lewin

First, don't panic

It's the start of a new school year, so a good time to make some changes.



I think it's time for some serious introspection. Ask yourself why you're not succeeding academically. This is like keener student 101, but at the minimum you should be attending every class, reviewing class notes regularly, studying for each test over time using distributed learning (not cramming), and not procrastinating assignments. Attend office hours if something doesn't make sense.

How's your time management? Maybe the RA work is taking up too much of your time? Family responsibilities?

I mean, ask yourself these questions--you don't need to tell the forum

Also, stop taking language courses


Transferring won't help because all schools ask for transcripts from every institution you've attended.

People will overlook an occasional oops but forty credit hours suggests a pattern. But it's only second year and not the end of the world; most places will give more weight to your last two years. To pull that off successfully, however, it should be clear that at some point you had an epiphany and were born again, and succeeded brilliantly from that point on. That way you can frame your first year as a lack of motivation or focus that just required a mental adjustment, not a lack of ability. Doing this is easier said than done--it requires you to diagnose the problem (see above), work hard, and improve.

Have you taken social psych? You want to encourage a situational attribution for the first 40 credits, not a dispositional one.



Research experience is awesome but not if it affects your academics. Good grades has to come first because without those it's significantly harder to get in the door.

You can't keep the transcript a secret forever, also because if your relationship with your supervisor is awesome you can use him as damage control. That is, two years from now his reference letter could acknowledge something like "Carly had some trouble adjusting in her first year, but as you can see she got straight A's since then, and she managed to do this while being a research champ in my lab."

Not sure why the downvotes, there is data on this, even if people don't like it. GRE is just as predictive as GPA. In-person interviews (which many people think are predictive) are actually the travesty; they are not predictive beyond the paper record.

With two BIG caveats for the GRE data I've seen:

1. It was produced by ETS and there could be a conflict of interest.

2. It is very hard to measure "graduate success" in a way that is reliable and convenient. The studies I've seen used first-year GPA, which is only a small component of grad school.

This is anecdotal... but I've always heard of studies that have shown of the unimportance of the GRE as a predictor of graduate success
I'm up in Canada though, and I know we probably have slightly different attitudes than America about this

The more Iook at this topic the more I think that this poster should re-take the GREs (whether or not they predict grad success) because it limits the poster's options significantly, and the poster should probably apply to the best fitting schools if they want to go to grad school, right?

You're a graduate student now.

Not an instructor, not an adjunct, and not a professor, for sure.

All three are hired positions *separate* from teaching duties as part of a graduate school assistantship. That makes your official title "Graduate Student" or "Graduate Teaching Assistant". If you want to be formal, you can have your students address you as Mr./Ms., but that's about it.

Even if you used to be an adjunct, I'd think it would be worthwhile changing the page address so it doesn't look like you're overreaching.

GRE is the probably the best predictor of graduate success... what research have you found that shown otherwise?

you'll make it easier if you're organized:

1. Give them plenty of notice--like six weeks.

2. Provide a CV, transcript, and copy of your statement of purpose.

3. Give a clear list with something like: School name, program name, application date, and instructions (e.g., some universities want the writer to sign across the flap, others want the writer to mail it directly). You could even write a one-sentence blurb about each school, like why you find it appealing or who you intend to work with.

4. Provide pre-addressed envelopes.

5. If there is a form to fill out in addition to the letter, complete it as much as you can first (e.g., name, address, program info).

...your letter writers will be in a better mood if they know exactly what to do and don't have to write the school's address 14 times.


ETA: I applied at 11 places and nobody remarked on it.

Bayesians are fun to rile up because they take themselves so seriously. Just like libertarians.

Why? If someone can take advantage of a market inefficiency, that makes him a good consumer.

When the grocery store has a sale on 2 lbs. of sugar for $1, you would seriously argue that I ethically should buy the 6 lb. package for $3.99 instead of 3 2 lb. packages for $3, just in case some guy who only needs 2 lbs. can buy his for $1? Would you also argue I am being dishonest to the store because I really want 6 lbs. of sugar?

Let's say Joe Blow applies to work at Goldman and would prefer to work there, but JP Morgan calls back first and offers $150K to work there as an analyst. Joe Blow should turn down $150K because Goldman is his first choice and some other guy's first choice is to work at JP Morgan? Better yet, if Goldman calls a month after he takes the job at JP Morgan and offers him $160K, he should stay there just because he owes it to the guy who dreamed of working at JP Morgan, or because JP Morgan invested time and money on recruiting and training him?

Lastly: Plenty of people take the NYPD and FDNY tests because, despite being hard - sometimes deadly - jobs that aren't very high paying, they pay a living wage and offer comprehensive benefits. It's a way to feed your family while you wait for something else higher paying or less demanding to become available. Meanwhile some people who dreamed their whole lives of doing these jobs - many times people who would be 4th or 5th generation On The Job - don't score high enough on the test to make the cutoff for the next Academy class. God forbid you were in a burning building, would you want the more capable person - even if it's not his dream job or one he will stay in for more than a couple years - to be your rescuer, or the less capable guy he deferred to because it was the "ethical" thing to do?

