RefurbedScientist
-
Posts
239 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by RefurbedScientist
-
-
I applied to UCLA. I don't think I will get in, so it felt more like a donation than an application fee, ha.
That's how my Princeton felt and probably my University of Chicago too.
I understand this feeling, but I went in the opposite direction and didn't apply to programs based on a fear of rejection. Even where I had decent fit and decent stats, I didn't apply unless I felt like they would be crazy to reject me. Now I wish I had applied to more top schools like Princeton, Chicago, UCLA, Berkeley, etc. I think it's better to take chances and fail than regret not applying at all (if you can afford it). And you never know what might happen.
-
I was under the impression that this all happens in waves. Like they'll invite the first group and that group will either accept or decline (for various reasons) then based on the number of candidates who declined the offer, the department reaches out to a 2nd wave of applicants until all their spots are filled so we may not hear anything until March if we aren't first wave.
I am under the same impression. I was accepted in an early wave from one program, rejected along with a pile of others from another, and haven't heard a peer from a program that I know some people have been accepted to. I also heard from a soc. professor at my UG school that programs accept people in tiers, inviting top candidates first and having a de facto wait list. On top of that, I think it makes sense intuitively that departments would have certain slots to fill, so to speak. That is, a department knows it wants a cohort of 10 students, and maybe of that desired cohort, 7 will be quant. methods, 3 will be qual., 2 will work on gender, 2 on race, 1 on theory, so on and so forth. So rather than just taking the 10 applicants with the highest GRE scores and GPAs and best SoPs overall, they say "OK, here is our top choice to fit the profile we're looking for in a sociologist of gender, invite this person." Then maybe they identify a few top candidates for, say, economic soc. and there needs to be deliberation before offers are mailed.
I have no idea, but it makes sense that departments would be less organized than we want them to be. Just think of the professors you know...
-
Hege-money said, "My critique is of the sociologists who simply believe that the ‘means’ of sociological investigation ought to be the only factors of consideration." And the "fundamental essence" of sociology "is characterized by a scientific concern for ‘means’ but a humanistic concern for ‘ends’."
I agree with this provocation (although I would hesitate to use the phrase "fundamental essence", but that's a minor tangent for later). I think we have focused so far on a conversation about how political ends can corrupt scientific means (methods, theory, paradigms, etc.). While I think this is an important and necessary conversation, why don't we think constructively about the end product of our research and how we can better connect that to the social problems we study? In other words, let's assume for a moment that the institutionalized discipline of sociology is sufficiently objective (recognizing that no social practice is free from its context) and the research we produce, taken as a whole body of scientific literature, is a fair approximation of social reality. Okay, great. Now what?
I think this is where we fall short when talking about praxis. In professional sociology, the product of our research is a publication. Really good work is cited by future publications. Some ideas are gradually accepted into the disciplinary canon. But the process of proliferation seems to stop here. Sure, some sociologists maintain strong ties to public policy. Some sociologists teach undergraduate courses to the future leaders of non-profits, policy, activism and advocacy, etc. Nontheless, the norm is for academics to stand outside of the social struggles we study, acting occasionally as commentators or pundits. I think the challenge is, when we produce politically relevent work, to connect our findings in a useful way to the relevant parties. In this sense, the end product of research is not just a publication. For example, if I research on cyberbullying, I could publish my findings (signalling scientific accreditation), then collaborate with educators to develop a sound intervention program, then work with filmmakers to document the program and reach a wider audience, then work with activists to build a campaign around the program, then work with law makers to institutionalize and replicate the program, then work with international NGOs to tailor the program to other cultures, and throughout this whole process reflect critically using (perhaps more esoteric) social theory. Research should be a living thing, not simply a product.
