lewin

Piling on, don't get any extra job, part-time or otherwise. First, it might not be allowed by your program (or external funding agency if fortunate enough to have one) because they view their funding as covering all of your full-time hours. Second, you just won't have time. Period. If you have enough spare time for a job, then you should be doing more research.

Undergrads aren't deliberately snubbed from Lip Gloss, but it's organized by the graduate student committee and the email invites tend to go out on that internal email list. It's not really for faculty either but they probably just invite themselves (see every experiment on power ever). I'm not sure anything stood out as life-changing, but I attended a lot of good talks, met interesting people at the poster sessions, and felt pretty good about my own talk. Until next year...!

Soooooo, what did everybody think?

Did you two discuss ideas? Data analysis and findings? Will he help write the paper (even with just editing or comments)? All of those tasks are deserving of authorship.

Hm? It's from the "wordle" website. You copy/paste the text into a box and it generates the word cloud.

Indeed, that stands out to me too. "Boss, I gave you a verbal warning that I would not be at work on Friday. I participated every other day that I was there, so it really upsets me that you docked my pay for Friday."

I want to encourage everybody to attend the "professional" or "current issues" types of sessions, maybe even make them a priority over content sessions. For example, last year there was a symposium on false positive psychology (hawt topic right now) that include a nice public--and later email--argument between Uri Simonsohn and Norbert Schwarz. Sadly, I skipped it in favour of something else, which I regret. e.g., SPSP sent this last week: "...this year a special symposium session is being added, designed to allow the membership of SPSP to come together to discuss current issues important to the Society. Such issues might include priorities for action in the coming year, administration, financial issues, the pending reorganization of the Society’s central office, the profession’s response to recent episodes of research fraud and questions about the reliability of scientific findings, or anything else of interest to the membership. We have scheduled this session for Saturday, January 19 from 3:30 pm to 4:45 pm in Room 203-205 of the Convention Center." "Administration" = boring. "fraud and reliability" = spicy Other possibilities: "Openness in scientific reporting: Potential and reaction" S-B1 "False positive II: Effect sizes too small, too large, or just right" S-D1 And the data blitz is great for those of us with short attention spans (S-B9).

What the heck does her being unmarried or younger than you have to do with it?

Unrelated anecdote, I saw somebody (not in social psych, but cognitive) refer to my university as their "safety school" and then a few weeks later that they had accepted here. I've always wondered who he/she is. If it had been someone in my area I definitely would have figured it out.

I applied to Harvard (a few years ago) and have two letters from them: The first in March saying they were unable to offer me admission. The second in July saying that there had been a "security breech" of their admissions database and my personal data may have been compromised. I applied to Harvard and all I got was a lousy year of free credit monitoring services.

I've always wondered what the "rule" is on this. Myself, I only list prep things that I've actually started writing. Or--because I'm applying for jobs, not grad school--projects that I specifically refer to in my research statement.

I'm going and I'm giving a talk. Come see me, my real name is David Funder. But seriously, SPSP is fun. More than the talks, I like getting away with my grad school friends for a few days.

Good decision. You can probably do enough prep in a few hours.

Social psychologists loooooove the study of processes. "Mediation" is the magic word that gets you into JPSP.

One more vote for "don't address it". It's only a semester. I took a year off to travel and didn't say boo about it.

I've never really done a power analysis but I can tell you right now that N = 128 definitely looks too small for 8 groups because that's 16 per cell, especially for an effect size of .25. At a minimum you want n = 20/cell (e.g., as recommended recently by Simmons, Nelson, & Simonsohn, 2011). Sorry that's not much help. Participants are cheap for my studies (undergrads or online people) so I usually just run 30-40/cell and don't bother with power analyses.

Grades, reference letters, GRE, research experience, scholarships/awards. Not necessarily in that order. The rest doesn't matter.

Cohen, Cohen, West, and Aiken is a classic but it's dense as crap. Almost anything you need to do, it's in there if you can figure it out. http://www.amazon.com/Multiple-Regression-Correlation-Analysis-Behavioral/dp/0805822232

I stay anonymous but I've identified myself in a few PM's and it wouldn't be difficult for somebody who knows me in real life to figure out who I am. I'm less worried about the content of my posts but more about somebody thinking that spending a lot of time on an internet forum (any forum) is a misuse of time. Also, when people google my name (how presumptuous, eh?) I want them to hit my professional website and pubs, not a random forum.

Ha, you guys are sweet but these just randomly pop into my head and it's hard to generate a list until one sees a "violation" of the social norm.

It's probably because research shows that attractive people are smarter, more conscientious, and harder workers than unattractive people (Dion & Berscheid, 1972). So they're more likely to get into grad school. (I am kidding. That reference is to the halo effect.)

Perfect! Sorry, didn't mean to be a broken record. Applying narrowly is, of course, perfectly fine if you're aware of the downsides, which it seems you are!

Honestly, I don't see how a master's done online could possibly be comparable to one where students get in-person research and clinical experience. A master's isn't just about reading material and writing papers, it's about learning skills and applying them. ETA: it's also about developing professional connections and that won't happen online.

A bigger problem is that you're applying to only three programs, all of which look very competitive. So if you don't get in, it might be because of that--not your research background/interests.

Pro tip: Academic psychologists don't like it when you use "science" and "psychology" in juxtaposition because psychology is a science (as practised in most universities). Arcadian has it right: stick with "natural sciences" or "physical sciences".