That being said, if you really only want a masters and not a phd, you should not use of the slot of someone who is commited to the phd as a point of ethics.

Email your Member of Parliament and tell them to stop cutting funding for basic social science research... then SSHRC would have more money for administrative staff.

Email your Member of Parliament and tell them to stop cutting funding for basic social science research... then SSHRC would have more money for administrative staff.

Email your Member of Parliament and tell them to stop cutting funding for basic social science research... then SSHRC would have more money for administrative staff.

I am happy to answer your questions. I don't mean for these answers to come off as harsh, but back a few years ago I seriously considered going into clinical psych., and after doing a lot of research I decided it was a very bad idea. Perhaps you will not change your mind as I did, but clinical psych is RIDICULOUSLY competitive. I am not saying that the competition should scare you away, but unless you are prepared for what becoming a clinical psychologist entails, I would advise that you take some time to really examine why you want your Phd or PsyD in clinical psych. if working with clients is what you want to do.

1. I'm not sure whether I want to get my MA and then PsyD or PhD. Is it true that I would have to start all over when I start my PhD/PsyD after getting my masters?

I have found that asking this question will get you plenty of mixed reviews. Getting a masters, for some programs, can either hurt you, do nothing for you, or help you in a very slight way. Chances are that no matter how you utilize a masters program, you would have to start over completely once you got accepted into a Phd program. I am not really sure about how the PsyD programs work with this, but you can easily find out my sending an e-mail to the grad services coordinator for that department. Chances are yes. That is the short version. Masters programs are dwindling down to exceedingly small numbers.


2. Even though I don't want to be a counselor, I been thinking on getting MA in counseling and then PhD/PsyD in clinical psychology. Is this possible? Would I have to "start over" when I begin my PhD/PsyD?

You could. Anything is possible, but more than anything, Phd programs want students with research experience, and lots of it. I've heard that many clinical programs could care less about your experience with "helping" people. In fact, I have heard that saying you want to help people is a BIG no no in your SOP. I would not advise going into a Phd program if you do not love doing research, if you don't love research getting your Phd is not for you. PsyDs tend to be ridiculously expensive. Keep in mind to that Clinical psychologists actually don't make much money at all. Unless you work in LA, have your own private practice, and work a lot to keep up with living expenses.

3. Can you help me with helpful websites/books that my have helped you as you applied to grad school? Anything would help!


4. Should I consider going into a general MA psychology program?

This all depends, if you want to use the MA to get a lot of experience with research, it could be beneficial. But, if you do not know what you want to research, you could end up working with an issue that you don't enjoy.

5. What the best way to start a SOP? (From someone who got accepted into a graduate program, preferably)

I can't answer this question too well, I am working on my own. Check the board where it says "writing an SOP" the link is something like that.

6. What about getting licensed as a psychologist. Should I get a PhD/PsyD program in a state where I "see" myself practicing.

I wouldn't worry about this too much. I would suggest that maybe you should get a job where you directly help people. I think that this puts the job into perspective because if you work in a psychiatric hospital, you realize that a lot of people with mental illnesses don't really "get better". I am not saying that you can't, but it is very difficult, and it is often a process that can take years. Plus, you would get to see the inner workings of how a hospital works, and how the mental health care system works. Also, if you have a professor who also works as a clinical psychologist I highly recommend talking to them about your questions.

But, I bet there is someone on the board who can better elaborate on these questions. I also think that looking into a book, just amazon it, would be helpful. Just make sure that is a book that is about the hoops you have to jump through to get a psyD or to get a Phd to become a practicing clinical psychologist.

Good luck.

Let's just unpack a little more why it's rare for undergraduates to be coauthors on papers and almost unheard of to be first author. This situation comes out of my background, which is social psychology. Other disciplines may be different.

As a rule, only 1/3 of studies actually work and most papers need between three and six successful studies. So to get one paper you might need to run between three and fifteen experiments. Most undergraduates do one experiment, possibly two, for their honours thesis, so already the odds are bad. Even if you get a few studies that work well together, the peer review/publication process can take six months, or more if the initial decision is a "revise and resubmit". Practically speaking, there just isn't enough time as an undergraduate to get the studies run, and the paper written and reviewed.

Furthermore, to be published the studies need to have theoretical novelty and practical importance. Bluntly, most undergrads are not up to the task: they just haven't read enough or done enough to get a handle on what makes a good idea and what's a compelling way to test that idea. This is nothing to feel bad about--it's what they teach you in grad school! So if you're lucky enough to be on a novel/exciting project, the odds are that the idea was originally a professor's or a grad student's, and they'll quite likely end up being first author.

