surefire

Hi there Arcadian, Warm greetings into Soc-land! You don't really mention the purpose of your inquiries, are we just chalking this up to discipline-curiosity? These are good questions, and I'll prod at a couple of them. Hopefully others will chime in! 1. I think you're right to be wary of the dichotomy danger, but at the risk of kicking a hornet nest, I'd say that the short answer is "yes, we're a 'lefty' discipline". There are ongoing "advocacy versus objectivity" tensions of the discipline, and the discussion shifts depending on the field's orientation towards/role in public policy, social movements and the state. Stephen Turner put out an interesting "American Sociology" book lately that dissects some of the tensions (he also co-authored the delightfully-titled "The impossible science", which is worth a read). Both of these emphasize an American Sociology - to complicate things, there are regional/geographic divisions regarding the field, in addition to political ones; foundational sociology largely emerges from Europe and comes to prominence via American "pockets" like the Chicago school, and yet I myself sort of work in the realm of Canadian Sociology, which has its own identity issues. Anyway, it is glib to say that we're a "lefty" discipline, but there also are few distinct counter-examples. There is some conservative (but not republican) thinking with regards to the importance of social norms and order (and one might cite one of our foundational thinkers, Durkheim, as such, given his sometimes optimism regarding the role of the state and its capacity to maintain order). But contemporary examples? Maybe Robert Nisbett (Berkeley) or Edward Shils (Chicago), but they're both deceased. 2. As alluded to above, there are multiple points of fragmentation in the discipline from which you could formulate a case that a unified theory of sociology isn't possible. As a grad student, when I go to job talks and the like, I've come to recognize someone's reference to a unified theory of the discipline as an opportunity to sit back, grab popcorn, and watch the faculty fur fly. Maybe someone else on GC has had a different experience? Sociology has some not-totally-agreed-upon-but-nonetheless-present consistent fundamentals: the "holy trinity" theorists are Durkheim, Weber and Marx, and there are methods and stats courses that sort of encourage standardized application. However, the fragmentation does a couple of things: (1) it reflects, again, the shifting relationship with the state which goes through political "phases" of utilizing and then admonishing experts, (2) it permits the emergence and priority of not only distinct and contentious scholarship, but scholars from traditionally-excluded gendered/racialized/classed perspectives, (3) there is some unity via sub-field concentration (I work in crime and deviance, there are multiple other areas), (4) it encourages a "sociology of anything", which some people get defensive about, but I've seen this result in some innovative and playful scholarship. 3. Methods tend to fall on a qualitative or quantitative divide (though there are ample mixed-methods approaches that are fruitful). Some qualitative ones include interviewing and ethnography and some quantitative ones can rely on statistical analysis of a wide swath of different data sets (survey, census, demo, crime rates). 4. On epistemological-type questions, I find that classic sociological theory lines up with philosophy fairly frequently. At their most interesting, I find the connection engaging as it poses important questions about what we can "know" and "say" about groups and individuals. At their most aggravating, there can be fairly grating squabbles. 5. I don't feel at all equipped to answer this one! 6. Oh yeah, for sure. One of my faves, Howard S. Becker, is still kicking and productively publishing. This thread might be a good one for this question: 7. As alluded to above, there are complexities here regarding distinct impressions of the field's purpose (advocacy vs. objectivity) as well as political trends. For my own concentration, there is a lot of talk of a rehabilitative age of punishment where experts from fields like sociology were actively sought out to craft and comment upon public policy and then a shift in the 80s towards an era of punitiveness where the prevailing political attitude was that rehabilitation didn't work and things like "three strikes" measures came to the fore. Again, one shift doesn't neatly replace the other (it's not like rehab measures have been eradicated), but that hopefully gives a sense of the trend. I couldn't commit to comment on other concentrations, but I know there was a distinct "anti-expert" atmosphere during the political decline of the welfare state. And now, public sociology seems to be much more prominent and I actually commented recently that public policy hires are more en vogue. These are just my general impressions though. I know many sociologists that go on to have active roles beyond academia, but these are often advocacy-type things for NGOs (like, lots of people in my concentration work with the John Howard Society) or research institutes. I know a few who work for state-esque structures like StatsCan, but I couldn't really comment on their absorption or otherwise into strictly political system work. More often, I see them maintain "outsider" roles that maintain a healthy skepticism of the state and status quo (I've seen multiple sociologists recruited by media and otherwise to comment on the recent events in Ferguson, for example). 8. I get into this a little bit above. So, maybe more "outsider" than "radical", though you could easily search for and find examples of radical sociologists. HTH!

Hi there! I'm in a Sociology department at U of Toronto in Canada, in a Crime/Law/Deviance specialization. This program has a very healthy Crime/Law/Deviance concentration (ample faculty/TA posts, research opportunities/faculty/classes), but I became aware of that by doing research on the specific dept. of Soc while applying, I didn't consult a list or anything. If someone has a list, I'd be interested in seeing it, but I don't know of one myself... I'm less intimately familiar with the concentration strengths of American schools, but I can offer some thoughts... - When you say you want something similar to Penn's program, do you mean you want a department that flies under some kind of dual Soc/Crim banner? I know of a few of those in Canada (Windsor and St. Mary's) and the States (Florida and Delaware) but I'm not sure about the veracity of the programs or their offerings (I'm pretty sure that St. Mary's only does MAs, for example). I think that there are things to think about though, when picking either a Soc department, a Crim department, or some kind of dual-department. I mean, you want to go where your research interests will flourish, but you also want to consider your discipline-orientation (are your methodological/theoretical orientations sociological or interdisciplinary?), and rank. - There are also good programs that don't strictly swing under the Soc banner, the Crim., Law and Society program at UCI springs to mind... - Again, I can't think of a program concentration list, but there are ways that you can find out which Soc-esque programs with Crime/Deviance concentrations are participating in the international discourse by being attentive to the ASA sections. Here's the link for the Crime, Law and Deviance section: http://www.asanet.org/sectioncld/information.cfm - Beyond that, I would recommend talking to people about who is "known" for the strength of this concentration and looking up different Soc programs to see who claims it as a concentration AND has active faculty and comprehensive exams therein. - There are some cool ranking systems to help guide you, though these are sometimes contentious in the GC (and they focus on US schools only which kind of irritates me). ------------> Here's the Crim list: http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-humanities-schools/criminology-rankings ------------> And here's the Soc one (which, frustratingly, lets you search for specialties within Soc, but Crime isn't one of them!): http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-humanities-schools/sociology-rankings?int=990708 Hopefully some of that is helpful!

