amlobo

I second the above advice. I am only getting one undergrad professor letter, as I am 6 years out of undergrad. Some schools specifically state that they do not require "academic" references from those more than 5 years out of college. Plus, any professors who can comment on your suitability for graduate study will be great references, regardless of whether the classes you took with them were degree-seeking or not.

I think it does depend on your circumstances, but I did a few drafts before I was happy enough to send it to someone to review. I probably spent about 6 hours on it before settling on a "version" I wasn't embarrassed to show someone. I got feedback from one of my LOR writers, and I spent an hour or 2 reworking it. Now, I'm ready to send it to multiple LOR writers to get final feedback, and then I will be "done"... and then will probably spend a few more hours tailoring to all my different schools. So, for me, I'm anticipating about 15 hours or so TOTAL, including revisions and such. I'm planning to apply to 15 schools, so it will take a lot of tailoring. I am also switching disciplines/careers, so my SOP was a bit trickier. If you have a good background that won't take a lot of "finessing", I'd imagine you could draft it in a few hours, then only spend a couple more editing.

I kind of second what the previous poster said... professors consider letter-writing part of their job. Plus, if it is someone who is happy to write a letter for you, they will be fine with writing as many as you want. The difference between 5 and 15 is only about 5-10 minutes per letter. I told my LOR writers up-front that I'm applying to 15 schools, and I will give them a table. No one seemed to think anything of it. All of my LORs are electronic, so it's something to pay attention to regarding whether the letter-writing service is of any use. As far as the third letter, I would use whoever will give you the stronger letter. If the 4-year prof can give just as good of a letter as the CC can, go with the 4-year. Also consider what your other letters are going to communicate, and factor that into your decision, as well. If one prof can provide a perspective that the other LOR writers cannot, that might be a good reason to go with that prof.

I am generally of the opinion that a low GPA merits mentioning in two circumstances: 1) you are below the cutoff for the program, or 2) you had one really bad semester that brought your GPA down for a good reason. If your GPA is just overall a 3.2... and is pretty steadily at a 3.2, I don't think it's worth spending time in your SOP on it, especially with just the general explanation that "you would do better in grad school." I think that the better approach is to talk up your qualifications and accomplishments and let the adcomm make the connection that you would be a good student now. I had a 3.4 undergrad GPA and do not plan to mention it at all. I feel like no matter what I say, it was still a 3.4, and they can see that. I'm just counting on everything else in my application to make up for it, as I feel the rest of my application is strong. So, I would let your other accomplishments show that you are a qualified candidate and not even mention the GPA. Let them read your SOP and think, "wow, this person is incredibly articulate, accomplished, and well-suited for our program" That's my two cents!

I've seen smaller stipends at some of the schools I'm looking at, and I've seen some that don't offer a stipend at all. Once you get outside the top 15 or so, the stipends can vary greatly from school to school.

Yes, it means 36th and 17th percentile. As the previous poster said, the percentile change between raw numbers can vary widely, and the different sections have different percentiles, as well. So, you could get the same "raw" score on Verbal and Quant but get very different percentiles. Also, don't forget that the scores are 130-170, so even though 150 is the "middle," it is a bell curve and the percentile drops off drastically in each direction.

Realistically, your scores are about average as far as GRE scores go. They might keep you out of top 15 schools (though you never know!), but the rest of your background is impressive, and I think you have a very good shot at mid-ranked (30-60) programs. Yes, there are applicants out there with "perfect" stats, but the vast majority of us have at least one bad part of our application. My GPA isn't incredibly high, and I'm coming from a different discipline, but my GRE is high. Who knows how those parts of my application will coalesce in an adcomm's minds? I would second the advice to retake the exam. So much is luck on what kinds of questions/words you actually get. If you can get the scores up just a couple of points, I think that will be a big help. But, even if you don't improve, APPLY! You sound like a great applicant overall, and it would be a shame to let mediocre standardized test scores hold you back. It might be especially beneficial for you to contact faculty at schools you are interested in, which would get you a personal connection and maybe help you assess your chances for admission to that school. Finally, really take a look at what is tripping you up on the GRE. Identify your weaknesses and really try to understand *why* you are missing the questions that you are. I made the same mistakes over and over, and by really focusing on them, I was able to improve a few points. Best of luck, and again, don't let a low GRE be the deciding factor in deterring you from applying. It is definitely worth applying, and worst case scenario... you apply again next year. Half the people I know in PhD programs got in on their second try, and they are just as successful now as those who got in on their first. This whole process feels incredibly demoralizing to all of us, but don't sell yourself short. Just do your best and go for it!

