Illusio80

Maybe I can help you if you have specific questions to ask. I know something about political sociology.

@Jessica80 this is an aside, but you're a qualitative person going to Cornell? (I didn't know they really existed at the graduate level.) Are you going to work with Mabel Berezin by any chance?

Thanks @sociologicals for the nice analysis. See you guys/gals here next year if necessary, but very best of luck as things wrap up. -- @Illusio80 As of today: Accepted: 0/8 Waitlisted: 1/8 Rejected: 2/8 Crickets: 5/8

Quite happily claiming a "hold" (waitlist) at Notre Dame. Finally, some halfway positive news!

Any Marxists / Gramscians out there want to have a fun, clean debate?

Have you read Fascist Spectacle by Simonetta Falasca-Zamponi? Good book!

From their perspective, why not try to gather all possible information on candidates? It's almost like an extended group interview. The NSA might be (is) watching too. Anyway, I try to put my best foot forward around here. All I really wanted to encourage was some real sociological discussion, but I keep getting rather insulting feedback every time I do it.

No, my point is that the committees are looking at this too.

Cultural and political sociology (empirical), and cultural theory. I wrote my writing sample on liminality as it relates to 9/11. A previous paper examines Facebook data relating to Somali and Hmong communities and political communication. Also interested in Austrian political scandals. (I feel like I've blown my cover here and might as well just post my real name for everyone to see, but at this stage, whatever, I guess.) Hoping against hope that there is still a chance at Minnesota, Notre Dame, Virginia, Albany, or Yale. :-/

Congratulations to the person who got into UC Irvine!

I third this, though it's awfully hard not to try to read the tea leaves. If you look back through the previous years, though, some of the schools seem to have certain patterns (which may have been altered for all we know.) Notre Dame, for instance, seems to make use of a "hold pool," which differs I-don't-know-how from a waitlist.

That's great news, congratulations! (I hope there is more news forthcoming from UCSB...)

Fair enough. I have merely been trying to foment some actual, substantive, interesting discussion on this site. Try it; it might distract you from waiting for decisions. Don't any of you like to debate for sport? For the record, I have absolutely no hard feelings whatsoever. If I have offended anyone, I am sorry. I just enjoy a good discussion. Wishing you all sincerely the best of luck with your applications!

I can only conclude that you are only interested in my comments about Foucault and postmodernism, and not in what I consider a far more interesting issue, namely, uses of Bourdieu, and contrasting styles of ethnographic writing more broadly. Up to you. William James could be cool. Belief in the fact helping to create the fact. Dewey has also seen some resurgence in social theory.

No hard feelings at all, I just want to get to the truth of the matter. I cited five sociologists and so far nobody has engaged with that. If I also made incorrect blanket claims then I apologize. I think the closer we can get to concrete facts and examples, the more we can productively agree or disagree.

Thanks! I'll look into it. My view is most likely a product of the institutions of which I have been a part.

I guess I have a selective exposure to the discipline based on where I have been, or things have changed a lot since I was in the game last. I agree that Bourdieu has currency in general, but my impression was that the Chicago School type ethnographers were not using him much. As for Foucault, his popularity with sociology is news to me. I have offered citations of specific researchers for my claims, and I would prefer to deal on that level. If you want to refute what I have said, I would rather deal with specifics than blanket claims.

Maybe a stupid question: Does anybody know what time zone this website runs on? Seems like it must be Newfoundland or something. It's 10:00 Central and there's already a results post dated Jan 13.

Cool, good luck! Cultural and political here too, but none of those schools, this time around.

That is more or less how I understand the distinction (and more or less how Alexander argues the point.) I also lean toward the latter. I think the studies that would fall under "sociology of culture" could also be done in a way that respects the relative autonomy of culture. But often, culture is reduced to some other structural factor. My thought is, why concentrate one's effort on culture if it doesn't ultimately matter (have its own efficacy?)

Mining bibliographies is a great strategy. I like reading the classical theorists but I haven't dwelled on them much as of late. I have been reading mostly exemplars that I could apply toward my writing sample, and works by faculty at the various schools. Many many things that are on my radar but haven't gotten to yet. I have drawn a lot of inspiration from Jeffrey Alexander's "The Meanings of Social Life," and find it very practically useful (and the same goes for Why War? by Philip Smith,) but I also like Eviatar Zerubavel. I do also really like the Durkheimian and cognitive traditions in anthropological theory: Douglas, Geertz, really want to read Sahlins... Goodenough, Strauss and Quinn...

There are times when I can fall into Bourdieu's stream of consciousness and follow his thought, but overall I find his writing rather dense. I enjoy reading Sewell too, but you should check out Martin's criticisms, such as "Life's a Beach but You're an Ant" (or something like that), and especially "Thinking Through Theory."

I don't know if I really have much to add to what you already know, but I'll give it a shot. When I think of sociology with a criminology focus, and strengths in both qualitative and quantitative methods, I think of Berkeley, Harvard, Minnesota... Santa Barbara and San Diego are a couple of the best qualitative programs, and I'm sure they also have quantitative people, because every school does. I can't remember if they have many criminology people though. Just about every program is going to train you in statistics; it's a matter of whether they also have strong qualitative training. As for specifically mixed methods courses, I don't know. I would start by identifying faculty who are of interest, and then looking at the methods courses offered and inquiring if necessary. Unfortunately the best way I know of to explore this is still to take the US News rankings and start clicking around departments' websites, specifically the faculty listings, graduate topic clusters, and course listings. You can also go to the ASA sections that interest you and see who is serving on the boards, writing in the newsletters, getting the awards, etc.

Funny. So if you don't like to read Geertz, whom do you like to read?

Good luck! Huh, I thought Thick Description and the one on the Balinese Cockfight were beautifully written. If you think Geertz is a bad writer somehow, try Garfinkel or Bourdieu. I actually also like Ward Goodenough, whom Geertz attacks.