lewin

Want a good paying job right after undergrad? Take a bachelor of nursing... RN's make $65k straight out. But seriously, if you're interested in HR then Waterloo also has a human resources management program. I don't know much about it, but it may be worth checking out. I don't recall what area of psych you mentioned, but at Waterloo social and clinical are particularly strong.

I also want to add that I have a BA but still took lots of physiological and neuroscience courses.

Im starting a phd program in the fall but Im actually clueless about how the program works, so I decided to post anonymously on this forum.

My Situation:
-I want to "be a sociologist"
-I have interests and passions in the field, although more general than specific
-Im starting a phd program in sociology in a "good program," which has been described to me as "very competitive"
-My expectations of myself in the first year of the program: work diligently, develop relationships with faculty and my cohort, begin to narrow my interests/focus of study

My Question:
-How many classes per semester does a phd student take? Or at least, how many classes per semester for a first year student?
-How does a student get a TA or RA? Are they typically for students who receive funding? (I have no funding). What if I want one for the experience?
-What should my schedule look like as a first year? Mixture of class and TA/RA or just class?
-If you have any advice for a first year student, I would be very happy to hear it, especially in terms of finding an area of study and producing quality work

Thank you for taking the time to read and answer!

However, let's say that next year, enrollment increases so that all class sizes increase by some small percentage. To use some concrete numbers, there used to be 500 students taking Basketweaving (BW) 101 and 10 TAs are assigned to grade assignments and run tutorials for BW101. Next year, for some reason, there is a 10% overall increase in freshman student population (perhaps the University is expanding), so now there are 550 students in BW 101.

To keep the same TA:student ratio, BW 101 now needs 11 TAs. The BW department can't just move a TA from another course to BW101 because enrollment has increased across the board. So, without free TAs, the department has two choices:

1) Spend the same budget on TAs so now each of the 10 TAs for BW101 has a higher workload. This means they either have to work more hours for the same pay (i.e. a pay cut), or spend less time on each student, which results in decreased education quality for BW101 students.
or
2) Plan for these increases by increasing their budget accordingly, which may include increasing graduate student class size etc. so that they have 11 TAs available for BW101, or paying the current 10 TAs more to cover the additional hours of work. Basically, in order to teach more students at the same quality of education, they have to spend more.

But with free TAs, the department can just get someone to work as the 11th TA for free. So now the school/department gets the best of both worlds: they increase their income and "production" (more students = more tuition collected = more graduates etc.) without having to pay for it. They don't have to pay for it because TAs are willing to work for free and absorb the cost for the school. Even though the need for TAs are growing, they don't have to grow their employees -- their current grad students can just work harder.

This is a serious issue and some of the financial offers I had this year had many strange clauses because of things related to this. For example, one place said that I would be expected to TA for X amount of courses because that is where my stipend money is coming from. That's fine. But then it says, if I choose to TA further courses, I would "get to" keep half of the extra money paid to me for that TAship (they would decrease some other part of stipend equal to the other half of my TAship). Another school said that although I will have TA contracts with X hours to work per term, my course supervisor will ignore those numbers and I'd be expected to work as much as the supervisor expects.

It might even one day become the expectation that "good" students will always volunteer to TA for free (or work more hours than they are paid for). If you don't, then you aren't considered a student who is serious about education. If you don't, then you won't get a good LOR for your post-docs. If you don't, your relationship with the department or your PhD committee could be strained.

I feel that by working for free, you are lowering the working conditions for both yourself and your peers and devaluing your skills. You may contribute to preventing future graduate student positions from opening up. You are allowing the department/University to get the benefits of additional graduate student labour without paying for it (or to spend it on something else instead). But, this free labour may not even benefit your department -- if the University sees that fewer paid TA positions are needed for your department, instead of spending money in your department to deal with larger class sizes, the University can spend that money elsewhere.

I wouldn't take the test lightly, even if you were someone who majored in psychology. You'll need a good refresher across a large range of topics. I followed the advice a reviewer gave on amazon.com. They were reviewing one of the standard study guides and said it was good as a study guide, but not specific enough to be any good by itself.

She recommended grabbing an older edition intro to psych book:

http://www.amazon.com/Psychology-Seventh-Gleitman-Gross-D-Reisberg/dp/B007ZY6P76/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1336223927&sr=1-5

and working through it section by section. She used one of the standard psych subject test GRE prep books for review. I followed her advice and studied for it over 6 weeks. I basically ended up reading most of the textbook in detail and then used the prep book as she suggested.