I'm experiencing something sort of like this with regard to "stipend clawback" with a SSHRC. So, since I've secured the award, my minimum stipend from the program is now off the table and I'm "externally-funded" now. My situation is non-negotiable, but there's several distinctions between my case and yours: - My award covers my tuition AND provides money to live off of. But, I'm also in-province and in a social science PhD - if you're out of province AND in a pricey MA (maybe a professional one?) than your costs might be quite a bit different from mine. - The "clawback" is a departmental decision (the fact that the arrangement in your program is dependent upon/determined by your SUPERVISOR is an unfamiliar dynamic to me). - There are ample TA-ships available in my department to supplement. I think that fuzzy makes a good point that you should have a go at negotiating. Before you approach your supervisor though, I'd encourage you to do a few things: - Talk to your departmental/program's administrative person to gauge whether or not they're aware of a situation where someone successfully negotiated this. Such arrangements will have come to their attention, and this is a "low stakes" conversation where you can do the recon to establish some precedent (which would aid your negotiation with your supervisor). If this has NEVER EVER happened, you could ask this person what students in your position typically DO in order to supplement/get through. - If you're at a Canadian institute with a Union, you should get acquainted with your collective agreement and then, maybe, a union rep or steward. Your union might have either (1) funds to defray costs or (2) info on how one goes about securing TA posts from other programs and departments, where possible (even if you can't get a TA thing, there may be other avenues for work that at least pay you well for your time, such as invigilating undergrad exams, which you can mostly do regardless of your departmental/program orientation). Also, you don't mention any RA prospects, but perhaps that's another avenue that could be pursued? - Again, I'm not sure if this is a professional MA or what, but if it's possible, you could talk to PhD students or former students who did your MA program and find out what they did. HTH! Good luck!

Thank you both very much for your thoughtful responses on this! Much appreciated! It is helpful to know that my impression of the benefits of a comp in a "fundamental" area are not misplaced. It is also helpful to hear that it is not out of the question to over-rule my supervisor, potentially, on this decision or to (gasp!) let my interests be my guide here. Thinking about the comp as an iterative process that will continue to be (re)negotiated after it's completed makes the decision feel less dire; that is, the notion that I'm not locked-in to a proscribed route upon taking it - I can utilize and frame it in ways that make sense for my own academic trajectory - is comforting and empowering. This all helps to plot some recon. I've been talking to those in my cohort who are struggling with similar decisions, but from here, I might seek out some ABD colleagues to find out how they have bolstered/framed their comps in their own academic narrative as they work towards completing their dissertations and start to approach the job market. And, of course, I'll permit myself the luxury of some thoughtful self-reflection and what would benefit my research while reviewing the reading lists, without the preoccupation of "what's trendy". Thanks again!

Essential to a short SOP: making it EASY for the adcomm to see why you're applying for (1) THIS field (less necessary when you're entrenched and applying for a PhD, more important for MA applications, especially for diverse programs like the ones you're looking at); (2) THIS institution; (3) THIS department/program. You've likely run across the advice that the SOP is for establishing "fit". "Fit" means (1) What you're bringing to the table and (2) what resources you'll draw upon to thrive and finish. So show them that there's fit by discussing what you've got that they'll be interested in, and what resources they've got that you'll utilize. This should be about your interest/intent/capacity and their faculty/specializations/resources. You could highlight one or two things from the CV to show that you know what's attractive to them, but I wouldn't really recommend re-hashing the CV. Instead, do the translation work for them and show that you have a plan. "(Specific faculty member's) research in (sub-specialty) would assist the development of my research interests in (something specific and parallel)"; "(Institution's research centre) would prove an invaluable resource for my project concerning (data source that the centre has access to)". This is going to be exhausting, because you'll need a different SOP for each (for goodness sake, don't send a form letter), but you'll get better results by tailoring. Look to each department's website, odds are they'll discuss a specific mandate that highlights their ideologies, what they emphasize, their timelines/expectations, and what they value/try to cultivate in their grad students. My program at U of T, for example, speaks at length about their specialized areas and their commitment to training research "producers", as opposed to "consumers". Don't parrot those things back to them, but take these into account and determine which of these values/resources are echoed by your own established background and future plans. I made damn sure, for example, that I "fit" in one of my program's specialized areas and that my project was "actively" framed to produce something new. Good luck! If you wanna talk U of T specifically, feel free to PM me (you too Dedi, if ya want, though I'm quite a bit further from you, discipline-wise!)

Hi there GC hive mind! I'd be interested in your input on what factors I should consider - and weight - when choosing a comprehensive exam area. I'm finishing my second year in a Sociology PhD program and my first comprehensive exam choice was a no-brainer - law and socio-legal studies, as this is my dominant research area. I took this exam last year, in the summer between my first and second year. (And I passed, woot!). My supervisor has been prodding me of late to commit to a second comp area and set a date for the next exam (as early as January if I can make a decision soon, but next June is an option as well). When I first came into the program, I figured that I'd take the second exam in "health", as I invoke some sociology of health stuff in my research - but it turns out that the exam is largely quant-based mental-health stuff, which isn't helpful. So, I was thinking about doing the second comp in a "fundamental" sociological area - like theory or methods. I'd gotten the impression that this is beneficial for prospective university teaching gigs down the line and that a "fundamental" comp plus a "specialty research" comp would make me a well-rounded candidate. Plus, I tend to enjoy theory (that counts for something, right?). I have a prospectively publishable theory paper, but I'm not sure if I'll make a habit of publishing in this area. But, now I'm not so sure. My supervisor thinks that I should consider the "policy" comp. She's on this comp committee and, while this comp tends to be a less popular choice among students in our department (you have to "request" this comp, it's not automatically offered), I have to admit that I have seen a trend in policy-specialty hires in sociology of late and the notion of having a maybe concrete/pragmatic second comp area is appealing. I only recently got hold of a reading list, and I could see some prospective benefit to my research options from it. I'm hesitant though; I've taken policy courses in the 4th year of my undergrad and my MA and, while I find the material interesting, it DOES NOT come easy to me. Plus, I would probably need to take a policy course leading up to the exam (outside of my department), which is fine (I have one more elective, but I was kind of hoping to expend it on a "fun" course in ethnography or something instead). So, there seems to be a lot of factors to consider here, how should I weigh them? Or, what would you consider most viable/important? - Should one choose a comp that relates to research, even if the connection isn't wholesale? - Is there something to be said for doing a comp that is "fundamental" to your discipline? - Is the comp selection a strong signal, at all, to hiring committees regarding prospective teaching? Or do they consider it in a different way? Is it wise to try and divine hiring trends here? Would taking a more "pragmatic" second comp make me a more viable candidate outside academia (I'm just hedging here...)? - To what extent do you permit your own general interest to guide your choice? - Anything else I haven't thought of? Thanks in advance for any input! I didn't anticipate that this choice would be giving me a bit of an academic identity crisis!

