RefurbedScientist
-
Posts
239 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by RefurbedScientist
-
-
I want to gauge the sentiments of the board about the extent of status effects on sociology applicants/grad students/job seekers according to their research methods.
I think the ideal answer is that different methods are equally valuable depending on the research question. I suspect the real answer is that the professional culture of sociology displays a preference for quantitative methods (stats at least. More advanced mathematical methods are perhaps another issue).
What are your opinions? Is there a bias against purely qualitative methods (e.g. ethnography) in sociology? Are these papers less likely to be published in top journals? Should applicants be discouraged from highlighting "qualitative" research interests during the admissions process?
I am expecting that responses may look like, "Qualitative methods are fine for lower-tier programs, but rare in the upper echelons." Am I wrong?
-
Thanks for the replies. There seems to be a consensus then (though not the consensus I was hoping for).
Ok, I guess I have to shell out another $10 for every application just so schools can see I got an A in Intro to Salsa (and I don't mean the programming language).
-
Yes, so far we've got lots of overlap. But we're perhaps not representative of the whole population of people applying. Perhaps we are. Hard to say.
My interests are political sociology, social movements, and political culture.
-
"I assume that most people have submitted their apps."
Uh oh.
My list is:
CUNY
NYU
Harvard
UNC
UCSB
UT Austin
UC Irvine
When I write them all out like that, I can't help but think "I'm so screwed"
But that's no way to think.
Good luck!!
-
I did not submit transcripts from my semester abroad to programs yet. All the applications say indicate grades from every school attended, but I selectively ignored those instructions.
What are others doing about study abroad transcripts?
-
I see two approaches here and I think you've intimated at both of them. One is the professional route and the other is the academic route.
Within the professional route there are myriad options for professional degrees. There is the IR/defense studies track, which will probably come in the form of an MA in Security Studies or an MPP or MA in foreign affairs or international relations [e.g. http://cpass.georgetown.edu/]. There is also the conflict resolution track, which will also be an MA in International Conflict Resolution or an MPP [e.g. http://www.american.edu/sis/]. These may not seem so different in name, but the cultures, values, and methods of the departments vary widely. If you're interested in strategic defense studies, then you would probably be unhappy at a conflict resolution program, and vice versa. So research those closely, particularly what sorts of jobs graduates go on to take.
The other route, the academic (rather than professional) route, has a few tracks also. If you're interested in sociology of the military, I would look at University of Maryland's sociology department. They expressly focus on military sociology, and you have access to the policy/defense players in D.C. On the other hand, there is the sociology of violence and terrorism (try Jeff Goodwin at NYU or Charlie Kurzman at UNC). On yet a third hand (you don't have three hands?), there is peace studies. Look at the Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies at Notre Dame, which offers degrees and even has a dual PhD with the sociology department [http://kroc.nd.edu/].
Keep in mind that I am not enrolled in any of these programs, and my impressions are based on an undergrad background in peace studies and a good deal of research into grad programs for my own purposes, not to mention a fair amount of bias. I'm personally interested in the sociology of war, insofar as understanding it can end it.
Here's a scattered list of other programs that represent how diverse the options are:
NYU Global Affairs
Brandeis Coexistence Studies
UC San Diego School for Peace Studies
Any of the DC Schools (GW, American, Georgetown)
-
As an outsider, I can't say for certain, but I would guess that BC's religious affiliate in no way bears on its sociology doctoral program, except perhaps that BC Sociology has something of an activist bent and Jesuit schools tend to claim some "social justice" ethos, at least superficially. However, I doubt that BC Sociology's activist culture and the Catholicism of the school are in any way related.
Judging by my impression of BC faculty, I doubt that they feel compelled to abide by the larger institutions religious affiliations.
-
And my parameters for choosing programs are 1) at least two faculty who fit my (rather specific) research interests and 2)geographically located south of the Arctic Circle (in other words, not the midwest powerhouses).
Because my programs are spread out in terms of ranking, I feel confident that if I get rejected from 8 programs, then I would probably be rejected from 12 or 14 too. That is to say, I need improve my application for next year, not just apply to a greater quantity of programs. Maybe I am misled in this assumption.
-
I am applying to 8 schools. They are pretty much evenly distributed between the 5 to 30 range (two in top 5, three in top 20, three in 25-30). I have a strong fit with all of these (I hope) except for one of the top-20 range programs which is huge and accepts large cohorts, but the faculty covers such breadth I think any student could find a home there. I don't really think of any of these as a safety, which is disconcerting, but I have, after much self-deliberation, not decided to apply to schools ranked in the 30-50 range despite some good fits, including at my alma mater.