I don't see this sort of "sociologist as subject of change" shift as jeapordizing scientific objectivity, so long as we observe the very same scientific standards we generally already do. For example, with grounded theory (simplified here for argument's sake), the researcher obersves, collects observable data, analyzes data, creates a theory, and tests the theory for accuracy and successive levels of scalability. The logical next step would be to act on the findings and theory. So long as this process is not reversed (i.e. desire to act on a social problem, developing a theory marred by bias, finding data to support theory), then I think we have a degree of objectivity and the possibility for action. There are other questions of comparative advantage (whereby an activist is plain better as some parts of this process than an academic) and funding (as it is now, we're paid to publish and teach, not to change the world). But this is the status quo, perhaps not the ideal.
Now, as to the question of institutional and professional academic sociology and its role in political/social change: I think scholars in non-profit instutions (universities), who are not beholden to private interest, and whose work is accredited through peer review are in a much better position to drive this sort of praxis than a) private individuals not accountable to a professional field of peers and b] think tanks beholden to funders, directed by a revolving door of corporate execs. and politicians, and not accountable to peer review.
Anecdotally, a good exampe of this comes from Gianpaulo Baiocchi at Brown (who has come up in another thread). Baiocchi's research has included the practice of "participatory budgeting" in a city in Brazil, where citizens come together and determine public budgets collectively, rather than through political authorities. Apparently participatory budgeting was successful in this case, and the idea has been spreading. Now, in my home town of Providence, RI (where Brown is), Baiocchi, some city council members, and a coalition of community organizations are working together to initiate participatory budgeting in our city. I was a community organizer for one of these orgs during this period. The cool thing was that Baiocchi was mostly playing a support role in the process, which was really driven by the community. I just found it rare for a faculty member from an Ivy league school to sit in an open community meeting and take his turn offering insight from his research to a crowd that would otherwise not be flipping through AJS or going to academic conferences. In my opinion, this is a good model for how sociologists can participate in action without a) imposing top-down pressure on the development or trajectory of political action and b] jeapordizing the scientific quality of one's own sociological research. Baiocchi didn't find that participatory budgeting worked in Brazil because he wanted it to work in Providence. Rather, he observed it work in Brazil, analyzed the process systematically, understood it more-or-less objectively (please assume the usual epistemological qualifications here), and shared that understanding with another community wanting to replicate the action.
OK-- long post. Good convo. Let's keep it going.
-
You two are awesome resources! I totally understand the natural inclination to mention eateries and bars. I live in Boston and, despite there being a pretty good number of "things to do", I typically don't have time or money to take advantage of any of it anyway except for some local bars. My one big passtime is film, and I have heard good things about the Varsity. I also expect that UNC itself has plently of events-- lectures, screenings, music, etc.-- that are free or cheap.
I need to turn this thread into an excel spreadsheet or something so that I can remember all the great suggestions.
*Edit: I would also add that I am a very laid back kind of socializer, and my ideal world would consist almost exclusively of coffee shops, food trucks, and casual bars. So it looks like Chapel Hill might be heaven! I'm just nervouse because I've never lived in a "town", so to speak.
-
I was just planning to keep my job if I am not accepted, but today I was invited to be a TA/RA for the next year in Mexico with one of my favorite professors. I can't decide if two years coordinating a nonprofit/scholarship program at my alma mater is better than doing that for a year or teaching/researching in Mexico would be better on my app next year.
Advice from the masses?
I would guess that research with a professor is better than program coordination/admistration if you have your heart set on doing a phd, especially if the research is related to your interests, can gain you a strong academic LOR, and could be spun into a publication or at least a writing sample.
-
Auyero was also my POI at UT, and I was aslo rejected. I think part of the problem is that when an otherwise highly quantitative program, which is generally well regarded to begin with, hires one very strong and productive ethnographer, that individual faculty member is going to be swamped with all of the ethnographers looking at UT. That is, speaking for myself, it was basically Auyero or bust at UT, and I imagine there were a good deal of other potential ethnographers with the same strategy. That makes it very competetive, as we're a self-selecting pool competing for spots under just one prof. Moreover, it means Auyero has his hands full with all of the qual. methods students already in the program. So I'm a little disappointed, but I suppose it's never a good idea to set your sights on a school because of just one professor.
