splitends

Also, there is a fair amount of randomness and dumb luck in this process. It's not necessarily just about your qualifications-- it's also about who else applied that year, who happened to be on the admissions committee that year, and the status of any professors you would be working with at the prospective school (though I'm sure the impact of this one varies a bit from discipline to discipline-- I don't know how much it would affect an Ed.M. as compared to say a Physics PhD program, where it will matter a lot if the professor already has too many students in their lab, will be on sabbatical that year, doesn't have funding for additional students, etc.) It could just be that the composition of the applicants is different from a few years ago (the recession has sent tons of what would have been jobseekers into grad school instead, after all) and the pool might be more competitive overall, or through random variation there were just more people applying in your particular area of specialty this year. It could also be that the composition of the admissions committee changed and someone who had been swayed by something in your application last time around was no longer there to advocate for it, or that the general inevitable biases of the committee members just moved them in a different direction. Anyway, I'm sure it must have been a bit of a let down, but don't despair too much-- You still have amazing options!

For the record, it wouldn't have crossed my mind to think there was anything pompous about this post and I'm kind of surprised that people jumped down your throat about it. If anything, I think the whole "OP, it is up to YOU to make this right!" thing is a little overblown... Chillax guys. I know feelings can be a little delicate this time of year, but don't be so quick to assume the worst of other people.

First off-- are you applying next fall? If so, you're starting really early. Of course in many ways that's a good thing, but keep in mind that things could change a bit between now and December when application deadlines start rolling around. But about the statement: For the first draft, I think it can be more helpful to get everything down on paper, even if it's unorganized or poorly communicated, than to try to write clearly and hold back. Certainly from an editor's perspective it is easier to comment on a mess of ideas that need more structure or elaboration or concision than to try to figure out what is missing from a clear but limited statement, especially when your editors are a forum of anonymous strangers. I would encourage you to explore a little more what makes you stick out as an applicant: what makes you passionate, what makes you especially well qualified, etc. Based on what you have there, all I know about you is that you studied economics because you wanted to learn about the economy, you took lots of classes on microeconomics, and a professor once told you that you should go to grad school. I have to imagine that that description could belong to just about anyone applying to econ programs. So I think right now the main strength is that it's clearly written (which is huge, because a lot of people have problems with that when writing application essays), but I think the biggest weakness is that it sounds a little generic. One way to deal with this might be to add a few more concrete details about your experiences, your accomplishments, etc. Also, if you're going to start with an anecdote, I would make it a little stronger than the one sentence you have. The "If you have no other plans..." just makes it sound like an offhand comment or something-- not really a strong introduction. You could switch routes and dive right into saying "I want to study X for A B C reasons." If you do want to have that catchy opening, though, just make it a little more vivid and meaningful. It can be a little more time/space consuming than the other route, but it can be effective IF it's done well. I'd also echo the earlier comment about rephrasing to make it sound more positive rather than make it sound like an excuse for something. Other than that, I think the tone is about right Anyway, if you want more general advice, I'd recommend checking this out: http://grad.berkeley.edu/admissions/state_purpose.shtml Good luck!

Ohhello, I don't think there's anything superficial about your concerns. Diversity is a totally reasonable criteria for evaluating a school-- nobody wants to feel isolated or tokenized in their department. I wish I could seriously consider socioeconomic diversity when looking at schools, but realistically academia is not home to many poor kids at all...

I went to an advice on applying to grad school panel in my department, and one of the professors there said that the worst thing about writing letters of rec is never knowing what ended up happening with the student after they applied. So definitely let them know your status one way or another! I would second all the advice to go with a handwritten card-- I just think it seems more thoughtful, especially to an older audience. As for wanting them to be able to respond, presumably they have or can easily find your email address. More than once I've left a card in a prof's mailbox and got an email response a few hours later with "I got your card!...." Emailing a thank you is probably better than nothing, but a card is just a little above and beyond.

Also, for more general advice on SOP, try here: http://grad.berkeley.edu/admissions/state_purpose.shtml But you definitely won't be the first person to want to go a slightly different angle in grad school than you took as an undergrad. (A lot of people go into grad school sure they won't change their minds, then inevitably do once they're there and getting exposed to new ideas.) How you communicate that in your SOP will probably depend a lot on how much of a turnaround you had, but you can definitely make it work.

