sociology27

Jesus when is this penn rejection gonna come? I got other shit to be disappointed about. Cmon people. It's almost Valentine's Day. And to Columbia and NYU. I know the answer is no, but let's just make it official. I just want this to be done.

(frantically checks junk folder) Ah, no Columbia admit for me. That's Princeton, NYU, Columbia down. Cmon UPenn, you're my only hope!

Well I'm counting the no word from NYU as a rejection. And I guess those Columbia posts were trolls, so there's still that. For me, it's Princeton, NYU down, Columbia and Penn to go. Starting to think I should've applied to Temple. Yeah, it's a very different experience being geographically restricted. If you're a good applicant, and you submit 12 apps, someone, somewhere, will let you in. But only 4? You can easily slip through the cracks.

good vibes man. I feel you. Though I would happily accept a philosophy phd program (and will probably throw in a few philosophy apps next year if this little run at poli sci doesn't pan out) over what I'm doing now, which is Ubering! It's hard out here yo! One minute you're living a life of contemplation and critical reflection; the next you're wondering if your rent check is gonna bounce and how many months, not years, it will be until a robot takes your job; not to mention how you're gonna support three on 12 an hour. The academy seems like a fine place in comparison, though I had my complaints about it while I was there, for sure (and still do, mostly political, but political in the sense that defining professionalism is intrinsically a political contest; "every concession of politeness contains a political concession." - they love their Bourdieu but nonetheless ignore his ethics in soc.). So I feel you, but there is also a certain luxury in knowing that you're such a good candidate that other amazing programs want you and that the worst case scenario is your parents couch. I dropped soc. like a bad habit and now I'm getting punished for it. My advice to people down the road would be: be thankful for what you got if you do got something - top 20, top 40, top 60, be happy. It's a fucking shit show out here in the real world. You could be Ubering. I have a 3.95 UGPA, 4.0 GradGPA, 170 V, 160 M (when I took it in 2009, at 19, I had a 640 V and 800 M - I guess that's what happens when you go from Econ/Polisci to Sociology!), 2 publications (at never-read journals), TA and sole instructor experience, honors, fellowships... and yet I'm out here, likely about to get rejected from all my schools, unable to find work that does not involve packing, picking, loading or joining the national guard. Don't get me wrong. I'm chasing my dreams. I decided I wanted to study game theory and elections and at some point in my life help put something of a communist in the white house. It's a pipedream. But it's my pipedream and I'm chasing it alright. But would I give the same advice to my kid? Nah, I'd probably just be like, write the soc. dissertation on some discourse bullshit, kiss a few rings, get a decent job, then, maybe, when you've banked 20 or 30 k, chase your dreams.

long time lurker, first time poster. got my princeton reject today. to say it was a long shot would be an exaggeration in my favor. i might as well have slipped 100 dollars in cash underneath the door of the DGS. saved myself all that stress of caring. ignore my profile name. made it back in 2012, when I applied for Soc. phds. I got into a few, chose one, got an MA and decided I wanted to study the state as an actually existing organization. my cultural soc. dept. wasn't terribly fond of the idea. many said I'd be better suited to another program/discipline. so I left and applied to four poli sci programs. because I'm restricted geographically, I only applied to Princeton, NYU, Columbia and Penn. It looks like the first two are out. Columbia is also basically a waste of money. Penn is a long shot, but a shot nonetheless, I think. I guess I'm sharing to get some of that solidarity you guys/girls are handing out so kindly to one another. And to commiserate with my fellow discipline hopping, dream chasing peoples.

Almost all the ones in the top 10 are gonna be good for qualitative methods, and most for quant. The ones outside the top 10 that really pop up at me are Yale, NYU, UCSB, UCSD, Rutgers, CUNY. I'm sure there are a bunch of others; but those are the ones (outside the top 10) that come to mind. But it also depends on what type of qualitative methods (ethnography, mostly theory, or comparative historical).

