lewin

Maybe traditions are different in your department, but I wouldn't get your advisor anything. I got mine a bottle of wine after my MA defence and once after he wrote a bunch of reference letters for me. I follow the same rule as any other workplace: Subordinates shouldn't buy their bosses gifts.

An applied degree will not help you get into a PhD program as much as a research-based degree will. PhD programs will want to see that you have written a thesis. Also, I think many programs would rather see a general social psychology degree than something so specific--and, dare I say, "trendy"--as positive psychology. Just my opinion.

See--and this is just my personal opinion--that's why I think entrance scholarships are disregarded by reviewers: Everybody knows that, to some extent, they're a bribe attempt, not something that one gets after a serious competition (like SSHRC and OGS).

I'm a PhD student in a top 25 program. We admitted somebody with an MA last year, but I have no information other than that. But let's reason this through: In what ways could an MA be a liability? First, if it signals a downward trajectory. If one's BA is from Yale, then MA is from Podunk College of Idaho, it raises the question, "Why?" It suggests that student couldn't succeed in a rigorous program and had lower their standards, or that the student couldn't get into a more prestigious program. For the OP, the thing to avoid is looking like the local MA was his/her only choice. That also looks like a "downward" move. Don't say: "I needed to bulk up my experience in order to get into graduate school." Instead, say: I was really interested in the work I began during my BA and wanted the opportunity to see some of those projects through and, as a graduate student, increase my direct involvement in the research." Second, if the MA suggests a lack of direction. If one's BA is in psychology but the MA is in underwater basketweaving, it might be harder to convince PhD programs that one is, now, really interested in psychology. If a student misjudged his/her interests once already, it might happen again. Hard to say because programs rarely report that information. Maybe you could elaborate on what you mean by "excellent stats" and "a research agenda". People in my program often have psychology GRE's > 95th percentile, general GRE's > 1300, > 3.5 GPA, 2-3 years research assistant experience (sometimes a full-time year post-BA), and maybe a couple conference posters. Probably half arrive with government fellowship funding. I don't know how that compares to other places. The tangible things on your CV (e.g., GRE scores, grades, recommendation letters, experience) will get your application reviewed by a prof. What eventually gets you in the door, however, is often good fit with your potential advisor. Profs think about what research direction they want to take in the next five years and admit somebody who seems to have interests similar to that. Let's say they get a grant for a particular idea--they'll look for a grad student who can help them on that idea.

I agree with everything LJK said. That is what I meant about applying to both types of programs: Apply to your local MA and to a few PhD programs. The only harm is time and application costs. If you get into a PhD now, then great! If not, stay and do the MA. One thing they say is that you shouldn't do ALL your degrees at one institution. Somebody who does a BA, MA, and PhD at the same place doesn't look well-rounded. It makes one suspicious that the student can't flourish in another environment where people might do things differently. Going to different universities shows that you can cope in different settings where people have different expectations. (An exception to this rule is if your graduate program is well known as the best in its area. If you're already at the best place, why move?) In social, ten months will not get you a publication unless you are the type who works 16-hour days or craps horseshoes. Even assuming your first studies all produce significant and interesting findings, most social journals have a 3-6 month review/resubmission process. The ones with shorter review times (e.g., Psychological Science) have high rejection rates (~90%). BUT, it could get you started on something that produces a publication in the first year or two of your PhD.

My lay opinion is that an MA is generally helpful, but here are some scenarios where I think it might NOT be helpful, in order of descending importance: 1. Your MA major is completely unrelated to your proposed PhD. When applying to PhD's, a lot goes into convincing them that you have a persevering interest in the proposed topic, so you won't get bored after a year or two and drop out. Studying one thing in undergrad, then another at the MA-level, then a third for PhD might make you seem indecisive or unable to follow-through. Every time you change career directions you'll have to justify it later. 2. Your undergrad institution is really prestigious but your MA institution is middling. It shouldn't look like you're on a downward trajectory. 3. The PhD institution, for some reason, wants to train their graduates from scratch and doesn't like people who might have learned it "wrong" in their MA. I think this is more urban legend than fact. My advice? Why not apply to, say, five PhD programs and three MA programs. If you get in, great! If not, the MA is a backup. In your case the MA might be a significant advantage because, if you have little psychology experience, getting your feet wet with a MA might show PhD programs that you're serious about studying psychology.

