[PhD Fall 2018 Applicants]

4 hours ago, PsyZei said:

I am officially calling it quits on holding my breathe about any last minute notifications before the holiday closings. Hope everyone has a great next week and that we all get amazing news next year! 

Last year  I received an interview invite on the 22nd of December and another on the 24th.

[Princeton, NJ]

On 2/6/2017 at 3:59 PM, darthmoeder said:

bumping this thread for 2017-2018

Does anyone know how LGBTQ-friendly the area is? Also, I'm international and was wondering which airport would be the most convenient to fly into & how do I get to Princeton from there, given that I have a couple of large suitcases.

Not sure about LGBT question but as for the latter.  One way is to fly into Newark Liberty international airport, take the airtrain at the airport to Newark airport station, buy a ticket towards Trenton and ride the train up until Princeton junction. From there take the dinky to Princeton Station.  

[Perception and Cognition Fall 2017 Applicants]

2 hours ago, bluejay93 said:

Has anyone heard from these schools: Boston U, Chicago, Emory, Pitt, Stanford, UC Irvine, Oregon, and UT Austin?

From the results and the posts here, I get the impression that Stanford, Pitt, and Chicago already sent out interview invites, but I'm not totally sure.

During my recent interview at Princeton from talking to the other prospectives Stanford and Pitt have sent out and scheduled interviews. Pitt should be in 2 weeks if I remember correctly, and the Stanford Psychology is also later in the month / beginning of March I don't remember the exact date.

[Perception and Cognition Fall 2017 Applicants]

6 hours ago, Lucyshoneypie said:

Thanks for responding!

I was holding onto the fact that the ones who got interviews applied to neuroscience while I applied to Memory/cognition & I was an international candidate :/ But I guess it is time to face the facts now...

Just to be clear, my comment on interview day was with respect to psychology. Sorry to bring the bad news.

[Perception and Cognition Fall 2017 Applicants]

5 hours ago, Lucyshoneypie said:

Hi everyone! Has anyone heard from Princeton or Stony Brook?

There have been posts on here and the results section that show Princeton sent out interview invites around December 20th, interview day is February 3rd.

[Perception and Cognition Fall 2017 Applicants]

33 minutes ago, OhSoSolipsistic said:

That's true, theory will and should stay rooted in cognitive science. I guess I was trying to say the recent rise and focus of HCI/HSI seems to partially explain why there may be less of a focus and/or interest on theory-based cog sci research within psychology, even though I'd argue that necessitates more interest and funding.

I would agree if it were the case that engineers were applying to cog-neuro programs (and I honestly have no idea, though I don't doubt some were, and that the rise of interdisciplinary programs would certainly be more appealing). From my experience applicants to cog-neuro programs primarily come from psychology backgrounds, and it would be interesting to know, given that you have experience with these interdisciplinary programs if the applicants there come from psych departments or engineering or a mix, though I would tend to think that these program favor engineers / math majors over psych.

[Anyone else feel like their brains do this?]

I've sorta been running an experiment on myself, where I either do my usual daily things, read, solve puzzles, write computer programs, do some math, OR go a few days w/o any of this (as much as I can manage).  In the latter situation, when I then try to get back into my usual routine, I have to admit that my brain feels utterly useless for about the first day or so. Does this happen to anyone else? 

A part of me wonders if this has anything to do with intelligence, that is, people who are actually smart don't have to constantly bombard their brains tasks that require considerable mental effort. If they decide to go watch T.V for a few days, they'd be able to get right back into it, no problem. 

Now don't get me wrong, I don't mind having to constantly do what I do to retain my mental sharpness, on the contrary I enjoy it. That being said, I'm left wondering if other people also feel this way? 

[Quantitative Psychology: what are the PhD programs like?]

To the OP, I would encourage a healthy skepticism of  some of the comments on this thread. Ask yourself if you enjoy the type of work you'd be doing in a quant program ? How, lets say "deep" do you enjoy going into the layers of "quantyness" ?  

