lewin

Longstanding tradition in the field. Ignoring the experimental psychologists is how we ended up with APS (Cautin, 2009). I agree with everybody else; the change is pointlessly exclusionary.

This. Nobody will care about the formatting unless there were instructions specific to that school which were disregarded or the formatting is used to be weaselly, e.g., mess with font/margins to squeeze in more words. And length is not formatting. Length matters.

Yep. Plus six years of graduate school and like a thousand supervised clinical hours

Or, OP, if you're in clinical psychology and studying mental health outcomes you might apply for the CIHR CGS-M.

My suggestion is don't mention it. I'd say it falls under one of the kisses of death mentioned in the Appleby article. They specifically say mental health but I don't see why that advice wouldn't generalize to other chronic illnesses, especially the last bit of this quote: "The discussion of a personal mental health problem is likely to decrease an applicant’s chances of acceptance into a program. Examples of this particular [kiss of death] in a personal statement included comments such as “showing evidence of untreated mental illness,” “emotional instability,” and seeking graduate training “to better understand one’s own problems or problems in one’s family.” More specifically, one respondent stated that a KOD may occur “when students highlight how they were drawn to graduate study because of significant personal problems or trauma. Graduate school is an academic/career path, not a personal treatment or intervention for problems." A second reason is that the person statement is a misnomer. Personal narrative about how you got interested in or passionate about the topic is fluff; the space is better served talking about your concrete experiences and future research contributions - see Brown (2004). A third reason is that, unfortunately, chronic illness still carries stigma with some people. They might read it and think, "This candidate isn't going to be as productive or will need a leave of absence before they're done." That's unfortunate and shouldn't be the case but is what it is.

...particularly in this case because David Funder is one of or the most preeminent personality psychologists today. He'll get a lot of applicants. Another search method would be to look up his coauthors or former students.

Personal opinion: #1 unless #4 has a PhD. For #2, two months is not enough time to write a strong letter. For #3, Data entry and prepping questionnaires is important work but doesn't demonstrate research aptitude or independence, which makes me lean towards #1 instead. Also in terms of status, a postdoc is the same as a VAP in the sense that neither are tenure track.

I would second this. And also add for OP that, within counselling, there are programs found in both psychology and education departments. Sometimes, the latter are seen as less rigorous (which is probably code for less research oriented). So if your eventual plan is a PhD it might be better to stay in a psych department (or in whichever area you eventually want to complete a PhD).

Then it doesn't seem strange to me. e.g., an email that says something like, "I enjoyed the study we ran on X and am interested in getting more writing and maybe publication experience> What do you think? Would it be possible to write it up for a journal?" The context for my original question was: Students who are in the lab collecting data but had no role in the study conceptualization or design probably wouldn't be involved in the writing an publishing. There are also studies that aren't publishable on their own or form parts of a larger research program. In that case your previous supervisor might want to, respectively, collect more data or write the paper themself (because they have the long term perspective/investment/ownership of the project).

This would strongly depend on what the faculty member negotiated when accepting the position. To put it bluntly, it depends on whether they wanted to expend negotiating capital on it. They might have prioritized taking current students, or negotiating for lab resources, or even for salary. Without being a fly on the wall of the prof's office it's impossible to know, but OP, being an unknown at this point, might not have been a priority. OP, I don't think it's unprofessional to ask if there's any chance you could come along as long as it's done tactfully and with understanding that it might not be within her power. She might not have even considered that you prioritize advisor over program.

Did you help collect data that are potentially publishable? e.g., an honours thesis or study project? Because advisors are unlikely to just hand you a dataset to analyze or a paper to write remotely unless you had some independent role in collecting those data.

You're in the field so probably have a better perspective than I do, but my understanding is that school psychology is primarily a professionally oriented degree where you learn how to conduct and report assessments related to disabilities and development. ASD is a clinical disorder and clinical programs are much more research-oriented, so I do agree you'll probably have better luck searching there.

I don't believe this is correct and it varies dramatically by your funding committee. Funding rates for NIMH and NIH are 18-20% and for CIHR are 15-20%--so pretty comparable. It's true to say that everybody has to fight for external funding, so you'll find more in common between UBC and an American R1 than between UBC and, say, Brock or Lethbridge (or an American PUI). If you can get into SSHRC instead, recent competitions have had success rates of 30-50%. The current Liberal government has allocated massive funding increases, in contrast to Trump, who wants to cut science funding.

To address this point specifically, grants have different levels of involvement. If this professor is a "co-investigator" or "collaborator" (various terms are used) but not the "Applicant" or "Principal Investigator" then he may contribute to the project but not hold the purse strings, i.e,. not be the lead. If he is the principal investigator then it's hard to speculate without knowing more about the project. e.g., maybe it's fMRI which costs $500/hour to run. I'm not disputing there's no money trickling down, but it doesn't necessarily mean that he's sitting on a huge pile of money and not sharing, like Scrooge McDuck.

For the love of all that's holy, if you buy a Mac make sure you have a proper HDMI and VGA cables/adapters. If I have to attend one more conference talk where someone insists on using their Mac instead of the provided powerpoint PC, then can't figure out how to connect it to the projector, I'll lose my mind.