I also think Baiocchi's work is cool and I actually used to work for an org. that he collaborated with frequently. I didn't apply to Brown though because I'm from Providence and couldn't bear the idea of spending another 5-6 years there just now (though Providence is an amazing city).
Are there any other political sociologists of Latin America out there? I know CUNY has a few (e.g. Fernandes) and Harvard (e.g. Viterna). Any other big names or up-and-comers?
-
I would echo the above: UCI and Notre Dame. Now, I only think of those because I'm into social movements and both programs have rocking faculty, young and old. I also think that research centers are a big part of it, as they attract attention and stimulate productivity for both faculty and grad students. The benefit of research centers may not be immediately reflected in USNWR rankings, but I think they can draw talented grad students who will go on to productive careers. Moreover, research centers (good ones) gain a program notoriety among people in the discipline over time, which is obviously a big factor in rankings. On top of that, I think what ND is doing with its new blog (Mobilizing Ideas) is really interesting and can only mean good things for the program's reputation. ND honestly would have been one of my top choices, except for its current spot on the rankings and it's geographical isolation (I've been to South Bend a couple times for conferences and didn't love it). While I am confident it will move up, I don't think I want to be in the group of recent grads fighting that uphill battle. That being said, anyone who goes there will get a top of the line training in their key sub fields. As for UCI, I think it may as well be considered a top of the line program right now, but it will take a few years for the rankings to reflect this. Part of this is going to be successive cohorts of newly minted PhDs on the job market. A UCI grads start getting "hired up" by higher ranked programs, UCI's rank will improve. I think that's only a matter of time. I for one am seriously considering UCI (if I get in) over much higher ranked programs (where I'm already in) because the fit is amazing and the faculty and affiliated centers are dreamy. When it comes to social movements, at least, I would put UCI in the top 5 programs easily (number one according to my specific research interests).
As for programs that might be in a position to fall in the rankings, that's really hard to say. UCSB? That's wild speculation, but they did just lose Jennifer Earl to Arizona, and she is a major player in both social movements and, increasingly, Internet stuff (an understudied topic in soc). She is definitely productive, and losing her won't help UCSB. On top of that, I think we have to watch out for all of the UC schools and their funding situations.
As for top 25 programs, I've heard grumblings about Arizona on some fronts (very very thin slice data here), but maybe gaining Earl will help.
For anyone considering these schools, please do not take my impressions into consideration when weighing your choices. This is pure idle talk on an online forum. I wrote this on my iPhone. It's not career advice. Talk to people who would know better, and even then take any rumors with a grain of salt.
-
One of my letter writers told me that adcoms "don't give a s***" about your personal background/history unless it somehow relates to what you want to study. It's good to keep this in mind.
While I think there is some truth to this statement, I would hesitate to overgeneralize. I'm sure individual faculty vary widely in their consideration of personal background factors. For instance, UCSB requires a statement about what your personal experiences can contribute to the department and the field of sociology at large. I thought it was interesting that, rather than giving the option for a diversity statement, this program expected applicants to reflect on their background and experiences, as these are ultimately inextricable from our work as sociologists.
So, Supernovasky, I wouldn't be discouraged by the conventional wisdom that adcoms only care about career potential and not personal background. In fact, speaking only from my perspective, having done my UG at Brandeis and being very close with a few faculty there, I can say that Brandeis' department is of such a culture that your personal story might be very compelling, as long as you had the other qualifications to back it up. Which is not to say admission will be any less competitive. Rather, not all adcoms calculate according to the same metrics. I think Brandeis is such a place where you might be well received.
Any just by way of backing up my call to not overgeneralize the admissions process, check out this post as scatterplot.
Jeremy Freese (Northwestern) writes, "The single thing that has surprised me most about serving on evaluation/selection committees is the heterogeneity of criteria that individuals on committees have. There is a direct asymmetrical implication for how you should parse advice: when people talk about what matters to them and what they personally take into account, listen closely; when they talk about what doesn’t matter, regard any implication cautiously until it plainly aggregates." (emphasis original)
I thought that was some good insight. There is no accounting for taste, as it were, in the admissions process.