Hi there! I'm not quite sure that my experience is directly applicable to yours - the comp/quals stuff seems to vary greatly across disciplines and programs - but I can give you a general idea of how mine went. We have two separate comp exams that we need to take in my department. You can either sit a four hour exam or do a five-day take home version. I did the take-home (most people I know do this option). The exam is based off of a reading list that consists of between 200 and 240 "units". An article that was less than 100 pages counts an 1 unit, and article/book/book excerpt that is between 100 and 200 pages is 3 units, and anything in excess of 200 pages is supposed to be 5 units. I studied for about 4 months for my first exam. In my program, you have to give at least a month's notice of your intent to take the exam (but most give notice much earlier, so that they can meet with comp committee members a handful of times whilst studying). I aimed to complete 3 "units" a day (so, between 100 and 200 pages): and by "complete" I mean read and do a write-up. I spent about 5 or 6 hours a day (sometimes 4 if the unit was "easy" or familiar, sometimes 8 if it was painful). I did some RA stuff at the same time and tried to take at least one day off per week. That was my experience. I know some people who spread it out quite a bit more (an hour or two a day for six months, say). I haven't written my second one yet, but I had success with the first, so I might duplicate the method, where possible. Good luck!

Proflorax makes an excellent point. This is a colleague and this is your workplace (and it's affecting your WORK, like, you feel inclined to refrain from a work meeting in the hopes of avoiding him). If you are at an institution with a Union, I would strongly encourage you to contact a departmental steward or HR-esque rep associated with the Union, today, right now. You can talk to someone like this about what your options are and glean advice without committing to a course of action. Often, people think that engaging with the Union automatically means that you're being adversarial, but there are usually multiple informal steps that they can take with you that don't automatically entail a formal harassment complaint. You want someone like this, outside of your department, to have your back. If you don't have a Union, I would recommend looking at a handbook from your institution (which will likely have a policy/statement re: harassment) and then contact some student affairs person associated with your school of graduate studies (usually, if you look up profiles online, you'll see someone whose job it is to consult confidentially with grad students). Worst case scenario: they can't help you but they can refer you or give advice - you don't lose anything by seeking these people out (unlike having the convo with an adviser, where one might fear "making it weird" indefinitely - not saying that that's "right", just that I sense that hesitation from the OP). As others have said: Not your fault and keep on keeping on with not responding. I would add: Don't be pulled in by his appeals for closure. Closure is a subjective construction and a lie - it allows someone to continue to engage you to say "you haven't given this to me and you OWE it to me" or "you've given me a little of it but not ENOUGH"... Like, what? You keep heaping attention on this guy until he says "when"? Saying "no contact" is enough and a reasonable person respects this as a boundary that you set. It is unreasonable and, frankly, threatening for someone to persistently try to FORCE the situation so that THEY get to (re)negotiate/control the parameters. Good luck and practice self-care OP!

I think jullietmecredi was right to keep it more abstract. I'm in Sociology (in Canada, if that matters) - I e-mailed a prof in each department that I applied and I know that the recon had a role in decisions, in some cases. And, again, I sat on an adcomm and got to see the admissions "sausage-making" first-hand. Anecdotal evidence does not a compelling case make (I have to tell my students that often enough...), but I feel confident stating that the practice (and the traction you do or do not get) varies across disciplines AND departments. To be clear: - The OP got a lot of advice on the norm in their field, and they should heed that. - If a departmental website comments that e-mailing faculty is discouraged, then heed that too. - I think that the practice of e-mailing profs is more about refining your plan and establishing fit (though this varies by supervisory requirements in different disciplines, natch). You want to pitch a feasible plan. With that in mind, if you can ascertain the info in some other way, you can just do that. As I mentioned, a POI might be retiring, or taking a sabbatical, or recently venturing in an entirely different research direction - if you can figure this out from faculty pages and online CVs and recent publication lists and the like, then do that! - If you consult/try all of the above and still aren't sure of either the decorum of a department or status of a prof, you could always call the department's grad secretary and ask. I'm not inclined to give the grad secretary more work (which is why you should try to find the answers on your own first), but I think you can do this quickly and respectfully. Don't ask about what may improve your application - that is not onus that should be on the grad secretary. Instead, say that you've received conflicting info about the practice and you searched their website and didn't find a definitive policy so: would (s)he be able to tell you if contacting profs in this department is the norm/advisable. Best of luck to the awesomely named (and hopefully successful) peachpenumbra!

Hi there Weltgeist, Congrats on your admit to U of T! I'm not able to be super helpful, because I haven't accessed GradHouse myself. The location is optimal though, so I hope that you get in there! This is a perfectly acceptable occasion in which you could contact the grad admin for your department and ask for the contact info of current international grad students (who might be able to tell you about their experience) or those in your incoming cohort (so maybe you can put a call out to ascertain what other people are doing). Another option: Massey College actually rents rooms in the summer for reasonable-ish student rates (you can rent by the day or week). So, if it comes to it, you could book for the last week or so of August while doing some compressed apartment hunting. http://www.masseycollege.ca/facilities/summer-rentals/summer-rates/ I know that you said that you couldn't afford a hotel, but the residences would be a cheaper (but still private) option. Again, if it comes to it, maybe your credit card could take the hit for a few weeks until you get the stipend. Feel free to PM me if I can be of any help on grad school life at U of T! Congrats again!

