IAmA Grad Student Rep on a AdComm

[FertMigMort]

Clearly you are correct: some departments have an age cutoff. For other departments, though, if an age cutoff does indeed exist, it appears to be more of a guideline than a rule. 

I think this echoes my experience, with my school being one that doesn't seem to have an age cutoff.

[FertMigMort]

Slightly off-topic, but here is a link to a discussion about GRE scores as cutoffs for admission with some peer-reviewed citations.

A cursory reading of the literature makes it sound like GREs are thought to predict something, but it's by no means clear cut. Because not everyone that takes the GRE applies to graduate school, you have some inherent bias in the statistics because of attrition.

I haven't come across any literature that conclusively states what the cutoff for a GRE should be to predict the best outcomes (even this is vague! What is a good outcome for one person isn't for another) for graduate students.

[jacib]

MORE QUESTIONS:

 

What surprised you most about the process?

What surprised you most about your fellow reviewers' opinions?

What's a quesion that we should have asked, but haven't?

 

Knowing what you know now, what two or three things of your own application would you have changed?

 

How much did you think about about "distribution" in your selection?  Beyond the fit of the individual for the department, but the composition of the group of people for the available number of spots and resources.  That is, lets say your department is great in Urban Ethnography, and Social Networks, has a couple of quality people in Sociology of Health, a noted about Historical Socioogist, two old strat guys who should retire, and the department is moving towards more hiring more young scholars who do Race.  How much does the disribution of specialities of applications affect who gets in?  Like if you have 10 great urban ethnography applications and two great ones in social networks and one good one, might you let in three and three?  (Okay so I was aiming for clarity with my imaginary department, but I think I may have made it more confusing). 

 

This is awesome, by the way.  If there were such a thing as GradeCafe Gold, I'd give it to you.

[La_Di_Da]

As for hiring surveys, one friend of mine got her PhD in cultural anthropology in her late 40s, after leaving nursing. She now has a tenure track position at Virginia Tech. Another friend got her PhD in accounting, a field more amenable to mature candidates, at age 50, and is now teaching at Texas State. Yet another friend of mine got his PhD in economics in his late 40s, and landed a tenured position at the Walton College of Business at the University of Arkansas; he'll be retiring to Brazil soon (lucky fella!). My father was hired by Appalachian State when he was in his 60s! And in a recent conversation he mentioned that one of his colleagues got her PhD in her 50s! (Note: all are full faculty, not adjuncts!) All this to say, probability does not define possibility, at least not unequivocally. And thank goodness for that!!!!

 

I wanted to note that the majority of the hires I mention (see bold text) were made within the last two to three years, as departments shrank. My father (communications) and the economist I mention have put in ten years or more, so they got in before the economic downturn. Again, even with a volatile economy, and with deep departmental budget cuts becoming the norm, age doesn't necessarily work against you. If you're a strong candidate, you're a strong candidate.

Edited March 3, 2013 by La_Di_Da

[rising_star]

This is awesome, by the way.  If there were such a thing as GradeCafe Gold, I'd give it to you.

 

The closest equivalent here is a pinned topic, which I just did!

[heathenist]

OP- I'm not sure how privy you were to this information, but what do you think were the deciding factors when handing out fellowships (vs standard assistantships)?  Are they just given to the student with the best GRE score or something like that, or is it more subjective?

[FertMigMort]

MORE QUESTIONS:

 

What surprised you most about the process?

What surprised you most about your fellow reviewers' opinions?

What's a quesion that we should have asked, but haven't?

 

Knowing what you know now, what two or three things of your own application would you have changed?

 

How much did you think about about "distribution" in your selection?  Beyond the fit of the individual for the department, but the composition of the group of people for the available number of spots and resources.  That is, lets say your department is great in Urban Ethnography, and Social Networks, has a couple of quality people in Sociology of Health, a noted about Historical Socioogist, two old strat guys who should retire, and the department is moving towards more hiring more young scholars who do Race.  How much does the disribution of specialities of applications affect who gets in?  Like if you have 10 great urban ethnography applications and two great ones in social networks and one good one, might you let in three and three?  (Okay so I was aiming for clarity with my imaginary department, but I think I may have made it more confusing). 