Hmm...here's my take on the situation: One of the most helpful ways of thinking about the SOP that someone suggested to me was that it's more or less your intellectual biography. You discuss how you came to your interests, you support what you say with evidence from your undergrad record (classes you took, research you did, etc), and you explain where want to go with those interests in the future. It is OK to have a more or less focused understanding of what the future research might look like (In my case, I kind of just narrowed it down to some thematic interests and explained that I was a little methodologically uncertain-- the whole section was relatively short. One of the only other SOPs I read was from a friend who had an extremely clear idea of not only the academic literature he wanted to address, but also had a specific project planned out. We were both very successful in the admissions process-- there is no one right way that departments prefer.) All of this should fit together into a cohesive narrative that always concludes with the assurance that whatever program you're applying to is the one and true place where you should pursue the work you want to do. It does not make any sense to say "I really loved my stats classes, and I was really inspired by working with Prof X on her demography research, and my thesis used an innovative quantitative analysis of migration to contribute to Y theory, so now as a graduate student I really want to do an ethnographic field study of street violence in cities with gang injunctions." There are reasons why you came to the interests you have, even if you have experience studying something else in the past. Let me offer an example from my own intellectual biography: The very first independent project I did as an undergrad looked at social stratification and education. I was actually extremely bored with the project before I finished it, and I knew that I didn't want to study education at all after that. But I got some good experience out of it, some accolades to add to my CV, and a good sense of what I didn't want to study (a more valuable lesson than a lot of people realize at first). In my SOP, I briefly described the project and what I got out of it (experience with research, an award and a presentation at some conferences), then explained something like: "But this line of inquiry ultimately left me with more questions than answers. Rather than looking at how stratification was created and recreated in the education system, I became increasingly interested in how people understood and justified the ideas that support stratification throughout society at large. This new area of research led me to blah blah blah..." You get the idea. I would suggest thinking about what you've done before-- the classes you've taken, and research you've assisted with or done yourself-- think about what you're interested in doing in the future, and then think about how you went from one set of interests to the next. Bridging that gap and explaining the evolution of your interests can be an integral part of your statement. You don't have to lie-- just reflect on the path that brought you to where you are, and try to figure out how to put it all together in a cohesive narrative that will help an admissions committee understand where you're coming from and what they can expect from you in the future. Anyway, this could go on and on and on. If any of this is helpful to you, please feel free to PM me for more specific advice/feedback/whatever. I hope this doesn't make me sound like too much of a jackass, but I feel pretty comfortable saying that I kick ass at application essays, and I'd be happy to help if you want it. Again, good luck!

I don't think it's necessarily pompous-- it's a legitimately confusing thing that happens in the admissions process. A lot of people assume that graduate school admissions are similar to undergrad in that "the best" students have the best chance of getting in everywhere they apply, and that logically getting into a more competitive program seems to imply that you are going to be a more coveted applicant at a less competitive program. But in reality the calculus of determining grad school admissions is much more complicated. Grad departments can only admit so many people, and have to hope that a decent percentage of those students will accept the admissions offer even though they likely have competing offers from other departments. When you look at things from that perspective, it doesn't make sense to admit students that seem highly unlikely to accept the offer. It doesn't necessarily mean that there was some hint in your application, or lack of enthusiasm in an SOP-- the admissions committee may just have to figure it out knowing what they know about the admissions field in general. I've mentioned this elsewhere in the forum, but when I was looking around at schools, a current grad student at Harvard told me that he had been rejected from every grad school he applied to, including several less competitive schools, except for Harvard. Anyway, the point is that the whole mechanics of "safety schools" are just totally different in PhD programs.

Someone else might have more in depth knowledge on the subject, but based on what I know, I don't think Yale should be on that list. I spoke with a professor there last summer when I was considering applying, and I was told that they had only recently started offering a one semester course in qualitative methods. Before that, they more or less left it up to people to figure it out. Doesn't sound promising. And if you are considering top ten schools, it's not quite as simple as saying they'd all be good. You essentially won't be able to do ethnography at Stanford, whereas Berkeley is extremely strong in all qualitative methods, especially ethnography. UCLA is another good qualitative program, and I would include Harvard on that list too. Some place like Princeton is trickier, because Mitch Duneier is a pretty big name in the field, but there wouldn't be many other people to work with and you would be required to take some serious stats coursework and write a "publishable" quantitative paper pretty early on in the program. In general, when you're considering programs, I would look first at professors who you'd want to work with, then look at the coursework requirements for the program. Will there be more than one person there who could mentor you in the specific methods you want to use? Are there courses regularly available in those methods? How many courses would you have to take in quantitative methods? Also, this goes for all 2013 applicants who are asking these sorts of questions on this site: I hope you're also having these conversations with your professors/future letter writers. Besides the fact that they are likely to be infinitely more knowledgable on the subject, it's also a great way to start a conversation with a professor that maybe you haven't had a chance to talk to in a while, and to show them that you are serious about doing this. Anyway, good luck!