@avee, as per your question about medical sociology programs and recognizing that there is (supposedly*) no such thing as a safety, I would suggest checking out Brandeis and UCSF. Brandeis sociology has close ties with the Heller School for Social Policy, and both have health policy and medical foci. I know nothing about UCSF, except that they have the medical center and their sociology program actually runs out of the School of Nursing. The front page of UCSF Sociology website reads "The areas of concentration which are available are: 1)aging, chronic illness, disability; 2) health policy; 3) science, technology, and medicine studies; and 4) race, class, gender and health." I hope that helps.
*Edit: I added supposedly parenthetically because I think if you are a good fit and have a strong profile, you are more likely to get into a less competitive program than a more competitive program. In that sense, rankings do matter in the application process. That is not to say there are any sure things. Brandeis and UCSF are ranked in the 40-50 range, but are both recognized for their respective specializations. In other words, if you end up applying for a faculty position that calls for "medical sociologist", then Brandeis or UCSF may prepare you as well as higher ranked programs. That is pure speculation, by the way.
-
I've tried to reach out to one professor in each program, which is not to say I'm only interested in one. I just don't have time to send very personalized emails to 3 professors at each school. My ostensible objective was to ask if they would mind if I mentioned their name in my statement of purpose. My ulterior motive is of course to ingratiate myself in case the admissions committee comes asking questions.
What are your views on mentioning specific professors in your statement of purpose without first being touch with them?
-
Hello to the board,
I have my list of programs pretty much tied up, but my conscience is nagging. My interests are, generally speaking, political sociology, social change, and social movements. I'm currently applying to all of the "obvious choices" for those topics, but I have decided not to apply to Pitt, simply because it is ranked below my profile's "punching weight," or so I like to believe. USNWR has Pitt at 54.
From trolling this board, I have gleaned the advice that one should not apply to a program one has no intention of attending and rank is decisive in the hiring process. At the same time, people in the know recognize Pitt as having a highly notable faculty, at least for its contingent of social movement scholars, and that having a well-connected advisor can take you far if you produce quality work. At the same time, Pitt's placement record does not seem to be too stellar, at least from my neophyte perspective.
Does anyone care to weigh in on Pitt, its faculty, the quality of its training, or the marketability of its graduates?
-
That's another good tip rising_star. Although most advice on this board strongly recommends "think like a research, not a teacher," I think that you're getting at a good way to capture the "feeling" of one discipline or another.
Unfortunately, Supplicant, none of the programs I am interested in have Soc/Anth rolled up into one, unless you can recommend some good ones for social movements/ political sociology.
Here's a question I posted on the anthropology board:
Is it in bad form to apply to two departments, say soc. and anth., at the same school? I've seen, one some program's websites, that it's explicitly prohibited. I've seen more that don't mention it. Does it reflect badly on an applicant? Are there exceptions?
-
I think those are both good pieces of advice, thanks.
@m41: That's a good approach and works well generally, except for some instances where more than one of my "dream professors" are at the same school, but in different departments. I've read elsewhere on this board that it's in bad form to apply to two separate programs in the same school at the same time. The best example in my case would be NYU, which has some rocking social movement people in sociology and anth, plus I'm really digging the anth/media certificate program offered. The other issue is just burdening my recommendation writers to make two copies of my letters, one saying "xxx will make a great sociologist because..." and another for anthropology. I know that's more of a minor etiquette issue, though.
Can anyone confirm my impression that it's discouraged to apply to two departments at the same school? Am I way off base? Is this a non-issue or a big faux pas?
-
Does anyone have experience or an impression of applying to NYU's Graduate School of Arts and Sciences (GSAS)? Who reads your SOP, GSAS or the department you are applying to?
I'm having an "intended audience" dilemma. My SOP is directed at an audience of sociologists who are familiar with the work of their colleagues, departmental working groups, research centers, etc. I go into detail about my great fit with specific faculty and some specific working groups or projects in the department.
But if my SOP is being read by GSAS administrators, and not a departmental ad. comm., then I think some of that space could be better used hyping up other aspects of my application that are more general (e.g. TA and RA work, grants, conference presentations) and less specific to my field/subfield (e.g. how my understanding of a subfield topic matured through successive research projects and brought me to want to work with X professor).
Does anyone have any experience writing an SOP for NYU's GSAS? I know I can get in touch with somebody at NYU, but I thought I would investigate here first and get a third party perspective.
Thanks!
