NotMyParty

It is true beyond a reasonable doubt that certain departments at certain times have admitted "haves" and "have-nots", which is a cruel irony, being that it is sociology.  You can't tell me that said departments have had the same level of commitment to have-nots as they have had to haves.  And it is not true that nobody would attend departments that operate by attrition, because they do over and over.  Think of it from the department's perspective.  We have X amount of resources, but need Y amount of research and teaching labor, and Z number of butts in seats.  But we are fine with graduating W number of PhD's.  From the students' perspective, it's a slice of the American Dream.  Of course I will persevere over others, of course funding will materialize once I get there...  People have limited information when making decisions.

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. ]

I think for a lot of things, subfield rankings matter relatively little.  Your adviser is what matters.  Subfield rankings are just proxies for that.
 
The general rule of thumb is: almostevery one moves down in their first placement, and if you're a bright shining star, you move laterally, but you generally don't move up.  And I mean "up" in overall rankings, not subfield rankings.  There are some phenomenal people who have worked their way up (Jose Casanova, Javier Auyero) but it is rare. 
 
Is probably truer for some other fields (unless you somehow start getting big research grants as a graduate student).  I think quality of papers matters before #.  And quality in sociology is stupidly narrow, meaning to many people "ASR/AJS".  If you have an ASR/AJS... you're pretty set (more and more I realize how many professors, even qualitative ones, have an ASR/AJS...).  # matters after that.  And then what program you went to.  Your adviser fits in there somewhere.  I know people who have almost no publications, but have a shot at most good post docs because their well-known adviser is willing to go to bat for them (so it's two things: how much social capital/recognition does your adviser have in the discipline, and how much of it are they willing to use on you).
 
That said, we hired a great ethnographer a few years ago with one random publications.  He was from a top school, his first chapter was good, his adviser said he was good, and when he was invited for an interview, he gave a job talk that blew people out of the water.  As a certain type of ethnographer, his productivity didn't matter. The quality of his work mattered independent over all other factors.
 
For academic jobs, this sadly isn't really case.  And almost all sociology jobs are academic jobs.  If you want to work anywhere else, this isn't the case (or if you want to work in a non-sociology department).  The "abysmal methodologies" are asking the people at the universities you want to work at which the best departments are.  These are also coincidentally the people who decide whether to interview you for a job or not...  It might be a self-fulfilling prophecy, but there's a high correlation between rankings (at least in terms of top 5 vs. top 25) and where people get jobs.  But rankings certainly aren't destiny, especially in the sense of it's not like "Berkeley=good TT job" or anything like that.

Yeah, its just an issue of finding the right balance. Having your own agenda is impressive and much needed to create your own voice as a scholar, but you are at grad school to learn, so you need to take advantage of already established scholars and work with them as much as possible. Finding the right balance is probably one of the main tricks of graduate school.

Temporary Lock while we assess what to do with this.

^ Seconded. 

It's "brazen."  It must be difficult to imagine someone could form a qualified criticism of professional scholarship at the undergraduate level, considering you obviously haven't been challenged to do so, but keep dreaming big, champ -- anything is possible!  
 
But I suspect you're right.  I'm sure what really pushes people over the edge (and I've been saying this from the beginning) isn't that my views and readings of literature differ with theirs -- it's the combination of customary outrage at opposing view in combination with that I putatively have no right to comment because I'm not from sociology proper, and because I'm an undergraduate.  Thank you for evidencing precisely the point I was making in the other thread.  
 
If you can calm down for a moment and maybe take a look at a couple recent threads I've posted in, you'll note the collegial interactions I've had with a bunch of people here, even in midst of these debates (DEBATES!?!?!  IDEAS!?!?!  ACADEMIA!?!?  WTF?!!??).  I tend to get hostile and condescending when, well what do you know -- when people attack me with meaningless warrants about my training, clout, ethos, background, and personal conduct.  Crazy stuff.

Let's get this out of the way, this is the last time you will get a response from me on this forum. 
 