Good advice above! Breathe! I have a summer TA-ship that technically started in July, and the prof didn't touch base with me until last week (it was to ask whether or not I'd be available to invigilate the mid-term, which was yesterday). I used to stress about the TA assignments, but now I try to take a cue from the prof or instructor as to how laid-back or not the TA post is. I usually abide by some CYA (Cover Your Ass) principles. When I first get confirmation of an assignment, I'll e-mail the prof or instructor just to introduce myself, "I'm surefire and I belong to you to the tune of 120 hours for SuperFun101 next semester". That way, they have my e-mail and an opportunity to elaborate on the appointment, if they feel like it (again, some profs are overzealous and others are laid back). Mostly they'll e-mail back quickly to say, "Thanks. I'll be in touch". On some occasions a prof will e-mail me back to say something like, "Here are the names of other TAs in the course" or "I'm out of town for a conference in October, you'll guest lecture on that date, cool?"; and sometimes I get radio silence. If I don't hear anything, I'll send another e-mail a week or two before the course under the auspices of "checking in". Maybe I'll mention that I read their syllabus from last year, or give them my ID so they can add me to Blackboard, or mention the "hours allocation" form that they typically have to do that gives me a breakdown of the tasks. If I'm a bit concerned about what the appointment entails, I might say, "If I understand the structure of the course, the first task to be attentive to is the assignment due at the end of September", just to try and establish what the first expectation is - this gives them a chance to say, "Oh wait, actually, you're running office hours that start the second week", or something. In any case, I usually get a response at that point. During my early TA appointments, I would sometimes ask students who had TA-ed for a prof before what the assignment was like. That would put me at ease and help me establish the "tone" of the prof. Eventually though, you get good at getting a read on profs and taking a cue from them - it gets easier, promise!

Congrats on the R & R! I haven't been through an R & R myself, but I was at a workshop a little while ago that detailed the process and recommended different strategies for dealing with one (I'm in the social sciences though, so it might be a bit different). With regards to deciding which reviewer recommendations to incorporate, I was advised to divide the feedback into "little tasks" and "big tasks" and to highlight which feedback was voiced by more than one reviewer - my sense was that if more than one reviewer brings something up, you probably should incorporate/address the comments, for sure. That gives you a "have to do" list. From there, you can get a sense of how much time you need to address the "have to" list and then make separate decisions about the rest of the feedback. I've never seen a paper that said, "We wanted to do this, but had no time". "No time" isn't a compelling excuse. The phrase I read more commonly is "This task is beyond the scope of this current research". If you think that the suggested "extension" enriches the purpose/argument of the paper, then it might be worth addressing. If it's just a "neat offshoot" of your project, than you might be better off just mentioning it as a "future direction for research" - just acknowledging it in that capacity might be enough for the reviewer. My advice then, would be to categorize the feedback, come up with a "have to" list and then write up a bullet-point plan for dealing with the feedback (either how you will incorporate it or mention it in the paper, or how you will acknowledge it and give a reason for not incorporating it in the R & R response). Then present the plan to your supervisor, and they can endorse or amend your decisions. Good luck!

Hi Pavelboca, Welcome to the GC! I'm not going to be of any help on a coherent diagnosis of NYU/Penn/Columbia, because my context is Canadian. But I'm drawn to your question because the "law school or grad school" debate was a pickle I found myself mired in a few years ago. To give the story away up front: I'm currently in a PhD program. In trying to decide between law school or grad school, I opted to get an 1 year MA in socio-legal studies to test the water (in Canada, you typically get an MA before the PhD w/o much of the US-style "terminal MA" baggage). During the MA, I wrote the LSAT (which I abhorred on a special level - writing the LSAT was a good exercise for me in figuring out if I really wanted to go the law school route). The unique MA allowed me to be in conversation with both JDs and PhDs, and through these discussions, I quickly realized that the law school route wasn't for me. I'm going to recommend that you look outward, reflect inward, and cultivate a conversation regarding "fit". First, I'm going to say this: - Any (responsible) poster on GC, in looking at your "what do grad schools base their decisions on" question, can only answer one way: it depends (though of course, people might have specific ideas about the specific schools you've named). For a summary of the criteria, you need only look to the sub-forum contents of the GC, which cover things like the GRE and statements of purpose (and looking within the threads will give you a sense of how they're "weighted" and what people think about what one needs to do to meet the criteria). For a "quick and dirty" idea, you can look at schools of interest on the "Results Search", where people often divulge their stats and accept/reject status for grad school recommendations. - Going to law school because you want to be rewarded for a high GPA isn't a good idea. - Going to grad school because you want to be rewarded for a penchant for writing is not a good idea. - Working under the assumption that anyone is going to be persuaded that you belong in a program because you can "see yourself" at the destination is not a good idea. I hope that's not harsh. It's not intended to be. These are things that I would have benefited from hearing. I think you should: - Do a bit of GC recon to get a sense of stats and criteria. - Talk to current law students and lawyers: what does their day to day reality consist of? Can you "see yourself" being good at those tasks and thriving in that reality, not just "enjoying" the professional identity? - Talk to current grad students and professors: same questions as above. - Try crafting two different personal statements: one for law school and one for grad school. This will help you articulate "fit" (which consists of sussing out the resources that you will bring to the program and the resources you will draw upon in the program to FINISH the damn program AND what, as a thriving scholar, you ultimately will be able to contribute with the opportunity). I'd be interested to see which one of these feels like more "work" to you: give each a fair shake by doing some research first on the different pursuits, and then write the two statements - which one makes you feel at a loss or feels "forced" or false, if any? That's a good gut reaction to listen to. - Seriously consider not doing either. Seriously. Just entertain the notion for a sec and see what that feels like. I worked for almost two years between the MA and PhD before I'd made up my mind on the latter. I realized that neither law nor grad school are good places for people who just weren't sure what else to do with themselves, and if I couldn't articulate whether I wanted one or the other, I wasn't going to convince any programs worth attending that they should want me. Having had the work experience, I feel much better-equipped during the rough, solitary parts of the PhD. None of this is meant to be condescending or mean and I hope you don't see this response as a blatant disregard of your questions. You don't need to jump right to "which schools might take me?", some recon and reflection at this stage will help you articulate the best route, generally, and the best prospects, more specifically. HTH! Good luck.