 

This is awesome, by the way.  If there were such a thing as GradeCafe Gold, I'd give it to you.

What surprised me the most: I think it was the GRE cutoff. I never wanted to believe it existed even though I had suspected all along. Also how much the GRE was even discussed. I feel very lucky that I got such a high score on my first time around and never had to take it again. It seems silly to me that a bad score on one 4 hour test can really control which schools you can reasonably get into.

Fellow reviewer's opinions: How differently each application could be read. I would read one application and think "heck no!" and then show up and have other people say "heck yes!", sometimes for the same reasons that I was against an applicant. I think that's the value in having discussion and not having 1 person making all of the application decisions.

 

Questions you haven't asked: I actually think y'all have covered many of the questions that will help you the most. If I think of others, I will post them.

What I would have changed on my own applications: Probably my statement of purpose. I didn't tailor them as much to each school as I should/could have. I think I did a good job on explaining deficits in my application, but I basically substituted each school's name into a couple of slots and used the same SOP each time. That was clearly a mistake now, but given how many similar applications we got this year like that, it's not something that's widely understood. Part of that was because I wasn't sure why I wanted to go to graduate school, other than desiring a Ph.D. and having a lot of smart people telling me that I should go.

I also think I would have done even more research than I did ahead of time. Although I checked out school's websites, I now know that that information isn't always updated frequently and doesn't have details like that imaginary department that you mentioned. There's no way to tell by looking at a department's website if the person you really want to work with wants to move closer to their family and has been looking for open spots on the East Coast. Or if a young hotshot is about to get poached from a school that can offer them more. Or if a 4th year professor failed a tenure review and is on probation. I would email DGSs, graduate students, and professors I was interested in working in to get a feel for a department before I applied. I get several of these emails/visits each year in the fall and I never mind answering questions.

The distribution:  I think this is tied to fit. It was brought up several times in the meeting too, like "hey, isn't X retiring soon?" as a reason that someone might not be as happy here. I wouldn't say that anyone was precluded from admission because of it though. The one exception might be in smaller specialties. So if a department is really heavy on culture and only has 2 gender people, the people applying for gender might have a slightly harder time getting in. I would advise people applying to work with 1 person in a department to have contact with that person BEFORE applying and to widen their interests so they can work with more than just that one person. Like in the example I just gave, find an intersection of gender AND culture that could make you more appealing to that department than someone who just studied gender.

As for your hypothetical situation, I'm not sure what our committee would have done. We seemed to get plenty of great applications in any strong area that we had, so we had no problem filling slots with great people. I don't know if that's what normally happens or if it would play out like you mentioned. I hope it would be the latter.

Great questions! Thanks for the compliment.

 

[FertMigMort]

OP- I'm not sure how privy you were to this information, but what do you think were the deciding factors when handing out fellowships (vs standard assistantships)?  Are they just given to the student with the best GRE score or something like that, or is it more subjective?

I actually didn't have anything to do with funding. There weren't any votes or discussion of funding during meetings. As far as I know, everyone here is fully funded (with maybe a few exceptions) although many people are tight-lipped about what they were offered. I suspect that GREs played a role in what fellowships were offered (I had a fellowship and my GRE score was really high) but that's just a suspicion.

[FertMigMort]

I have a question for the people who asked me questions:

Why do you think the application process is so secretive? What do you think universities gain by not being more transparent about it? Do you feel like this disproportionately affects some groups?

[amlobo]

I have a question for the people who asked me questions:

Why do you think the application process is so secretive? What do you think universities gain by not being more transparent about it? Do you feel like this disproportionately affects some groups?

