TheMercySeat

Referring to the table on pg. 169... these correlations aren't that impressive at all. They only used first year GPA and the correlations produced by long term measures (for example, degree attainment and research productivity) are even weaker. Also, students who had a different major are typically required to take the psych subject GREs when applying to non-clinical programs, and most programs require all applicants to submit the subject GREs if they are applying to a clinical program... so I am skeptical that requiring the subject GRE would create more barriers for students who had a different major because they are required to take the subject GRE, anyway. Replacing the GRE general with another assessment for college admissions isn't that drastic of a change-- ETS started aggressively promoting the GRE as a replacement for the GMAT in business school admissions when it became profitable for ETS to do so (GMAT broke away from ETS and became an independent entity, AKA competition) Here is my reputable source on group means by gender and race, btw: http://www.ets.org/s/gre/pdf/snapshot_test_taker_data.pdf Similar gaps exist with the SAT. It also points out some concerning results in terms of age, too. Using the GRE or SAT as a predictor of success becomes problematic when performance on these assessments directly contradict performance in the classroom (see pretty much every piece of research ever done on academic success/failure and retention by gender). What hypothesis would you use to explain these gaps? I, for one, would like to see differential prediction/measurement invariance studies done with the previously mentioned subgroups...

I, for one, remain underwhelmed with that -.08 correlation!!! For such a high-stakes exam, I think it is reasonable for one to expect stronger correlations. It looks like things get a little funky after 1st year GGPA, too. The financial burden argument makes no sense... There's a simple solution: universities can scrap the general GREs and use the subject GREs. Such a policy change would save students $35. Consider also that women and minorities have lower means on all subscales of the GREs. If the GRE truly predicts graduate success, then wouldn't it be a lost cause to let women and minorities into graduate school? How can one justify having nonwhites and women in higher education?

Because (to reference one program I got into) their website didn't show how dysfunctional the department is and how unhappy the students are? Larger elements of fit (culture and values) can't really be communicated via a website, either. I was extremely picky/limited with POIs, and so I blantantly disregarded other factors when applying to programs. Perhaps your experiences were different, but I learned A LOT from site visits and interviews that were not communicated on the program's website. I even had one POI badmouth another program and other professors without prompting. I can keep the reasons coming, if you'd like.

So I'm bracing myself and playing the waiting game. I have some offers on hand and I'm very concerned about regret if I act on them. Does anybody else have this dilemma? Or have friends who have been in this position and either had it work out for them or blow up? This seems like a supportive place and I'm curious to gain insight on reconciling this issue. ***note when I reference my 'top cluster,' I mean in terms of fit.

I know unemployed people with business degrees!!! Business!!! Haven't had a stable job since they graduated ~2 years ago from a fairly well-regarded institution. It's a gamble. All of it. The PhDs I know from Princeton and UCLA didn't expect the market for academic jobs to crap out when they started doctoral studies 6 years ago.

I actually have friends with art degrees and they never did it thinking they'll made oodles of money. Moreover, they're doing pretty well for themselves-- the one released a photography book that has been sold out on Amazon.com and Barnes and Noble since December and is always in the news for his work (NPR, The Guardian, NBC, LA Times, and major east coast papers), while the other two work steady photog jobs for architectural firms. Also consider: your grandfather was active during the post-WW II era, right? AKA the largest expansion of wealth in this nation's history? Things were different -in every sense of the word- back then. I agree that college isn't the golden ticket to a cushy job, but the market is typically a bit uglier without a college education. To be honest, I don't know what is the golden ticket to a cushy job for our generation, short of being at the right place at the right time or working for uber wealthy parents (I.e., I knew a girl who made 50k in the summers as a college kid by filing paperwork for her hot shot attorney father)

Also valid, but that speaks to the idea that she must have been very sure that she wanted it at the time. She probably started enrollment prior to second-wave feminism, and it probably was not consistently well-received by people in her life at the time. Hell, it's 2015 and neither my grandparents nor parents understand why I don't want to live at home until I get married.

Some of my coworkers might as well have honorary doctorates though- seriously! I'm referring to well-published, full-time research associates with decades of experience who are ABDs or have a master's degree. One is a woman who went to Harvard in the 1960s (ABDS), and surely we all can speculate why a woman might have had a hard time pssing a dissertation at an Ivy in the 1960s.