-
Anyone heard anything about interviews at Harvard this year? According to the results survey, it looks like interview invitations happened around this time last year.
Also, wannabeaphd, I see you've been accepted to Irvine. Congrats! Not sure if you already posted elsewhere in this or other threads, but when did you hear and from whom? That is, if you don't mind sharing.
-
Thanks SocSe17 for going behind enemy lines and getting that intel.
Fingers cross for everybody.
-
Thanks Gellert and lslavic for the awesome insider information! This thread is making me feel more comfortable with the idea of moving to Chapel Hill.
I'm visiting the university for an accepted student weekend in a few weeks. Aside from the food places you have mentioned (which are definitely the most important part of any city), are there any must- or should-see spots in Chapel Hill? I mean, historic neighborhoods, main drags, places where students congregate, music venues, bars, museums, etc. I will only be there for a couple of days and I expect most of that time will be filled with departmental events, but it would be cool to get some taste of the town.
Thanks!
-
I applied to UCSB and haven't heard anything heads or tails. So add one to the pile of "not hearing anything". Maybe our lucky friends who have been offered admissions are part of a first tier list. It's common for schools to have unofficial rounds of acceptance, bringing in people bit by bit as they're accepted. No need to give up just yet.
-
Interesting conversation. I would echo ScienceGirl's perspective: academia is a career, and a competitive one at that. In order to enter the career and make a living, you do need to approach it strategically. This is not to say that learning for learning's sake isn't a valuable part of that career. It's similar to professional sports in a way. Yes, major league baseball players got into their career out of a love of baseball. But if they weren't competitive on the market, they wouldn't be professional ball players. That being said, if you are like me, you would rather be at a bottom rung in a career you love than a middle-management job in a career you feel so-so about. Moreover, we can expect that almost any job that requires a PhD (think research analyst at think tank or consultancy) will still pay enough to live comfortably as a young professional, especially since many of us would otherwise be in the non-lucrative non-profit or public sectors. And if your program is funded, then you may be better off than those people paying $100K for a MPA/MPP or what have you. Now, if you're seriously thinking about personally financing your entire 6 year education... you can read plenty of Foulcault in debtors prison.
I would like to contribute to this conversation that, it seems to me, we are increasingly afforded opportunities to make a PhD in sociology more than just a PhD in sociology. That is, many schools have certificate and dual programs and other research fellowships and opportunities that allow grad students to diversify their professional portfolio. I work now in a multidisciplinary research center that offers (albeit, highly competitive) fellowships to late graduate students and early professional academics. This fellowship attracts people from all fields, and it allows them to make connections and do work that can be "spun off" into a career in academia outside of their field of training. Sociologists can be found working in communications departments, public administration programs, public health programs, management schools, and other social science departments. So even in academia, there is room for the sociologist who is willing to move a little outside the formal lines of the discipline. My goal is to do at least one extra-departmental thing during grad school, if I can. That could be a fellowship or visiting scholar position at a center or a certificate program from another department or school (e.g. area studies, like Latin American studies). I know this is going to be tough, but departments will often let you take a year leave at some point, as long as you can find funding elsewhere. Whether this makes more more likely to get a job, I can only speculate. But I would suspect that any extra flexibility during job hunting is a good thing. Anyone care to weigh in on this?
So, yes my plan is to follow the risky road toward academia. But whether I am a professor in a sociology department or in some other capacity is mostly immaterial to me. I don't need to be publishing in AJS/ASR to feel positive about my research.*
*Edit: Recognizing that if you are intent on finding a research job in academia, publishing in top journals is the only way to do it. I'm just saying I would be happy publishing in, say, a media studies journal if I were someday in a comm. department. But that's later career considerations.
-
msafiri, great response! I think you have brought up some good points, and I will try to deal with them all, but I'm at work so I may have to take a second look later on.
