gilmoregirl1010

This is my mini Aussie. We live in an apartment, so we make lots of trips to the local dog park, but he's a big reason why I've been able to get through my Master's program. I definitely think dogs are great emotional therapy, if you're in a position to take care of them

This is my mini Aussie. We live in an apartment, so we make lots of trips to the local dog park, but he's a big reason why I've been able to get through my Master's program. I definitely think dogs are great emotional therapy, if you're in a position to take care of them

This is my mini Aussie. We live in an apartment, so we make lots of trips to the local dog park, but he's a big reason why I've been able to get through my Master's program. I definitely think dogs are great emotional therapy, if you're in a position to take care of them

@FertMigMort, thank you so much for the advise!

I have a few questions regarding how to address people in the SOP.
Should I name specific people who have influenced my research interests if I have only read their work and they are not at the institution I am addressing? Or would it be better to only refer to broarder theoretical and substantive subfields in which these people work?
  For those researchers I have worked with, what is the best way to address them in the SOP? By this I mean: Dr. Firstname Lastname, Dr. Lastname, Lastname (current institution), Dr. Lastname (alma mater ’97), etc...
  For those at the university I would like to work with: How many should I name (I've heard a ~10% of faculty rule of thumb)?  How would I introduce them? Should I simply write a list in a sentence, or should I state the specific areas where our interests align, or should I hope my SOP is written so that connection is obvious?

Obviously biased, but Notre Dame is where it's at. Check out http://csrs.nd.edu http://cssm.nd.edu (new website coming soon for that) and http://mobilizingideas.wordpress.com/   The best thing (coming from someone with religious movements as my focus) is that there are a lot of faculty and a lot of grad students that will share interests in religion with you.  We have weekly workshops for culture, movements, education, and religion that allows peer to peer support. It is a very collaborative environment. People present drafts, paper ideas, r&r's, etc. at these workshops and the professors and students who attend read the paper and offer constructive feedback. It's a great place to be, plus you can really get plugged in fast with the department.
 
So, long story short, if you're interested in religion check out ND - especially if you also have any interests in culture, family, education, social movements, or social networks.

I'm not FertMigMort, but I would suggest that you apply early to waive the fees and then email the graduate coordinator in the programs with an updated CV at the application deadline.
 
You can list the papers in an "under review" section and even include the journal titles if you'd like (although anyone can submit to top journals and these might change if you get decisions back and decide to send elsewhere).

Well, as far as I'm concerned, my husband plans on doing almost all of the childcare work, and would prefer to be a stay-at-home Dad if we can swing it financially. So I know it would be incredibly frustrating for me to be discriminated against by faculty members who assume I have a different work/home arrangement than I do based on gender stereotypes, rather than judging my case individually and going from there. If my work actually does end up suffering after I have kids, then that's one thing, but to assume that that's going to happen up front and discriminate against me accordingly seems incredibly unfair, especially since men generally don't experience similar discrimination when they become fathers . I'm sure many women would agree with me.

Well, as far as I'm concerned, my husband plans on doing almost all of the childcare work, and would prefer to be a stay-at-home Dad if we can swing it financially. So I know it would be incredibly frustrating for me to be discriminated against by faculty members who assume I have a different work/home arrangement than I do based on gender stereotypes, rather than judging my case individually and going from there. If my work actually does end up suffering after I have kids, then that's one thing, but to assume that that's going to happen up front and discriminate against me accordingly seems incredibly unfair, especially since men generally don't experience similar discrimination when they become fathers . I'm sure many women would agree with me.

Saw this on Facebook: Male academics explaining things to female graduate students.

http://mansplained.tumblr.com/, especially this one: http://mansplained.tumblr.com/post/33844650167/dont-get-pregnant

One of our professors (a new mother and a recent PhD) also told us that the best time to have children was in graduate school. I'm not sure how that would work out for me (if I did, it'd probably be almost at the end of my program).