If you decide to apply to quant programs and are accepted, maybe you can try this type of exercise, pick a well known method, try to understand it conceptually, look at the math, try working it out, and then give it a go at implementing it in a programming language. 

For example, start small with simple linear regression (one predictor -> one response variable), that would require basic algebra at most,  then move on to multiple linear regression, for efficiency, in what's called a closed form solution you'll need to understand some matrix algebra (because you'll need to compute dot products and matrix inverses), then try other methods of estimating the coefficients (which by the way is all you really need in regression, once you have those you can easily get a lot of other things). The other methods might involve optimization methods, the "argmin" you see in methods papers at times. 

This type of exercise might not be helpful for everyone, but it was definitely helpful for me.

 

EDIT: when I say implement I don't mean start up R and doing: 

lm(y ~ x)

and also...the exercise described above in no way attempts to mimic or relate a similar idea of the complexity of the work quant phd students might have to do.

 

[Academic Politics - Something to Consider When Choosing an Adviser/Department]

On 9/22/2016 at 3:05 PM, lewin said:

 only trust findings that were pre-registered because they assume those findings were p-hacked or whatever, that's not helpful. It signals distrust of and disrespect for your colleagues.

IMHO the reputation of field far outweighs the delicate egos of some researchers. Why wouldn't we want to preregister a hypotheses we are confident about?  I think the answer is obvious and preregistering in no way precludes being respectful and or cordial. Pre-registering simply keeps you honest, and before anyways starts with "honesty should be assumed" we aren't talking about a relationship between two people, this is suppose to be science.  Also, I'd argue that exploration isn't "bad", so long as you state it as such.

[Venting Thread- Vent about anything.]

We are suppose to have this really nice computing cluster that's suppose to facilitate research, but really for more than half of 2016 it's been complete crap! How in the **** *** ******** universe does  a cluster this size get back up by a mere 300 jobs scheduled !?!?! ARRRGGGGGGGGH

["Scientist" or not?]

14 hours ago, TakeruK said:

If I understand what you are describing correctly, then this is all very normal. In my field, collaborations are often with many people. Maybe not as big as labs, but the papers I've led are usually with around 10 other coauthors. Some of these coauthors contribute directly to the paper, either by providing data that they have analyzed and/or plots they have made. I trust them to have not lied to me. But in addition to the trust, it's the responsibility of the "leader" to ensure that they believe the results they have been given. So, I make sure I actually understand their work. I have my coauthors explain their analysis to me and when they do, they use citations to works that prove their method is correct. I ask questions until I am satisfied that I understand what they did and everything about their results make sense.

But you are right that I don't actually go and do the work myself. They might have said all of the correct explanations but made a mistake in the code, or in the worst case, actually just made up the results and didn't do the work at all. This is why we are all coauthors---when we collaborate, we all stand behind each other's work together. It is a necessity because one person cannot do all of the work independently. Science requires collaborations.

In this example, I am the "person A" in your analogy. I just published a paper as a "Person A" but in the last few months I have been a "Person B" or "Person C" in 3 or 4 other papers. Everyone else is in a similar situation too so no one wants to be a lying "Person B" because when they are a "Person A", they don't want their "Person B"s to be lying to them. This is why in academia, our reputation as honest researchers are so important. This is why academic honesty and integrity is so important and when you see people posting about ethically dubious things on these forums, other researchers are quick to shut it down.

The system is not perfect and there are many examples of paper retractions and careers being ruined because of bad decisions. But it does work most of the time. It's also important to choose collaborators wisely!

I may be wrong but, from your statement of  everyone being person B and C at some point, this suggest that you could carry out the analysis, had that been your role in project X, where you are person A. The cases that I talk about are ones where person A would be incapable of doing it, they wouldn't be able of fulling the roles of persons B or C, if someone else was person A. It's that fact that sort of rubs me the wrong way.

["Scientist" or not?]