First off, offsetting "perfectly capable" in quotes does highlight what comes off as a condescending qualification. I apologize if that was the implication. I was trying to express the idea that people of color are both underrepresented in sociology AND assumed to study race or immigration, as you point out ("think that minorities in the discipline are there studying people like them"). I meant only to suggest that these conditions and stereotypes in our field constrict some sociologists from sorting themselves according to interest and skill AND shape hiring practices that reproduce these conditions. I'll expand on this thought in a moment, but first I'll share some anecdotes from my own experiences to set the stage for my response to your excellent questions:
Are you looking for reassurance that it's okay for you to study what you're studying? Or for us to say that you can code switch if you want to? (I have to admit, the code switching lost me but that's because 1) I do it fairly regularly* and 2) I have been friends with many Latin@s friends that "look white" and also do it and while people may have briefly looked askance [at them or me!] that didn't really become an obstacle of any sort.) Do you feel like someone else should be studying the topic or that people will think that it's weird for you and not someone else to be studying it or what?So anecdote number one comes from my field work in Bolivia. I was researching social movements, including urban poor, indigenous, and feminist organizations. Note that I fall into none of these categories (well, feminist but not a woman). As a white North American man who has taken every step (observed the standards of ethno. research, speaks Spanish, lived locally, wrote and distributed my results in Spanish, politically sympathetic) to reduce the social, economic, and cultural gap, I was still very aware of the fact that, at the end of the day, I had no shared experience with the people I was studying. I could take every step to build shared experiences: I've been tear gassed, drank, worked, danced, everything in common with my subjects, but the reality was that I never have been poor, indigenous, or a woman. These insurmountable differences mean that, at best, I can empathize or come close to understanding. As a scientist, it feels like studying gravity without having ever experienced falling on my ass. I can rationalize the experiences I study, but I can't intuit them.
The second anecdote comes from community organizing. I actually also come from a multilingual community, where I grew up and returned to after college to work as an organizer. The organization where I worked was an early pioneer in "black/brown" alliance building between the black community and Latino community. Nowadays, lots of young white people are moving in to the neighborhood and it's in vogue to volunteer with community organizations. So if you look at the racial breakdown of a community organization, it's approximately half people of color and half white allies. While white allies are always welcome and never looked at askance, as you say, the larger trend of gentrification is shifting the locus of control in the neighborhood organizations away from people of color to educated, white, young activists. Now, to locate myself in this situation: I am from this neighborhood, and I emphasize from to highlight that I was educated there, my parents work there, I know the "who's who" of neighborhood family networks and local politics. Nevertheless, I will always fall on the white ally side of the cultural divide in the community. And you're right that the divide between white allies and people of color is something of a false dichotomy that obscures diversity within any social group. BUT, although the Dominicans in my neighborhood are, in some ways, a world apart from the Haitians (for example), both communities understand that they are on one side of a binary and white people are on the other. Despite the fact that I am from the same place, speak Spanish, my heart is in the right place, I am always on the white side of the binary. (And by "white" I don't strictly mean skin color. As you correctly noted, there are white Latin@s who, in the US, are not "the same" as whites from Northern Europe. This is a nuanced difference, but we recognize it on the census and we recognize it culturally.) This mirrors a larger condition in the US, whereby the incredible diversity of racial and ethnic groups is subsumed by the reality of there being "white mainstream America" and everybody else. "Everybody else" is a conflation of hundreds of cultures and different groups, true, but when we get down to the politics of the matter, they attend the same underfunded schools and are subject to similar institutional racism in the the justice system and job market, so on and so forth. Obviously there is variation, but there is less variation within the amalgamated "people of color" category than there is across the white folks/folks of color divide (look at the incarceration rates for blacks, whites and Latino men for illustration). So this whole anecdote is the rationale behind my use of the term socially proximate. Let's not ignore that the binary exists, and that there exists a gulf between the two sides that is qualitatively different and greater than the real and meaningful differences among peoples of color in the US.
