wait wait wait

[Waits]

I am getting zero work done at the job that I generally like a huge amount. I'd say the IT folks are wondering what this odd 'gradcafe' site that no one has ever heard of before is, now that its topping their usage stats. Bleugh.

Long time lurker here - I applied to three top ten schools, and four top twenty schools. I've a 1450+ GRE and first class honours BA and MA from the UK (top 5% or so of both classes), confident of my reccs, writing sample etc, excellent fit with the schools I applied to.

So I THOUGHT I should apply to top20 - but now I am wishing I had several safety schools, I'm so convinced I won't get in anywhere! Oh the drama...

[Supernovasky]

You think you are worried...

I applied to only 2 "safety" schools, and 2 top 20s, and a rank 40-50 school...

and I only have a 1240 on my GRE, no MA, although I am confident in my writing sample, supremely confident in my LORs, and I've got published research (though not in sociology, in educational research).

I have the same worries right now.

[Supernovasky]

I'd also like to add that I've got very high math skills which helps for the field of sociology I'm trying to go into (Quantitative and Social Research Methods), and a 3.7 GPA.

I dont know man.

Half my brain is saying that I am a perfect fit for a lot of these schools and their programs.

Half my brain is questioning whether or not they'll see me the same way I see myself.

[sociology27]

waits... are you applying for political science or sociology? because the requirements/sought after credentials are going to be different with each one. You're GRE score is stellar for sociology, but about average for top 20 poli sci programs. But overall, you look like an excellent applicant for either program, that is if you put together a decent SOP. Good luck

[sociology27]

your*

[Supernovasky]

waits... are you applying for political science or sociology? because the requirements/sought after credentials are going to be different with each one. You're GRE score is stellar for sociology, but about average for top 20 poli sci programs. But overall, you look like an excellent applicant for either program, that is if you put together a decent SOP. Good luck

Yeah man, the OP has nothing to worry about, lol. He's got solid, stellar stats (if indeed he's going for sociology, instead of poli sci).

[Waits]

Lol I hadn't even noticed that was there - I had thought of applying to pol sci a few years back, but since changed affiliations. Very happy with all the scores, but you know the way the mind gets irrational at these times!

[ThisSlumgullionIsSoVapid]

Waits, it sounds like you have a strong application. I'm sure you're a contender at some of your schools if, like you said, the fit was good. Don't stress it so much..... although easier said than done, I know.

I'm refreshing this site and my email 20+ times a day.

My app stats are almost exactly like yours, Supernavosky. I'm routinely going from optimism to pessimism and back to optimism.

[Supernovasky]

Waits, it sounds like you have a strong application. I'm sure you're a contender at some of your schools if, like you said, the fit was good. Don't stress it so much..... although easier said than done, I know.

I'm refreshing this site and my email 20+ times a day.

My app stats are almost exactly like yours, Supernavosky. I'm routinely going from optimism to pessimism and back to optimism.

Dude, me too. I keep refreshing EVERY site at least twice a day.

[socieconomist]

hm - well, it very well may be that I'm alone in this but for the record - i killed the verbal on the gre and bombed (nuclear style) the quant. And I'm ok w/that. Stellar Recs, Strong research experience, rock star work experience, nailed it on SOP and solid GPA.... there are many avenues into and out of grad school.

The hilarious thing to me is that sociologists don't even do calculations... we use stata, spss or some other software and those do it for us. Anyway - I HATE math... other than statistics, which I love. I loved it in h.s., undergrad, my m.a. program. and what does the gre test? algebra, fractions, and how fast you can figure out the volume of such and such an object... who cares? The GRE is a totally ridiculous exam and many, many sociology graduate committees understand this and balance those scores against other things: work experience, LOR's, research experience, SOP's, GPA's, publications, etc.

So that said... I'm not a stat person.. I'm an ethnography/ historical sociology person methodologically speaking. So guess where I didn't apply: Stanford - lol - and anywhere like it. I have one focus: immigration. So I applied to a couple schools that focus on that and aren't interested in simply running numbers to find out how many Latinos are going to be in the U.S. by 2050. more pressing questions are: what do we need to do to make sure those folks are more fully enfranchised than not? Who's asking the key questions on climate refugees? What about health care strategies? Then there is the economic question which wraps into questions regarding education...and so on and so forth. What profs at which schools are asking the questions you want to ask—whatever they are—and answering them? If you fit, you fit. If not, well... i guess we know that answer, too.

