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!)

hh0505

Members
  • Content count

    11
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About hh0505

  • Rank
    Decaf

Profile Information

  • Application Season
    2017 Fall
  1. Sadly, it seems to be the case not just for social sciences. Here's an interesting article from 2015, titled "Systematic inequality and hierarchy in faculty hiring networks," which examines faculty hiring in three very different disciplines--History, Business, and Computer Science: http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/1/e1400005 Makes tenure track faculty hiring (and later research outcomes) seem like an incestuous affair that's still quite the "old boys' club" of the top 10, maybe 15 schools in each discipline. All things considered, if your complaints with regards to school #1 aren't deal-breakers, I would stick with the safety afforded by the institution's prestige and your potential adviser's experience and track record. I would be less hesitant to recommend school #2 if it weren't for the fact that your potential adviser there has never supervised a graduate student before... that's really the big unknown factor that makes me hesitate. It could be that the adviser at school #2 turns out to be brilliant and you would be that person's first advisee, placing you both on the fast track to academic stardom. If all else fails, go with your gut. Reduce any cognitive dissonance that might result from the decision and you'll be fine
  2. Why are you not excited to go back? Is it solely because you did your undergrad there and want a change of scenery, or was there something about your undergrad that you didn't enjoy and that is not something that can be changed? Also, how compatible do you think you would be with your potential adviser? Since your goal is staying in academia, does your adviser have a good record of placing advisees into tenure track positions? As for research, would it be possible to stay within the broad area of the adviser's research while branching out into something more "popular/relevant?" And what do you mean by low research budget? Is the adviser running low or currently without grant money? I'm assuming the department itself should have no problem with funding since it's top 5 world & psychology. If you look at influential psychologists in any subfield, but especially in social psychology, the majority of influential research and tenure track graduates come from the top 5-10 schools. The productivity of both faculty and students at these schools can often rival that of an entire department at a "lower ranked" school. Top 10 in psychology makes this difficult... even though there does appear to be a slight drop off in productivity and tenure track placement between the top 5 schools and then the following 5-10 schools, it's not enough of a difference to make it an easy or clear cut decision. Enjoying the recruitment visit is a plus, although I'm sometimes skeptical of how much predictive value a visit of 1-3 days is of long term (5-7 year) QoL (though clearly it's much better than not having enjoyed the visit). The major risk factor and the thing that stands out for me the most here is the first-time adviser. Advising a graduate student through to completion of a PhD, and not just completion but preparing that advisee for a tenure track faculty position can be quite challenging. If the research is cutting edge and high quality enough, it might not matter so much in terms of publications, presentations, and how you look on paper. Why is the research budget better with this adviser? Recent large grant? You also describe your stipend here as reasonable, and the stipend at school #1 as only just livable. Is it mostly a cost of living difference? I thought schools in the top 5 - top 10 range all provided adequate stipends. Is one of the schools in an ultra high COL area like Boston, NYC, or the SF Bay Area?
  3. Like others have said, R and Matlab are the main ones. R is itself open source, and if you already have a strong background in stats it might be easier to learn. Matlab's open source equivalent is called Octave. As far as programming goes, it becomes easier to pick up languages once you have a solid background in one language. Learning the language itself is secondary IMO to becoming comfortable with data structure concepts and just learning / developing good programming fundamentals. In that regard I think Python is a pretty good language to start with.
  4. They sent out a wave of rejections on March 8 via e-mail saying a decision was posted to the web portal. I got one, and saw a couple more on the results page.
  5. How useful would the book be without access to SPSS? I see that there are open source alternatives to SPSS, like PSPP and JASP, which I guess I could try to use while following along with the book. Of the two offers/POIs I'm considering, both mostly use Matlab and R, and maybe Python, C/C++, and Java if appropriate (and the grad student already knows them or can learn them quickly because of prior programming experience). Also, does anyone know how different the latest edition is from the 3rd edition?
