magicunicorn

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).

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.    

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.    

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.    

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.    

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.

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.

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.

@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.

I think every year online calulators get thrown around this forum talking about the cost of living...  one thing to realize is that often these calculators look at the cost that it would take to *buy* a home (which often is calculated as 1/3+ of the cost of living in a certain place).  Any home in the SF bay area will be much more expensive than somewhere else (over a million dollars in some areas).  As a grad student, you probably won't be buying a home but either renting in the local area or living in graduate housing... and often graduate housing prices are fairly comparable across regions.
 
The best way to figure out if a stipend for a certain school will be adequate to live on, is to simply ask current graduate students.  Ask them what it costs for their monthly housing (and what kind of housing is it?), what they spend on food, do they have leftover money to go on fun trips or dinners out, and can they afford conferences?  Also ask them what the department provides in terms of amenities like office/research space or computers to use, do they sponsor dinners/lunches with visiting faculty or fun social events -- all these little things add up to a lot actually.
 
The point of all this, is that its best to just ask current graduate students how they feel financially supported..  do they have enough or more than enough to live and be productive, and be happy.   

Some feedback from a current grad student in a top program who has perspective on the inside.. don't read too much into these types of things.  Schools have an abundance of incredibly well-qualified candidates applying, and the last thing they would do is admit anyone they feel is a "marginal candidate" - if that were the case you wouldn't have gotten in.  You are talking about Chicago where my guess is that the final admissions decision involved having to reject (or put in the waitlist pile) many overly qualified candidates that they were enthusiastic about.  Often, faculty are just insanely busy juggling their normal academic superstar requirements plus their current students..  in short, relax - don't take it as a sign.  The admissions/visit event is much more important than the rate of phone calls from POI at this time in the decision stage.

@jacib - about when did your professor get their phD?  Just curious if there was a difference in experiences due to time.  We also had a professionalization seminar but had a different professor lead the discussion for each class each time.. and it was really interesting to note the differences in advice between older/senior faculty, midrange and younger junior faculty.  The advice given by the latter two was much more in line with the grad skool rulz book advice.. whereas the older faculty were like "I just published some papers and one day found myself tenured" (not so helpful advice if you aren't genius already) where the younger professors' experiences and suggestions were much more in line with the book advice (which is written by an assistant professor who recently graduated right?) 

@jacib - about when did your professor get their phD?  Just curious if there was a difference in experiences due to time.  We also had a professionalization seminar but had a different professor lead the discussion for each class each time.. and it was really interesting to note the differences in advice between older/senior faculty, midrange and younger junior faculty.  The advice given by the latter two was much more in line with the grad skool rulz book advice.. whereas the older faculty were like "I just published some papers and one day found myself tenured" (not so helpful advice if you aren't genius already) where the younger professors' experiences and suggestions were much more in line with the book advice (which is written by an assistant professor who recently graduated right?) 

Some feedback from a current grad student in a top program who has perspective on the inside.. don't read too much into these types of things.  Schools have an abundance of incredibly well-qualified candidates applying, and the last thing they would do is admit anyone they feel is a "marginal candidate" - if that were the case you wouldn't have gotten in.  You are talking about Chicago where my guess is that the final admissions decision involved having to reject (or put in the waitlist pile) many overly qualified candidates that they were enthusiastic about.  Often, faculty are just insanely busy juggling their normal academic superstar requirements plus their current students..  in short, relax - don't take it as a sign.  The admissions/visit event is much more important than the rate of phone calls from POI at this time in the decision stage.

Something to consider is that the job market is better for sociology phDs than anthropology phDs.. .  More sociology phDs go into research for private companies than do anthro phD's, making it slightly less competitive - my friends who are in anthro at my school seem to have a harder time on the job market than grads in my sociology phD program... I know its not a huge consideration for some people, but it was important for me in some regards when deciding between these two fields.

I posted in the UT Austin forum about this, but realized that it would be more helpful here...  most visit days are on weekdays..  since the faculty are on campus then and sometimes schools encourage you to sit in on actual grad classes.  There are almost always conflicts, either with work/school or other admit days.  My advice would be to visit any of the schools you remotely could possibly see yourself attending (and I would never choose a program without first visiting).  So those of you who are lucky to get into a lot of places - just also know that the next few months will be really chaotic with the visits and selection process. 

I posted in the UT Austin forum about this, but realized that it would be more helpful here...  most visit days are on weekdays..  since the faculty are on campus then and sometimes schools encourage you to sit in on actual grad classes.  There are almost always conflicts, either with work/school or other admit days.  My advice would be to visit any of the schools you remotely could possibly see yourself attending (and I would never choose a program without first visiting).  So those of you who are lucky to get into a lot of places - just also know that the next few months will be really chaotic with the visits and selection process. 

First year seems much more mentally challenging that academically challenging.  I spent the winter break basically hibernating after my first semester.  
 
