amlobo

I would talk to some of your professors and get their input (which I am sure you are doing already ). I only say this because when I was in law school, none of my professors had a PhD... it seemed like most did have some work experience in the law, though. So, I would just really talk with professors about the best course of action for you. It sounds like you're interested in criminal law, so maybe talking to some crim profs would be helpful. Being at a top school is a good start on your journey, and I'd say you will definitely need to do law review (seems to be the "pet" activity for all things law), and a publication is desirable, of course. I did law review and loved it; I published an article in law school... and I must say that the whole process is a fantastic way to get you acclimated to independent research and scholarly publication. Of course, there is no "one way" to do anything, and if you want to pursue a PhD in addition to your JD, good for you! I am a practicing lawyer going back for a PhD, and just be forewarned - you will not get any "credit" for having a JD. You will have to take all of the same courses as a student with a BA only. Therefore, a PhD will add 5-8 years to your journey to academia, so just really think about weighing the costs/benefits of getting an additional degree (though I guess you could always get hired as a law prof while working on your dissertation...). I am not particularly interested in legal academia, but I do like that my JD gives me that option! I can't say that I know a ton about law-oriented soc programs, but you might also want to check out the joint policy programs (Princeton, Harvard, Michigan...). These kinds of joint programs are incredibly competitive but might be worth a look. If you have any other law-related questions, feel free to PM me! Best of luck on your upcoming exams

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.

Ok, but actually... I think you can sign in to gradcafe using a FB account...?

The soc forum is so infamous, even Facebook wants to see what's up when it sees this many econosocio posts. Lol

If you have never taken algebra or geometry, I don't know if the GRE books will give you a good enough overview of those topics to get a grasp on them. I found Princeton Review's math overview to be a bit better than Kaplan's overall, but I used multiple books to study and would recommend you do the same, as they employ different approaches. But, something you also might consider is getting an SAT or ACT prep book. It might sound odd, but the high school-level prep books will have a much stronger overview of algebra and geometry. Also, if you have the financial resources, you might consider taking a GRE prep course or tutoring... instead of trying to self-study. Sometimes it's good to have an actual person to guide you.

I mean, I think it's as cultural as any form of discrimination. Generations of the "old way" have to die off before the "new way" can take hold and stick. Women are relative newcomers to the law, and it will take a while for the boys club to disappear. I could see how an industry that was more tech-oriented, and thus new "overall", might have less of that kind of culture.

I always hesitate to go to "this place", but in my geographical region and occupation, I see a lot of "boys' club" mentality. I am told it's not as prevalent in the legal world in NYC, DC, etc. But, here in St. Louis, I can walk into a courtroom, and I might be the ONLY woman out of 30 attorneys. Basically, female attorneys are not taking on trial roles as much as men. Most female attorneys I know in the area do transactional work or leave the court appearances "up to the men." It happens in my firm, as well. We have 3 men and 2 women... and the women largely do the research and writing tasks, while the men attend depositions, trials, hearings, etc. I assume this assortative behavior is two-fold, in that women to some extent feel they are not as good at the more forceful roles as men are (or, for some reason, genuinely do not enjoy this type of work), and upper-level attorneys grooming employees in this way - steering men to more confrontational roles and women to more "academic" roles. RE: deliberate discrimination and my aforementioned "boys' club" - I absolutely feel deliberately discriminated against as a woman in the law. I have had attorneys AND clients treat me differently because I'm a woman. You get called "little lady" or "miss" by male attorneys, which is incredibly demeaning. I have had clients tell me they'd be more comfortable with a male attorney handling their case because men are "junkyard dog" attorneys. My male coworker (who only has 1 year of seniority on me) has a lot more leeway in the office than I do and much less oversight/micromanagement by the partners. I might get paid the same as my male counterpart, but I am definitely not treated the same.

Interesting articles, both. Mbrown's brings up the point that I always notice when assessing the "gender gap" in my current profession - men and women start out "equal", but as you go up the ranks, the gap emerges and widens. I have been an attorney for 4 years, and I think the law is a particularly odd profession in regards to the gender gap. More than half of law students are female, and I think at my law school, it was bordering on 60% female by the time I graduated. I would say that half of incoming associates at big firms are female. But, exactly as the article points out, as the associates climb the ranks, the women drop out. So, by the time you get up to the equity partners, women are scarce. And, this isn't a phenomenon related to the qualifications of women but rather the result of conscious choices of the women themselves - though, granted, choices imposed upon them due to the working conditions of their chosen fields. One of the most intelligent, accomplished, and driven women I knew in law school left her job at a big firm to be a stay-at-home mom. She could have easily excelled in her career but chose her family over work since her husband was also an attorney at a big firm and could support the family on his salary alone. Another woman I know was already planning her future career based on which firms offered part-time positions, so she could have children. And, countless others went to smaller firms or government jobs because of the benefits and family leave they offered. I also was in law school with a woman who was going back to brush up on the law because she was returning to practice after 18 years at home with her children. It's a well-known "practice" in the law for women to work at big firms for a few years, then "transition" to much lower-paying jobs as in-house counsel or in the government because the hours are better. So, I see the motherhood aspect as the major factor preventing women from rising in these fields - not because women are being slighted in some way, but because women want to have children and will often sacrifice their career goals to be what they see as a "better" mother. I think it's unfortunate that higher earning careers are often the more demanding ones, and women who want children feel forced into making a decision between their careers and their children. But, how to address that particular gap is an interesting query. Do we change the career culture? Or perhaps societal expectations that women are the parent who should stay home? I'm genuinely interested to hear what people think