 

I didn't ask a question, but this is of interest to me.  I feel like perhaps adcomms enjoy the "anonymity" and flexibility in a secret admissions process.  I would think the process varies depending on who is on that year's adcomm and what the needs of the department are each year.  The less you disclose, the less open to criticism or question the process is.  I also think it probably works two-fold in the effect on applicants, in that it avoids pandering based on the things you "know" an adcomm wants (to the extent it isn't already present), but it also avoids discouraging applicants who don't feel they meet a school's criteria but who very well may be offered admission anyway.  

 

I feel like the lack of transparency most affects people who do not have access to U.S. sociology faculty advisors.  At least if you are in a sociology department somewhere in the US, your professors know how the game works in general and can advise you accordingly.  If you are coming from abroad, changing disciplines, or have been out of school for a while, you don't have that advantage and are even more in the dark.  Without this board and all of you wonderful folks, I would have been completely lost.  

[oilandvinegar]

I feel like the lack of transparency most affects people who do not have access to U.S. sociology faculty advisors.  

 

I definitely agree with this. Even coming from a university that doesn't have a graduate program in sociology affected how familiar I was with the process. My faculty advisors were familiar with what the application process looked like from when they were in school, but couldn't offer as much insight into adcomm decision-making.

 

 I suspect that GREs played a role in what fellowships were offered (I had a fellowship and my GRE score was really high) but that's just a suspicion.

 

I did incredibly well on the GREs but I think all my offers are pretty standard - some years of fellowship and some years of instructorship. 

[RandomDood]

I have a question for the people who asked me questions:

Why do you think the application process is so secretive? What do you think universities gain by not being more transparent about it? Do you feel like this disproportionately affects some groups?

 

 

First of all, thank you for your insight. This is hands down the most useful thread I've read about PhD admissions. It will really help me a lot if - as it seems likely - I will reapply next year.

 

About your question, now that you make me think about it and that this whole process is over, I feel like international students and students switching fields are heavily affected by the "secrecy" of the process--which, by the way, in my opinion serves to give the impression that decisions are made more or less objectively; although everybody knows they are to a certain extent a “crapshoot”, not knowing how the process actually works helps to shroud the subjectivity involved.

 

On one hand the penalization acts on the “substance” of the application, and your own words implicitly confirm my impression; an international student will probably come from a relatively not well-known university (in US terms), his grades might be less discernible because of different grading systems and standards, and his LORs will more likely be from faculty outside of the North American “academic network”, so to speak. Similarly, an applicant switching fields will have LORs from professors even more removed from the “sociology academic network”, and his curriculum will not contain the key courses you mentioned as an important factor in the decision process.

 

But on a more subtle level both international and switching students will most likely lack all kind of advisory about how admissions work specifically in Sociology departments in the US. I am probably a bit biased because I am trying to justify to myself how disastrous this round of applications was for me (and I am both international and switching from another discipline), but I think I can frankly say that not having a guide throughout this process was extremely detrimental for me; none of my supervisors have ever studied or taught in the US, neither are they sociologists, so I was left completely alone (apart from peer-reviewers, who hadn’t many more clues than myself) in tailoring my personal statement to the American sociological context. More generally, the entire admissions process was literally a shot in the dark.

 

I wish I had found this forum – and this thread – way in advance, but still, no matter how much general advice you get on a forum, having some insider reading specifically your PS and advising you about how you could change it to make it more “memorable” for American sociologists is something that makes an enormous difference in my opinion.

 

Ehm...did this sound like a rant? :-)

[jacib]

I have a question for the people who asked me questions:

Why do you think the application process is so secretive? What do you think universities gain by not being more transparent about it? Do you feel like this disproportionately affects some groups?

I think, if pressed, they'd explain it would be a "costly signaling" issue (RIP econosocio).  It's not that the GRE tests something, the fact that you would study for it shows something.  It's not your statement of purpose is a binding contract, it's that you took the time to learn the rules of how to write it.  It's not like your idea will matter, but if you can at least frame it as relevant to the current literature, that means something (more than "I'm interested in studying the sociology of sports because I play a lot of sports").  If you can't even research whether you'd be a match for the department, they think, how can you research something good enough to publish?  But this makes some sense, because, I went on a lot of dates shortly after coming to graduate school and it was very common for people to be like, "Yeah, I've thought about applying for a sociology or anthropology PhD," just because they're in their early- to mid-twenties and don't know what else to do with their lives.  I don't think they should have gone into PhDs.

