26fall 的 decision day 已经过去，27fall 的申请已经逐步开始。面对日益严峻的申请环境，选校的重要性似乎已不必言明。这其中又包含了两个潜在的决策过程：一个是对于大方向的选择，即专业与地区；另一个则是对于细分领域的选择，即学校和导师偏好。这篇帖子主要会关于专业和地区进行经验分享，对于学校及导师更迷茫的 uu 可以等待下一篇。
专业
尽管通常认为社科专业之间具有很强的共性，但具体的可迁移知识的类别会极大程度限制你能选择的专业。这不仅包括方法论和研究话题，更包括一些专业内的 gatekeeping 过程。
研究话题当然是决定专业选择的第一要素：宏观经济的题目可以在经济学、商学院、甚至社会学来进行，但很难在心理学完成。在排除与研究话题不符的专业后，方法论似乎是第二重要的因素。倾向于 qualitative 研究的会更有机会进入人类学、社会学；quantitative 方法使用较多的更适合心理学、社会学、经济学、政治科学以及商学院；计算方法则更可能在心理学以及商学院得到青睐。（整体上来说，社会学是对方法论最为宽容的专业，也是最为适合混合方法研究的专业。）相对混合的项目（例如 Kellogg 的 PhD in Management, Organizations, & Sociology）也可能有自己的方法论偏好，不过需要具体讨论。
但是，比起话题与方法论上的筛选，专业本身也会具有一定的隐形 gatekeeping 过程（这一点会在地区与学校选择中反复提及）。首先，这意味着专业会对于你的研究问题提出具有一定的潜在要求。这当然是一种对文书写作的要求，但在选校阶段，这也应当是你在不同专业间作出选择的依据。从我的经验以及听闻来说，社会学会更偏好基于理论与现有研究的问题提出，即需要你对于大量文章进行引用；而心理学则认为引用本身并无意义，因为看文书的老师希望看到更直白的研究问题。这样就意味着，不同的专业所需求的内核以及知识类型其实是有所差异的。如果能够在选校阶段就识别到适合以及不适合自己的专业，那肯定比写文书时才意识到要好得多。
当然，gatekeeping 的另一个部分是 connection：如果你的推荐信与经历都出自某一个专业，那申请这个专业自然是最加分的。
最后，任何的选校过程都涉及到现实层面的考量，即提供的资助是否足够，以及未来就业导向的问题。对于专业来说，这并不是一个特别大的问题，因为资助/就业似乎都与地区/学校/导师关联性更强。不过，专业本身也存在现实和理想的取舍：某些专业天然拥有更高的 stipend 以及未来工资，但可能需要你投入更多到社交中；某些专业具有较为理想化的研究氛围，但系里确实较为贫穷。
地区
考虑到最近美国的 funding cut 以及更之前欧洲对于 CSC 的消极态度，地区的选择逐渐变成一个申请过程中的大头。我从一开始的专注美国，到后来分散到欧洲甚至香港，也经历了较为复杂的纠结过程。但我现在回头来看，可能地区选择中的重要因素主要有三个：gatekeeping、现实因素以及个人偏好。
地区 gatekeeping 整体上跟专业很类似，但似乎更加不可见，需要更多的内部情报。例如，北美社会学就更具有后实证主义导向（即理论导向的实证研究），而欧洲则更偏向于纯粹理论研究或解决社会问题的研究。这一点可能只能通过收集更多信息来逐步完善对一个地区研究偏好的认知。另外，connection 也同样重要：除非有合作者，一个大陆土生土长的教授可能很难与欧洲产生联系，自然其推荐信的效力也会大打折扣。
现实因素主要依旧是基于资助与未来就业而言。某些地区对于 PhD 的资助情况一直较差，例如英国很多项目会不提供资助；同样地，美国最近的 funding cut 也是需要大家考虑的一个因素。另外，就业往往呈现一个全球阶梯：整体上来说，美国 > 英国 > 欧陆 > 新加坡 > 香港 > 大陆（此处只考虑了大陆人通常会倾向于申请 PhD 的地区，不包含任何歧视因素）。这也就意味着，在这个阶梯上更下位的 PhD 可能很难到更上位的地区找教职（尽管并不绝对）。所以对于地区的选择本身也很大程度上是对于未来工作地区的选择。
个人偏好这一点会更加关乎个人生活状态。考虑到 PhD 需要在一个地方待很久，地区的选择本身也需要基于自己对于该地区的偏好。举一个极端的例子，如果觉得自己不喜欢美国的状态（包括文化或是其他方面），只是为了获得 PhD 来到这里并不一定是一个很好的选择。
专业和地区的交叉性
专业和地区本身都很重要，但二者的选择也是一个相辅相成的过程。正如前面所说，这两者都代表了对于 PhD 选校大方向的确定。这意味着，不同地区的同一个专业可能存在截然不同的方向，例如前面提到的美国与欧陆社会学的差异，也包括整体美国对于计算方法的追求与欧陆对于计算方法的排斥。总结来说，对于大方向的确定需要基于对专业与地区的具体认知。
The decision day for 26fall has passed, and 27fall applications are gradually getting underway. Faced with an increasingly competitive application landscape, the importance of school selection goes without saying. This involves two distinct decision-making processes: one concerns the big picture—your choice of major and region; the other concerns the specifics—school and advisor preferences. This post focuses on sharing experience about major and region; those who are still uncertain about schools and advisors can wait for the next post.
