What else can I do to improve this process?

[Khayembii]

I know that these types of threads are frowned upon, but I'm not really asking my chances here. I've looked at a few schools, and I know for example that NYU's sociology department has about a 4% admission rate. I guess what I'm wondering is where I stand right now and what I can do to improve my chances in getting into a program that I want.

I graduated in 4 years with a BS in Civil Engineering and went back for the following two semesters for a second major in Economics. My cumulative GPA was about a 3.4 if I remember correctly. I worked in the engineering field for the past two years (since graduating in 2010). I was able to get all of my student debt paid off and I have a solid engineering resume to boot.

My goal was always to get my undergrad in something practical that I enjoyed and then after I could go to grad school for whatever I wanted if I so chose. That way if I completely crash and burn I have something really well rooted to fall back on. So that's what I'm doing here. I was able to pay off all of my debt over the past two years, so I'm debt free. I'm interested in going to graduate school for a PhD in sociology (originally it was history but sociology fits better what I have in mind and also includes historical research anyways). I've always had a special love for politics, economics, history and so on. So I've decided, now that I'm debt free with some money in the bank that it's time to actually try to pursue my dream of making that a reality.

I'm planning on applying for Fall 2013 so I have some time (some). I'm just starting to study for the GRE, which I have not taken yet. I figure I need to pass that ASAP to get it off my mind so I can focus on finding schools, programs and mentors to look into. That gives me until about October to figure all of this out. I don't think I'll have a problem doing well on the GRE.

I studied abroad in Great Britain for a summer semester and took classes in history and politics in 2008. Both of my professors loved me, and I have kept in touch with them and they would be willing to write glowing, descriptive letters of recommendation. I also have another history professor whose classes I took in the Honors college here that I am now good friends with, and so he would as well. I know of one or two other profs that would remember me well enough and like me enough to write really good recommendation letters.

I also feel like I'm a step ahead of other prospective students in that I know exactly the field of research that I want to get into specifically, and have been pursuing these studies as sort of a hobby. Based on what I have been independently studying, I even have some ideas that I could pick for possible dissertation topics. I'm not talking about something vague like "womens' studies" or "social change," either (without getting into it too much, and I'm saying this just because I'm hoping this could help people recommend schools to me, my primary area of interest is Imperialism theory in both the classical Marxian sense as well as its more modern offshoots - primarily dependency theory - their fatal flaws, and a movement towards the development of a new theory of Imperialism, among other things). I am very committed to this idea and haven't really waffled on it at all; I know what I want.

So, I feel like I'm doing everything well so far: planning on getting great GRE scores, will have glowing letters of recommendation and I already have a very clear plan of what I want out of this which I can sum up in a statement of purpose.

So what else can I do to help further? I've thought about submitting some of my writings for publication, but to be honest I'm not really sure what publications are out there or what the submission process is.

I also know that it's a very good idea to converse extensively with professors prior to applying, once suitable programs are found.

Anything I'm missing here or do I have all my bases covered pretty much?

[splitends]

The major thing I would think you're missing is original research. From what I've seen, research experience is a major difference between more or less competitive applicants. A lot of people say "I want to be a sociologist!" when what they really mean is "I like reading things sociologists wrote!" There's a really big difference, and having experience with original research is the best way to show a school that you know that difference, which makes it safer for them to bet that you actually know what you're getting yourself into and will actually successfully finish the program. It sounds like you're a theory person-- from what I understand, theoretical work (which is what I assume you mean when you mention the "writings" you're considering publishing?) is generally less well regarded than original empirical work in this process, but something is always better than nothing. And frankly, I'm not entirely sure how someone could get relevant research experience once you've been out of undergrad for a few years, aside from getting a master's degree of course. So whatever you have written, I would recommend trying to get some traction out of it-- present it at relevant conferences, publish it in undergrad journals if you can (there are a few who are pretty open to submissions from all over, and maybe you can look into some at your alma mater-- just google them), and polish it up.

Writing sample is another important factor that I think too many people overlook. I got into several top programs, and professors at every one of them mentioned my writing sample as a main factor in my admission. So don't take that lightly-- submit something that not only shows off your ability to write, but that really shows off your ability to think creatively.

Also, you seem to get this, but nobody can stress enough how important it is to find someplace that fits you well, especially if you have super specific research interests (which does not necessarily equal huge bonus points, btw-- some professors prefer students coming in more open minded, and most expect that you will change your mind to some degree early on in grad school). But if you are married to an idea, make sure you apply to places that will be able to support you in that.

Anyway-- good luck, and don't stress yourself out too much!