Hi there surlefil! I love this question because you ask about writing "elegantly", which I think is a splendid consideration and priority for e-mail correspondence and, ultimately, I feel that elegant writing (including propriety and a capacity to be CONCISE) will help you to get what you want from the correspondence. When I see these requests, I usually begin by pointing people to the Female Science Professor blog post on the topic: http://science-professor.blogspot.ca/2011/10/writing-to-me-reprise.html This is a great reference point as she provides various templates. One must consider the context (i.e. it is standard in science disciplines to secure the supervision, or prospective supervision, of a prof before applying, so that adds an additional imperative/thing that one needs to ask for that doesn't necessarily apply to you here). But, I think it's still very helpful to get the POI's POV to get a sense of what requests compel what responses! I'd like to give you a few more pointers though, as I've actually recently attended a workshop on writing professional and academic e-mails - one thing that I've learned in my 2nd year of the PhD, it's infinitely preferable to ask or attend a workshop to figure out academic decorum rather than trying to figure it out the hard way through trial and error (there are plenty of lessons you'll have to learn this way, why not reduce the discomfort where possible?) Anyway, pointers for you! Before/while writing the e-mail, ask yourself: 1) What is the nature of my relationship with the recipient? 2) What is the nature of the request? 3) What are the cultural norms that the person may likely follow in his/her context in terms of the language used in e-mail messages? (When in doubt, be more formal than informal) 4) How does the e-mail reflect my own personal image? 5) Can I find this information out elsewhere? It seems lame, but working these questions out for yourself will help you to formulate your expectations and will help you to write an e-mail where these expectations are stated clearly and concisely. E-mail subject: This should contain the purpose of the e-mail (Reference request OR Prospective student seeking information, or something). DO NOT just put "Good Afternoon :)" or something equivalent. Opening: When you are not acquainted with the recipient and it is an academic e-mail, open with your name, institutional affiliation and academic credentials. Purpose: You should have a request or purpose, this will make it much easier for the prof to respond. State your request/purpose. It might be that you are applying and are considering their program and you're interested in ascertaining "fit" or you're info-seeking. Be clear. Be formal, polite, and not presumptuous. Regarding presumptuousness: avoid imperatives ("I am grateful for the info that YOU WILL send me..."). Instead, hedge with "if" clauses: "I was wondering if you might be willing/able... at your convenience" Again, what you want them to be willing/able to do depends on your expectations and how you answer the questions I provided earlier. For you, I think, the request is for their consideration and possible insight, as you work to articulate prospective "fit". DON'T go pedantic or verbose here, it's possible to be excessively polite: "If you had any spare time at any point to send me the info I would be forever grateful and humbled by this act of kindness" = NO. Background: Provide just enough context and background to make your purpose/request justified and clear. Avoid being "wordy". This is a good space to briefly say why you contacted THEM and to show that you've done some re-con already. Show them that you've done some homework. Did a referee recommend them to you? Did you get a sense of their interests from their faculty page or a paper they've written recently? Say so, show them that you've gotten a sense of their interests, and then state your interests so that they can see the parallel. It should make sense to them why you're considering their program and - arguably more importantly at this stage of correspondence - why you contacted them. Then - again, depending on your purpose, ask some specific questions here (about research opportunity or insight on your prospective fit in the program given your interests - or, as geography rocks points out, you can ask them about their availability in taking students, which is a common and specific request). At this stage, I wouldn't recommend attaching a statement of interest or resume - instead, at this point, close this section by offering to give additional information at their request. Close: Reiterate the request/purpose. Thank them for their time and consideration/insight. Close with a "Regards" or "Sincerely" (I prefer the former), avoid "Cheers" on first correspondence, it's too familiar. General tips: -Be polite but efficient. - Be formal and respectful but not overly differential, apologetic, or mechanical. - Don't send a form letter. As mentioned in the background section, the prof should know why you contacted THEM specifically. - Spell their name correctly, for goodness sake! - Make it EASY for them to respond, even if the response is some variation of "no". It should be easy for them to say "I can help" or "I can't help". Specific requests/purpose with proof of recon ensures this. - Think of the correspondence in stages. It's bad form to send a litany of possibly labour-intensive (or maybe vague) requests at once (I want assurances that I'm touching base with a relevant program/prof AND I want you to look at my resume AND I want help on my SOP...). First task is to establish the correspondence and express interest and show how that interest is valid. If the connection and interest is validated, the prof will let you know in a response and they'll probably state what they're willing to deal with next (this is why you offer to send them stuff or to elaborate on what you've provided already, that makes it easier for the prof to say "Sure, I'm taking students, send me that SOP" or something). - Not that I think that you're likely to do this, but I frequently tell people who are trying to initiate correspondence with new POIs to avoid trying to deflate the awkwardness or stand out from the pack by being "clever" (while there is debate on this elsewhere, I think the sentiment mostly holds for the SOP as well, just FYI). I've tried to articulate the risk in attempting cleverness elsewhere, and I recently saw a blogpost that I think sums it up nicely, so I'm just going to indulge my own hobby-horse here for a second and shoe-horn in that reference: http://whatever.scalzi.com/2010/06/16/the-failure-state-of-clever/ Best of Luck to you! Sorry that I failed to take my own advice and formulate a concise response! HTH!

I would recommend perusing the forums via the search function; there are ample threads that contain lively and extensive debates on this. Like GeoDUDE, I am unwilling to go into debt for grad school and would not entertain an unfunded offer. I am actually actively paying down some BA debt while in grad school and, since interest is not accruing while I'm in my program, I've drafted a plan to have the debt wiped out by the time I finish the PhD. That being said, I appreciate that different fields have different contexts. A good rule of thumb that I've read on here several times: you should not take any more debt than you would expect to make annually in your post-graduation occupation - so if you expect to make 50K/year, you don't take more than 50K in loans. So yeah, maybe look at the costs/contexts of programs and then ascertain prospective salaries with that rule and see if debt-taking is at all feasible/wise, then search the forums to see what some of the standard strategies and courses of action are for people. Good luck!