Major
While social science disciplines are generally considered to share many commonalities, the specific types of transferable knowledge you possess will significantly constrain which programs you can choose from. This includes not only methodology and research topics, but also certain gatekeeping processes within each discipline.
Research topic is of course the primary factor in determining your choice of major: a macroeconomic topic can be pursued in Economics, Business Schools, or even Sociology, but would be difficult to pursue in Psychology. After eliminating disciplines incompatible with your research interests, methodology seems to be the second most important factor. Those inclined toward qualitative research will have better opportunities in Anthropology and Sociology; those who rely more on quantitative methods are better suited for Psychology, Sociology, Economics, Political Science, and Business Schools; computational methods are more likely to be valued in Psychology and Business Schools. (Overall, Sociology is the most methodologically tolerant discipline and the most suitable for mixed-methods research.) Mixed programs (e.g., Kellogg's PhD in Management, Organizations, & Sociology) may also have their own methodological preferences, though these need to be discussed case by case.
However, beyond filtering by topic and methodology, disciplines themselves carry certain implicit gatekeeping processes (this point will come up repeatedly in discussions of regional and school selection). This means that disciplines have implicit requirements for the kinds of research questions you pose. While this is certainly a consideration for application writing, at the school selection stage it should also inform your choices among different disciplines. From my own experience and what I've heard, Sociology tends to prefer questions grounded in theory and existing literature—requiring you to engage with a substantial body of work—while Psychology considers citations largely irrelevant, as faculty reviewing applications prefer to see a more direct statement of the research question. This means that different disciplines actually require fundamentally different types of knowledge. If you can identify which disciplines do and don't suit you at the school selection stage, this is far better than realizing it only when writing your applications.
Another dimension of gatekeeping is connection: if your recommendation letters and experiences all come from a particular discipline, applying to that discipline will naturally be most advantageous.
Finally, any school selection process involves practical considerations—whether the funding is sufficient, and questions about future career prospects. For major selection, this is not a particularly critical concern, as funding and employment outcomes seem more strongly tied to region, school, and advisor. However, there are real trade-offs within major choice: some disciplines naturally offer higher stipends and future salaries but may require more social investment; others have more idealistic research cultures, but their departments are genuinely underfunded.
Region
Given recent funding cuts in the US and Europe's earlier negative stance toward CSC scholarship holders, regional choice has gradually become a major consideration in the application process. I went through a complex deliberation myself, starting with a sole focus on the US before gradually diversifying to Europe and even Hong Kong. Looking back, the three most important factors in regional choice are probably: gatekeeping, practical factors, and personal preferences.
Regional gatekeeping is similar to disciplinary gatekeeping overall, but tends to be even less visible and requires more insider knowledge. For example, North American Sociology has a more post-positivist orientation (i.e., theory-informed empirical research), while Europe leans more toward pure theoretical work or research aimed at addressing social problems. This can probably only be addressed by gathering more information to gradually build a nuanced understanding of a region's research culture. Additionally, connections are equally important: unless there are collaborators, a professor trained entirely in one region may struggle to build ties with another, naturally diminishing the effectiveness of their recommendation letters.
Practical factors primarily concern funding and future employment. Some regions have historically poor PhD funding—many UK programs, for instance, offer no funding. Similarly, the recent funding cuts in the US are a factor everyone should take into account. Additionally, employment tends to follow a rough global hierarchy: generally speaking, US > UK > Continental Europe > Singapore > Hong Kong > Mainland China (this only considers regions where mainland Chinese students typically tend to apply for PhDs, with no discriminatory intent). This means that a PhD from a lower position in this hierarchy may find it more difficult to secure positions at a higher level (though not absolutely). So your choice of region is also, to a large extent, a choice about where you want to work in the future.
Personal preferences relate more to how you want to live your life. Given that a PhD requires spending many years in one place, your choice of region also needs to be grounded in your genuine preferences for that area. To give an extreme example: if you feel you wouldn't enjoy life in the US (for cultural or other reasons), coming here solely to get a PhD may not be the best decision.
The Intersection of Major and Region
Both major and region matter significantly, and the two choices are mutually reinforcing. As noted above, both represent decisions about the big picture of your PhD path. This means that the same discipline can look very different across regions—for example, the differences between American and European Sociology mentioned earlier, as well as the broader American embrace of computational methods versus European resistance to them. In short, clarifying the big picture requires specific knowledge of both major and region.