essequamvideri

2 year unfunded master's = a lot of debt. U of T has great machine learning faculty. Personally, I'd say this is a no-brainer and I'd go for U of T.

And thank you for the other replies, I agree it's a personal decision but it's also helpful to get some outside opinions as a sanity check!

GeoDUDE, I agree, but I'm also interested in research and it's not that I don't want to do the program (I could see myself doing both). I ultimately want to be a practitioner who also does research, but the question is more about timing. I could finish the PhD and then do medical school (some people do this, though it's definitely a crazy amount of time in school), or I could attempt to improve my medical school application and get into medical school now, then worry about research later (though it's also possible to do research as an MD; having a PhD isn't strictly necessary). I think the latter choice is better (especially since the former still has the problem of my undergraduate qualifications), but I'm just trying to reason through the decision.

I've been accepted to a good PhD program in my field, but I think I ultimately want to go to medical school. I didn't get in to medical school this year, and part of the reason is my undergrad courses/grades (which are not terrible, but medical school is insanely competitive to get in). Until I "fix" that problem by taking a few more undergrad courses, I think my chances of getting in are slim (even if I finished this PhD program). Would it be crazy to turn down my PhD offer to take undergrad courses and reapply to medical school? This is what I'm leaning towards doing, but it would feel like a large step backwards and turning down an offer like this will be difficult.

The funding situation will be different, which is apparently the main reason I didn't get it this year. Deferring is a decent idea, but in the relatively unlikely chance that would be possible, you probably need to make a definite commitment to attend (which would obviously defeat the purpose of reapplying). I think offering to defer without even giving a commitment to attend later would be a very hard sell. (I don't know though; has anyone done this?) Another thing is that I am not comparing programs which are top 10 versus lower than top 100 in the "rankings", they are actually quite comparable in terms of rankings, but my top choices are more due to a better fit (from my perspective) with the department, and other personal reasons. They are all good programs and I don't think my career would "suffer" directly by choosing my lower choice (though it may for indirect reasons). But for me, the fit and the other personal factors (location, and others) are a big deal.

So, I know that in general you shouldn't apply to programs you wouldn't ultimately attend, but I was rejected from my top choice programs and accepted to one of my lower choices (which, after having thought about it, I am less set on attending than I was initially). On top of this, a POI at one of my top choices has told me I would have a good chance if I reapplied next year. The program I was accepted to is still very good by most "objective" measures, but I am beginning to lean toward not being that excited to attend there. Is taking a chance on reapplying next year an unwise decision? It would mean starting another year later and there is no guarantee of getting in a second time, but on the flip side, grad school is a very long process and you should be satisfied with the program you're attending. Particularly interested in hearing from others who have had this dilemma, but any input appreciated.

Anyone know what funding is like for UCLA or Berkeley?

Fair enough, in retrospect I do think most applications provided a space to talk about it, or at least to mention "anything extra" that might pertain to the application. It might not be worth wasting space in an SOP, but surely it's worth mentioning in one of these "extra information" spaces? I've heard of situations where the only reason an international student wasn't accepted was lack of external funding for the first year.

This is a general question, but what tend to be the differences between psychology programs and interdisciplinary neuroscience programs (which typically have a "behavioural" and/or "cognitive" subsection) at schools that offer both programs? I've noticed that often the faculty in the behavioural/cognitive streams of the neuroscience programs are almost entirely psychology faculty, and so presumably if you were interested in working with these faculty that kind of straddle the boundary (which is actually very common), you could be admitted to either program. What do the academic and administrative differences tend to be? Main things I'm interested in: differences in stipend (e.g., does neuroscience tend to be higher?), required courses, lab rotations (seems to be more common in neuroscience), expected background (I don't have much biology background but the neuroscience programs often encourage "diverse backgrounds" to apply), competitiveness of admission, etc. I know that this varies from school to school but I'm just curious about general trends from people who have considered both types of programs. Thanks!

As an international student, I've learned that you are often at a severe disadvantage to domestic students when applying to public schools for funding reasons. Is it appropriate to mention government scholarships from your home country (and for that matter, any scholarships) that you've applied to in your SOP to help assuage these concerns? Also, are there any other things public institutions are concerned about when it comes to international students? Might it help to mention any ties you have to the state or interest in staying there after graduation (assuming you can get citizenship)?

If I had to guess, I don't think age is much of a negative, and in some cases may be a positive as others have said (when I was an RA there was a PhD student in her 50s). The tendency definitely tends to be younger people being hired for new faculty positions, but I think that's more correlational than causational (people who are very clear in their interests and motivated enough to go directly from high school -> undergrad -> grad school tend to be good researchers, but that doesn't mean that people who clarify their interests later in life aren't also good researchers).