[Karlito]

I see an immediate problem: you never really took a sociology course and you know exactly what you want? Even when coming from an undergrad in sociology, adcoms expect modesty and open-mindedness. They will frown upon someone who thinks he knows what he wants while he has not much to back that up. I would caution you to be more modest in your approach, even though your profile seems really interesting.

[Khayembii]

The major thing I would think you're missing is original research. From what I've seen, research experience is a major difference between more or less competitive applicants. A lot of people say "I want to be a sociologist!" when what they really mean is "I like reading things sociologists wrote!" There's a really big difference, and having experience with original research is the best way to show a school that you know that difference, which makes it safer for them to bet that you actually know what you're getting yourself into and will actually successfully finish the program. It sounds like you're a theory person-- from what I understand, theoretical work (which is what I assume you mean when you mention the "writings" you're considering publishing?) is generally less well regarded than original empirical work in this process, but something is always better than nothing. And frankly, I'm not entirely sure how someone could get relevant research experience once you've been out of undergrad for a few years, aside from getting a master's degree of course. So whatever you have written, I would recommend trying to get some traction out of it-- present it at relevant conferences, publish it in undergrad journals if you can (there are a few who are pretty open to submissions from all over, and maybe you can look into some at your alma mater-- just google them), and polish it up.

Writing sample is another important factor that I think too many people overlook. I got into several top programs, and professors at every one of them mentioned my writing sample as a main factor in my admission. So don't take that lightly-- submit something that not only shows off your ability to write, but that really shows off your ability to think creatively.

Thanks for the tips! I thought about this as well but pretty much concluded that there isn't much of a way for me to get into the research game in time. I'm planning on meeting with some sociology professors (as well as other profs) to discuss this further to see if there is anything I can possibly do to get into research at least in my free time for a professor or something.

I see an immediate problem: you never really took a sociology course and you know exactly what you want? Even when coming from an undergrad in sociology, adcoms expect modesty and open-mindedness. They will frown upon someone who thinks he knows what he wants while he has not much to back that up. I would caution you to be more modest in your approach, even though your profile seems really interesting.

I've been pretty well-read in a few different fields relating to sociology, though I am always open for possibly changing my area of focus. Thanks for the tips.

Edited March 8, 2012 by Khayembii

[tt503]

The thing you have going for you is strong quantitative skills. I read somewhere (I don't remember where...probably here) that the typical sociology applicant was a sociology major in college, no real research experience, with an average GPA, good GRE verbal, bad GRE quant. Nothing really to distinguish themselves from anyone else. At gradcafe, this is a self-selecting group of overachievers, so it is easy to think the data is skewed--this is not to say the process isn't competitive. It sure as hell is. I would make sure to play up your quant. skills in some way to differentiate yourself from the rest of the pack.

If I were you, I'd ace the GRE and use your SOP to justify why the switch between engineering and sociology. You can certainly propose ideas, but the committees are interested in "why sociology?" and "why sociology at our institution?"

I don't know how "far ahead" you are in terms of other applicants in terms of having "focused ideas" instead of "broad categories." Many people write that they are interested in "nationalism" or "ethnography" or what have you, but they are also interested in these topics in very nuanced ways. I put these broader categories on my CV, slightly modified to each program (and I'm applying for 2013), to show that I've done my research and I can "fit" their particular rubric. I certainly have loads of ideas I could do my dissertation on NOW, but everyone expects it to change anyway. I'm certainly not studying the same thing I was 3 years ago, and intellectual evolution is something that is necessary for continued growth in your career.

Something that you should be aware of before you write your personal statement is your writing tone. Overall, the original post's tone came across as really arrogant. Not only that, but like I've stressed in other posts, schools don't want to hire theorists, they want to hire researchers/teachers. You're going to have to find a way to reconcile that in a specific project that is marketable to schools who will potentially hire you.

[That Guy]

Try writing some papers and submitting them to the American Sociological Association conference student section. The call for papers is usually around December/January and you would probably know around March if your paper was accepted. That way when it comes time to apply you can have some papers at least marked at "under review" on your CV

[splitends]

If you really want to do theory, know your audience. Don't change your interests just to get in-- apply to places that will like you and your interests. Berkeley and NYU will be excited to hear about theory, many other schools won't.

And I have to disagree with the arrogance accusation. First, I don't think it sounded particularly arrogant, just confident. Second, most people make the opposite mistake when writing SoPs. In my first round of feedback, people pretty much went through and inflated everything I had to say severalfold (for example, "My thesis..." became "My thesis, which was awarded highest honors by my department,...." and so on-- no lies, just more details about why you're great). If you don't tell them why you're awesome, no one else will. (Well, your letter writers will, but you get my point?) Anyway, it worked for me.