I applied to NCSU and UNCC. I had interviews, but I'm still sitting impatiently in limbo. Does anybody know what is going on?! (Also, above poster, I didn't not apply to DePaul, so I have no info)

(1) Apply to programs with an applied emphasis. Such programs align better with my background and career goals. (2) Factor location more into the application process. That way, if I end up being part of the 50% who drop or fail out or if the job market gets any worse and I end up being unemployed with a PhD, at least I could look back on it as an excuse to live somewhere awesome (I know! Awful to say... but you never know what life throws at you)

Thanks!! It would (in my mind): (1) add value to my PhD (2) speak to the breadth of my training (3) if I'm part of the 50% that fail to complete a PhD, I won't leave empty handed. I'm not counting on dropping out, but it's always nice to have a plan B if something happens to me, my advisor, my program ect. The university has a relationship with a partner institution that hosts an accredited MPH, so I might look into seeing if I have any wiggle room with that in the interest of having an accredited degree. Can one have a reasonable job with a MPH from an unaccredited program if (3) happens?

Hi all, I got into a PhD program at a reputable institution that just recently incorporated a MPH into the university's graduate programs. The MPH is new and pending accreditation, and I was told that it would probably be accredited upon my graduation. I never had the intention of getting a MPH until now, and I think this option would add maybe a year onto my degree. I would appreciate some informed opinions on this option.

Ha! People spend years grooming to be a competitive PhD psych applicant, so it makes me sad to hear about these kind of things :x

I have a friend with a BA in anthropology from a no name LAC who told me that he got into a top ten clinical psychology PhD. He has... No clinical experience, no research experience, and no psych coursework. He's career military, this was in 2004, and he ended up declining the acceptance to take on a lucrative fed job. I finally squeezed out of him: his friend's dad is (was?) the president of a big name university, and he made a couple phone calls on my friend's behalf. Do things like this happen a lot? It's really depressing to think about.

No!!! ...but I'm proud of everybody who has gotten in. Congrats, future PhDs!

x

Perhaps the only time I've read "UPenn" and "lower ranked" in the same sentence ^^^ (apparently not well received, but I stand by my statement: UPenn is a stellar institution)

Yes and no! The opinions and dynamics of other students make it glaringly obvious which program are cliquey, how happy the students are, and so on. My colleagues stress reputation, networking, etc., which makes things extremely hard for me because the institution that has the most to offer in that regard is in an undesirable location. There are no guarantees that I will get a rock star job* even with the benefits of good networking anyway, and so I am apprehensive to move to an extremely undesirable location to go to a particular institution with the belief that it will make me more employable. *I work with PhD-level ivy leaguers who have seen a lot of unemployment and underemployment in their graduating classes.

Thanks!!! I just shot my POI a note --not to nag her, but to ask if I can speak to current students in the program in the event that my app is still being considered. My interviews were on the phone due to scheduling conflicts for the in-person interview, so I'd like to get student perspectives on all of the programs before making any commitments.

Congrats!!! That rocks!!! Having a GRE Q scraping below the 48th percentile, I seriously thought I wouldn't get in anywhere, and so I let GRE thresholds dictate which schools I applied to. I also applied to a very rigorous university on a whim and got accepted. I hope perspectives for the next cycle who struggle with GRE Q see our victories and don't get discouraged! If we didn't come out of the woodwork, I would have been left thinking that all grad cafe psych applicants scored above the 70th percentile in everything.

Thanks for that! It was for PsyPi, and I reaaaalllllyyyy want NCSU, so we will see.

I'd NEVER admit this on interview out of fear of discrimination, but I'm a first generation social science applicant and the first person in my family to have more than a BA. I know what I'm doing insomuch as I'm a paid research professional who presents and publishes independent work. Beyond that, I have NO idea wtf I'm doing.

My POI sent me a very polite (unsolicited) email explaining to me that the department just sent the dean a wish list of applicants, and that acceptances cannot be extended until the dean approves. She said that I will probably hear from her in about a week. I speculate that most programs do a lot of negotiation both within and outside the department before they're allowed to make formal offers. It must be an arduous process for all involved, especially when dealing with limited resources. It's not easy, but try to sit tight!

Does anybody feel as lost about the decision-making process? It's incredible how informative site visits and interviews are, and how little I knew on what to look for during the application process (beyond research content, of course).