As a small anecdote in support of that argument, I often am amused by comparing my experiences with those of a close friend of mine who is biracial, half French-Canadian and half East African (both Hutu and Tutsi from Burundi, so his ethnicity crosses some significant divides). This friend of mine went to elite boarding schools in France and the US, got a BA from an elite private college, and is now in an elite private school for grad school. He's the son of a diplomat and has lived in cities around the world, usually in comfort. I already went into my background a bit, which is basically under-performing metropolitan public schools (and then by the grace of someone, a great private college). The funny thing is that my biracial friend, according to US racial definitions, falls on the black side of the binary. By choice or not, he's culturally accepted as a black man. For example, he can switch into a language code that, although I grew up surrounded by it, I can't use. And I'm totally fine with this, I just recognize that some part of his identity allows him more proximity to groups that I will always be an outsider too.
So, to answer your questions more directly. I am not looking for personal reassurance that it's "okay" for me to study what I'm interested in. I understand the problematics of my work, both as researcher and activist. I also would never suggest that someone else should study a particular group or subject because I presume they have some personal connection to it. So when you say "I may be "perfectly capable" of studying the group but that doesn't mean that I want to!", that is a position I understand and respect. I wasn't suggesting you (or anyone) should.
My concern is less personal I guess, but I just use myself as a case study. I think you touched on my concern here, "whites can study non-whites and do it in a sensitive way that doesn't reproduce colonial discourses and power dynamics." This raises an interesting epistemological dilemma, because my conscious efforts to not reproduce these power dynamics may inadvertently do just that, and I may never know because of my place in society. So if we accept that, like Foucault said, any discourse that occurs in a system of social control necessarily reproduces that system (through successive iterations of rationalization, for example), then I would propose a more radical, grassroots research that circumvents and subverts the inevitable power dynamic implicated by me (outsider) researching them (insiders). It's like the white activists moving into the poor neighborhood to organize: their hearts are in the right place by they are actually reproducing the same inequalities they hope to solve.
Phew, that was a lot. Like I said, I'm at the office at the moment, so don't have a chance to make this more concise and well formed. But It's a start! Also, good suggestions on readings. I am familiar with some of that work, but will try to check out the others. I think that mentioning Duneier is a good direction. You may have already seen his Sociological Methodology paper "How Not to Lie with Ethnography" http://www.asanet.or...s.cfm?size=2571
I think my problem is not about doing "good" ethnography, where I tell the truth and respect my subjects. The point of standards in ethnography is making as good as possible under certain conditions. My problem is with resolving those background conditions. Does studying someone on the other side of an unequal binary reinforce the binary? I'm just trying to think very critically about this stuff.
-
Politics of protest is a great book, and David Meyer would be an awesome adviser. I wouldn't think twice if you get an offer to Irvine, take it!
I agree! Actually, hard to say who would be a good advisor until I meet them. But regardless. I'm also a huge fan of Polletta and Snow, and the gang's all there! On the other hand, I have a "bird in hand" from a top program that's notably strong with social movements. The methodological fit is perhaps snugger at Irvine, but I'm open to work outside my comfort zone if it means a job down the line. We shall see come decision time.
Here's a question for you political sociologists: Methods? I know it's early to tell, but I think most people have a sense of what sorts of questions interest them and what sorts of methods might be used to tackle those questions. So what are your prefered methods? Any sweet mixed-methodologies out there?
-
A thread of our very own! Cool.
I'm a political sociology, movements, and political culture person. Research in the past has focused on movements and media systems. That's a direction I want to continue in grad school.
I applied to Harvard, UNC:CH, UT Austin, NYU, CUNY, UC Irvine, and UC Santa Barbara.
I'm really concerned about choosing between schools that accept me (assuming more than one scool accepts me, which could be assuming a lot
). As noted already, the top departments all have one or two very strong movement scholars. But, Irvine, which is not strictly speaking a top tier school, seems like social movement studies heaven! It's going to be very hard to make a decision between a top ranked school with a couple of great faculty, and a lower ranked school that's a social movements powerhouse. -
Wow, great advice Gellert. From what I've heard and read, Carrboro seems like the place for me. Although the downtown Durham sounds like just what I'm look for, I would hate to be inconvenienced by a commute. For a one bedroom apartment, $900 or $1000 is pretty amazing by Cambridge/Boston standards. Although, I will be on the grad student stipend situation, so definitely the $500/month option is attractive. Feel free to PM me as well if you want to know about this area. I have a pretty good sense for neighborhoods and transportation to most of the area schools.
