Jump to content

NotMyParty

Members
  • Posts

    14
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Location
    SF Bay
  • Application Season
    2013 Fall
  • Program
    Socioloy - International Development

Recent Profile Visitors

1,572 profile views

NotMyParty's Achievements

Decaf

Decaf (2/10)

-1

Reputation

  1. I'm sure this question has been asked before. Nonetheless, I still feel that I do not have a comprehensive sense of the answer. As a first-year student in a top-10 sociology program, I also feel that this question is the 'elephant in the room' among my cohort. We're all so driven and eager to succeed and please our professors. It's clear that obsessing over tests/points/assignments/evaluations is part of the understood expectations here. But do grades really matter? Our program has an outward culture of pretending that grades aren't important. When asked directly, several professors have poo-pooed the notion that we should be grade motivated. I am inclined to agree. I didn't come to this PhD program to strive for a perfect GPA. I came to learn how to be an academic. I don't think the two are necessarily aligned. Except that I have also overheard conversations among professors where students grades were explicitly mentioned as a basis of comparison. I know that PhD grades, in and of themselves, are of no importance on the academic job market. I know that publications and reference letters from my committee will reign supreme. But what do I have to worry about in the meantime? To what extent is the distance between an A and a B now going to affect my strength as a job candidate in the future? Is it something I only have to worry about if I plan on applying to certain fellowships? (if so, which ones?) Does the emphasis on grades vary between faculty members? I ask this because (like most students in top PhD departments) I was grade-obsessed as an undergraduate. But looking back, I realize that the kind of striving I did for my near-perfect GPA was in many ways a hinderance to the learning process. I don't think its an overreach to say that this kind of obsessive evaluation-focused performance is a hallmark of our generation. In undergrad, I read for what I knew would be on the test, not for what I found most interesting. I memorized. I spent more time on assignments that were worth more points, rather than the ones I found most intellectually stimulating. I wrote safe essays instead of taking intellectual risks. I regret this approach, and I do not wish to repeat it. I think it would be a disservice to myself and to my eventual contributions to the discipline. If PhD programs are all about learning to do original research, I would like to give myself permission to learn what is most interesting. To me this means letting go of focusing on being a "good student," and learning how to be a good academic. I think that it's inevitable that my grades will slip in the process. Sometimes, I'll be busy with a research subject and will turn my stats homework in late. Etc. I'm fine with this, as long as it doesn't hurt me in the eyes of my professors, or my career in the long-run. What do you think? - [immediately motivating this comment is the fact that I recently received my fall semester grades. Two of the classes I took were topical seminars of similar structure & workload. I worked very hard in both. Seminar #1 was maybe one of the best classes I've ever taken. I excelled in the class to the point that the professor was encouraging me to incorporate my interests in the topic into my dissertation, and offered to be on my committee. There was no way that I didn't ace the class, except that he apparently did not like my final paper. It was a risk-taking paper, but I thought it was one of the best papers I've ever written, etc. I do understand that standards of evaluation are different in grad school. Nonetheless, after doing so well in the class I was surprised to receive a "B" as a final grade. Seminar #2 was perhaps one of the worst classes I've ever taken. I still worked hard, did all the assignments, but I definitely half-assed the final paper. I'm also pretty sure that I was at the bottom of the class in terms of performance during the term. I received an "A" as a final grade. Clearly, the professor had to have given all A's. I'm not one to believe in objectivity, but these two grades really should have been reversed. Oh well, I suppose It all comes out in the wash! I don't think I'll be asking either professor to be on my committee, but I am perplexed by the contradictory feedback I've gotten grade-wise. And I'm not sure what lesson to learn from this experience. ]
  2. I agree with most all of the advice that has been offered by current grad students. The one thing I would add is something that may be specific to my program (T10, public university). I was surprised by the sheer range in courseload taken on by my cohort. More than a few people only took one (real) class! Most took 2, some took 3, but none took 4. Granted, our university has different credit requirements based on whether you're a TA/RA/or have outside funding. Many who took a low courseload were busy with their employment obligation (being a first-time TA, etc). But, in general, I'm shocked at how few classes graduate students take here. There are a significant number of students with full outside funding who only take 2 classes a semester. As someone who worked my way through undergrad (to the tune of 15-25 hrs per week), I don't really understand why our program doesn't put more emphasis on balancing employment with a full-time courseload.