At my program, you'd probably get an eyebrow raise (in a bad way) if you asked to go into the econ department for econometrics instead of our quant. sequence.  Part of it is that the sociology department is responsible for your training.. when you graduate, you represent the department -- and lets say you missed something completely basic in linear regression that wasn't covered in the econ department..  and showed up at another campus for a job talk and everyone was like "omg, so and so doesn't know OLS regression" -- your department looks bad.  My department makes everyone take the methods sequence courses regardless of your background so they can ensure the quality of training everyone gets, and that its consistent for all of us.
 
I think the biggest pressure in graduate school, especially at a T10 school is the constant push to "make your mark" and to get publications out.  This is compounded by the fact that you are surrounded by superstar professors who were able to do just that, and do it well.. so you constantly worry you aren't going to measure up.
 
So I don't think its the work load or whether or not you should be reading up more on theory right now -- my advice is to just enjoy life at the moment since the "work" and "pressure" that comes in graduate school isn't something you can really ameliorate with advance prep.  Rather, build up a support network and do as much as you can now to rest up so when things really start slamming you around in graduate school, you are mentally up for the challenges.
 
They constantly tell us that graduate school is a marathon, not a sprint.. not to burn out too early or too fast, but rather pace yourself and keep your eyes on the larger picture..  its great advice.

First year seems much more mentally challenging that academically challenging.  I spent the winter break basically hibernating after my first semester.  
 
At my program, you'd probably get an eyebrow raise (in a bad way) if you asked to go into the econ department for econometrics instead of our quant. sequence.  Part of it is that the sociology department is responsible for your training.. when you graduate, you represent the department -- and lets say you missed something completely basic in linear regression that wasn't covered in the econ department..  and showed up at another campus for a job talk and everyone was like "omg, so and so doesn't know OLS regression" -- your department looks bad.  My department makes everyone take the methods sequence courses regardless of your background so they can ensure the quality of training everyone gets, and that its consistent for all of us.
 
I think the biggest pressure in graduate school, especially at a T10 school is the constant push to "make your mark" and to get publications out.  This is compounded by the fact that you are surrounded by superstar professors who were able to do just that, and do it well.. so you constantly worry you aren't going to measure up.
 
So I don't think its the work load or whether or not you should be reading up more on theory right now -- my advice is to just enjoy life at the moment since the "work" and "pressure" that comes in graduate school isn't something you can really ameliorate with advance prep.  Rather, build up a support network and do as much as you can now to rest up so when things really start slamming you around in graduate school, you are mentally up for the challenges.
 
They constantly tell us that graduate school is a marathon, not a sprint.. not to burn out too early or too fast, but rather pace yourself and keep your eyes on the larger picture..  its great advice.

One more thing -- I can't believe that its only January and people are posting about the decision process and etiquette etc -- but I want to really stress to just not be a jerk or be rude in this process (to both faculty, other grads and other admits).  There are SO many horror stories about admits among current graduate students and faculty.. and your reputation is important.  Don't worry about being smart -- your job in this process is not to convince people in the programs you are visiting that you are smart (you've already done that - they have admitted you already) -- but I think the most important thing is to be a nice and well-manered person with as little ego as possible.  If you were stuck on a deserted island (which sometimes characterizes graduate school), would you rather spend the 6-8 years stuck with someone trying to prove how smart they are, or someone who is fun and an overall nice person.  
 
So with the phone call - don't try to impress the professor, talk to them like a friend and be genuine.  Be gracious and polite, and relax.
 
Also, people remember things..  I heard this one story about how this one job candidate was invited to give a job talk at a certain school, and that the faculty remembered her from her admit visit -- luckily for her, they thought she was an incredible candidate 6 years earlier and really nice to be around at the visit, and it helped her in the process (I can only imagine the flip side of this if they remember you as the a**hole).

It was almost always first an e-mail - then followed up by a phone call, then a snail mail letter later (sometimes also with a the same letter in pdf form emailed in cased).  
 
Here's some advice -- don't be scared and pick up the phone and answer it.  The person on the other line wants to be your mentor and friend for the rest of your academic life -- the person/faculty who chooses to call you has a vested interest in getting you to their program.  Give them the respect to pick up the phone if you are free and then just talk to them at a one-on-one level like you would any professional conversation you would have.  They know you are probably super nervous on the other line - they were there many years before in that same spot.  You may say something stupid - they will forgive you.  
 
A big part of being successful in academia is presenting yourself and your research interests -- and here's a chance to just have a nice convo with someone on your side.  If you have a crazy stalker and don't pick up numbers you don't recognize, after getting into a program, look up the area code for the school so you know if the call is coming in from one of those areas.  If you are in class or whatever, call them back as soon as you can. 
 
Oh - if they ask what other programs you are considering, decide beforehand if you want to say anything.  I started off not telling anyone, then realized that was ineffective for me, so I was just honest about what programs I was deciding between.  It really helped actually in my case (since schools were all very competitive, but differed quite a bit in funding and methodology), but I know others who didn't want to say anything about what other programs they got into and stuck with this strategy.  