Three women in my program are pregnant or recently gave birth. Another entered the program with two children. I talked with one of them for this thread and I think they're all generally happy with how my program has treated them, the support they've gotten from the department, and all feel this was the right time at the right school, etc. even though this university is probably in the stingier half of the top twenty-five when it comes to OB/GYN insurance coverage (no doula coverage for example) and childcare (weak, to say the least). If you were to look at schools based only on the paper benefits, my school would probably be one that's crossed off (it probably also has a higher proportion of white men than most sociology departments). Nevertheless, my colleague seemed confident that childcare stuff alone wouldn't be sufficent reason not to apply here.

This is obviously your decision, and a very personal one, but one thing you could do is, at school's you're not sure about (not the Princetons or the UT-Austins), ask the DGS* if they could put you in contact with any students with children so you could get the inside scoop, or, wait until after you're accepted places and deal with the issue around visiting day by actually talking to the graduate students (assuming you manage multiple offers--this strategy would mean applying more broadly). I remember on my visiting day, there was a woman with a baby in tow--she definitely wanted everyone to know that she was part of a package deal; she told me explicitly she wanted to see how all the professors would react to her bringing a child with her to meetings. There is probably a difference with how school are on paper, and how individual programs are in reality. While my school is stingy, I think my program is understanding, and I'd bet there are at least one or two places that are the reverse.

Also, unrelatedly, @mbrown, private top twenty schools do not have graduate student unions to the best of my knowledge. There have been multiple attempts (at Yale, NYU, Penn, Brown, etc.) but they've failed in part because a 2004 NLRB ruling (which came after a successful 2000 ruling; the party in charge changed, the NLRB changed). Cornell (and one other place, I think) had a pre-2004 unionization vote that met a well-organized, student initiated anti-union campaign, and NYU and Yale's unionization attempts met heavy resistance from the administration (NYU, which had to recognize it's union in 2002 and got to unrecognize it in or around 2004, I think. I believe it also changed the way it pays its TAs so they wouldn't be able to form an effective grad student union; they get paid the same as the adjuncts, if I remember correctly). However, in the past decade, I believe most of the unions demands (and more) have been given to elite private university TA's. EDIT: Besides collective bargaining rights, of course.

*Actually, maybe this is something that contacting a random graduate student might be good for, rather than the DGS. Whoever you'd feel more comfortable asking. I'd expect most schools have at least one or two students who've had children in graduate school. Just write a "Hey, I know this is random but I'm thinking of applying--could you put me in touch with one or two of the graduate students in the department with kids? k thx."

"You have been told to go grubbing in the library, thereby accumulating a mass of notes and liberal coating of grime. You have been told to choose problems wherever you can find musty stacks of routine records based on trivial schedules prepared by tired bureaucrats and filled out by reluctant applicants for fussy do-gooders or indifferent clerks. This is called 'getting your hands dirty in real research.' Those who counsel you are wise and honorable; the reasons they offer are of great value. But one more thing is needful: first hand observation. Go and sit in the lounges of the luxury hotels and on the doorsteps of flophouses; sit on the Gold Coast settees and the slum shakedowns; sit in Orchestra Hall and in the Star and Garter burlesk [sic]. In short, gentlemen, go get the seat of your pants dirty in real research."

(An unpublished statement made by Robert Park, recorded by Howard Becker while a graduate student in the 1920's, and first published in McKinney, Constructive Typology and Social Theory, 1966:71. Park, for those of you don't know, was probably the most important figure in establishing the Chicago School and therefore, by extension, American sociology).

I did want to make one more comment about admissions/rejections:

Judging by a lot of the comments I've seen throughout this site, I'm not sure that enough emphasis gets put on fit for a program. I spoke to a lot of grad students and profs who had sat on admissions committees before I started applying, and what they emphasized over and over again is that they're not just looking for the "best students"-- they're looking for students who will do well at their program and who are likely to actually accept their offer. I've had profs tell me they've rejected totally qualified applicants because they said in their application they wanted to study topic X, but no one in the department researched topic X, so they knew the student wasn't going to get good mentorship and turned them down.

I've also heard over and over again from grad students that people often get rejected from schools they consider "safety schools" because they were just mismatched, either in terms of research interests or looking "overqualified". I talked to one grad student at Harvard who told me he had been rejected from every school he applied to (something like 10), except Harvard.

Anyway, I just wanted to make the point that being rejected from a school doesn't mean you weren't good enough as a student or a scholar. It often means that either the program didn't fit you well, or that you didn't articulate that fit fully enough in your application.

