Welcome to the GradCafe

Hello!  Welcome to The GradCafe Forums.You're welcome to look around the forums and view posts.  However, like most online communities you must register before you can create your own posts.  This is a simple, free process that requires minimal information. Benefits of membership:

  • Participate in discussions
  • Subscribe to topics and forums to get automatic updates
  • Search forums
  • Removes some advertisements (including this one!)

Oshawott

Members
  • Content count

    81
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Oshawott last won the day on November 28 2015

Oshawott had the most liked content!

About Oshawott

  • Rank
    Espresso Shot

Profile Information

  • Application Season
    Already Attending

Recent Profile Visitors

612 profile views
  1. I thought you weren't allowed to apply for that unless you were a current SSHRC CGS holder.
  2. I've seen people hold it at the same time--at least in name. According to the Trudeau Scholarship website: "It is permitted if the other scholarships or fellowships allow the accumulation of awards. The Foundation will reduce the amount offered if the total value of those external awards exceeds $10,000 CAD." So if I'm interpreting this right, you'd have the monetary value of the Vanier in full and likely none of the Trudeau Scholarship's (since the Vanier's award is so high) but the Trudeau does come with other fringe benefits that likely stays intact (i.e., the mentorship, travel and research allowance) so if you can get both, get both
  3. I had a longer response full of anecdotes but it can honestly be summed up as this: If you aren't sure, don't go. This is 4 - 6 years of your young adult life that you're investing. Even in the best situations, things can go wrong and remember, people are (mostly) on their best behaviour in interviews. If anything seems suspicious then don't go. But this was also going around on academic twitter: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/08/opinion/sunday/the-utter-uselessness-of-job-interviews.html (so extrapolate that to graduate student interviews if you wish)
  4. Honestly, I didn't think that the social sciences were so underfunded that SSHRC can't afford email Joking aside, I do wonder why SSHRC is so far behind the times with regards to electronic applications.
  5. So NSERC applicants have been hearing back at my school. I'm just wondering if SSHRC will take longer because they do it by mail (not sure if NSERC does to or if its online)
  6. Does anyone know how likely it is to get SSHRC once you're forwarded to the national competition?
  7. I know some schools state on their website that the applicants should also apply for external funding as a "condition" to getting internal funding. Not sure how much they actually mean that versus how much of it is just to ensure you apply They may ask you about whether you applied externally for funding, just have a good reason why you didn't. I'm currently at a school where I didn't apply for a tri-council grant my first year and I explained that the reason I didn't do it was because: 1) I am limited to 5 applications for masters (important to mention as this wasn't the case previously and some PI's aren't aware of this change) 2) I was applying for a provincial grant for the school (obviously limitations apply depending on which school you're going to). You're in Ontario based on your profile, so if you had to choose where to take a tri-council grant, choose out-of-province since you are able to apply to OGS. 3) the school has the best funding offer and was a two-year Master's, so I could apply to get the tri-council grant for the following year Just be sure to communicate your reasons well to ensure them that it isn't because you don't want to go to their school. I guess the last two points are situationally applicable, but if you're going to be pragmatic, I would apply based on what puts me in the best financial situation regardless of where I go.
  8. They ask you to specifically indicate peer-reviewed works (as defined by their criteria) with an (R) at the left of the citation, so list them under the relevant headings, and if it was peer reviewed under that criteria, write (R). I'm also pretty sure that conference presentations fall under "other refereed contributions" I had saw the proposal of a previous awardee and they did that.
  9. That moment when you realize that the way you constructed your study design makes data analysis needlessly difficult.
  10. Maybe it's field-specific since you're in Clinical and that's a way more competitive program than my area. It might also be regionally specific, as the vast majority of my applications were top Canadian programs (all specified last two years, and some of those programs are competitive with top U.S. institutions globally) so I may not have fact-checked the American ones properly in terms of GPA requirement since as I noted in my above post, my standing relative to other people GPA/GRE wise wasn't as big a factor in terms of who I decided to apply to (not to say that it isn't important!) After checking a few top U.S. schools, as @The_Old_Wise_One said, they look for major and cGPA, so I would second their cautiousness. Apply for Master's programs where you can get the most out of your research productivity, strong statistical training, and demonstrate your ability to handle graduate-level work.