She scored in the 98th percentile I believe. I was in the 95th percentile.

In my department anybody with a part time job wouldn't be making "satisfactory progress". Studies are expected to take up all your time, minus reasonable leisure. If you have time to work at a coffee shop you have time to do more research.

Edit to add: Eigen's comment is exactly what I meant, but worded better: "The point is that you could be making *more* progress on any of your other work if you aren't working an outside job, since that time can be devoted to work instead. This doesn't apply in the same way to other "free-time" activitites, that are required for a healthy, happy and holistic life. No one begrudges you for having a life outside the lab, but if you're going to be working anywhere, it should be on your research."

In my department anybody with a part time job wouldn't be making "satisfactory progress". Studies are expected to take up all your time, minus reasonable leisure. If you have time to work at a coffee shop you have time to do more research.

Edit to add: Eigen's comment is exactly what I meant, but worded better: "The point is that you could be making *more* progress on any of your other work if you aren't working an outside job, since that time can be devoted to work instead. This doesn't apply in the same way to other "free-time" activitites, that are required for a healthy, happy and holistic life. No one begrudges you for having a life outside the lab, but if you're going to be working anywhere, it should be on your research."

^^ There can be rare exceptions to this. If your program is the top in its subfield nobody would blame you for sticking around; they know there are no better opportunities elsewhere.

So I am coming up to the deadline (4/15) for notifying grad school of my response to their offer of admission & would love any advice you're willing to provide...

Here is the deal:
I applied to 3 clinical psy schools this last year (Pacific University PsyD, University of Washington, PhD, and University of Oregon, PhD).
Results: Pacific- Accepted; UofO- Alternate list and later rejected; UofW- rejected
Here is where you (hopefully) come in:
Do I accept the PsyD offer (even though I am not super stoked about it and don't want to accrue more debt) or do I wait another year & apply to a bunch more schools, hoping for better results?

Here are my stats:
Graduating with an M.S. in Counseling Psychology (emphasis in addiction processes)
Thesis was a pilot study measuring the efficacy of a non-profit program I developed
Clinical experience: Full-time therapist
Research: 4 different projects and my thesis
Presentations: 5 presentations including ACA conference
Masters GPA: 4.0
GRE: Horrifyingly low... Verbal: 158 (80th %), Quant: 145 (below 50th), Writing: 3.0 (11th)...

Do you think it is even possible (likely rather) that I will be offered admission to Clinical Psy PhD program with scores that low? Do you think it is wise to decline the PsyD offer for something that is not guaranteed to happen in the future (fully funded PhD offer)?

PLEASE HELP!

Whoa...

Okay while it's a very important thing to get a diverse experience and education, not everyone who stays at the same institution is guilty of that extensive list posted above there!! I agree that if you are trying to learn as much as possible and trying to become a leader in your field, you should avoid "academic inbreeding". I think Universities prefer to hire people with a wide breadth of experience and can bring in new/fresh ideas, so it would be hard to get a tenure track position at the same University where one does both their undergrad and PhD.

That said, there are lots of legitimate reasons to stay at the same institution/lab. If I was told right now that if I went back to my UG institution for my PhD and I would be guaranteed some non tenure-track, research assistant type permanent position at the same school after graduation, I'd take the offer right away. I know one guy who has been in the same lab for ~19 years now (UG, PhD, Postdocs, now research staff) and he's happy since he can raise a family in a city he loves.

Just because someone chooses to prioritize things other than career development when making decisions doesn't mean that they are automatically lazy, unintelligent, cowardly, sleeping with the faculty, etc.

^^ There can be rare exceptions to this. If your program is the top in its subfield nobody would blame you for sticking around; they know there are no better opportunities elsewhere.

^^ There can be rare exceptions to this. If your program is the top in its subfield nobody would blame you for sticking around; they know there are no better opportunities elsewhere.

The short version is that you're airing your department's dirty laundry (tension between a graduate student and a professor) out of house. This practice is a good way to burn bridges while you're standing on them. Some of the most important instruction you'll receive will take place after professors have determined that you can keep your mouth shut. (That is, they won't show you where the bodies are buried until they know you can be trusted.) By talking about this issue outside of your department, you've planted a seed for gossip that, if it takes root, is unlikely to bear fruit that has any nourishment for you.

