lewin

I agree, this was my initial screening criterion too -- I knew I couldn't afford to pay my own way so I didn't apply anywhere that didn't offer a full package of some kind. After that point, however, funding shouldn't be too important... if one place is going to give you 20k and the other 22k that's small beans in the long run.

I like #3 for its simplicity but I can see your argument for #1 where you don't need the interactions if it's implausible that the treatments would have affected BMI (assuming it's premeasured). It sounds like #2 doesn't actually test what you want anyway (i.e., making sure that the 8 cells are roughly equal). A different question I have for you is why you're treating the measured variable as two conditions. Depending on how you've done this, you're losing a lot of power. If you want to treat it as a continuous variable then this is a classic book that describes how to do the analysis using multiple regression. I'm happy to elaborate if you like.

1. fit with your advisor's advising style (e.g., hands on, independent) 2. research fit 3. department prestige 4. departmental atmosphere (e.g. collegial, social) 5. location Funding is also a factor, but any good program will pay tuition and a living wage. Of course, keep in mind that practically speaking the answer to the question of "Where should I go to graduate school? is "Who has accepted you?" Gotta get accepted at some places before you can be choosy.

This is always the key, eh? You want the CV to look as good as possible but there's this fuzzy line where it becomes too much, like people who list scholarships from their high school when applying for jobs after university. You need to pad it without looking like you're padding it.

1 & 3. What free_radical said. 2. "Manuscripts in prep". Readers don't give this section any weight anyway but it can help you feel productive. If you don't expect anything to come of it, drop it.

Thalia Wheatley at Dartmouth has some stuff on this, I saw her talk at SPSP last year. They do hypnosis studies, among other things.

In Canada fellowship income is tax free. It's one of the few things the Conservative government has done to help science funding since taking office. At my university there's two systems: "internal funding" is $25,000 and requires 10 hours/week TAing. If you get an award then it's the "external funding" model where you get your award + $10,000 and only do 5 hours/week TAing. I suppose in one sense the university is 'clawing back' $15,000 when you get an external award but they were always very clear that the $25k is NOT a grant, but rather a minimum funding level. It sounds the same at UofT. The $23k is a minimum funding level, not a salary that you were entitled to.

Thanks for the elaboration on your original comment, Arcadian, I think we're in complete agreement. Oh gosh, not just for grad students. I'm on the job market right now and there's CV creep at every level. People used to get tenure with what it takes to get a job nowadays. And although I have friends who got tenure-track jobs straight from grad school, post docs seem to be the norm now. Recently an early-career professor member told me, "Post docs are still too short. Three years would be the perfect length: One year to get oriented, a second year to be productive, and a third year on the job market." Argh! Personally, I would really love to have a permanent job before I'm 35

I don't think the barriers you've described are insurmountable and everybody above has given great advice about what steps to take. Did those days ever really exist? If I decide that I've read a few books by Brian Greene and Stephen Hawking and now I want to pursue a physics PhD, should they let me in? I admit the learning curve for physics is steeper than the one for psychology, but there's a level of background knowledge and experience that is required to do well in a psychology PhD. It's not entry level, and it's not something that one can just jump into. People should definitely be free to switch career paths but also realize that it's usually not a lateral move. I supervise a bunch of RA's, but that doesn't mean I could switch into mid-level management in some other field without dropping down the ladder a bit. A PhD is a long commitment. If someone switched to psychology on a whim, who's to say they won't have another change of heart in a year or two? If I were a potential advisor, it would be hard to take a chance on somebody like that when I have a line of people who have already demonstrated long-term interest in the field (by doing a degree in psych, by working in a lab). OP, you'll have to demonstrate that you have an approach motivation for psychology, not just avoidance motivation for business.

There can be downsides of keeping an up-to-date CV. The good feeling I get from moving a "manuscript in prep" to "under review" is far outweighed by having to move it back down again three months later

aka "I'd like to take your 'full time' job but only work 15 hours a week." Good advice above. Maybe they can find some contract teaching separate from this position.

I was being a bit facetious with that quote and I personally don't follow that philosophy; from what you've said it actually sounds like we're much the same. I just meant that, like any other career, being in the 99th percentile superstar category means sacrificing many other things (and having a huge dose of talent and intrinsic motivation). This person also said: "Don't have a partner because they're lots of work. [pause] Actually, strike that. Date somebody who values work as much as you do, so you can keep each other on task." I think we can all agree that's unhealthy advice. (ETA: For the record, this person is not anyone I know personally, just someone from a conference)

Oh, this I agree with completely. The post-PhD job prospects are just not good enough to justify loans, in my opinion. I more meant: If your dream is a PhD in a big city, and working 10 hours a week makes the difference of whether you can do that or not, then it might be worthwhile. (Though normally, in other threads, I've strenuously objected to side work.)