  11. Regarding your GPA, if your last two years is ~3.75+ GPA and high GRE scores (320+ combined), I wouldn't rule out PhD's in the top 20--however if you want to get a good idea where you actually would rank, some schools post admission information like GPA and GRE averages/ranges of their accepted applicants. If you're within the range or slightly below the average, then I wouldn't shut the door. Research-wise, you've been very productive with 5 conferences, potentially one publication, and have shown that you are competitive for research grants at the undergraduate level. You also have actual I/O consulting experience on top of your research projects. Don't sell yourself short just because you had a rocky start. My advice would be to first look at POI's you're interested in before you look at what school they come from. After you compile a list, narrow it down based on placement rates of your POI's (i.e., do their students graduate with jobs you want) This is a better indicator of how you will succeed rather than looking at the program's aggregate since some faculty may be excellent at placing students while others are not. After that, email the POI's to see if they are accepting students (only take them off the list if they explicitly say no; if they don't respond they may have just lost the email or been too busy). Once all of this is done, look at the school's rankings and find information on the GRE/GPA of accepted applicants, and gauge your competitiveness. Again, being a bit below the average at a top-rank institution is not bad (it is an average so there has to be people below it). Finally, if you're still uncertain about it, ask your LOR writers to assess your competitiveness and give suggestions. Even if they're not necessarily IO, they'd still have a good idea of how students should fair.
  12. Most grad schools only take into consideration the last two years (or equivalent) of undergrad so your GPA is probably fine. The only thing that I would be concerned about with regards to your profile is the one mediocre LOR...depending on what you mean by mediocre. Do you mean that the letter writer can't really say anything good?
  13. After years of working near or below the poverty line as a graduate student, do they really expect anyone to do this? If these unpaid post-docs actually become a thing in my field within the next few years, then that will answer my "academia or industry?" question.
  14. I don't think its too uncommon a route to start at college and then finish your degree at a university. Most graduate schools only look at the last 20.0 FCE (~last two years of study) so your first year won't even be considered when they look at transcripts. As for your CV, list your most current degree first, so your university degree should be on top. I'm assuming you got an associate degree along the way? If not, I'm not sure there would be any point in listing your college on your CV (I don't really see people listing schools that they transfer out from regardless of whether it was college or university).
  15. I agree with you--in fact, given the level of knowledge that people need to acquire, I'd think those that are at the top 5 - 10% of their class are probably much smarter than previous graduates of the institution who were at the top 5 - 10%. But my point wasn't that a bachelor's degree is easier to get (though it wasn't worded properly). If the issue is rarity, you can either do that in two ways: you can either be exclusive in who you let in, or you can raise the standards of who you let out. Given that it won't be a financial sinkhole to fail in a "free undergrad tuition" scenario, I think universities can afford to increase their standards over time. It also disincentives students who only go because they feel like "its the next step" if there are other, easier avenues, to get a decent paying job. People should be allowed to try to achieve something regardless of their financial background, but it doesn't mean everyone who tries can. I'm not talking about the average GPA increasing over time. My argument is that the minimum standard of achieving that piece of paper is (and always has been) too low and we're only seeing the effects of it now since more people can afford to go to university. I've seen students who don't plan on going into academia or professional programs outright state that their GPA's don't matter since all companies care about is that they have a piece of paper so its no wonder if more of those students are in university, that the bachelor degree is being devalued (independent from the lack of scarcity, a claim which I've only seen correlational evidence for, so I doubt its as unidimensional as people like to claim). Solution? Make it harder to come out, not harder to come in. EDIT: Regarding the scarcity claim--I've talked to people with PhD's going into non-academic job markets. If scarcity predominantly drives the value of Bachelor's degrees, than PhD's should be more valued. I have heard people actually say that they thought they could get a job just because "I'm a PhD!". They didn't. The ones with PhD's who were successful in their non-academic job search were those who 1) managed to cultivate skills that were useful for the non-academic jobs they were pursuing and 2) knew how to network and sell their skills. I'm not saying that people who have a Bachelor's degree now don't know how to sell their skills as much as those back then, its just that there's a more representative distribution of graduates along the academic achievement spectrum, and even more of them are taught "Degree = Job" so they focus more on just getting the paper rather than taking advantage of the fringe benefits of university that actually helps you get a job (i.e., a strong network). Building a social network 50+ years ago at university probably wasn't as hard given that most graduates come from the social elite and therefore either have a built in network already, or their classes are small enough that chances are, you know someone who knows someone.