Decision - Sociology PhD

[hardboiledegg]

I figured this would be a good time to start a thread having to do with making a decision (as opposed to threads about 1 school).

Right now, I'm deciding between Wisconsin and Harvard... but I would love to hear from Michigan so my decision is more complicated ...

[Etranger]

Hey, I think you should specify your sub-field so that people can give you advice.

[slothy]

Regardless of your subfield, as someone presumably on the Harvard waitlist I would strongly encourage Wisconsin. Madison and Boston are probably about the same in terms of climate, but I'm sure the cheese is much fresher in Wisconsin.

A serious quesiton to ask yourself is whether you'd rather be a star at Wisconsin or just another talented student at Harvard. There are pros and cons to both options and you need to think seriously about your personality. You should really post some more details on your situation for us to help you out. When you say you're deciding between Wisconsin and Harvard, does that mean that you've suddenly ruled out all your other offers, or are you just forecasting a hypothetical situation you might be facing down the road once you've learned more about your options?

[alienatedlaborer]

I think the idea that you'd be a "star" at Wisconsin or another talented student at Harvard is a little misguided. Harvard's program is much smaller, so you're actually likely to get more attention from faculty than you would at bigger programs like Wisconsin or Berkeley (initially, at least). Also Harvard generally offers full funding to everyone they admit, whereas competition for funding opportunities at Wisconsin might be a bit more intense. Whatever your personal funding situation, these kinds of things really do have an impact on the character of the programs, and you should talk to lots of people (students and faculty, past and present) to get a feel for what you're getting into. But I agree that different personalities excel in these kinds of environments, and it will be up to you to be honest with yourself and figure out where you belong.

Of course, all of this sets aside the issue of your particular interests. What do you want to do? With whom do you want to work? Obviously, this should play a large role in your decision.

In any case, it sounds like you're in a great position. Congratulations, and good luck!

[That_One]

Just curious - - if we were to measure success by the quality of placement that one obtains after graduation, is one better off attending a department where s/he would be a "star" at or a department where s/he would be "just another talented student"?

[samoth]

It's a good question. Departmental stars certainly have good chances of networking as early as possible in their careers. However, it might be even more important to consider potential advisers - especially, having more than one potential adviser in the department. Finding yourself orphaned, even in the best departments, can be very bad for your progress. A good adviser with good connections and human relations can be very valuable and can greatly improve your placement options, even if you're not the star of the department.

[hoobers]

Re: weather --- I hope you're kidding. Madison is 10-20 degrees colder in the winter than Boston. Boston is fairly mild; Madison is rough.

I am turned off enough by Madison's funding that it is a definite 'no' for me.

[ejuliast]

I think it also depends on how much you want a city near by. At Harvard, you have Boston, and arguably also other cities not far away. At Wisconsin, granted you could go to Chicago, but it's totally different. In terms of the departments, Harvard's cohort is obviously much smaller and so is the department. I would say you should think about what suits you best in that sense. And finally, how well do you "click" with potential advisers?

I'm trying to decide between Wisconsin, Stanford, Berkeley, and UCLA, and making no good headway in the decision at all... :?

[hardboiledegg]

I am at a crossroads in terms of subfield. I want to get into migration, so Wisconsin seems like a great fit for that. On the other hand, I want to study inequality, incarceration, and urban sociology: Harvard.

I need to figure this out ...

[samoth]

I'm trying to decide between Wisconsin, Stanford, Berkeley, and UCLA, and making no good headway in the decision at all... :?

And if the weather's any part of your decision, you probably have a big dilemma...

[coqui21]

I am at a crossroads in terms of subfield. I want to get into migration, so Wisconsin seems like a great fit for that. On the other hand, I want to study inequality, incarceration, and urban sociology: Harvard.

I need to figure this out ...

Sounds like Harvard wins 3 subfields to 1.

Most students find that their interests change over the first couple years of graduate school. It may not be a bad idea to think about which department/s can offer you the most variability with regards to potential fields of study.

[ewurgler]

Visit Visit Visit!!