-
Thanks for the tips Gellert. You're clearly very familiar with the area.
I google mapped and street viewed the places you mentioned, and my impression is that these look all look very suburban (even rural in the case of Westwood Dr. area). Is this the norm for the area? I realize, though, that these neighborhoods are right near the university. I've only ever lived smack the middle or just outside of cities my whole life, so perhaps this is just what southern towns look like. I have no idea, I've never really been to the south.
I also google street viewed abit around (what I assume to be) central Carrboro and saw similar results. What are the most densly populated residential/commercial neighborhoods where students might live?
Again, I appreciate your input. It's so hard doing this blind, and craigslist is unusually poor for Chapel Hill.
-
OK! Trying to restart the Raleigh/Durham/Chapel Hill thread for this year!
There is a possibility I will be in Chapel Hill for a while, and I would like to find a place where I can lay some roots. I'm from New England, and have always taken great pleasure in apartments that feel warm, welcoming, and lived in and have a bit of character (if a little run-down). It's a bias of mine, but when I live in large apartment complexes, I feel more like a bee in a hive. So, I dug through this thread and found a little useful guidance.
Here's some relevant advice I dug up from this thread in 2010:
Quote"Any other suggestions for apartment hunting web sites besides craigslist? It is totally dominated by realtors and condo complexes. I'm looking for just a regular old apartment, say in a two family house in Carrboro. Does that type of housing exist down in NC? I live in Mass now and that 's the type of housing I'm used to."
The Triangle doesn't have the apartment houses or tenaments that are common in New England. It's also super annoying that craigslist in Raleigh doesn't have subtopics for each of the three cities. And don't get me started on the fact that the leasing agents have overrun the site. They've got to be 90% of the posters.
I would search for Carrboro duplex.
So this is a very useful to me, but I want to know more. I too am looking for an apartment, preferably a converted house, duplex, loft, whatever. Hopefully not a condo or apartment complex. I would also like a little population density, be close to the action and other humans. And I know this is the height of snobbery, but I put value in architectural aesthetic. So anything with even remotely historical character (i.e. not vinyl siding, wall-to-wall carpets, and linoleum) is a huge huge plus. Also, I don't currently have a car, and I would be overjoyed if I found myself in neighborhood where walking/biking/buses were sufficient and normal for reaching UNC. So, am I dreaming or would such a magical accommodation exist in the Chapel Hill area? Any advice?
-
Ultimately, I think it comes down to this: no one gives anyone the right to study anyone... it's a privilege. And you have to be aware of that. It's something you (whether you are white, black, brown or whatever) have to earn, and once you've earned it you have to take care of.
Well said. I guess the privilege to study others is tied up in white privilege in general, and that could perhaps be resolved if white privilege in academia is confronted.
-
Maximus82, thanks for your thoughtful response.
If I'm "making it seem like Latin@s should only be represented in the profession so they can study themselves," then I should rephrase my question, because that was not my intention.
My question is more about the power dynamic of insider/outsider. For instance, I lived in a Latino community in the States for most of my life. Although I speak Spanish, I would never speak to strangers in Spanish (as in, ordering food, asking for help at the library, asking directions, etc.) unless invited. My concern was that my learned code switching was invasive in a community that had language as a common bond.
If research is, on the one hand, telling a story and, on the other hand, understanding the twists in that story's plot (i.e. causes, effects, variables), then there is a power dynamic involved in an outsider telling the story of insiders. I think this issue of power becomes even more problematic when there are perfectly capable sociologists who are more socially proximate to the object of study, and (the figurative) I barge my way in nonetheless.
I think it's a question of "rights", broadly defined. That is, who gave me the right to study you? That's a question I often ask myself. I think when the me and the you come from very different places, then the researcher needs to tread lightly.
-
Thanks for bringing this topic up, socieconomist. I think your observation that Latin@s (and people of color in general) are underrepresented in the profession is accurate, at least in my impression.