Stanford, Wisconsin, NYU, Penn, Berkeley, UC Irvine, UCLA, UCSD, Rice, Yale, Texas, Minnesota, Notre Dame... and the Sociology/Social Policy dual programs at Harvard and Princeton. I think mine is pretty set in stone at this point, but one or two may drop off if the faculty members I'm interested in aren't taking students. I must say I'm not surprised to see a lot of the same schools on our lists...

I would think being one page short isn't going to hurt you. 18-20 pages is a very weird, precise writing sample requirement, anyway. If you are really worried about it, contact the department. Better to be sure before you waste any time trying to lengthen it.

I would not put anything in about mental illness... to avoid having to explain why it won't interfere with your graduate studies. I think you either briefly mention the aberration on your transcript, and just say you had personal or health issues, something vague (and point out that all other semesters were higher)... or have one of your LOR writers mention it in their letter, which still gets the explanation in front of the adcomm without you having to take up space in your SOP. I know some people would rather their LORs explain those kinds of issues just to save the space, since LORs aren't limited. Just food for thought. I had some difficulties in undergrad, too (undiagnosed ADHD, death of immediate family member)... but in the end, I've decided not to disclose these issues, as I feel like my grades weren't bad enough to warrant the space I'd have to spend on the explanations. In the end, it's your decision on what works best for your circumstances and overall application.

I've been out of school for 6 years, so I totally understand your apprehension... but you'll never know unless you ask, right?

I understand that the "topic" papers I wrote for most of my classes do not qualify... such as where I had to respond to a prompt or was limited to using the course materials. My majors did, however, require a research seminar for which you submitted a research proposal, chose your own topic, found your own sources, and wrote a decent-sized paper (~25 pages). It was a "mini-thesis" of sorts. I'm assuming that those would count? For instance... for History, I wrote about the socio-political utility and effect of a particular writer's work in a certain city in Renaissance Europe. For PoliSci, I constructed an educational policy and predicted and examined the systemic effects. So, my work was considered research within those disciplines... but I just didn't know how it would translate. I think I will just list those papers with my majors as you would a thesis, but label them differently. It's not the end of the world to have a very short research experience section. Hopefully my other sections will compensate.

I wouldn't hold back from applying to all of the schools that you want. It's so competitive, and professors understand that more than anyone. I told my recommenders up front that I was applying to 15 schools, and they seriously had no problem with it. They told me not to worry about the number of schools and that they would be happy to provide as many letters as I needed. I was very hesitant about 15 schools, but no one seemed surprised by it, and I knew I'd kick myself later if I didn't give this my best shot. Now, the reality of preparing 15 applications is setting in... lol... spreadsheets are your friend

I had a very hard time on reading comp, too. I think my problem was that I could eliminate answers but then would narrow it down to two "plausible" answers and had a hard time distinguishing which was "correct." I seriously just went over my wrong answers on the practice tests in great detail to see what had thrown me off and caused me to pick that answer and to understand why I should not have picked that answer. Usually it was something stupid like I misread a word... or had "inferred" something that wasn't in the passage. For instance, sometimes I would have trouble keeping straight *who* the answer was talking about... in some answers it would say "the author" and in some "the [subject character]", so I would choose the wrong answer based on simply not paying close enough attention. I think it comes down to training your brain to look for the things that consistently trip you up and making sure that you pay close attention to them. And, know that these are "traps" that the GRE deliberately places there... and a book like Kaplan can help you see the common traps (apart from knowing yourself what "traps" you fall for). I can happily say that I ended up raising my Verbal six percentile points from my first practice test to the real thing. It was just a lot of analyzing my tests/practice sets and trying to learn from them.

I think it will be fine. A lot of top programs consider anything over 80th percentile a "good" GRE score. I don't think they will probably even consider the fact that you are quant-heavy in analyzing your GRE score, but maybe I underestimate how much an adcom really notices those kinds of connections. I think, for Sociology, high quants are not as common, so anything in the 160s is going to look good. I would almost guarantee that there is no way that any program throws you out of a pile for a 162 quant. Another thing to consider is how quant-heavy the school is overall. If the program is not known for quantitative methods, they probably don't place as much emphasis on any applicant's quant score. I am sure that, like I, you are a stressed-out perfectionist and are over-analyzing every part of your application, but I seriously do not think you need to worry about this. Does it make me out of touch that I had to look up what TL; DR meant? Ha.

I tend to think that if two of your LORs are coming from your MA program, it might actually be a good idea to have one from undergrad. The professor might have a different perspective since it's a different program, and there is less of a chance of repeated information that you might have if you did all 3 MA professors. And, if you know he will write a fantastic letter and is familiar with your research interests, I think it sounds perfect! Just my two cents.