I am a firm believer that you will flourish best where you are enjoying your life outside of school, enjoying the people around you (grad students and faculty) and find yourself in line with the academic "ethics" of the department you're in.

Go to the schools, talk to current grads and see what will fit you best!

For me, the idea of 150 grad students in one department and the fact that they don't fund all of those students really turns me off (Wis).

[hardboiledegg]

I'm trying to decide between Wisconsin, Stanford, Berkeley, and UCLA, and making no good headway in the decision at all...

What are your subfields? That question helped me kind of lean a certain way.

To everyone: how much do rankings matter? (wisconsin #1 ; harvard #8)... does that make a huge difference?

[hoobers]

Rankings do matter, but not those that hold Harvard to be lower than Wisconsin I think you're referring to the rankings that are based on citation counts. As far as I know, those aren't taken very seriously. What is taken far more seriously is how effective the program is perceived to be at producing good scholars -- the same subjective judgment that will be applied when your CV is evaluated. And I think that Berkeley, Harvard, and Princeton are the top three on most versions of that list, though perhaps not in that order.

[coqui21]

Rankings do matter, but not those that hold Harvard to be lower than Wisconsin I think you're referring to the rankings that are based on citation counts. As far as I know, those aren't taken very seriously. What is taken far more seriously is how effective the program is perceived to be at producing good scholars -- the same subjective judgment that will be applied when your CV is evaluated. And I think that Berkeley, Harvard, and Princeton are the top three on most versions of that list, though perhaps not in that order.

I'd have to disagree. As a current sociology graduate student, I continuously hear about Wisconsin and Berkelely. To my knowledge, they're recognized across the field as being the best sociology programs in the nation.

Btw, the rankings the above poster was citing were the US News and World Report rankings that take a number of things into consideration beyond that of just citations. They are by no means perfect, but they are the most often used and possibly the most legitimate rankings available.

[hardboiledegg]

So in light of this, does choosing Harvard over Wisconsin sound stupid when I have a full ride to both for five years? (so all things basically being equal, would the prestige of wisconsin override Harvard's fit with my sub fields)?

[coqui21]

So in light of this, does choosing Harvard over Wisconsin sound stupid when I have a full ride to both for five years? (so all things basically being equal, would the prestige of wisconsin override Harvard's fit with my sub fields)?

In my honest opinion, fit is more important than prestige any day. You'll be more comfortable in a program that fits your interests. You'll have more opportunities (which are hard to come by), and you should have much better guidance. When on the job market, you'll have some of the best references in the world in your sub-field. A smart school would hire someone who specializes in Harvard's strong subfields over Wisconsin's weak ones.

My most sincere advice is to go where you 'fit' or 'can fit' (if you're still up in the air over research topics) best.

[slothy]

The main reason why Wisconsin is ranked #1 is, to my understanding, the simple virtue that they probably have the most alumni among the department chairs who get to fill out US News surveys. I wouldn't read much into that ranking at all. There's little doubt that Wisconsin is a top-10 program, but #1 is a real stretch.

As others have noted, it's very premature to be discussing these things before you've had the opportunity to visit both... I would think that it's really important to meet your prospective mentors in person and get a feel for who you would get along with best.

[hoobers]

I've heard Wisconsin described as a program that is intentionally structured to maximize ranking (as opposed to quality). That is to say, there is a strong emphasis on the pure number of faculty publications in high-ranked journals, as opposed to on intellectual content per se. Of course, this is just one opinion...

On the other hand, go look at where the faculty in top-10 schools comes from. I think you'll see more Harvard grads than Wisconsin grads (I certainly haven't carried out a formal evaluation of this or anything -- but I did just look through the Berkeley faculty bios, and an overwhelming portion are Harvard grads).

[coqui21]

I've heard Wisconsin described as a program that is intentionally structured to maximize ranking (as opposed to quality). That is to say, there is a strong emphasis on the pure number of faculty publications in high-ranked journals, as opposed to on intellectual content per se. Of course, this is just one opinion...

