RefurbedScientist

Wow, if we are at all representative of future professional sociologists, then maybe the GRE will be a non-factor 20 years down the line. I think it's an interesting question. I agree that none of the substantive material on the GRE is very closely related to the academic skills used in sociology. Take the verbal section for example, once you're scoring above the, say, 85th percentile, you're dealing with words that no academic would use in her/his right mind. They're unwieldy and could only further distance the field from the public. In the quant section, the higher order problems are things like combinations and sequences. Maybe useful for game theory, but not generally applicable to most sociology. In fact, the more "stats" related questions, such as finding mean/media/mode, are the easier questions. That being said, the GRE is currently a useful metric for adcoms. I don't want to hunt down the post now, but bloggers on Orgtheory.net have cited some studies showing that high GRE scores are positively correlated for success in grad school*. At best, the GRE score here is a proxy for any number of things that could contribute to academic success, such as work/study habits, "IQ", willingness to jump through hoops, etc. So even if we know the GRE really does not represent academic ability in sociology, it captures something harder to define that is related to academic ability in sociology. The question, then, is about finding a better proxy for academic ability than the GRE. The thing is, on a macro-scale, writing samples and SoPs can't predict success in the same way that GRE does because we don't have any comparable metric for measuring their quality. So while it's likely that people with great writing samples succeed in grad school, it's impossible (or difficult) to collect comparable data on "great" writing samples (barring some kind of content analysis scheme, which is not feasible to standardize and apply across all departments). Now with that counterargument laid out, I will say that I agree that the GRE would be the first to go in my ideal world. I think that the GRE is a somewhat arbitrary proxy for academic ability. I think that the impulse to compare applicants according to an objective standard is convenient but unnecessary; we could very well be compared according to subjective metrics, although this is of course very labor intensive. I However, I am somewhat at a loss about better options. I think GPA and courseload is problematic, because some/many undergraduates do not know they plan on pursuing a doctorate in their four years in college (who knew they wanted to do a PhD when they were 19? Not me.) Obviously good grades and background education are paramount, but we wouldn't want there to be a "pre-soc" track in the same where there is "pre-med", because then you end up with students are on that track just because, and not because they made a responsible, informed, adult decision that they want to be scholars. So yeah, I guess I would echo that I would emphasize the SoP most. Maybe, in another universe, departments would even have "tasks" for applicants to complete. For example, say you're applying to X department because you're interested in one of their 5 main concentration areas, say gender. (Many departments already ask you to indicate a sub-field in their online application.) So to all the candidates who selected gender, they department distributes a sociological article having something to do with gender. The prompt is something like, "Respond to this article. Approach it theoretically, substantively, methodologically. What are its strengths and flaws? What is a possible direction for future study that would build on these findings?" So now the candidate writes a response, which will in turn reflect her/his critical thinking, fluency with methods and theory, creativity with research proposals, writing ability, etc. An applicants who sucks at, for example, quantitative methods could suggest how these findings could inform a qualitative study to add thickness to the subject. An applicant who won't know to quote Foucault may have an awesome case study from work experience. This sort of system would be extremely easy to automate online and could perhaps replace the writing sample. Also, because whole groups of applicants are responding to the same prompt, they are cross-comparable in the same way a professor might scale grades on an assignment. So a department with X,Y,Z express concentration areas, there would be 3 prompts on X,Y,Z topics respectively, and three pools of students responding to one of the three. I dunno. Just a thought. *Edit: Note that there is probably a selection bias here, as this only compares students who are already in grad school, and not those who weren't accepted anywhere (see more on this line of argument in the orgtheory comments).

Hmm. Still haven't heard yea or nay from UCSB. Anyone else still waiting from UCSB?

I agree with this entirely. We cannot say whether or not you should forgo starting at LSU this year with the hopes of getting into someplace preferable next year. We don't know your stats, we haven't read your SoP, we don't know you. Even if we did, it would be a very personal decision. That all being said, should you decide to apply again next year, it is imperative that you get letters of recommendation from academics. Unfortunately, professional references have very little value to adcoms (which is not necessarily how it should be, but that's how it is). I would say at least 2 out of your 3 LORs should be from academics (aim for 3, then if you have a strong letter from a non-academic, send it as a fourth or supplementary material). If you can't get 3 academic LORs from your UG institution, and you're set on going straight to PhD, then I would recommend enrolling at a local college in the sociology department and getting one. Take a couple of classes with one prof who interests you, develop a strong relationship, explain your goals, and get the LOR. It's also worth going back to your UG institution and meeting with some profs and seeing if any of them remember you. They have longer memories than we might expect. Remind them of a term paper you did with them, fill them in on current work and interests, have a few conversations with them to show them you know what you're getting yourself into.