First, if you're referring to the Black Bloc incidents in Oakland, it would be wise to have your facts straight before commenting. Black Bloc members in Oakland chose to engage in the controversial tactic of property destruction and economic sabotage. I am well aware that many activists are uncomfortable with said tactics and there is certainly space to debate their merits. However, It was Black Bloc activists who were physically assaulted by folks screaming about non-violence, not the other way around. This mischaracterization is indeed intentional I imagine. That said, I'm not having this discussion on here, nor am I going to continue it with you at all. If you are truly interested in this debate, might I suggest looking up the Crimethinc debate with Chris Hayes on YouTube. 
 
 
 
 
 
Three, is that all? let me just say that in terms of PM's regarding your behavior on this forum, I've lost count. You've managed to get in spats and offend at least half the posters here. There was in fact not a single argument that I saw in the sociology sub forum until you showed up (and i've been posting here for 3 years). 
   
 
You're beyond arrogant and condescending. The reason people take such offense to your posts is the fact that you take such a blazen approach to ripping the work of other scholars and people with far more experience and intellectual development than yourself. I am not on this forum to get in political debates, last I checked this forum was for folks interested in applying to grad school. I am also not interested in your attempt to repackage your libertarian beliefs with academic prose (akin to the repackaging of creationism into intelligent design). 
 
 
 
 
Let's get this straight, you don't know me. Comments on a spattering of YouTube videos (taken out of context no less) from 2-5 years ago, are not reflective of who a person is or their beliefs. 
 
Police shoot beanbags at people because police are violent. I'm guessing the Occupy Folks that got hit with a barrage of teargas and beanbags WHILE SLEEPING, must have been victims of "my actions" (whatever those were). 
 
I also don't see how my interest in video games or martial arts has any relevance whatsoever, but hey, those childish attacks say more about your character than mine. It's been a pleasure, I'm done. 

The videos you proudly posted clearly show direct action anarchists pushing other protesters out of their way, to which you add in your comments a warning for others to not get in your way.  Is it radical news to you that the state is fundamentally coercive?  This is an idea from first-course political theory taught in every department in the nation, and one that spills over into major subfields of anthropology, economics, and sociology.  
 
You would have some currency to purchase the request people address you in a "polite and interested" manner, had you not already spent yours by addressing others like this: 
 
"yawn."
"This is so beyond offensive it's not even funny, you are so inherently bigoted towards "anarchists" there would be no point in even debating this."
"It's clear to me that you're a total prestige snob"
 
Three separate board members have sympathized with me privately that you are abusive, immature, and irresponsible in the way you behave here.  And I suspect many more stay away from dialogue with you because of your embarrassing attitude and lack of erudition.  As I pointed out in the other thread - I've known quite a few abusive, immature, and irresponsible academics.  Seemingly these people get away with it because they are otherwise brilliant and offer enormous contributions to their colleagues.  I haven't seen an insightful thought come out of your mouth yet.  You lurk on threads, posting generic one-line application advice occasionally, and otherwise chime in on debates uninvited just to throw politically-charged ad hominem around.  This apparently constitutes a "diversity of tactics" approach to political action.  
 
I don't deny that I'm arrogant and condescending.  At least I make some attempt to translate that into constructive dialogue.  Your belligerence gets channelled into pronouncements that "there is no point in even debating."
 
I've brought people into my apartment that were blind from teargas -- you are precisely the kind of idiot that instigates this sort of harm.  Your actions are the reason police fire beanbags at people.  Your politics are a disgrace, and I expect nothing but disappointment from your scholarship as well lest you spend less time flaming people on the internet, playing shoot em up video games, watching bloody fights on TV, and more time considering your own priors more deeply.

I would just like to ask that we stop hijacking threads, it's not fair to the OP's or to the rest of the members of the forum. 
 
If certain individuals would like to PM me to discuss the merits of direct action, or my personal political views on issues such as a "diversity of tactics,"  whether I consider property destruction "violence," or whether or not I believe the state is a fundamentally violent institution, feel free. If I am in the mood to have such a discussion, I will choose to reply. 
 
