hiking

Those acceptance rates are calculated by final decision only. R&R is technically a final decision and is probably on of the most common initial responses to submitting to a journal (along with accepted pending major revision.) It can often take upwards of 2 years for something to get published in a journal like ASR due to the constant revisions needed. Calculating acceptance rate without factoring those in is extremely limiting ("we only accepted 100 articles but there are ~400 more that are likely to be accepted in the future" seems to be what they are implying there. Not exactly difficult if you stick with it.)
 
I'd like to see a source for this idea that faculty at lower ranked programs aren't publishing as much in top journals. If you're at an R1 you need to be publishing in top journals to get tenure, regardless of rank. My lowly unranked program just denied tenure to someone with a PhD from a top 10 sociology program because she wasn't publishing in top ranked journals.
 
GRE/GPA doesn't show student quality and most programs know this. Ask them and you will see.
 
You also failed to miss my overall point because you were so focused on your statistical argument. It's not the program ranking that matters but the networks and people you become enmeshed with during the process. This includes high ranked programs, of course, but it also includes programs that might be better suited to the individual that are low ranked or programs like mine that can't really be ranked or are too new to really have data for. Besides that, there is a flaw in your logic here. If, by your statement, going to a top ranked program trains someone on how to do research that gets published in top tier journals, and then that person gets a job at a low ranked university, where does that knowledge go? Do low and unranked programs have magical barriers that keep knowledge out? My committee has people from U of Iowa, UC-Berkeley, and two from Yale (including a sociologist with a PhD from Yale who was a full professor at Berkeley before coming here.) Because they are now at an unranked program do their networks disappear? What about their knowledge of academic publishing practices? Additionally, because of the program I'm in, I have more face time with all of them than many of my friends and colleagues at "better" programs.
 
It's not that the things OP mentioned aren't important. I think they are more important than they lead on. It's also not that higher ranked programs don't help in these things. The point is that higher ranked programs are not alone in helping people get TT jobs at R1 schools. Rather than focusing so much on program rank, I think people ought to be focusing on the programs themselves. Who is there, what kind of networks do they have, how often do they publish and where? These are things that aren't going to show up in rankings (which have notoriously low, and dropping response rates anyway.)

I'm going to use the example of my program, which is not and will never be (I don't think) ranked in the 'top' if only because it's interdisciplinary. One of those disciplines is sociology. There is certainly truth to the idea that programs will train and prepare you differently, but the idea that these can be stratified or utilized by some particular metric without thinking about a myriad of other factors just seems odd to me. I should also mention that, to my knowledge, no one has graduated with a degree in 'Global and Sociocultural Studies' just yet, most graduates have been in IR/Geography or Comparative Sociology and the change to the new department (which removed geography from IR and put it with sociology and anthropology) also brought about changes in the faculty that is hired.
 
1) Methods and theory training are not limited to the 'top' programs. We are required to take qualitative methods (ethnographic, interview-based, etc.), quantitative methods (big datasets, survey design and implementation, etc.), and an additional methods course that we can choose (can be GIS, ethnohistorical, a second level of quant, or from another department as long as your advisor and the program director approve it.) We also have three required theory courses, one in general social science theory, one in your discipline, and one in another discipline. The idea of this methods and theory training is that, regardless of what you end up using, you have the tools necessary to explain why you are using them. I will never use quant methods in my research. It makes absolutely no sense. However, I will know enough about quant methods to critique them, talk knowledgeably about the limitations to them in my research, and move forward from there. (We also just interviewed three quant methodologists as the primary one who was here did not get tenure. All three came from top programs and two had articles in SF and AJS. The one who came out on top of nearly everybody's list and was offered the position was the one who did not have an SF or AJS publication. He was also the only one who hadn't done a postdoc.)
 
2) I would love to see how you prove this. Considering we have people who have come here over 'top' programs, and at least in one case a person who chose a 'top' program and, after their first year asked if they were to apply again would they be offered the fellowship they were offered the first time, it doesn't seem like it would be too easy to prove such a general statement. Sure, there are less competitive programs and more competitive programs but it doesn't always correlate with rank. Even if it did, it would not necessarily mean that everyone else gets the leftovers.
 