 

It definitely puts candidates like me, who have been socialized into academic worlds earlier, at an advantage (I went to an undergrad institution where many of you applied to this year, both of my parents teach college or above, many of my friends were applying to graduate schools--academic and professional--at the same time I was).  I don't know if similarly socialized international candidates would be at that much of a disadvantage (at a school like mine, where funding is citizenship-blind).  At my program we have degree candidates from four continents and at least 10 different countries.  Most of them went to elite undergraduate institutions where they had access to professors who had gone to the States for graduate school and regularly sent students abroad; often times (but less than half of the time) their professors were connected to someone in the department (First year, professors would say, to one girl in particular, "Oh, you're from country X?  Did Person Y send you?").  I think it's much more likely less privileged candidates and candidates from non-traditional backgrounds and non-elite undergraduate environments in general who are at a disadvantage just because it's less likely that people taught them "the rules of the game". 

 

I can only say that my switching fields didn't hurt me in terms of my statement of purpose, says my adviser (who chaired the adcomm the year I was admitted), because my "questions were so sociological".  I had familarized myself with some of the social scientific literature on my question so I was at least using the right words (and I even picked a fight with the right person)... but I knew to do this in part because my father is a sociology professor who read multiple drafts of my statement of purpose.  In addition, he set me up with his colleague in my soon-to-be subfield who explained some people I needed to read (I was already doing some casual reading on my own).  I think it's a matter of privilege in general more than merely international/domestic.

[AspiringScholar]

Thank you so much for your incredibly helpful posts!

 

How would you recommend that an applicant switching fields approach the writing sample? Do you think that it would be better to submit your best work from a related discipline, or do you think that it would be better to come up with an entirely new writing sample that is specifically based in sociological literature?

[Angulimala]

I have a question for the people who asked me questions:

Why do you think the application process is so secretive? What do you think universities gain by not being more transparent about it? Do you feel like this disproportionately affects some groups?

 

I will add to what Jacib said.  I felt I was at a huge disadvantage being a first generation college student and coming from a lower socioeconomic family/community (but I think once I got to the interview stage this was in my favor since first-gen Ph.D. student seem to be a minority.)  Now that I am back home from undergraduate school I am the only one I know applying to grad school, and frankly I am the only one I know who even went and finished their bachelor's degree except for maybe one or two of my friends the rest went to community college for technical degrees.  Also, I went to a lesser known state school that does not usually produce Ph.D. candidates so I did not recieve too much help from them other than really good letters and a couple SOP edits. 

 

I cannot stress this enough, if it was not for this forum I would not have gotten into my number 1 choice, so THANKS EVERYONE!!!

Edited March 5, 2013 by Angulimala

[Darth.Vegan]

do you think that it would be better to come up with an entirely new writing sample that is specifically based in sociological literature?

 

This seems like it could be a huge mistake. I think it would be better to submit a writing sample from a discipline you are the most familiar with, but then again, I'm not an adcomm member. 

[amlobo]

Thank you so much for your incredibly helpful posts!

 

How would you recommend that an applicant switching fields approach the writing sample? Do you think that it would be better to submit your best work from a related discipline, or do you think that it would be better to come up with an entirely new writing sample that is specifically based in sociological literature?

 

For what it's worth, I came from a different discipline and submitted a writing sample from the different discipline, which related to my sociological interests as far as subject matter.  I think they just want to see your ability to write, make an argument, and think critically.  So, find an existing paper that you think represents your abilities well, and I would use that.  I don't see any reason to write something new unless you absolutely do not have a suitable existing writing sample.