-
Great advice, rising_star. I've never actually seriously considered geography programs, although my thesis advisor was trained as a geographer (and now works in political science of Latin America and Southeast Asia). I guess it's been out of ignorance that I overlooked these programs.
Nice tip on Wolford. I found that she now works at Cornell's Soc. of Development program. Still, UNC has some interesting geographers. The only geography I've ever read, I think, is Edward Soja's Seeking Spatial Justice. He's at UCLA. The book combines some social movement stuff (LA bus drivers' union) and concepts of space and power.
I get the impression, especially from the Wolford example, that one can ultimately end up working in a department based more on the work you produce as a professional and less on your graduate training. I'm just worried about pigeon-holing myself.
I will keep looking into geography, but this doesn't get me much closer to deciding what discipline I fit best with. Any one else want to weigh in? Sociology, anthropology, or, now, geography?
-
Hi all,
This is a cross-post from the sociology forum. I have a question about the disciplinary differences between sociology and anthropology in the study of social movements. Briefly, my research interests are social movements, especially when considered in reference to culture, politics, symbolic meaning. I need the perspective of anth. students. Any advice is welcome!
My background (BA) is in political science and I've done original research on social movements in Chile and Bolivia. I know I want to study social movements as a professional academic and I know my methods will be qualitative (ethnography, participant obs, interviews). The question is, sociology or anthropology?
I know this is the sort of thing I should have figured out by now, as I am well on my way to applying to sociology programs this Fall (taken the GREs, drafted my SOP, identified POIs, spreadsheet of all my programs). I have a pretty good background in canonical sociology and social movement literature from coursework, research, and self-education. There are a number of professors at several soc. departments who interest me. But the more I casually investigate anthropology programs, the more I see some professors doing exciting work at the intersection of social movements, culture, semiotics, etc., which is where I locate my own research interests precisely. So in each discipline, there are professors with whom I could see myself working. Hence my dilemma.
Pros and Cons:
The pros for sociology include my extant comprehension of the literature, and that I would be sharing a department with sociologists of gender, stratification, economics, culture, race, etc.; all topics in which I am conversant and interested. The con is, as I see it, an apparent methodological bias toward quant methods at many departments and my weakness in that area.
The pros for anthropology include the relative heterodoxy of theory and methods, higher esteem/seriousness for ethnographic research, and less of an admissions emphasis on quant. reasoning GRE (on which I scored a mediocre 670). The cons are my absolute lack of background in anth literature (besides theorists common to the social sciences) and that I will be studying in the same department as people doing, for example, forensic anth and archeology, areas that I am not into. Not that I have any antipathy for these areas, but I might feel more out of place in the department/discipline over the long-run if I don't share interests with my colleagues.
More about my interests: contentious politics, power and social change, Latin America, urban space, symbolic meaning, media and culture. Overall strong admissions profile, so consider this question on the basis of fit.
So, social movement scholars, am I destined for sociology or anthropology?
-
Hello to the board,
I apologize in advance for a long post, but I have a question about the best best disciplinary fit for a student of social movements interested in movement culture and using qualitative methods. Read on if you have any advice.
My background (BA) is in political science and I've done original research on social movements in Chile and Bolivia. I know I want to study social movements as a professional academic and I know my methods will be qualitative (ethnography, participant obs, interviews). The question is, sociology or anthropology?
I know this is the sort of thing I should have figured out by now, as I am well on my way to applying to sociology programs this Fall (taken the GREs, drafted my SOP, identified POIs, spreadsheet of all my programs). I have a pretty good background in canonical sociology and social movement literature from coursework, research, and self-education. There are a number of professors at several soc. departments who interest me. But the more I casually investigate anthropology programs, the more I see some professors doing exciting work at the intersection of social movements, culture, semiotics, etc., which is where I locate my own research interests precisely. So in each discipline, there are professors with whom I could see myself working. Hence my dilemma.
Pros and Cons:
The pros for sociology include my extant comprehension of the literature, and that I would be sharing a department with sociologists of gender, stratification, economics, culture, race, etc.; all topics in which I am conversant and interested. The con is, as I see it, an apparent methodological bias toward quant methods at many departments and my weakness in that area.
The pros for anthropology include the relative heterodoxy of theory and methods, higher esteem/seriousness for ethnographic research, and less of an admissions emphasis on quant. reasoning GRE (on which I scored a mediocre 670). The cons are my absolute lack of background in anth literature (besides theorists common to the social sciences) and that I will be studying in the same department as people doing, for example, forensic anth and archeology, areas that I am not into. Not that I have any antipathy for these areas, but I might feel more out of place in the department/discipline over the long-run if I don't share interests with my colleagues.