  3. Hi All. This post is mostly directed towards those who are already attending graduate school, or who otherwise have significant knowledge about sociology as a discipline. I just finished my first semester of the PhD at a top-10 program in sociology. Previously, I had exactly *no* background in the discipline. I am a slightly "older" student coming from a public policy background, where I had started to build a promising career and was doing quite well in my profession. Leaving all that behind to go back to school was a very difficult decision. I decided to pursue the PhD so as to expand my future career options and to preclude an impending encounter with the proverbial glass ceiling. In many ways, being in a sociology department has come as a big shock. Suddenly, I'm viewed as a beginner, a blank slate, a vessel waiting to be filled. I haven't yet encountered a professor who is at all interested in my professional background. It's as if our whole cohort is seen a fresh out of college eager-beaver Soc majors to be moulded into whatever image they want of us. Even when I go talk to potential advisors about research ideas, nobody seems to give a crap about my background or other areas of expertise. Faculty seem quite interested in the ideas themselves, but unconcerned with their context (except, of course when they point out, which they do often, that I am 'not being sociological enough'). I realize I am new at sociology, but I am not new to research. I have published articles and presented at several major conferences. I'm in this PhD program to learn (of course), but I'm also intent on building on my already extensive background. I may know little about sociology, but I am hardly a blank slate. And though my department has a reputation for intellectual congeniality, it's clear that I'm only going to be valued on the basis of how much I absorb exactly what they want to teach me. I am benefitting from this PhD program, for sure. I'm becoming a better critical thinker and improving my communication skills. But above all that - I'm also getting the larger sense that this program isn't right for me. Given what I gave up to come here, and how far I have yet to climb to prove myself here, it may not be worth it. It's been drilled into us from day 1 that we're all here to become professors at Top-10 sociology departments. Any other career goal is seen as a backup plan for those who have failed. As far as my professional goals are concerned, if I go into academia at all I intend to teach at a public policy school. I'm not yet convinced that a sociology department is a place I'd want to be. To achieve the gold standard of a TT job at a Top-10 sociology department, we are expected to devote 7-9 years of our lives to PhD training. We will follow all the rules. We will do exactly as they tell us. We will become sociologists. As far as I can tell, all of the students in my department are eagerly doing just as they are told. In order to maintain my connections and credentials with my public policy field, I cannot step completely into line. My main issue, I think, is that I never wanted to "be a sociologist". Sure, I entered this program in good faith. I am eager to learn the tools of sociology. I am thrilled to be in an environment with so many intelligent, driven, and talented people. It's an absolute honor to have been admitted to this program in the first place. But I don't know that trying to stick it out for another 7-8 years will actually work out for me. It just doesn't seem worth it. When I was deciding between this program and another in Public Policy, I was told by numerous faculty (potential advisors) that sociology would be a welcoming 'big tent' discipline. While still in the courtship stage, sociology was eager to sell itself as a framework from within which I could study anything. This department was 'the ideal base' from which I could build upon my interests and prior knowledge. For sure, when I got here I knew I'd have to learn the cannon and the methods of the discipline. But the department has so far proven to be much more keen on policing its boundaries than engaging with other disciplines. In particular, my end of semester evaluations have made it clear that I'm just not doing things "like a sociologist" enough. My professors gave me decent enough grades, but remarked on my research papers that I have a long way to go. I am a hard worker, and I knew that changing disciplines would not be easy. But now it's seeming like I need to balance the benefits of this program against my more deeply held interests and goals. Being honest with myself, I'm not sure if I can be the kind of scholar I want to be in a sociology department. I haven't totally given up, but I'm certainly at a point of crisis. I don't have an official 'advisor' yet, though several professors in the department have approached me with open arms. I feel comfortable talking frankly with these individuals about my concerns. The larger issue, however, is that I don't think that I'm going to get the perspective I need from any of these folks. They're all very kind people, but they also committed long ago to life as an academic at a top-10 program. It's certainly a very niche perspective. And, as I alluded to earlier, none of them has any perspective on the world of public policy. Now that I have a couple of weeks off to reconsider my trajectory, what would you suggest I do?
