What is Grad School Actually Like?

[Axelarate]

Hello,

This is a question for those who have completed an MA or PhD or who are currently enrolled in an MA or PhD program. I'm fascinated by certain sociological topics (particularly those that relate to historical sociology, education, the family, or children, particularly the construction of gender identity in early childhood), but my undergraduate degree was in English and History. As a result, although I've done some sociological reading and perused tons of departmental webpages, I'm not really sure what graduate study in sociology actually entails in terms of methodology. For example, I'm especially unclear about how much quantitative analysis is involved (though I understand this varies by program). I didn't take any stats courses and while I'm decent enough at math, I'm not looking for it to be my bread and butter. Notwithstanding the actual obstacles I would face in getting accepted without formal sociological training, I'm first trying to figure out whether my interests would be better served by pursuing graduate study in the humanities, e.g. social history. One thing, after all, is to think something is interesting, and another is to devote 2 years (because of course I don't qualify for a Phd) to studying it. How will I know which category I fall in?

The latter was mostly a rhetorical question, and that was all just a bit of background; I'm not asking you guys to talk about me, but rather to talk about YOU! How have people found their experiences in grad school? Good? Bad? What's your daily life like? What sort of methodologies do you employ? What do/did you love/hate about grad school? 

Any inside perspective would be valuable! 

[THS]

Hi!  I am just finishing an MA in Applied Anthropology and applying to PHD's in Sociology- so I can tell you about grad school and explain why I am making the switch and it might help answer your question.  So I did a mixed methods project in my field and found it very hard to get support for my quant stuff...my advisor actually made me take every graph and chart out of my quant chapter rather than present the findings in the way I've seen many journal articles do.  My survey had ~350 responses and I also did interviews ~53.  All that said I have a great background in mixed methods and a great background in qualitative methods.  I now want to get more support and education on my quant methods which is why I am making the jump to sociology.  In theory anthropology and sociology are very similar (in methods too).  There are some marked differences, but largely the two fields share a great deal.  So that's my story.  To answer your question if you ware looking at Soc then you are looking at a field that is a little more quant heavy.  Anthropology is a good jump if you would like to do an MA, are interested in social science thoery, but want to focus on qualitative work.  Hope this answer helps!

[Illusio80]

In a sociology PhD program they are going to make you do at least two quarters or a year of stats.  Depending on the department, you may be free to use the stats in your work or not use it.  The program I used to be in had optional advanced stats for after the basic sequence, as well as various qualitative and quantitative methods sequences.  I strongly urge you to take the methods sequence that is of most interest to you in the first year, if that is how your program is structured.  You will need it to draw from in the process of writing whatever MA requirement there is.  In my experience, methods training is far more important early on than topical seminars, because once you hit the second year, you are pretty much on your own in terms of coming up with a substantial paper, and it would be helpful to be able to follow some kind of standard procedure, whatever that may be, so you have a somewhat smaller chance of getting laughed out of the room.  The MA is not the time for avant garde experimentation, I found out.  Devise something doable, crank it through the methodological sausage grinder of your choice, present the results, and be done with it.  It all goes way faster than you could believe.  People were telling me first year to chill out, that I had plenty of time to worry about a project.  I thought they were wrong at the time, and now I know just how wrong they were.  Assuming your program has some kind of MA thesis, start thinking about it as soon as you can.  Ideally, spin it off one of your seminar papers.  Try to select a committee that is going to actually help you when you need it.  (Judging this can be easier said than done.)  Good luck and feel free to follow up with questions!

[Illusio80]

On 11/2/2016 at 1:31 PM, Axelarate said:

Hello,

This is a question for those who have completed an MA or PhD or who are currently enrolled in an MA or PhD program. I'm fascinated by certain sociological topics (particularly those that relate to historical sociology, education, the family, or children, particularly the construction of gender identity in early childhood), but my undergraduate degree was in English and History. As a result, although I've done some sociological reading and perused tons of departmental webpages, I'm not really sure what graduate study in sociology actually entails in terms of methodology. For example, I'm especially unclear about how much quantitative analysis is involved (though I understand this varies by program). I didn't take any stats courses and while I'm decent enough at math, I'm not looking for it to be my bread and butter. Notwithstanding the actual obstacles I would face in getting accepted without formal sociological training, I'm first trying to figure out whether my interests would be better served by pursuing graduate study in the humanities, e.g. social history. One thing, after all, is to think something is interesting, and another is to devote 2 years (because of course I don't qualify for a Phd) to studying it. How will I know which category I fall in?

The latter was mostly a rhetorical question, and that was all just a bit of background; I'm not asking you guys to talk about me, but rather to talk about YOU! How have people found their experiences in grad school? Good? Bad? What's your daily life like? What sort of methodologies do you employ? What do/did you love/hate about grad school? 

