lewin

NYU's MA program is general and there is no financial support. Obviously it's up to you, but I would not go into $50k of debt for a MA. Should you publish? Yes. This is more important than anything. Of course, easier said than done... GRE/GPA? Not priority. Your GRE scores are great. You want to do reasonably well in your classes but research is about 10x as important. Connections/sucking up? Sure, but again easier said than done. It can't hurt to introduce yourself to somebody at a conference so that they (might) remember your face and name, but chances for this are often few and far between. And there's a thin line between sucking up and being obsequious and irritating. I'm not sure what you mean by doing something "extra" during your MA. The point of a research-based MA is to refine your ideas, (ideally) get some of them published somewhere, and demonstrate your research acumen/independence. It's not extra; it's the whole reason for doing it.

Great points by both posters. The psychologists around here joke that sociology has all these grand theories but they can't predict how people will act in any given situation. You say psychology is "narrow", they'd say it's "precise".

AMOS is also handy to learn, if you know the more complex stats that it can perform (Structural Equation Modelling, Hierarchical Linear Modelling, etc.). I second the above: SPSS, SAS, R. Excel is really handy too, not for stats but for graphing and editing data. SPSS's data editor stinks.

Good lord, what subdiscipline is this person in? In mine, social, that would be impossible because of lag times in peer review and publication. Many assistant professors don't have that many publications. And I agree with you: Sometimes with undergrads professors will throw them authorship because of the perception that it will help them a lot at that stage in their career, even if their contribution wasn't especially significant. For everybody else: There are always outliers; do not compare yourself to somebody with 11 pubs.

I wouldn't recommend emailing your POI's unless there is specific reason to do so, such as a deadline associated with one offer while you're still waiting to hear back from a school you want more. (Assuaging your anxiety does not fall in this category.) A prof might not be annoyed at a single email, but what if he/she gets 40 emails? That's irritating and unnecessary. They have until April to send offers, so it's best to forget about it until then.

There's research on this: Subordinates spend much time thinking about their superiors, but superiors spend comparatively little time thinking about their subordinates. Students are outcome-dependent on their professors so it's in students' best interest to know as much as possible about the profs. The reverse is not true. ...that being said, I heard a story of an applicant who told three different schools that he was "definitely" going to attend there. The potential advisors knew each other and happened to be discussing incoming students at SPSP. It came out that this student had told all three of them the same thing. They were not pleased. I don't know how the story turned out (i.e., whether he got offers and where he went) but it's not a good impression to make.

Oh no, I feel for you. That's awkward. If it makes you feel better, she may have traded many emails with potential students. Suggestion? Next time lead off with "I applied with you for graduate school and we traded some emails. I heard there were interviews already, but I wanted to introduce myself regardless in case we cross paths in the future..." or something. They need that cue. At SPSP this year I introduced myself to a professor with whom I've actually had a phone conversation and I think they didn't recognize my name until I said "My advisor is so-and-so..."

It can mean different things at different places, but it probably means the professor wants you but doesn't have the authority to make the final decision. Usually all admissions need to be approved (even nominally) by the department and faculty of arts. It's very good news, but you might still be rejected if, say, the department as a whole only gets 5 admissions but 10 profs want students. Then the decision might be out of your prof's hands. The faculty of grad studies usually just reviews to make sure you meet minimal criteria (e.g., gre, gpa) and that there is funding.

I saw on another post you're interested in intergroup stuff. Carolyn Haifer? I've heard lots of good things about her.

Rumor is that their funding is in shambles so don't take it personally if you don't get in.

Baumeister is a contrarian--he said so in a talk this weekend and it's obvious in his writing--so I hope that fits with your temperament. I've also heard he spends like 16 hours a day working.

Good list there. I just wanted to pipe in and say Ross is retiring soon and not taking new students. Spencer and Eibach still are though. PM me if you want details. The Bem paper is really interesting but obviously a little nutty. There have already been numerous failures to replicate his findings and until independent replication happens the paper won't be taken seriously. But it was a good read -- Bem literally wrote the book on "writing the empirical journal article".

Ha, are you interested in existential stuff? I am going to guess that for the last three schools you applied to Schimel, Heine, and McGregor. That is just a wild guess and if I'm right then I must have ESP.

