Hege-Money

Fall 2013 applicant as well. So "Why a PhD in Sociology?" Fundamentally, my only reason for wanting to 'waste' 6 to 7 years laboring for a piece of paper is that I regrettably acknowledge the significance of credentialing and the role that institutional legitimation plays in affording intellectual capital. There really is no form of real knowledge that is exclusive to graduate school, beyond whatever institutionalized ideology we will all inevitably accrue from having been subject to the various macro and micro power dynamics implicit within the graduate school experience. We don't need a Ph.D. in any principled sense but alas, we have been taught to accept and desire the kool-aid. So let's drink up!

There can be elements of modernity in pre-modern civilizations. However, if we are to understood 'pre-modern' as pre-social and pre-institutional, then I would suggest that 'pre-modern' people were concerned with basic survival and not with socially constructed, institutionalized forms of consumer ideology. I suggest you re-read my statement; I did not - as you suggest - argue that "emotions are nothing more than social constructs". I was simply referring to the concept of "happiness" - an ideology that I believe is not essentially comparable to actual emotions. Next time, I suggest you actually read and comprehend my statements before interjecting your own knee-jerk reactionary perspective. I think we can all agree that there are psychological and neurochemical attributes associated with emoting. The contention is whether happiness is an emotion, not whether emotions are social constructs. You know me too well.

Happiness is a social construct of modernity, which serves no functional purpose but to fulfill hegemonic consumer ideology and reinforce the Marcusian mechanisms of one-dimensionalization. Having said that, I genuinely appreciate this forum. It's nice to know there are others like me who appreciate Sociology. It's unfortunate that this discipline is so marginalized and stigmatized within undergraduate education.

I know how that feels.

I plan on finishing up two pubs (both in Q1 Soc Journals) and R&R'ing (Q2 Non-Sociological) a previously sent pub.

Thurston Domina at UCI

The real question is whether there is an inherent paradigmatic contradiction between quantitative and qualitative forms of methodology. Can "truth" - to the extend that we can derive "truth" from bounded empiricism - be coalesced within two distinct forms of investigation? In my opinion, strict adherence to any form of methodology - quantitative or qualitative - results in a limited interpretive framework.

"Hedgey"? I'll disregard that. You're possibly right, and I hope you are. Like ThisSlum points out: this may all be contingent on age and an assortment of personality, experiential variables. At my age, I simply do not see how one would, for instance, choose to go to an inferior school or a school that does not maximize one's academic interests in order to ensure the continued viability of a relationship. While this may not always be the case, I myself have witnessed this occur in multiple occasions.

That's an interesting statistic. Let me re-phrase my statement. I did not mean to imply that only graduate students work hard; although I acknowledge from re-reading my original statement that it seemed like that was exactly what I was implying. What I'm suggesting, particularly from discussing this exact topic with accomplished professors and publication-heavy graduate students, is that success in graduate school (not measured by graduation rate but by academic output, e.g. publications, conferences, fellowships, etc) necessitates, to a certain extent, a detachment from external time-consuming entities. Whether or not this is the ideal condition is up for debate, but what remains clear is the fact that, aside from a select few, it is difficult to have a successful relationship and a successful developing career.

This thread turned out better than I expected. I guess one of the central issues is the idea of objectivity, which I believe is quite irrelevant given the high degree of subjectivity that one finds in the methodological approaches, data interpretation, and theoretical frameworks of many of the so called “quantitative-based professional sociologists”. However, I, in no way, wanted to suggest that professional sociology ought to be completely removed from consideration. There is a definite need to engage with the academic community in attempting to improve and expand on previous approaches and paradigms. My critique is of the sociologists who simply believe that the ‘means’ of sociological investigation ought to be the only factors of consideration. I personally believe any sociologist ought to incorporate all four aspects of sociological thinking: professional, critical, public, and policy. This academic, institutionalized form of sociological thinking that overemphasizes ivory tower methodology and public detachment is contrary, in my opinion, to the fundamental essence of sociology as a discipline, an essence that is characterized by a scientific concern for ‘means’ but a humanistic concern for ‘ends’. We, as sociologists, cannot be removed from the society we hope to understand and help. Part of that obligation means incorporating reflexive, critical sociological techniques and accessible, public-oriented forms of sociological engagement.

I don't necessarily think it would be advisable to be in a relationship during grad school - at least not with someone who is an 'outsider' and who may not necessarily understand or accept the long hours of research, grading papers, etc. I'm a romantic like many of you, but it seems to me that there's inevitably a need to choose (at least initially) between the development of one's career and the emotional satisfaction that comes from being in a relationship. I, personally, intend to have an unabashed, passionate love affair with my statistical packages, data modeling software, and research literature.

Thank you. I fundamentally agree with you, and I hope with the post-modern deconstruction of disciplinary lines and the politicization of academic study, there will be an increased emphasis on the praxis rather than on conventional, ivory tower methodology.

i'll grant you that. survival is definitely a worthy preoccupation.

you're feeding into the myth of institutionalism..

While the hegemonic control of conventional academic pedagogy remains very much intact, I wonder whether there will soon be a new wave of American sociology that rejects the traditional institutionalism of sociological study in favor of a praxis-oriented approach to sociological activism. Sure, there are certainly some scholars attempting to further this aspect within the sociological tradition, but I wonder whether our generation is in the process of ushering in radical institutional reform. Questions for Discussion: What do you think is the role of sociology in present and future society? How do you foresee sociology – as a discipline – developing? And why do you choose to pursue a career in sociology within this context?

Once again, that is not what I asked. I was not at all suggesting (at least I wasn't trying to suggest) that schools, like UCLA and UCB, ONLY look at one's last two years when performing the holistic review of one's application. I was simply asking WHICH schools formally ask on their applications for a GPA calculated using only the last two years of instruction. It's a technical question regarding the actual, official application.

I don't mean to be insolent, but that's not what I asked. I asked which schools calculate GPA based on the last 2 years of undergraduate work NOT what the average GPA is for each school. Knowing the latter - while useful - is irrelevant to my question. Thanks anyway though.

Does anyone know where I can find a comprehensive list of the different Sociology Ph.D. programs within the T-20 that calculate GPA for admission based solely on the last two years? I've already searched through the grad school websites, but I could only come up with Berkeley and UCLA.