3) We generally have just as good, if not better, funding opportunities than most universities including $750/yr from the department, $500/yr from the college, and $300/yr from the graduate school to attend conferences, professional development events, or preliminary research travel. While we only offer four years of funding through TA or RAships, the department has done an excellent job lately of helping students get external funding including the DPDF, IDRF, and DDIG. A visiting student deciding between us and other 'top' programs said we were the only place she visited where students weren't really worried about funding. Even the few students who have chosen to come without funding (one of whom turned down a funded offer from UPenn) have been able to find funding here.
 
4) I don't even follow the logic here. It's not that difficult or rare to get published in top, field-specific journals as long as you are conducting original research. If you are at a research university you should be. The idea in our program is that everything you write for publication should be submitted to the highest journal you can reasonably submit to (meaning, don't submit to a higher ranking journal just because it's higher ranking. Submit based on what the research is.) The problem, I think, is that people submit to the wrong journals too often and get rejected. Rather than thinking that it may be a case of journal fit they immediately drop journal tier. I've seen this type of thing happen and I would wager that it happens often.
 
5) Again, I don't follow your logic here. It's to the point where I can't even respond. Are you suggesting that non-'top' programs are neither collaborative nor competitive and instead people just sort of float around in the ether?
 
6) In the past two years I have met, talked to, and maintained connection with a number of top scholars including sociologists at 'top' programs. Our professors come from a number of the schools considered to be in the 'top' of their respective fields and their networks simply do not just go away once they leave. As a non-sociological example, my advisor and her husband (both geographers) just hosted Nancy Peluso, a major scholar in political ecology (my field), at their house while she did research in south Florida. I was also introduced throughout the year to a number of up-and-coming scholars in my field (i.e., people who will be on hiring committees more than likely) and was able to have lunch and really great conversations with them. I was also introduced, by one of our professors, to Diane Rocheleau (a major political ecologist) and Bruce Braun (another major political ecologist). Our graduate program director is actually leaving after 12 years here to take a position at Dartmouth. I'm sure that relationship is going to hurt me in the end.
 
7) Most departments at research universities know what it is that research universities are looking for. There is no magic formula that some departments have figured out and others don't. A stronger point would have been to connect this to #6 because a number of positions come down to favors (did I forget to mention that we have had people come from 'top' universities and talk to us about what actually goes on behind closed doors at search committee meetings? We had someone who had sat on several NSF panels come and talk about what it is the NSF is looking for and review all of the applications we were preparing in the department. Not everyone got awards but no one wasn't recommended by at least one reviewer which is a good sign for the next round.) Name matters but it only matters to a certain degree. The three candidates for the position I mentioned earlier were whittled down from a list of nearly 200 including a number from 'top' universities who didn't even get considered. Name alone does not get you a job unless it is a job that you probably don't deserve which will show quickly. You need a lot of other 'stuff' that plenty of departments are capable of giving you.
 
 
I'm not meaning this to be an advertisement for my department. I would say only about half of our students are actually interested in jobs as research academics. Some prefer teaching, some prefer policy, etc. We dissertated 7 students this year, we'll see where the academic focused ones end up I guess but I'm not particularly worried about my place outside of the 'top' and I don't get the feeling that anyone here is. Ranking is probably the most common question asked by prospective students and we still have more highly qualified applicants than we can accept. I'm sure there are several other departments out there like mine that can share similar stories. A number of the things you mentioned are absolutely important but to suggest that they are limited to 'top' programs seems absolutely absurd.

Hey all, I'd highly recommend emailing a current student in your program (maybe someone who's advanced past the first couple years) to ask about this sort of thing. I had a great conversation with a third year today who told me that, basically, it doesn't matter. Any operating system can run basic stats software, and you only need worry about hardware if you're looking to work with really big data sets. The major qualitative softwares are available on either mac or PC platforms. Having something small, like an iPad or Chromebook, seems to be a personal preference, and only necessary if you enjoy the aesthetic of those devices. I don't have money to blow, so I'm going to invest in a lightweight, standard-equipped laptop and go from there. After all, the first year won't be that different (in terms of schedule, computing needs) from college.
 
One last piece of advice given to me by the student, FWIW: "One last piece of advice that you didn't exactly ask for:  Many students are in the habit of bringing their laptops to class for note-taking, but I really strongly feel that this isn't wise.  All you have to do is look around the room and you'll see students checking their email, shopping for shoes, etc.  I think it's simply too easy to get distracted during class time if you have access to the internet.  I have always used a good ol' spiral notebook and pen to take notes, and I find that I tend to remain much more absorbed in class discussions that other people.  The process of hand-writing notes is also great for my memory too.  I keep my notebooks organized so that's it's very easy to look up notes I took on a particular lecture or assigned reading, and I really don't think I miss out by not having my notes in digital form."