And frankly, it most often just means pure dumb luck. Some of the best advice I got was from an incredibly cynical Professor in my department who had just finished a season on the admissions committee, and that's that the process is incredibly arbitrary. Different professors have completely different ideas of what is most important in looking at an applicant. Some are most impressed by the numbers, and totally distrust the authenticity of SOP and LOR. Others just want to see a minimum with numbers and then carefully read each SOP. I've heard one professor say that they completely distrust any student who says in their SOP that they want to work with him, since most undergraduates don't really understand his approach (I mean, wtf? Who would know that?!). The same cynical prof concluded that most faculty are just looking for people who remind them of themselves. So at the end of the day, who ends up on an admissions committee in any given year can change the outcome.

This doesn't mean that things are completely out of your hands, or that there's no pattern among those who generally get in and generally don't. It's just that admissions committees typically have to decide between large numbers of equally qualified students, and ultimately the difference between an admit and a reject can be somewhat arbitrary. So of course you should do the best you can, of course being competitive on as many metrics as you can will help you, BUT not getting in doesn't necessarily mean something is wrong with you or your record.

Anyway. Sorry for the rant. That went on longer than I thought it would...

I think all acceptances should delivered by owl's, just like Hogwarts

I know this is going to make me sound like Aesop's fox in the vineyard, but not only was that good advice for any program, but it also is making my probable rejection much more palatable. So thank you, and I will keep that in mind when I reapply to PhD programs in two years

I read a really apropos quote today that I just want to share with you all (especially those of you who've been rejected)...

"I discovered that rejections are not altogether a bad thing. They teach a writer to rely on his own judgement and say in his heart of hearts, 'To hell with you.'"

-Saul Bellow

I think I would look closely at the letters of recommendation. If the student has developed relationships with their letter writers, that will show, and that will suggest that the student is serious about academics and has been thinking about grad school for a while, rather than just applying because it's senior year and they don't have any other options. It's also a way to get a perspective on that student from a professional in your field that understands the position you're in as an adcomm member. It's more personal than a test score or the GPA, but it's also probably less biased than the student's statement of purpose.

And, like everyone else has said, I probably wouldn't put too much emphasis on the GRE.

I'll do as best I can to avoid wading into a minefield here--but were I to raise a daughter, I would not wish for her to feel that she must sexualize herself at all times for the titillation of male peers. There is something to be said about ensuring that women are not penalized disproportionately relative to men for "dressing down" on certain occasions since "dressing down" (i.e. dressing for comfort) seems to violate certain expectations about how women are supposed to present themselves.

If there is pressure on women to doll themselves up, I would try to relieve that pressure (assuring women that it's OK do dress for comfort) rather than exert similar pressure on men to dress to impress.

Bottom line--we can't enforce these sorts of double standards where it's less reprehensible for a man to dress down than for a woman to dress down. If women and men dress as they like within reason (and without having to respond to gender-based expectations), chances are we will all be happy and get along.

In a broad sense, it's probably best to reserve our judgments of others as much as possible. So even if I choose to apply cologne most days, I won't impose that expectation on any other man, and I certainly won't expect a woman to apply perfume just because she's a woman and must look professional, lest I suffer the terrible fate of meeting a woman without makeup. That's one plausible step towards equality, I guess.

"Hmm, yes, such intriguing conversation on Progressive-era reforms - why, excuse me class, but I seem to have dropped my monocle!"

I'm de-lurking to wholeheartedly endorse this comment!

Don't groups of penguins always push one penguin into the water first to "check" for killer whales?

We need something like that...

Grad students with significant others are much more likely to finish grad school than those without...

I find it strange how you assume that only those in grad school could understand hard work or long hours. My boyfriend certainly works hard and works long hours at his job. We're both advancing our careers and are able to support each other through it. It's really nice to be able to come home when you're really stressed out and don't have a lot of time and dinner is cooked, dishes are done and laundry is washed and folded.

whenever this thread is updated, my heart pounds

A pamphlet, you say?

Presenting!

a preview!

Front side
Back side

Bow ties are cool. Like Fezes.

A huge Nutella and a spoon.

Until I choke to death.

That is all.