The fact that you've disclosed this issue to an undergraduate who most likely does not have the expertise nor influence to help you resolve your issue adds another level to the risk you've taken.

In my experience, each graduate program has at least one professor who has earned the reputation for being the fixer of students' problems. If you cannot find a way to talk directly to the professor with whom you're having difficulties, find and talk to the fixer.

HTH.

And see, in my department, if we asked we'd probably be told it was fine to get a job teaching labs across town, assuming we framed it properly.

TakeruK:

You seem to be mixing two issues consistently. One is having a life while in a PhD program- most places, this is perfectly acceptable, and quite often encouraged. The other is working a side job while in a PhD program.

The issue isn't how much time you work vs. what you do in your free time, but rather how you split up your "working" time. And it's often based on the understanding that you really only have so many productive hours of energy in a day. If you're going to be expending energy working, then it should be on your PhD. In other words, working a second job isn't considered a "free-time" activity.

There's also the idea that you should be working primarily to build up your CV. Most advisors really care that you go on to do pretty well in the field, because it shows them in a good light, and is kind of the point of getting a PhD. Volunteering, teaching, and even "service" (committees, etc) are all part of that. It's not the most important part of your CV (your publications and research are), but it's definitely a plus.

Working waiting tables, on the other hand, isn't downtime, and doesn't contribute to your CV. Basically, even raising a family or spending time with your spouse, is an activity that is seen as being beneficial to your life long term, while a side-job really isn't.

NOTHING wrong with a side job. In fact, I think it is good for your wallet *and* your mind. I really want a part-time job (even though I am fully funded) to bring in some extra cash and help me manage my time. There is nothing wrong with a waitress, retail, library, coffee shop, whatever job as long as it doesn't take over your study time.

Your initial conversation seems odd but I wasn't there. It's hard to say what you were doing that might have appeared flippant or joking.

It seems to me that she's harder on you in class because you're a grad student and the others are undergrads. Maybe the others need more encouragement to contribute. High expectations are good, and your paper mark suggests that you're meeting them. And her telling you that you should read the articles in depth is pretty mild criticism. The big indicator that she likes you (or at least respects you) is that research position. Advisors don't hire researchers they don't like, so to me that overshadows anything else that might be odd about your interactions.

My snap judgement is that maybe you're being a bit thin-skinned. Learning how to take criticism is a big part of graduate school because it happens constantly. Your advisor isn't your friend and doesn't have to be nice, especially because she's rewarding you where it counts (grades, opportunities).

Your initial conversation seems odd but I wasn't there. It's hard to say what you were doing that might have appeared flippant or joking.

It seems to me that she's harder on you in class because you're a grad student and the others are undergrads. Maybe the others need more encouragement to contribute. High expectations are good, and your paper mark suggests that you're meeting them. And her telling you that you should read the articles in depth is pretty mild criticism. The big indicator that she likes you (or at least respects you) is that research position. Advisors don't hire researchers they don't like, so to me that overshadows anything else that might be odd about your interactions.

My snap judgement is that maybe you're being a bit thin-skinned. Learning how to take criticism is a big part of graduate school because it happens constantly. Your advisor isn't your friend and doesn't have to be nice, especially because she's rewarding you where it counts (grades, opportunities).

I was just picking up what was put down in the OP.

Wow, quoting bible verses on me, huh? I wrote nothing on that eval that I haven't or wouldn't share in person. The problem is that very few people in this world are able to differentiate constructive criticism from destructive, and thus take every form of criticism negative. I am no worse than the people who talk smack about people behind their backs and then do nothing about it. I'd rather be upfront about issues than pretend they don't exist. That's how cancer kills.

With that said, what in my incident would be considered "self-inflicting"? I provided an honest, fair evaluation that many people are unwilling to give anymore because of politics. I did nothing unethical or improper, and I'll sleep easy tonight knowing that. I think if people in this country cut off the brown nosing and were just honest and constructive, we would get back on the right track. Instead, everyone just kisses up to the person above them because they think that's going to get them ahead. Brown-nosing only gets you so far, having skills is what gets you farther.

More and more, I have an issue with graduate students who describe themselves as "character" driven and report their own actions as a reflection of their "honesty," and then chalk up their self-inflicted misfortune to the "politics" of the Ivory Tower, or the ethical and moral failings of their professors.