Thanks for the extra explanation! Sorry to hear about the various program issues, but I'm glad you're going in with eyes open. In real life there are always compromises and "phd that takes longer because you're working part time" is probably better than "no phd at all". Big cities are also more expensive so side work might be more common there too. Best of luck!

I'd say "yes" to the first question. The second question seems program-specific and I don't think we can answer it. More generally though, a 6-7 year direct-entry PhD seems like a bit long. In my program the modal time is 5 years, but 6 is not uncommon. In combination with your comment about part time jobs, this raises a red flag for me. Usually what determines when you graduate isn't the courses you take (because those are done in 2-3 years) but rather your research progress. Outside work interferes with research progress and it hints that the program is not funding students enough to devote their full efforts to research. Two caveats apply: (1) I don't know much about internship-based or applied programs, so the longer program time might be due to the internships. (2) Outside work is not a red flag if it's part of the training. For example, I have a friend in IO who does a lot of business consulting. But if their jobs are all bartending or repairing air conditioners, that's bad. I don't mean to make you apprehensive or suggest it's a bad program. I mention this so that maybe--if you start on the right foot--you can finish in five or six years instead and not fall into the trap of thinking a 7-year PhD is typical.

It really depends on the career you want. If you want to be a superstar, count on working 10-12 hours days and weekends. Here's a quote from a very successful early-career social psychologist: "If you think you have a good work-life balance, it means you're not working enough." If you just want to graduate with a PhD and are less concerned about that, you could probably get away with 9-5 doing research and evenings/weekends doing coursework and TA work.

Nobody wants to read what you write

MTurk is cheap but you can't restrict location more specifically than countries. Though there are ways around it: You could post a prequalifying task that asks people for their location for a few cents, then create a second task and invite only the people from Atlanta. They come from all over the U.S. though, so I suspect you'd need to prescreen thousands of people to get your Atlanta sample. Or, you could ask people to participate only if they live in Atlanta. This depends on their goodwill and you'd never know if people are deceiving you about their location. I've used the survey panel from the company Toluna before. They're reputable and have a bit panel, but I suspect they'll cost more than you'll want to pay-- a representative U.S. sample is about $4/person and cost goes up as your requirements get more specific. I expect your sample would cost thousands of dollars (but quotes are free!). Frankly, you're probably better of posting on craiglist and putting up posters around town, and doing a prize draw for participants.

I wouldn't use the word "wrong" but I would say it's a violation of a social norm that says students don't have labs, only professors do. Whether the student's research is distinct is irrelevant. Not to put too fine a point on it, but the phrase "putting on airs" comes to mind. Professional websites are fine (all the cool students do it ) just call it something other than a lab. Just elaborating on what I said previously.

I have a few projects semi-independent of my advisor. On our IRB forms he signs as "Faculty supervisor" instead of "Primary investigator". I usually want his involvement though because he's smart and brings a lot of added value and he often pays for the studies.

Honestly, it's weird. Your PI has a lab and your RA's are part of that lab.

I think this is what she meant--that they're not similar at all. In my grad courses, I've taken an elective or two with the clinical students but otherwise there seems to be very little overlap in our coursework (if I can generalize from my experience to others). I think we're not even allowed to take the clinical courses. Maybe a stats course or two might transfer but I wouldn't count on anything else in your first year as a social student carrying over.

If you know for certain that you want to be a clinician, don't start a social psychology graduate program. It'll be wasted time on your part and wasted resources from that program. And it takes a spot from somebody who is actually interested in social. That is, you called it "a perfectly good offer" but it's actually not good because it's not what you want to do. On the other hand, you might start the program and really like it. So like you said, it's not an easy answer.

Acceptance to graduate school is a completely different world than acceptance to undergrad. My speculative opinion is that it's a "bad thing" because legacy admission is something that universities do to keep their alumni (aka donors) happy, which is a 'business' decision, not an academic one. Faculty don't care about keeping donors happy. Further, I expect most professors would take offence that admission to their graduate program were based on anything but merit. (As Liz said: coursework, GRE's, research, interests.) For those reasons, I wouldn't even raise the question with any potential advisors.

At the graduate level most places don't give a crap about when you convocate, completing the degree requirements is what's important. This.