essequamvideri

Hey there, I'm applying to cognitive neuroscience programs, and most schools I'm applying to give you the option to submit a "writing sample", which is typically not required for psychology programs (but you can submit one if you wish). Is it a large disadvantage to not submit one? If I had a published journal article I'd include that, but I don't unfortunately. I could include an undergraduate essay or report, but that doesn't seem very relevant.

Grad classes aren't necessarily super easy, but the average is definitely skewed towards the higher range (i.e., getting a B is similar to getting a C or D in undergrad). Committees realize this and don't give the GPAs the same weight.

I agree with Geodude. Especially for PhD programs, the opportunity cost of spending around 5 years in graduate school is huge enough, and paying for it is insane. For shorter professional programs like yours, it makes a bit more sense, but you still want to do a very careful cost/benefit analysis.

Fair enough, thanks for the reply (and to everyone else who replied). Now that I'm finalizing my SOP I'm finding that I barely have enough space to explain the important stuff, so I don't think I'll have the space to mention the GRE anyways.

Hi Biisis, I definitely considered taking it again, but decided my time would be better spent on my research and coursework.

Thanks for the reply, Gvh. I haven't completely finalized every program I'm applying to, but some of them are schools like UCLA, Cornell, and Michigan. I also, incidentally, may apply to MIT, and on the Brain and Cognitive Sciences application page they mention the following regarding GRE scores: "We do not have a minimum requirement. Competitive scores fall in the ranges listed below: Verbal – above 85th percentile Quantitative – above 85th percentile Analytical Writing – above 70th percentile" My scores are 89th, 78th, and 98th percentile respectively, so my Q is indeed a bit low.

Hey there, So, my GRE score is not terrible, but not especially high (162/160/5.5), and some of the programs I am applying to are very competitive. Although I'm not applying to a strictly quantitative field, it's still a field where quantitative skills matter (cognitive neuroscience). When I wrote the GRE, in addition to being rushed and only studying for 1-2 weeks (my fault; poor planning and I don't intend to mention this), I was also sick with a cold and got about 4 hours of sleep the night before (not my fault). I intended to mention this in a sentence in my SOP to put my lower quant score into context (I was scoring higher on practice tests). Is this inappropriate/could be seen as "making excuses"? Thanks!

I agree with what you're saying Eigen, though I think it's definitely more applicable to things like biochemistry where you need a lot of domain-specific skills and extremely specific knowledge to contribute to that subfield. Since cog. neuro. is more "conceptual" and the field as a whole uses basically the same imaging and electrophysiological techniques, I think there is inherently more room for flexibility. I could be wrong about this, but this is the impression I've gotten.

I didn't say anywhere that I'm open to working on absolutely anything; very much the opposite. It's just that even within a fairly constrained subfield there is still significant flexibility.

I appreciate the reply and advice, but I disagree with this statement (though it's probably field dependent). Although I could very well narrow my interest down to exclude a bunch of schools, I think it's better to be flexible and entertain the possibility of working on something slightly different from what you originally intended.

@Eigen, I've heard this is not strictly necessary (which is why many schools have lab rotations prior to even choosing your supervisor). I think it's certainly not a negative thing to have a prior research interest which is almost exactly the same as a professor you've identified (and I do have some very specific research interests), but I'm also open to the possibility of ultimately working on something slightly different. To me, research and project fit is secondary to 1) if the supervisor is a good scientist and mentor, 2) if you are compatible with your supervisor personally, and only after that should you consider if your prior interests exactly align.

I'm in psychology (specifically cognitive neuroscience). I agree that research fit is important, but what I'm currently working on isn't specific enough that only one place is doing it; most universities have faculty working on something similar. Why would you say that applying to more than 4-5 schools for STEM is overkill, and why would it matter if you're in STEM or not? Edit: Also, I really don't know how good of a chance I would have applying to "top" psychology programs. As I said, my grades are reasonable, my GRE was decent (162V/160Q/5.5), I have a lot of research experience and will have a master's and am likely to have strong references. This leads me to believe I would have a good shot, but because these programs are so competitive I feel like no one can really know for sure.

So, I am currently a master's student intending to apply to PhD programs this year. I haven't completely narrowed down the list, but most are in the US, and most will be what you'd consider "name brand" schools (in my field, a lot of the top programs are at these schools, which is probably true for most fields). I have good but not stellar numbers (3.6 cGPA, 3.85 in last two years), good GRE, and I think the fact that I'll have a master's by the time I start + a lot of relevant research experience as a result + strong references, will mean I have a realistic shot at getting in to one of them. I'm not the type of person who is completely deadset on going to a "name brand" school and I don't think it's the most important factor in determining where to go. That said, these schools tend to 1) have more funding and more extensive facilities, 2) attract high-caliber scientists and mentors, which is important when learning how to conduct your own research and possibly have your own research program someday in the future, 3) have name recognition with people who will someday be making hiring decisions for academic jobs. I don't care how recognizable the name is to random people on the street, but (though there are definitely exceptions) there is overlap with this kind of recognition and the recognition of people in the field. Now, I've heard that if you want to get into a top program, you shouldn't apply to just a couple, you should play the odds and apply to many with the hopes of getting into one. I agree with this, but a.) I feel guilty making my referees write letters for many schools, b.) I don't want to seem like I'm only applying to "high-presige" schools and only care about prestige. Again, I have a pretty good academic record, but not one which is so amazing that would make me confident I would get in somewhere if I applied to 2-3 programs (I'm thinking more like 9). Would appreciate if anyone with an opinion on this issue could chime in!

Ssynny, where have you read that (if you remember)?

