jamc8383

That's bizarre. Although, I had a similar situation in which a POI/adcomm member contacted my advisor to ask how serious I was about their program. Of course I'm serious; I applied, didn't I?! My advisor and I discussed it briefly (deciding on a reassuring though noncommittal response), and s/he responded on my behalf. In this case, I would talk to your recommender. Did the POI say that you should reach out to the school (I agree with you, it seems late to do so)? Or does the POI simply want an assurance from your recommender? Get clarification.

You're applying to what is arguably one of the top universities in the country; if it is within your power to do so, raise the score. The reality is that, even though the score may matter little in terms of admission discussions within the sociology department, many universities have to make objective funding decisions across disciplines and the GRE score (for some) provides a metric to this end. As such, schools may set an (unpublished) minimum qualification for funding (I've heard 290, I've heard 310, but it's hearsay). If the department can't fund you, they're much less likely to waste an admittance on you. You may have heard the old TGC adage: "a good GRE score won't necessarily help you, but a bad GRE score can hurt you?" The V144 is problematic and if sociological analysis at Columbia has a quantitative bent (probably, I have no idea), the Q152 could likewise be harmful. Best of luck!

Of the programs to which I applied, two were notifying accepted students last year as early as January 24th and all six had finished acceptance notifications by February 21st. It's upon us.

I got to read one. It was very complimentary and "urged" the adcomm to admit me. Some insight into my application mania: The recommender wrote that there was "no other current student more suited for study in a phD program" and I was like, current? Don't you mean, in all of history, ever? This process does insane things to the mind.

Submit. Recommenders' will be forgiven their tardiness; you won't.

I think they may have made up for deficiencies in my undergraduate record. Having someone from the institution to which you're applying testify to your ability to do the work that that institution requires probably alleviates any concerns to the contrary.

Oh, man. Here we go...

iAnnotate by branchfire. This is not religion-specific but it's pretty amazing. It allows you to annotate even PDFs that are "unreadable" (read: book scans).

If it is comforting in any way, I came into my MA with a 2.98 undergrad GPA (caveat: I was five years out from undergrad and had recently taken three courses through the university's extension program to prove my proficiency). I had two colleagues that came in with even lower undergrad GPAs (they did not specify how much lower), who have since gone on to phD programs at top-25 institutions, UWisc and UChicago. Keep the dream alive. Edit: My GPA was sabotaged by a "D" in Online Health. Embarrassing.

This. These are obviously not the type of questions you would want to ask. Dealing with questions whose answers are easily discernible from a cursory review of the program's website is just as repugnant to POIs as it is to you. Questions such as "Will you be taking students next year?" on the other hand, are more than appropriate and exceedingly helpful as you make decisions about where to apply. In this sense, I don't think it's fruitful for you to do this now, but hearing from a POI that they're not going to be around next year or that they won't be taking students has major implications for your applications and prevents you from going on and on in your SOP about how you want to work with Professor Z, who, as it turns out is going on phased retirement starting in the fall. Embarrassing to say the least, and potentially damaging.

Agreed. When I applied for my MA, two of my recommenders were from the department to which I was applying. Worked out okay.

I don't really understand the conflict here. Why could you not do both? My process is as follows: Complete paper, present paper at a conference, get feedback, make revisions according to said feedback, submit paper for publication. Moreover, you can add another step in there: after completing revisions, workshop the paper at another conference and then submit to journals. Presenting and publishing are not mutually exclusive; they can (and, I believe, should) reinforce one another.

Not necessarily; as long as its contextualized somehow within your application package (i.e.; in the SOP, personal statement, etc). Yale, for instance, requests that you upload a 500 word explication on "gaps" in your education, which could be a good way to frame this to your advantage. You could even have a recommender touch on it in their LOR. What's important is that you take the initiative to frame it; failing that the adcomm will be left to make their own assumptions. There are so many variables in the application process, but by and large, you can control your narrative.