[Palito]

Thank you so much for your incredibly helpful posts!

 

How would you recommend that an applicant switching fields approach the writing sample? Do you think that it would be better to submit your best work from a related discipline, or do you think that it would be better to come up with an entirely new writing sample that is specifically based in sociological literature?

 

If you have the time and resources, and you do not have a another sample that you feel reflects your current ability to compose a paper, it really couldn't hurt. In fact, it might be a benefit in unforeseen ways. 

 

Last year, I applied to 7 programs. I did not get into a single one. I took a really critical look at my dossier of materials and identified every weakness that I could. I saw my writing sample as a big weakness, so decided to write a new essay over the summer. Because I was intent on creating a really convincing narrative arc for my academic experience and transition into sociology, I looked for ways to make all the pieces of  my application fit together. But I was also really concerned with demonstrating that I could put together an essay that more or less fit the form that an essay in sociology might typically fit. So, beyond showing competence, the writing sample I produced linked in directly with the research program I outlined in my SOP, as well as with a number of activities that I had been engaged in that I pointed to in order to demonstrate my commitment to advanced studies in the field.

 

I was really surprised by how successful I was in my applications this year, and I think the cohesion with which I constructed and arranged my application materials was a big factor in realizing that success. At least one DGS mentioned that they found the writing sample really impressive, and then jumped into how the social problems and processes that I started in on in my essay might play out in research at that program.

 

Bottom line, if you have a really solid piece, you should probably follow Amlobo's advice. If you don't feel confident about what you have, you should know that you will only become a sociologist by doing sociology, so you might as well dig in and start building a larger research program for yourself.

[Ladril]

What I would have changed on my own applications: Probably my statement of purpose. I didn't tailor them as much to each school as I should/could have. I think I did a good job on explaining deficits in my application, but I basically substituted each school's name into a couple of slots and used the same SOP each time. That was clearly a mistake now, but given how many similar applications we got this year like that, it's not something that's widely understood. Part of that was because I wasn't sure why I wanted to go to graduate school, other than desiring a Ph.D. and having a lot of smart people telling me that I should go.

 

 

 

What do you mean by "tailoring the SOP"? What exactly does need to be different for each school? Please be explicit.

[soc_guy_2013]

What do you mean by "tailoring the SOP"? What exactly does need to be different for each school? Please be explicit.

I'll put my two cents in on this one.

 

You're applying to specific programs, not to a field in general. In my feedback and discussions with different programs, your fit in the program becomes the most important aspect once you clear cuts for GRE and GPA, etc. 

 

When "tailoring" the SOP, you need to explain why you are a good fit for THAT program, not just any program. Discuss why you would benefit from being in that program, and how you will contribute to them. Mention specific research centers or programs at the school that interest you. I didn't mention specific faculty (I was advised this can be risky for various reasons), but I did mention specific areas that faculty worked in.

 

You may be "good enough" for a certain program, but if you don't fit (and if you don't tell them how/why you fit) then you won't get it.

[midnight]

I'm in an entirely different field, but this thread is still incredibly helpful and informative.

 

Thank you so much for starting it and answering everyone, FertMigMort, and thanks to everyone else for asking great questions and giving good advice as well.

[1848ce]

I'm not sure there's much of a risk to singling out faculty IF there are others in the department who are clearly also a close match. However, you'll probably want to avoid wasting space on assistant professors (who may up and leave) or particular older and/or highly-regarded faculty (who may not be taking on students).

I'm under the impression that fit matters a lot for many smaller programs but not very much for bigger ones. Anyone want to weigh in?

[RefurbedScientist]

@FertMigMort: To echo what has already been said, thank you for giving future applicants (and those of us already in grad school but no less mystified) a peek into the foggy process of admissions. I'm sure it will be hugely useful. I also think this thread is a nice summary of things that have come up year after year (e.g. GREs matter more than we'd like to admit, but good scores are only a necessary but insufficient factor; programs look for students who fit with their current faculty; etc.) I wish there were a way to link every awesome advice post, but that's not for me to figure out.

