Jump to content

citypsych

Members
  • Posts

    16
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

citypsych last won the day on December 30 2020

citypsych had the most liked content!

Profile Information

  • Application Season
    Not Applicable

Recent Profile Visitors

2,070 profile views

citypsych's Achievements

Decaf

Decaf (2/10)

64

Reputation

  1. Procrastinating faculty member here :). I agree with the above, although I think this year we will cut you all some slack - we know that Zoom fatigue is real, and that being physically comfortable can help with that. I personally will be completely fine with a dress shirt or nice cardigan over a blouse, rather than a full blazer. To add, though, please consider taking some time to make sure your Zoom setup avoids some common problems. To wit: 1. The (other) halo effect. It's especially important during an interview to make sure that your face is adequately lit and that there isn't a strong light (sunny window or artificial lighting) behind you that makes you a silhouette. It's hard enough to get personality across via Zoom, and being able to clearly see your face helps a lot. No need for a fancy setup, just make sure to test your lighting at multiple points of the day and adjust accordingly. 2. Framing. This is tricky, I realize, but it's helpful for a lot of us to be able to view body language from more than just a disembodied head :). Think about the news anchor frame and try to approximate that. This also has to do with angles - if you're sitting directly in front of a laptop looking down (or up) at it, depending on the distance it can look like a looming face. Also test run your attire to make sure that the camera angle doesn't reveal anything you don't want it to reveal. 3. Eye candy. I don't judge anyone's Zoom space decor or similar (unless it is obviously inappropriate), however I have been distracted by items within view. So just check that your artwork, doodads, books, etc., are not distracting or overly cluttered, even if they're really cool. As with your professional attire, the goal is to make sure you and your ideas are the focus. 4. Props. Obvious prop placement, like making sure your copy of the DSM-5 or "Discovering Statistics Using R" is clearly viewable, are amusement-inducing, but not actually helpful. Also, many folks use their bookshelves as background - nice choice, but please make sure the titles are all appropriate, and that you don't inadvertently reveal an interest in some psychological area/approach that is inconsistent with the program to which you're applying. We can't help it - we WILL read legible titles. 5. Pets. I love 'em. Can't get enough of them, and to my mind pets are exempt from Item 2 above, but not sure everyone would agree. That said, we understand if you get a visit during our meeting :). Thank you for your posts, all - I'm trying to anticipate applicants' anxieties so we can try to mitigate them during the interviews, and your opinions and questions are helpful. Good luck!
  2. PhD program faculty here. I can't speak to PsyD programs, but when PhD programs ask this, we're generally checking to see if your selected programs are consistent with your stated training goals. For example, if an applicant has applied to research-oriented and also clinically-oriented programs, we question the degree to which the person is interested in research. Also we know which programs have training opportunities (i.e., specific PIs) in our own specialty areas, so if the applicant states a fit with a depression research lab, but none of the other programs listed have depression researchers, then we question the actual topical fit. I found the latter (which happens often) extremely odd until I understood how many applicants apply to all programs within a certain geographic area, regardless of actual fit. You lose nothing by listing some/all and being honest about it unless you fit one of the two above scenarios. As faculty we're really motivated to identify students who will be happy in our programs, and that requires careful attention to fit, so that's why some programs ask. Hope that helps, and good luck!
  3. I'm ducking in to wish all applicants good luck during this interview season! I’m a faculty member, and I have now observed a number of application cycles at multiple institutions, including my own graduate program. I haven’t yet cracked the code to reducing the stress for my own trainees as they apply to doctoral programs, but because the ambiguity of the process can be the most stress-inducing, I thought I’d share some information that my trainees often find helpful. Long post ahead, and, disclaimer, the below is my opinion based on my experience and observation over the years and should not be used as the last word on the interview process. Things that befuddle, annoy, and/or freak out applicants during the interview season: Thing 1: I was not invited to interview at programs that are low on my list - now I’m really worried that I’m not competitive. (Sometimes followed by: but I got an interview at my top choice, so clearly lower list program should have interviewed me). Sanity check: One of the main reasons those programs were lower on your own list is because you perceived a lesser fit with them. The faculty reviewing applications also see that lesser fit compared with other applicants, and we know that a weak fit is a recipe for unhappiness for everyone! It’s not that you aren’t qualified, it’s just a fit thing combined with the number of other applicants to that program/person that year. Thing 2: I had stratospheric GRE scores and GPA, 28 years of RA experience, and 337 publications/presentations, but I didn’t get an interview to Program X (or any interviews). Sanity check: You all are a talented and successful lot with outstanding experience and evidence of productivity. Every year I am amazed by the quality of our applicant pool. There are four main possibilities here, none of which are particularly reassuring, but hopefully all of which help you think about this logically. First, the number one error I hear from applicants is that they assume that their stellar records will automatically assure them an interview, which is just not consistent with the numbers. Yes, you have an amazing record and application, but so do the other 300 people