Over the past year I've come to notice a trend in the lab I'm currently part of, and other well known successful labs in my field, though there are exceptions.  For a bit of context, to do even remotely decent research in my field it requires a good amount of computer programing knowledge and skill amongst other things, (mathematical maturity, excellent writing, social skills ).  Throughout undergrad I always thought of successful researchers as these amazing polymaths with tons of domain knowledge, a (relatively )deep understanding of mathematics and statistics, and computer science. Though what I've come to understand from my current position and experience is that this really isn't the case, at all. What seems to be common is, you have person A, who is a post doc or a graduate student, who has this great idea and has read a ton literature on the topic. Then you have person B, and maybe even person C. A, B, and C all communicate with one another in some capacity, A is usually the "leader" and B and C are the technicians. They do the math, write the code, do the analysis, replicate the results, make sure everything is square and good to go and then send the data over to A. Person A then has B and C explain all the steps, proceeds to publish and the rest is history. This is where I start to get uneasy about calling person A a scientist, for a few reasons:

 

1. If not for the technicians person A wouldn't have the results that he/she has, wouldn't know how to do the analysis, and not be capable of it save you stop time for(at least) a couple of years for the requisite knowledge and skill to be acquired.

2. B and C could, in theory just lie about the results with enough reasonable sounding BS talk and person A might not be able to discern solid research from...not so solid research.

3. Removing the possibility of any intentional foul play, what about the cases of innocent  hiccups and mishaps that may go overlooked, how is person A ever to identify these events?

 

Now, if I step back for a bit,  this setup  really does make sense, it seems ideal. Why? Because you can't possibly expect one person to know all of these things at once, and in the few cases that you do have this, it's because someone has come over from a BS/CS masters or BA/BS in math, and has along the way held an interest in the topic. If university admissions committees were to limit admissions only to those with this type of background, our graduate departments would soon cease to exist

 

So therein lies my little internal conflict with what people do in this field  that I've dedicated so much time to. 

 

Opinions on this matter? Is this common in your line of research? How am I looking at this in the wrong way? 

[Learning Python]

I doubt many people if any will offer free tutoring. Here are some websites that can be useful: 

https://www.codecademy.com

https://www.codewars.com

 

Much like anything else in life, the more you practice the better you will be. It might take time to feel confident with the language, and, by that I don't mean knowing how to do the basics. Stick with it for years, any chance you get to put python to use, do it. I liken it very much to math, I can look up definitions for how to go about doing certain computations but that will come and go if I have no discipline, structure and purpose for it's use. 

[First-generation student (or not)?]

First in my family to have a BA (thanks to some great professors/mentors, a lot of luck, and a little bit of hard work), and will be the first with a PhD (hopefully, if I get there). We're immigrants and in my native country the schooling for kids, when my parents were of age was up until middle school before they were expected to get jobs to help out their respective families.

[Fall 2017 Applications]

1 minute ago, clinpsy said:

There's no use comparing yourself at this stage in the game. We all take different paths. What matters is that you're pursuing your passion. There are truly no 'shoulds' or 'should nots' when it comes to academic and professional careers. I've worked with PhD students who were in their late 40s, and others who were early 20s! 

Very true, I thank you all for combating the opinions of my silly mind(upon writing this I've realized that it could be read with a sarcastic tone, it is not).

Moving elsewhere, I guess I should share my "stats". 4 years of research experience, 2 while in undergrad and 2 post-grad. 170 quant score and 162 verbal score on GRE. Not entirely sure what opinions I have about how strong my LORs will be just yet. GPA of 3.6. One area that I'm pretty much terrified about is my personality / confidence for if/when I get interviews, afraid this will ward people off, but I'm working on this, I think.

[Fall 2017 Applications]

2 minutes ago, LabyrinthianMind said:

I'm starting this fall.... I'll be 30.

Aha, perhaps old is the wrong word, hmm... late? later? lol

[Fall 2017 Applications]

9 minutes ago, khunconan said:

The average age of graduate students in psychology is 25-26.

Understood, it's simply an idea stuck in my head, a consequence of my own opinion of when(the time point) I should have applied to phd programs. Also, now I'm curious are you talking average entering age or average age of grad students in phd programs or is this masters included?