Keep in mind that the OP sounds crazy. If the story is true, it improves my impression of this university because they dodged a huge bullet.

Keep in mind that the OP sounds crazy. If the story is true, it improves my impression of this university because they dodged a huge bullet.

Your professors need a primer on measurement error.

While their request sounds ridiculous, here are suggestions:

1. Ask one of the departmental complainers to sit in on one of your classes and critique you.

2. Be warm and enthisastic. These highly predict teaching evaluations.

3. Sit in on other TA's classes and see what they do differently.

Yeah, you have to set it so that you use your school's SMTP server to send emails rather than gmail's (which is the default). This link has a good description of how to set it up. Also see gmail's instructions here. You can search your school's webmail instructions or FAQs to find out what's their SMTP server.

Dislclaimer: I had NSERC MA and now SSHRC Doctoral, so I've had my share of funding and am quite satisfied with my own personal outcomes.

I empathize with you and agree with a lot of your rant. But it's not as black-and-white as funded = works hard, non-funded = lazy. For SOME, yes. But for most there's a huge grey area in the middle of the curve, people who could go either way. Put another way, there is a LOT of measurement error--I've seen real data--in who gets funded.

Getting funding both recognizes and exaccerbates differences between students. At my university some students enter with OGS or a master's SSHRC/NSERC. They get the award + $10,000 and a 75% reduction in TA load. No wonder they get more research done than somebody without an award who has to TA 10 hours/week all year. As a result, funded students are in a better position a year later when they apply for doctoral awards (because research counts, and TA's don't).

Even assuming that the people who received an MA award were deserving, there's a lot of "rich get richer, poor get poorer" going on.

In my opinion a good letter has to be detailed in addition to being positive, and if your graduate advisor is going to be brief or vague (by necessity, because you two don't know each other well yet) then a letter from undergrad is better.

There's an article called "kisses of death in the grad school application process" that could be helpful. It gives specifics to avoid. Just google that phrase in quotes and it will come up.

If you get a PhD you can call yourself "doctor", then explain to people "but not a real doctor".

Most graduate students fund their studies through competitive fellowships and assistantship positions offered through their universities. The availability and amount of funding, as well as what the school expects you to do in order to earn it (i.e., teach, research, administrative tasks) depends entirely on the programs you apply to. Usually, funding will provide a full or partial tuition waiver, a stipend to cover living expenses, and at least some help with health insurance.

Funding is more common at the doctoral level than the master's level, and more common in disciplines like the hard sciences, social sciences, and humanities than in the arts or professional degree programs (i.e., medical school, law school).

It's highly unadvisable to go deep into debt to get a graduate degree, but some students do finance their degrees through federal and/or private loans.

People are usually unwilling to answer that first question because of concerns that others will scoop their ideas. Most likely, the only things someone will share are papers already in press, nothing earlier.

If you'd really like to collaborate, my first suggestion is to offer your study ideas first and ask whether she'd like to run those studies with you, then see how it develops. This is also dangerous, because the person could decline and scoop your ideas. Definitely talk to your new advisor first. He/she might have advice or opinions about starting a collaboration somewhere else, such as wanting you to focus on your local work, not collaborate somewhere else.

Another option is to run a few studies first, then send her an email saying "These are the studies we've run. I know you do similar work. Would you like to compare notes? Maybe by combining our data we have a paper." But again, this is something you should run past your advisor.

My recommendation? Don't bother. Run your studies with your advisor and publish your paper the two of you. The other prof hasn't done anything yet and many "reading and planning" ideas never coalesce into actual studies. But you know she's working on it, so that's an incentive to work fast. And practically speaking, almost nothing exactly replicates something. There's always a way to make something look novel--with the theoretical framing or by running follow-up studies.

People are usually unwilling to answer that first question because of concerns that others will scoop their ideas. Most likely, the only things someone will share are papers already in press, nothing earlier.

If you'd really like to collaborate, my first suggestion is to offer your study ideas first and ask whether she'd like to run those studies with you, then see how it develops. This is also dangerous, because the person could decline and scoop your ideas. Definitely talk to your new advisor first. He/she might have advice or opinions about starting a collaboration somewhere else, such as wanting you to focus on your local work, not collaborate somewhere else.

Another option is to run a few studies first, then send her an email saying "These are the studies we've run. I know you do similar work. Would you like to compare notes? Maybe by combining our data we have a paper." But again, this is something you should run past your advisor.

My recommendation? Don't bother. Run your studies with your advisor and publish your paper the two of you. The other prof hasn't done anything yet and many "reading and planning" ideas never coalesce into actual studies. But you know she's working on it, so that's an incentive to work fast. And practically speaking, almost nothing exactly replicates something. There's always a way to make something look novel--with the theoretical framing or by running follow-up studies.