It's incredibly frustrating—and somewhat offensive—to keep hearing that sub-top 25 programs are a waste of time. The USNWR has over a hundred graduate sociology programs on their list. Are people really suggesting that 60-75% of all sociology PhD programs (and their students and faculty??) are a waste of time? Seriously?
 
We've all seen the research, top 20 PhDs dominate new hires at the top, prestige matters. Nobody is arguing this. But contrary to popular belief, there is a world outside the top, and plenty of us will be happy working there.

Is it just me or do these pointless threads come up every week? Rankings, by definition, point out 'superiority' in terms of program quality. We get that. But to say anything lower than the top 25 is pointless and a waste of energy, well that's just absurd. And the contradictions in your post are abundant: "Though the job market is a crapshoot", "base your choice on the following","Anything below the top 25, and at worse the top 50.", etc. So is it a crapshoot or can can this get-rich-formula lead you to success? So is it 25 or 50? That's a huge difference. And it pretty much defeats the point of your post. If you want to see a discussion on this, go look in the silly "holy shit" thread.
 
Take a look at programs around the country and see where their faculty comes from. Of course the top 25 dominate, but plenty of programs have tons of people who DIDN'T attend a top 25 school. To say that person A from Chicago is going to get a job over person B from Santa Cruz (or anywhere else) simply because of prestige is naive, especially if person A is busy doing a bunch of nothing while person B is producing high quality research. The sociologist I'm most interested in working with got his degree from New Mexico (#78 for the nuts who obsess with rankings). He's one of the premier minds in his field right now. Take that elitist mess somewhere else, yo. There are plenty of people using these message boards who don't attend top 25 universities just trying to lend a helping hand to future colleagues while being forced to read insulting posts such as these.

The school is tennessee if you were wondering. The website hasn't been updated with some of the newest faculty, however.

And just for the fun of it, I just pulled another program from the rankings randomly. Georgia state (both graduate degrees offered and around 30k students as well) does not have many faculty members from top 20 universities. Only two are from top 15 universities, one a 1977 phd from Chicago (so this doesn't even remotely factor into today's placement rates).

I suppose we could randomly pull more middle of the line programs, but I'm not sure it's worth the time. I think this top 20 program or bust beief is a myth, perhaps created by the top 20 themselves. Of course the top 20 may rarely hire outside of themselves, but who in the hell cares? I'd be perfectly fine attending or teaching at a school not in the top 20.

This, pretty much lol. I don't wanna grow old at 30 spending every second of my life trying to out-perform every other person in my field. I want to be a teacher, and if I am lucky, the kind of teacher that inspired me to be a teacher at my very small liberal arts undergrad.
 
Why is wanting anything other than being a top researcher at a R1 research university seen as a poor goal/ not a good enough reason to go to grad school? I am genuinely curious about why this is the case, if anyone can shed some light.
 
P.S. Accidentally up-voted OP, I do not agree with OP.

OFFICIALLY accepted to the University of Delaware!!! The DGS called shortly before 1:10 PM today.  Offer for full funding in the form of tuition waiver, TA or RA position (they decide that late in the summer), and a stipend of $16,650 (9-month stipend -- no stipend during the summer, but you can apply for summer funding).
 
If anyone has questions, let me know!  Stats are in my signature!

I demand full transparency because 1) Berkeley is a public university which is funded by taxpayers' money. So the "I reject you because I can" response is not acceptable. They need to provide equal opportunity based on merits. I am not seeing that here. There are very clear rules and regulations. They asked for a minimum CGPA of 3.0 and a general GRE (no minimum score required). I look at university application as a kind of peer review. If you reject me, you need to give convincing reasons. If you claim that there are more qualified candidates, you shouldn't have any problem disclosing the data (of course, not the private info, but what exactly do you mean by more qualified). 2) I paid an application fee. You are offering a paid service. I am the customer and you are obliged to respond to my enquiries. 
 