[Fall 2017 Applications]

After sometime on this forum I'll finally be applying the coming application season. A part of me feels like an old man applying to grad school, if I get in somewhere I'll be 25 when I start, so not tooo old but compared to someone who just got out of undergrad it seems like a lot of time in between the transition.

[MacBook or Windows in USA?]

If you're OK on the cost of getting a new computer, I'd suggest a mac for one simple reason: it's unix in a pretty apple wrapper. What this means is, if you ever want to start using something like the shell (a terminal you open on the computer to type commands into) to make your research life 1000x easier, save a ton of time, and easily organize files, then you have the option of doing it right out of the box, no special plugins/ programs you'll need to download. Some might argue that this is really overkill, in regards to using this argument for getting a mac but on the plus side you get to learn some new cool tricks on your computer, and you  vastly improve your research productivity.

[Harvard 2015 Psych Applicants]

4 hours ago, JoePianist said:

Pro-Tip: Next time, focus your time and energy on funded Ph.D Psychology programs at public universities instead

Not sure what you mean by "funded", but make no mistake, there is no phd student at Harvard who isn't funded, in fact the reason why things are so ambiguous and unsystematic is because they have so much damn money. Also I believe the Harvard site explicitly states that all phd students are guaranteed funding for 5 years. 

[Harvard 2015 Psych Applicants]

44 minutes ago, Freudian_Slip said:

@TenaciousBushLeaper Do you know if POIs are still reaching out, by any chance? Seems like it's a broad window based on last year, but since several have received interviews scattered over the past 10 days or so, I don't know if that window's closing soon..?

Just to be clear, I'm not at Harvard,  I just  happen to know a few people, so I cannot provide a clear answer here ;[

[Harvard 2015 Psych Applicants]

Just so you all know, Harvard doesn't necessarily have an "interview weekend" where the applicants gather and such, your POI will contact you if they have funding/ are accepting students/ have interest in you (implied). 

 

Oh god I did not read the dates...anyways, still applies. 

[Interview/Interview Invitation Thread]

13 hours ago, 130 said:

Have a lot of people heard from Stanford Psychology?  I feel like I saw some invites a while back for Social/Personality, but what about other areas, like Affective Science or Neural Science?

Yes, both affective and neuro have sent out invites, can't say they've all been sent out though. 

[Good temporary jobs until grad school]

22 minutes ago, sjoh197 said:

^^^ I didn't really take this away from the original post. I've worked fast food and it sucked... So I would describe said jobs as crappy. Not because they are beneath me, but because they typically suck to work at. Crappy hours, crappy pay, crappy recognition of work = crappy job.

 

Honestly, if these jobs weren't crappy, many of us wouldn't need or want to go to college to begin with.

Oh fine, I will quantify my statement, that is what some people will take away. 

[Good temporary jobs until grad school]

On 1/2/2016 at 10:51 PM, brush said:

@rising_star

You sure love making baseless assumptions about me.

• "There's actually a reason fast food workers are rarely high school employees anymore."

Irrelevant. And I never made any claims about how many fast food workers are in high school.

• "The job isn't as easy as it looks."

Irrelevant. Also I never said it was easy.

• "If your goal is to make a lot of money without having to work hard"

That's not my goal.

• "maybe you should go play the lottery or something. "

Even if that was my goal this is terrible advice.

• "Also, if you're going to look down on people and their work"

I'm not "looking down" on anyone. A job being crappy is separate from the person working that job being crappy.

• "make sure you also don't require their work for your life."

Even if I did look down on such workers it doesn't follow that I shouldn't use their work.

• "I hope your recognize how lucky you are to be able to live with your parents and not need any income."

You don't have to worry about what I recognize.

Humans don't work as logical deducers (like for example computers)...so it doesn't matter if you didn't type out the exact sentence "I feel a fast food job is below me" or anything producing it's equivalence in meaning. Per your original post, even if in fact you did not mean to convey that message, that's what you did, and what anyone who cares about that statement will take away from it.