I would say that, as is, your profile is very strong, and I would apply anywhere you have a good fit. Of course, I wouldn't apply exclusively to top 10 schools - I think your plan of 10-12 schools of varying rank is a good idea. Though everyone hates to admit it, your GRE scores will influence where you are a competitive applicant to some extent, but if you test well, I don't think you will have a problem. Schools often post the stats of their admitted students (I would look at this where available), and I've seen some top programs say they consider a "good" GRE score to be 80%+, just as an indicator. For now, I would start looking in to programs and making a list of places that would support your interests. I would really focus on schools that have multiple faculty members that you could work with. I basically looked at every program ranked in the top 60 or so to start, then narrowed based on a variety of factors until I had a "short list" of schools, any one of which I would be happy to attend. Good luck! This board served as a great help to me in applying, and I hope it does for you, as well.

Actually, over a year old. Lol.

I think your sample will be fine. I don't have a sociology background and used a sample that was not a "sociology" paper. It was related to my research interests as far as general topic, but it was basically a policy analysis. I know that faculty read it because multiple people brought it up to me at visits, but always in a positive "that's interesting!" kind of way. So, I don't think the fact that it wasn't a sociological paper, or related to my methodological interests, had any bearing on its reception. I do think it helped me, coming from a non-sociological background, to be able to show that I at least had experience dealing with the subject matter, but I would say the SOP is much more of an indicator of your research interests. The sample could supplement that, but I don't think they care if your sample isn't "related" to your interests.

I got in off the waitlist (I guess?) at UCLA yesterday but declined the offer today, as I've already committed to UT and am happy with my decision. So, anyone who hasn't heard from UCLA may be getting some news...

Ummmm... soooo... I just got an offer from UCLA. After multiple attempts to find out my status and no reply (and me subsequently writing off the program), now I get an acceptance email. Super secret phantom waitlists exist, people!

I was surprised by the quant, but the other stuff looked about right. Though, at the visit, about 3/4 of the admitted students were interested in qualitative methods, so I guess it's not THAT surprising, lol.

Check out this page: http://www.utexas.edu/cola/depts/sociology/graduate/admissions/F.A.Q..php

Since we are steadily approaching April 15, I thought I'd go ahead and start the "official" decision thread for everyone to post where they're heading in the fall. It just so happens that I submitted my official acceptance today... It's UT-Austin for me!

Remember, the visit is next weekend! Lol. Keep spirits high you're still in the running!

Just commenting to say I love your signature and wholeheartedly agree, lol

Yes, I have heard of this happening. In fact, I'm pretty sure it's happening to me right now...

I visit my other program next week, but it's down to 2 schools now. I will hopefully make a decision after the visit. Congrats on making your decision!

Rejected from Stanford finally. Honestly, it's good to know what my options are at this point and not have to factor a waitlist into the process.

I just declined UCSD's offer. Hope I freed up some funds for you other UCSD folks! I had previously declined Irvine, so now I'm down to two. Big decision ahead...

I say it's worth a shot to apply to some programs. Master's programs tend to be more forgiving in their admissions. I have a few friends who had mid-2.0s from a top 20 school and got in to very good master's programs. The fact that you left school, got yourself back on track, and came back and did very well will count in your favor and shows great perseverance. I think if everything else in your application is good (as it looks to be), you have a very good chance of getting in to one of the programs you mentioned. I'd have a "plan b" in mind (as I feel everyone applying to grad school should), and just give it your best shot.

Rejected from Yale, Penn, and Rice today... all expected. But, I'm glad to have final decisions. Only waiting for a decision from UCLA, which I just pretend doesn't exist at this point.

I'm waitlisted (or "still active" as they call it) at Stanford, which was one of my top choices. I have other offers, so, like Greenbeans, I am currently just deciding between those schools. I am definitely going to wait to make a final decision until I get word on my waitlist, but I'm trying not to think about it too much right now as an actual contender... Good luck to everyone!