@incognegra.  I actually considered this long and hard too..  and realized that the phD route was better for me.  I could get my training paid for by a top 10 research university, and then eventually blog and "dumb-down/de-academize" my scholarship for the masses.  Part of my decision was that journalism was perhaps an even harder route.. it was highly unpredictable.. I don't have the charisma of Rachel Maddow (nor her delightful on air wit), and I don't have insider connections that have allowed other journalists or raw talent to succeed as name-brand stars (in the likes of Lewis, Gladwell or Levitt, etc).  During my time questioning "my route" -- some sociology students did bring up Matt Desmond and Adam Reich as examples..  grad students who managed to publish "non-sociology" books while graduate students)..  and this actually gave me some encouragement.  I was actually really surprised at how open some of my advisors now in graduate school have been to me trying to publish outside of sociology as well.  Their suggestions have been to publish a few "sociology" type things in journals, and then to rewrite the material into more general articles/possible book chapters -- they seemed to understand the crossover that happens a lot now in the sociology field with that of the general interest one. 
 
It just seemed a safer choice for me -- I could get paid getting my phD, learn and read and have famous scholars read my writing that I do for their classes/dissertation -- while at the same time, exploring other routes to share my research (blogging etc).  The other choice - sitting at home, freelancing on various journalism gigs, blogging, networking and trying to be famous, seemed like it was too unpredictable and hard to pull off financially.  At least the phD route gave me more of of a safety net (and health insurance!).

@incognegra.  I actually considered this long and hard too..  and realized that the phD route was better for me.  I could get my training paid for by a top 10 research university, and then eventually blog and "dumb-down/de-academize" my scholarship for the masses.  Part of my decision was that journalism was perhaps an even harder route.. it was highly unpredictable.. I don't have the charisma of Rachel Maddow (nor her delightful on air wit), and I don't have insider connections that have allowed other journalists or raw talent to succeed as name-brand stars (in the likes of Lewis, Gladwell or Levitt, etc).  During my time questioning "my route" -- some sociology students did bring up Matt Desmond and Adam Reich as examples..  grad students who managed to publish "non-sociology" books while graduate students)..  and this actually gave me some encouragement.  I was actually really surprised at how open some of my advisors now in graduate school have been to me trying to publish outside of sociology as well.  Their suggestions have been to publish a few "sociology" type things in journals, and then to rewrite the material into more general articles/possible book chapters -- they seemed to understand the crossover that happens a lot now in the sociology field with that of the general interest one. 
 
It just seemed a safer choice for me -- I could get paid getting my phD, learn and read and have famous scholars read my writing that I do for their classes/dissertation -- while at the same time, exploring other routes to share my research (blogging etc).  The other choice - sitting at home, freelancing on various journalism gigs, blogging, networking and trying to be famous, seemed like it was too unpredictable and hard to pull off financially.  At least the phD route gave me more of of a safety net (and health insurance!).

I honestly don't think Coursera would add any benefit to your application and could seriously hurt your application - simply because the bulk of the review of your application will examine 1. your undergraduate record, 2. your statement of purpose, 3. recommendations, 4, masters program work, 5. extra-curriculars. Where would Coursera courses get included? If they wind up in your SOP, that is a huge waste of space. The SOP is an incredibly short and concise statement by academic standards - and throwing in a line about taking an online course (who cares who taught it) would seem to most adcoms completely unnecessary and almost seem as if you either didn't have anything more exciting to mention in your SOP, or wonder why you even needed to take make up classes (did you bomb your undergrad?). Also, the way the online applications work is that there is a place to upload each item and there is really no upload space for a "certificate of completion" from Coursera. Including it in your CV too just screams that you are trying to pad since your aren't confident in whats there. For the CV, the rule is concise and less (but high quality) is always always better than a CV that has more in it, but is bad or "filler" resume stuff.

Here is the benefit of those courses: you learn stuff about Sociology. You know more about theory and can incorporate these ideas into your writing and your SOP.. and you can learn more before you start your grad program so you can get a leg up on your classmates.. but just please save yourself a potential frown-face from an adcom and don't mention the coursera courses in your application.

Also - realize that the admissions committees for every school usually changes from year to year and only has maybe 8-15% of the entire faculty... and that often these faculty will have preference over students in their area. And sometimes the admissions committee is chosen based on what students they are looking for to fill in gaps. For example, if a school has too many graduate students who are cultural sociologists but not enough ones doing historical sociology, they may ask the historical sociology professors to be on the adcom and to have the cultural ones step back. So if you happened to make an earth-shattering connection with the cultural sociology professor at that school in that one cycle, you might be out of luck. Think about a program like Wisconsin which has 50+ professors, 20 "subfields," hundreds of applications, an admissions committee of 8 professors trying to decide. Making a connection with a professor may help, probably won't hurt, for some cases may be what gets you in (*that* professor sits on the committee that year), but in all likelihood is not crucial.

I think what is more important -- and something you should spend time doing -- is reading up on the research of the professors you would want to work with at each program and to craft something in your statement reflecting something smart about that connection between your interests and their work.