magicunicorn

If you are going to read, don't read classical "founding father's" stuff. I'd read some interesting books from just graduated sociology phDs. Stuff that were dissertations previously, but were just published into books, and things that you are interested in. These won't be in your readings lists in school since they are so new, but they are important to know about (and having read them gives you an edge) - since they signal where the discipline is going. I suggested not doing the classical stuff since you will most likely have to do it anyway in your program the first year, and its more helpful/encouraging to do it in the class where your theory professor can contextualize the literature for you better.

Since most people have never really encountered the situation you are, I would look at some programs that you think are a good fit, and try to make a connection with one of the faculty you want to work with. They will be the one to say whether or not (and how) it would work for you to reapply into a program. Most people are human (sarcastically said), and hopefully some will understand that you just weren't in the right place earlier in life to finish - if they see that their program will be the right one for you now, then I think you will be set. I will also add that sometimes older candidates who have suffered a few hard knocks are valued by faculty, as they realize you've learned a lot from your experiences and are more motivated now than ever to reach your goals.

You can apply to the NSF predoctoral fellowship the year before you start a program, the first and second year in your program - and you just need to be awarded it once and it covers 3 full years of funding somewhere in the range of $30K+ per year I believe. It also becomes a strong signal to everyone that the "discipline already thinks highly of you." (I say that in air quotes since well, how much your trajectory is determined by your work your 1st year in grad school seems a bit dubious, but I'm just repeating what advisors have told me -- but its also why programs that fully fund their students also encourage their students to apply still). You must be a US citizen, and you must not have had any school beyond a BA (ie, no MA, no JD - just one year disqualifies you). There is more info on the "Bank" section of Grad Cafe, where a bunch of people always freak out about when they release the winners (usually some time early April).

Single author publications at top tier journals (AJS/ASR) are basically the gold standard of getting a job - in fact, you probably just need one and you are set with a T20 placement. Next are single author publications at other journals. I've heard that being the second or third named author on an article is a bonus, but its really the former two that matter the most. (I've also gotten the advice to not get so subsumed in another professor's research that you fail to do your own). Job search committees for assistant prof jobs are really looking for single author first and foremost - hopefully that helps you sort this out a bit.

It's probably likely that you will get some external funding and RA-ships, but will it cover all 6, maybe 7 years of graduate school? I believe that the average for both school's completion rates is close to 6-7 years, maybe closer to 7 years than 6. Realistically, you will have to TA/teach at both programs for part of your time there (and in any program). A good way to check is to look at the CV's of those on the job market from both programs.. I doubt you will find someone who doesn't have a TA-ship listed for either program, even if they won an NSF or something like that (as such fellowships only cover a part of your grad studies).

I think you really have two questions here - one is about the value of TA-ships, and the other is about which school you should choose. I don't think your school decision should concern the TA-ship question at all, since well, UCLA isn't known for having incredibly deep pockets (I know a few students at UCLA who weren't able to secure outside funding and had to TA far more than 5 quarters). While you definitely don't want to get stuck TA-ing so much you don't get research done, there are some bright sides.. one, you could get to work with a prof you don't know well and establish a relationship through the TA-ship, and you could learn something from that TA-experience (yes, grad students might actually learn from an undergrad class sometime). Publishing is of course much more important, but I wouldn't pick a school based on the way you posed you question. The two programs are great programs - both have excellent placement and training. The two schools have very different cultures - (not to mention climates). Which program do you see yourself succeeding in more? (And on the other side of the scale, if you hit a rough patch, which program are you more likely to finish?)