I've also been advised to keep track of how hot the other students are.

So, you've already gotten a lot of good advice, but I'm going to chime in with a few additional things to consider: 1) "I'm really interested in this field-- what are some of the things being studied in it right now?" is an EXCELLENT way to start a very productive conversation with a professor, who will know a lot more about it than any of us. If you don't already have good working relationships with your undergrad professors, going into their office hours and saying exactly this would be the way to start. Also, "I'm thinking about graduate schools-- what are strong departments in this area?" is another great way to continue that conversation. 2) If you are really strapped for cash/don't want to take on additional debt/whatever, you are relatively serious about wanting to study sociology (there is a big difference between enjoying an undergraduate class and actually wanting to be a researcher), but not totally sure about wanting a job in academia, then in theory you could apply to a funded PhD program knowing that you intend to walk away once you get your Master's. (Most programs I know of grant you a Master's on your way to the PhD, the timing of which will vary considerably from program to program). There are a lot of problems with this scenario, but I sort of know people who have done it, and I think it can be preferable to adding on $50K+ in debt for a terminal Master's degree program in some situations. But frankly it sounds like you have a lot more to think about before applying to grad school. I think grad school can seem like the obvious choice when you've been going to school your whole life and don't really know what else to do after graduating from college, but it's not easy and it's definitely not for everyone. In fact, the advice that I've been given is that if you can see yourself doing anything else at all with your life, do that instead. I don't think you should commit 6-8 years of your life to this time devouring emotional roller coaster with few job prospects waiting for you at the end of it unless you are, at the very least, reasonably sure that it's what you want to do.

I don't think it's relevant in the sense that I would spend time talking about it in the Statement of Purpose, and definitely wouldn't submit it as a writing sample. It could be a line on your CV if you had a section marked "Research Experience." But honestly, it just doesn't seem like there are really transferable skills there or experiences there, unless for some reason you were using STATA or R while designing this building. Remember, it's all about convincing a bunch of sociologists that you have the potential to be a sociologist, not that you were a good engineering student...

My McNair paper was pretty terrible. I still listed the project on my CV. Research experience is research experience-- you sell yourself short if you don't list everything relevant. Just don't turn it in as your writing sample.

Research experience means you did something connected to research, either helping someone else on their research or conducting your own. So if you assisted a professor or grad student, worked as an assistant on a larger project, etc, that would all count as research experience. Original research just means you're doing something you planned and carried out yourself, which for undergraduates would probably come in the form of writing a senior thesis, or perhaps doing an original project with undergrad research training programs like McNair. Empirical research means that you actually went out and gathered original data yourself in order to do your original project. So if you set up a survey, conducted interviews, did an ethnography, did a content analysis of cultural artifacts, etc-- that would all be empirical research. Theoretical research would be essentially "armchair sociology"-- something like writing a paper using So-and-So's Theory of Whatever to criticize Such-And-Such Event. From what I understand, there's a bit of a hierarchy in terms of how adcomms will look at the work, but at the end of the day you work with what you've got. Also, @xdarthveganx, don't stress out about being "pigeonholed." The only thing people care about your undergrad record is that it shows promise for you doing well in the future. You're not actually a grad student yet, and they don't expect you to know how to do things grad students do, especially methods. That's why you take a methods course your first year, and I know a ton of people who have radically switched method preferences since going to grad school. (But if you are going to invest time and energy learning a stats program, don't do SPSS-- no one uses it since IBM bought the company. Look at STATA instead).

