to, that scholarship on religion within the department has been on the decline in the last few years. The coorelation between these two things may explain why I didn't receive an offer of admissions. I'll keep my fingers crossed for ya'.

Under the heavy weight and gnawing nervousness of hearing about my friends acceptance, and wondering if it were even possible that UT would admit two students from with Bachelor's degrees from Portland State University in the same year, I called her. I knew that, at best, I would only find out if I was still being considered, but I just had to know. It was genuinely nice to hear feedback from someone who knows.

My admissions status still reads: "in review". I should also say that I recently spoke with a friend who HAS received an offer of admission to this same program. Decisions are definitely being made, ya'll.

I just spoke with Evelyn, the Graduate Coordinator for the Sociology program at UT. It seems that I was a competitive applicant, but that the faculty member that I expressed interest in is beyond overextended, and no other faculty in the Political Sociology subfield was able/willing to oversee my research. This is an epic bummer, but at least I had a great conversation with some really positive feedback about how competitive I am as an applicant. I feel surprisingly hopeful in spite of the fact that I just found out I won't be attending my top choice.

My thoughts exactly! If they don't get ahold of you, it's probably not news that you want to hear! And, yes, UT Austin would be amazing. It's hard to imagine a program better suited to my interests. Plus, being from Portland, OR, I can't help but feel an attraction to Austin. I sure hope the stars are alligned on this one. Also, as an aside, I've heard that grad programs are much less likely to admit students who completed their undergraduate degree at the same university. Perhaps that was a major factor in this particular student's case.

Right, I was just curious about any details that came with the exchange that you mentioned. Thanks for sharing, it definitely helped my anxiety! I have no reason to believe that anyone beside my friend's acquaintance received notification of the committee's decision, as she contacted the graduate coordinator. But I guess one less person out of our way is good. Why does the feel like Survivor?

Supernovasky, did she mention whether they had already made some cuts? A friend at UT told me that he knows someone that applied and called to check on the status of her application. She was no longer in the running. My freind recomended that I do the same, but I'm having trouble mustering the courage to do what is at best ambiguis, and at worst soul crushing rejection.

I noticed that the acceptance offer is for the demography-sociology program. This seems to be a little different from the rest of the program. Does anyone think that might account for this irregular, single, sent on a saturday acceptance notice? I'm falling apart here...

I think they LIKE you, like you, Sochope. That's what I heard from Joanna, who got a note from Penelope, who overheard someone talking in the hall about a sleepover they had with the adcomm. I guess they wanna meet up with you behind the gym after school. Lucky.

Well, this is by far the most interesting conversation that I've yet to see on this particular thread. It intrigues me to see how others deal with the objective dimensions of applying, i.e., how GRE scores, GPAs, or any other component of the application are given weight by an admissions committee. Of course, as many of you have alluded to, these "hard" qualifications tend to be emphasized more often, probably because they are more generalizable. The idea of "fit" seems to me to be more of an organic, and definitely a more dynamic, measure. It reminds me of Bourdeiu's description of actors influencing their trajectory within a field. More than anything, they work off of a "feel for the game". I know that I selected programs with this in mind: how a given learning environment would influence my sense of the "game" of knowledge production. And I have a feeling that if any applicant or member of an adcomm had to express their vision of the perfect program in a more personal way, chances are it would closely follow this concept. That being said, I have to second socieconomist's sentiment that it seems like some folks on this board place a bit too much value on the generalizable factors. Then again, isn't that what this board is for? To share the manic depressive ride that comes with exposing yourself to an infamous committee of strangers with the power to decide your fate? Sometimes I feel like my many strengths are going to convince; other times I panic about the stench of mediocrity that clings to my GRE scores. I contacted a few professors, had some really good exchanges over email, but none of them know the dedication that I've shown to even get to this point, or the passion for understanding that continues to mature in the practice of my everyday life. How are we to capture the feeling that belong in this new and empowering environment? Moreover, how can they really know our potential as sociologists? It's hard to steer clear of flat comparisons, of measuring each of our potential through the impersonal metric that dominates our convential academic experience. I guess when I see people flaunt it, or fake it, or even just nonchalantly offer their stats, I just try to remind myself that their is a real human experience underneath those numbers. It helps to know that many of you are as much of a wrek as I am right now.

I've been locked away in my own private, mental hell thinking and anticipating this very notice. I guess that means your anxiety, Supernovasky, might actually have a parallel. What specialization(s) are you interested in?

UT Austin Brown Columbia Wisconsin-Madison UC Berkley UCLA Vanderbilt I'm very interested in relational approaches and network analysis, and would like to focus my research on Latin American societies, Brazil in particular. I developed my list according to these interests.