applying for 18 interview slots (and 5 offers) in that program this year. Second, applicants often apply to the “name brand” programs, seduced by perceived prestige and figuring that the strength of their scores/CVs will overcome a lack of fit. It won’t, and it shouldn’t (see comment above about unhappiness). Third, applicants often mistake “more” for “better”, without regard for the actual skills and knowledge. Most of us definitely are looking for quality over quantity in your CV. Middle author of 6 authors on 9 publications/presentations is good, and we like to see that level of involvement, but one 1st author paper/presentation at professional conference is more meaningful. More labs is not necessarily better than one lab with really solid breadth and depth of skills learned. In your CV and statement I’m especially looking for evidence of advanced understanding (appropriate to the level of training) of the research process and the research questions conceptually, not just a laundry list of every task you ever did as an RA. Fourth, and this is a tricky one - if there is something about you or your performance (e.g., in your lab) that might lead your letter writers to hedge a bit in their letters, we can read that as a red flag and, given we have the luxury of a large number of applicants, put that application off to the side. You already should be asking writers if they are willing to write “a strong letter”, rather than just a letter, and making sure to ask your mentors for feedback on where you stand with regard to the qualities of a strong applicant. Thing 3: Why are all of the applications due on Dec 1?? Sanity check: This is usually a Graduate School deadline, because the relevant staff need to process the applications for all departments in the Graduate School before sending the applications to the relevant departments. Early December is a sweet spot that gives the staff time to process literally thousands of applications before the chaos of end of semester + holidays. Thing 4: If the applications are due Dec 1, why does it take so long to hear about interviews?? Similarly, why do some programs make interview offers early, but I don’t hear from others until much later? Sanity check: It is surprisingly difficult to find time for a committee to meet, so some programs find the time earlier and others later. It also takes varying amounts of time for the Graduate Schools to send applications to departments/programs. At my current institution we basically have most of them within a few days of the deadline, whereas at my last institution it usually took about 10 days to 2 weeks, which then lands faculty in the end of semester/finals, followed by the holidays. Then once we have the applications we need time to review them, which usually involves multiple faculty reviewing each of a very large number of applications. Note also that you WANT the faculty not to rush that review process. Thing 5: Why do these programs seem to schedule interviews on the same days?? Sanity check: There are only so many days available for interviewing. Most programs understandably choose Mondays or Fridays, and there are far more programs than Mondays and Fridays between the end of January and the end of most (not all) interviews toward the end of February. Google CUDCP application tools (freely available calendar maintained by the Council of University Directors of Clinical Psychology, which is not connected to me in any way and is not commercial) to see the schedule of most clinical program interviews. Thing 6: I have an interview scheduling conflict, and I’m really worried that Program B will think I’m not interested because I can’t attend their interview. Sanity check: We completely understand that strong applicants will have multiple interviews (one year I had a trainee who had 13 interviews), and that there will be overlap in dates. We also understand that accepting an interview prior to our invitation isn’t a reflection of your interest in the program. We’ll do what we can to schedule an alternative informal interview in person, or via video or phone call. Thing 7: I wasn’t invited to interview/wasn’t given an offer, but it took a long time to get an official rejection?? Sanity check: Mostly this is a program-level or Grad School level thing. Sending an official rejection generally is an administrative process that might be automated through the Grad School or the program, and many programs will wait until they have their list of applicants who have accepted before officially closing the applicant pool and generating rejection emails/letters. Sometimes it’s just not prioritizing the applicants, but I think that’s the minority. Thing 8: I wasn’t interviewed/didn’t get an offer. Can I contact the program/POI to ask for feedback on my application? Sanity check: This is just my opinion, but I wouldn’t. Your current mentor/PI should be able to tell you where any weaknesses are in your application, thus the only thing the applied-to program/POI could tell you was that the other applicants were a better fit, which doesn’t really help you at all. Also, and very importantly, note that faculty at some institutions are prohibited from providing such feedback given it takes only one litigious applicant to try to make the case that there was some illegal flaw in the selection process. Post-interview Things Thing 9: The interview day was 2 weeks ago. Why haven’t I heard yet? Sanity check: Programs want to make their offers as early and as quickly as possible (this is also why you shouldn’t contact a program post-interview about your status). Usually there needs to be another faculty/admissions committee meeting post-interview, which might take a little time to schedule, and also there might be a few remaining Zoom/Skype interviews lagging behind. We aren’t sitting on this information; once we know who we want to make offers to, we’ll be in touch immediately. Thing 10: I thought my interview went really well - I had great discussions and rapport with the POI and the students, and I can really see myself there, but I was rejected/waitlisted. Sanity check: You probably did interview really well! Unfortunately we faculty often find ourselves in the position of having fewer slots than outstanding interviewees. It’s a numbers thing, and again not necessarily a reflection on you or your