A PhD is a research based degree where you also learn to practice. A PsyD is practice-based. You could check with specific places, but generally PhD degrees follow the scientist-practitioner model and PsyD's are more likely to follow the Practitioner-scholar model. Wikipedia has articles on both of those models. Do you like research? Then a PhD might be for you. Both can lead to clinical practice but a PhD might leave open more career options (e.g., university teaching).

My department does this (though I think they're due at the same time). As above, the university application ensures you meet bare minimums (e.g., GPA, GRE scores) and the department makes the real decision based on general qualifications and specific fit with the department. I would be surprised if you need to send official GRE scores twice, though you might need to list them on both applications. Check the requirements carefully: You can only send the scores twice if they have two different institution/destination codes... assuming that ETS hasn't changed how they do this recently.

Yup, exactly what I mean. I just meant to address fluttering's post that Canadian universities won't care about GRE scores. They do. (For European/Australian schools, I have no idea.)

Columbia Dartmouth Harvard Northwestern NYU Ohio State U of British Columbia U of Toronto U of Waterloo U of Waterloo WashU

To be pedantic, Canada is not overseas. And as a Canadian attending a Canadian school, I would say they do care about GRE scores. Most programs that I applied to required both general and subject GRE scores. Though anecdotally I've heard that American schools weight GRE scores more heavily; with so many applicants they need something to thin the herd.

Wanted to second this. I know somebody involved in NSERC reviews and, at a certain point, they look for ANY excuse to eliminate proposals, which includes not following instructions and sometimes even spelling mistakes (if they suggested sloppiness). "Worst case" is not being ignored, worst case is getting dropped from the competition.

Applied to 11 programs, social psychology/social neuroscience. Four offers.

Also 99th percentile here, as a psych major. I used the Kaplan and Princeton Review books, and re-read my introductory psych textbook. It was probably a month of studying (a few nights a week, a few hours a night) in preparation. Without a background in psych it will take more than that.

I suppose it's a judgment call but, yes, I was very clear it was declined. It sounds like your fellowship was more money, but my reasoning for listing OGS was: (1) reviewers will recognize the scholarship and know what it takes to get one and (2) it's a provincial/national level competition, thus prestigious. With a university-specific fellowship it's less likely the reviewers will recognize the name and know what the competition entails.

The answer to this really depends on your individual institution. You should check with your graduate program administrator or a trusted faculty member (e.g., professor responsible graduate studies in your department). Another way of getting your feet wet in social psychology might be to find a faculty member whose interests overlap with yours and begin a second line of research with that person. That way you can see whether you are actually interested in this second area. If I were a faculty member I would be reluctant to take-on a graduate student unless I knew they actually liked my area, and weren't just motivated to get away from where they are currently.

I wouldn't list those kinds of fellowships, but I did list a masters OGS that I declined in favour of a SSHRC.

I'm not in that grad program, but I know the faculty have a great reputation, with lots of emphasis on social cognition. If you don't get into the (funded) PhD program they might offer admission to the (non-funded) "MA in general psychology" program. Personally I'd stay away from that.

If you're interested in tobacco research the University of Waterloo has a big health psychology lab in its social psychology area. Most people enter the PhD program but an MA is possible too. There's also a Masters of Public Health. I also echo schoolpsych_hopeful - depending on what you want to do a MA in social psychology may not be that directly useful.

There are so many people with PhD's looking for jobs right now that with "only" a masters one isn't competitive.