Frankly, this forum really isn't the place for it. I come here to share in my experience with potential graduate applicants in sociology. Yes, I have somewhat radical political views and I am happy to discuss them with polite, interested individuals. While my views may inform to some extent my world view, they do not make up all of who I am as a person or as a researcher for that matter. My views are not all that outside of the realm of folks in academia, you can have similar discussions with Angela Davis, Judith Butler, David Graeber, Noam Chomsky or the various outspoken political activists that happen to work in and out of academic circles (and whose research may or may not be in any way related to their political views). 

I agree with this in principle, but I would just add amendment saying if you are in a smaller subfield (i.e. you're not doing race, inequality/strat, urban, econ soc, orgs, demography, networks, etc.), you may have a harder time following that advice. My initially project was about state regulation of religion in the Middle East and how it affected minorities, so I was looking for people who did:
a ) sociology of religion, or
b ) work on the Middle East, or
c ) any one doing something that connects states and culture
I probably should have widened my search a little (I didn't know any better), and applied to at least two other schools, but there were really just a handful of people in the country who fit my bill in any of those categories at top 25ish places. Granted, in retrospect, I should have applied to work with d) more historical sociologists and e) people who work on ethnicity-outside-the-U.S. (like Rogers Brubaker) but regardless: there was a very limited pool of people who would have been interested in advising my project. And they mostly didn't work at the same schools. That doesn't mean I'm working in a hopeless obscure subfield, it just means I'm working in a small one. I'm sure other applicants who work on more obscure subfields (like social psych, religion, historical sociology, STS, environment) will run into the same problem. Where you can, list list list people in the department. Where you can't, try to find places with faculty you don't think are going anywhere and are excited about your project. If you can, list people from related departments so it doesn't look like you're too narrow mindedt.

A partial solution to this is of course bridging: say my project is "(obscure subfield) and health", or "and urban", or "and inequality", or "and social movements" or something like that. If you work on a religious organizations, make sure to list both Robert Wuthnow and Paul DiMaggio when apply to Princeton, even if you really just want to work with Wuthnow. For Minnesota, on the other hand, you might say your project is religion and historical sociology. But, clearly, that's not always possible, and you might not have the right kind of, say, "culture" person at the programs you're thinking about (you don't want it to see like you just looked at the website and saw that Professor Such Ensuch was listed with "culture" next to their name--you should be familiar with these people's work). At programs where there are multiple people who do something even vaguely similar to what you're interested in, of course list the people you can. But there are about four Top-25 programs in the country where you can go as a straight sociologist of religion (I'm not at one of them--I'm studying with someone who fits one of my other characteristics) so your options really are pretty limited to start with. That's fine, too. Not ideal, but fine, and just be happy you found a couple people scattered across the country who will be excited about your project (just try to make sure they'd be really excited about your project).

I have 4 in, 3 to go until graduation. I have 15 total, but the rest have January deadlines and I will do them after graduation!

When I say that you sound like an economist to me, I am speaking in terms of worldview, not in terms of methodology or whatever way you seem to want to interpret what I am saying.

Hi everyone,

I'm turning to this community with a couple of questions that may seem absolutely ridiculous, but I've never had to do anything like this before, so there's a bit of a learning curve as I try to figure all of this out. I just got into my dream program (terminal MA), though (unsurprisingly) without funding (not much to go around). I went to undergrad abroad on a full ride so I've never had to take out loans for anything, and now I have to explain to my parents (both of whom also went to undergrad abroad) how this whole tuition payment situation is going to work.

My mom has graciously offered to cover the costs, though she's not sure how much she'll actually have set aside for it by the time the payment deadline rolls around. Where would I go (in terms of financial institutions) to procure a student loan with a low interest rate should it become necessary? Basically, the situation is that she will eventually (probably within a couple of months) send me (or them) a check to pay off the outstanding amount, so I'm not sure whether it would make more sense to take out a large loan for the whole cost of two years all in one go and pay a portion of it off every month, or take out one or several small loan(s) as they become needed, or just get a standard loan from the bank for the amount necessary to cover the first semester, or whether we should do something else entirely. If it matters, both of us have really good credit. How would you suggest going about this?

Thanks in advance for any advice you could offer!

