lewin

For the youngins-- SSHRC used to be a two stage process where (1) each institution picked its best applicants to forward to SSHRC then (2) SSHRC gave awards to the best applicants that they could take up anywhere. Usually it was hard to get out of your school, but if you got to Ottawa the funding rate was > 80% (for MA's). When I applied for graduate school I wrote in my statement, "My SSHRC was forwarded to the the national competition," and POIs knew that I would probably arrive with money. This made me look like a better candidate, because I was cheaper and because getting money once increases the likelihood of getting it again. It also gave me flexibility because I knew that money was less of a determining factor in where I could go. Forgive me if I get some details wrong on the new process because I don't follow so closely anymore, I just hear secondhand from people in my lab. It seems that now the university can say, "We want this person to come, let's give them the SSHRC." That's not bad--money is money!--but there were already other means of doing this like entrance scholarships. SSHRC was unique because it gave agency to the applicants.

I've said this before, but this change in rules is terrible. Instead of a feather in an applicant's cap, SSHRC has become a recruiting tool for institutions.

pshawwww those two are only the tops because everest college went bankrupt. That place was much prestige, so academy. Wow.

McGill is a great school but, let's be honest, only Harvard is Harvard. Does anywhere else have a $36 billion endowment? And when the Simpsons makes fun of your slogan, maybe it needs some re-thinking... All that said, there may be specific fields where some McGill program is better than some Harvard program. So the question would be-- better at researching what?

Great advice already above, but just as analogy -- doing well in psych courses, working in a lab, conducting independent research -- these are the equivalent of 'knowing how to play' in psychology. Doing well at the GRE is more like demonstrating that you know how to read sheet music and, as far as psych goes, you haven't even really picked up an instrument yet.... which isn't going to get you into the orchestra. Here's one option that hasn't come up yet, though it might be more challenging. Others have pointed out that you don't stack up (yet) relative to traditional applicants using traditional admissions criteria, but you might get lucky just acknowledging that and pitching yourself as a completely different type of MA student. For example, I know someone who is a retired police officer and always wanted to do an master's related to policing/psychology. He convinced a professor who studies stereotyping to take him on and they did an MA project together that this prof would never have been able to do without having access to the student's former police contacts. That is, the student didn't have a psych background but he had other skills that were useful--i.e., lots of experience in the context they wanted to study. I recently saw some research looking at spaced vs. massed acquisition of motor skills and they used piano playing. You could find things like that, where you can research something that other applicants can't, because of your music background. This might require reaching out informally or using your personal networks instead of going the traditional application route.

They've got a ridiculously good intergroup relations group there so I echo the congrats! The only downside is that I hear it's hard to go jogging because of the altitude

I'm way outside your field but of the opinion that it's best to submit to the best possible journal that you can. You have some time, so what's the harm if it's rejected from a great journal or two in the meantime? Submit to the lesser known journal as a plan B or C. As to your question about being an undergrad or MA student when you submit it, my vote is that it doesn't make a difference. It's impressive to have one's undergrad work published, but when you submit it doesn't seem important.

You could create a measurement model in AMOS that could account for the dependency in the data (i.e., that each set is nested within scenario). I can't for the life of me remember how to set up EFA in AMOS though, it's more intuitively able to do CFA. Which type are you doing? For CFA I suspect you'd specify the factors as latent variables with paths to the items, and the paths constrained to be equal across scenarios (e.g., item 1 always has the same path estimate, i.e., relationship with factor(s), across the 5 scenarios).

It's been pointed out that this isn't an either/or question. I'm reminded of this scene from the big bang theory. Everyone with a master's degree has a master's thesis so it's no big deal. But not everybody with a master's has a published thesis, so that'll carry a lot more weight. If the question were "What's better, a master's degree or a published paper?" that's a more complicated question.