[MakeSetBsy]

Given the date and everything that needs to be done to apply for next year, I would recommend that you focus on the writing sample and SOP, not on trying to get something published. I would strongly recommend that you build in time to go through multiple rounds of drafts on the SOP and that you enlist the professors who you are going to ask to write LORs to review and help you mold the essay. Having a well-defined idea of what you want to do is a great start; the professors can help you present it in a way that will be most likely to capture the interest of the adcomms. Since you don't have research experience, perhaps you can use the writing sample and SOP to show that you have the ability to conceive of and execute the kind research that you will be doing as a grad student.

[sociology27]

I would work hard on the SOP. That's huge for anyone, but it's gonna be bigger for you because you have to explain "why sociology, why here, why now." You're definitely not too old or removed from school; they just might be a little skeptical of the hard science background. A few other bullet points

-Research your schools well. Pick the ones that are going to be open to Macro-theory (which appears to be what you're doing). I would disagree with TT503, some schools really appreciate a strong theoretical position or critique or development. You just have to do your research on which ones and which people within those ones.

-Cast a wide net, rankings wise. You don't need to go to a top 10 program to become a really good sociologist.

-Cast a wide net, net wise. Apply to a dozen schools. I also didn't know where I stood so I applied to 12 and happily, I've gotten into a couple in my upper half. But the results don't seem to make much sense. Where you're competitive, especially as a non-traditional applicant, is going to depend a lot of the people on the committee, which is something you can't predict but may be able to counter probability wise.

So, in summary, write a good SOP that's looked over by sociologists or social science academics, research your schools well, and cast a wide net in both ways to try to beat this process by statistically overpowering it

This worked for me.

[Darth.Vegan]

I definitely disagree with your characterization of marxism and marxist political economy. I happen to know that a number of programs you didn't list are still engaged in "marxesque" critical analysis. A couple off the top of my head would be Michigan and Cornell.

[Karlito]

It is still a fairly small subfield compared to, say, race relations in America for example. The Marxist paradigm in general has been considerably fading since the 1960-70s.

Edited March 8, 2012 by Karlito

[Darth.Vegan]

It is still a fairly small subfield compared to, say, race relations in America for example. The Marxist paradigm in general has been considerably fading since the 1960-70s.

Agreed. On a theoretical basis Bordieu seems popular and of course any other contemporary critical/feminist theory still seems to be quite relevant.

[RefurbedScientist]

I definitely disagree with your characterization of marxism and marxist political economy. I happen to know that a number of programs you didn't list are still engaged in "marxesque" critical analysis. A couple off the top of my head would be Michigan and Cornell.

Yes, that's fair. I really don't know much about Marxist scholarship in the US. I do have the impression that the most self-avowed Marxists (paradigmatically speaking) like David Harvey are few and far between. I think it's a product more of the heritage of American social science than anything else.

It is still a fairly small subfield compared to, say, race relations in America for example. The Marxist paradigm in general has been considerably fading since the 1960-70s.

I agree with this statement and believe that this shift correlates with the cultural turn (some call it post-structuralist) that happened a couple decades back in sociology. I think American sociologists were willing to move away from grand theoretical debates and accept the middle-of-the-road theories of Bourdieu or Giddens (i.e. some structural and some agentic factors to social action), especially as this allowed for us to get on with our damned empiricism already and ignore those silly Europeans and their theories. ( )

Point being, I would hesitate to drop Marxist theory into an SoP unless I was certain there would be a warm welcome for it on the adcomm side. That being said, if you really like Marx (or continental social theory in general), then you probably don't want to bother applying to a strictly positivist department anyway, because you might not fit in. I'm facing this issue now with my top choice. I happen to like me some Marxism, crit. theory, and feminism, but it's tough to work that into network analysis... I may end up doing a network map of all the italian communists who wanted to kick Gramsci's scrawny ass. Best of both worlds.

[Khayembii]

First off I want to thank everyone for all their input on this; I really truly appreciate the advice and direction considering that I'm completely new to this entire process.

If I were you, I'd ace the GRE and use your SOP to justify why the switch between engineering and sociology. You can certainly propose ideas, but the committees are interested in "why sociology?" and "why sociology at our institution?"

I would work hard on the SOP. That's huge for anyone, but it's gonna be bigger for you because you have to explain "why sociology, why here, why now."

Well this was my plan pretty much from the start of my undergrad so I have no problem explaining my situation. I also think it's advantageous in that I have very strong math/stat skills from my engineering background, and I also have a lot of real world experience which has given me quite a different perspective than most that go straight through from undergrad to grad/doctorate (at least IMO, based on anecdotal evidence).

