weight of writing sample

[gilbertrollins]

Hey all,

What is the weight of the writing sample? Are they read extremely carefully?

[AaronM]

When a prof at a top 25 visited our school he said they didn't. Adcoms (at least at this school) recognize that these are heavily doctored and aren't very good indicators of how well you actually write. He said he had seen people with amazing writing samples be terrible writers and people with mediocre writing samples be actually pretty good writers.

This is pure speculation on my part but I think it only matters if your writing sample is absolutely atrocious. I could also see them mainly looking at global issues to see what your sociological ideas are and how well you can develop them. But again, pure speculation on my part.

[ohgoodness]

"DEFINITELY send something substantive! Most programs require a writing sample and they do not want a take-home exam, they want to see that you know how to do research and the master's proposal is about the closest thing you could get, given that the thesis is not yet completed. I'm not sure why you would remove the methodological components, however. Any good stratification scholar knows demography and also appreciates quantitative methods, especially at the level of multi-level modeling that you are doing"

This is what I got from a former chair so I took it seriously and really really really fixed my sample.

ps. take-home exams at my school usually equals a literature review 8-15 pages .. ds

Edited December 2, 2012 by cherub

[Willows]

I've only talked to one person about this, a department head. He said for his program, the writing sample essentially shows you can write well enough and how you can approach things sociologically (or critically if your paper isn't soc oriented). It's not so much about substance or content.. or even methods since that's stuff his program intends to teach you their way.

Edited December 2, 2012 by Willows

[gilbertrollins]

Chicago and at least one other school I remember saying they're especially interested in papers with an empirical development of the theory. Broadly interpreted I take that to mean: "We're looking for people who will be ready to submit publishable second-year papers with only minor coaching on minutiae germane to their field."

Mine is my thesis proposal; noticed some mechanical and grammatical errors in one I already sent out. Whoops. Nothing totally dastardly, but not a condition I would have wanted a journal editor to desk review either. Hoping those don't get it trashed - the SOP is solid, and my letter writers are blowing me up pretty big. Hoping those take heavier weights than a skimming (close reading?) of my essay.

[gilbertrollins]

also: are public goods problems, theories of critical mass, thresholds, cascades, etc common enough in sociology that a wide range of committee members will have some background in them? Are those models taught at some point in most UG soc education?

[heathenist]

I'm glad other people are submitting thesis proposals, I was worried places would be expecting completed research, but I guess that's not really feasible for most people.

[ohgoodness]

also: are public goods problems, theories of critical mass, thresholds, cascades, etc common enough in sociology that a wide range of committee members will have some background in them? Are those models taught at some point in most UG soc education?

Shant have a problem if there are people who do stratification/household econ/urban etc but that's all I can vouch for

[gilbertrollins]

Shant have a problem if there are people who do stratification/household econ/urban etc but that's all I can vouch for

What is stratification anyway? How is that different than organizational theory? Doesn't stratification (measured by what? income? doesn't that present a continuous distribution because there are so many observations?), stem from organizational hierarchy? Are the fields delineated by the micro/macro dimension? What is household economics?

[ohgoodness]

What is stratification anyway? How is that different than organizational theory? Doesn't stratification (measured by what? income? doesn't that present a continuous distribution because there are so many observations?), stem from organizational hierarchy? Are the fields delineated by the micro/macro dimension? What is household economics?

Social stratification would basically be classifying positions (not individuals) into different groups (classes, social groups, etc etc) based on their socio-economic characteristics so it would be very different from org. theory which look at how x organizes to pursue certain goals? I think most inequality/strat courses start by reading the Kingsley Davis and Wilbert Moore text ( http://www.brynmawr....davis&moore.pdf ) so you could start there as well for further basics. There are probably spillover from org theory to stratification research but it is very different in essence.

Household economics would be my way of saying family sociology - I just put it that way since so much of my understanding of it stems from Becker (New Home Economics), Easterlin (Paradox and Capacity/Aspirations) and Sen (capabilities). You tend to end up in micro-economics when you do sociology so it all ends up there.

Edited December 3, 2012 by cherub

[SOCgrad987]

I am a current grad student at a top 15 program who just stumbled on this site. Reading through this thread, I thought I would provide some input. I was accepted to 5 out of my 8 schools--three of which were in the top 20 and one just outside the top 20. While I am sure there is much variation amongst programs, the two comments I heard most often on recruiting visits were "I loved your writing sample" and "you worked with X professor at X university, I love her work! She is great."

I am very qualitative, so the writing sample and statement of purpose were my bread and butter. Additionally, I had three top-notch recommenders--two of which I had done independent study projects and thesis projects with over the course of my career.

So, I would say do not discount the writing sample. The best advice one of my recommenders provided me was to make your intro interesting to make the AD COM members want to read more. It is definitely more than just numbers at some programs.