  6. I feel for you. At one school's invite day I met with 6 professors in the afternoon. Half of them grilled me about every perceived discrepancy or shortcoming they gleaned from my SOP and resume. Some went as far as to grill me about subject matter as if I were taking an oral exam. Thankfully the other half made it clear to me from the onset that they wanted to recruit me, and our interviews were a mix of enjoyable conversations about mutual interests (both research-wise and extracurricular) and pitches re: their labs and telling me about their most current research that wasn't publicly available. At another school I had 3 Skype interviews, with one being a pleasant conversation and recruitment pitch, one being a grilling (where the professor was on e-mail for at least 1/3 to 1/2 of the time), and the last being a Q&A session for me to ask questions (but where the professor seemed distracted and disinterested). My UCSC interview was very pleasant, and at the end of the interview I was given what I thought was a verbal / informal offer of admission. We even corresponded, after I sent a thank you e-mail, about possible future research. I was told I would receive a formal offer with funding information in the coming weeks. Then everything went silent, and I got the form rejection e-mail yesterday.
  7. I agree with you for the most part as well. The only gray area that @byn may have been in was posting what might have been (?) information that could vaguely, if stretched hard enough, may have identified a candidate, and this is what I assume led to the ultimate decision. But the way the discussion started, with ClinicalPsy/YES!!!'s denigrating one program that had declined to extend an interview to him/her by comparing its ranking (and making glib remarks about that program, which could be someone else's dream program) to those of institutions he/she supposedly got interviews/acceptances from, and then to go on bragging about perfect/near perfect academic record when confronted with the fact that his/her behavior was offensive and immature... It's not hard to see why multiple people downvoted ClinicalPsy/YES!!!'s posts, especially the more offensive or boastful/arrogant ones. I'm not sure why @byn alone was given an Abusive Content warning while ClinicalPsy/YES!!! wasn't. While I understand that confidentiality of personal information is of utmost importance in running a discussion forum, I've seen candidate's for jobs, grad school, fellowships, and faculty go up in flames after that candidate's Internet posting history came to light. Given this person may some day be practicing or even if not, doing research on mental illness, I'm of the opinion that the gray area was fair game if any faculty / adcomms happened to see the discussion here.
  8. I had to have my recommendation letters sent via postal mail. I've e-mailed the graduate coordinator once in December and a couple times now in January to check on the letters because they are still showing up as missing, and I haven't received any kind of response. I'm assuming my application didn't even make it through the first cut, or the high volume of applicants (especially considering their small entering class) essentially means that if your application isn't complete by the deadline and you run into problems with anything you're out of contention immediately? It's an Ivy on the East Coast so I knew it was going to be a long shot. Not sure how much numbers matter. My stats were 169/168/6.0, GPA 3.75, 4 publications (no first authors though).
  9. I've seen a few invitations for UPenn on the results page, so I'm assuming I've been rejected (or at least not on any kind of shortlist) because I haven't received an invite. I didn't apply for clinical, but UPenn seems to treat its psychology applicant pool as one big pool of applicants (moreso than other schools where subfields do their own thing). UPenn only has an entering cohort of around 10 students a year so I wasn't expecting much.
  10. I imagine it differs widely based on subfield, department, school, professor, etc. I got an informal acceptance within 5 days of an interview / visitation day from one place. Another place I had a Skype interview with just a single POI and haven't heard anything in a little over a week, but was told at the end of the Skype session that it'd probably be anywhere from 2-4 weeks before I'd hear back anything official because decisions are after everyone on the adcomm had interviewed people and then meet as a big group. At another place I had Skype interviews with 2 POIs, who told me 3-4 weeks, but after a week I got another Skype interview request from a third POI. Across all 3 places it seemed like not everyone I talked to had the same amount of influence on decisions, and how coordinated the process was also seemed to vary widely.
  11. Congrats on Berkeley, socrate4se. I'm still waiting to hear back from Hopkins too. It looks like last year they sent out invites around this time of year, but so far there's nothing in the results section for 2017. Also congrats on Washington, ezluap. They're one of my top 2 choices, and I haven't heard anything from them