maximus82

1. buy yourself a GRE guide, study for 1-2 hours every day for the next 6-8 weeks, and take the exam. Depending on how you do, decide if you want to take it again or not. 1.a. if you must, take it again. while GREs aren't everything, they're important. It is probably the first or second thing that a committee looks for in an application. 2. Worry about the things you can improve. 2.a. You can't change where you go to school. So make the best of it. I went to a SLAC that no one outside of Maryland has heard of. But I think my letters made a huge difference. Make connections with three people who are going to be able to write about you, not just as a student, but as a researcher in training. 2.b. work on that writing sample. I think what you have actually sounds kind of interesting. I don't think the committees look for new ideas... they look for good research, even if the idea isn't exactly new. Make sure it is excellent... show it to as many people as you can. if you get a chance, present it at a small regional conference. 2.c. try to get some more research experience before you graduate. 3. dont let the GRE get in the way of doing what you really want to do (if this is really what you want to do).... almost every gets anxiety about taking ... that's what the test is supposed to do. it's not designed to test your math ability, it's designed to test your ability to work under a ridiculous amount of pressure. Finally, Im curious. why Emory? I would suggest that you look at other schools... If you really want to get a PhD, there are many other places you could apply to. I recently served on an admissions committee, so feel free to send me a private message if you have any questions.

I would highly recommend looking at Northwestern's Soc Program. Gary Alan Fine and Wendy Griswold have both studied art. Two graduate students recently published a paper in Poetics on the Turner Prize, and there's are several student studying soc of art.

I think it doesn't matter if you've published in something that isn't related to your field of interest. The important thing about the publication, at least when you are applying to graduate school, is that you know how to publish. So the what really matters here is that you've published and that you've organized a panel, both of which are things you'll have to do during your graduate career to succeed as an academic.

Most top 10 programs are hiring top 3 or top 5 graduates. I'd say that most new hires at top 10 schools are coming from schools like Berkeley, Princeton, Michigan, University of Chicago, etc. I think you should consider the following factors when deciding what makes a good program (in no particular order): Fit collaborations between faculty and grad students avg time to graduation placement of recent grads Graduate student culture money ultimately, remember that the best (and most productive) graduate student is a happy graduate student... so i think all of these things. regarding money: yes. money matters. DO NOT go to a PhD program unless you get good funding. Even at schools with good funding, people are graduating with debt. and worrying about money when you also have to worry about research, the job market, etc. is a pain.

This isn't my area of interest, but I've heard that both UPenn and Penn State have really good demography programs.

Stipends are taxed for most people as far as I know. How they are taxed depends on the nature of the stipend. for example, I know fellowships are taxed one way, and TA/RA stipends are usually taxed another way. either way, expect to be taxed as if you were at a job that pays the same amount of money.

I would add to questions that I think everyone should ask during their visit: 1. What's the average number of years it takes someone to complete their degree? 2. How often do people drop out and for what reasons? Also, for whoever said that they are worried about visiting their only acceptance.. don't worry, even if you had a bunch of acceptances, you'll still feel like they made a mistake during (at least) you first year.

Northwestern waitlists people every single year. They also do the clusters things, so if you applied for a cluster it might have something to do with that. good luck!

I'm in Chicago but not at the University of Chicago... I'm at Northwestern. And no, I don't know Bruce Cunnings, I'll have to check him out. and nice chat.. we could go on forever, but now I have to go do work now! but just so you know, semantics and power are connected!

I'm really surprised by your willingness to accept things as they are. I'm South American, but I did my udnergrad in the US and I'm currently getting my PhD in the US. So I'm aware of what you're saying... when people say America, 99% of the time they are speaking about the United States. That doesn't mean it isn't exclusionary. America is not a country. Passports don't say "Citizen of America". And there is a history to this appropriation of the term, it didn't just happen. Just like there is a history of the United States expanding and taking territory away from other countries. I don't have anything against the people who use this word, I just think it is one of those things that need to be challenged. Just out of curiosity, are you trying to get into Sociology departments?

that sucks! maybe you're faster than the system?? I really hope you get good news.. Northwestern is an awesome place to be!

Not to be too sociological about it, but continents (especially the divisions between the Americas) are social constructions... there isn't anything separating north from central from south. Just like there isn't anything separating Europe form Asia. But the point is, how would the rest of Europeans feel if France one day decided that they are Europeans and everyone else has to add a prefix to their europeaness? Ruben Blades, an singer, lawyer, and activist from Panana has talked about this... maybe you need to travel south of the border.