For the sake of conversation, I have a question for the OP and any other Latin@, Latin American, or other posters who care to weigh in. I am white and have an academic background in Latin American and Latino Studies. I also lived in Latin America for a while, speak Spanish, and grew up in a largely Latino neighborhood here in the States (where I also worked as a community organizer, tutor, counselor, etc.). That's all by way of saying that I'm neither Latin@ or Latin American nor am I totally stuck in the Ivory Tower. On the one hand, I am very interested in sociology of the Latin@ community and of Latin America. On the other hand, I have persistent doubts about how appropriate it is to study these communities as an outsider. That is, what are the ethical issues around being a white person studying Latin@s at the same time when Latin@s are underrepresented in our profession? I think the cultural divide is more pronounced because of my interest in ethnography, rather than larger n quant studies where the researcher is perhaps more removed from the subjects.
Also, I recognize the irony of the white guy hijacking the thread about Latin@ sociologists...
-
Hello~
I am in the process of applying to Brown for a PhD, to start in 2012. We are going to relocate our family (me, husband, two small kids) to New England this fall. It looks like my husband is going to find work north of Boston, along Rt. 128. Since the schools are good there as well, we'll probably end up living in the Burlington/Bedford/Winchester area. How much of a hassle is it to commute from Boston to Providence/Brown? If that's what I have to do, then I will, but we can always look for housing closer to RI. Interested in your thoughts! Thanks~
Boston is about 50 miles north of Providence. Driving is a straight shot down Rt. 128/95.* Rush hour traffic can be tough going in and out of Boston, but the advantage to 128/95 is that you sort of skirt the metro area. So you probably won't find yourself sitting in rush hour for hours, but just having to deal with traffic trying to get onto Rt. 93, 90, and 2 in order to get into the city. Then traffic can be bad getting into Providence, but not so bad compared to bigger cities. If you're living just north of Boston, I would say it's a 75 minute drive without traffic from door to door. I used to live in Waltham, and it would take me maybe 55 minutes with light traffic.
The other option is to take the commuter rail. You can get on the Providence/Stoughton line of the MBTA Commuter rail at its Rt. 128 station, which is off the highway in, I think, Needham. By this method, you would drive to the Rt. 128 station (which is just off Rt. 12/95 maybe 10 miles south of Boston), park for the day, and take a train in to downtown Providence. From the train station in Providence, it's about a 15 minute walk to any part of Brown's campus (uphill). The train from the Rt. 128 station to Providence takes about 45 minutes.
*Edit: Actually, if you were to live in Boston proper or its immediate environs, then you would probably take Rts. 93 or 90, or some other route, to get onto 128/95. If you live west or northwest of Boston, then you're more likely to be right off 128/95.
-
And another open question:
How many of you applicants out there mentioned methods at all in your statements of purpose? As I understand it, those of with a social science background were probably never required to take a very rigorous methods course at the undergraduate level. I know I wasn't. And why should we, if we'll end up taking 3 semesters of stats in grad school anyway?*
So, did you mention methods in your statement of purpose? Did you intimate methodological inclinations? Did you find it necessary to take an outside stats class prior to applying to "beef" up your transcript?
*Edit: I recognize that stats and methods are not one in the same, and cannot always be conflated. But let's assume that stats is one of the predominant analytical tools that sociologists use for a variety of methods (e.g. surveys).
UC's
in Sociology Forum
Posted
You have a wise friend. I definitely played it safe, but my first acceptence was from a top-5 school that I thought I had NO chance at whatsoever. Now feeling that maybe I underestimated myself, I wish I had applied to a few more top programs just to have the geographic and funding flexibility. At the same time, I was rejected at a top-15 school where I thought I had a good shot. It goes to show (for those future applicants out there), don't sell yourself short and apply widely if you can afford it and have the time. I really didn't have enough of either and actually missed an application deadline (gasp!) because I got it mixed up with another program.
I actually bulked my applications in the rank 25-30 range, including UCI and UCSB. Still no word from either!