Yes UNC acceptances went out in January. There is an open house in a couple weeks. They may use the open house as a way of estimating the possible enrollment rate, so perhaps there is a viable waitlist, but this is pure speculation.

@hopefulJD, your interests definitely have a home in sociology if you come 'a knocking. One of the most significant social movement theorists in sociology, Charles Tilly, used comparative historical methods.

We must stop @jenjenjen from being happy before s/he reinforces the Marcusian mechanisms of one-dimensionalization any more!!! JK, I liked the Marcuse reference.

I would imagine UMD will fund their whole cohort, so I don't think no news is bad news. Usually it's a matter of identifying which funding streams are appropriate for respective students. For example, some schools offer university-wide fellowships, and departments will put forward strong grad students for consideration. Or there are minority student fellowships and scholarships or scholarships for students working on a certain topic. They just need to piece together their funding for next year. Edit: And most importantly, Congratulations!!

Don't groups of penguins always push one penguin into the water first to "check" for killer whales? We need something like that...

I think undergraduate training in sociology is definitely a point of discussion in the profession. Check out this orgtheory post about a "hard science" sociology major, for example. I think there are pros and cons going both ways. To me, it almost makes counter-intuitive sense that people heading to doctoral programs should forgo heady-duty methods training as undergrads because we're guaranteed that training as grad students. Sociology majors heading into, say, the non-profit or private sector might actually need stats and programming and formal modeling more, because their work may require applied sociological skills, such as monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of programs. On the other hand, I believe every person has a right to flit away a little time studying sexuality or the sociology of diet or whatever for the purpose of being a more engaged and critical thinker, regardless of profession. So it's a toss up. I would have liked to take a methodology class, if only so that I wouldn't be peeing my pants on day one of grad level methods, but I don't necessarily believe one is at a stark disadvantage in the admissions process without them. OK, tangent closed. I guess this illustrates to the OP that there is no sure road into sociology, mostly because there are so many entry points, specializations, and opinions on what constitutes a potential sociologist.

I think many of us are suffering from a case of impostor syndrome Don't worry. It's natural.

Right, so cases like this are why I included my appended qualification. There are absolutely undergraduate sociology programs which emphasize different skills and subjects, but I would hesitate to say they represent the majority of programs or the upper tier. I went to a very well ranked school that actually over-produces (proportionate to our size) academia bound students historically. Across the social sciences (excluding econ.), methodology classes were optional. I think a more likely determinant than rank is the school's stance toward requirements. My school was fairly liberal as far as filling requirements, so there was no methods requirement. If you look at Harvard's UG courseload, for example, only one methods class and one theory class is required, and neither of these are more than an introduction. So that's obviously a highly esteemed school with only cursory focus on sociological methods and theory. You have your school at the other end of the spectrum. On a tanget, I also want to touch on the interesting association you draw between higher ranked scools and academia on the one hand, and lower ranked schools and workforce on the other. Most undergraduate sociology majors, across the board, do not go on to doctoral programs. They get professional degrees, law degrees, other advanced degrees, work in the private, public, non-profit sector, so on and so forth. So graduates with BAs in sociology from even the very best schools in the country still go on to work in other fields besides academic sociology, and they will not necessarily be well served by learning the same things as we bound for academia. Point is, I think that must of the stuff that is required to be a sociologist should be taught at the graduate level (as it currently is). At the BA level, we're teaching to a popular audience bound for myriad professions, and therefore need to serve that general population (insofar as we believe colleges have a responsibility to educate people for future careers and endeavors). I would contend that, while having methods training is always an advantage, not having methods training is not a disadvantage, because you will learn them inevitably. In my opinion, why bother taking stats (for example) as a UG, if you're going to be taking a minimum of three stats courses in grad school? When it comes to admissions, programs want indication that you can become a successful researcher, not that you already are. Already having those skills won't hurt, but one can signify intelligence and potential in other ways, such as through GRE score, letters of rec., and a strong research proposal. Speaking personally (and not suggesting my experience is representative of anything more), I at no point felt as if my lack of training in methods would make me less competetive than other applicants, because I was confident in other parts of my application. Now I've been accepted to a program that is notable for rigorous methods training, and come dissertation time, I will be as prepared as I otherwise would be. Of course, everyone's application looks different, and whereas I was weaker in methods training and stronger in some other area, another applicant may have the reverse profile and do extremely well. That all being said, I whole heartedly agree that if you have the opportunity to explore the discipline of sociology and all that entails (methods, theory, topics, debates, etc.) during your MA in history, then that can only help you make good choices come application time and improve your chances with an adcom. The other point of eventual consideration is how many courses you can transfer into a PhD program. Many programs prefer you fulfill certain requirements in house, according to their standards.

