TheMercySeat

Ha! I got an honest response of "not being as familiar with faculty work" and "not having enough experimental work." Naturally, I was competing against current UGs at this program, so there's no way I can know professors better than their students who see them daily. I had to get a job after graduating (the perils of not being independently wealthy), and most paid research jobs (at least the ones I've seen in my field) are applied gigs. Applied gigs with real-world consequences present little opportunity for pure experimental work because of those pesky ethics

It seems like a REALLY hard thing (logistically) for a student to do, unless if a program negotiates to 'fix' authorship with unacknowledged ghostwriters. I have a colleague* who has been interviewing for R1 TT jobs who keeps getting told that he does not have enough independent teaching experience. From my perspective, this creates quite the conundrum: the R2s I interviewed with require oodles of independent teaching opportunities, while some R1s lack teaching/TA placements altogether (seriously). The more I learn about R1s vs. R2 and the politics of the job market, the less sense it makes *I do not know if he has sole published work.

I will be 28, and I hope my incoming cohort is younger! I'm single, so it's not like I can bond over what it's like to be a parent with other students. All silly insecurities about age go out the door when I work with people who are in their 30s/40s and working on grad degrees at Ivy league institutions.

Thanks!!! This is spectacular advice. I naively took to heart the idea that everything will be 'okay' if you hone in on locating a POI who shares the same research interests, and I had the misconception that reputation isn't as important for all alt-AC paths. I hope this thread (and everybody's comments) helps somebody along the way in the future

Most programs bluffed me or told half truths Case in a point: one professor was pretty smug about producing professors... one of his former students has been through five jobs in the past five years, and is currently working two adjunct jobs at two different universities (one is The Chicago School of Professional Psychology, which has a reputation for being a diploma mill). Another student of his was a court mediator for three years before securing a professor job at a community college. The professor only posts the year that students take on professorships on his faculty page and omits the years his students struggle in the workforce post-graduation. These are outcomes for an R1 university, ~top 50, btw.

Thanks!!! That's actually the approach I took (and the best approach I have, to be honest). It wasn't as informative as I had hoped-- the department had rockstar research scientist placements, and then all of the professors (with the gov ties!) retired in the past 5 years. I think going into this department with newer (yet brilliant) faculty is diving into the great unknown :( which is, may I add, upsetting! R2s are not heavily discussed anywhere, and I feel like many of them deserve more credit when I see the caliber of research they produce plus the rigorous curriculum requirements (the R2 I'm considering has impressive stat training :x) It's tricky because I haven't had a PhD interview yet where professors really spoke of having students who struggled on the market, but it's statistically impossible that all of their students met their career goals :x

Blah!!! Thanks. :x I'm actually mulling over offers between a R2 (stellar fit, groundbreaking research, everything rocks about this program) and a R1 (subject matter in program is dull relative to the R2, I will only be in it for the PI if I go here). Oh, so frustrating! Either way, I'm going to work like a dog-- I may or may not be still traumatized from going on the market after discovering that employers don't really care about a track record of success during an UG and MA career. I REALLY hope the R2 professor doesn't ask why I turn down her program because I am going to feel like such a jackass for acting on such a superficial reason Moreover, I thought R1s piled "academia or bust" rather thickly

Thanks!!! Believe it or not, my current employer (nonprofit research) actually does actually care about such matters, and so I work with lots of PhDs from ivy league institutions. I just spent a few hours looking at RAND and AIR experts, and it seems as if the same standards apply :x To refine my question... does anybody know how representative this is of other non-academic research jobs? Which leads me to the next question: what the hell happens to PhD psych graduates from R2 universities?! I don't have an overly informed idea yet, and honestly the R1 bias is irking me! An R2 that I am considering has more rigorous quant/methodology training than some R1s I interviewed at :x

Thoughts? There has to be SOMEBODY here who went through a R2. I am interested in a non-academic research scientist job, and I need to learn more about the R2 job prospects before I decide where I'm going for graduate school. Alternatively, please advise if somebody else knows of a forum outside of grad cafe where I can get some sound advice. I already have something similar on the jobs subforum here without any bites

Hi all, So I have been accepted into two PhD program (social sciences) that are amenable to having students pursue non-academic research scientist positions upon graduation, and I'm trying to resolve a dilemma now so that I don't have regrets later. I appreciate all of the feedback I can get: (1) R1 institution, strong reputation. Traditional program, complete with qualifying exam and old school thesis/dissertation. (2) R2, reputation is neutral. Students secure two paid research internships in lieu of comprehensive exams. Journal publication in lieu of thesis. Both universities have impressive professors, graduate quant certifications, connections to industry/gov, and so on. The million dollar question: how much does institutional reputation matter in non-academic social science research gigs? I REALLY want to write off reputation because it's silly, superficial, and (sometimes, so I'm told) unwarranted, but I fear it might make a difference. Advice, please

One university (in fact, the only one out of the 10 or so that I interviewed for) drilled me about the GRE Q during interview, informed me that the chair is insistent on a hard GRE cut off, and then subsequently rejected me. They also told me on interview that all of their students drop out and go into industry, which I later corroborated by viewing student/alumni profiles and former student co-authors on their program website. In fact, I assumed that they had a terminal MA program until I was informed on their dropout rate during the interview. Common sense indicates that if something isn't working out (i.e., if a program cannot successfully identify students who persist into degree completion for selection), do something different. Cost of $13k stipend for 5 years = $65,000 Cost of tuition waiver = ~$50,000 for five years (crude estimate based on undergrad rates at this specific institution) Cost of fellowships/conference travel = $5,000 ($1,000 a year if the student is awesome and wins a lot) Cost of the university's investment on students who drop out after 5 years = $120,000. Quite a substantial investment with absolutely nothing to show for it.

Been on ~10 interviews for psych programs, about half of which were at R1 institutions. Have not met any ivy leaguers who are either (1) prospective candidates or (2) current PhD students. I work for a social science research firm and nearly all of my PhD, BA/BS, and MA/MS level colleagues have ivy league pedigrees. Do they all become disgruntled with academia and head for the hills? If so, I don't blame them one bit because I have a few acceptances, and I already feel like doing the same.

That makes sense! I'd argue social/community is female-dominated, too. I speculate the same with UG programs.

:semi-relevant tangent: Is being a female in psych really special status? Every psych department I've ever seen is wicked female-dominated at the UG and grad levels. Side note: not trying to start a debate! I'm seriously ignorant to gender affirmative action in the social sciences, and my (non-scientific) gut/observations lead me to believe that gender balance would be achieved by recruiting more males if such a system were in place.

I'm stuck between a big name uni with stronger funding and a no-name uni with a newer program in a stellar location with some impressive opportunities :x I know I'm in VERY competent hands with the former, while the latter grants me more autonomy to carve out my future. Yikes!