TheMercySeat

Valid! as somebody who primarily applied to experimental psych programs, it seems like the interdisciplinary/applied ones are not hurting nearly as much as traditional experimental psychology programs.

Hi all, What is it like living out here? What are some of the top activities people do for fun?

^This. I feel like I see the writing on the wall with a lot of these programs :x

I'm sorry, I phrased this wrong! I meant to say that a program that cannot even afford to fund a student probably is lacking in other resources-- i.e., if they magically received enough money to take on a student, chances are that the program will not be in any shape to provide remotely decent conference support or have resources to cover other student needs.

That is AWFUL!!! The one that told me they have no $ was my number one program, and they implied that they will consider accepting a student without funding. I keep telling myself that the inability to afford a student is indicative of deeper systemic issues, and that it is for the best I don't go there-- For example, who wants to go to a program that lacks conference support or lacks the resources to present students with as many learning opportunities. Looking at it that way helps me a lot, and I hope it helps you

That's probably why! I made the mistake of applying to programs that do mock jury research, which warrants a lot of "make believe factors" (make believe juries, make believe case transcripts, ect.). The aggressive POI made it abundantly clear to me that he doesn't care at all about 'the real world.'

Also wanted to mention (as a fellow psych geek!): I had a program I interviewed at tell me "PS, we probably don't have funding for a student at all." Another place I interviewed at- an R1- has only one professor accepting students due to financial constraints. It really helps me make sense of rejection when I consider exactly how terrible the financial situation is at some of these universities.

That is so awful I feel your pain-- it's frustrating to put so much time and energy into something and to just have it crap out. I personally feel like it's irresponsible for universities to reject more than, let's say, 4 people per slot because traveling out to these places requires substantial financial commitment and working around work/school schedules. I don't know what to make of it when interviewers are aggressive-- I can't tell if it is a stress test or what. One POI was kinda aggressive towards me, as if he was taking it out on me because I have more applied experience than the preferred experimental experience. It was pretty ridiculous because (1) it is on him if he didn't read my CV thoroughly before inviting me out, and (2) what cost me two days of work cost him maybe an hour of his time, if that, and (3) I'd argue that the stakes are higher on applied work, and there's less room for error than seen in most pure experimental research (my primary project is a multimillion dollar federal grant with real world implications-- if my team botches it, bad things happen) This whole process is ridiculous. Try not to let it drag you down-- sometimes people apply for one, two, or even three years without receiving interviews, let alone an offer, and especially at least two offers.

Did awful on the GRE Q. Got a full scholarship for a terminal MA into a top rater regional university. Was awarded travel grants and an additional scholarship to cover textbooks. Graduated a semester early with a 3.93 GPA. Looks like my 'IQ' was fine after all, and the GRE is just a piss poor indicator of graduate success. Oh, and I am up to two PhD acceptances. OP, studying for the GRE was pretty awful for me because my 40 hour a week job flared up to about 80 hours a week from May to September and moreover, I commute for two hours a day back and forth to work.

The application process sucks. The application process sucks. The application process sucks. The application process sucks. The application process sucks. The application process sucks. I hate everything about it, from taking off of work to attend interviews, to the disgustingly competitive nature of it all (and superficiality, for that matter) and the pageantry of it, to academic pretensions ("Mmmm... yes. Who did you study under?") and meeting anxious 5th and 6th year students who are terrified of graduating, to being cognizant that the myself and the majority of these talented and hardworking interviewees will experience multiple rejections.

I was leaving Joshua Tree National Park (excursion from SPSP conference) and, upon gaining reception, instinctually checked my email for rejections... Only I got an acceptance

Thanks!!! Had the call... ACCEPTED!

And PS, I wrote to the professor asking politely about the rejection and received tremendous feedback. It put my mind to ease and confirmed some suspicions

i have a call on Friday. Have I mentioned everything about this process sucks?

Not notifying post-interview is trashy.

I got a rejection snail mail from a university, followed up by an email two weeks later indicating that they just secured $ for a student, and that I was on top of the list. The email was sent @10 PM on a Sunday I'm invited to "visitation day for admitted students" and the secretary is requesting official transcripts... So I think I got accepted? Haven't heard a peep from the other places I interviewed at. Not sure what is taking so long.

Celebrate: beer. Recuperate: beer. Kidding! I was mid conversation with my mom and checking my email when good news came in... 10 PM on a Sunday, of all times. "What?! What happened?! What's wrong?!" "I think... I just got accepted?!"

Just to elucidate this post, SAS is the gold standard in every job I've read about outside of academia, hence my interest in learning it. Neither my undergrad nor my current employer has it, and I can't afford a personal license. Teaching myself SAS right now isn't an option due to these access issues, and I want to make sure that wherever I attend will grant me access to it. I am looking at job postings with an intent of matching my skills to the respective postings. Valid point on R being free, but I don't think R is widely used in government jobs and in the private sector.

TRAITOR!!! Academia is the ONLY noble route. Only people who are privileged enough to afford college are worthy of your effort and talents. ...Kidding, of course!!!!

Ohhh!!! I phrased this wrong I meant to that ASU accepts any high school graduate applicant into their undergraduate program who has a pulse, as evidenced by ASU's 80% acceptance rate for high school graduates seeking entry into undergraduate studies.

Soooooo weird!!! The acceptance rate of some institutions with rockstar professors suggests that they'll take any undergrad applicant with a pulse (ASU comes to mind, which accepts 80% of applicants). I did it all wrong by going to an UG institution with a more strigent acceptance rate

Is it really a thing? Discuss. I'll go first: it wierds me out when applicants are introduced as so-and-so's student. I want to me known for what *I* accomplished, not for who I paid thousands upon thousands of dollars to sit in a classroom with. Does who candidate Y studied with really negate the fact that candidate Z has a master's degree and a gazillion presentations and publications, while candidate Y is still finishing up his or her bachelors degree with virtually no research experience and exposure to a hot shot professor? I keep seeing people conforming to the latter profile on interview days, which is bizarre because I thought successful PhD applicants were expected to have professional research experience (pubs and presentations).

"Who did you study with? ...I never heard of him." (My internal dialogue) "Funny... I never heard of you, either. Oh, that's why... While you and your colleagues fight over 100k grants, my colleagues win multimillion dollar research grants." I am quickly losing faith in this process

Grad cafe needs an undo function!!!

I just hit downvote accidentally. For real :/