semperfi101

Law is one of the oldest, still-standing professions in the occident.  I have a pet theory about "cultural hangover effect," that is that beyond the point in which the ecology of social structure has made one or another tradition functional in society, such traditions hang around because of the network effects and path dependency of the tradition.  So for instance, people still feel guilty about not finishing their plate at dinner, which was once an extraordinarily economically rational thing to worry about when food clocked in at eating up well over half of the modal person's income -- but makes little sense in a world with abundant and cheap food.  Since law is so old (and notably the academic professions as well), we might expect accordingly that social mores have more staying power in these institutions for no better reason than, "that's the way we always dun it 'round here."
 
The vast majority of occupations in the economy do not have these same historical roots.

Uh, I don't think any of those things describe Josefmoore, he mostly just trolls the various sub forums and gets in flame wars. He's been suspended from the forum various inappropriate behaviors in the past including down voting posts for no apparent reason.

Semperfi101:  
 
(1) You're using a military term as a username and an American flag on a forum populated mostly by people who associate those with nationalistic conservatism, and a nasty version of it in their opinion. 
 
(2) You're vocal.  People on the internet, especially early graduate students and undergraduates who are nervous about competing for attention, generally interpret that as arrogance.  That impression will be bolstered by the stereotypes of conservatives as arrogant and loud (however strange that might be considering the arrogant anger many liberals express).  
 
(3) You're direct.  The board is very concerned with protecting people's feelings.  For better or worse, this is part of sociological ethos -- it is an effort to promote diversity of voices, even if it silences many.  
 
(4)  People often times won't agree with you on these kinds of boards and will downvote you.  That feels like a passive aggressive slight, and it potentially is.  But try not to take it personally, otherwise you'll get embroiled in conflicts in which you will make yourself look much dumber (I have; trust me) than people may have thought you did to begin with.  Getting mad just confirms people's prior that you're an asshole, for those who have such a prior (I don't, and surely many don't).  
 
By all means man (woman?), keep on keepin' on.  I'm not writing to suggest you change your approach, or to lecture you about who you are.  I'm just saying -- this is the kind of environment you're up against.  It's like a nail gun to the head at times, but there are a lot of helpful people here, for whom I can vouch and verify, will help boost your career in very large and material ways.  At the end of the day everyone here is trying to help each other, even josemore.

So I have a new advisor this year (our old one retired, and in out department this advisor is the only specialist in my field).  She is a year younger than me, and unmarried.  I am a year older than her, married, and have a child. She's a little condescending, and although she's never said anything directly, I sense a bit of friction.  
 
From the beginning I've tried to be supportive since this is her first year and listened openly to her advice and experience, but she's not very helpful and basically wants myself and the other grads to teach just like she does, which is not really helpful in an education program which is supposed to be about our developing our own style. 
 
The other day she praised the younger students, and then turned to me and gave a nit-picky criticism of one of my students which was beyond my control.
 
Anyone been (or in a similar situation)?  How do you handle a professor who seems to want to undermine your self esteem.  This woman is supposed to chair my thesis.
UGH!

There is some good advice in old threads:
 

In that case, I have a bag of fresh high quality air I'd like to sell you.

You can certainly withdraw at any time but unless this coordinator is the person you'll be working with at this school, I'm not sure I would recommend giving up without a fight. If you have some other POI, try getting them to help you by involving them in the scheduling process. I think it's perfectly reasonable to say "I would like to have the interview some time before May (or by the first week of May or whatever), so I have all the information in front of me with enough time to make a decision about which school to attend. I have already received an attractive admissions offer from another school and I need to inform them of my decision some time in the near future" and follow that up with a reasonable set of suggestions for a meeting time. Right now you're also in a position to deliver a very soft threat of losing interest, which should be taken seriously (at least by your potential advisor). But I'd reserve that last suggestion for a later communication if this latest attempt doesn't succeed.

Why not just try and retake it? I didn't have much time to study, but I did focus a lot on reading and did some math. I had a great verbal score when I took it the first time, but I managed to raise my score even more when I retook it. 
 
The real answer is that it probably depends on the rest of your profile. I saw a quite a few people with much lower scores than me get into good programs. I can only assume the rest of their profile -- especially fit, related research within the range of their interests, and GPA -- was very strong. I don't think I saw anyone with scores quite as low as yours, so I'd honestly just step up and give the test another go. You don't have to memorize words to score in the 85+ percentile on verbal. My score was high because of the reading comprehension. Something like that can be fixed easily with heavy reading. There is an ETS link somewhere on this site that gives you access to the category of questions you missed; this would be very helpful for you.

I was talking to the OP, but good for you. It's the best thing to do if you have low scores.