Sleepycat, I didn't exclude south america. I am south american and that's where part of my frustration with this issue comes from. And I didn't mean it as a personal thing, it's just something that I like to point out so people stop using the term. But you are very right. America means South, Central, and North America. The funny thing is that in some parts of the world they teach you that those are subcontinents and that the continent is the whole thing. Regarding education, I don't see myself as an educator yet. One day i hope to be more than just a researcher and hopefully teach. and when I do, I will try my best to fight inequalities based on race, income, etc. And in a way the research I do also fights those sources of inequality. Regarding research as a form of education... of course. Im not saying it isn't. But don't you want the best teachers teaching? I'm not saying there aren't inequalities in the system, and I'll be the first one to admit them (try getting into a top 10 program when you've been to a community college for example, it's almost impossible)... this isn't a perfect system and we should do our best to improve it... but the "perfect system" is still a stratified one. And I'm not trying to get a PhD to be better THAN others... I'm doing it because It's what i want to do it, but i also recognize that doing it puts me in a position of privilege. and DustSNK, i don't argue with people who say pop instead of soda, but I do tell people to say human rather than man, or chairperson rather than chairman, etc... there's a power dynamic going on here, and while I understand that a lot of pet peeves can be pointless, I don't think this on is. (sorry for the bold typeface, I have no idea what happened).

2 things. 1. Canada is in America. If we are so concerned about systems of inequality, we should think about our use of language and take back the word America for what it is... a continent, not a country. 2. everyone I've spoken to, every conference I've ever been to, and every book I've read about sociology says the same thing: publications are the #1 factor determining job placement. We could just say "well, everyone should just try to publish and then the system would be fair". the problem is, people at top 20 schools usually have more resources which means more time, less taing, etc etc, which results in less complications when it comes to publsihing. Who your mentor is is also important for this, because good mentors are usually very generous in terms of co-authoring and sharing data, etc. At the same time, school prestige is also important. So people do look at where you get your degree, although not as much as they look at your publications and your letters of recommendation. The problem with this entire discussion is that academia is a system that is supposed to be stratified, because it is based on skill, motivation, and talent, and we can't expect everyone to have the same level of these things. Otherwise everyone would be able to get a PhD and it would be completely pointless. Now, regarding the argument that people were having earlier about nonstratified societies and whether or not education should be egalitarian is not the point. tegalitarian societies don't have university systems that promote research, and what we do is not education... at least not in the k-12 or even undergraduate kind of way. We can argue whether or not k-12 and college should be completely egalitarian (and I'll probably agree with that so people have equal access to the job market etc)... but this is academia, this is like playing a professional sport vs. being in the little league in your neighborhood.

Why did you do this? You're comparing two different groups of people that's why you get such odd ratios.

If you background influences your research directly (for example, your family converted to a new religion and thus you are interested in religious converts, which is sort of what happened to me), then I think it is okay. I agree with the idea that research is more important than background in this case.

I was waitlisted at Indiana 3 years ago. I know the feeling. If it makes you feel any better, Indiana is way more selective than most people realize... probably under 5% acceptance rate. so you should feel good about your chances in other places.

just out of curiosity, what's the funding offer? When I applied there it was a little bit better than most schools (except maybe for Yale, which as far as I know has the best funding for Soc)

or two or three

this is kind of funny.. why did you apply there if you didn't think it was such a good fit? also, make sure you don't stalk faculty at the schools you've applied to. There's a fine line between being proactive (which I think most graduate programs value) and being a needy stalker.

I think it's kind of cute how people think that graduate school is about doing research an the life of the mind and being an intellectual... it isn't. Yes you get to do this things, but i would say that's only 20% (and that's being optimistic) of what you do. you also have to teach (many times classes you don't even like) and you have to RA for projects you don't care about and you have to take classes you don't give a crap about.

Super. Taking some time off between undergrad and graduate school is not a bad idea. I'm in a program where they only people who feel like they didn't do it right are the people who came straight out of undergrad. and as for improving your application, if you really think you can't improve it anymore, then be realistic and apply to places where you have a chance. I know, it would be nice if we could all get into a top 20 school, but you have to understand that there are literally hundreds of people applying to these programs... with acceptance rates of about 5%, you really have to do something to stand out. And, unlike undegrad admissions, no one really cares about your extra curriculars. what matters is your GRE, your GPA, your statement of purpose, and your research experience.

Super, I would strongly advice you against going to an unfunded MA program. First of all, it's a lot of money. And more important, when you do get accepted to a PhD program, you'll have to start from scratch. Most programs will let you get out of maybe a stats class and one or two electives, but that's it. I really don't think it is worth it. If I my ask you directly, what's the rush? If you really want to do this, why don't you wait another year and improve your application so that you can get into the school that is best for you?

Hi Super, I think it is too late. there is a reason there are deadlines. Most schools are already well in the process of reviewing applications and some of them have already made decisions. it wouldn't be fair with all the other applicants, and I honestly think it would hurt you. I know you are probably freaking out right now because you got one reception. I was there a few years ago. What you have to do is wait. Wait until you've heard from all the schools. If you get an acceptance, awesome. If you don't, then its not the end of the world. From what you've been posting in other threads it seems to me like you applied to a few school without even knowing if they were a good fit or not. Take the next year to research your schools, take some time to study and improve your gre scores. take some time to write the best personal statement you can write. If you want you can also apply to MA programs and get some extra experience. I hope that helps.

What are your interests?