lewin

It can also happen if programs accept the organizational research showing that unstructured interviews have no predictive power beyond the written record. Also, it's more common in Canada. My old program doesn't do interviews.

It really depends on the institution so we can't say. Sometimes committees just rubber stamp, other times the department has a limited number of invites and this prof might not get all the invites she wants (e.g., let's say she accepted a few students last year already and it's someone else's turn).

Post here if you like too, but there's also a convenient link above to submit and search results.

Agree with luckyducky. In your new statement it should be implicit how your application has strengthened and improved, but I don't think one should draw explicit attention to a failed application. By implicit, I meant that the improvement will be obvious to anybody who reads both statements even without saying "Since last time...".

I agree with this to some extent... it "might limit" some options for the average Canadian program vs. the average US program. But limit is such a vague word. It's not like we're isolated up here; at the top, social psychology is a very small world. A few anecdotes: (i) Almost all my PhD friends who did post docs went to US places like Columbia, Stanford, Cornell, Yale, Princeton. (ii) Three of my last four program alumni who got faculty positions were offered US jobs. (iii) Almost all of the faculty in my program have American PhDs so they're connected to that system too. I also see that the poster applied at UofT. That's a great program and I would be very surprised if--all else equal--you had a harder time finding a job with that degree than one from most of the other places on your list.

Well that's not very nice to write off an entire country. Of course there is a range of programs, but many Canadian universities rank among the world's best. My own department is in the top 15 social psychology programs in the world. I also see two Canadian IO departments on this SOIP list of top 40 IO programs.

Oops, you're right. I knew that but in my exuberance to suggest places I forgot--I'm sure the OP is expecting multiple offers so I didn't want to tarry. And Shane Frederick is at Yale. OP should add those to the list then too.

This is my favourite what are my chances of all time. Are you sure you're interested in clinical psychology? You could apply at Columbia Business School or MIT because some of their research seems relevant to your interests. Princeton might be great too, Emily Pronin does research on how music speed influences thought processes. So many possibilities!

...and good reason to support a multi-method approach to graduate school admissions. The GRE definitely has its flaws but it's just one tool in the box. The other tools have problems too.... 1. GPA seems good but it can mean different things between different schools. To some extent, it's also subject to the same cultural biases as the GRE. 2. Reference letters contain subtle biases against female students (source, source). 3. Requiring students to line up an advisor before applying is problematic because, when reviewing applicants, professors are influenced by gender stereotypes (source) 4. Most programs require on-campus visits and the unstructured interviews that typically occur there have very little predictive validity. In fact, there's probably more evidence of the GRE's validity than an unstructured interview's validity. 5. I read and edit my honours students' research proposals, and I'm sure I'm not alone, which advantages students who have the social skills and ability to make connections with senior people. My point in all this is that no tool is perfect; let's use what we can and keep in mind their drawbacks.

Go take a toastmasters class.

Good questions and, of course, this is why it's necessary to establish the predictive validity of psychological measures, which is something that people do a lot. Yes and yes. They're not mutually exclusive propositions. GRE scores can reflect both individual differences and contextual factors and we have the methods to determine which of the testing variance comes from each portion. The portion that reflects stable individual differences can predict important life outcomes and task performance in other domains. That everybody responded to the test the same way is not one of the assumptions of psychological tests and not something they require. Of course people respond to items differently but proper techniques can quantify error variance. Not to be too snarky, but this IS the psychology forum. Measuring the mind is a lot of what we do--not the GRE necessarily, but personality, attitudes, ability, clinical disorders, etc. I'm happy to talk about the pros and cons of the GRE but if you're arguing that the mind can't be measured within individuals at all then that's fine, but it's a different conversation. It's like coming into the anthropology forum and saying, "What can we really know about culture anyway? Isn't it all just genes?"

Good suggestions above but to also point out the obvious, not everybody has an iPhone. >75 percent of people don't actually.

