smbtuckma

It really depends on the year - how many profs have the funding to take new students, what the applicant pool looks like, etc. Typically we do take ~50% of the interviewees, but that cohort size can vary a lot. Last year we interviewed 14 and accepted 9, but my year they interviewed 19 or 20. 13 sounds reasonable for this year though since last year's cohort was pretty large! 

Just giving you guys a heads up, from a current grad - UCLA Social Psych should be finishing up their interview invites this week or early next! 

Just giving you guys a heads up, from a current grad - UCLA Social Psych should be finishing up their interview invites this week or early next! 

Just giving you guys a heads up, from a current grad - UCLA Social Psych should be finishing up their interview invites this week or early next! 

Well I'm starting my PhD this fall at UCLA, so it better be legitimate
 
In all seriousness, though, UCLA is a fantastic place to get your degree. It is competitive though, like all psych PhD programs in the US. Unfortunately, these days PhD is almost the only option to get after a bachelors in psych (there are a few masters programs, but not many and they cost soooo much), so competitive will likely be what you have to deal with across the board. 

I love the Salton Sea! So eerie and beautiful. It's a great exploration and photography spot. Have fun!

First tip for you is to take the Psych GRE. I didn't take it, but it's a must for your situation, to display your psychology knowledge. Your GRE scores are better than mine, but I didn't go for top programs or clinical, so maybe retake the general if you can. Maybe you could try to put together a psychology writing sample, such as a review paper. Attend psychology conferences and network - jot down any memberships on your CV. Psychology and economics are closely related and I don't even think people would think this jump is very unusual!

"Normal" depends on the program. Some PhD programs take longer or have later due dates and therefore later decisions. Masters programs are pretty quiet across the board until later February/early March (not always true). The results page is your friend/curse for this kind of information.
Edit: Sorry. I pretty much echoed Shana. Somehow I didn't see her post.

Yea I recieved one in the mail. And one on the website for me to print out and frame I assume lol. 

That probably depends on your program. Some emphasize the ability to take classes or collaborate outside of the department (there's your opportunity to learn CS at the school), and some don't. But also, if you're self motivated, there are sooooo many online classes for teaching coding like coursera, udacity, and coding-specific websites. There's almost too many resources.

Haha we all have to start somehow!
 
I hate math. Or rather, I hate my experience of it because I've never been good at it. But psych stats and quantitative analysis for brain studies is really exciting to me because of what I can learn. I'm also motivated to be someone who actually understands the analysis they're doing (no "double dipping" in data or anything like that) because I love this subject and I want to truly know it and teach it. So that level of motivation has helped me improve my quant skills greatly.

I think quantitative psych is an excellent idea!  My undergrad advisor had a quant psych degree and, i think, it's probably the least popular program to apply for.  So potentially less competition (although your quantitative skills really need to be up to snuff). Plus, you can pretty much do research in any area of psychology as you'd really be a methodologist/statistical person and can work within any theoretical framework you like.

@psych face - I can totally see some "truth" from what you said, in that there are a number of subjective factors that go into this process, so with that I agree. I do feel bad that you have to come to the conclusion that we are all stupid and bias though (I assumed you were a guy because of your avatar, because you know, an assumption by the very nature of its definition is something derived from no proof).
 
P = There is a white guy in your avatar (X).
Q = People gravitate to similarity.
A = Maybe you are a white guy.
X turns out not to be a white guy.
 
^These assumptions that we make (i.e. heuristics) are how people think (All people minus some seldom exceptions). No matter how hard we try to delve into a logic based mindset, we will forever be heuristic-based creatures.
 
That said, I feel bad that you have to conclude to that. I won't counter with a "You are just a mean jerk," because I know that your words were catalyzed by some negativity, and I don't want to add to that. So I wish you the best of luck and a virtual hug.
 
@Everyone else - does anyone know if U Denver is done with their Social Program invitations?

The fact that you, and probably most of the people here, have assumed I'm a white male, or a male at all, probably from my choice of avatar, just goes to prove my point: you're stupid AND biased. Your judgments are made from incredibly stupid assumptions that have no basis in fact whatsoever. I don't mind pretending I'm a man in order to point out how biased you are against men. It's absolutely disgusting. You people need to open your eyes about your own personal problems. The reason I'm against bias is because I've been victimized by it in the workplace. But unlike most people, I don't think that reverse bias is any better. It's just as ugly. Peoople in a psychology forum should be a little more aware of their ignorant biases. I guess that's my own stupid assumption at work.

I am also a person who gets this inaccurate age-guessing. I'm usually 10-15 years older than people guess. And I do think it hurts my chances, because anyone who has researched genius knows the spark is most likely to die out before 35. I don't blame them for assuming the same of me from the age stated on my materials. This only reaffirms the necessity for some of us to network in person. And I do think there is some judgment done based on age. I can get people who already know me to throw jobs at me, but I can't convince on paper very well. Compound this with the fact that current graduate students here on this website have admitted to being the application filtering committees via "googling parties" before the professors get what remains (the dumbest way to gauge a person's worth, in my opinion, but whatever) - all of this suggests a very relevant difficulty for some of us. And before that cohort goes back into self-defense mode, filled with ego, stop pretending you aren't judging from a place of your own personal bias, we all do it. If your entire lab is fresh and young, you will pick people you are comfortable with and most likely think less of someone who is a little behind in their educational persuits. You can't help it. You are humans.
 
