SocHope

I agree that a lot of what is written above would apply to sociology as well. The only thing I would somewhat disagree with is that PhD has no added value outside of academia. I think there are a lot of research organizations and think tanks that expect their researchers to have a PhD. The only exception would be folks who have years and years of field and research experience. A PhD can sometimes be a (semi) fast track to a senior-level research/policy position outside of academia for sociology graduates.

No, you're right. There haven't been a lot of details, but I think the consensus is that this would apply beginning with loans taken out in 2012. Double right re: "Ugh, loans."

It is so... But that just sort of drives home the rule of thumb - don't go into a PhD program unless you are fully funded.

I've been hoping to hear back from them! Congrats, Felicidad!

And just an FYI, if you are struggling to make the minimum payments on your student loan, most lenders offer some sort of hardship/forbearance service to help lower your minimum payment or extend your repayment period. I'm not sure if it was here or in another post, but I'm fairly certain the federal government has discontinued paying interest on federal loans for graduate students who are in school in favor of maintaining undergraduate aid. I sympathize with having to retake the GRE (I squeaked by on my last year of valid scores), but 2 years out of school is not a lot, in my opinion.

Depends too on what career path you plan to pursue, and what job prospects are like. In sociology, the prestige of an institution is often related to graduate placements (for those pursuing academia). It's a tough decision. You might talk to an advisor or other professor and get their thoughts. They might have some inside knowledge that could help.

Princeton, UPenn, PSU, and Cal are the only 4 universities in the US that offer articulated joint doctorates in sociology and demography. That doesn't necessarily mean they're the best for social demography, but I think it shows a level of commitment to integrating the two fields that will ultimately benefit the student. That's why 4/5 of the places I applied to are those schools. I considered UNC-CH and Duke, but based on (admittedly not very in-depth) web research, it seemed as if support for population studies at those two schools have diminished in the past several years. UM-AA is also very well-regarded in the area of demography, but again, I felt I wanted to pursue programs where that interdisciplinary aspect was very well-defined. Besides, why not get two PhDs for the price of one? I considered Stanford, but I honestly did not feel they were very strong in the area of migration.

In my experience, all departments want to be able to claim interdisciplinary approaches as a key "innovative" thing they do, so I don't think coming from a non-soc background is an automatic black mark. But I do think your SoP should show why/how you plan to approach soc using what you've learned from other fields. The quant skill set is great, but I don't think it's enough if you don't have a clear sociological research goal.

I think that's a great suggestion. There are a lot of large research organizations, like AIR, RTI, RAND that have field offices. You might also be surprised at the number of think tanks, large and small, at which you can do solid research work. Play up your quantitative skills - especially if you know statistical packages. That's your almost guaranteed in to a research org. Not only will that strengthen your application for a next round (if that's what you end up doing), it'll also give you a realistic take on applied research. I might be assuming too much here, but it seems to me as if you just want to get in SOMEwhere. In that case, I think flexibility in what you want to pursue in terms of research interests is more important. Don't apply to places where there's ONE faculty doing what you want to do - make sure you seem appealing to multiple faculty. I don't think getting an MA is necessary (what's more, it's likely to put you into more debt) - more research experience would probably get you just as far.

Any of the CSUs that have graduate level soc programs would probably not be terribly difficult to get into.

I got my first admit today and treated myself to two rings (as in jewelry) for a grand total of.....drumroll please....$23.

I applied to the joint program at UCB, and at PSU as well. If you recall, the PSU joint-application process was a little fuzzy, so I'm not sure if it registered with them that that was my intent, but during the phone call, it was mentioned in general terms. I think technically I've only been extended an offer via the soc dept. at PSU, not demography. Still exciting though! And thanks everyone - we'll all have plenty more good news to share soon!

PSU is me. Confirmed acceptance by phone over the weekend! PM for more details if you want.

I don't think being offered an unfunded MA is uncommon. U Chicago often refers sociology docotoral applicants to a masters in social sciences. People on this forum have said that those who opt for the masters program often have great success in applying to doctoral programs after.

Or the Principality of Sealand, which is smaller than the apartment building I live in. Oh, and also populated by crazies...NOT unlike my previous building.

@Palito - OH-EM-GEE, srsly? Soooo excited, like you wouldn't believe! @Hahlj - your point is well-taken, especially as someone with a MA and professional research experience. My comments were less about the quality of the interaction a person has with his/her letter writers, and more the quality of the letter itself. I mean, without having read a letter, you don't really know how it's going to come across in writing. Someone could be a great professor, and totally on your side, and just really suck at writing letters of rec for whatever reason. And I've heard stories from professors about reading terrible or mediocre letters of rec - at least SOME of those applicants would probably be surprised by that.

