when

Well, at least you're not applying to a Criminal Justice program.

Niiiiice

Winter boots

Yes, SO frustrating. Similar to this is when several people are walking the opposite way on the pavement, and when they approach you they make absolutely no effort to limit the amount of space they take up so that you can all walk past. This sometimes fully happens to the point where if **I** don't move out of the way, and fast, they would totally have shouldered me. In fact, I've tried being just as nonchalant as others, and this indeed did happen. Thing is, I realized when walking with my best friend that SHE'S ONE OF THESE PEOPLE! When we walk together, I dart out of the way when I see someone coming, but she resolutely stays right in the middle of the path, as though the oncoming pedestrian is invisible. Several times I've asked her why why why why why why.

sign off

It sounds like it turned out okay in the end? Glad to hear it!

menstrual cramp

leg up

down town

turn on

1) Am not really fit to answer this, but nothing gave me the impression that it's any different, and so far my GPA on a 4.33 scale has matched up with all 4.0 scales - typically, an A (85%) or more is 4.0. Typically. In my limited experience. Actually, in that case, an 82 might be an A-. Just search for the GPA calculation tables for the schools you've applied to and compare the percentages. 2) I'd explain why I did more poorly in that stats course on my statement of interest IF it really sticks out like a sore thumb and there is a good reason. Others may suggest simply not mentioning it. Did you only have one stats course? In undergrad there are often two i.e. an additional one for honors thesis students. A very, very good score on the quantitative portion of the GRE would also help. Other than that, be prepared to answer why you did so poorly in any potential interviews. Good luck with everything!

Big shot

Rose bud

I'm only going by the results page comments. It sucks, 'cause they don't tell you till about April when they update MyAccount or whatever it's called.

I think only those who have been invited to the open house are being considered, so if you've received an invite, it's promising that someone else might be interested. I had the same problem, though, that none of the faculty whose research I was interested in was accepting students, so I really had to stretch.

Well put - totally agree I don't think there is necessarily less research training in clinical, just the focus is more on clinical research methods, so that means that Clinical students are required to take more courses than in Experimental (research courses + clinical courses). Thankfully my supervisor has lower expectations of me in terms of research productivity, because they know a lot of time is taken up with clinically-oriented activities, but I also know of several purely clinical labs that are ridiculously active and productive in research, a lot more than most experimental labs. And let me tell you, they work super hard to run these studies, practice and tackle a larger course load :$

My guess is that it's because Clinical gives you more opportunities. You can be a scientist and teach, just like those with a PhD in experimental psych, but also have the option of private practice. Private practice = $220 an hour. As for personality and skills and whether all those hundreds of applicants actually have those, the answer is most certainly no. Even licensed clinical psychologists are not necessarily great at what they do.

This is probably precisely right!

Timing, sure, but I also think the Clinical program is a great program. I'm biased, of course, but the faculty does have some very established, prolific researchers, the program was CPA-accredited in record time, they have a good partnership with St. Mike's Hospital for practica, and their internship match rates are superior to many other programs. Plus if you're into CBT, it's probably the best bet in the city. Plus the location is pretty decent, literally in the heart of downtown Toronto (if you like that sort of thing).

You're right, it's pretty interesting. Like FliesKites said, I imagined it was just a result of having a disproportionate number of applicants from within Ontario. Then again, i wonder if it's anything to do with OGS funding...?

I'm guessing the discrepancy is due to some offers begin turned down, and the stats are just for clinical.

Eesh. Whoever says "usually those people go straight from high school to undergrad and then to graduate school" is merely making an observation of the age at which most people do something. I doubt they were selected BECAUSE of their age, but simply because the vast majority of applicants happen to BE that age. Most people have kids in their late twenties (okay, I made that stat up), but that doesn't mean I can't have kids at 40, or at 18, for that matter. I agree with the other posters - I think for the most part it won't be a factor at all, but also may very realistically be an advantage. Definitely, definitely don't give up your dream based on a handful of people's opinions - for every prof like that there are hundreds who think the opposite (again, made those stats up, but you get my point).

Some Ryerson stats for Clinical in case anyone's interested and not seen them before: http://www.ryerson.ca/content/dam/psychology/graduate/forms/CPA_Public_Disclosure_Tables.pdf

Interesting. I wonder who is considered an "older female" in this study. I strongly suspect I fall into that category in any case.

First, my anecdote, and then some garb about the value of GRE... My quant score was very low, much lower than yours, and I was admitted to a clinical psych program on first application. However, my verbal comp. score was very high, my analytical writing score was pretty high and my subject GRE was very high. I got A+s in all stats courses, had a CGPA of around 90%, and busted out a bunch of extra-curricular stuff to pad out the ol' CV. Plus I networked. HARD. And definitely, definitely had some good luck. Most of the profs I spoke to said that they didn't think GREs meant much, and that a lot of students come into psych with lowish quant scores. They said that they can boost an app if other aspects are weaker, but generally won't break an app that's already strong. However, that doesn't help with programs that do have cut-offs, or profs who have contempt for those with low quant scores. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Some GRE garb: In some textbook I saw last year, a study of n = 90 found that GPA predicted graduate grades and so did GRE verbal and analytical writing to a lesser extent, while quantitative scores were not predictive of graduate grades and even less predictive of PhD completion (actually, there was a slight - but nonetheless insignificant - negative correlation with the latter, if I remember correctly). The GRE overall didn't predict PhD completion either, but did predict stipend acquisition, so I agree that in some ways it is useful. It's just interesting to note that it seems to be a useless indicator of how likely a person is to actually finish a PhD. Maybe *some* of the good GRE performers end up overextending themselves and not finishing their PhD? Buuut, that's just one study of many, so this might be more helpful: http://ubiquity.acm.org/article.cfm?id=1071921