  4. Oh yeah, and don't bother asking for 'permission' to send the transcript. If you do this, you're likely to get the official line that 'the application deadline has passed' and 'no supplementary materials are allowed' so as to assure an 'even playing field' for all applicants, etc. Really, any new information that paints you in a positive light is always going to be welcomed. The worst they can do is throw it out. But (as econsocio has pointed out) they're not going to discount any new data on someone who is a competitive candidate. It can only help you. After the official application deadline had passed, a colleague of mine received news that her article had been accepted for publication. You can bet that she sent the news on to her top grad school picks!
  5. I agree that this is a good idea. It can really only help you! Even though a deadline may have passed, admissions committees are only just now getting started on the first phase of sifting through applications. If you're a competitive candidate, they're going to want as much information on you as you can provide them. When I applied last year, I received an e-mail in early January asking me to submit an official transcript for a course I had taken years and years ago that was really only tangential to my application (They had found out about it because I had listed it on my CV). In retrospect I wish I hadn't mentioned the course it at ll. But what this indicated to me is that they were really looking over my application with a fine toothed comb (a good sign!). I had the official transcript sent, and was admitted to the program!
  6. With the caveat that I have never served on an admissions committee, here are my thoughts: 1- An upward trajectory in grades is always looked at as a good thing (This is usually discussed in the context of Fr-Sr years in college). So, be thankful you aren't coming into the application process with your grades the other way 'round. 2- Any sustained pattern of low grades, unless they are in the very distant past and remediated by a more recent record, will be cause for concern. If the low grades are relatively isolated (one particular semester, year, or difficult subject), this will be less concerning than if you consistently performed poorly on all fronts. 3- Perhaps most importantly: All grades are not created equal. Some schools are more notorious for grade inflation than others. This is where the reputation of your BA & MA institution will come into play. If your schools are less well-known, you'll want to make sure that your application contains some external verification of quality. (High GRE's can help you some, but what you really want are LOR writers who know you well and can stand behind your abilities and achievements). Incidentally, some MA programs are notorious for rampant grade inflation. PhD adcomms know this. Good grades from an easy program will only help you if you have a stellar LOR. 4- My guess is that the admissions bar is set higher for those with an MA record, but grades are only part of the picture. MA students will be expected to have a more clearly demonstrated potential for research and scholarship in the field, whereas BA students will be competitive with more rudimentary types of research experience (As an RA on someone else's project, or a senior thesis). 5- Keep in mind that grades are merely a one-dimensional signal of knowledge and ability. As you advance in your academic career (which includes work at the MA level), you will be increasingly evaluated on your research potential, publications, and contributions to your chosen discipline.
  7. First, lets get this out of the way: I'm an apple person. That said, my trusty 4 year old 15" behemoth of a macbook pro has just pooped out for a final time, and I'm in the market for a replacement. I have a $1500 computer budget from my department, which I'd be willing to expand to up to around a total of $2200 from my own funds. Thus far in my academic life, I've done everything on a single high-powered laptop. Though I've never tried out such a system personally, I see the potential merits of pairing a desktop with something like a MacBook Air or iPad. It would be nice to not have to lug around a 10lb computer everywhere. But I'm unsure about the functionality of the iPad as an academic device. And it occurrs to me that switching to a 2 computer paradigm has a number of problems (twice as much liability, not as much bang on either computer for my computing buck). A top of the line 13" MacBook Pro does not weigh that much, and has a heck of a lot more functionality than a bottom of the line iMac or Mac Book Air. What's your computing paradigm? I'm considering any number of variations on the following options: A) 13" MacBook Pro. (Top of the line for around $1500) B ) 21" iMac Desktop + basic 11" Macbook Air (~$1000-$1300 + ~$1000, less if I go for refurbished for either or both) C) 21" iMac Desktop + iPad with detachable keyboard (~$1000-$1300 + $500) If money were no object, I'd go for B. The MacBook Air is such a sleek and powerful object. Yet, unlike the iPad, it's an actual computer with more than adequate functionality for writing, editing, etc. I feel like the best all-around solution is A. But though a $1500+ MacBook Pro is going to be one sweet performance machine, its also quite a liability. I'll be carrying it around everwhere. Multiple times a day. For several years. I can't afford a solid state hard drive. And, even though I am a very careful person I don't like the idea of carrying around my whole life on one machine that could easily be damaged or stolen. I'm literally going to be carrying this computer with me everywhere for several years. What do you all think? About my anticipated computing lifestyle: I'll be starting a PhD program in the social sciences in the fall. For my first two years, I'll be commuting by bike to campus 4 days a week, where I will not have a regular office or other secure place to store a laptop. My computer work lifestyle will involve library research/writing, classroom note-taking, using STATA (for the most part this will take place on the lab computers at school), and writing/working at my home office. For most of these tasks, a small laptop with word processing and reference management software would be adequate. I did consider just investing in a top of the line 11" or 13" Mac Book Air. But I don't think that computer would be adequate for all my needs. In my non-student life, I like to do a lot of video/photo editing and need something that's a bit of a workhorse.
  8. To this list I would add type and quality of health insurance. In speaking to several friends representing a range of schools, I've seen health insurance packages run the complete gamut. If you're young and healthy, health insurance may not be something you've had to give much thought to in the past, but sufficed to say that healthcare is important and all grad student plans are certainly not created equal. There doesn't seem to be a huge correlation between wealth or quality of school/program and quality of health insurance, either. A friend of mine at the #1 ranked school in her discipline (coincidentally, a wealthy Ivy) says her school's graduate student health plan is colloqually known as "the death plan." Prescription medications (including contraception) are not fully covered, and neither is healthcare received out-of-state. The sticker price of this plan is $1200 (though the premium itself is covered in the PhD benefits package). If you want to add a spouse or child, however, the additional premium shoots up 3-4K for each. Contraception is $30-60 a month, not to mention other prescriptions (hey, this stuff adds up quickly on any stipend). At another top public school, stipends are at the low end of the spectrum but all graduate students receive the same insurance offered to state employees (valued at around $4500). Prescriptions (including birth control) are covered at a $5 co-pay and spouse and children can be added for an affordable fee. Many graduate students I talked to at this school cited the stellar health coverage as a deciding factor in their choice of school. Splitends - as someone who is looking to apply to Sociology departments this fall, I would be really interested to hear about these 'fringe benefits' you mention. Specifically, I'm wondering if these extra funds (computer, travel, moving) are discussed openly, or if they're something you have to 'ask' about - i.e. negotiate? You say that much is "a lot more of it is negotiable than I originally realized" - could you give me some examples from your experience? Feel free to PM me if that makes more sense for you. I'd appreciate it!
  9. Not to put a thorn in anyone's plans, but I've been talking to DGS's about admissions rate & applicant stats. My sense is that many of the top 20-30 programs (also where I'm aiming) have become enormously more competitive in the last 2-5 years. This is likely to also be true of programs outside of the top-30 as well. I don't think the listed stats reflect this recent trend. I've talked to a few top programs which had acceptance rates around 30 or 40% just 5 years ago and are down to the single digits today! A lot of programs are reluctant to give out hard data about their average GRE scores, but I think we can assume that there has been some upward pressure on those as well. That said, I think your GRE scores are really not bad. As others have pointed out, you have many other excellent things to recommend you. You just need to make sure you get your foot in the door so the rest of your application gets a fair shake. One piece of advice I was given is that we should not underestimate the importance of making connections with faculty prior to applying. Sure, most programs say they discourage this. But if you can somehow get your dream professors attention, a positive impression and research fit can really get your foot in the door. As applicants, we tend to focus on how we can convince schools to accept us. Keep in mind that admissions comittees are just as eager to admit applicants who they know have genuine interest, connection, and fit with their program. Sorry to veer a little off-topic here, but I am really curious to hear more about this. I've done some searching on the boards to try to find previous discussions on this topic, but I can't find anything. I have a pretty dim view of USNWR in general. Mostly my beef is with the well-discussed distortionary pressures of their secretive evaluation methods of undergraduate programs, and what I see as a vastly overblown perception of their universal relevance. In contrast, I perceive the NRC, as a more serious academically-oriented ranking. I guess, on that basis, I assumed they'd have the final say on PhD programs. Though I have to say I am far from an expert on rankings at the graduate school level. What makes the USNWR rankings better for sociology? Now that I compare the NRC ranking of sociology programs with the USNWR ranking... wow, there's not a lot of agreement. Any literature you can point me to on this matter would be much appreciated.