If you are a qualitative person - and if you operate close to any of Northwestern's core strengths: ethnography, symbolic interaction, culture, critical theory (particularly with race/ethnicity or gender/sexuality), I would choose Northwestern given that the only thing attracting you to Wisconsin seems to be its USNWR ranking - I personally don't think Wisconsin is as strong as NU in the areas mentioned above (though admittedly, it would be great to learn ethnography from Alice Goffman at Wisconsin, and she was not there when I was looking at programs). Keep in mind the rankings are really based on department peer review that will heavily favor large departments (large department=more graduates=more publications=more successful faculty) - and someone once told me to view the rankings as two separate lists, a top 5 for large public programs: Berkeley, Wisconsin, Michigan, Chapel Hill, UCLA, and a top 5/6 for smaller private programs: Princeton, Stanford, Harvard, Chicago, Northwestern, UPenn. And then to think about what type of program you want to be at (larger/public, smaller/private) and then look at the rankings. It might be easier that way, since then you aren't only looking at the numerical gap between #11 and #1, but actually taking the structural differences of the programs more seriously - and then viewing the rankings as a top 5 private program vs. a top 5 public program.

This probably explains a lot, though IMHO, a stupid decision - what good is averaging the results from 2008 and 2012 - why not just publish the 2008 ones in 2009 and the 2012 ones now? From their website: "Except in criminology, survey results from fall 2008 and fall 2012 were averaged to compute the scores. This is the first time that U.S. News averaged two years of results for Ph.D. programs in the social sciences and humanities."

It's a money making enterprise for USNWR.. they rotate the rankings updates between the various disciplines to maximize their magazine/online sales. The surveys probably went out a few years ago and they just sit on the rankings to make sure they don't come out too often so that grad students like us get excited when they do.

There might not be as much change as we think - or the results could be really surprising. A few reasons: USNWR in their grad rankings, use a metric of peer ranking/evaluation and a measure of publication record by the faculty. So this naturally favors large programs (they have more faculty and more publications) and prestigious institutions (high regard through peer evaluation.. Harvard will always Harvard, Berkeley will always be Berkeley). Also, the data for these rankings was probably taken 2-3 years ago, so any recent changes/movement might not really make a difference. I think the moral of all this though is to not take these rankings that seriously (but sadly, we do and we will when they come out).

I think the thing with NYU is that its just structured really differently so in some ways it could result in a much higher stipend - but its not guaranteed. I believe they offer a straight fellowship of about $25,000 a year for 5 years (not including summer funding), but there aren't any TA/RA requirements for this fellowship. In years 3-4, you can additionally participate in their teaching program (not sure if this is as a TA or if this means teach your own classes to undergrads... I'll write more on this later) for an extra $11,000 a year. So if you did that, years 3-4 could be $36,000. Additionally,if you win a fellowship like the NSF, they let you keep all the money on top of what you got - so it could potentially be like over $50K a year. So in some ways, it could be more than others -- but without the add-ons that aren't guaranteed in writing, its pretty comparable, or less than, the Coastal private schools HYPS. @FertMigMort: Here is probably what your friend considered... given that the teaching thing is extra (and not built into the program), it may involve a lot more work. If you opted out of it, you'd be stuck living in lower manhattan on $25,000 a year. Also, the really lucrative fellowship is pretty much the NSF pre-doctoral fellowship.. however, if you have a masters or any professional degree - or even just one full year of school after your undergrad degree, you can't apply for it. Also, winning an NSF is a bit random/unpredictable and one should never assume in their financial plans that they will win one. More about TA/RA stuff: Many programs have built into their funding a TA or RA requirement. How much time does that take? Again, ask the current grad students. Usually, RA-ships are very little work, AND, they may even eventually lead to being a co-author on a paper depending on how much work/collaboration the RA-ship involves. They also let you work closely with a professor - it can actually be a great set up. TA-ships are harder to figure out. Will you be leading one discussion section a week with 10 students, reading only 10 final papers? Or will you be leading 2 sections of 40 students each and grading all their midterms and finals? How much is expected? Teaching your own class to undergraduates -- while an incredible experience for some -- will eat up a lot of time that could/should be used on your dissertation. So its smart to just ask. I think with funding - I've said this before, but just see how the current students live and ask them about how far their stipend stretches of if they are constantly worried about money. Its easier just to ask a grad student what their monthly bills are like -- then trying to figure it out from Craisglist or an online calculator. Ask about what kind of housing options the school provides for their graduate students and what the cost is, if you are concerned that the area is a high cost area (NYC, LA, Boston, SF bay area). The question really isn't who has the best funding package, but rather, can you be ok financially with the funding package the school is providing, so that you can do your optimal work and not worry so much about funding (or trying to get more funding).