What does it say about your principles and ethics that you had such strong negative views about a professor but that you were only willing to share your views anonymously and in a way that could cause her profound difficulties? Does your matrix of principles, values, and ethics give you the personal courage to go to a professor during his or her office hours, closing the door, sitting down, and saying "I've got an issue with the way you do X, Y, and Z?" If so, then why did you not take this course of action? In your journey of religious exploration, did you ever happen upon Matthew 7:12?

Or are these questions too political?

You got extra money so you needed fewer loans? That doesn't sound like a problem, it sounds like a windfall! (Though I see the irritation at poor planning.)

So I'll try to address a few of your questions.

The external award: The majority of Canadian universities reduce their internal offer of funding if you get external funding from the government (SSHRC, OGS, Vanier, etc).

Tuition: A normal offer from a Canadian University explicitly states what they will be paying you, no tuition or no other costs deducted yet. So If they give you 40,000, it's 40,000 minus tuition and indicental costs (which you can have HR take off their paycheck every month). Whatever is left over is yours to spend on housing, books, etc. I know in the US sometimes the offer means you don't pay tuition, but you do pay tuition here and your funding is usually higher to allocate for that (especially as an international student - they're trying to make sure your take home pay is comparable to a domestic student's).

First year funding is usually higher than the other years (mostly because of the heavy course load and moving costs). After that that's what you get" a minimum offer. You could end up getting more if they run into more money, but the minimum offer works at a guarantee and helps you to budget accordingly.

The special fellowship for intl students could be of any value. You never know with these endowment awards, so you can just hope you luck out. But even without them the offer you got now is quite reasonable for an intl student. I know it might get tougher after the first year, but at least you can start budgeting now and plan for part-time jobs. (it is quite possible to get an extra RA position from your supervisor if they're doing some SSHRC funded project).

Montreal is a big city so it's expensive, but nowhere close to Toronto or Vancouver expensive. I'd just advise you not too feel very rich with the 40k the first year and save the most you can for rainy days.
Hope this helps.

I think you're misunderstanding me. I never said that prestige was more important than publications or that one can't publish outside the Ivy leage. I only said that--all else equal--somebody will have an easier time getting publications at Harvard than at North Idaho Community College because they'll have more resources, etc. On average.

Not to be cheeky, but you know what correlation means, right? It doesn't mean that prestigious always means productive, or that non-prestigious always means less productive, only that there is an association. Here is one example. Dartmouth College has an fMRI in the basement of the psych building, exclusively for the use of its faculty and students. Compare this to a school with fewer resources who only gets scanner access between 1am and 7am at the hospital an hour away. Wouldn't it be easier to get research done at Dartmouth than at the other place?

I think this is a pretty oversimplified idea of how rankings work...

First off, rankings are an extremely imprecise science. There is no real way to quantify and compare the quality of an academic department. Yes, you can make rough approximations based on a few variables, but no variables are universally agreed upon as markers of quality, and there's definitely no way to decide which variables are the most important, and on and on and on. On top of that, official rankings tend to lag behind widespread perceptions of a program by a few years. And on top of that, the overall ranking of a program may not be the same as a specialty within the department. In other words, a department may be strong overall, but weak in a particular subfield, or weak overall, but exceptionally strong in a particular subfield. In the vast majority of fields, you're really not going to see a huge difference between schools in the top five, and probably ten, when it comes to perceived or actual quality.

It's also a pretty inaccurate portrayal of how admissions decisions get made. Being ranked more highly does not necessarily mean that school is more likely to reject you for many, many reasons. First off, as has been mentioned several times on this thread already, fit for a program is extremely important. You are more likely to get into a highly ranked program if your background, goals, and interests fit the program perfectly than you are to get into a lower ranked program where you're ill-matched. And there are just so many other factors at work: the size of the program and the cohort they admit; networks between your LORs and the profs at your prospective schools; random fluctuations of fate.

Basically, it just doesn't work like that.

In my experiences as a graduate student and from working in the private sector, I have found that if I unintentionally knock over someone's apple cart, putting things right is a good way to demonstrate good faith.
But then, you might be right. I should have just said "chillax" and used the voting buttons. Those two tactics are proven winners in academic settings.

@glf212 It is on you to prove that you did not start this thread so that you can thump your chest while many of your peers are in misery. It is up to you to make things right.

I think getting a debriefing from BU and posting the useful information from that conversation will be a wise move for you at this point and time.