I intend to apply the degree listed below to the study and improvement of justice systems, but it's not in any way a criminology program. Close to several, though, so I might take some electives at Rutgers or John Jay.

Yes, that is a reasonable price. I pay $550 for my one bedroom in West Knoxville. 

Hi all,
 
I am currently debating between pursuing my graduate studies in Montreal or Victoria. When I move at the end of the summer, ideally I would like to bring my car with me, but it seems to be a hassle to do so (based on a quick internet search). 
 
Does anyone have any experience with this? My car is relatively new (2012, less than 10,000 miles) and so I would prefer to keep it than get a new one.
 
Also, when I did a quick search it came up that the car has to be in my name to be 'imported'. My car was a graduation gift from my parents, but it's technically under my dad's name. Since he is the one paying the bill, would it still be possible to transfer it to my name? Or is this even necessary since I would be on a study permit?
 

What I've learned throughout this process is that GRE's, whether we like it or not, are important to some extent. In psychology (at least from my experience) and presumably in most social sciences, you don't necessarily need to excel unless you are looking into clinical or top programs. At the very least, it is important to score at least 50%+ on each. Despite having taken 3 graduate level statistics courses (first year psychology grad stats and HLM), I was rejected from all but one US school of various ranks. The one's that were less concerned were in Canada, but even then I was waitlisted for funding up until Friday at the program I will be attending (and they don't take students without funding). Oh, I should mention my GRE's were HORRIBLE (150'sV and 148Q), as I waited until the very last minute to take them without any prep whatsoever. 
 
For a little more perspective, I have a GPA of 3.76, 4 years of research experience, several national and international conference presentations, 2 research grants, and am currently writing up my thesis for publication. It's a tough market out there and no one is going to see your profile unless you make the cutoffs.
   

One week more to wait...Sigh, getting really tired.

I'm still waiting as well, but I have no other offers so I'm still holding out. Glad you had another offer to accept though!

I was in this situation last year. I had to accept an offer by April 15, but received an email about a week later saying I was off the funding waitlist at my top choice. I felt really guilty about reneging my acceptance to the first institution, but I knew that I would be happier and do much better work at my top choice. I was expecting to get some sort of nasty email or something after I contacted the first institution, but I didn't get anything like that. The DGS emailed me to ask me a few question about why, but it wasn't accusatory, it was more seeing what the program could do to be more competitive in the future. He seemed really understanding about why I had chosen the other school. I think it helped that I very much made it a "it's not you, it's me" situation, and that it was not too long after the deadline - two weeks max. I felt really guilty (and I may have cried and given myself panic attacks while trying to finalize my decision), but I'm really happy that I ended up coming to my first choice. The program is such a better fit for me, there are so many more faculty who share my interests, and it was totally worth that little bit of anxiety. 
 
Another thing to consider is what type of funding (if any) you are being offered from the university where you are accepting in order to meet the April 15 deadline. Some funding packages are things you were specifically nominated for - such as fellowships. If you end up reneging your offer, the university might not be able to give the funding to someone else. For me, I was going to be funded through a GTA position, so that is much more easily transferred to another person. 

I'm going to be honest, here.  Some programs will require a minimum GRE.  I took a brief look at the schools you mentioned, and Iowa requires a minimum of an 1100 on the GRE, which is considerably higher than your current scores (680 on old scale - check out a concordance table to convert).  So, at a school with minimum GRE requirements (which most have, even if undisclosed), yes, your GRE score will keep you from being considered.  Something to remember is that not only must the sociology department admit you, the graduate school must also admit you.  So, while a professor or department may be willing to overlook your GRE score, the graduate school probably will be more rigid in evaluating your scores.  Funding will basically be impossible, and as everyone here will tell you, do NOT do a PhD without funding.
 
What's the good news?  You have a ton of time until you apply to PhD programs!  You are just starting your MA program and won't need to apply until 2014 for PhD programs.  It will definitely be worth your while to study, study, STUDY.  Take as many practice tests as you can get your hands on, and retake the GRE - multiple times, if necessary.  I do not doubt that you are a bright and competent individual... and I understand that GRE scores are not the best indicator of a person's ability to succeed.  However, the fact is, the GRE matters and there are real cutoffs for programs that you need to be able to meet.  No one will look at your other accomplishments if you can't meet the minimum requirements for the program.  So, while you don't need to get stellar GRE scores, you need to at least meet that threshold.  It may not be fair, but it's just the way it works.

Since most of us tick all those boxes then the GRE can become the dividing factor.   If you can prove that your intangibles beats other applicants for that position then a lower (not very low) GRE would not be an issue.  Remember that fit is important. 
 
