SDeviation

Agreed, mkurti098. I would like to think that demonstrated social research experience would be a better indicator of success in a research-oriented degree than test scores, but that appears to be rather minatory in comparison. In addition, as slothy correctly noted, it is unlikely it comes down to simply my scores (though I imagine it is a large part of it). However, I do not mean to discount all the amazing individuals on this board who worked their ever-loving @$$es off to get top scores - they well deserve their admissions and I wish them the best of luck. I say go for it, mkurti098. $60 is nothing in the long run, and for all you know it could be the best $60 you ever spent. I for one will be rooting for you!

I don't meant to hijack the thread from the OP but that is a very thoughtful analysis, slothy, and I appreciate it. I am somewhat tethered to the Chicago area as 1. I'm a homeowner with wife/child and 2. I have rather ill parents who I would really not like to be all that far from. Otherwise, to be perfectly honest, I probably would have applied to a PhD program strictly in demography (such as Cornell) though lord-knows if my quantitative scores would have been up to snuff (despite being very quantitative in both my "academic" and "applied" research). In hindsight, Madison might have been a good idea to apply to as I know they are fairly active in population studies. I suppose we shall see for next year. Now, partially as a result of my applications, I am mainly wrestling with whether it would be prudent to leave a very lucrative career given the state of the economy. Time will tell.

I know exactly how you feel. My GREs were pretty bad (probably around the same, maybe a bit less) even after taking the test a few times - my mind just does not work how that test wants it to work (I did get 5.5 on the AW). However, I have 3 years of stellar FT research experience in the foremost applied social research company in the world, 4 presentations at major conferences (ASA and PAA), 2 publications under review, one book under way with a former professor on data work flow, excellent letters, an MA in sociology with a perfect GPA, exstensive technological training (SAS, GIS, FORTRAN), lots of teaching experience inlcuding a world-wide webinar on SAS programing, and I work as a data and analytic consultant for a prominent cultural research firm here in Chicago (also multiple honor societies, scholarly affiliations, etc.). The results of my applications? One rejected (Northwestern), one wait-list (UIC), and 2 probable incoming rejections (Chicago, UMichigan Ann Arbor). It could be a fit issue (all except UMichigan as I am a demographer by trade), but it is really frusterating how important those damn numbers are.

To more directly answer your question - read everyone else's paper and have some questions prepared if you want to actively participate, and be prepared to give a 10-15 minute "overview" of your paper. Again, informal is fine - explain the paper as you would to a fellow student or colleague. No PowerPoints, no handouts, just the highlights.

I presented at both a roundtable and a regular session (Disaster) last year. The roundtable is really no sweat. Typically the session organizer will group topics and you will have the email address of all individuals at your table. In my experience, everyone simply emailed each other their papers as really the session is so short if anyone is going to provide meaningful feedback they should have the paper read prior (though I got the impression a few individuals couldn't be bothered to read the other papers at the table). Also, a lot of people will probably drop out of your table (as they may have only been budgeted by their department/work for an actual presentation). My table had two full-fledged PhD, two doctoral students, and one MA student (me). The session organizer was parked at our table the whole time, which was neat. So in other words, relax, it is a generally low-key and enjoyable experience.