Any inside perspective would be valuable! 

Now I read parts of your post more closely, so I'm posting again.  I think you should read widely in sociology and social history to learn for yourself what the difference is and which is more appealing to you.  And if the answer is sociology, you should go ahead and apply to departments that invite applications from people of all disciplinary backgrounds.  You'll catch up during the first year.  It's way more efficient, and probably cheaper, to bite off the PhD at once than to pursue a stand alone MA.

(Unless you're in Canada or the UK, where the masters is always separate from the PhD.)

Edited January 6, 2017 by Illusio80

[Illusio80]

On 1/3/2017 at 7:04 PM, montanem said:

Hi!  I am just finishing an MA in Applied Anthropology and applying to PHD's in Sociology- so I can tell you about grad school and explain why I am making the switch and it might help answer your question.  So I did a mixed methods project in my field and found it very hard to get support for my quant stuff...my advisor actually made me take every graph and chart out of my quant chapter rather than present the findings in the way I've seen many journal articles do.  My survey had ~350 responses and I also did interviews ~53.  All that said I have a great background in mixed methods and a great background in qualitative methods.  I now want to get more support and education on my quant methods which is why I am making the jump to sociology.  In theory anthropology and sociology are very similar (in methods too).  There are some marked differences, but largely the two fields share a great deal.  So that's my story.  To answer your question if you ware looking at Soc then you are looking at a field that is a little more quant heavy.  Anthropology is a good jump if you would like to do an MA, are interested in social science thoery, but want to focus on qualitative work.  Hope this answer helps!

I have a minor in anthropology and enjoyed it immensely.  I also draw on anthropological theorists in doing sociology.  Anthropology and sociology share the same base of classical social theory (Marx, Weber, Durkheim) but otherwise have a lot of differences.  Sociocultural anthropology is based largely on ethnography.  There is a strong tradition of ethnography in sociology, but the writing is largely very different.  Most of it is derived from the "Chicago School" and the symbolic interactionists and has a certain flavor.  Anthropology has a sweeping scope but tends to have kind of a micro focus, whereas the sky is the limit in sociology.  In sociology there is everything from the study of two people talking, to the study of world empires (in some prominent cases, both within the same department.)  I have chosen sociology because of the topical and methodological freedom, and because more macro cultural studies appeal to me.

[Quickmick]

@Axelarate regardless of how much you end up using it, quant training will probably make you a better reader and give you a deeper understanding of what other people are claiming in their work. It might also help your marketability outside of academia. Even if you had taken UG stats, grad schools generally want you to take their stats. I am writing to raise a strategic point: quant training will not hurt you if you decide on a PhD in the humanities, but the lack of it will probably hurt you if you choose the social science route. Obviously the opportunity cost is that you would lose out on more classes in the other (ie History), but if you are tying to keep both avenues open it might be worth it. I am in the home stretch of my MS and have tried to frame my quant training as an asset in my humanities applications (I will let you know how that works out in about a month!), and that MS has enabled me to apply to a couple of programs in the sciences, too.

I would agree with

1 hour ago, Illusio80 said:

The MA is not the time for avant garde experimentation, I found out.  Devise something doable, crank it through the methodological sausage grinder of your choice, present the results, and be done with it.  It all goes way faster than you could believe.

During your MA you might be able to sneak in an elective or two to explore the 'other,' but ceteris paribus the inclusion of the quant stuff might better help you keep both routes open for the next step. Hope this helps, good luck!

Edited January 6, 2017 by Quickmick

[THS]

9 hours ago, Illusio80 said:

I have a minor in anthropology and enjoyed it immensely.  I also draw on anthropological theorists in doing sociology.  Anthropology and sociology share the same base of classical social theory (Marx, Weber, Durkheim) but otherwise have a lot of differences.  Sociocultural anthropology is based largely on ethnography.  There is a strong tradition of ethnography in sociology, but the writing is largely very different.  Most of it is derived from the "Chicago School" and the symbolic interactionists and has a certain flavor.  Anthropology has a sweeping scope but tends to have kind of a micro focus, whereas the sky is the limit in sociology.  In sociology there is everything from the study of two people talking, to the study of world empires (in some prominent cases, both within the same department.)  I have chosen sociology because of the topical and methodological freedom, and because more macro cultural studies appeal to me.