On the other hand, go look at where the faculty in top-10 schools comes from. I think you'll see more Harvard grads than Wisconsin grads (I certainly haven't carried out a formal evaluation of this or anything -- but I did just look through the Berkeley faculty bios, and an overwhelming portion are Harvard grads).

You rarely get published in the top journals without 'intellectual content.' Since these are the journals that are most read, cited, and usually the most influential to the field, you might also think of their supposed emphasis on top journals as an attempt to lead/guide the field, in general.

I honestly don't care one way or another which is ranked higher, but I do find it hilarious that when public schools like Wisconsin-Madison and Berkeley are recognized as the top in the field that a host of people in support of the Ivies (Harvard, Stanford, Princeton) start crying foul.

[Etranger]

You rarely get published in the top journals without 'intellectual content.' Since these are the journals that are most read, cited, and usually the most influential to the field, you might also think of their supposed emphasis on top journals as an attempt to lead/guide the field, in general.

I honestly don't care one way or another which is ranked higher, but I do find it hilarious that when public schools like Wisconsin-Madison and Berkeley are recognized as the top in the field that a host of people in support of the Ivies (Harvard, Stanford, Princeton) start crying foul.

It seems the debate has become really heated. It is true that Wisconsin gets more paper published in the top journals, and I also admit that they are of "high quality". Yet "high quality" does not necessarily imply "intellectual". One fact I want to point out that the reason Wisconsin gets more paper published is simply because they own the largest database in the Unites States, and perhaps the largest university-run in the world. That is to say, they have a powerful paper engine, which is a huge plus in paper counting. My undergrad adviser comes from Wisconsin, and he told me that if one goes to Wisconsin, professors will say "Hey, here is some data, just take them and make your dissertation out of it."

This is not a bias against quantitative works. But simply to point out that the fact that more journal articles are read, cites, and regarded most influential may be contingent upon what sort of study to which these papers are related. With the huge plus of databases, one can produce multiple papers when others may only be able to produce one, collecting data on themselves, or doing archival research instead. Yet it would be unfair just to count numbers without treating different things differently. As for "intellectual contribution" Harvard had Talcott Parsons, Barington Moore, and produced Charles Tilly and Theda Skocpol. Yes, Wisconsin has many rigorous, respectable and highly productive social scientists, but could you name some influential intellectuals from Wisconsin?

[samoth]

Maybe what hoobers meant is that Wisconsin evaluate their staff SOLELY on the basis of the number of publications in high ranking journals, so as to retain a high rank for the department. This would mean that a researcher who decides to devote a year or two to develop a long term intellectual project in a book, or to take the time to participate in other scholarly activities, would be frowned upon.

[Etranger]

Many big ten schools do prefer papers over books when recruiting. Interestingly, some professors are quite sensitive to this claim, "No, we value book publications equally. See, I am doing this and that book project, and the department gives me much freedom and time. You must be talking about those demography guys."

Maybe what hoobers meant is that Wisconsin evaluate their staff SOLELY on the basis of the number of publications in high ranking journals, so as to retain a high rank for the department. This would mean that a researcher who decides to devote a year or two to develop a long term intellectual project in a book, or to take the time to participate in other scholarly activities, would be frowned upon.

[ewurgler]

As for "intellectual contribution" Harvard had Talcott Parsons, Barington Moore, and produced Charles Tilly and Theda Skocpol. Yes, Wisconsin has many rigorous, respectable and highly productive social scientists, but could you name some influential intellectuals from Wisconsin?

3 out of the 4 people you mention are dead--that particular soc department doesn't exist anymore. We are talking current intellectual firepower.

And yes--Erik Olin Wright is influential and at wisconsin.

I too find it annoying that people find ways to completely dog public universities that have done more with much less for decades.

I am not a huge fan of wisconsin, mainly because I find their practice of not funding grad students pretty unethical.

But seriously, look at the publics in the top 15 ranking--Michigan, Wisconsin, Berkeley, UNC, and Indiana. THey are all rockin schools overall and have serious faculty doing serious work.