I had to think long and hard to come up with ANY single author papers that weren't review papers, much less papers by junior people. The only ones that came to mind were secondary correlational analyses of large datasets (i.e., could be done by one person), and maybe one or two in personality psychology that were, e.g., factor analyses of large datasets. I just don't think that's how empirical psychology works nowadays, or most science. If anything, single authorship is becoming less of a thing, not more--as research requires more specialized equipment, funding, or interdisciplinary expertise, collaboration is becoming more common. I see you're in quant, could this be a quant thing?

"All US schools", really? I don't mean to be harsh here, but that's really American-centric and shows that you're not familiar with the reputations of social psych programs more broadly. The Canadian social psychology programs at UBC, Toronto, and Waterloo are among the top social programs in North America. Edit to add because you referenced the GRE: everyone in my year scored 99th percentile on the psych GRE and mostly above 90 or 95th on the parts of the general. I'm realizing this post might come off as defensive, but, yes, I was slightly peeved at the implications from a few posters that Canadian schools are less selective and particularly this quote.

Yes, I ended up at a Canadian program, but I applied in the U.S. too and by "top 20" I meant of all North American social psychology programs (according to a recent ranking of research influence in PSPB). So I didn't mean my statement to apply to Canada only. To be clear, I also had 3 years' lab experience, great stats background, kick ass letters, and GRE scores above 95th percentile in all categories. To reply to some of the more recent comments... - your institution definitely matters because people will assume you had better training at a (perceived to be) better school. - the reputation and network of your referees matters because people will give more weight to people whose opinion they trust - none of these things are unique to academia. Getting a real job is all about prestige and networking too.

I think I misinterpreted this sentence to mean that the internship was online too. Otherwise, I also think that personal contact with and mentorship from faculty is much more important at the graduate than undergraduate level. Though I'm in experimental not clinical so I don't have direct knowledge here.

I'm not saying you're mistaken, but it just seem so hard to believe that standards have increased that much in the few years since I applied. I had two posters, no publications, and was accepted at three top 20 programs.

How is someone supposed to learn the practical interpersonal skills required to be a counsellor or social worker from an online course? I just don't see how that's possible. IMO, good impulse to be skeptical.

Trust that judgment because I think it would come off that way You haven't completed the TA yet so it doesn't count and, even if it were done, TA experience doesn't really matter (unless maybe it's stats, because it shows you know stats)... honestly most profs don't care if you can TA and the most important TA skill is maintaining boundaries so it doesn't suck up all your time.

Then I think we're agreeing? My point was that exceeding the minimum requirements is no assurance of admission and, in this particular case, it sounds like your cultural background was an asset because it was relevant to the research. Seeing it that was isn't an indication of subjectivity or capriciousness in the process. It's the same as if one said, "They weren't really interested in me until they found out I had fMRI experience and they want to use fMRI."

I definitely only meant my comments to apply to this specific situation (researching a particular population, having experience with that population). Sexism, on the other hand, is odious behaviour that shouldn't occur though of course it too often does.

This isn't being chosen because of your ethnicity; it's being chosen because you have a set of skills relevant to their research that other candidates might lack, and seems perfectly reasonable. If their research weren't cultural this shouldn't matter. Without seeing the qualifications of the other candidates, one really can't say whether the admissions standards have been exceeded or not. The website requirements are usually a really low bar.

Many places only send out formal rejections after all offers have been accepted or rejected, either on the off chance they have to go back to the pool or because they're busy. Businesses work this way too.

They are always late and, unless things have changed, mail the results... using letters!

There's nobody else you can ask to cover? If one of my RA's said "We have these participants and they're my priority, but here's what I was invited to..." I would definitely take those shifts if I could.

As an applicant, grad students were very helpful to me. As a grad student, I was always happy to answer incoming students' questions. So fire away!

Could be budget related. There was a few years ago where a bunch of UC schools didn't take anybody, or maybe like one student, because the system was in shambles.

Second this, especially point 1. Succeeding at these things is an achievement, getting the chance to do them is not. (to be blunt) I disagree that it couldn't hurt; it could make the OP look like they're grasping at straws for things to add.