Ok, this is going to sound like a really dumb question, but what is considered "research experience?" I was not a sociology major, so I obviously have no sociological research experience. I have written many research papers, but it's not like I collected original data or performed regressions or conducted interviews. My majors were in history and political science, so my "research" was basically me finding articles/books/etc. to support my thesis and writing a paper. Then, in law school and my job, I have performed legal research... which is totally different from regular academic research. It involves researching case law and statutes and supporting my argument... and I do so much of it that it seems ridiculous to mention it. Is any of this considered "research experience" that I could list on a CV when applying to Sociology Phd programs? I don't want a huge blank, obviously, but am unclear on what qualifies as research experience. Would it be the "papers" I've written for courses? I did write a law journal article that was published - is that research experience... or just a publication? I am sure I am making this much more confusing than it needs to be, but any insight is appreciated. Thanks!

I'm pretty set at 15. I feel like it's so random and really don't want to have to apply again next year... lol.

I think with any SOP, your particular circumstances and credentials will determine how much time you spend talking about each topic. For instance, I am switching disciplines, so I am spending more time talking about my background in the "new" discipline to establish the foundation that might not be apparent from looking at my application materials. If your experience in the field is obvious from your other materials, or you have particularly interesting future research plans, it might be worth spending more time on that aspect. I don't think there is a hard and fast rule, and everyone is going to tell you something different... because people are successful applicants with all kinds of SOPs. There is no one "right" way. A friend of mine who is finishing his dissertation told me not to "crowdsource" my SOP; it should be the way *I* would write it, not the combination of all of the conflicting advice I'm receiving. I think the best thing you could do is have one of your LOR writers look over your SOP. Two of my LOR writers have offered to do this, and I am definitely going to take them up on the offer.

I think a 155 is probably an "average" quant score for social sciences. It isn't going to help you, but I would think it would be "neutral" in the application process since your verbal is so high. Your verbal and other qualifications will make you stand out in a good way, and the quant is only one part of the entire package. Almost everyone has a "bad" part of their application, and I think the GRE quant is a good place to have your "bad" stat for social sciences... if that makes sense. That said, while I don't think it will make an adcom throw out your application, it might hold you back in terms of funding. A lot of funding decisions are made by the Graduate School itself and they have general requirements that all students need to meet to get certain funding. So, they have the same requirements for a physics student as for an anthropology student in terms of fellowships/assistantships. But, as the previous commenter said, it varies from school to school. So, really, the only way to be sure is to check with the programs you are interested in.

I think for grad school (as opposed to law school), school-specific letters are more common since professors may have connections at a certain school or want to include information about a specific program. Applying to law school is a much more generic process, since they tend to look more at your GPA/LSAT stats. I do wish they had something like LSAC... it was so easy for applying to law school!

I'm applying to PhD programs, but they all require online submissions of LORs by the recommenders themselves. Once I open my application, it will send emails to my recommenders with a link to the LOR website. I know there are some services that will compile LORs for you, but it is not like LSAC, and not all schools will accept them from the services.

I am in a similar situation, but it's been 6 years since I graduated. I don't have the time to audit a class, but a professor I know is going to look over my work and write me a rec. She said that it would be well-received because she knows me well and has the credentials to comment on my suitability for graduate study. I really think any professor who can look over your work and discuss your fitness as a candidate intelligently is an asset. Who cares if you didn't take a class with them that's on your transcript? That's my feeling, anyway. As a nontraditional student, I really think that it's more important to have someone who knows you currently write an LOR than some professor who doesn't remember you at all. I will add, however, that I am getting one of my recommendations from my undergrad advisor, who is probably the only prof who remembers me.

Well, different programs put more emphasis on different sections, and of course, it depends on how selective the schools are where you are applying. That quant score is well above the average for social sciences and I'd imagine it would be sufficient for the vast majority of programs. Depending on the exact program, the verbal could stand to be a bit higher, as I think you're hovering right around the average. But, as I said, it all depends on where you are applying. A lot of schools I'm applying to say they want above 75th percentile, so I wanted to get at least above that. I'd just pay attention to whether the combined 300 is an absolute minimum to apply or whether it's a gauge for "admitted students." And... the GRE is just one factor. You want to do as well as you can, but it doesn't matter quite as much if you have a lot of other things going for you. I'd say do some verbal practice questions and review some vocab, and focus on bringing that up a bit. It sounds like you are doing fine on quant.

Yeah, it's the Powerprep II ones. Good luck!