@oilandvinegar.. I know it really sucks to feel like "well, if I'm so darn qualified why didn't I get in?" truth is, a lot of it is sometimes luck/timing of specific adcoms and what a program might be looking for that one year. If there are too many gender people from the previous year's admits, they may put all the highly qualified gender people aside to balance the entire program out. It isn't very uncommon for an applicant to get rejected one year from a top program - then submit almost the same application (but refined slightly) - and get accepted to that same program the next year. Did the applicant really change from one year to another? Was their SOP earth-shattering the second time around? Did they really score much better on the GRE's? You can't change your GPA/undergrad institution.. so there isn't too much you can actually "improve" -- Or it could have simply been a different admissions committee, with a different level of "fit" and need in another year. It's all very speculative and arbitrary. What is nice about @fertmigmort's explanation is that there are things you can change (ie, your SOP focus) - but some things you can't. Also, I am so thankful someone finally stepped in to say that a baseline GRE score matters, especially if the program is known for quantitative methods. If you are applying to a top program that has a strong/mandatory quantitative methods sequence, take the GREs more seriously and don't discount how a bad score might weaken your application. A top score won't get you into a top program, but a bad/below the median score may keep you out.

@oilandvinegar part of the problem is that there is a lot of overlap in admissions with who gets in a given year. While it may seem weird, one of the biggest fears of any program is "losing out" on the top admits in one cycle and not actually filling all their spots since many programs are allotted money for them that they want to use or it goes to another department's graduate students. A faculty member conveyed this interesting story to me about the problem with "Wait lists" - is that you often brand that person as "less than the other admits" from the get-go.. when they really don't see it that way. And our program seems to really discourage hierarchy among students. For an adcom, its just putting together a balanced group of 10 or so graduate students, they may have many qualified applicants they really want, but its a complicated process to get the right balance. The department I'm in doesn't have an official wait list - part of this I think is to alleviate the complicated part of having to rank the wait list (imagine the frantic phone calls from the people on that wait list asking how many people have declined an offer so far and where they stand on the wait list), and also, there's just always a fear that a school will have less then their expected yield. Because often when a school realizes this, its in mid-April.. and I've heard in the rare situations when a school goes under yield, its really hard at that point to get another top applicant to switch programs from another top one they are already committed to. It's why its just easier to not reject people a school feels is highly qualified in the odd chance that a school can't get enough students to accept a program's offer. It was conveyed to me that any top program can easily fill their class with 50+ of the applicants in a given cycle (this makes total sense as if each of the top 5 programs have 10 students each, that's 50 top students -- imagine doing this for the top 20, how many "qualified" candidates there are).. so in the admissions process when you can only admit 20, its so much easier to just "hold" 30 other applications while the dust settles.

I wanted to add something too about the funding/classmate cohesion thing.. money almost certainly will matter down the road if you are in a program that doesn't equally fund all of its students. Some programs (I believe HYP, Stanford, Northwestern, and recently Wisconsin I believe) have a policy to fund all their students equally. Other programs fund at uneven levels depending on available scholarships/student fit or through how much a school wants you there (ie, how many competing offers did you get from other schools that you could bargain with). So, you might be in a situation where you happened to get a great 30K funding package at one of the places that doesn't fund equally - but you really should consider how that will affect the dynamic of you and your classmates when others around you are trying to TA/RA/second job it for half that amount. It's going to make a difference in terms of your relationship with your classmates -- and perhaps this doesn't matter to you. Though I would add that I think your fellow peers and your relationships/friendships with them are crucial for success (or just even getting through) a doctoral program.

...