Angua

Hi! I think you may get a wide range of opinions on these questions, so take mine with a huge grain of salt! With that caveat: For your first question: why not apply to both programs? If you get into them both, you can decide later which is the better program, and you'll be able to do so with a lot more information. As to the broader point, though, I am not sure I would recommend a joint JD/PhD program at all. In your case, I think the best argument for a joint JD/PhD is funding -- JD students pay their own way, and if you were in a funded PhD program, you could make up some of that. But I do think you may have trouble getting into a PhD program. It's not exactly that there's such a thing as too much education, it's that PhD programs are going to be looking for a clear sense of purpose and motivation to produce research in their field, and it doesn't sound like you intend for criminology to be your "real" field. If I were reviewing your JD application, your background would make perfect sense to me -- you are on a solid path toward becoming a law librarian, and you're absolutely right that it is best to have a JD and an MLIS. As long as your LSAT & GPA (which are far and away the most important things to JD programs) were good, I'd have no problem admitting you. If I were reviewing your PhD application, though, I would wonder why you wanted a PhD in my field (whichever you wound up choosing) on top of a JD, an MLIS, and an MA in a fourth field. There, fit with a particular PI is much more important than test scores, so I'd want to see how your research goals aligned with mine. You don't specify what kind of consulting you want to do, but a PhD PI is going to be looking for a real desire to produce research in the PhD field, and they will want to see that your background makes "sense" in light of what you want to be doing. So, if you do apply to PhD programs, keep that in mind, and make sure that your statements express the clarity of purpose that you feel. You seem to have a good sense of what you want to do, and I'd lean heavily on that in your applications, being sure to explain how each academic program makes a unique contribution to your ultimate goals. You'll be fighting against the impression that you don't really know what you want to do and/or that you are doomed to be a professional student and/or that you have unrealistic expectations about your future career, so those are the things you will want to (subtly) address in your statements -- and, if possible, ask your letter writers to dispel those ideas as well. One last note (minor compared to the others): Having completed both a PhD and a JD, I really don't think joint programs are a great idea on the whole. Both programs are remarkably demanding of your time, energy, and emotions, and I can't imagine trying to do both at once and being able to do either one well. My friends who have done joint programs often feel isolated and frustrated -- like they are not at home in either program, with students and with faculty. So be sure to talk to students in whichever programs you eventually consider, and try to get a really good feel for how supported they are, and how successful they are in each program. Good luck!!

While I can't speak to philosophy specifically, in the social sciences no one would even register the difference between "Undergraduate Research Student" and "Research Assistant." Because you are an undergrad, people will be able to tell what RA means (and lots of undergrad RAs are not paid - some volunteer, some get course credit, etc.). As for Work/Extracurricular Experience, I suppose that really depends on what kind of document you are creating. For a resume, I'd list it as Extracurricular (well, I'd actually try to list it as a note in your Education section). For a CV, particularly one used for applying to grad programs, I'd consider creating a section just for Research Experience. tl;dr - I think you are being excessively neurotic! Good luck!