It's good to have doubts. At some point along the way, I think we all do. Think hard about if you really want this and if you do, that's great; if you decide you don't, I'm sure you'll find something else better. I don't advocate going into this for lack of a better idea, but to say that having doubts 18 months before you'd even start is a bad thing is hogwash. Iffff you do decide to apply for PhDs, I think you'd be happy to know that a lot of people don't take academic jobs, especially at schools not in the top 20. I know little of Urban Sociology other than CUNY Graduate Center which has a great program. Anyway, whether you want an academic job or not, it's best to phrase the Statement of Purpose in a way that comes off as if you do. It's what adcomms want to hear (I've been told). Once your in grad. school, you can explore all the options available.

I don't understand this stigma/fear of comparing other schools. I probably had that conversation with everyone I met and I don't think anybody was offended. I mean they don't think that we only applied there and we don't think that they're the only school we could go to. So why not just come out and talk about other programs, comparing the fairly obvious strengths and draws? I find that when you're just straight with people, profs and grad. students, nobody gets offended. It's only when people try to beat around the bushes that they come off a little suspicious. Just be Real! But that's just my take.

I also declined their offer today.

I would work hard on the SOP. That's huge for anyone, but it's gonna be bigger for you because you have to explain "why sociology, why here, why now." You're definitely not too old or removed from school; they just might be a little skeptical of the hard science background. A few other bullet points -Research your schools well. Pick the ones that are going to be open to Macro-theory (which appears to be what you're doing). I would disagree with TT503, some schools really appreciate a strong theoretical position or critique or development. You just have to do your research on which ones and which people within those ones. -Cast a wide net, rankings wise. You don't need to go to a top 10 program to become a really good sociologist. -Cast a wide net, net wise. Apply to a dozen schools. I also didn't know where I stood so I applied to 12 and happily, I've gotten into a couple in my upper half. But the results don't seem to make much sense. Where you're competitive, especially as a non-traditional applicant, is going to depend a lot of the people on the committee, which is something you can't predict but may be able to counter probability wise. So, in summary, write a good SOP that's looked over by sociologists or social science academics, research your schools well, and cast a wide net in both ways to try to beat this process by statistically overpowering it This worked for me.

hey Marxiansoc., I was wondering if you committed somewhere and if so, where? I only ask because I think we got into a couple of the same schools.

Well the point Cup of Tea and I are making, I think, is that "success," placement, and happiness in grad school has to do with multiple things. Rank is important, no doubt, when it comes to the first two and possibly the third if you have some insecurities you probably should work out. BUT, sometimes the other factors (fit, location, money, specialization, specific faculty) are enough to outweigh what is actually a non-negligible drop in rankings, which might be the case for Cup of Tea. I was actually told by a professor at my UG institution, with all the information out there, that based on fit and the department's recruitment of me and specialization, I should not wait for the top-5 one. Now, in my case, everything, and I do mean EVERYTHING, besides ranking is pointing me to the lower-ranked school. And for me, I think, at this point, it's enough to put it over the top. I realize that this is an unconventional move, and perhaps a bit riskier career wise, but I've thought about it from every angle and won't have any regrets no matter what what happens. But I still haven't pulled the trigger.

well the thing is this; I'm thinking about doing something most people would consider crazy, which is to take the offer from the second school regardless. The overall ranking difference is significant (top 5 vs. top 30ish) but I kindof just feel like saying "screw it" and choosing all the other factors over the one that seems to dominate all the others for so many people. It helps that the second school has a very good placement record that is better than it's overall ranking. It seems too right to be wrong.

I'm on the waitlist at a top 5 school but have an awesome offer and great fit from a school slightly further down overall, though extremely good in my specialization, and am thinking about taking it. Thoughts??

How does the stipend get released. For instance, if I have a 20K stipend, does that normally come about 1600/month or 20K all at once, or 2 installments of 10?

I was admitted and I think all acceptances went out. BUT, as people turn them down, I think they extend more offers. I will be turning them down, so there will be at least one other offer. Best of luck. I actually visited so if PM me your interests I can tell you what I think of the program/people/environment. Also, they only admitted 5 people this year. They're narrowing down the number of acceptees to give better funding.