I don't think your GRE scores are too bad. I got the equivalent of a 152 on the quant section of the old GRE and was accepted at a school whose median quant score is a 160. My verbal was higher, but it's arguable that the quant score weighs slightly more (especially if you have a solid writing sample and statement of purpose). I did well overall in the admissions process and don't feel that my less-than-stellar GRE was a major drawback.

Given that the rest of you profile seems strong, especially in research experience, I don't think below-average GRE scores will stop you from being competitive at the schools you listed. Your quant score is probably about average for schools in the top 20-30 range. I would recommend spending a lot of time refining your statement of purpose and writing sample in order to demonstrate that you can write at a higher level than your verbal GRE score suggests.

All in all, I think you have a great shot at the programs you named. I would also reiterate the mantra that is common on these boards: research fit will often trump raw numbers. That is, applicants with weaker profiles can be very successful if they target their applications at programs with two or three faculty working in their sub-field. Also, look for schools on the rise. For example, I'm interested in social movements. Although Notre Dame is only ranked 48 on USNWR, it's one of the top 10 places to study social movements. So a student whose raw numbers may keep her out of the "Top 10" will still be very competitive on the job market in the social movements subfield coming out of Notre Dame. Another example that comes to mind would be Brandeis (41st on USNWR) and medical sociology.

Good luck! I think you're in good shape.

I don't think so but you decide for yourself. For 1.5 years of tuition not including anything else you will have $60,000 of loans to pay off. The cost of living in Boston is really high and if you get lucky and find something cheap and try to cook at home and not drink you would probably spend around $20,000 for a year and a half. The school has almost no money for student orgs, so little scholarships that you should bet on not having a chance at getting them, and no work-study jobs unless you want to become a full time employee. There is a drop in the bucket merit scholarship given to students when accepted which is usually around $10,000.

So all together the most minimum cost you are looking at is $80,000 and if you subtract the scholarship you will be in $70,000 of debt.

Is that worth it? Is Boston offering some extraordinary education that just can’t be offered at a lower tuition or compensated with more scholarships?

Absolutely not!!!

Just to let you know something like 40% of the tuition from the MPH goes to the medical school. It's like the MPH is the med-school's side business. And the education structure at BUSPH does not favor students. In fact the way the classes are scheduled is detrimental to student education. The classes meet once a week for 3 hours for a 4 unit class. I never adjusted to a 3 hour class in the evenings where the teacher kept skipping through slides because she was more tired than the students. By the way there are almost no classes in the mornings. Most classes are at night. Making your way home on foot or public transport at 8 or 9pm during wenter temperatures less than 20F is torture. It is much warmer in the day during the winter. The school isn't thinking about the students.

Take note that a 4 unit class costs $5,000. If you are planning on studying international health and working in Africa... you should not tell any of the people you will be working with how much you paid for school. They will call you a hypocrite and question your ability to set priorities. In the most health deprived areas of Africa a family struggles to make annually just a forth of the money you pay for one class at BU. If you want to help Africa why spend the rest of your life making a salary off of the disparity there while paying $70,000 (not including interest) to banks. I think it would be better if you skip the MPH and donate even a small fraction of that would be loan money (even if it is on credit) to send African students to school!

The education at BUSPH is nothing you couldn't get by reading on your own, finding a mentor in public health, and volunteering/working for a public health oriented institution.

What you learn in school is not comparable to what you will have to teach yourself while working. An MPH is a professional skill building degree. It's not like you will focus on one topic and learn everything you need to know about it. Not even 2 years of is not enough time for that in an MPH especially when the quality of education for public health students is an afterthought to the institution.

Anyway you decide what is best for you. But as someone who has gone to BUSPH, who is working in public health, and who has several friends from all the major schools of public health.... I say you are a fool to think the $70,000 at BU is worth it.

You are much better off working in a restaurant to pay your bills, working hard for no pay at a public health institution, and reading as much as you can about public health (there are tons of information and books out there that courses at BU don't even talk about). After you do this for a year you will have $0 debt, a whole year of work experience, and probably a more real and genuine understanding of public health than an MPH at BU will give you. If you did this with dedication and discipline, you would be equally or more employable than someone with a MPH. Also remember some employers will pay for you to take classes they think you might need.

Don't get exploited! Only go to school if it's free or almost free!