lewin

TakeruK's answer is spot on IMO... and to elaborate on this point: Brand new grad students are not collaborators in the full sense; they're trainees. (Exceptions made for the 1/100 brilliant student who hits the ground running.) Bright and motivated students are amazing and are junior colleagues... but they are a ton of work. It can be years before they're self-sufficient. There's a large gap between "taking on a promising student" and "collaborating with someone very junior who isn't my student and who might require lots of time." So, OP, don't take it personally if they aren't interested and keep them in mind as a postdoc supervisor, or email them in a year or two when you have more independence.

Personally I think that having a ready list of general questions indicates preparation, not a lack of it. (Notes on your own research, or your POIs on the other hand...) In any case, clinical psychologists should be well versed in the benefits of the structured interview

To add, having a list of questions that you want to ask people isn't too weird either. "Just so I don't forget anything..." e.g., funding, typical accommodations, grad student life About notes, it can be really useful to make a cliff's notes page with faculty names/photos and 2-3 bullet points of their research interests. But use this to study on your flight and avoid letting people see it on interview day itself.

If your ultimate goal is to become a psychology faculty member, the most important thing is to develop a competitive CV with high impact publications in journals that psychologists will recognize. Do faculty in that program publish in, say, the Journal of Abnormal Psychology or the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology? It's not just interests now, but whether your interests will ultimately line up with what other psychologists are seeking (and can recognize as quality work). To add to this, connections can matter in the sense that a reference letter from someone who is known, either personally or by reputation, to your potential advisor will go a lot farther than a letter from a stranger. It's not just direct connections of knowing that person, getting into their lab.

I don't know if there's a convention. Personally, I have one data blitz talk and do differentiate because the acceptance rate was very low for that session and I wanted to include it too.

What's your research area? In social, at the major conferences (SPSP, APS) it's hard or nay impossible (SESP) for a student to present. Instead you could seek out regional or specialized conferences (e.g., ISJR, SPSSI, IARR, MPA, EPA) where getting a talk accepted is easier. Or, apply to a SPSP preconference that has a grad student session or data blitz. I think 1-2 posters per year is just standard/expected for a grad student but it's not unusual to have no/few talks in social because people know the rejection rates are high. The real utility of a talk is more than the CV line; it's that people see you and your research personally. ("Every talk is a job talk.")

Just wanted to second this. Submitting papers is positive because it shows you're getting work done, but ultimately that's not evidence of ability. Only an accepted paper is an independent judgment of the work's merit. I wouldn't update about conferences at all; in psychology, unless things are very different in some subfields, conference presentations are not nearly as prestigious as papers. Second this also, and as more general life advice. Talk to any hiring manager and you'll likely hear that calling to press the issue (or worse, argue!) after getting rejected for a job is a quick way to ensure you never get considered again. Grandpa's job search advice about marching into the manager's office and demanding a job (because it shows gumption!) are long over.

Out of curiosity, what would you write? Just reiterate what's already in the application? Emphasize that you're really really interested? Most of the things that one could say at this point are contrived or cliche. So, I don't think it's a good idea except for very rare circumstances where you can add significant new information (like a major national fellowship, as mentioned above).

oops I thought this was a thread for people who want to take the WAIS

I would be very hesitant to draw any conclusions about the relationship between GPA/GRE and admissions based on self-reported data. I don't doubt the analysis, but selection bias is so impactful that response bias in reporting socially desirable traits is one of the opening examples from the classic book How to Lie With Statistics. It's also possible that gradcafe members differ from the applicant population as a whole in meaningful ways, or that we have a restricted range of scores. The studies I'm aware of (e.g., Posselt's book on gatekeeping in admissions) find that GRE/GPA are critically important when screening the first wave of applicants. For top programs, they sometimes do their first cuts using spreadsheet with just GPA/GRE/institution. "Another conclusion is that it seems the grad cafe sample is higher on these metrics than an average applicant (I need to do more research) but given the average GRE scores are definitely above the 50th percentile, GPA is also high too. I'm not sure that "average applicant" and "average GRE test-taker" are the same thing. e.g., If the bottom quartile of test-takers gives up on graduate school but the remaining 75% moves on to apply somewhere, and gradcafe's GRE scores are ~50th percentile overall, this would mean they're below the score of average applicant.

And if someone gives you a hard time, just say you're a devoted follower of Jean Twenge's research.

Serious point - This won't matter because (almost) nobody should see you using your phone. We had a potential grad student visiting who was playing with his phone while I was giving him the lab tour. Did not reflect well. Keep it in your pocket unless you're alone.