More about my interests: contentious politics, power and social change, Latin America, urban space, symbolic meaning, media and culture. Overall strong admissions profile, so consider this question on the basis of fit.
So, social movement scholars, am I destined for sociology or anthropology?
-
Thank you Far to Go for your thoughtful response. Thanks especially for the note on surveying current students. I think the metrics you mention are the same that I have been relying on, but it looks like I'll have to do some more intensive research into each and every program that catches my fancy in order to create a personalized ranking (rather than using USNWR as a framework/crutch). At the moment, it's hard for me to know which programs to stay away from (because of low retention, inferior training, bad placement records) and which to reach for (the consistently reputable programs that guarantee good placement at R1 or equivalent). Like I said, I'm all about finding the right research fit and advisor, but ideally within a department that can "return on my investment," so to speak.
To answer your question, anthropologygeek, my area would be sociocultural, probably ethnographic methods, and geographically Latin America (though not exclusively, just habitually). More specifically, my work to date has dealt with marginalized social movements (e.g. indigenous, landless, anarchist, youth, feminist, urban poor), and their use of and interaction with repertoires of actions, symbols, and space. So that could take into account media, framing, symbolic interactionism, semiotics, urban space, etc. Do you think I have a place in anthropology (that someday leads to a TT academic job)?
-
Hey all,
I'm just beginning initial research into anthropology programs. While I understand and agree with the criticisms of any so-called objective ranking system (read: no need to reiterate these criticisms here), I am also well aware that program esteem is a high determinant of job placement in academia. I have been operating under the assumption that I would be applying to sociology programs (when my time came), and therefore relied on a matrix of ranking (per USNWR and NRC) and faculty fit to my research interests. For example, if a program isn't ranked in USNews' top 50, then there's no way I'm applying, regardless of strong research fit with the faculty. Likewise, there's no point in applying to the top 15 programs on USNews with no concern for fit. I think that line of reasoning is common among many applying to sociology programs, at least.
Now that I've discovered some anthropologists doing more-or-less exactly the kind of work I want to do, I've started researching anthro programs. I've found that USNWR doesn't rank anthropology programs (unless I'm missing something) and the NRC has notoriously flawed methodology, at least according to some.
So, as someone who, again, fully recognizes the limitations of any linear ranking system (especially in such a broad field), but nonetheless is compelled to make realist calculations about job placement, I must ask how do you applicants rank programs? Do you go by NRC rankings? Is there some other system I am unfamiliar with? Is it purely a game of finding the perfect advisor? Is there any hierarchy among programs even within research areas (e.g. ranking of programs with sociocultural emphasis)? Do you look at placement records of programs with which you have strong fit? Is there a shadow ranking system?
Thanks for any and all insight. Again, these questions are coming from an anthropology neophyte, so forgive any obvious oversights. If it helps, my research interests are social movements, urban space and culture, alternative media, participatory democracy, transnational global social justice movement, Latin America. Thanks!
-
Hey All,
Great advice. It seems there is consensus that "fit" with one or more profs in the department is paramount. As I develop my spreadsheet on potential POIs at each school, a question occurrs to me. I would appreciate the board's input. Put simply, what constitutes "fit"? Do I need to be interested in researching exactly what a POI already does, in the same region/era and with the same methods? If it helps, allow me to elaborate on my question.
Generally speaking, I see three categories into which a professor's research interests can be lumped. The three categories refer to substantive, theoretical, and methodological areas. For example (drawing on Doug McAdam's work), a researcher may use some surveys or interviews (method) to typify individuals' decisions to join the American Civil Rights movement in the early 60s (substantive), perhaps confirming claims of the political process theory (theoretical). Obviously this is a simplification of social research and does not apply universally, but it helps me mentally organize the many many sociologists out there, so bear with me.
As I identify professors with whom I see myself working, how closely should we fit? That is to say, if I really fit with a department's methodological strength (say ethnology) but not so much with the substantive topics of individual profs (especially regional/historical areas), does that constitute good or bad fit?
Take me for example. I am interested in social movement/ community organizations and how they interact with their urban environment, specifically in Latin America. All of my research to date has fallen under this interest (two conference papers and a documentary), but I understand changing interests during graduate school is common and appropriate.
There are any number of strong departments with profs in social movements, organizations, and urban sociology, but few combine these areas with the regional focus on Latin America. Is it appropriate to consider a professor who deals with social movements a potential POI even if she/he does not have any interest in the geographical region that sources my case studies?