I totally understand where you are coming from (I am a law school grad, and am now doing a PhD). There are a lot of moving parts, but here are some questions and thoughts to consider: 1. Are your PhD interests such that you could incorporate your expertise in law into them? Without knowing your field, it's hard to know how easy this with be, but a JD could be a useful asset to you if you can make it one. You can market yourself to PhD programs as an expert in law, and that knowledge and experience will be valuable to some PIs. It would also help if you can tell a coherent story about your academic history to this point. Frankly, it's okay to retcon this a bit! If you can describe your research interests and/or the path that led you to those interests in a way that incorporates your legal training, then a JD could be useful. If your PhD field is something you can't really incorporate law into, then I'd seriously consider not going back to law school. Based on your academic history as described in your post, you've sped rather quickly through a bachelors, then a masters, then part of a JD, and now you want a PhD. PIs are going to look at that history and wonder if you really know what you want at all. It sounds like you do, which is good! You can use your time and other parts of your application to make that point. But you'll still be fighting against the perception that you want to be a student forever. If law school really can't fit into your academic story, I would honestly suggest that you take a bit more time away from law school -- preferably working and/or volunteering in your PhD field. That way, you can explain that law school just wasn't the right fit for you, and that you took the time off to really solidify your research interests in (your PhD field). 2. Odds are (very) good that your PhD field does not care about the prestige of your degrees as much as law does. Law is insanely credential-focused, as you have no doubt realized. But other academic programs tend not to be. I can't speak definitively without knowing your PhD field, but I'd still wager money that it is not as worried about the prestige of your undergraduate institution. Having said that, academics is a remarkably small world in any field, so if you can take advantage of your current institution's prestige to network with important people in your PhD field -- do it! 3. How (dis)similar would your RA experience in law be to research in your PhD field? The more similar, the better, but it doesn't have to be super related. If the research process is similar, or if you can make it more similar (i.e., by working on projects in law that use the methods of your field), then it will strengthen your PhD application to have it on there. 4. If you do finish your JD, definitely make the most of your time there. This means working to position yourself as a scholar in your PhD field. You can reach out to faculty in your PhD field and/or get research experience that is helpful (see above). If possible, choose courses and projects that will help you build a profile as a scholar in your PhD field. Law Review publications are not as good for PhD admissions as peer-reviewed, but they don't hurt, either -- again, especially if you can use a law review note to demonstrate that you are a coherent scholar by incorporating ideas or methods from your PhD field. If you go back, and if you can make law feel like part of your research interests, taking two years is probably the way to go. I don't think you need to worry about the perception that rigor is why you took time off; you will be able to explain that you took extra time to get additional research experience and solidify your research interests. The trouble with just one year is that by the time you apply this fall, you will not have actually accomplished anything in the 2018-19 school year. If you spread it out over 2 years, you will have a year to really build your resume and reputation -- so that in a year, you will be able to talk about your research experiences in your application (and so will your recommenders, which is important). Would you consider your JD institution for your PhD? If so, could you overlap them -- an ersatz joint JD/PhD program? That would also help with the whole "coherent scholar" thing. It could potentially also help defer some of the costs, if you are funded as a PhD student. I'd be happy to talk in more specifics over PM. Good luck to you!

I just wanted to add that the first year of grad school (often) sucks. It just does, even when things go pretty well. You're in a new place, you're adjusting to a new program, you're trying to get projects off the ground (and you're new, so lots of them will fail), you're forming a relationship with your PI, and you're trying to pass classes. It is so, so common to feel like you are spinning your wheels, but you aren't. Trust that it will get better if you keep working at it. Seek out help and support wherever you can -- in addition to counseling, maybe try joining a student group or church? Just talking to someone about how you feel can go a long way towards easing the burden. For me, a huge help was just finding out that my experience was not unique -- that the first year just sucks! The second year, in my experience, sucks a bit less. I hope you feel that way, too. And however you feel about it, don't beat yourself up; grad school is rough! It's okay to feel overwhelmed, stressed out, uncertain, and extremely jealous of your friends with "normal" jobs! Don't add to your burden by feeling guilty -- there's nothing to feel guilty about.

I got in 2 years ago, and as I recall they were quite late. So there may still be hope! Good luck!

/waves Just chiming in as a former B-school applicant to say: Good luck, friends!

In addition to what quaker13 said, I think it also depends on what kind of marketing department you want to work in. There are a handful of very psych-oriented marketing programs (plus some marketing-adjacent programs, like OB and Behavioral Science) who are hiring more psychology PhD's than marketing PhD's. In fact, I have talked with marketing students who were a little miffed that some of the top B-schools (Chicago, Wharton, Stanford, etc.) seemed more interested in psych students. But I don't know how universally that is true, and I don't know how much longer it will be true, because more marketing grads are coming out of their programs with research and cred that looks a lot like psychology. Overall, I think that if you know you want a marketing job, it's almost certainly true that your prospects are better (or at least much broader) from a marketing program. But, of course, psych departments are not hiring marketing PhD's. So if you are unsure, a psychology PhD might give you more options (though, as quaker13 pointed out, there is a lot more competition for psych jobs right now).

If you can really only do one, and you are still seriously considering them both, I think you should go the one that has not already accepted you. See if Univ. B will let you visit after the Univ. A visit, but I would go to the one that will help you keep both doors open.

I'll be interviewing some of our prospective grad students during interview weekend (I'm a current student), and while I really think the point of the interview with me is for you (the prospective student) to get information from me about the program/profs, I thought it would be interesting to ask: What would you like to be asked in an interview? What are your dream questions? On the flip side, what do you hope no one ever asks you?

I have a very nice red leather padfolio that I got many years ago and still use for important interviews! I think it's attractive (and feminine, since you mentioned that as an issue), but very professional looking.