I've sat on an adcomm (in Canada, for context). One of the things that distinguished a promising applicant were those that could say "My interests would fit with Prof. so-and-so AND I've touched base with Prof. so-and-so and they said they'd be into prospective superving/working with me". I read lots of apps where people just wrote "prof. so-and-so would be perfect" BUT maybe that prof was heading out for a long sabbatical (something that can be ascertained by looking at their faculty page or contacting them via e-mail). Give yourself credit for doing the recon, I promise that it does make a difference to your apps, even if it's not in immediate or obvious ways! I will always and forever recommend the Female Science Professor blog post on this topic: http://science-professor.blogspot.ca/2011/10/writing-to-me-reprise.html It pertains to the sciences (obv), so the context - as established by the posters above - IS different re: whether or not you NEED to secure a prof's supervision to apply, BUT the general templates for e-mails are really helpful to ensure that your correspondence decorum is on point and likely to get a positive response! Good luck!

Thank you so much fuzzy! That's a super helpful and thoughtful response! I'm particularly struck by the elegant simplicity of some of your suggestions: - e-mail the editor before submission? - just SEND the bloody paper to the influential academic? Geez, those are GREAT IDEAS! Thank you! I'm going to do those things! Thank you for articulating how some of my costs/benefits analysis should proceed. I've got a lot to think about! Re: these questions below... Some are easier to answer or guess at than others (for ex.: I want to work in Canada when I graduate and myself and colleagues in my discipline and specialty do tend to read US journals). But (hopefully this isn't a stupid question), how does one go about finding out firm answers to these other questions? Should I poach Canadian faculty pages and see where recent hires have published? How can I ascertain if Canadian journals are read outside of Canada (I don't see Canadian journals on the citation/impact ranks that I've consulted)? Should I prod faculty members whom I know have been on hiring committees of late (U of T hires might certainly favour US orientations/publishing, but how can I find out what goes on elsewhere)? Again, sorry if that's a stupid question. All of the general info out there (guides and The Chronicle ect;) seem to assume US grad-school attendance. It's hard to tell if the nuances of journal publication and hierarchies is just something one learns through the submission process or if it's something that one comes to know just by networking and talking to others, or if there's some independent research that can be done to divine the answers. Again, thank you for the thoughtful response! As per usual, you don't disappoint! Thanks for the response lewin! That's actually really interesting to know! That's not quite the case in my field, I don't think, where The American Journal of Sociology and the American Sociology Review are THE most prestigious generalist journals, but there are plenty of specialist ones that are well-regarded and, for example, obviously European (ex. British Journal of Criminology is a sought-after one). Your point may stand regarding regional distinctions though (for example, The ___(US State)___ Law Review) or ones that identify as grad student journals; I'm told that these are a bit more limited. But again, I'm new to this!

Welcome to the GC! I want to give you a prompt response, seeing as you're meeting with this professor this afternoon! You are absolutely correct to point out that the majority of grad students have been in this position at one point or another! You are also correct to recognize that you're out of your element a bit with this course... and that's okay! Honestly, it would be more alarming if you were looking to apply for top-tier PhDs WITHOUT having had the experience of being pushed out of your comfort zone and made to rise to the occasion at one point or another! The most successful grad students I know have faced such challenges, either a challenging semester or course or research assignment or SOMETHING. The students that crumble are the ones that arrive at the PhD level and have found everything to be a breeze up until that point, because they have limited coping mechanisms to ADAPT so, when faced with their first challenge, they have a bit of a melt-down. It doesn't feel like it right now, but you'll be able to reflect upon this later as a mettle-testing opportunity! For the first draft of my MA research proposal, my supervisor made me re-write it from scratch... twice. After six drafts she accepted it and the thesis ended up being a winning writing sample. In the first semester of my PhD, I got a "B" on my first Stats exam (so, like, not even a "B+" or a straddling "B+/A-"). That course was "required", but was not my specialty - kind colleagues at the time pointed out that it would be more of a concern if I wanted to make it my specialty. I buckled down and met with the prof and finished the rest of the assignments and exams so I was able to round out the course with an "A-". This does not keep me up at night. When you meet with the prof, don't frame this as a global crisis re: your writing. It's not this prof's job to sooth your ego. You want to inquire as to how you can meet THIS prof's expectations for THIS class. So ask specific stuff about that and take good notes in the meeting. Find out if (s)he would be interested in reading a DRAFT of your next essay for the class, maybe two weeks before the deadline. Then, make an honest effort to employ the feedback and hopefully you'll get an opportunity to show them and revise accordingly. Also, TALK to your colleagues. You'll find someone there to empathize with. Also Also, be sure to take time for self-care! After the meeting, give yourself permission not to think about it for a few days - trim a bonsai tree or go to the gym or something. Then come back ready to tackle the challenges this course poses with feedback in tow! I hope your meeting goes well! Good luck! You got this!

Hi GC-ers! I've got managed expectations for responses here as I know that the Canadian-specific quandaries are tricky in this US student-prevalent space and, well, I assume that at least SOME of us are out enjoying summer! BUT, I'm hoping that a few of you can help me out! I'm finishing up the second-year of my PhD in Sociology at U of T. After finishing a year-long practicum course, I've got a vetted research paper that - with some finessing - I'm hoping to lodge in a journal that will have me. This would be my first pub, and I'm having a difficult time negotiating the terrain. Specifically, I'm in a bit of a pickle as to whether or not I should send it to an American or Canadian Journal. I'm aiming for a specialist journal in the realm of Law and Society. After speaking with my supervisor, I get the impression that a Canadian journal is in the cards for me, primarily because my data and discussion is (without apology) Canada-specific. BUT I also got the sense that my supervisor felt compelled to encourage a US journal, for reasons of "rank" and impact factor. Even though a desk reject might be likely from the latter, the general grad student advice I read is to "aim high" and let the editors decide - but such advice doesn't have anything to say about the Canada/US quagmire (that is, a Canadian journal might provide a more apt audience, but an American journal would promise a wider one). I've been driving myself nuts with the Web of Science Journal Citation Reports and asking around in the meantime, but I can't seem to get any definitive answers... so let's try a list! Arguments re: Canadian submission: - 1 specific journal in mind (good fit and I can tailor for it specifically) - Might reach a more apt audience - Might be a better place to showcase Canadian-specific data (AND I won't have to re-write to "pitch" a rationale for American comparison or interest) - Possibly better odds of a favourable response -Journal is legit and edited by academic rock stars in my specialty. ALTHOUGH, there's not much out there re: Canadian journal rankings for this discipline, so I don't know how publication in such journals is perceived, though my own supervisor has published in said journal several times (and US ones, and European ones...) - I just presented at the national conference of the Professional Association of the Law and Society journal that I want to submit to, so (1) I'm "in conversation" with these people and (2 ) the research presented, which does pertain to the article, was well-received. - I'm planning to do some broader work on the topic for the dissertation, so papers from THAT pursuit might be better candidates for US journals later on down the road... Arguments re: American Submission: - I have three American specialist journals in mind of varying ranks (multiple options) - Associative prestige appeal and the benefits therein - broad readership, CV-building, participating in bigger conversations in field... ect; - I've been told MULTIPLE TIMES that high-rank submissions are a wise idea for grad students (I've got some time to play with) - I could always submit, see what happens, AND THEN submit to a Canadian one (although, if I don't get a prompt desk-reject given the Canadian-specific topic, it could actually take, like, 6 months to hear back... and it could still very likely be a reject... in researching the journals, I see VERY FEW publications with Canada-only data, and these are from esteemed profs in my field...). - Get acquainted with process of submitting to high-ranked journals Has anyone else negotiated these geographical fissures? What do you guys think I should do? My supervisor kind of presented some options and then left me to think it through, so I guess I could make a decision based on the recon I've done and then see what she says. I've also recently sent out the article to colleagues and other profs and requested their recommendations, but most people won't be getting back to me for another week or so. Is there something else that I could be doing to figure this out? I'm having a hard time doing the actual editing without first knowing where to send it (bonus: if anyone has general input on the process of editing for publication, I'm open to that - the article-specific advice I have gotten so far is to rewrite and reorganize for clarity (that is, style, not substance) so I'm mostly shopping the draft and reading style guides...) Thanks in advance! Any insight is appreciated!