 

I would say that you are somewhat right but largely wrong in terms of how you describe anthropoogy.  I double majored in my undergrad career and my second major was sociology and my graduate minor in my MA program was Rural Sociology so I have a fairly good grasp on the differences.  It is easy to make the statement of micro vs macro, but I think that the distinction between the two fields is more subtle.  Through contemporary theory anthropology and sociology share theorists.  We share Foucault, Bourdieu, Goffman, etc and from what I've read (and I've read extensively in my subject area of poverty, inequality, and class) the approach to ethnography is essentially the same.  The difference, which is fair to critique, is the use of statistics and mixed-methods.  I am looking forward to learning more about how sociologists approach this, but from my methods series that I took in my MA I can say that quantitative work and mixed methods projects are what distinguish sociology and give the allusion of "macro" theory. In Anthropology our ethnography might be a little more extensive in approach because of the lack of mixed methods approaches to triangulation.  That is the one big difference.  You can do both in either field (and I did, infact, do a mixed methods thesis).  You are right, however, in suggesting that sociology gives a little more freedom for mixed methods and quantitative methodologies.  I think the two fields are in the process of learning from eachother, however, and how could they not. They are both in the business of studying people. 

[GreenEyedTrombonist]

Hey @montanem it sounds like we might be in the same program! I actually came across this topic on my lunch break from writing my grad project deliverables. I'm not applying to Sociology programs, but I have applied to programs outside of anthropology for future degrees. I did this because my research interests can align with multiple fields and the programs I chose cater more to those interests than any others.

As to what grad school's actually like, a lot of that depends on the exact program you're in. I've loved my anthro program because of the freedom is has allowed me in regards to molding my project and supplemental classes I can take. There's a lot of reading in grad school, but that should come as no surprise to anyone. In addition, my current program has a syllabus archive and often posts the next semester syllabi early, so I've made it a habit to get at least a week ahead in my readings. That's certainly made it easier when an emergency's come up, or when I need to find time to work on other things (like PhD apps, my grad project, or one of my jobs, haha).

[THS]

4 hours ago, GreenEyedTrombonist said:

Hey @montanem it sounds like we might be in the same program! I actually came across this topic on my lunch break from writing my grad project deliverables. I'm not applying to Sociology programs, but I have applied to programs outside of anthropology for future degrees. I did this because my research interests can align with multiple fields and the programs I chose cater more to those interests than any others.

As to what grad school's actually like, a lot of that depends on the exact program you're in. I've loved my anthro program because of the freedom is has allowed me in regards to molding my project and supplemental classes I can take. There's a lot of reading in grad school, but that should come as no surprise to anyone. In addition, my current program has a syllabus archive and often posts the next semester syllabi early, so I've made it a habit to get at least a week ahead in my readings. That's certainly made it easier when an emergency's come up, or when I need to find time to work on other things (like PhD apps, my grad project, or one of my jobs, haha).

 

I fully get that approach of applying for specific reasons.  I think people forget how broad certain fields are and certain topics are too, I mean the social sciences certainly are.  I think we applied to different places though from what your program list says but still best of luck!  Your current program sounds more simplified than mine was- I had to figure everything out for myself (classes, how to build a minor, etc...) something to guide me would have been nice!

[Illusio80]

7 hours ago, montanem said:

I would say that you are somewhat right but largely wrong in terms of how you describe anthropoogy.  I double majored in my undergrad career and my second major was sociology and my graduate minor in my MA program was Rural Sociology so I have a fairly good grasp on the differences.  It is easy to make the statement of micro vs macro, but I think that the distinction between the two fields is more subtle.  Through contemporary theory anthropology and sociology share theorists.  We share Foucault, Bourdieu, Goffman, etc and from what I've read (and I've read extensively in my subject area of poverty, inequality, and class) the approach to ethnography is essentially the same.  The difference, which is fair to critique, is the use of statistics and mixed-methods.  I am looking forward to learning more about how sociologists approach this, but from my methods series that I took in my MA I can say that quantitative work and mixed methods projects are what distinguish sociology and give the allusion of "macro" theory. In Anthropology our ethnography might be a little more extensive in approach because of the lack of mixed methods approaches to triangulation.  That is the one big difference.  You can do both in either field (and I did, infact, do a mixed methods thesis).  You are right, however, in suggesting that sociology gives a little more freedom for mixed methods and quantitative methodologies.  I think the two fields are in the process of learning from eachother, however, and how could they not. They are both in the business of studying people. 

If you are basing this off of sociologists like Loic Wacquant and Gail Kligman, then yeah, sociological ethnographers are just like anthropologists.  But I think Mitchell Duneier, Jack Katz, and Elijah Anderson, for example, have a much different style from mainstream anthropology.  For one thing, they are way more subtle / light about theory than the average anthropologist.  I would not say that Foucault is a mainstream theorist in sociology.  Postmodernism in general does not fly. Bourdieu is not widely cited by the latter group either.  Most of them base their work on Georg Simmel.  Goffman, sure, he is commonly cited.  Anthropology has the whole rich European tradition of structuralism and late Durkheim.  I realize that has waned somewhat and now pomo and Marxist stuff is really common.  Marxism you will find aplenty in sociology but not pomo for the most part.