If you really want to do theory, know your audience. Don't change your interests just to get in-- apply to places that will like you and your interests. Berkeley and NYU will be excited to hear about theory, many other schools won't. And I have to disagree with the arrogance accusation. First, I don't think it sounded particularly arrogant, just confident. Second, most people make the opposite mistake when writing SoPs. In my first round of feedback, people pretty much went through and inflated everything I had to say severalfold (for example, "My thesis..." became "My thesis, which was awarded highest honors by my department,...." and so on-- no lies, just more details about why you're great). If you don't tell them why you're awesome, no one else will. (Well, your letter writers will, but you get my point?) Anyway, it worked for me.

Hmm...that's a really interesting point. I never really considered that it might be something specific to my department. (It's true that lots of people never want to leave, and I think it runs a lot deeper than just not having other similar schools around-- some people just fall totally in love with this department, as well as the area. Plus, I reiterate-- it really is an awesome program, and it makes sense, especially for people with particular interests, to feel like they're going to be better supported here than they would be at other similarly prestigious schools). But I know it's not the only school that has heavy hitters with both BAs and PhDs from the same institution. Lots of Harvard alum seem to fall into this category, at the very least. But seriously-- if you run into Harvard alum in your Harvard PhD cohort, would you really question if they belong there? They only accepted ten people this year. Nobody got in easily, and I'm sure everyone there is more than highly qualified. I just can't see that being a major issue if you're talking about a top five program. And again, I've been told by some pretty famous and important sociologists that nobody cares at all where you went to undergrad once you're on the job market, and nobody looks twice if you went to the same school you got your PhD from. I'm still really torn on what to do in my specific situation, but this just isn't a factor in my otherwise confusing mix of thoughts and feelings on the subject.

The major thing I would think you're missing is original research. From what I've seen, research experience is a major difference between more or less competitive applicants. A lot of people say "I want to be a sociologist!" when what they really mean is "I like reading things sociologists wrote!" There's a really big difference, and having experience with original research is the best way to show a school that you know that difference, which makes it safer for them to bet that you actually know what you're getting yourself into and will actually successfully finish the program. It sounds like you're a theory person-- from what I understand, theoretical work (which is what I assume you mean when you mention the "writings" you're considering publishing?) is generally less well regarded than original empirical work in this process, but something is always better than nothing. And frankly, I'm not entirely sure how someone could get relevant research experience once you've been out of undergrad for a few years, aside from getting a master's degree of course. So whatever you have written, I would recommend trying to get some traction out of it-- present it at relevant conferences, publish it in undergrad journals if you can (there are a few who are pretty open to submissions from all over, and maybe you can look into some at your alma mater-- just google them), and polish it up. Writing sample is another important factor that I think too many people overlook. I got into several top programs, and professors at every one of them mentioned my writing sample as a main factor in my admission. So don't take that lightly-- submit something that not only shows off your ability to write, but that really shows off your ability to think creatively. Also, you seem to get this, but nobody can stress enough how important it is to find someplace that fits you well, especially if you have super specific research interests (which does not necessarily equal huge bonus points, btw-- some professors prefer students coming in more open minded, and most expect that you will change your mind to some degree early on in grad school). But if you are married to an idea, make sure you apply to places that will be able to support you in that. Anyway-- good luck, and don't stress yourself out too much!

Yeah, I totally get that-- I'm just saying that I don't think it's likely to be an issue, and that if anybody does have that misconception, it's based on serious lack of information that will probably be corrected really early on. I've been interacting with several grad students in the department lately, and they seem to totally get that it's an accomplishment, and many of them are actually really supportive of me staying here. Frankly, I don't think ANYBODY gets stigmatized like that in a top program-- competition to get in is so cutthroat, I get the impression that once you're in it's accepted that you're pretty good. Nobody got in easily. In fact, the one warning I did get from a current grad student along these lines said exactly the opposite. She pointed out that it might put me in an awkward position vis a vis my classmates to already know the department really well and to already have good relationships with professors, and that it might just make me feel uncomfortable or like there's extra pressure to live up to expectations, etc. I can theoretically see where you're coming from, but I'm just not concerned about it. I wouldn't recommend anyone take that into consideration unless they've heard of rumors or assumptions along those lines in the specific department they're considering.

