hitdoggie

I went to Berklee before I changed majors. They have all the state of the art equipment, and faculty who know it inside and out...not to mention networking to internships in LA and NYC. If you want to be an audio engineer it is the place to be. Most everyone I know who went to school for this went to BERKLEE or SUNY PURCHASE. Pitfalls: It's expensive. In regards to your last question. It would be unfathomable to think anyone would pursue any kind of work in audio engineering without having a musical ear; which means being, at the very least, an average musician. I'd question the validity of any program that doesn't state that as a prerequisite. Having quite a few friends who work in the field I can say that I am not necessarily sure a degree buys you much more than access to the best technology for a few years. I have friends who didn't go to school for this obtain work that is of a much higher tier than those who have. It's a matter of knowing the technology the best. Frankly, no one is going to care if you went to a school or not- if your results are great. My take as a former music student surrounded by this stuff.

I stumbled across the Harvard info by investigating their Dev. Dept and saw a couple students were focusing their studies on music/cognition/dev. I share your frustration with job prospects. I used to be a professional musician, and I totally fell in love with Levitin, Huron, and Mithen's work. However, I was disappointed when I began to investigate the work of my new "heros" only to see they were the only few people in the field. I also think Levitin, who has done some notable work, brings a certain degree of star power to McGill...I don't think I'd be able to bring that to a job interview after grad school! There is also the issue of gaining grant money for Universities in order to get tenure- which seems a dubious task in the "publish or perish" mentality of your early years as a professor. I hope to find ways to incorporate music into my future research, but even if that never happens I still get a tremendous amount of joy from my instruments, record collection and friends/bandmates-enough so that I can deal with finding research topics that don't peak the same level of interest. * I also share a great deal of frustration in regards to the process of grad school/grants/publishing almost shunning, or at the very least stiffening, potential grad students with creative research ideas. Who knows...if you get tenure someday anything is fair game with your research? I applied to McGill too but got rejected (by both Caroline Palmer and Daniel Levitin). Prof Laurel Trainor at McMaster recommended me for admission but their funding situation this year was esp bad and they couldn't accommodate me. Same with UCSD. I'm with you about the job prospects. A noted researcher in the field told me that there arises maybe ONE tenure track position all around the world in this field every year. That is scary. Based on everybody's advice, I have now decided to do my PhD in a more traditional subfield of Psychology, namely, human memory, attention, learning. I then intend to carry out research in music cognition through one or two post docs in Europe. As you rightly pointed out, a lot of work is coming up in Europe. I should be good to go by the end of my PhD and they will be ready by then with some funding hopefully Also, I might get to work with Prof David Huron on a few projects in music cognition alongside my main line of work as my advisor has told me that he's fine with that. So I hope I'll be ready for music cognition work at the end of five years, but at the same time, an employable candidate for any tenure track position that might arise in a Dept of Psychology. I hope this is a realistic goal.

chow, Every professor I have talked to about grad school in the fields we are both interested in have told me that the MA is a waste of time if you have the grades and the research experience. I have heard that from 4 different people. I'm going to take a year off (don't want to) to solidify 2 more semesters of research experience and gain better LOMs. I can apply to programs in a much less frantic manner, and will have the time and funds to travel to programs to do interviews face to face. After graduation I only will have a 4-5 month layover until I apply, and I can always move right when I get offers. For a while I really dreaded this idea, but in prospect I don't see how the extra year does anything else but help me. I'd hate to be pigeon holed into a program based on getting one acceptance. I don't need 2 years and more debt to get into a Ph.D program, and with your stats I don't suspect you do either. Don't forget...if you are going into your senior year and who wait to apply those final 2 semesters will be factored into your GPA which may be a great deal. It is just a matter of opening up the scope of schools you are applying to and looking for good research matches. I'm not saying your grades are not good enough; rather, if those are the only programs you are set on you might need to raise your GPA. Who knows when it comes to grad school admissions? I've also been told by professors who have sat on admissions boards at top schools that typically everyone who applies is above a 3.3-3.4, and that after some kind of GPA threshold was met other things like your research experience and GRE scores are more important. *Your Quant score looks good! Read the thread titled "Social Psych" on forum home page. It might help you out more.

I have had an interest in this field, especially given my background. I also looked at potentially contacting McGill, OSU and Stanford. A lot of these programs want you to be proficient with music theory, so if you are not you might want to start checking that out. Just a heads up- Harvard has taken a couple grad students who are looking at music cognition. It is a niche field and I was told by people to look at Europe for this kind of research. Job prospects scared me.

From professors I have talked to regarding my situation I can say I think you will be competitive, and certainly get consideration at the decision table. If you go back through previous threads and look for topics pertaining to Social psych it looks like your overall GPA might need to be higher to get into the top programs. However, the fact you have done your own research project should bode better for you than simple data entry. In terms of publications- that helps a lot, but everyone has always told be it is better to be first or second author. I would give it a whirl, but be sure to diversify where you are applying. It might be that you have a better shot at schools where there are professors who share your more specific interests. **Were your projects pertaining to the field in which you are applying? That might help.

Hi Everyone, Thank you very much for your advice. I have decided that waiting the extra year to solidify 2 more glowing LORs, and the extra year of research, would make my reach schools a little more obtainable-and put me in a position where I can decided from more than one or two potential acceptances.

Pathanalysis, I certainly wasn't trying to denigrate your experience. I was more trying to make a point that often times undergrads get stuck in labs entering data into SPSS or other similar tasks; consequently, they do not get a lot of project leadership experience. Perhaps tacking my question into your thread, despite the topic being somewhat relevant to the conversation at hand, made it looks as if I was? Very sorry. Your record looks solid!

Perhaps this question is redundant... How much to presentations and having a manuscript in the midst of the publication process weigh into the decision? While I don't have 2 years of research experience working in labs and entering data, I will be going into my fourth semester of research in which I have been paid to work on my own project. Is seeing a project to fruition from the inception of its idea weighted more heavily than data collection and entry in a lab, working on a project where you didn't get to contribute to the project intellectually? I hear so many mixed things regarding research that it is hard to sort fact from fiction. By all means the above is not meant to sound patronizing.

Hi everyone, Thanks for taking the time to read this. I am looking at applying to Ph.D programs for Developmental Psychology. I am hesitant about whether this December is the time to apply because of my stats. Stats; Undergrad GPA- 3.6-3.7 Psych GPA- 3.8-3.9 GRE- studying like mad for the October Research- I started working in a Developmental lab the beginning of last semester. I go to a small school with one professor who specializes in the field. I hit the research at a down time. However, I believe I made up for it because I was awarded my University's only Fellowship for Undergraduate research. As a result I am being funded by the university for a project, and being paid to see my proposal through to completion. It sounds small, but it is a huge deal for me. By December I will have 4 semesters of research, most of which will be pertaining to my own project. The professor who is advising me thinks it has a legitimate shot at publication, but by application time (hopefully) the manuscript will be underway. I also will have a presentation under my belt. Work- I have funded my undergrad by teaching children private music. LOM- Here is where I am worried. I feel like I can get one really good LOM from a professor, a really great letter from a parent of a child I have taught (if it counts) and a medicore (this kid was a TA for me) LOM from a second professor. I have heard various things about how much this matters. What I have been told is that one of these letters from a professor better shine. Thanks for advice. **I'm really not interested in a master's.