Prior coursework in sociology specifically should be a non-issue, because *many* undergraduate sociology programs are taught topically. That is, you take a sociology of crime class, a sociology of development class, a sociology of family class, a sociology of health policy class, etc. This means most students come out knowing a lot about, say crime or development or family or health policy, but not much about the discipline of sociology (e.g. methods, more advanced theory besides an intro reading here and there). So what I'm trying to say is, most people with an undergrad soc. background don't have much of a leg up over people with a background in any other social science. People with an MA or MS in sociology are a different story, of course, because these programs are very methods oriented and usually require a (publication quality) thesis. But I don't think the MA/MS sociology person is the modal applicant. A lot of people with Masters are moving in from a related but different field or with a professional degree (MSW, for instance). History is sort of a unique case, though, because of the many ways to "do" historical research. I think if you know you want to go into sociology, you can try to look to historical sociologists for inspiration. Read their papers, understand their methods, look at their citation lists and syllabi. There are ways to do research in history that are indistinguishable from some parts of comparative historical sociology and there are ways that are totally dissimilar. Aim for writing like a historical sociologist, and there should be no problem whatsoever making the transition. Also, consider submitting work from your MA to a journal where sociologists publish. This will probably not be a flagship journal, but one known in your subfield. Finally, try to get a sociologist on your thesis committee, if possible. A letter of rec. from a sociologist will go a long way in showing that you know what you're getting yourself into by pursuing soc. I wouldn't sweat not having the background in sociology. I took 3 sociology classes as an undergrad. One was Intro. I don't remember one single thing from that class except reading Mitch Duneier's book Sidewalk. The professor was a sociologist of religion, which is a topic I am not interested in, so we didn't really build a relationship, and I moved on. I was a poli. sci. major. Then in my senior year I TA'ed a sociology class because I knew the substantive material really well, though I still didn't have any background in soc. Sociology is such a diverse and broad field, there is almost no way to identify a core curriculum or knowledge base you need to have to start a PhD. We all come from different starting places. I recommend you check out the poll and thread on "Backgrounds" in this forum to get a feel for where we all come from academically. [*Note: I say many without too much evidence to back this up, but it's my experience at my UG and an intuitive generalization. I think, generally, undergrad soc. programs don't do a lot of methods training and theory unless you pursue that track, and most students don't because they're not heading to academia]

On the contrary, I think no news is reason to be optimistic. Easier said than done, I know. The wait is frustrating.

UNC and UCI, so far. I hesitate to say which program is involved in this anecdote for discretion's sake. (Paranoia, paranoia, everybody's coming to get you..... )

When I got the call from my POI, I was sick in bed, staying home from work with a fever. The call came at 2PM, and I rolled over to see the call was coming from a state where there is nobody that has any reason to call me except if they're calling from this particular school. So I snapped from delirious fever into GO TIME! I quickly gargled some water and did a few practice "Hellos", you know, just in case I forgot how to say Hello. I was worried I would sound like I was raised by wolves. Given that my brain had been in a 102 degree oven for the last 36 hours, it was a pretty awkward conversation. First off, I pretended I actually was at work, I guess to appear industrious, and excused myself while I left "the office" (i.e. climbed out of bed). What followed was an uncomfortable balancing act; I tried to sound grateful but not ingratiating, nonchalant but not indifferent. It was a very affected composure, I'm sure. Anyway, the shot of energy from my first acceptance led me to sort of overestimate how quickly I was getting over my illness, and I almost passed out in the shower from exhaustion/fever/hunger/disbelief. I think disbelief has been the main emotion since then. But on top of that, I'm experiencing a lot of polyvalent feelings around moving to a semi-rural place (I'm a city kid), starting a program that is amazing but perhaps a little over my head, complications with my SO and their own future plans, and maybe most frighteningly, committing to a lifelong career and only being in my early 20s. I am very confident I want to be a sociologist, but I'm also not a future planner, by any means. In fact, I'm just the opposite. I much prefer spontaneity, I move around a lot, I like adventures, I don't care for routine, and I have a tendency to move from job to job. So the prospect of doing this, or anything, for 6 years straight is a little scary. I know there is a lot more diversity in our line of work than in most people's (we go to conferences, do fieldwork, meet amazing people, work on projects), but I am nostalgic for the idea of trying out lots of jobs and career paths as a young person. On the other hand, I know that, if I were on the other side, I would envy the grad school version of me. So yea, ambivalence is the name of the game. Fear, excitement, eagerness, relief. Oh, and to add to that, anxiety over picking a program!