Yale admissions opened the earliest (of the programs to which I applied), on August 15th. Princeton, UMich and UChicago admissions opened in September and I believe that the other state schools followed in late September/early October. Beginning in the summer, schools will start to post dates for online application availability (some will be very vague and unhelpful, like "fall 2014"), but having a (sometimes rough) idea of when your programs open, will help you with planning; you can work on applications here-and-there, rather than trying to do several at once. Since you can save your progress on the online applications, I started them as soon as they were available, then I uploaded transcripts, WS and SOP over the course of the fall semester. Then I just reviewed the application (adding in any recent/updated information) and hit send. I did a lot of work on the front end of the application process and it paid off. I got all of mine submitted three to four weeks prior to the deadlines, which was super helpful because there was plenty of time for my scores, transcripts and LORs to get matched up and there was no "Oh-my-god-my-application-is-still-marked-as-incomplete-and-the-deadline's-in-two-days" stress. I would say that in doing the actual online application, it probably took me about an hour and a half per app (followed by a final review prior to submission). Hope that helps

I don't think it's terribly common, actually. Anecdotally, I didn't interview prior to my MA admission and colleagues that have gone into top-25 phD programs in the last two application cycles have likewise done so without the formality (or, informality, for that matter) of an interview. For whatever reason, the practice seems much more prevalent in art history admissions. I couldn't really speculate why.

Obviously kidding about the pants thing. These are the jokes. Who knows; but they were all up in arms in the philosophy forum over a similar instance of premature acceptance reportage. People just being "funny," I guess.

Yes. This too.

You don't have to wear pants to a Skype interview. I kid, but seriously. Put on a nice shirt, make sure that there's nothing "off-putting" in the background of your feed frame and be prepared to talk about yourself: the work you've done, the work you aim to do, how you think University X fits in, etc. If you've put a reasonable amount of effort into your application package, you should be in a good place to talk about this stuff (as you've likely reviewed it recently, ad nauseam). Good luck!

A lot of departments host "admitted students weekends," though attendance is certainly not essential. They're held prior to the April 15th decision deadline so that students can check things out before they commit themselves to the university for the next half-decade. Some of the students that attend, as Loric points out, for various reasons won't even accept admission (lack of funding, decision to go elsewhere, etc) and won't be around in the fall. So, it's not as though you'll be "behind" in any sense. I don't see any reason for concern; enjoy your study abroad experience.

Nope. I'm calling BS on that poster. Last year, everyone that posted acceptances for UMich (history phDs) reported notification in the week between February 15th and February 21st. Don't let it rattle you.

It depends on how much work I've done on the front end (i.e.: synthesizing sources, processing material, outlining, note-taking, etc). I tend to do a lot of prep work, so by the time I'm sitting down to write I can knock out a good five pages/day (double-spaced). I would say that puts me at about 1.5 paragraphs/hr. But, of course, I go back and review everything ad nauseam.

I'm there. Although I have taken the precaution of unsubscribing to any and all junk mail lists to which I've been subscribed. This way, come Feb/March, I won't get all excited when I see a new message, only to discover that its just a 25% off promo email from Harry and David. Maddening.

Due to a surprise fellowship that's getting disbursed in January, I'm able to take winter break off from work. It feels genuinely bizarre; even while doing my MA coursework I've been working 25-30 hrs week. So much time on my hands now, I kind of don't know what to do with myself (and it's feeding my admissions monomania). I'm working on revising two articles (one due to the editors Jan 15th and one due Feb 1) and trying to get a jump on the reading for my comprehensive exams in the spring. There's no way I'm going to be able to read, thoroughly process, and thoughtfully synthesize sixty books next semester without a head start!

I think there's a big shift from undergrad to graduate school in the way that students relate to faculty and I think (possibly for reasons involving age) that making that transition is easier or more natural for some than for others. At the graduate level, these people are no longer Professor This or That, but rather, John, Mary, etc. They're no longer your instructors, but your collaborators. Oftentimes, graduate students bring new perspectives that can enrich and reinvigorate the work of more seasoned scholars. Consider that you may have as much to offer them as they have to offer you. Some deference is not out of order, but it's important to keep things in perspective. Even the major luminaries of the discipline are just people like you or I.

No need to apologize. I was simply expressing awe at the dogged belligerency of....well, you know.