Random thoughts about the GRE. 1. Those familiar with psychological measurement will know that the studies that correlate GRE scores and GPA with grad school success probably underestimate the relationship because of restricted range (i.e., only high-scorers are admitted). 2. There's measurement error in GRE scores (and GPA) so I doubt that someone in the 95th percentile that much different than somebody in the 80th. But when people say "GRE scores shouldn't matter" I think they must be talking about minor distinctions at the top end, right? Because I will never believe that somebody who scores the 50th percentile on the general and subject GRE's (or has a 2.0 GPA) is just as likely to succeed as somebody who gets 80th percentile or above (or has a 3.5 GPA). Yes there are contaminants like cultural bias and standardized test anxiety but there's also variance in GRE scores that's due to real knowledge and ability. In part, the scores still reflect ability to read, write, and do math (and, for the subject, psychology knowledge) 3. Standardized tests can be biased but so are more informal means of evaluation. See this article for example. One proposed solution is to retain the standardized tests but bump up the scores of stereotyped groups, which is provocative but seems empirically supported. 4. This is completely anecdotal, but I've known lots of grad students and wannabe grad students. I can't shake my experience that good students get good GRE scores and the ones who bombed it I wouldn't take as my grad student on a bet. Frankly, I can't shake the feeling that somebody who studies hard and still bombs it (i.e., < 70th percentile on all subscales & subject) is not cut out for academia... especially bombing the subject GRE. If you don't know intro psychology you shouldn't be a PhD psychologist.

The MUST mean be physically on campus or something other than actually living there. Telling PhD students they have to live on campus would be a capital S Stupid thing to do. ....I also wonder whether it's telling that they spell this out. In my program, the expectations that they list would be required of every student regardless of year.

Yes, bizarre! I research human participants so summer is the time to analyze and write up the data I collected during the school year, and plan research for September. My program funds students year-round though.

Any prof who wouldn't take a student because he/she didn't contact them in advance (aka follow some bs arbitrary unwritten rule that many profs don't like anyway) isn't someone you want to work with.

I'm going to take a different approach from other posters and say that you should clam up and thank your lucky stars. Two terms doing research is much better for your career than teaching.; teaching is worth very little when getting a faculty job. Teach once or twice so you can get some good evaluations, and otherwise avoid it like the plague because it is a black hole from which your productivity cannot escape. (caveat: I'm in psychology and more knowledgeable people in media studies should feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.)

I think Eigen was saying this implicitly, but doesn't your department have guidelines of how many hours per week are expected? I've been in departments with "full" TA's (10 hours/week) and "half" TA's (5 hours/week), and other departments with a set number of hours for the term (e.g., 140 total). If a professor had asked for significantly more time I had administrators and supervisors I could have talked to who would have fixed it.

I teach and give my students extensions without hassle when they have proper documentation. But the sense of entitlement in this thread, by some, is off-putting. Accommodation isn't something that's owed to you, it's a compromise between professor and student for everyone's sake. I get that life happens, but students should realize that every single deviation from the class procedure, however justified or reasonable, means extra work for the professor or TA's.

I don't know anything about school psychology or the specific requirements of those programs, my experience is in experimental psych. So keeping that in mind.... To be frank, it's not just the GPA. For research programs, teaching experience matters very little, only research counts. Teaching is more like a quaint side project. (Though I hope school psychology programs value it.) I'd also be concerned about a letter from a PhD student. There are two ways to judge letters: Content and source. Even if they words are glowing, they're from somebody whose opinion won't carry much weight. Everybody understands it's hard to get three letters though, so if the other two are fine this might be okay but I'd try to get another one from a real professor if you can, maybe. As a PhD candidate I wrote a letter or two for my research assistants, but my PI reviewed and signed them because he's important, I'm not.

Don't say something racist. DON'T. White bear white bear white bear.

The prof took three months to reply to your last email so I wouldn't sweat it, unless you said something offensive in your scheduling email, e.g., "Thursdays aren't good because it's my weekly Klan rally." You didn't, RIGHT?

That's a fair point, I was extrapolating based on my own situation (long commute to campus), and also it was implied by the OP.

Frankly if you weren't dedicated enough to do well in undergrad (by your own admission) why would things change in graduate school? It's a lot harder. People underestimate how important their grades are. We've been hiring research assistants in my lab this month and people with bad grades don't even get an interview. It's the bare minimum qualification.

haha, yes, could be. I originally said "statement that..." and changed it to "implication that..." I'm not in I/O, though some of my research has organizational implications, so I would defer to your expertise.