Do you think it's appropriate to contact your POI(s) and ask what the issues were with this year's application, and if there is a realistic chance to be admitted given improvement in certain areas? This seems like it might put the POI in an awkward situation, but it would also be useful information. (It's also possible they would just refuse to comment on something like this.)

How do departments look at reapplicants, and are you at a significant disadvantage reapplying to the same program than you would be applying for the first time with the same credentials? I was rejected from a few programs I was interested in (despite getting interviews at other similarly ranked programs, making me think my application wasn't totally uncompetitive and it was more a matter of fit). If I, for example, get more research experience relevant to the department, improve my GRE, etc., how would this be viewed?

I've seen both situations, where you're either accepted to a department and can change POIs during your degree without affecting your funding, or you're accepted into a lab (which may be covering some of your funding) and it's quite difficult to change labs for this reason. Clearly the former situation is preferable (even if you really have a good feeling about your lab, 5 years is a long time and it's good to have a safety net), but is that situation the norm or the exception?

I probably wouldn't make a big deal of it in my SOP, if I mentioned it at all, but I think people will still wonder what I've been doing for the past year (and why it involved taking undergraduate courses). @Tenacious, why do you think this would be related to my master's GPA? For a bit more context, I expect to do very well in my master's program from a GPA perspective (close to 4.0). My cumulative undergrad GPA is about 3.6 (>3.8 in last two years, but most schools don't care about this), which is not bad at all, but unfortunately not really cutting it for med school. I agree that it might make me seem capricious, though I don't think I am. I am genuinely interested in both research and medicine; if I were to get into med school, I would probably specialize as a psychiatrist, and if I get into research, I want to do something with clinical relevance. I think I could take courses that I haven't taken yet and are related to both of these pursuits, and though the primary goal would be improving my GPA for med school, it would also give me a stronger knowledge base to work from for research. Though I agree that if I truthfully explain my primary motivation for doing this is med school, PhD programs will wonder why I haven't simply committed to research (the answer being that both fields are insanely competitive, and I'm trying to cast my net as wide as possible). Thanks for the replies; any other input would be appreciated.

Bump; I know this is a somewhat uncommon situation, but does anyone have any opinions?

Although I haven't been rejected from all of my programs this year, my current backup plan is to take more undergraduate classes next year for pretty much the sole purpose of improving my GPA (I'm applying both to medical school and PhD programs, and though my GPA is pretty good, it is definitely borderline for medical school). I will also be graduating with a research master's degree this year. I think going back to do undergrad courses is pretty common to try to improve your chances at medical school (and I know people who have done just that), but doing it to improve your chances at PhD programs seems pretty uncommon (they care more about your research ability than your grades, to a point). Even though my main reason for doing this would be medical school admissions, I would still like to reapply to PhD programs as well (if it comes to that). Assuming I do very well in all of my classes (and improve my current undergrad GPA), do you think this would look positive, neutral, or even negative to competitive PhD programs? (Negative in the sense that it might look like a "step backwards".) Thanks a lot!

Great; thank you for the useful replies!

Basically the title. The POI who contacted me sounded very positive, but I feel like I should still treat things as very much up-in-the-air. Some people have told me that interview weekends are basically a formality and unless you do something glaringly wrong you are basically accepted, while others have told me that the decisions are still very much in progress. How should I gauge what type of interview weekend I'm attending? I will probably treat it as the latter regardless, but it would be nice to know.

10+ is honestly excessive; I don't understand how you would have time to write a decent personalized statement of purpose to that many programs anyways.

Don't feed the troll (I hope?).

Hey, I'm making sure my CV is appropriate for submission, and am wondering what kind of work experience I should include. I am applying to psychology programs, but have worked as a software engineer in the past. I know that software skills can definitely be an asset in psychology, but I'm getting the feeling that if I list all of my software experience it detracts from the coherence of the CV. Should I only have strictly relevant work experience on the CV?

Hey guys, I originally took the GRE in Nov. 2013, and I listed 4 institution codes to places I intended to apply, but I did not end up applying that year. Now, this year, 2 of the programs I'm applying to are the same institutions that I originally listed last year. Do I need to send my GRE scores again (I'm using the same scores), or will they still have them on file?

I've read https://psychology.stanford.edu/graduate_admissions.html, but it doesn't seem to answer this question unambiguously. I know that my referees won't have their letter in by Nov. 25, but will probably have it in 1-2 weeks after that date. Some institutions explicitly say all materials need to be in by the due date, but I can't see anything answering this. Am I wasting my money if my references come in 1-2 weeks late?

I'd be interested in swapping; send me a PM!