Ditto. Radio silence from Harvard.

I work as an RA now, and it's not a bad gig, although I think I may have milked it for all the research experience I'm going to get out of it. Maybe I could get a co-authored pub if I stick around all summer, but it would probably just end up on SSRN rather than peer-review. And there's not really any value in minor publications now, right? My ideal situation would be summer in Latin America doing independent research, volunteering, working, whatever. My research interests are in Lat. Am., and I've done all of my previous research there, so it would be nice to get down and make some connections and bone up on my Spanish before heading to school in the Fall. The problem is that I am incapable of saving money (student loans aaaarghhhh!), so it might be wise just to keep the job. Besides that, I need to do some serious research on the schools I have to choose from, especially before going to open houses. I don't want them to think they made a big mistake when I get to accepted students day and look like an idiot

I would agree that there are some arbitrary distinctions when we talk about, say, top-5, -10, -15, -20, -25, -30 programs, so on and so forth. This hypersensitivity to hierarchy probably reinforces it, too. On the other hand, look at the CVs of professors at different programs across tiers and you will see that these groupings are persistent (e.g. a "top 10" school will have faculty from all top 10 schools). That being said, I think these tiers are most relevant when it comes to job placement. In terms of quality of training, I would be hesitant to believe one gets much better training at a program ranked by USNWR in the top 10 compared to a program ranked in the top 25, considering the faculty of those programs probably all went to top 10 schools. I think that, aside from the occasional genius faculty (which I think are almost normally distributed in top departments), the substance and quality of pre-dissertation training probably does not vary greatly among, say, the top 30 programs. What does probably vary is access to networks, prestige, and maybe (BIG MAYBE) the academic ability of the other grad students with whom you will be collaborating and, in some cases, competing. Take UCI, for example. As a social movement student, I can't imagine getting a higher quality education than from David Meyer, David Snow, Ed Amenta, Francesca Polletta, etc., covering the breadth of methods and theories in the subfield. These are bona fide leaders in the field, so you would be learning from the best. But then could you get the job you want down the road? That's the question at hand. To me, that's unfortunate, but they've made our bed and now we've gotta sleep in it, or something like that.

You're absolutely right. I think a lot of cross cutting work is happening that ties social movements increasingly to other areas, such as organizations, fields, networks, law and policy, technology, so on and so forth. But it's nice to pretend I'm unique now and then

Thanks quant, that does soften the blow. I suppose NYU and Columbia give better funding packages, right?

I'm about to break the refresh button on gmail... I just want to rip off the bandaid that is this rejection email.

Whoa, social movement scholars represent! Do we think this poll could be even close to representative of applicants at large? My impression has always been that social movements is sort of a smaller niche, usually classified under political sociology (in the same way, perhaps, that queer studies falls under sociology of gender, at conferences and such). I've been studying social movements since I started my UG, so I have dibs!

Any idea if all of the acceptances have gone out? It looks like acceptance and rejection letters have been sent out, but I haven't heard anything. Anyone else out there waiting on news from UCSB? I'm not willing to venture to guess that this is a good sign or a bad sign, just trying not to dwell on it too much.

Indeed it does. Has anyone heard about accepts/waitlists at CUNY? Is it unusual for a school to issue rejections before acceptances? I guess it makes sense, if they're narrowing the field down group by group, but the suspense is killing me!

Haha I'm glad we can all confess. It's good to know that, despite all appearances, people on this board aren't infallible overachievers. Phew.