I was rushed taking the GRE this year, and studied for only a week or two. I scored 162V/160Q/5.5, which is pretty good (and got me into a Master's program), but I intend to apply to PhD programs this coming year at Top 10 American schools (i.e., Yale, Berkeley, etc.). I'm basically positive that I could bump up both my verbal and quantitative score if I did some serious practice for it, but I really don't want to take it again unless I need to (I don't want to waste my time and money). That said, I know that these programs are very competitive and that this score, while pretty good in general, is low for Top 10 schools. Should I retake it, or is my current score unlikely to exclude me from consideration?

So, I finally wrote the GRE and got 162V/160Q; quite a bit lower than my practice tests (especially on quant). I'm satisfied with the score given how little I studied (there has been a lot going on in my personal life the past few months, and I studied for less than a week). That said, I am applying to some competitive computer science programs (Berkeley, Princeton, and others), and I know that my quant score is far lower than the average successful applicant to those programs. I have a good GPA and good research experience, so I'm pretty confident about the other aspects of my application, but I'm worried that my quant score is low enough that I'll be excluded for consideration on that alone. Do you think my score is high enough to be past the "threshold" of being automatically excluded? I know that the GRE is a relatively small part of the application, but still. Thanks.

I am trying to decide which (Computer Science) graduate programs to apply to, and am actually having a lot of trouble choosing between the MS and PhD options. (Takeru, this is basically the same message I sent you, but I'm asking the question generally to hear some other perspectives too.) FYI, I am a Canadian, applying to Canadian and American schools (several American ones, and it's about them that my question is largely about). I have good qualifications and I might have a shot at good PhD programs, but I haven't decided yet if I like research enough to make the 5-6 year commitment for a PhD. Essentially the only reason to get a PhD, from a career perspective, is to attempt to be a professor, and while I have considered this, it is not something I am 100% committed to (since I have seen the pluses and minuses of working in academia first hand). I am, however, willing to learn more and am passionate about my field, and thus I see doing a Master's as a way to decide for sure if a life in academia is for me, and if it's not, I'll have a graceful way of exiting, I'll have learned a lot, and will probably end up making more money over time. The reason I want to apply to graduate programs in the US is, frankly, some of the best schools are doing more interesting research. That isn't to say there aren't projects that excite me in Canada, but there seems to be more opportunity to do high impact research in the US. Unfortunately, this desire doesn't seem to harmonize with my lack of 100% commitment to a PhD and the American way of doing things (i.e., viewing most Master's programs as a terminal degree and not funding them). For those that don't know, in Canada, it is quite common to get funding as a Master's student, and it is seen as a step to a PhD moreso than a terminal degree. Having my degree at least partially funded is very important to me. Having to pay $40k a year for a Master's out of pocket, even if it was at something like MIT, is really hard for me to justify (especially given that I have options in Canada and am not from a wealthy background). Given these things, do you really think applying to PhD programs in the US is a good idea? Should I instead stay within Canada, or apply to Master's programs in the States and cross my fingers for funding? (There have been some reports, at least in CS, of Master's students getting funding at some schools.) Applying to PhD programs despite wanting a Master's is possibly an option too... since I might change my mind, or I might be able to leave early with an MS, but I'm not sure. Thanks a lot!

Hey, thanks for your reply. I'm more interested in Cognitive Science from a computer science perspective (which is what I studied, and why the other programs are CS-based), so probably something like computational neuroscience (though I do admittedly have very wide interests, but this is the type of program I would be most qualified for given my background). CMU is certainly a great school. At this point, I am leaning more towards HCI/CL programs (which CMU is also known for), so any other suggestions would be appreciated!

I'm applying to a few programs, mostly within CS departments, and am not 100% set on either a Master's or PhD, but am leaning towards a Master's. Based on my research, most schools state that they "do not fund Master's students" (with a few exceptions) in the US. That said, I have also seen posts from people saying they were denied admission to a PhD program but were given full funding for a Master's program instead, or other people who seemingly got funding packages after applying directly to a Master's program. So, my general questions are: 1. Is it possible to get some degree of funding for a CS Master's in the US (above and beyond "part-time and not guaranteed TAship" which some schools offer)? 2. If so, what is the best way to receive this funding? Is one more likely to get Master's funding if they apply for a PhD and are admitted to a Master's instead? Thanks.

44 views and no replies? Does anyone know much about these fields?

I posted this in the general "Applications" forum, but was advised to move it to somewhere more specific. I feel that either the linguistics or computer science forum could be relevant, but I decided here was probably the best fit. Can anyone recommend schools which have top programs in at least one of the fields in my topic title? I have solid grades and research experience, and am hoping to apply to a Master's program in one of those fields (if the school offers funding for Master's students), but am also considering PhD programs. Obviously MIT is known for all of those areas, and I have also looked at Stanford (which doesn't seem to fund Master's students for CS or Symbolic Systems), Berkeley (which seems to have decent financial support), and Harvard (which for some reason requires CS students to take Theory regardless of their concentration). Can anyone recommend some more programs? Thanks a lot!

I apologize in advance if this is the wrong forum for the question, but can anyone recommend schools which have top programs in at least one of those fields? I have solid grades and research experience, and am hoping to apply to a Master's program in one of those fields (if the school offers funding for Master's students), but am also considering PhD programs. Obviously MIT is known for all of those areas, and I have also looked at Stanford (which doesn't seem to fund Master's students for CS or Symbolic Systems), Berkeley (which seems to have decent financial support), and Harvard (which for some reason requires CS students to take Theory regardless of their concentration). Can anyone recommend some more programs? Thanks a lot.