sleepycat

Go UCSC! Decisions should start trickling in next week!

Perhaps this process is a hazing act to let us in the secret order or something

rain storm

green light

independent artist

rotflmao I also like the one above it.

creative person

1. Failure happens, but I truly want a ph.d and I will keep applying time until I get in somewhere. 2. Patience, I can't wait for anything and this process has been trying me for two weeks now that people are hearing back 3. Confidence, even though my stats aren't amazing, I know I am competitive at each of my schools and that my ideas are worth a second look at my application 4. Knowledge that I am not alone in this worry filled process and I have support from gradcafe. Honestly my friends and family don't quite understand why I want to go to school for at least 6 more years, so it is nice to hear that there are others that do. 5. Did I mention confidence in my abilities?

sore thumb

As someone that is applying to UC Santa Cruz, I noticed their placements getting better along with accepting many grad students from the Ivies as undergraduates. It isn't at the level of ND or UCI but i think there is movement towards getting a better ranking. The only problem with Santa Cruz, though, is the budget crunch is drying up any extra funding.

ooo, I have similar stats (except for the gre scores but that is another story) and the program has all three of my main interests. If this round doesn't go through, I am going to apply to Penn.

"May be you can be a research librarian. You don't need to get the ph.d. because I don't see you being an academic." - my mom

resident assistant

phone call

Agree with that statement 100%. We all have our own ideologies, whether side we are on, even if we claim to be "scientific". We all have baggage. It is whether or not we choose to reveal and understand we have baggage is up to you. I think that contemporary scholars like Althasaure (sp sorry XD and sorry to quote a dead white French guy) have shown that we are part of a vast web of ideologies, whether good or bad. It is true that Weber holds a place in the social sciences that will never be forgotten and honestly we wouldn't be here if he didn't do what he did. But that does not mean he should be held as the rule. All the post-whatever scholars make valid remarks questioning the founding scholars' baggage. The founders of Anthropology who promoted Social-Cultural Evolution have been rightly criticized by even their peers and the post-whatevers and they are not being held today as the rule to base all research off of.

no coffee

I think I'm somewhere similar. I would say that I am an activist scholar. I work in the academy looking for the answers that others can use to promote social justice. Although that doesn't mean things can be overlooked to further my own agenda. I think that our generation will have something to do with the shift in American sociology, so it will be interesting to see how the future pans out.

I think this then poses a few questions: What is extent of Weber's legacy in in these complicated times when his time is way different then ours? What type of baggage does Weber have? Why do we hold Weber's ideas as rule? I didn't mean to imply that facts just speak for themselves. Facts are flexible in their interpretation, but a negative correlation can't be turned into a positive one even if there is an applied/activist bent in the goal of the research. I notice this really has become modern vs. post-whatever and frankly it isn't going to be solved here, it is still hashed out in the academy and no doubt will not be solved by the time we are all emeritus professors. I guess the only way we are going to know the future is to experience it.

act one

flea circus

angry bird

Okay, I guess i just interpreted the statement wrong.

Couldn't we also say that those who believe that sociology should be intensely rigorose are also bound by ideology as well? Sure, I am bound by ideology too. That doesn't mean that I can go and overlook facts though. Both sides of the debate produce shoddy work and to claim that one side does not is nonsense. Look, I think the bigger question is how does the field move forward? Do we stick what we have been doing or do we change it up? Everyone here is implicated in this debate regardless of wanting to be in it or not.

What do you mean by "not careful thinkers/researchers?" Do you mean less scientifically rigorous? Explain.

pretty button