I really do have doubts about the validity of the whole "affirmative action admit" perception. I've been reassured by many top people in the field that it's not at all a concern insofar as the discipline or the job market are concerned. I really don't think it's going to affect my career at all. If it came from anywhere, it MIGHT come from other students, but frankly it would be based on total ignorance. I've heard that second or third tier programs do sometimes try to recruit their own students because it might be harder for them to get the students they want from the general population, BUT most top tier schools have tremendous bias against taking their own undergraduates. The Princeton Sociology department never takes their own students at all. My school takes them once in a blue moon, but they're usually against it on principle-- they have to really want you to let you in. You're probably right about most everything else, though. Yet I still feel torn...

There is a really thorough discussion of MAPPS some place else on this forum. I suggest you poke around for it.

@AnsuEmi: What exactly is the program you're applying to? I'm not sure if there are different norms between academic versus professional programs here that might explain things, but I've never ever heard of someone having to make a deposit on a degree program, especially so early in the admissions process. Hmm.... I think you should really ask professors in your undergrad institution if this is normal behavior in your field. It seems fishy to me.

Many good points sciencegirl. I think it would be easier to follow that advice if I weren't already at arguably the best program in the country (though of course it's an impossible thing to quantify, and once you're in the top five I don't think prestige differences are really all that discernable, but I mean-- it's good, and a lot of people want to be here), which happens to be a perfect fit for my research interests. I've had professors tell me: "Normally I would always tell a student to go some place else for graduate school, but...you're just such a good fit here. I wouldn't normally recommend staying, but I think this case is an exception." I've also been assured by many, many people that your CV won't get any funny looks for listing the same school for undergrad and grad if it's a top program (There's no way anyone at my school is here because they didn't have other options-- it's not exactly easy to get in). And as much as I agree that it's probably a good idea to see how the other half lives, I am a huge proponent of public education and I am afraid of feeling just completely out of place at an elite private school. But it's hard to say if I'm just thinking all that because I like living here and I love the people in my department. It's not like there aren't other programs that also fit my interests pretty well. ARGH. SO torn. But I really appreciate all the input! Please keep it coming!

This has come up in other threads, but most schools have signed on to the CGS agreement to have a nationwide April 15 deadline to accept an offer, so that schools can't force you to decide before hearing back from other programs. It's worth writing to someone in the program or even an administrator to ask if they are a signatory to this agreement (most schools are). It's not at all uncommon for professors on a committee to be totally ignorant of the actual administrative rules and procedures, so they may not have realized that they're not supposed to make you decide before then. Of course, they may not be signatories, but it's definitely worth asking about. Also, I have to second: They're making you pay $500 for what?

I am having a really similar dilemma! (I JUST posted about it in my discipline specific forum). I'm a little surprised that you're not being more swayed by the boyfriend-- how serious is it? I feel like all other things equal, maintaining a long term serious relationship would be a huge selling point for staying put. If you're still young and not super serious about it, though, I do see how considering that as a main factor could lead to a lot of resentment down the road. Also, are the schools similarly ranked? A significant difference in the prestige of the two programs would sway me toward one or the other. If none of that helps you make a decision, though, I would vote go some place new. Especially if you're young and went to college in your home town, it's good to see a little more of the world. Also, is this a PhD? How long would you likely take to finish the degree? A shorter time commitment would also sway me in favor of going some place new-- it wouldn't be as huge of a commitment, which would make it easier to be a little more adventurous. Anyway-- I know this is a difficult decision, so sorry for the sort of mixed advice. Good luck!

Is anyone else considering their own undergraduate university for graduate school? I would really love to hear how you're navigating the decision, because I am having an exceedingly hard time separating and weighing out a confusing mix of feelings about it. On the one hand, there are lots of objectively good reasons to stay: it's a top ranked program, its a great fit for my research interests, I love the area, I adore the grad students here, I have great relationships with many professors, and on and on and on. On the other hand, I'm lucky enough to have other great offers, and staying put will be the less personally adventurous decision, and maybe less rewarding in the long run. I've lived in the state more or less my entire life, and I've lived within a few blocks of campus for the past five years (minus one semester living abroad, and a few summers working out of state). I'm still quite young and think it might just be a good idea for me to see more of the world. And professionally speaking, I already know the work being produced in my undergrad soc department quite well, and maybe I would have more to learn some place new. And of course the entire time it's hard to decipher whether or not I'm being biased by feeling comfortable, feeling attached to people, etc. Anyway, if anyone else is going through or has gone through the same process, I would love to hear how you figured it out!