I only have a minute to post here but you're right, I was somewhat uncharitable on those points. You make some great points in the rest of your post too, and I'll try to reply later.

You seem like a great person with strong credentials in your area. So please don't take this post personally. I have a comparable CV in psychology. I've read a reasonable amount of popular physics, even string theory (e.g., Brian Greene's work). Yet is there ANY physics PhD program that would give my application a second look? What is it about psychology that makes people think they can apply to a PhD program--a place for advanced study--without a single course in that area? I'm sorry if this sounds dismissive but it rips me that people think my field is something that can be picked up in one's spare time. Maybe this is something specific to evolutionary psychology. As a subfield, compared to other areas, it can be a bit quirky.

I don't know much about how an American MA in clinical psychology would be viewed by Canadian PhD programs, but there is a reason why there are few terminal-MA's in clinical psychology here. In almost all provinces you are legally prohibited from calling yourself a "psychologist" unless you have a PhD in clinical psychology. The PhD's really dominate the professional organizations (e.g., CPA) and they want to keep the "brand" of psychologists to mean someone with a PhD, not a MA, MFT, MSW, etc.

A few resources... Your best bet is the CPA guide to Canadian graduate programs: http://www.cpa.ca/cpasite/userfiles/Documents/Graduate%20Guide%202009-2010.pdf There's a 2010 PSPB (Nosek et al.) that ranks social psychology graduate programs (U.S. and Canada) by research productivity. A 2005 American Psychologist (Norcross et al.) gives stats for U.S. psychology programs by subject area, but not broken down by university. ...and looking at that first link I'm glad I didn't go into clinical psych. The acceptance rate at my university last year was 3%. Wow.

Sorry, I should have been clearer. I don't think you're trying to get bad grades but that if you're self-aware enough to see that they're a real possibility it might make more sense to plan on how to avoid the problem instead of fixing it later. That's all I meant. The position was in the program evaluation department of a social services agency. I did stats and wrote reports on outcome measures. This place had an informal arrangement where they hired students each year and I heard about the job through a professor that I knew (from doing well in her class).

If you're open to a fifth year and are having trouble getting good grades, one possibility is to take fewer courses each year. You'll have more time to focus on each one and get good grades on the first try. You can also use that extra time to get clinically relevant work experience. It's a bit worrisome that you're already anticipating bad grades. Wouldn't it make more sense to set things up NOW so that you're able to succeed? If a full course load is too much, cut down. I finished my BA in five years, taking a 60% course load in the last two years. I had lots of time to focus on each class and get good grades, and worked half-time as a clinical research assistant. Happy endings all around.

I hope you are independently wealthy because it's expensive. I applied for the PhD at NYU and, as a consolation prize, got admittance to the MA program. The MA program has no funding and tuition is about $25,000/year. My advice is to find a funded program.

That is probably true. I think the external, government funding that many students have (from SSHRC, NSERC, and CIHR) is only available to permanent residents and citizens. If I remember right, UBC had some entrance scholarships too. At my school we increase the funding for international students to make up for the increased tuition that they pay, so that net income is the same as domestic students. The biggest funding differences are at the faculty level. I hear it's really hard to get an NIMH grant in social psychology basic research. It's relatively easier to get a SSHRC. So partly what I meant earlier is that you're probably more likely to have an advisor who has a major grant and can pay for research, travel, etc. Do you mind saying with whom you applied at UBC?

Just thought I'd point out that many Canadian universities have January deadlines. Anybody heading north? The funding climate for social psychology is often much better than in the States. Or, any Canadians already here?

Harvard and WashU definitely do interviews. I don't know about the others. Some places to a brief phone interview, then invite for a campus visit. My school accepts people outright, then invites them for a campus visit.

I mean, places might vary so I don't want to judge your individual situation, but it can be fraught with trouble. This is getting off topic now, but work is supposed be work, and it gets weird when social aspects are mixed into the workplace. Employees--who presumably make less money--may not want spend on somebody who makes much more than they do. But they are pressured to do so because of the boss-employee power imbalance. What if Jane gives a present but Bob doesn't, then Jane gets that February promotion? This creates a coercive situation. If any presents are given it should be FROM the boss TO the employees. And this present should be in the form of a cheque. Grad school is ambiguous because your advisor is kind of a boss, yet kind of not.

SPSP is good times.