If I ruled the world!/was on an admissions committee...

[sociology27]

Just for kicks, I thought we could all just throw in the one (or two) things we would consider the most important if we were on a committee. Maybe this conversation will help the process be a little better thought out 10 years from now (as some/most of us will be on committees at that point). Try not to list every thing imaginable as that would kindofff defeat the purpose. And don't be afraid to say GRE scores or something like that if you really mean it/can back it up with a reason.

I would look closely at 2 things I think: GPA/Coursework and writing sample. I don't understand why writing sample isn't taken that seriously. I think it shows the applicants writing ability, interests, ideology (if read carefully), theoretical leanings, and ability to think critically.

Anyhoot, that's my 2 cents. Just trying to pass the time here....

[giacomo]

i think writing sample is taken seriously, although i think sop should be considered more seriously

[jenjenjen]

According to Michigan "

The Statement of Purpose is the single most important item in your application

."

I think a lot of schools take it very seriously. I couldn't believe that Duke didn't require a writing sample; as in, literally contacted the department so see if I was missing some place to submit it. But man, I would make the limit on writing samples like 30 pages. I realize it probably sucks to read a bunch of looong papers but the schools that limited my sample to 10 or 15 pages caused some pain.

I'd get rid of the GRE. And I did well on it. But I studied really hard and everything I 'learned' was entirely irrelevant.

[NinjaMermaid]

I would not accept a student without an interview. In person is best, but phone would be acceptable. I have known some grad students who have not lived up to their *I did great on my GRE/I can write really well/I worked with Dr. XYZ" potential.

[psych77]

I would omit the GRE. I did well on the verbal and writing, but tried to teach myself geometry for the test and the quant section wasn't great.. It definitely isn't indicative of my abilities within my field, I graduated with a 4.0 (including calc), but had never taken geometry in my life. . As well as not everyone can afford the prep classes that teach the tricks of the test... I would consider the SOP the most heavily....not only does it demonstrate to some degree writing ability, but it's the applicants opportunity to set themselves apart and show a bit of their personality and challenges.

[sleepycat]

SoP and Writing sample - looking for fresh approaches, ideas and theories.

I would take out the GRE entirely, I think it is not a good representation of someone's ability for thinking and writing. All it shows is well you preform on standardized tests. Admittedly I did terrible on it, and tried to study for it, but still got the same score as my previous attempts.

[abc123xtc]

Like everyone else, I would omit the GRE. I would focus heavily on the writing sample and fit.

[gilmoregirl1010]

I think I would look closely at the letters of recommendation. If the student has developed relationships with their letter writers, that will show, and that will suggest that the student is serious about academics and has been thinking about grad school for a while, rather than just applying because it's senior year and they don't have any other options. It's also a way to get a perspective on that student from a professional in your field that understands the position you're in as an adcomm member. It's more personal than a test score or the GPA, but it's also probably less biased than the student's statement of purpose.

And, like everyone else has said, I probably wouldn't put too much emphasis on the GRE.

[RefurbedScientist]

Wow, if we are at all representative of future professional sociologists, then maybe the GRE will be a non-factor 20 years down the line. I think it's an interesting question. I agree that none of the substantive material on the GRE is very closely related to the academic skills used in sociology. Take the verbal section for example, once you're scoring above the, say, 85th percentile, you're dealing with words that no academic would use in her/his right mind. They're unwieldy and could only further distance the field from the public. In the quant section, the higher order problems are things like combinations and sequences. Maybe useful for game theory, but not generally applicable to most sociology. In fact, the more "stats" related questions, such as finding mean/media/mode, are the easier questions.

That being said, the GRE is currently a useful metric for adcoms. I don't want to hunt down the post now, but bloggers on Orgtheory.net have cited some studies showing that high GRE scores are positively correlated for success in grad school*. At best, the GRE score here is a proxy for any number of things that could contribute to academic success, such as work/study habits, "IQ", willingness to jump through hoops, etc. So even if we know the GRE really does not represent academic ability in sociology, it captures something harder to define that is related to academic ability in sociology. The question, then, is about finding a better proxy for academic ability than the GRE. The thing is, on a macro-scale, writing samples and SoPs can't predict success in the same way that GRE does because we don't have any comparable metric for measuring their quality. So while it's likely that people with great writing samples succeed in grad school, it's impossible (or difficult) to collect comparable data on "great" writing samples (barring some kind of content analysis scheme, which is not feasible to standardize and apply across all departments).

Now with that counterargument laid out, I will say that I agree that the GRE would be the first to go in my ideal world. I think that the GRE is a somewhat arbitrary proxy for academic ability. I think that the impulse to compare applicants according to an objective standard is convenient but unnecessary; we could very well be compared according to subjective metrics, although this is of course very labor intensive. I

However, I am somewhat at a loss about better options. I think GPA and courseload is problematic, because some/many undergraduates do not know they plan on pursuing a doctorate in their four years in college (who knew they wanted to do a PhD when they were 19? Not me.) Obviously good grades and background education are paramount, but we wouldn't want there to be a "pre-soc" track in the same where there is "pre-med", because then you end up with students are on that track just because, and not because they made a responsible, informed, adult decision that they want to be scholars.