There is a section of GradCafe for interviews, under "Applications"/"Interviews and Visits". But it might be tough to get Business-specific answers there (not that it's much easier here, given how quiet it is! The Management/OB programs I applied to were very psych-oriented (UChicago, Northwestern, Yale), so if you have applied to more "traditional" programs, keep that in mind. The biggest surprise for me in OB interviews was how theory-focused they were. My psychology interests are very applied, and the only time I was ever called out on it was in OB interviews. I think that, because so many applicants to these programs don't realize how theoretically-oriented they are, they are more worried about making sure I knew what I was getting into. I don't think this would be as big a problem at other business schools, but the faculty I was applying to work with were almost all social psychologists (so that's a good way to know if you might be walking into a similar situation). Otherwise, the interviews were very similar to the interviews I had in psychology. Be prepared to talk about your research (past and future), as well as what draws you to the program. Why do you want to study XYZ? Why do you want to study XYZ at ABC Business School? Also be prepared to talk about yourself a little. Where are you from? How do you feel about moving to ABC City? And be prepared to talk about your academic/professional background, especially if it is unique at all (interesting work background, etc.). Why are you looking for a PhD? Why are you leaving ______ field? (The best kind of answer to that last question, in my opinion, is one that makes it sound like your work experience helped lead you to the PhD track. If you can tell a cohesive story about your professional past that informs your research interests, do it!) Above all, have a good, coherent answer to this question: What are you hoping to study here? You will get asked this question over and over and over. Every faculty meeting, every time you meet a current student, every time you chat with another prospective student. Everyone will default to asking you that by way of making small talk. It's what we do! ETA: Feel free to PM me with specific questions!

An update on the mailing list today: Application materials must be submitted to https://jobopportunities.uchicago.edu/ (Type in requisition number: 097769) rather than the e-mail that was listed on the original annoucement.

I believe all invitations have gone out (but I'm not on the committee or anything, so I could be wrong).

Hi guys, This announcement just came over the Cogdev Society mailing list, and it might be a good opportunity for those of you not currently applying (or those of you considering backup plans):

Haha, good question! People in the field (Marketing, OB, and to a lesser extent psychology) found it easy enough to understand, but I did/do have to explain in more detail to others! I often just default to telling those folks that I study psychology in a business school, which is true, because the terminology can be so confusing to people. Also, people tend to make assumptions about what I know and study at a business school -- those with no information tend to assume I know about business, which is natural enough but totally not the case, and those with a little bit of knowledge tend to assume I study behavioral economics, which is less innaccurate but still not really true. I do a lot of cross-disciplinary work in fields like law and developmental psych as well, so it is especially hard to sum up my work accurately using program labels! So it's complicated, but I usually just circumvent the questions by talking about what I study specifically. Then I get the "Oh, you do that in a _____ program?" and I just say "yes!" and nod.

Good luck, friends! Just remember that many business schools make decisions later than other fields, so no news may still be good news!

Hi! I did that a few years ago (mostly psych and OB, but some marketing). I don't have much to share, except that business schools tend to make decisions much later than psych programs, so try not to stress! And good luck!

It varies wildly by school, program, and POI, so you are right to act cautiously. Once you're there, you can ask around -- current students will probably have a sense of how many folks get through from interviews. In general, professors don't invite you out unless they are very interested in admitting you (so congrats!). But whether you are actually admitted may depend on: How good the fit actually is between your interests and theirs. There is only so much they can tell from your personal statement, so they will expect you to talk about research at an interview. They will also take the chance to let you clear up any outstanding questions they may have about your application, but these are likely to be minor points (or they wouldn't have bothered to invite you). How strongly the POI can/will make the case for you to other faculty after the interview. This also varies by department, but the POI may be in competition for resources in the department. Even if there is no competition with other faculty, many departments have a formal or informal policy of consensus or backup advisors. In those places, the other faculty in the department will be thinking about whether you are good for the department and (in a backup advisor situation) whether they would want to work with you if things go wrong with your primary advisor. How much funding the POI has for students. Even if the POI would love to admit everyone he or she interviews, that may not be possible. In that case, the POI will be forced to start rank-ordering candidates. Whether the POI thinks you are likely to accept an offer. Every offer made to a student who declines can be a missed opportunity for a professor. In some cases, the department will redistribute extra places, but there's no guarantee your POI will get one in the second round. Some places, a "waitlist" is just not kept. And even if the POI can ask his or her next choice after you decline, they have to wait -- and in the meantime the next choice may well have moved on as well. So the POI will think at least a little about whether you are going to accept an offer before they make one. This is especially true if #1 is at play and they have to fight to even make you the offer. Whether you do something unforgiveable stupid/rude/etc at interview weekend. If this is the only bar, you're in pretty good shape, because it often quite low. Just prove that you can behave professionally in an interview and don't throw up on yourself, and you're probably good. But yes, it is possible to screw up badly enough at interview weekend that they will not accept you. And that's just a few of the biggest things they may be thinking about. So, stay on your toes, don't throw up on yourself, and good luck!!