PhD student. Not a pretentious, status-seeking thing (one hopes), just a regional custom. In Canada, one typically does get the MA before a PhD - or one can complete the MA and opt not to continue to a PhD level without the US-style "terminal" language. So, it can be a distinction worth making, as far as progress and aims; by identifying that I'm a PhD student, I'm indicating, typically, that I already have the MA and I'm at least 2-years deep into this academic gauntlet. I'll go ahead and hedge this to say: this tendency is steeped in other etiquette-esque stuff (ex. when to call profs by their first names) whereby I just got accustomed to doing a thing by aping senior students. So the identification developed from my own experience in Canadian institutions (if other Canadian/Canada-based GC-ers have had a different experience or gleaned a different impression, I wouldn't want to dismiss that!). I actually had a funny mini-crisis over business cards recently, where I was told that it is common in my academic circles to distinguish WITHIN the PhD level to identify as either a "PhD Student" or "PhD Candidate" (the latter meaning that you're ABD). While I'm fine to let that distinction stand in my e-mail signature/business cards, I wouldn't offer it in conversation. ETA: The graduate student pervasive and exhausting over-thinking kind of gets all over everything eh?

juilletmercredi, Lots of great advice from you, as per usual! Can I ask quickly (without hijacking): Is that Peter Silvia book very discipline-specific, or is it apt for anyone in grad school? I've been reading The Craft of Inquiry and Writing for Social Scientists and both are great, but I've been looking for some advisement on what the day-to-day tasks of writing should look like, and this sounds like a nice light read to that effect! There's so much good advice here! My own contribution: - The gym is super important, as many have stressed here. Some days the imposter-syndrome-gremlin will tell you that you don't DESERVE the gym because you weren't productive enough, but don't listen to him, going to the gym contributes to your overall productivity, and those tough days are the ones were you might need the excursion the most. It's nice to have one class or league night or something that you attend without compromise. - I don't do this every day, or even every week, but during some "crunch" periods, I'll take the occasional "caffeine nap": http://lifehacker.com/306029/reboot-your-brain-with-a-caffeine-nap I swear by these, they're awesome! - For mental well-being and efficacy: (1) I set aside a couple of hours in the afternoon, once a week, for academic "housekeeping" tasks (progress reports or conference reimbursement forms or answering the more taxing e-mails ect;). I find that these tasks can derail my schedule, as it requires time to mentally shift between bureaucratic things and scholarly things, so better to carve out some time to do them all at once. It also allows for some time to review my correspondence for the week, to make sure that I didn't miss anything. (2) I keep electronic project "journals" to track my thinking and any ideas for side projects that might come up. I often think of things while I'm writing that I can't "deal with" or develop in the moment, but if I plug a date and a sentence into the journal regarding that thought, I find that I can re-ignite it later on. It also gives me a space to elaborate on changes that I make or notions that are not quite fully-baked, so I can go back and see what I was thinking. I also keep meeting notes with my supervisor in these documents. Honestly, you can waste a lot of time trying to remember a tangential thought that you had or a pertinent piece of advice that your supervisor gave you regarding a project, keeping a "journal" saves time and allows you to eliminate the doubt. - Get comfortable with asking for help. One of the best habits I developed this year was tenacious help-seeking. Like, if you have to learn how to use some new software, why spend an afternoon banging your head against it trying to figure it out if, say, your institution offers a workshop or appointments with reference librarians or something, where you can dedicate an hour or two to getting it figured out. Also, asking for help from colleagues, within reason, is also worth doing - it saves time and also opens collaborative avenues.

That definitely might be a good idea if OP's heart is totally set on returning to the US. The U of T Soc MA is rigorous and funded and competitive. Most MA students do go on to the PhD, but I knew two MA students last year who took acceptances to great US schools (Yale and Berkeley, if I recall) for the PhD.