So yeah, I guess I would echo that I would emphasize the SoP most.

Maybe, in another universe, departments would even have "tasks" for applicants to complete. For example, say you're applying to X department because you're interested in one of their 5 main concentration areas, say gender. (Many departments already ask you to indicate a sub-field in their online application.) So to all the candidates who selected gender, they department distributes a sociological article having something to do with gender. The prompt is something like, "Respond to this article. Approach it theoretically, substantively, methodologically. What are its strengths and flaws? What is a possible direction for future study that would build on these findings?" So now the candidate writes a response, which will in turn reflect her/his critical thinking, fluency with methods and theory, creativity with research proposals, writing ability, etc. An applicants who sucks at, for example, quantitative methods could suggest how these findings could inform a qualitative study to add thickness to the subject. An applicant who won't know to quote Foucault may have an awesome case study from work experience.

This sort of system would be extremely easy to automate online and could perhaps replace the writing sample. Also, because whole groups of applicants are responding to the same prompt, they are cross-comparable in the same way a professor might scale grades on an assignment. So a department with X,Y,Z express concentration areas, there would be 3 prompts on X,Y,Z topics respectively, and three pools of students responding to one of the three.

I dunno. Just a thought.

*Edit: Note that there is probably a selection bias here, as this only compares students who are already in grad school, and not those who weren't accepted anywhere (see more on this line of argument in the orgtheory comments).

Edited February 17, 2012 by SocialGroovements

[Darth.Vegan]

Well lets see, my honors thesis is basically a master's thesis and I have taken and done well in graduate level courses while completing my BA. That should weigh a hell of a lot more than a standardized test that covers geometry and abstract vocabulary.

[RefurbedScientist]

Alternatively, we could be selected based on the quality of our participation on grad cafe. Sounds fair to me.

[abc123xtc]

I've never done well on GREs, SATs, or any standardized tests -- but I've done a thesis in my undergrad, presented at a huge Anthro conference, etc, and I think that's a better reflection of my potential for success than any dumb test.

[sociology27]

why does almost every thread just get highjacked by GRE discussions? We get it, nobody likes them. I don't think committees care for them that much either. I had higher GRE scores than almost all the people posting acceptances to places I got rejected. I think its US who over analyze and exaggerate their importance.

[Darth.Vegan]

why does almost every thread just get highjacked by GRE discussions? We get it, nobody likes them. I don't think committees care for them that much either. I had higher GRE scores than almost all the people posting acceptances to places I got rejected. I think its US who over analyze and exaggerate their importance.

Could be true. I stress over the GRE because I feel if my score isn't high enough that my application won't be fully considered. If I end up with 80-85th percentile I will be happy.

[sciencegirl]

@sociology27... I totally agree with you. I think your GRE's are higher than mine and it doesn't come down to that (or I'd trade you, you know what school). It's very much US who think its such a big deal, and if we are having this tortured debate about GRE's, I'm sure cohorts 20 years ago were having it too, and now that they are in charge of adcoms, I'm sure they don't take it as seriously as we think they are. Just imagine us in 20 years!

[heulwen]

I think a carefully prepared and evaluated written task or exam such as the one described by SocialGroovements here would be much more useful to measure academic ability rather than GRE scores or even writing samples (writing samples are re-written dozen times and in the process many arguments are challanged and sometimes corrected by proofreaders, so although I think they are good indicators, I wouldn't rely on them much). In my country, all serious sociology departments have these sort of exams or tasks, so it is not necessarily done in another universe.

I also think that GRE is discriminating for international students. I considered myself having good skills in math but couldn't answer several questions in the GRE quant section because I didn't know the meaning of the mathematical term being referrded in the question (since of course, I have learned it in another language). Many of my friends here spend their time memorizing mathematical terms in English, which I find completely irrelevant to what we're supposed to do as sociology grad students. I don't even want to mention the verbal section.

[sleepycat]

why does almost every thread just get highjacked by GRE discussions? We get it, nobody likes them. I don't think committees care for them that much either. I had higher GRE scores than almost all the people posting acceptances to places I got rejected. I think its US who over analyze and exaggerate their importance.

I have it from an adcomm chair that there are people that take it seriously and then there are people that don't on just one committee. I think it will mirror the SAT where certain schools are starting to make it optional in most cases, but that will be a few years down the line.

[dizzid]

My only weakness on my app was my GRE. This was such a big weakness that I lowballed myself and didn't apply to higher ranked programs. I have a list of "would've, could've, should've" but at the end of the day, my quant score on the GRE was my ONLY weakness and it made me doubt myself.

So yes, the GRE would be a non-factor for me.

I would like to see writing sample and SOP. Those two things are going to tell me a great deal. The writing sample is going to tell me if you understand how to write analytically and the SOP is going to tell me where you came from and where you're going.

Also, I'd like three LOR and 1 letter of charachter from the manager of the soup kitchen you volunteer at, your church where you've been active in mission, the elderly home you visit, the t-ball team you coach etc.