It's striking to me all the people I see posting that they applied to "top 10" "top 40" or whatever... did anybody apply b/c they wanted to work with somebody? Like did anybody apply to Princeton b/c Mitch Duneier and Paul Willis are there and they want do Public Ethnography? or DiMaggio and they want to do Cultural Sociology? Or b/c they want to work w/their litany of outstanding immigration scholars? Or to Columbia b/c they want to work with Saskia Sassen? Or to Berkeley, not b/c it's UCB but b/c they want to work with M. Burawoy? Or did everybody seriously apply to programs b/c of their USNWR ranking?

anyway... sorry for the rant...

oh! and my point was: try not to worry so much. if you have a strong application that shows you to be well suited for a program and demonstrably sets you apart from other applicants, then you'll be fine! Having positive ties to the profs you want to work with at the schools you want to go to...well, that helps, too.

ps

Good luck folks!

Edited January 19, 2012 by socieconomist

[ThisSlumgullionIsSoVapid]

^ I'm assuming people who post on this board know enough about the application process where they applied places where they had POI's (notice all the people saying they're getting phone calls from potential advisors).

This board I wouldn't say is a perfect representation of the average person applying to graduate school. I know people who apply to places just because it's local or don't have any research agenda in mind. The people posting on here seem to have done some research into who they could work with and for ways in strengthening their application.

I applied to top tier, mid tier, and low tier schools as well but I didn't choose off of only the name of the university. I went through the list of schools and found people that I actually had good fit's with, looked where I would want to live, how they fund students and then decided where to apply.

And if you had a 4.0 GPA and a bad GRE obviously they'd see the gpa too. It isn't a GRE takes all type of situation. In my e-mailing of potential advisers some told me that the programs heavily relied on GRE's and then others emailed me assuring me that the entire application gets assessed and no one thing is weighed heavier than the others. I've also been told the GRE is more of a cut-off type of tool; once people who score above ____ (1100, 1200, 1300) they move onto the other parts of the application including SOP, fit, gpa, and writing sample.

Edited January 19, 2012 by ThisSlumgullionIsSoVapid

[ThisSlumgullionIsSoVapid]

And, to be honest, this board is actually pretty demoralizing. It seems those with the strongest applications like to come on here and post up their stats to get some kind of extrinsic confirmation to what they already know inside...

"Oh, hi.... can someone tell me if I would be a contender for a university? I have a 4.0, a 1500 on my gre, OUTSTANDING letters of rec, a magnificent written sample, summa cum laude, a stunning statement of purpose that perfectly expresses the exact fit I have with the professor I want to work with (who even emailed me back saying he wants to work with me too tehehehe) and I have published work! Oh, and my chancellor said I'm the brightest student that's ever come through my university. So, how bout it guys? Think I'm graduate school material?"

[socieconomist]

ThisSlumgullionIsSoVapid - I don't know why that would be your blanket assumption. I know lots of folks are on here and have no POI. My partner was on here last year and had 0 POI's, applied to 7 of the top 10 programs in her field and was accepted to 4... Clearly I can see the folks who say "my poi got back to me" - but I don't think that's evidence of any sort that the majority of even large minority or whatever quantity you'd like to suggest do or don't have POI's...

In any case... what you did makes sense to me. That's what I did, too. I'm sure many people did. But when I see people rifle off a ton of schools where they applied, many of which have one primary thing in common—rank—then it is to those folks I am directing my comment. I'd find it very suspect or very knock my socks off to know the person who had a solid POI at Princeton, Berkeley, Chicago, Wisc., Mich., UCLA... etc.

Anyway... I'm not arguing w/you on the substance of your point - bc I agree with it... and it seems like your point is that you agree w/me. (maybe I misunderstood though...?)

[socieconomist]

lol - ThisSlumgullionIsSoVapid - I agree with the second statement, too. and you put it hilariously - well done

[sciencegirl]

Welcome @socieconomist - thanks so much for joining the posting and not lurking! Wow - lots of food for thought... I am still thinking about your comment/rant here the about USNWR rankings tier thing.. and then you drop the bomb in your other post about applying to only two schools.. brave. Very commendable. I spent over $1000 on 9 apps. That will be on my credit cards for awhile.

I think one thing we've all realized though is that rankings play a role in the academic process.. for good and mostly bad. But I also think more importantly though in this process is to keep an open mind about schools and not feel that there are perfect fits or POIs... even though someone's research on paper (or on their school's website) fits your own research, that person might be really hard to work with or not have time for you. Also, I've heard of closet research in regards to some professors. When I was talking to graduate students at various schools I was interested in, I would sometimes hear things like even though so-and-so's most published work is on political sociology, they are *great* at ethnography, or even though so-and-so's work is all about migration, that person is an excellent advisor on gender. Things like that came up a lot. I guess what I'm saying is that the best advice was apply broadly and with an open mind - if you get into a program, that school thinks you are a good fit for them... so you should consider them even though it might not look like a 100% match at first glance.