[Palito]

One of my recommenders noted to me that the application process most likely occurs in stages, with more easily judged factors like GRE scores and GPA used to thin out the crowd initially. This is certainly not a new thought (that point has been made on this forum over and over) but the follow-up point bears repeating: if AD COM members are not likely to read a lengthy writing sample until they have sorted out who is a competitive, the weight of this document will only come into play if other indicators pass the initial sorting filters. I get the impression that a good writing sample -- one that demonstrates clear thinking, good writing, and intellectual promise -- could be the thing that makes the greatest impression on those considering the application (as SOCgrad987's mentioned above). However, only so many applicants will have the opportunity for a writing sample to be the thing that makes them standout, whereas GRE scores will probably be in consideration every step of the way. I guess I mean to say that, based on what I have read and heard, the writing sample can very significant weight, but that other factors impact the decision process in a more consistent way.

[gilbertrollins]

Social stratification would basically be classifying positions (not individuals) into different groups (classes, social groups, etc etc) based on their socio-economic characteristics so it would be very different from org. theory which look at how x organizes to pursue certain goals?

That's where I don't see the difference. I understand structural theories often just hold agency constant. No doubt the social role "engineer" and "father" stays relatively constant while purposive people migrate into and out of that role. But I like organizational stuff (what little i know about it so far) in that it tries to account for how the accretion of individual actions build-up structures. I think then at the next level organizations build-up into social strata and larger social frames (which may be even more rigid for the network externality they imply in the number of "users" operating in them).

I get that a lot of sociology has been extremely skeptical of theory that fawns after universal models of behavior, as such frames seem to imply the very hegemony sociology-as-activism means to deconstruct. But I think sociological theory would be a lot more coherent if it attempted a more systematic theory of how different models of behavior related to one another (on the other hand I think economic theory would be a lot more coherent if it attempted less constancy). For instance, I read essays where people use terms like "norms, culture, institutions" and so on nearly interchangeably, without defining them. Then in another paragraph you get something like "racial norms affect cultural institutions in X way," which is beyond confusing when they were used to mean identical things elsewhere.

Thanks for the link.

[gilbertrollins]

^frankly I think coining neologisms and using elegant variation in prose just makes scholars feel unique, and important -- without adding anything to discourse -- one sees the effect similarly in economics, where over a couple decades a litany of mathematical models can pile up on one very narrow topic, all using in fact novel mathematical techniques, but few of them adding any substantive insight into the question at hand -- which may be very simple -- like the elasticity of substitution between immigrant and domestic workers.

[ohgoodness]

I got your point up and could agree up until your last comment. I sorta feel that you're looking at this too narrowly and is too locked in on how sub-fields work in economics.

E-O Wright has lots of free introductory stuff on his webpage http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~wright/ from which you could zoom in more specifically (and no - I am not a follower...). Especially the "Approaches to Class Analysis" is good reading.

[gilbertrollins]

Thanks again for the cites. The philosophy of science I have read highlights that insularity and the attending field-specific jargon are problems across the academy. I am not merely extrapolating from my (limited) experience in economics.

[gilbertrollins]

Also pages say 10-30 pages. Double or single spaced? And I'm using ASA citation detailed on Purdue Owl. Is that going to fly?

[Willows]

I would only submit a sample done in ASA or APA style personally. That means 12 pt font, double spaced, etc.

[jacib]

also: are public goods problems, theories of critical mass, thresholds, cascades, etc common enough in sociology that a wide range of committee members will have some background in them? Are those models taught at some point in most UG soc education?

I think those are all generally enough to be fine (especially if you make it clear what you're talking about through examples). Sociology is big enough that no one will understand everything. Ethnographers won't necessarily understand the details of a multilevel model and demographers won't necessarily understand critical race theory. Everyone's used to it. So your work should be methodologically and empirically rigorous enough to impress the people who will "get" everything and clear and well written enough for the people who might not know anything about your sub-field. It's a balance, but when in doubt, I think good work that people in your subfield understand is fine (which is not an excuse for bad writing). I understand a lot of quantitative political science stuff (in comparative politics and IR) than I do some of the qualitative stuff in sociological fields I'm not familiar with.

I am a current grad student at a top 15 program who just stumbled on this site. Reading through this thread, I thought I would provide some input. I was accepted to 5 out of my 8 schools--three of which were in the top 20 and one just outside the top 20. While I am sure there is much variation amongst programs, the two comments I heard most often on recruiting visits were "I loved your writing sample" and "you worked with X professor at X university, I love her work! She is great."

The comments I got were how strong my numbers were and how interesting the project in my SOP was. I think it's fair to say that sociology grad apps are a remarkably holistic assessment (I supposed to cruise the poli sci forum on grad cafe--they for real all need to get minimum 160 v and q to be in a top program, it's nuts. That's just to get their application looked at).