About the "I am better than this class" argument: I attended an Asian university, so believe me when I say that a large portion of or class had 4.0 CGPA. How did they manage to do that? I give you an example, we were taking a programming course. 50% of the marks were based on assignments. Virtually none of the students developed the algorithms and wrote the programs on their own. They simply got a copy from senior student and submitted it. They were kind enough to send me a copy as well. However I refused to do the same. I tried to develop my own program. It was only partially functional, but hey it was working. I got C+, everybody else got A. When I told the lecturer that I expected him to value my original work, he didn't care. Another example, we were taking an optimization course, I developed my own algorithm and achieved 96% correlation, everybody else copied the algorithm from the notes (developed by the professor). They got 99% correlation. I ended up getting A- and everybody else got A.One more:  In the Robotics class, my friend and I were the only people who actually solved the equations, rather than memorizing the answer. We never managed to finish answering 8 questions in 1 hour (even the professor knew there were too many questions, so he actually gave the answer a week before so everyone could memorize). Everybody else got A, we got B. I don't regret any of this. Now if you think i am arrogant, well good for you. I believe in doing science in a meaningful and productive way. I was nearly getting an F for not following the lecturer's instructions in a class. He taught us only basic HTML and CSS, I used advanced Javascript and AJAX in my website. He told me I was trying to make him look bad in front of the class! Is that how we are educating our students nowadays? We want them to be mindless slaves? Call me a bad "student", but you can't do that to me. 
 
About SOP and LOR: It's not applicable here. As I said, I only applied because the professor was interested in my work and his collaborator/ ex-post-doc invited me to. Besides, in all my papers, I am the corresponding author. LOR normally applies to those who have been working in a group as a student, so they need some sort of endorsement from the PI in the group. In my case, I was the PI myself and I have students. 
 
I only applied to 1 program because I already have 2 jobs (paid scientist by day, unpaid entrepreneur after working hours). PhD is only a title which is already carried by millions of people. I was only hoping to have easy access to the equipment. I even offered to bring my own funding for a joint research project. 
 
I guess when they were reading my SOP, they thought it was too good to be true!

University of Delaware director of graduate studies called me ... they haven't made any final concrete decision but he said "I can't tell you enough how impressed we are with your application."  So they're having me out there, all expenses paid, for a weekend (along with a handful of other applicants) to meet people and discuss life at UDel, etc ... so an unofficial acceptance?!
 
EITHER WAY I AM FREAKING OUT WITH HAPPINESS!!!!  Please excuse the caps lock!! Stats are in my signature!!

As recruitment visits are approaching, I thought I might start a topic on what questions senior graduate students think are valuable to ask AND who you should direct them to.

A few suggestions:
What direction is the department heading in? (to the graduate director or the person you'll be working under) If you're coming into a department wanting to do education and there is a huge new push towards health research, that's something you need to know. How do you like working with X? (to ALL of their graduate students) Don't base your opinion on only one of your potential advisor's students. Try to get all of their opinions. What is the pass rate on comps/defenses? If you fail, can you retake them? (I would ask this of the grad director AND the students. Sometimes grad directors have reasons to inflate this number.) These are just a few of the questions I came up with off the top of my head. I'm sure that other faculty and older students here have others.

FertMigMort, your reputation preceeds you. I am sure your AmA is half the reason half of us might be going to grad school next year. Thank you for that and for this because seriously, I have a Visit Day on March 5 and I am sitting here thinking everyone will ask really smart questions and I'll stare dumbly at everyone and say "I like food" (my research has a lot to do with food).
 
So everyone who has been through this before, or is on the other side, more advice will be super helpful.

This is a bit long and admittedly, I went a little crazy. However, I'd like to share the steps I took this cycle and the advice I received from graduate students and professors.
 
F14 was my first cycle. I got one rejection this year. I applied to top ten programs.
 
My background: I have a sociology degree from an elite institution. I worked for a bit before applying. I scored well in both sections of the GRE. I have a little research experience, but I have not published anything, nor have I ever stepped into a classroom.
 
 
LETTERS OF RECOMMENDATION
I was told several times that letters of recommendation have very little value. Yes, having an outstanding one from a BFD sociologist (Lamont calls you "one of my best students…") is huge. A connection to someone in the department is obviously significant as well (social relationships matter, Granovetter 1973 etc). However, for the most part, professors send generic letters -- by virtue of the fact that most good students are pretty similar and professors always have a number of other thing to do. Furthermore, given that sociology is an incredibly fractured discipline, it is hard to have a single rubric to evaluate undergraduate performance. Red flags are the real problem. If LoRs convey immaturity or other similar issues, that can quickly kill an otherwise golden application.
 
 
GRE
The GRE is important for two reasons. One, it is an initial screening mechanism at most schools (unfortunate, but necessary).
 