Welcome to GC! I can't help you too much on the "working in the States" front, because I'm not really keen to work there myself so I haven't really been attentive to pertinent details on that. I can say: - My general understanding is that there is recognition in the States re: "the big three" Canadian graduate institutions (U of T, UBC and McGill); though, regarding Soc programs in particular, I've heard that York (a very large department) and U of A get some traction too. - U of T Soc has a little blurb about US placement here: http://www.sociology.utoronto.ca/graduate.htm - You could shell out some coin to get your own ASA guide to grad programs, but it's mostly just listings that you can find out on your own. Your best bet is maybe to do some reverse-engineered recon: look at the US soc departments where you might like to secure work, and then look at the faculty page to see where people hail from. This also might be a good conversation to have with your supervisor and prospective letter-writers. As well, it's a good topic to schmooze about at US conferences, if you can get to one in the next little bit. - One of the reasons you might not hear too much on this is that, generally, Canada isn't as fervently preoccupied with rank as the US is. I'm not going to open the much-hashed GC debate on the relevance of rank, and I appreciate that you're looking for it as a point of reference, but the department that "advantages" you the most, I've been told, is the one fraught with opportunities and that supports you in your work, and that's going to have to be a more honed conversation about "fit", after you've satisfied yourself with this general convo regarding mobility. But then again, there's always QS, for reference (UofT is 21 this year): http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/university-subject-rankings/2014/sociology - There are LOTS of faculty members in the U of T soc department who got their degrees from the States. In this way, there are many faculty members who instruct and conduct research with a mind towards US trends in topics, theory, and methods (like, they just hired someone whose job talk was on the NRA, for example). As well, faculty members can connect grad students to their US networks. Just sayin', it's a US-friendly department. I maybe can be of more help to you regarding the "grad experience", as I'm currently in my second-year in the soc PhD program at U of T (and am enjoying it very much). Feel free to PM me if you have specific questions on that front!

I'm usually prone to coddling the students, so I actually surprise myself a bit with the answer: I think he needs to get zeroes on all of the quizzes, and then his grade is his grade. I have been in this situation, mostly. In the classes I TA, there's a policy re: deductions for late papers: it's 5% a day - including weekends (they submit online to turnitin, so this isn't onerous) - after 5 days the paper WILL NOT be accepted. This is a policy of the institution, so I do get to say that my hands are tied on this stipulation. However, at least a few times a semester, I have students who finish and submit papers after the 5 days have elapsed - either they missed the instruction, or they really didn't believe that, after going to the trouble of writing the damn paper, I wouldn't accept it. But yeah, I don't accept the papers, they get zeroes, and they can appeal the grade - or the policy - to the undergrad admin. Final papers are worth 30%, so students HAVE failed as a result of this, and these are in cases where they actually did the work, but they did not heed the instruction. Adhering to this is a bit easier when the stipulation is IN the syllabus (it's not clear from your post if that's the case, but I assume the syllabus at least had a break-down of how their grade would be comprised, right?). Inform him of his options for appeal. List all the avenues open to him (accessibility centre, doctor's note, appeal process to dean or whomever). That IS a kindness that you can offer, you know? That way, you're not just rendering the mark and walking away - you COULD just do that, but highlighting his opportunities IS a compromise that you can offer (the other compromises regarding opening up the quizzes are, as you've ascertained, not really feasible options). This sucks. Sorry! Really though, you sound like a capable and compassionate TA, don't beat yourself up and don't keep thinking that you're "letting him fail". This is an opportunity to address the issue, whether it's an accessibility thing or a work habit thing. Otherwise, you're just stalling the issue and it WILL emerge again in another class, where another instructor will agonize over what to do.

All excellent advice so far! I only have a couple of specifics to add. - I would echo what rising_star said re: accessing your university's teaching centre, where available. The workshops through this resource are incredibly helpful to aid not only your students' development, but your own efficiency. - I would also echo what jullietmercredi said about organization. It is absolutely worth the time to come up with a system for organizing; it will be worth it even if you have ONE student/essay that goes AWOL, as you'll be able to quickly ascertain what's up (every semester students seem to top themselves in the creative ways that they disregard my submission instructions, while you should resist the urge to coddle, a good organization system will ensure that you can detect these hiccups quickly). - On the organization front: I would also encourage you to spreadsheet your hours. I work at a Uni with a union, so there are stipulations about workload whereby one can grieve/remedy situations of over-work. I understand that this varies around universities, so I would encourage you to get acquainted with your departmental/university culture on the TA front and find out how TA assignments are comprised and what routes there are to address issues - in any case, track your hours. If a prof thinks that marking each mid-term test should take you 15 minutes, and you take a half hour for each, that does not mean that you suck at marking (though it is true that you'll take some time to find your groove), it might mean that there needs to be an adjustment in terms of the assignment or the hours that are expected/available to mark it. Think of it this way: if you just put your head down and do the excess work, some poor schmuck TA that does the class NEXT time will have to contend with the same issue. Again, find out the routes to address issues and gauge your departmental culture on this - it might just be a matter of informally discussing things with the prof, it might be a matter of submitting something to the uni HR so they can adjust the TA assignment. At the very least, spread-sheeting will help you get acquainted with how many hours each task in a semester requires, so you can predict how to plan your NEXT semester AND you can concretely see how you are becoming more efficient in each task. - Have a "warm fuzzies folder". Every nice e-mail from prof or students, solicited or unsolicited, goes in the folder. This will make it easier to compose a teaching dossier later on. If someone says something nice about what a great TA you are, ask them to put that sentiment in an e-mail and send it to you - that might feel weird, but self-advocacy is a good skill to hone. - I'm a strong advocate of the electronic rubric. That is, typing up comments in a word doc rubric and stapling these to the essays, rather than printing blank rubrics and writing in them. This has several benefits: (1) There's no question that my comments are legible; (2) I can send the whole doc to the prof, if they're interested, so that they can get a sense of trends in the comments and/or they have the comments on-hand if a student comes in to complain about the mark; ( 3) I find that students tend to skim comments if I put lots of them on BOTH the paper and the rubric, so I mostly put them on the rubric (which I have space for, as I'm typing them up) BUT I refer to specific examples from the paper (that is, global comment and then, "see the example I've commented upon on page 5"); (4) I can CHANGE the damn comments/mark if need be; scribbled-out comments on a student's paper both look messy and sometimes prompt students to complain - "I can see that you gave me a 4.5/5 then changed it to 3.5, whyyyyyy?"; there will be occasions where you have to go back and adjust - say, if you dock big marks initially for students who missed a certain component, but then it turns out that the majority missed this component, you might re-visit the assignment question and realize that it was confusingly phrased and be inclined to deduct less - so electronic marks help with this. - Don't be afraid to sometimes tell the students that they're being inappropriate or unprofessional, it's a courtesy, really. If a student sends an e-mail that makes you cringe, tell them so. Don't just say, "that's inappropriate" and also refrain from an exhaustive point-by-point, just point quickly to the irksome thing and then address the request. Many of them will not reward you for this effort by amending their correspondence/conduct. However, I find that those that do rise to the occasion appreciate the advice - after all, it helps then glean more expedient/favourable responses, right?