I'm in a social PhD program, doing some prejudice stuff actually. I agree with Spunky, your grades are probably just too low. Sometimes people have a low average in their first year or two, then increase their grades when they become motivated and focus their interests. This can be okay because at least it is an upward trajectory. Unfortunately, your transcript is the opposite: it shows difficulty handling more advanced courses. (FYI, grad schools will ask for a transcript from every school you attended, so it doesn't really "reset" by switching schools.) Did you complete an honours thesis? This is a good way to demonstrate research acumen and it's almost impossible to get into graduate school without a thesis. More to the point, completing a thesis gives you a chance to see whether you like doing research. Social-personality programs are about 80% research, and it's impossible to say whether you'll like research (or be good at it) without getting your feet wet doing an honours thesis. Most people I know also did 1-3 years as a research assistant. Did you take honours-level statistics and methods courses? Stats are important and grad schools especially want to see good grades here. For the GRE, you should aim for the highest score possible. Ideally this would be the 80th percentile, but less isn't necessarily an application-killer. Keep in mind that schools receive all of your scores from the past five years, not just the most recent set or an average. So don't re-take the GRE's unless you are confident you'll get a better score. One bad set of scores suggests a bad day, two bad sets suggest a trend... (Also, American schools care about the GRE more than Canadian schools.) May I ask: How in the world did you finish college at 17? Being young isn't a problem per se, but IS a problem to the extent that your grades suggest you weren't ready to handle university-level material. In fact, it might be an advantage if you can show steady improvement from now on. You could argue that your record at 17 isn't reflective of what you can accomplish now at 20.

This. The purpose of your affiliation is to tell people where they can find you. You wouldn't list an old address, would you

No offence, my first suggestion is to calm down and get rid of the attitude. Your disdain for your professors and fellow students pervades each post and I'm sure they can sense it in person. If you were this hysterical and arrogant in the Dean's office then it's no wonder she kicked you out. If I can interpret what you're saying, it's that your program was supposed to be 15 months but you've been there for three years due to bureaucratic delays. Why have you put up with this for so long? Does every student take three years to finish? My suggestions are: (1) Organize your fellow students (if you haven't already alienated them) and work up a group statement. Request that faculty meet with your group, then move up the hierarchy in sequence. The administration is more likely to respond to a collective concern. Consider going to the media. (2) Failing that, get the heck out and find another program that is organized enough to graduate students in a timely fashion. (By the way, it's spelled "imbecile", something you should know with your apparently stratospheric IQ and "strive".)

I'm not in engineering so things may be different there, but in my discipline it would be a huge mistake (perhaps impossible) to attempt a switch. Practically speaking, you're "employed" by the person/grant who is providing you funding. Depending on Cornell's rules, leaving his lab may mean losing the GRA. You may have to secure funding from another person (or pay out of pocket) if you don't want to work with your original adviser. A better option might be checking whether there is flexibility to do different research (i.e., something more interesting to you) while still being advised by this person. There is another, more political issue: If you weren't interested in working with this person you shouldn't have accepted the offer from him. It's disingenuous to accept as a "back door" into the program intending to switch advisors immediately. Quite likely, trying to switch will ruin your relationship with that adviser and harm your reputation within the department. Or am I missing something here? Doing this seems like a huge mistake.

In my own experience the relationship with one's advisor is incredibly important, maybe the most predictor of success in graduate school. If you had other acceptances the decision would be much easier: drop this person and choose another school. That being said, is it better to take a chance with this person than be an RA for another year? Hard to say. You might arrive and mesh with this person, or succeed in spite of him/her. If somebody is known to be difficult, that person's students get extra credit for surviving. Another thing to consider is that politically it's bad to reject a school in this way (i.e., instead of rejecting so you can attend somewhere else). They will probably wonder why you applied in the first place if you were going to end up rejecting them. Academics is a small world. This isn't a reason in itself to go, but something to be aware of. I would talk to a trusted faculty member (honours advisor?) rather than us on this board.