My GRE was far from stellar and I would probably have been more competitive with a higher score but I still got into my #1 choice where I fit perfectly. 

You certainly have a unique perspective. I hope it benefits you during next year's application season.

If you've not heard back yet, I would echo others and say look for work/research experiences that will make you a stronger applicant in the next round. 
 
As to why you may have not been successful this cycle, you're definitely a strong applicant, so my first thought would be fit, fit, fit. 
Were there multiple faculty at each program with whom your research interests aligned? Did your application materials clearly articulate why you were a strong match for the program?
 
Next though would be weak LORs or a weak SOP.
You mentioned to us that you're involved in many extracurriculars - did you mention this in your SOP? My general understanding is that programs care very little (if any) about extracurriculars. It's fine to have them on your resume but generally should not be mentioned in your SOP. Colleges may be looking for "well-rounded" applicants but graduate programs really don't care about that stuff. Your SOP should primarily be about your scholarly development, your research interests, and why the program is a strong fit for your future studies.
Finding out whether LORs were weak is a bit more challenging, but it's worth considering if there are little other explanations, since if you end up reapplying, you'll want to make sure these are even stronger. I sent my SOP to my recommenders so they could expound on and highlight relevant experiences in their letters. I asked for their feedback on my letter and I also explained how I thought my work with each of them came together to make me a strong applicant (my sitch was a bit unique, I was not a soc major and had one letter from a prof in my major field, one from a soc prof I took many classes with, and one from my current employer). 
 
It's hard, but we have to remember that many, many applicants have high GPAs, high GRE scores, and research experience. Those just get us into the review pile. They don't earn us an admissions offer.

I know it has been said already, but with scores that low you need to retake if you want a chance at ranked PhD programs in sociology, never mind in the top 30 or 50. My suggestion has always been 70th + or a high split score. Head over to the GRE sub forum if you need help with specific questions or sections.

Look, no one's saying that it's impossible to be accepted into a good sociology program with bad GRE scores. Everyone, however, is saying that it's really, really difficult. Many PhD programs these days receive 300+ applications for only 10-15 spots, and GRE score thresholds just happen to be a straightforward, easily quantifiable means of presorting candidates. With terrible GRE scores, there's a decent chance that the program assistant will just toss your application into the waste bin before even a single member of the admissions committee takes a look at it. Is that always the case? Obviously not, and if you want confirmation that stranger things have happened than someone being accepted into a PhD program with abysmal GRE scores, then here you go: Stranger things have happened. But that doesn't change the fact that many, many, top programs seem to use these GRE cutoffs, and making no effort to improve your scores would severely limit your options. Everyone here is only advising you to maximize your options--don't give adcomms a big fat reason not to accept you before they even take a look at the components of your application that really matter.
 
 
...Okay. I won't tell you that you're cherry picking (unreliable, self-reported) data to suit your needs. I also won't point out that, even going by the tiny number of people who actually reported their stats, the vast majority of those accepted to top 30 programs reported GRE scores in the 65th-70th percentile or above. It's annoying, but the GRE is important. You're doing the smart thing in retaking it. 

I think you're underestimating the competitiveness of top 30 programs. Most of these programs have acceptance rates between 3-10%. I saw the stats that you posted and I would just like to point something out. First, Pitt is a unique program to say the least and I would imagine they have a more forgiving and holistic approach to PhD admissions then some other programs.  Second, they are not top 30 anyway, not even top 50. That said they are a very good program, especially in social movements and likely on their way up. Third, the Rutgers stats you posted were a high split, high splits can help buffer the impact of a low GRE score because it gets your application noticed. 165 on verbal is not exactly common, and is well in the 90th percentile. The only one really worth a notable exception is CUNY, and I would venture a guess that getting into CUNY with scores like that is an anomaly to say the least.  Obviously there are other factors that will weigh with admissions committees if one is lucky enough to even have their file reviewed with scores that low, one of which is having a very strong letter from a well known scholar in the field. I know at least one applicant this year that got into a top 10 program with lower than average GRE scores (lower than the average top 10 accepted applicant anyway), but they were no where near as low as these scores. I know you said you're planning to retake but you were also giving what I would consider poor advice to the OP in regards to his scores. As Tahoma pointed out, this process is competitive enough, why give an adcom a reason to hesitate on what may otherwise be a strong application? I would also direct you to this thread by FertigMort, who served on a top 20 admissions committee this year and found out just how important GRE scores were in the admissions process. 

I think everything I say is absolutely awesome. I blow myself away.

Did you do formal prep before sitting for the GRE the first time?
 
Also, why do you upvote your own comments? Just curious.