In regards to the 2 schools you applied to, did you already meet with faculty there and hence, feel fairly confident about getting in? I am just sitting on pins and needles right now about all of this as I just don't know if anything is a true shoe-in (and I'm saying this with really good GRE scores, undergrad, etc).. like with Princeton, an admit of 15 students out of a few hundred are not the best odds.

[Palito]

Well, this is by far the most interesting conversation that I've yet to see on this particular thread. It intrigues me to see how others deal with the objective dimensions of applying, i.e., how GRE scores, GPAs, or any other component of the application are given weight by an admissions committee. Of course, as many of you have alluded to, these "hard" qualifications tend to be emphasized more often, probably because they are more generalizable. The idea of "fit" seems to me to be more of an organic, and definitely a more dynamic, measure. It reminds me of Bourdeiu's description of actors influencing their trajectory within a field. More than anything, they work off of a "feel for the game". I know that I selected programs with this in mind: how a given learning environment would influence my sense of the "game" of knowledge production. And I have a feeling that if any applicant or member of an adcomm had to express their vision of the perfect program in a more personal way, chances are it would closely follow this concept.

That being said, I have to second socieconomist's sentiment that it seems like some folks on this board place a bit too much value on the generalizable factors. Then again, isn't that what this board is for? To share the manic depressive ride that comes with exposing yourself to an infamous committee of strangers with the power to decide your fate? Sometimes I feel like my many strengths are going to convince; other times I panic about the stench of mediocrity that clings to my GRE scores. I contacted a few professors, had some really good exchanges over email, but none of them know the dedication that I've shown to even get to this point, or the passion for understanding that continues to mature in the practice of my everyday life. How are we to capture the feeling that belong in this new and empowering environment? Moreover, how can they really know our potential as sociologists?

It's hard to steer clear of flat comparisons, of measuring each of our potential through the impersonal metric that dominates our convential academic experience. I guess when I see people flaunt it, or fake it, or even just nonchalantly offer their stats, I just try to remind myself that their is a real human experience underneath those numbers. It helps to know that many of you are as much of a wrek as I am right now.

[SocHope]

Well, this is steering the topic in a completely different direction, but for those of you who applied to UCLA, did you ever get a confirmation from the department (as opposed to general grad office) that your application was complete? I was reading the department FAQ and they said they would let applicants know by early January whether the application was complete, and I just realized I only ever got an email from the graduate office saying my application had been submitted. At this point, I don't want to falsely reassure myself that, yeah, the department would totally contact me if my application was incomplete. I'll email or call them but wanted first to see if I should actually be concerned.

[sociologyplease]

@ThisSlumgullionIsSoVapid, you win this thread.

@SocHope, I applied to UCLA too, and I did not receive confirmation from the department regarding my application status. I did, however, email them prior to the deadline to confirm that they had gotten all of my items, and was then in a long on-going conversation with them as my GREs couldn't seem to find their way there, so that might be a reason why I wouldn't get an email? If you hear of anything about the confirmations let me know, please!

[danielcharles87]

@ SocHope - I also applied to UCLA and only received confirmation from the Graduate Admissions, not the Sociology department. So often, the FAQ's or Admissions pages are a bit out of date, innaccurate, or the departments don't always follow it to a "T" - I really wouldn't worry about it much. That beings said, good luck - UCLA's an awesome program and definitely a top choice!

[SocHope]

Ok, I'm just going to not worry about UCLA. I won't worry, but I'll be annoyed because they had an early deadline and by the looks of it, a fairly late notification date. Booo! Booo-urns!

And I think people tend to share things like GRE scores, GPA, etc. because they're generally comparable across a bunch of people (such as those of us posting here), and because, let's face it, most adcoms probably DO weed out initial applications on those criteria. There's probably a little bit of that high school "What did you get on the test?" going on too. I personally never minded telling others my grades, because if it was good, I could gloat ( ), and if it was bad, well, it was bad. No shame in that.

What I've always wondered about are the people who say with perfect confidence that they're getting stellar letters of recommendation. I mean, how many people are actually seeing their letters beforehand? I've asked for a lot of letters of rec in my time, and on only two occassions have the writers actually shared the letter with me. Well, 2.5, because one had me draft the letter first. And I've always lived by the "waive my rights to read" rule. So, how do these people know they're getting awesome letters? Maybe the writer thinks it's awesome, but it comes across as sort of a backhanded compliment. Like "Joe Cool was one of the best students I had in my class because he almost never had any questions." or "Suzy Student is very lovely and friendly. She did fairly well in my class." You just never know, unless you see it, what a letter writer says or how that comes across to adcoms right?