Clinical psych is on a different timeline, and it's only January! I know how hard waiting is, but it's early yet. Many schools have only just come back from winter break (including UIUC, which I noticed in your sig), and the professors are just starting to make the first round of decisions. Try not to worry too much (I know, I know - it's not that easy), at least for another few weeks.

Schools and professors do interviews, especially phone interviews, every possible way. I had programs where I was accepted with no previous contact (though my POI had talked to one of my recommenders at some length about me), programs where I was accepted after a phone interview, and programs where I was accepted off a wait list. I was also, of course, rejected with no contact, and rejected after being waitlisted (after an interview). I know in my own program, some admitted students were phone interviewed (like me), and some were not. I also know from talking to some professors here and elsewhere that this is not uncommon -- sometimes they phone interview because they aren't sure about someone, sometimes they phone to get a head start on recruiting a favored student and/or to find out if they are likely to "get" the student (though they may not be able to formally admit the student yet), and sometimes they don't call at all. And I got phone calls with no warning, but I also got emails to schedule phone interviews. It's really a dice roll, but there's not much you can do about it, so try not to stress too much (about that particular detail, anyway)!

I went from law to a PhD in a business school, but not in a field that is directly related to your interests. However, most of my cohort is in economics, econometrics, or finance, so I have some (hopefully useful) thoughts. 1) Is there a reason you favor statistics over a field like economics, econometrics, or finance? PhD students* in those fields do every bit as much statistics as the stats students do, but they are applying it to solve problems in their fields. My intuition is that a field like that might be a better fit for you, because it sounds like you are most interested in doing quantitative work, but I don't hear a lot of interest in statistics theory per se. If I'm wrong, disregard! 2) Your law background and work would not be a hinderence in a business program (econ, econometrics, finance, etc.). It would probably (though not certainly) be a plus, especially if you frame it as relevant to your research interests (or to helping you shape your interests, even if your interests have "evolved away" from those areas). I have no idea what a stats program would think, though. All programs will want to see good evidence of suitability for grad work in the field, though, and I can't say from your post whether you have that (actually, I'm not a good person to assess that in any event, because I have no idea what constitutes suitability in those fields). *I know you are talking about masters, not a PhD. However, it sounds like your orientation is toward research (whether in academia or in industry) rather than in bolstering your resume with a masters or MBA with an eye toward a corner office. So I'm assuming that you'll want to be in a research-focused masters, even if you don't want a PhD eventually. Also, most business schools offer PhDs and MBAs, with no masters option, and I'm suggesting a B-school might be a good fit. Also also, it's what I know. YMMV.

My writing sample was my law review note, which was based on applying empirical literature in my PhD field -- very similar to what you've been writing, it seems. It worked great.

I did this when I was interviewing. They should be understanding -- this happens a lot. Just tell them that you are very excited to accept the interview invitation, but you have a conflict that means you won't be able to attend the dinner on Friday. It should be no big deal, so I would approach it as though it is not a big deal. The dinners are usually with students anyway, which can be a nice way to get to know more about the program, but they aren't vital -- it certainly shouldn't affect your chances of admission at all.

I really don't think additional coursework would be useful or necessary for you at this stage. I would strongly advise you to instead look for a research position in a psychology lab. Your math/econ background will interest some labs (though some will want you to have had a psych background). You should also look for research positions at business schools -- some top schools have robust behavioral programs that will let you get experimental psych research experience as well. Plus, a business school will be more used to econ majors. The research experience does at least two things for you. For one, it will give you a chance to really see what kind of research psychologists do and to see whether you like it enough to devote yourself to a psych PhD. Second, it will give you the experience that PhD programs are looking for on your application. As a bonus, you will have a much better shot at convincing programs that you want a psych PhD and know what it entails (because you will know!). Good luck!

I had professors tell me that the AW score was not really looked at unless it was dismally bad or if there were any questions about the candidate's English skills (which a solid AW score can help answer).