interview performance. Thing 11: I have received multiple offers. Can I hold onto 2-3 offers for a while because it feels nice? Sanity check: Technically you can. But it would be extremely inconsiderate to the waitlisted applicants at the programs whose offers you don’t intend to accept. You generally would know at that point which offer you prefer, and although you still might be waiting to hear from another program, the considerate and ethical thing to do is to decline the offer(s) you know you won’t accept, and only hold one at a time. Thing 12: Should I buy my student host a thank you gift/card? Sanity check: Not at all necessary, and I wouldn’t - you have already spent enough money on interview travel! An emailed thank you is appreciated and more than enough. Thing 13: Should I send my POI a thank you card? Sanity check: Nope. Again an email is more than enough. Good luck, everyone! If this year doesn’t work out for you, don’t give up, and if it does, congratulations and best wishes with your program!
  4. I used to find these questions obnoxious, but now I understand better why they ask. If they ask where else you applied, they're trying to suss out two things. First, how focused you are in terms of interests. For example, applying to all clinical programs shows more focused interest in clinical than applying to clinical and social and developmental programs. Because subfields have very different approaches, it can be a little confusing when someone applies to several different types of programs. Second, whether you're actually a good fit. For example, applying to all research-oriented clinical programs shows interest in research, whereas applying to some research-oriented and some practice-oriented clinical programs does not. Also, some people just apply to all the programs in a geographical area, and those programs usually are VERY different from each other. If they ask where else you have interviews (or more directly how highly you're ranking them), they are trying to get a feel for how likely you are to accept an offer. It's not actually about program ego or whatever (most of the time ), but usually about funding issues. Many programs are allowed to extend a certain number of offers, but are not allowed to have a waitlist. If they don't get one of the named students, they just don't get a student. Add in the calculations necessary to determine which faculty get students, and you have a lot of strategic guessing happening. Faculty member A has a stronger candidate than Faculty member B, but Candidate B is more likely to accept an offer than Candidate A, etc. How to answer these questions? For the former, no need to be shy about giving them the names of a few of the other programs to which you applied. No need to give them all the names if you don't want to; pick the ones that are most consistent with how you are trying to present yourself as a fit. For the latter, again no need to tell them all of the names if you don't want to, but it's fine if you do. If they invited you to interview they already think you're a strong candidate, which means they won't be surprised that you have other interviews, but they also know that the numbers game is crazy, so they won't be alarmed if they are your only one. In some ways, the latter is easier for them, because they have a better sense of your likelihood of accepting their offer. I'm not sure I would tell any program where they are in your own ratings UNLESS they are actually your first choice, in which case you should absolutely tell them. It's not dating - it's okay to tell 'em you love 'em (appropriately, of course) on the first meeting . You can instead say that you are extremely enthusiastic about their program and you have decided to finish all of your interviews before ranking your preferences.
  5. One other thing to consider if your goal is an academic job is that faculty search committees are made up of faculty from different subfields, and even within your subfield there might be no one from your sub-specialty (which would be why they would want to hire someone who works on that sub-specialty). This means that even if you earned your degree from the absolute best program/best mentor for your sub-specialty, the members of the hiring committee might not be aware of the strength of that program/mentor and will instead default to considering the overall reputation of the program, or worse, the overall reputation of the institution. Institutions also really like to be able to say that their faculty come from highly-ranked institutions (read nearly any departmental faculty page to see the list of institutions where the faculty earned their doctorates), and administrators definitely don't know the reputations of programs by subfield, so committees can be under pressure to hire candidates who come from highly ranked institutions. Yes, it's ridiculous, but it's real, and something to think about in making decisions. Also, regarding publications, be mindful that quality trumps quantity almost every time. All of this could be different in non-psych fields, of course.
  6. OP, as someone who has read many, many graduate applications, I agree generally with the posters who are encouraging you to slow down and think about the best plan forward. Given your low GPA, moderate projected GRE scores, relative absence of quality research experience, and what sounds like a lack of certainty of your actual interest in pursuing a degree in social psychology, my advice to you is: 1. You need to demonstrate your ability to do well in basic academic coursework. Enroll in a general psychology masters program that requires a thesis. Do well (3.6ish +) in your classes. 2. You need to have solid research experience. Get and keep prolonged, high quality research involvement. Pick one lab, and work on developing and deepening your skills in that one lab. You need both the in depth experience and the ability to show that you can sustain a high level of work over a 2 year period (or longer). 3. You need to score as well on the GRE as you can. Take more time to prepare. Expensive courses aren't necessary, especially given you have already taken one (so you already know whatever strategies they recommend). Buy one or several prep books, study regularly, and take many practice tests. Percentile doesn't matter as much as the actual score - find out what the average scores are for social psychology (note: the scores that programs report for clinical psychology applicants might be different) and aim for that. 4. You need to have a stronger idea of what you want to pursue in graduate school and why you want to pursue it. Be sure to take a range of classes that will help you better understand your interest areas, but also read broadly (e.g., journal articles). I also don't want to discourage you if you decide that this really is what you want to do, but your current record will not be competitive for any doctoral programs. It isn't that YOU aren't good enough, necessarily, it's that so many of the other applicants will have much stronger applications, and the numbers just don't work in your favor.