The second way GRE scores are used is for merit funding that is dispersed by the graduate school or the social sciences division. How does one decide whether a economics grad student or a sociology grad student should get funding (besides the obvious morally correct answer)? GRE scores are one "objective" way to do so. My understanding is that GRE scores can thus be very important at institutions where funding is not controlled at the departmental level. Funding necessarily has consequences for admissions, and thus a good GRE score becomes a necessary condition.
 
This is what worked for me: This nova math book and then the 5 LB manhattan prep book. One must then also get access to sample digital tests so one can master the pacing and the feel of digital testing. I spent about 3 months preparing and did so nearly every weekday. Berkeley has on their website the average admitted student's GRE scores. One can easily get those if one sets aside the time to do so. Do not forget the writing section either. Every bit counts. I also had to teach myself the reading comprehension section. Apparently actually having a decent daily academic reading habit doesn't help much here.
 
 
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE
Universally decreed as the most important part of the application. One must cover three things: first, past intellectual trajectory. Two, a hypothetical research project that demonstrates knowledge of the field. Three, one must identify with whom one will work with. Ok, good, we have all heard this before: fit matters and so on.
 
Now, one may sit down and think, "Ok, I will write about my undergraduate thesis" or "I will describe my passion for subject X."
 
Well, hold on for one second.
 
If you reflect for a moment, perhaps you will conclude that you are not up to date on the most recent literature. You probably have "unknown unknowns". Regardless of how great your work is, perhaps it's not where the discipline is now. Furthermore, do you likely know what a really interesting project would be? For example, does sociology need yet another ethnography of an urban community? How about another survey finding that networks matter for health outcomes? Is there yet another way that we can demonstrate that economic actions are situated socially? I am not saying these topics are unimportant -- far from it -- but that if one really wants to stick out as an applicant, one must get strategic and try to move beyond some of the "tried and true".
 
I first did the usual POI selection by research interest. However, I also picked POIs by their career trajectory. One should identify, I think, a recently tenured professor in her early 40s. This is ideal because:
 
1. They are not going to get swamped with other requests to work with them.
2. Coattail riding can happen. If one wishes to work with someone who is already well established and close to retiring, they may not lead one anywhere. Plus, older professors are likely more epistemological or methodologically inflexible.
3. This is a little macabre, but worth keeping in mind: they will probably not die or retire soon. One's dissertation adviser is important for a long time, a quasi-marriage. You may need a LoR in 15 years.
4. Younger professors will usually have contributed to just one or two bodies of work which one can master in order to write a well-tailored statement. In addition, they are probably more flexible when it comes to your own work, so if you decide you want to be an interpretivist postmodernist while previously you were a b-school positivist, you may get away with it.
 
After I identified my POIs, I read nearly every article that they had published (getting access to JSTOR/academic article search from your UG institution is really essential), and used google scholar to track who was citing them and then read those papers. I had google alerts for a few of my POIs (hoping to catch if they posted working papers). I identified maybe three or four POIs per school.
 
I then crafted statements directly tied to the literature that my POIs are engaging -- not just what their views are, but their interlocutors as well. I did not just want to be a close fit; I wanted to be a glove. Furthermore, the research projects I described were closely tied to existing work. My research proposal was thus very feasible and grounded in the relevant literature. My real intention was to signal that I knew exactly what was expected of me by the time I was ABD. Only about 50% of social science grad students (even at very good schools) actually complete their PhD in the US. Many people can be great students, but the personal ethic required to finish a dissertation is very demanding. Signaling competence and fit is thus the most critical "functions" of the SOP. Nota bene that whatever you propose in your SOP is probably not going to be your dissertation (and if it is, that might be a little disappointing given US PhD's focus on several years of coursework.)
 
Of course, a literature review is not a statement of purpose. Regurgitation is for high school. I am simply suggesting that one should be very well-read and relevant. If one undertakes this route, one will also avoid trendy "buzzwords" topics (e.g. "A big data ethnography of the the neo-neoliberalization of online discourses: the case of shirtless Zizek Tumblr gifs in the age of Bitcoin" or whatever).
 