 

I am curious about your committee's handling of the wait list. I understand that the real "wait list" action might kick in closer to April 15th, but I wonder if you know how the process works. 

 

Who goes on the wait list and how long is it? Is there a set number of slots per year, and the the top n apps go into the wait list pool after the acceptance pool is filled up? Or is it an ad hoc thing, where a handful of people are too good to be rejected outright, but that number varies from year to year? What is the sentiment around wait listed students?

 

How does someone get chosen off the wait list? Are people on the list ranked, and as rejections come in, they're accepted in that order, or are wait list-ers matched with accepted students on profiles that are near-equivalent (so if one ethnographer says no, we can call someone up from the farm league)?  

Finally, are faculty and students equally as excited to have formerly wait-listed students join the department as they would for first round accepted students? Or is there a shade of disappointment?

[ylimer]

I would love to know the answers to SocialGroovements questions too!

[FertMigMort]

Sorry everyone, I've been out of town!
 

@FertMigMort: To echo what has already been said, thank you for giving future applicants (and those of us already in grad school but no less mystified) a peek into the foggy process of admissions. I'm sure it will be hugely useful. I also think this thread is a nice summary of things that have come up year after year (e.g. GREs matter more than we'd like to admit, but good scores are only a necessary but insufficient factor; programs look for students who fit with their current faculty; etc.) I wish there were a way to link every awesome advice post, but that's not for me to figure out.

 

I am curious about your committee's handling of the wait list. I understand that the real "wait list" action might kick in closer to April 15th, but I wonder if you know how the process works. 

 

Who goes on the wait list and how long is it? Is there a set number of slots per year, and the the top n apps go into the wait list pool after the acceptance pool is filled up? Or is it an ad hoc thing, where a handful of people are too good to be rejected outright, but that number varies from year to year? What is the sentiment around wait listed students?

 

How does someone get chosen off the wait list? Are people on the list ranked, and as rejections come in, they're accepted in that order, or are wait list-ers matched with accepted students on profiles that are near-equivalent (so if one ethnographer says no, we can call someone up from the farm league)?  

Finally, are faculty and students equally as excited to have formerly wait-listed students join the department as they would for first round accepted students? Or is there a shade of disappointment?

Wait listing: So most of my experience with wait listing actually comes from my involvement in other aspects of the department rather than the adcomm. There wasn't much discussion of a wait list, because I think that we admitted a number of people that should yield the cohort size that we want. (This again was kind of murky, directed mostly by the DGS. We were given a number and we admitted that many) I could probably make an educated guess about the people who were on the wait list, but I have no idea what would have to happen for one of those people to get in. I also have no idea if the DGS contacted a number of people and told them they were on a waitlist.

In the past, we have invited 1-2 waitlisters to recruitment events. Every year that I've been here (6) we've had someone get in off the waitlist. Most people know who they are, and I don't get a sense that they are thought less of. That's why I keep emphasizing some of the capriciousness of this process, because I think that all of the variables involved in admission change from year to year and even month to month during the recruitment process.

Another comment about your last point: "Finally, are faculty and students equally as excited to have formerly wait-listed students join the department as they would for first round accepted students?" This might seem awful, but I wouldn't say that we're excited. Maybe faculty are, but rarely do future admits really impact what I do in the department. I'm friends with a lot of people in other cohorts, but at this point, I only meet 1-2 people out of each cohort and since I'm leaving soon (fingers crossed!) I don't have much contact with them. Also, I've found that level of excitement about a candidate rarely translates into results. If you'd looked at our cohort coming in and picked out the "top students" those are usually the ones that burned out. The person who came in with an article in ASR/AJS/SF dropped out and the person with the super low GRE score is now a superstar. I've noticed this trend a lot and as a result have quit worrying so much about my own comparative status in grad school.

Sorry I can't be more illuminating about this topic! Wait listing and notifications seem to be the two subjects that give people the most anxiety and they are still black boxes.