  7. @eyepod: you are not in the psychology field, nor have you ever applied to programs in psychology. I'm sure you are familiar with your own field, but your response is not relevant for the app process in psychology. Please do not mislead applicants by posting about a process with which you are not familiar.
  8. I guess today is my "duck into grad cafe and share my opinions" day . OP, my opinion is that (a) there's nothing wrong with your scores as they are, but if you have time and $, there's no harm in retaking. I lean toward (a), because I think it's a logical error that GRE quant percentile is the right metric. It is easier to prep for the quant, so mean scores have been moving up over time. In my opinion the appropriate metric is whether an applicant meets a threshold, not whether s/he meets the threshold AND scores higher than X% other applicants. Of course, some folks in some places won't really think that through. I think your quant score is the equivalent of the old scale 650ish? That meets the bar for most places, yes? Also, if you re-take and somehow your verbal drops, the lovely people at ETS have an option to send all scores to programs. Virtually all faculty will go with the highest in each category and not care about the lower.
  9. No idea, but I doubt getting into a program w/ neuropsych faculty is easier. Even if there are fewer neuropsychologists on faculty, I'm guessing there are proportionally as many applicants. For most programs an applicant also needs to clear whatever general departmental bar they might have. Some programs admit the best applicants, regardless of emphasis, and others assign slots to particular faculty in a given year. For the former, fewer neuropsych-focused applicants would be irrelevant. Generally, I recommend that applicants just do the best they can to make themselves competitive and a good fit for programs/faculty. The rest is numbers, unfortunately. Also, Vene, I think you're right, in that the lines are becoming increasingly blurred.
  10. Neuropsychology =/= Neuroscience. Neuropsychologists are clinical psychologists who pursue neuropsychology training (cognitive testing, often including imaging methods, but mostly assessment batteries for conditions such as dementia, ADHD, etc) either during grad school or beginning with internship and postdoctoral training. Neuroscience is many things these days, but usually refers to programs that do not include clinical training. These could be behavioral neuroscience, cognitive neuroscience, a neuroscience track within biology, or just called "neuroscience". Loyola has a nice summary here and there's a relevant reddit here. The numbers game is worse for clinical applicants, but also different. There are more applicants for each slot in a clinical psychology program, but the applicant pool for each program will include only the subset of all applicants who have a good fit with a particular faculty person. For example, to drastically oversimplify, the same 400 applicants might apply to say, 12 particular programs, and a different 400 applicants might apply to 12 entirely different programs. Neuroscience training, esp the behavioral end, is more like biology. Incoming students rotate through several labs and then choose one, so they apply to programs with a general sense that some faculty of interest are at those programs. There are fewer applicants for each neuroscience program than in clinical, but in this case the same applicant cohort applies to pretty all of the programs. Short answer: the numbers game is not as bad for neuroscience, but either route demands strong preparation/scores, etc.
  11. @Epoh, just something to consider: http://psychology.unl.edu/psichi/Graduate_School_Application_Kisses_of_Death.pdf
  12. If you're interested in publications (actively publishing researchers) focused on LGBTQ issues in particular, it would be simpler and faster to do a lit search from which you can obviously get the authors's names.
  13. Please never put "PhDc" or "ABD" after your name as if they are degrees. A PhD is a degree. "PhDc" is an ill-advised made-up designation that unfortunately is used by some really overeager students trying really hard to look advanced. Best case scenario, readers will roll their eyes and wonder if the person really understands that you shouldn't list a degree, especially with a made-up designation, until you earn it. Worst case scenario, the reader wonders what else you're padding/embellishing. "ABD" by definition obviously is not a degree and should never be placed as if it is. As noted earlier, "PhD candidate" is acceptable if you actually have been admitted to candidacy, but it goes on the line BELOW your name, not after your name. Finally, for the original purpose, MA is fine. The reader just wants to know your highest relevant degree and your role in the case, not that you're a year away from the PhD or whatever.
  14. Um, the admissions committee has to have the application materials from the grad school/electronic database made available to them, make time to read hundreds of applications while continuing to do their actual jobs, and then find a common available time to meet to discuss applications and rank applicants. I know it's stressful, but try to maintain some perspective: your application process is priority 1 for you right now, but not for everyone else.
  15. Looks like homework help. I don't think this is allowed on this forum.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. See our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use