I hope this rather specific question makes sense. And thanks to all the posters for their great advice!
Peace.
-
So, there's a distinct possibility that my husband will attend Brown and I will attend Harvard at the same time. Does anyone know the feasibility of doing so? I hear the commute from Cambridge to Providence is 45 min to an hour. Is that right? Is there a good place to live in the middle of the two? Where would you suggest putting up residence, keeping in mind convenience, cost, the neighborhood, etc.? How good/reliable would the public transport be between the two campuses? We have a car, but would probably want to us public transit for the commute. Any other input? Thanks for anything!
I did my UG in Boston (Waltham, actually) and grew up in Providence. I live in Providence now.
The commute is absolutely possible. One might even say easy, depending on what you're used to. Cambridge is approx. 50 miles north of Providence. At normal times, the drive can be as short as 45 minutes. During rush hour, it can be as bad as an hour and a half (or worse if there is weather/construction). Luckily, the Boston/Providence "rush hour" window is shorter in duration than, say, NY or LA. From Providence, you can take I-95 North to either the Mass Pike or Rt. 2 East. The Mass Pike (MA 90) will take you straight to Harvard Sq., but there's a toll. Rt. 2 is definitely more indirect, and will take dump you at the Alewife Station (closer to Tufts in Medford/Somerville). The reverse is true from Cambridge to Providence.
As for public transportation, the MBTA runs a Commuter Rail from South Station in Boston to the Providence Station. $7.75 one way, but you can buy monthly passes that will save you a little. The trip is between an hour and 70 minutes with frequent stops. From South Station, there is a 15 minute T (subway) ride to Harvard Sq. From the Providence Station to Brown, the easiest thing to do is walk. Though there are buses and trollies that serve Brown, the train station is only a 10-15 minute walk from the heart of campus. Biking is also an option. So from either direction, you're looking at 75 to 90 minute commute via public transportation.
Some people also do a mix, where they drive to the RT 128 stop on the MBTA Commuter Rail line, park for the day, and then take the train in.
As for living, it depends mostly on your preference. The Boston area is obviously bigger, with more to offer. Plus, public trans make a car mostly obsolete. Affordable and nice areas to live include anywhere on the Cambridge/Somerville/Medford line (Porter and Davis squares). You'll need to start looking early if you want to get a place that won't be shared. I have friends who pay $1800/mo* for 3bdr in Porter Sq, and that's a steal. But, of course, they share it. Brighton is also worth considering. In Providence, most Brunonians live on the East Side near campus. You can find a slew of price variation here, but in general, Providence is more affordable than Boston for equal/better quality apartments. My girlfriend and I pay $800/mo for a large 1 bedroom apartment with large separate kitchen and living rooms. There are also a number of other neighborhoods that cater to students, including the West End/Armory district, which is currently undergoing a mild gentrification and has become home to many Brown graduate students. Providence is obviously smaller than Boston, but it has a lot to offer; food, above all, is our forte. Cafes and bars are abundant. And Providence is home to 7 colleges and universities (including RISD), so there is a lot of opportunity to do things. Work is scarce, however, if that matters to you. Your best bet is working through Brown, obviously.
In between Providence and Cambridge? I suppose it depends on your taste. There aren't really any cute New England towns tucked in between the two cities, mostly strip malls and football stadiums. The only place I can think of that is sort of in the middle is Attleboro, which has some nice areas and culture, but is overall very suburban. Closer to Boston you have Quincy, which is contiguous to the city's southern neighborhoods but maybe 20 minutes away from downtown by T. That might cut your commute to Providence a bit more than if you were living right in Cambridge.
OK, long post. I could go on. Hope that helps!
*Edit: mixed up the price. It is, in fact, $1800/mo
Methods bias in sociology
in Sociology Forum
Posted
You guessed it. That orgtheory discussion was my motivation. I wanted to diversify the opinions though, as the orgtheory bloggers (as they admit) are skewed toward top-tier programs (in their training and current employment).
I think that faculty and sciencegirl's posts are spot on.
But faculty raises an interesting point: "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."
So is it wiser to represent oneself as a "multi-methods" researcher, even if one's true intention is qualitative work? Are there exceptions? Most of my statements of purpose have been submitted, so perhaps I shouldn't dwell, but my inclination has been to liberally mention that all of my previous research has involved participant observation. My hope (maybe unfounded) has been that the "I know my sh**" impression will shine through my penchant for qualitative research.
Maybe I will eat my words, but I would rather portray myself as a rigorous qualitative researcher than a "satisficing" statistician.