Well to some extent the issue is that these can lead to very different career paths. Do you want to be a clinician or a researcher? Not saying you're doing this, but there have been students who use experimental programs to backdoor into clinical areas because they think it will be easier to get into the experimental program and then transfer after a year or two. Experimental areas are wary about this. That said, I get that people aren't always settled on a subfield when they're applying. I applied to both cognitive and social streams--but those are both experimental. Most importantly, assume that people talk to each other so don't write anything that you wouldn't want the other to hear about. e.g., "I want to be a clinician." You sent the coordinator an email -- like a non-faculty staff person? Honestly they're likely to be curt because they're dealing with a few hundred applications and aren't involved with the decisions anyway. In my opinion, because clinical and experimental are so different, I think you're better off committing to one path. But that's just me. If you're going to email somebody, email the faculty member whose application is due soon and say (a) you've already applied for the clinical program but are also interested in their research area (b) you're primarily interested in research so an experimental, non-clinical program is also very appealing to you.

You might need a job offer before being allowed a work permit. Good news is that a social worker you might be able to apply for express entry, though I'm not familiar with the job prospects for them specifically. You'll probably need an education credential assessment to ensure your degree is equivalent to one offered in Canada. Here's a government page on immigrating to Canada. Here's a page on the points system. You need 67/100 or higher to qualify for express entry.

Oof. I feel for you then. Also I personally find that policy bizarre unless it's a parental or health leave. Geez, you still check your email!

Yes. Learning how to wait for news (grants, awards, reviews) is part and parcel of academia.

Did you email the prof? Most people check email even on leave.

I interpreted your comment to mean that most workplaces gossip about other colleagues but realize now I could have been mistaken. I meant agreement with that: I need to gossip about work with colleagues because my partner doesn't know those people or care about workplace gossip. Definitely no sexual innuendo.

ikr. My partner doesn't know most of my colleagues so the gossip and complaining would be lost on her.

I suspect they're showing net amounts and that in order to qualify for the $0 tuition you need some kind of TA work etc. But that's a wild guess and my comment about checking with each program individually stands.

You should ask each program because there's no universal definition of "fully funded" vs. not. These details might be on a website but, in my experience, might only be covered at interview day or after you get an offer. Very institution-specific. But generally, even "fully funded" means that you are covered by a combination of tuition waivers, TA or RA work, and fellowship money. Is your second example box hypothetical? Because tuition rarely has a list price of $0 - it's often waived or covered from other sources. (This was the source of the recent debate about congress considering whether tax tuition waivers should be taxable.) In a sense, it looks like you're describing two different forms of "fully funded" programs. "Not fully funded" could mean anything from "only tuition covered, no stipend" to "no money or funding opportunities from us whatsoever." For example, the notorious NYU "Master's in general psychology" program that they throw as a consolation prize to lots of unsuccessful PhD applicants is >$25k tuition/year that you have to pay out-of-pocket, and there are generally no fellowship, TA, or RA opportunities available.

Some students are funded to attend conferences... e.g., when I was a grad student the dept covered one trip per year and my advisor would cover another from his grant if it was a good opportunity. Some conferences also have travel funds available if you apply. I know this doesn't help your situation but I'm mentioning it for potential grad students who might read this... the "absurdity" might not generalize and, when visiting, it's a good idea to ask about travel funding and expectations. A little bit, naive yes. And you phrased it as a false dichotomy so I fixed it to be more accurate. It's both things. Meeting someone at a conference who likes you can mean that they give your application a closer look, or they talk you up to other decision makers in the department. And this isn't any different than any other job. Someone once told me, "Every talk is a job talk," meaning that you're making an impression, good or bad, to someone who might be reading your application later.

Echoing that this is very program specific. Of the places I applied, three didn't even do interviews and I was admitted before the campus visit. So, almost impossible to generalize.

I'm familiar with Uli and replication issues generally. I don't respect how he decided to rank everything from people to programs to journals, with the implication that there's something sketchy captured by his index, without subjecting his methods to peer review. My point about Rushton, which I admit was a deliberate jab, is that he is pretty widely considered a racist but even when he was alive I wouldn't have told people to avoid your program because the other people there are great. (Without divulging too much, I have personal connections to the program.) So, avoid "people" whose work is being questioned I can agree with but "places" is a real stretch. To be frank, if a student wants to be even wiser and has a good enough record to be choosy, they shouldn't work with anybody who's a real "new methods" zealot either. They might end up running registered replications for five years and never develop an independent program of research. e.g., to steal your line I wouldn't touch Uli with a ten mile pole.

Even taking your accusations about John Bargh at face value for sake of argument, one poor professor doesn't ruin a department and Yale's SP area is full of luminaries. Or should people make the same 'throw the baby out with the bathwater' argument about, say, J. Philippe Rushton?