Here are some other tips I received (most of which I think are very obvious to gradcafe members):
 
1. One should probably eschew "activist research" or present one's self as some kind of 21st century soixante-huitard. Sociology dissertations do not end capitalism, sorry to say. Several professors bemoaned statements which contained long personal narratives about working in foreign countries or rough neighborhoods. Admirable certainly, but not necessarily relevant to the task that sociologists do (publish rigorous work). Furthermore, it is incredibly insulting and condescending to say anything like "I did TFA and now I care about poor people of color. Plus, I have seen The Wire." Though apparently every year, there are a few people who write this. Then again, Burawoy/Public Sociology movement also exists. Best not to wade in as a prospective graduate student I think.
 
2. The related iffy statement of purpose is the "personal problem" one. Several professors brought this up as an issue as well. First, just because one has come from a similar background as one's intended subjects does not necessarily make one a good researcher. For instance, I doubt that my ability to read Durkheim or run regressions connecting social facts to mental illness has been dramatically improved by the few bouts of depression that I have had. Second, by highlighting personal problems, one can raise questions of competency. A few professors did mention that they occasionally like hearing a few details about an applicant though. A brief personal anecdote as an introduction might work well, but I avoided the personal all together.
 
3. Avoid C. Wright Mills or other "pop sociologists". Mills was barely involved with the discipline (he didn't even mentor grad students). Merton and Bell dominated the actual enterprise of sociology at Columbia at this time. Speaking of Columbia, no-notebooks-tons-of-verbatim-quotes Venkatesh has been criticized by a few bright guys, most notably Bobo on issues other than his methods. Gladwell and David Brooks are probably just bad calls all around. Avoid citations like this and focus on "serious" work -- the bread-and-butter of sociology.
 
4. Do not have a grand theory of society. As noted above, one enters school to be trained. One probably know very little (or has an inflated sense of what one does know). Be a little bit humble. One professor explained to me that the SoPs he truly hated are persons who engage in grand theorizing or academic posturing. "They are so young, how can they think they have it all figured out? Who are they trying to fool? You know I've been at this 23 years and would never write that." In another instance, a graduate student described a statement of purpose that used a number of sports analogies / inspirational poster quotes as theories of all aspects of social life, from gender to the causes of macro state conflict (think Vince Lombardi in lieu of Weber). I do not think it really worked for the audience. Likewise, "I was hiking the Appalachian Trial and as the sun was rising over the mountain, it dawned on me; we are all social creatures," is probably not a good opening line.
 
5. I was told that at some places, teaching experience doesn't matter all that much. Sentences like "I know I would really enjoy teaching" may not be a good idea. One is entering a program to be trained as a researcher, primarily. Though I do understand that expectations on this probably vary greatly from department to department, particularly if significant teaching duties are core piece of grad student service. This is yet another piece that should be tailored I suppose.
 
6. Many sets of eyeballs should read over your statement (duh, but apparently grammar and spelling mistakes are common). It should both pass "the grandmother test" (be able to explain it to your grandmother in a minute or so) and ideally a current graduate student should be brutal with you. So, have many friends of different intellectual backgrounds read it over.
 
7. One piece of advice that I had a hard time following was that one should connect with current graduate students at your target schools and get a feel for the expectations of mentoring. At one extreme, there are departments that wish that one works very closely with one's adviser -- as Tilly once put it, be a little worker bee and add a little honeycomb to an existing hive of the literature. At the other extreme are places that expect graduate students to be very independent and only occasionally meet with their adviser ("benign neglect" was the phrase one professor used to describe places like Harvard and Chicago). Thus, an added dimension would be to not only signal fit in intellectual interests, but work style as well. However, I could not really figure out a good way of expressing this well with just a thousand words.
 
 
WRITING SAMPLE
This one you have less control over than the others. I was told that a class paper was ideal. It shows you in action. Apparently, even at very good departments, folks will argue very forcefully over whether an undergraduate paper is good or not. It's hard to imagine, but if you are a contender, perhaps Tienda and Zelizer are up late at night arguing about that barely coherent thing you wrote at 4 AM.
 
Do not edit this paper. Turn in a copy that has been marked-up by a professor or an original copy that you handed in and make sure that this is somehow indicated. Showing a bit of integrity can matter. One grad student told me a story of an applicant who hit all the right marks and they were deciding between this person and one other applicant with a comparable profile. The other student had clearly not "freshened up" his writing sample and he was chosen for this display of ethics.
 