  10. I think it's good to start the application season off with some high hopes. Fellow 2013 applicants, introduce yourselves! Share interests and a preliminary list of dream schools. I'll go first: My interests span a range of sub-fields associated with international development. I'm considering programs with strengths in political sociology, economic sociology, and, of course, development. It's early in the game, but so far my dream schools, in rough order, are: Harvard Wisconsin Berkeley Michigan Princeton Cornell UCLA Northwestern
  11. To be clear, my reference point is age at matriculation, not the age at which someone goes on the job market.
  12. Why thank you! I certainly didn't mean to imply that I thought I was at the top of the spectrum. But I'm pretty sure that students age 30+ are in the minority in most PhD programs.
  13. Thanks for the quick comments, guys! What I'm trying to get at here is, how are the standards different for someone who has been out of school for several years and thus can be presumed to have a professional life? I have to believe that the standards are different. Someone with a stellar undergraduate record who just sat on their ass in an office for 5 years would/should not be viewed as strongly as someone with the same *academic record* who manages a nonprofit to help earthquake victims in Haiti (or whatever). My point is that, even though our years of having to perform academically are supposedly behind us, I observe a lot of variance among the inclinations and abilities of my peers. Since the world outside academia is so amorphous in its possibilities, I have no idea what the baseline of expectations is/should be. Are older students expected to have published? To have reached a certain standard within their current chosen profession? Again, perhaps this is the wrong venue for my question. I have several colleagues and friends from undergrad who are looking into PhD programs for next fall. From my perspective, our performance during the undergraduate years is so distant a memory as to be a relatively minor aspect of our application (though I know in reality it is still taken quite seriously). There is, instead, a TON of variation in what we have been able to accomplish in the intervening years. And little of it seems to map directly to undergraduate performance. On top of this, people tend to come to PhD programs in the social sciences with wildly different career backgrounds, most of which I imagine are quite unfamiliar to the academics on the admissions committee. And yet, the committee has so many more potential points for evaluation of older students than they do for someone whose record is a clean 4 years of undergraduate work. I see the task of the admissions committee as being quite difficult (and potentially riddled with errors of great magnitude) for "older" students.
  14. I just stumbled upon this forum. What an interesting resource for PhD applicants! I'm in the process of getting things in order for a Fall 2013 application after an almost decade-long career in public service (I'm in my early 30's). Right now I'm looking at Sociology and Political Science departments for my graduate studies. I realize that this isn't likely the best venue for my question, but I'm wondering if anyone knows how applications from older prospective students are viewed? Clearly, my undergraduate record will still matter. And of course I will have to show research interest and ability, along with all the usual components of an excellent PhD application.. What I'm more curious about is, all things being equal, if older applicants are viewed more favorably or less favorably in the admissions process? I realize all things are never equal, and I can also see decent arguments both for and against older students. For example: On the one hand, I have all this great professional experience, project management experience, and independent research experience. I've proven I can succeed in long-term large-scale projects that simply aren't part of the portfolio of anyone coming straight from undergrad. Big plus for me, right? And yet, if merely acquiring more experience were some golden ticket to PhD admissions, we'd see pretty much no students being admitted to PhD programs straight out of undergrad. Which is clearly not the case. And I'm glad it's not! I'm assuming a lot of people on this forum have been making the rounds of various sociology departments over the past few months. I'm wondering if someone can give me a sense of the age diversity of the cohorts in various programs. Does it vary by rank/type/subfield? Are there schools with a better reputation for age diversity than others? Are you an older student yourself? Do you feel comfortable with the age distribution of your cohort? If you're a younger student, do you feel like older students respect younger students?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. See our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use