[Illusio80]

33 minutes ago, bradley610 said:

I don't know where you're getting that. Foucault and Bourdieu have plenty of currency within Sociology, especially if you're on the qual side. My committee chair for my MA did fairly mainstream work on globalization and even he used Foucault. Very often I was using a postmodern frame for seminar papers, and that was perfectly acceptable. It's almost a core method of critique at this point.

I guess I have a selective exposure to the discipline based on where I have been, or things have changed a lot since I was in the game last.  I agree that Bourdieu has currency in general, but my impression was that the Chicago School type ethnographers were not using him much.  As for Foucault, his popularity with sociology is news to me.  

I have offered citations of specific researchers for my claims, and I would prefer to deal on that level.  If you want to refute what I have said, I would rather deal with specifics than blanket claims.

[theorynetworkculture]

42 minutes ago, Illusio80 said:

I guess I have a selective exposure to the discipline based on where I have been, or things have changed a lot since I was in the game last.  I agree that Bourdieu has currency in general, but my impression was that the Chicago School type ethnographers were not using him much.  As for Foucault, his popularity with sociology is news to me.  

I have offered citations of specific researchers for my claims, and I would prefer to deal on that level.  If you want to refute what I have said, I would rather deal with specifics than blanket claims.

Foucault's influence on sociology surely isn't as strong as it is in anthropology or the humanities, but I'm agree with bradley610 that Foucauldian ideas are nonetheless commonplace, even if Foucault is not cited as commonly, or as directly. In many ways his ideas are fundamental to sociology (the ways in which knowledge/truth is constructed, power/control/discipline etc.) I think your view may be a product of your own specialization within sociology: try asking a gender or race scholar about the relevance of Foucault! Here's an annual review piece on Foucault & Sociology that may be of interest: http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-soc-081309-150133#_i10

[Illusio80]

9 minutes ago, theorynetworkculture said:

Foucault's influence on sociology surely isn't as strong as it is in anthropology or the humanities, but I'm agree with bradley610 that Foucauldian ideas are nonetheless commonplace, even if Foucault is not cited as commonly, or as directly. In many ways his ideas are fundamental to sociology (the ways in which knowledge/truth is constructed, power/control/discipline etc.) I think your view may be a product of your own specialization within sociology: try asking a gender or race scholar about the relevance of Foucault! Here's an annual review piece on Foucault & Sociology that may be of interest: http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-soc-081309-150133#_i10

Thanks!  I'll look into it.  

My view is most likely a product of the institutions of which I have been a part.

[Illusio80]

6 minutes ago, bradley610 said:

Well, you made a general claim, and I provided some initial evidence to refute it. I mean, I could look up a bunch of people who use Foucault, but there were several just within my department who used his theory. They did their PhDs all over the place, so it's not as if it's just limited to where I did my MA. His stuff is taught pretty widely in most good survey courses of social theory.

No hard feelings here, I just wanted the person who posted previously to know that there are sociologists who work within postmodern frames.

No hard feelings at all, I just want to get to the truth of the matter.  I cited five sociologists and so far nobody has engaged with that.  If I also made incorrect blanket claims then I apologize.  I think the closer we can get to concrete facts and examples, the more we can productively agree or disagree.

[Illusio80]

8 minutes ago, bradley610 said:

It's all good. It was just a big claim that seemed a little off to me. The discipline is just too broad to generalize about in that way. Hell, I'm thinking about using some of William James' thought (we'll see how that works out). You seem to have some solid insights about certain particularities, so like I said, all good.

I can only conclude that you are only interested in my comments about Foucault and postmodernism, and not in what I consider a far more interesting issue, namely, uses of Bourdieu, and contrasting styles of ethnographic writing more broadly.  Up to you.

William James could be cool.  Belief in the fact helping to create the fact.  Dewey has also seen some resurgence in social theory.

[THS]

And to the initial post...this is what grad school looks like.

[kris10mb]

17 minutes ago, montanem said:

And to the initial post...this is what grad school looks like.

??? 

[Illusio80]

Fair enough.  I have merely been trying to foment some actual, substantive, interesting discussion on this site.  Try it; it might distract you from waiting for decisions.

Don't any of you like to debate for sport?  For the record, I have absolutely no hard feelings whatsoever.  If I have offended anyone, I am sorry.  I just enjoy a good discussion.

Wishing you all sincerely the best of luck with your applications!

[draco.malfoy]

20 hours ago, Illusio80 said:

Fair enough.  I have merely been trying to foment some actual, substantive, interesting discussion on this site.  Try it; it might distract you from waiting for decisions.

Don't any of you like to debate for sport?  For the record, I have absolutely no hard feelings whatsoever.  If I have offended anyone, I am sorry.  I just enjoy a good discussion.

Wishing you all sincerely the best of luck with your applications!

Haha, like the others said: this is what grad school look like! We best get used to it!