@socialgroovements.... really great answers. I would only add that foucault's analysis might fall a little short because what we have are overlapping discourses that exist within the academic "field." The epistemic one, which does rationalize the existence of the discipline, and the prestige one, which simply rationalizes the stratification. These can be considered separately and one can withdraw from the second one without completely removing oneself from the discipline. maybe?

@socioeconomist... you're confusing two posters. I didn't post anything from wiki. Learn how to read. Other than that, I have nothing to say to your response.

I feel a tremendous amount of guilt about telling schools that I won't be attending; especially the ones (2 of which) that are recruiting me really hard. I haven't chosen yet but have a good idea, and I feel like I might be leading the rest on. It feels weird to be wanted and, knowing I can only choose one, I feel guilty about even applying to the other ones and making it seem in my app. that they were the one for me. I feel like the introspective prom queen. ... But prom queens don't get rejected by 60 percent of their schools. Other than that, I feel great about this whole thing. I have some cool choices, all in nice locations, with good fits and decent placement records.

It's nice to see how everybody can completely miss the point of what I said. Oy vey...

That title is meant to be a parody but there is a point I have recently thought about. For all of our talk about how much we hate the function of prestige, rankings, and program status when it comes to hiring time; almost all of us are recursively reinforcing the status structures of the academy and the emphasis on prestige. Let me explain: 1) The most qualified applicants, in general, apply to the highest ranked schools. No, this does not mean that ranking is the only criteria on which we base our decisions; but it is certainly A criteria for most of us. After fit, it is probably the most important criteria for choosing what schools to apply to. (For those of you who had no thought of that in your head, or did not let professors press you into that kind of thinking, I tip my hat and say that this critique is not for you. Admittedly, I am not one of you). 2) After receiving decisions, ceteris paribus, we make our decisions with prestige in mind. For instance if I get into 5 schools, ranked 5, 15, 25, 35, and 45, I will likely choose 5 over 15, and almost certainly 5 over 45. These are my assumptions on which I am going to argue, briefly, that rankings assume a signification BECAUSE of OUR decisions. We say, 'of course, I would like the academies to not be so status oriented, but I have to play into the system and think about my future job prospects.' This is certainly valid, but it is also MAKING the rankings significant in a non-superficial way, and reinforcing the structure you vehemently disagree with in principle. If we can agree that applicants are not homogeneously qualified and that their potential for being a great sociologist is not equal across the board (which I think we can, even if we disagree with the indicators), then we must admit that because of the aforementioned assumptions regarding OUR preferences, the highest qualified students with the greatest potential will apply and choose to go to higher ranked schools. Our practical concerns about the job market are driving this behavior; but this behavior is then driving the practical job market. When schools look to hire down the line, they understand what I have just stated; that applicants take the rankings seriously and place themselves, for the most part, in higher ranked departments when given a choice. This creates an actual, not theoretical, stratification of "talent" or whatever else you want to call "the systematic opinion of a community of scholars regarding the likelihood of success of a given student." So, when looking at a list of applicants for a job, of course prestige is going to be taken into account. In a very real way, you (collective) created the structure which logically reinforces stratification and status signification. Wow, I cannot believe I just took the time to write that. The only point I am trying to make, and is something I'm struggling with right now, is that if you really want to change the status orientation of applying and hiring (the recursive circle I just outlined), disregard status in your decisions. Be the person who gets placed well at a lower school. Don't avoid the stigma, confront it and challenge it at an individual level. This is the only way the stigma will eventually signify nothing. Because as it stands, in general, it makes sense.

ha!

haha Groovements, we're on the same page

Did anyone else just get a strange/awkward rejection letter from Harvard?... stating that all acceptees and waitlists have been notified BUT they can't tell me my decision (but I CAN do process of elimination) over email because of privacy crap? So essentially, they're implying I'm gonna get a nice rejection letter in the mail... I think who else got this?

I like this list. It reminds me of The Presentation of the Self in Everyday Life.