AD COM members are not likely to read a lengthy writing sample until they have sorted out who is a competitive, the weight of this document will only come into play if other indicators pass the initial sorting filters.

I think this is very true. But it's also definitely what some people think is the "most important" part.

Also pages say 10-30 pages. Double or single spaced? And I'm using ASA citation detailed on Purdue Owl. Is that going to fly?

I wrote mine double spaced, in Chicago format (footnotes!), which is much more common in history and the humanities where I was coming from (I used a portion of my thesis). I wouldn't tell anyone to do that, but I don't think it was a problem at all. They're looking for promise, not you being there yet. Citations is obviously one of the things they can teach you. Clear or imaginative thinking are things that are much harder to teach. ASA would probably be best, I would imagine any inline (author year: page) citation system would be viewed pretty much the same as long it was consistently done throughout the paper.

[Darth.Vegan]

I find it it hilarious that there has probably been a thread like this for every single item of an application (devaluing) with the exception of letters of rec. I really think the speculation can be unhelpful at times. That said, I do think this site has helped me develop stronger applications. Just gotta remember to take advice with a grain of salt.

Edited December 4, 2012 by xdarthveganx

[ohgoodness]

I find it it hilarious that there has probably been a thread like this for every single item of an application with the exception of letters of rec. I really think the speculation can be unhelpful at times. That said, I do think this site has helped me develop stronger applications. Just gotta remember to take advice with a grain of salt.

The number of times that I have wanted to post one of my recommendation letters, hoping that people would say that it is not lacklustre. I was given the possibility but two of my LOR to check their letters. I just felt that after the process of writing the SOP - understanding what looks good in a LOR is beyond my energy levels..

[gilbertrollins]

I supposed to cruise the poli sci forum on grad cafe--they for real all need to get minimum 160 v and q to be in a top program, it's nuts. That's just to get their application looked at).

I mean -- those are around the 80th percentile.

Thanks for the information and support. Economics minimum Q is about 164, and T20 will want to see 166+. Technically it's high-school math. One of the reasons they changed the test was that fields like economics, physics, and engineering did not present enough variation at the top: note that an old 800 only translates to (I think) a 164 or 166 now.

I don't think it's a great system, GRE, but economically speaking it makes sense as a costly signaling device. One "pays" to have one's application looked at by sacrificing inane hours getting good at solving tricky math and verbal problems quickly. When I took the GRE I was still equivocating about economics or sociology, and didn't study at all for the verbal because that month, I was going to be an economist. In retrospect I wish I had, but it is what it is now.

[heathenist]

I find it it hilarious that there has probably been a thread like this for every single item of an application (devaluing) with the exception of letters of rec. I really think the speculation can be unhelpful at times. That said, I do think this site has helped me develop stronger applications. Just gotta remember to take advice with a grain of salt.

I've actually heard/read that letters aren't always taken that seriously because they aren't unbiased critiques and that for the most part they are all going to be glowing. Like you said, it has to be taken with a grain of salt, no adcomm is the same.

[gilbertrollins]

^That is diametrically opposite to everything and everyone I've ever talked to about letters. Beyond GRE (which isn't even itself totally unbiased toward say a native English speaker with articulate parents like myself who can take the verbal cold and get a relatively high score), every evaluation in the package is biased, including your transcript (the wealth of grading rubrics makes comparing "As" across large populations a really imperfect exercise -- though I don't mean to patronize you with things you already understand.

Faculty recommendations are the most credible signal in your package. Faculty have to control for their own reputation and maintain their own integrity when they evaluate students; not to mention it is a confidential process so there is absolutely no guarantee a letter will glow. Indeed "damning one with faint praise," is it seems in the academy a polite way to say "I do not recommend X for graduate study."

Letters often do highlight candidate's weaknesses. And in fact letters that do not address them are not taken seriously. I got roasted a little at a banquet with a quotation from a letter someone wrote for an award I got once: "_________ came to me a very bright, and very ignorant young man." I've given my advisers, I think, more than enough material about my faults (which are many) to write an honest letter. And I would be disappointed if they did not feel comfortable discussing them in a dignified way, conveying that on net their belief is that I am capable of overcoming them.

Then again, I might be living in Neverland daydreaming about how my letter writers approach the task.

[Darth.Vegan]

I've actually heard/read that letters aren't always taken that seriously because they aren't unbiased critiques and that for the most part they are all going to be glowing. Like you said, it has to be taken with a grain of salt, no adcomm is the same.

LOL this is such nonsense. So basically, letters, statement of purpose, transcripts, writing sample and CV hold very little weight in the admissions process, at least according to a few people on here. That is complete nonsense, it has to be. Obviously there are items of an application that hold more sway or weight with admissions committees, I think what it really comes down to is that no one on this forum actually knows what they are.