Ok, I'm just going to not worry about UCLA. I won't worry, but I'll be annoyed because they had an early deadline and by the looks of it, a fairly late notification date. Booo! Booo-urns! And I think people tend to share things like GRE scores, GPA, etc. because they're generally comparable across a bunch of people (such as those of us posting here), and because, let's face it, most adcoms probably DO weed out initial applications on those criteria. There's probably a little bit of that high school "What did you get on the test?" going on too. I personally never minded telling others my grades, because if it was good, I could gloat ( ), and if it was bad, well, it was bad. No shame in that. What I've always wondered about are the people who say with perfect confidence that they're getting stellar letters of recommendation. I mean, how many people are actually seeing their letters beforehand? I've asked for a lot of letters of rec in my time, and on only two occassions have the writers actually shared the letter with me. Well, 2.5, because one had me draft the letter first. And I've always lived by the "waive my rights to read" rule. So, how do these people know they're getting awesome letters? Maybe the writer thinks it's awesome, but it comes across as sort of a backhanded compliment. Like "Joe Cool was one of the best students I had in my class because he almost never had any questions." or "Suzy Student is very lovely and friendly. She did fairly well in my class." You just never know, unless you see it, what a letter writer says or how that comes across to adcoms right? What if professors have a secret "between the lines" code that they're initiated into when they get a tenure-track position? A list of adjectives and phrases that seem ok, but have a hidden connotation known only to the initiated e.g., "Proactive" = will stalk you outside of your office hours and on your personal email. I feel like calling up the graduate/admissions administrator and asking, "But did they LIKE like me, or just like me? Tell me EXACTLY what they said and how they said it."

Well, this is steering the topic in a completely different direction, but for those of you who applied to UCLA, did you ever get a confirmation from the department (as opposed to general grad office) that your application was complete? I was reading the department FAQ and they said they would let applicants know by early January whether the application was complete, and I just realized I only ever got an email from the graduate office saying my application had been submitted. At this point, I don't want to falsely reassure myself that, yeah, the department would totally contact me if my application was incomplete. I'll email or call them but wanted first to see if I should actually be concerned.

Augh...now I wish I had applied there just so I could hear something back! But I guess news will be filtering in within the next 2-3 weeks, which isn't TERRIBLE. Like waiting for 2-3 episodes of Downton Abbey on Masterpiece...

I kind of wish grad apps had a "live" status bar like the Domino's Pizza website. So it would say Prof. So-and-so reviewing! Prof. Such-and-such second review! etc. Except for some reason, no matter what Domino's I order from, it's always some guy named Zack making my pizza.

Haha, it's not really a big duh. Just that all the programs except UCLA offer joint degrees in demography as well. But definitely cool you picked up on immigration! That's one of my main research interests.

Berkeley UCLA Penn State UPenn Princeton After much agonizing and back and forth, took UNC, UM Ann Arbor, and Duke off my list. Briefly considered UT Austin as well. Can anyone tell what all but one of the programs I applied to have in common? If so, you can probably guess my research interests. EDIT: Woohoo, got us to 3 pages!

I'm interested in the same things! Besides UCB's joint Sociology/Demography program, I'm also applying to UPenn, Penn State, and Princeton, the other 3 schools with similar joint programs. I also considered Duke, UNC Chapel Hill, UT Austin, UM Ann Arbor because of their strong population studies research centers. I've heard Brown is also very strong in demography, but didn't research them very much - don't think there's much going on there in migration. We have similar GRE scores - you have a slightly higher quant, and slightly lower verbal than me. I wouldn't stress the statistics bit too much - you have other applied research experience which should speak to your ability to understand and conduct research. Anyone can learn the by-the-book stuff - you just need to know how to apply it to your research. My two cents anyway! Good luck!

Just to add my two cents - there are lots of think tank, research firms, etc. that will gladly hire someone with a MA in sociology and with solid research skills - think Brookings, AIR, RAND, Urban Institute, etc. Like other posters, I suggest you stick it out. Use the opportunity to take classes you wouldn't otherwise have taken if you were bent on getting a doctoral degree - audit language classes, check out other disciplines etc. Bone up on your statistical programming skills if you really want an edge in the job market after you finish. And like an encouraging professor once told me - don't worry, you have plenty of time to figure out what you want to do!

Check UC Irvine for social networks. http://www.sociology.uci.edu/soc_research_clusters_networks