What if professors have a secret "between the lines" code that they're initiated into when they get a tenure-track position? A list of adjectives and phrases that seem ok, but have a hidden connotation known only to the initiated e.g., "Proactive" = will stalk you outside of your office hours and on your personal email.

I feel like calling up the graduate/admissions administrator and asking, "But did they LIKE like me, or just like me? Tell me EXACTLY what they said and how they said it."

Edited January 20, 2012 by SocHope

[Palito]

I think they LIKE you, like you, Sochope. That's what I heard from Joanna, who got a note from Penelope, who overheard someone talking in the hall about a sleepover they had with the adcomm. I guess they wanna meet up with you behind the gym after school. Lucky.

[inwhatway]

SocHope, I think it's important to realize that a lot of different types of applicants are applying to Ph.D. programs in Sociology - those of us who hold Master degrees and those who don't; those of us with a load of professional experience and those without, and so on. As an undergraduate and graduate student, I developed relationships with my thesis advisor and readers that went far beyond class. We interacted almost as colleagues, attending conferences and dinner together with regularity. These three people -- who have become dear friends -- also supervised my internship and research experiences and have a great deal of faith in my ability to complete a Ph.D. program. In fact, they are my strongest academic advocates. I have a feeling that when other applicants are confidant in their LORs, they have also developed substantive relationships with their references.

[lexicana]

Ok, I'm just going to not worry about UCLA. I won't worry, but I'll be annoyed because they had an early deadline and by the looks of it, a fairly late notification date. Booo! Booo-urns!

And I think people tend to share things like GRE scores, GPA, etc. because they're generally comparable across a bunch of people (such as those of us posting here), and because, let's face it, most adcoms probably DO weed out initial applications on those criteria. There's probably a little bit of that high school "What did you get on the test?" going on too. I personally never minded telling others my grades, because if it was good, I could gloat ( ), and if it was bad, well, it was bad. No shame in that.

What I've always wondered about are the people who say with perfect confidence that they're getting stellar letters of recommendation. I mean, how many people are actually seeing their letters beforehand? I've asked for a lot of letters of rec in my time, and on only two occassions have the writers actually shared the letter with me. Well, 2.5, because one had me draft the letter first. And I've always lived by the "waive my rights to read" rule. So, how do these people know they're getting awesome letters? Maybe the writer thinks it's awesome, but it comes across as sort of a backhanded compliment. Like "Joe Cool was one of the best students I had in my class because he almost never had any questions." or "Suzy Student is very lovely and friendly. She did fairly well in my class." You just never know, unless you see it, what a letter writer says or how that comes across to adcoms right?

What if professors have a secret "between the lines" code that they're initiated into when they get a tenure-track position? A list of adjectives and phrases that seem ok, but have a hidden connotation known only to the initiated e.g., "Proactive" = will stalk you outside of your office hours and on your personal email.

I feel like calling up the graduate/admissions administrator and asking, "But did they LIKE like me, or just like me? Tell me EXACTLY what they said and how they said it."

I attended a workshop once proviced by Stanford and they DO use phrases which tell the adcomm how excited they really are about the applicant. Here is what they said the different prompts mean.

§ Letter in reference to – very low

§ This serves as a letter of reference for – fairly low

§ I am please to write – average

§ I am pleased to recommend – fairly high

§ It is a genuine pleasure and honor – very high

[SocHope]

@Palito - OH-EM-GEE, srsly? Soooo excited, like you wouldn't believe!

@Hahlj - your point is well-taken, especially as someone with a MA and professional research experience. My comments were less about the quality of the interaction a person has with his/her letter writers, and more the quality of the letter itself. I mean, without having read a letter, you don't really know how it's going to come across in writing. Someone could be a great professor, and totally on your side, and just really suck at writing letters of rec for whatever reason. And I've heard stories from professors about reading terrible or mediocre letters of rec - at least SOME of those applicants would probably be surprised by that.

[Darth.Vegan]

As far as knowing you're getting good letters is concerned...

I am confident in the letters being sent on my behalf because the people writing letters for me either offered without asking, or have gloated about me all over the department.

I have also had professors that earned PhD's from top programs (e.g. Madison, Michigan, UT-Austin) tell me that they think I would do extremely well in grad school, including the very programs that they themselves went to.

It also helps to specifically ask for excellent letters when approaching potential letter writers. It may seem crass, but trust me it isn't.

You generally shouldn't ask for a letter from someone you only took one class with, and never spoke to outside of class.

Building relationships with letter writers is important in my opinion. A professor may even think that you are a great student based off interactions in one class, but it may not be enough information for them to really write a meaningful letter.

I go to a very large public research institution, but I haven't had any trouble building deeper relationships with faculty. I would say the one thing that makes it more difficult is that you have to seek it yourself.