That is not to say that nobody is doing it (I assume you know of Vivek Chibber @ NYU)

Heh I just discovered him a couple days ago. I got so excited I started giggling uncontrollably as I read one of his papers. Then I found out that my friend, who is already in the Sociology PhD prog at NYU, has him as an adviser.

Marxism is an increasingly marginal paradigm in professional sociology, and even in its last holdouts (NYU, Berkeley), most professors are strictly positivist. But that's my personal opinion, and not based on any empirics (ironically).

I don't really like the idea of being characterized as a "theorist". I think that imperialism theory in general, since the classical expositions of it in the early 20th century (and certainly including its descendents), were overwhelmingly structuralist, and that Marxist methods of study in many fields has historically moved in this direction. I think that historically the marginalization of Marxian studies and applications of "Marxian methodologies" has more to do with the fact that Marxian interpretations have increasingly taken a structuralist approach even as such an approach was exposed as one-sided and incomplete (wrong). To be honest, many of the most eloquent recent expositions of Marxism that I have seen have been by writers who do not self-identify as Marxist.

Self-described Marxism in general has been this way for much of the 20th century, primarily due to historical developments (ideology, after all, is a reflection of social conflict and whatnot ). Most of these interpretations are incredibly mechanistic, dogmatic and simply, utterly, wrong.

Going back to what I said in my first sentence, theory only really makes sense as a reflection of empirical research and therefore I am equally as passionate about indepth empirical research and analysis.

I definitely disagree with your characterization of marxism and marxist political economy. I happen to know that a number of programs you didn't list are still engaged in "marxesque" critical analysis. A couple off the top of my head would be Michigan and Cornell.

Thanks for this, know of any others I could check out?

Edited March 9, 2012 by Khayembii

[giacomo]

i might be wrong, but what constitutes "research experience" or "original research" seems to be quite different from poster to poster in this thread and on this board in general. Can someone -- the more the better, i guess -- explain how they might define research experience and original research at this stage (pre- and post-application) of their careers?

Also, is there ever a clear difference between theoretical work and empirical work? At this point of human history, how can any acceptable piece of scholarship either be just theoretical or just empirical?

Edited March 9, 2012 by giacomo

[RefurbedScientist]

I would say that neither research experience nor original research is that which occurs in the process of writing a normal term paper for an undergraduate class. "Research experience" probably refers to a broader category, which can include original research but also includes being an RA for a professor, doing analysis for a job, doing a literature review for a senior thesis, or other "derivative" work. "Original research" would be a subcategory that involves collection and/or analysis of data that results in original findings. That means collecting new data through interviews, ethnography, surveys, etc., or analyzing some existing data set and producing new results.

Put simply, original research requires the production of new knowledge, however small. Research experience might include simply reviewing other people's original research.

For example, my current job is as a research assistant at a research center. I do pretty much one kind of research day in and day out, and that's reading literature. This "library" research is not original. Occasionally I get to help with focus group interviews and analysis of interview data. That is original research because it's not deriving from some previously published work.

This wasn't part of your question, but it's worthwhile to consider which is more valuable in the admissions process. I don't think there's a straight answer. The "original research" most students do for a senior thesis, for example, may not be particularly rigorous because it's their first research experience. My rote, mundane research experience as an RA, however, might be highly instrumental to me when I become an RA for a prof. in my program. I think adcomms would probably like to see either or both original or derivative research. Good original research is always better than good derivative research, but poor original research is often not all that valuable (except maybe as a learning experience of what not to do).

[giacomo]

Put simply, original research requires the production of new knowledge, however small. Research experience might include simply reviewing other people's original research.

This.

[RefurbedScientist]

It's also worth noting that, while having original research experience going into grad school is good but not necessary, things change in grad school. Original research is key. Something I have found in my various visits and with conversations with professors and grad students: Do not let the less-original research distract from your original research. There is a strict hierarchy in the value of academic products when it comes to hiring time. Being an RA for professor is not valuable except for gaining you research skills (excluding of course a co-authorship). A literature review is only useful as a prep for your qualifying exams or dissertation. Book chapters can get your name out there but do not generally count as original research. Even second author on articles is of subordinate value. The real currency in academia is single author publications in peer reviewed journals.

This is just something to keep in mind, as many of us will have the opportunity to take on more projects than we can handle. While it's an honor to be invited to write a book chapter or be second-author with a professor, these activities can take away precious time and energy from one's own original research. Granted, this concern is most relevant for those pursuing a research position. This is by no means universally applicable advice (nor does it come from personal experience).