I cannot really speak for folks who have publications. Perhaps I am very ignorant, but given that it is unlikely that a paper written by an undergraduate or a masters student is published in a very reputable journal, I am not sure how much of a bragging right one gets. I do suppose it depends on the type of paper as I imagine that a solid quantitative paper is probably much better than an undergraduate theory essay ("But this is not what Marx really means by capitalism!"). That said, if you are the third author because you did the data entry and there is some graduate student who was up late running stata or R all night, how much credit can one really claim? One professor commented that he preferred seeing high quality undergraduate work because it is exclusively the applicant's work and it gives a sense of the type of undergraduate education that the applicant had.
 
My sample was a class paper with a few glaring grammar mistakes and I reproduced the comments from the professor -- a few strong detailed disagreements, though he did like the paper and gave me a good grade.
 
 
RECAP
1. Don't have red flag letters in your letters of recommendation.
2. 3 months, 2 books and you can get  >160 on the GRE
3. Approach the SoP like a research paper. Dig in deep. Be strategic (well-read and relevant), original and humble.
4. Writing sample is important. Be honest with what you turn in.
 
Rojas' *Grad School Rulz* is really worth picking up. 
 
Above all else: know exactly why one is getting into graduate school and express that one understands the expectations  of the institution (in other words, signal homo academicus habitus.)
 
Good luck all!

Duke DGS here. Decisions have all been made but the grad school rolls them out in batches for some reason. You should be hearing very soon. We had an amazing group of applicants this year so if you didn't make it, please try not to take it too hard. There were easily 10-15 additional people we would have been thrilled to admit if we had the room. As someone who has been directly involved in admissions at Berkeley and Duke 6 times, I can assure you that there is some "measurement error" in the process. I think we do a pretty good job, but if the composition of the committee had been a little different, for example, I'm sure the list of admits would have been a little different, too. My point is that this process is not an error-free referendum on your academic worth. So hang in there!

I just got my funding offer from Davis and I can say with confidence that I will be going to grad school next year! I was unsure because they are very vague on their website and didn't include funding in the original acceptance letter but I feel very good about it now. Excited! I don't even really care if I end up getting in anywhere else at this point. Davis is such a great fit for my interests and personally for other reasons. Yay!

I was hopeful for northeastern sociology. but from now on, I dont have any expectation....
 
I wonder the accepted people and their scores.... if they can share with us, it will be great....
 
:/

Just got an acceptance from Northeastern!

Kind or not, the points are widely agreed on among leading sociologists.  Undergraduate training in sociology is generally poor (which is why sociology programs eagerly admit from other disciplines).  Personal stories are almost totally irrelevant to scientific qualifications.  Students rarely research sufficiently the faculty at programs they apply to.  Students often forget to customize the school name on form SOPs they've written.  Admitted students almost always choose higher ranked programs over ones that specialize more heavily in their field.  SOPs are often overly flowery and not written in the tone of tier-1 journal articles.  The absolute majority of students will not get academic jobs.  Sociology does not hire or promote armchair theorists whose preoccupation is with re-interpreting classic texts anymore.  Professorship is one of the worst ways to go about "making a difference," if one is interested in solving social problems.  Sociology has been overloaded with interview studies of racial, gendered, and national cultural issues and only rarely do extremely creative cases of these yield top tier employment anymore.  Students have a tendency to identify with and like seminal works they've been exposed to as undergraduates, and hence mistakenly apply to programs hoping to work with very old faculty rather than mid-career faculty.  Students often recapitulate and summarize sociological concepts and research in their SOPs, when the audience is a person who has been reading such research for decades.  Many students apply to graduate school because they like and were good at college, without realizing that primary research requires a set of skills almost totally removed from those required to succeed in undergraduate coursework.  Many people apply to graduate school for lack of imagination of where to go after college.  
 
I agree that these realities are unkind, but I think having a sense of humor about them and venting such information is a massive improvement over politely pretending that such realities don't exist while people invest enormous money and emotion into graduate applications, and while professors on the other side of the bargain spend enormous time vetting application packages.

I think you are overthinking this just a tad.  It would be extremely unethical for them to use this study to somehow increase the difficulty of your actual GRE without you knowing.
 
For the record, all the tests seem to be some variation of similar questions (I've done five now) and none of them seem particularly easier than the other.  I've got wildly different numbers correct (18 to 11) and I haven't seen a change in the difficulty.
 
What I do not like about the format is that it is rather difficult to understand when it comes to rounding.  I've gotten at least half of my wrong answers wrong because I was confused over what number to actually put in.  This is what leads me to believe this is some type of test of how well you respond to awkwardly phrased questions and completely wide open answer choices.