Edit: Just to reiterate, this shouldn't concern someone applying to grad school. You'll have plenty of time to worry about publications once you're in.

Edited March 9, 2012 by SocialGroovements

[Darth.Vegan]

"Original research" can be conducted in the context of a paper for class, but it really depends. I think as explained original research involves adding at least in some small way to the existing body of work by exploring new research questions or expanding on existing research in some way. Simply writing a 15 page paper analyzing a social problem, or issue based on existing literature would not be considered "original research." That said, one can analyze existing data sets (think GSS or ICPSR) to answer new questions or develop a statistical inference about the data.

One concern I have is being pigeonholed as a qualitative researcher. While most of my "research experience" as an RA has been qualitative (interviews, focus groups), I have made it a point to learn stats and use stats in a couple of my papers doing bi-variate data analysis, regression, correlation and learning to use SPSS. I am hoping to develop even more quantitative skills this summer if I get one of the NSF internships I applied for.

Edited March 9, 2012 by xdarthveganx

[splitends]

Research experience means you did something connected to research, either helping someone else on their research or conducting your own. So if you assisted a professor or grad student, worked as an assistant on a larger project, etc, that would all count as research experience. Original research just means you're doing something you planned and carried out yourself, which for undergraduates would probably come in the form of writing a senior thesis, or perhaps doing an original project with undergrad research training programs like McNair. Empirical research means that you actually went out and gathered original data yourself in order to do your original project. So if you set up a survey, conducted interviews, did an ethnography, did a content analysis of cultural artifacts, etc-- that would all be empirical research. Theoretical research would be essentially "armchair sociology"-- something like writing a paper using So-and-So's Theory of Whatever to criticize Such-And-Such Event. From what I understand, there's a bit of a hierarchy in terms of how adcomms will look at the work, but at the end of the day you work with what you've got.

Also, @xdarthveganx, don't stress out about being "pigeonholed." The only thing people care about your undergrad record is that it shows promise for you doing well in the future. You're not actually a grad student yet, and they don't expect you to know how to do things grad students do, especially methods. That's why you take a methods course your first year, and I know a ton of people who have radically switched method preferences since going to grad school. (But if you are going to invest time and energy learning a stats program, don't do SPSS-- no one uses it since IBM bought the company. Look at STATA instead).

[giacomo]

Book chapters can get your name out there but do not generally count as original research.

...

While it's an honor to be invited to write a book chapter or be second-author with a professor, these activities can take away precious time and energy from one's own original research.

I was always wondering why book chapters were not high in the publication hierarchy. What exactly is the logic behind this? Book chapters usually don't contain terribly important original research because if the research had been that important, it would've been published in a journal, etc.? Aren't many book chapters actually slightly revised versions of previously published journal articles?

Edited March 9, 2012 by giacomo

[Khayembii]

Well for my engineering degree I had to present a senior design project which involved myself and three others as a group designing a three story building, which we designed according to LEED Platinum certification (highest environmental certification possible), as well as diverting part of a river to create a fish spawning basin, diverting bus routes and so on. Overall the entire report was a few hundred pages. Though it was a collaborative effort, would that count as "research" or "original research" as we designed it ourselves?

I also had to present an Econ thesis at the end of my major but TBH though I enjoyed reading about the thesis (Red Capitalism in China) the paper sucked ass.

Edited March 9, 2012 by Khayembii

[Darth.Vegan]

Doesn't matter if the paper sucked. A thesis is almost always original research. Look the fact is this, most of us that end up ABD or full fledged professors will look back on the research we did in our undergrad years and laugh. The point as I understand it, is being able to conceptualize and execute a research project.

[Khayembii]

No, it was really just a terrible paper. I even thought so as I was writing it. Still got an A on it though, hahaha. I can post it online for the lulz if you really want to see how terrible it is. I'm definitely not using it as a writing sample, that's for damn sure. Are you suggesting that I put "Original Research - Economics Major Senior Thesis" on my CV but don't show it to them? Because I'd be fine with that if that's acceptable.

Edited March 9, 2012 by Khayembii

[Darth.Vegan]

No, it was really just a terrible paper. I even thought so as I was writing it. Still got an A on it though, hahaha. I can post it online for the lulz if you really want to see how terrible it is. I'm definitely not using it as a writing sample, that's for damn sure. Are you suggesting that I put "Original Research - Economics Major Senior Thesis" on my CV but don't show it to them? Because I'd be fine with that if that's acceptable.

Yes I would count it on a CV as original research, but don't send it as a writing sample if it won't stand up to scrutiny.