As far as the competitiveness discussion earlier about what is and is not a factor in your application; I'm surprised that race hasn't been brought into this. There is a former Harvard department chair here who tells stories about how the top tier schools fight over members of rare minority groups. It's quite revolting, but certainly brings in a factor that can't be ignored. A white male I was recently talking to expressed a lot of apathy about applying to graduate schools due to some of the stories that have been coming out about reverse discrimination. I feel for him and it bothers me a lot. Take it for what you will, but to ignore race (or gender, perhaps) as a factor in admissions is stupid.
 
I also leave room for a lot of fairly stupid factors being used to make judgments; for example, depending on your emphasis and POI there are going to be quirky little idiocies that are unpredictable and probably unfair. But because we don't want to scrutinize our own failings (or the stupidities of others) too much, we call it luck.

No, you don't.
 
Source: Am in grad school (PhD @ R1 university), did not have any publications at time of admission. Also know/know of students who were admitted before and after me w/o publications.
 
Remember, graduate school is still, well, school. You're not expected to come in with a record as strong as someone who has been in the program for awhile, just as you weren't expected to know everything about psychology (or whatever) when you picked it as your undergrad major. Publications are a product of your research training, and grad school is where you get the vast majority of that training in the first place.
 
Furthermore, graduate programs want students who will benefit from the program, and vice-versa, meaning they're not concerned with what you have done so much as with what you can do. So it's true that having publications will help your case, because it clearly demonstrates that you're capable of executing the research process from start to finish--but NOT having any pubs doesn't imply that you are incapable of executing the research process from start to finish, and there are other things that might also reflect your ability to succeed in grad school (e.g., your academic record, your letters of rec, the quality of your personal statement, and whatever research experience you DO have*).
 
If you have the chance to get a publication, or publications, before starting grad school, by all means go for it. But don't assume that getting published is a prerequisite for getting accepted. I speak from firsthand experience when I say that anyone who tells you otherwise is full of crap.
 
(P.S.: if you still don't believe me, don't forget that getting published is f***ing hard. If grad schools only accepted applicants who had already been published, they'd quickly run out of grad students.
 
P.P.S.: For the record, I went to an obscure public liberal arts college--not an Ivy or some other "prestigious" school--and I still got in.)
 
*Listed in no particular order.

Okay, time out.
 
I after watching this forum for a while and after seeing two pages of messages added over the course of today, I need to interject.
 
Regarding everyone who is upset about not getting in / thinking that they are incapable / not good enough / etc., I have a story to tell. I graduated from a decent university, had a decent GPA (<3.6, though I had two majors), and a meh GRE score (at the time, 153V, 158Q, 3.0V; retook, 151V, 154Q, 4.5W). I had worked in a lab for about a year and a half while in school before I applied for the first time for graduate school. After meeting a professor at a conference, I made a good impression, applied to their program, got an interview, and was not admitted (I repeat not). Although I did get accepted into a master's program, I declined the offer because I didn't want to pay, and after months of despairing, I redirected my motivation and attention into getting a job during research.
 
After working for over a year at the lab, I applied to graduate school again in conjuction with taking the GREs again. I did much better (V155, 161Q, 4.5W) and managed to get an interview and an acceptance from two schools.
 
When it comes to applying to graduate school, this is what I think matters:
1 - Credentials (Decent GPA, Decent GRE - if not decent, a damn good explaination as to why)
2 - Research Experience (which really should be #1 in my book, because graduate schools like that kind of stuff)
3 - Networking (Trust me, I don't like the game, as I sometimes find it superficial, but at the end of the day, it is a skill that will only help you).
4 - Best of fit (making damn sure that you actually fit in the program).
5 - Luck. Plan and simple.
 
So the point of this by no means is to gloat or anything like that, but rather to illustrate that if you didn't get in the school that you wanted, then try again, only the next time, become better at any aspect that can be improved. In my case, I increased my research experience, gained many technical skills, and slightly improved my GRE score.
 
And if you think money is an issue, I'll be frank (Super Frank): I have been poor all of my life. After I got a job, I was able to pay off for things like grad apps, retaking the GRE, etc.
 
*exhale*
 
I hope this helps.
 
Oh, and regarding pubs, I don't have any. I did present a handful of poster presentations all over the country.

Not saying that I don't agree with you, but as an aspiring psychologist you should know that your presented evidence is 'anecdotal'. If you really want to make your claim (about Canadian selectivity > US selectivity), you should use 'big' data or run a meta-analysis using average admission rates for US and Canadian schools.  

Note I didn't say Canadian, either.

I noted while browsing universities in the UK that many of them made no mention of GREs on their website. At all.

If one wants to infer no GREs = 'subpar' institution, then I hope they take a long, hard look @Oxford's admission requirements.

Reiterating, all profs I've talked to about this topic, both at R1's and LAC's, said that nearly all their academic job interviews (for psychology) resulted from connections they had made while in grad school, either themselves or indirectly through their mentor. So it seems like who your advisor knows (and who thinks they are an impressive researcher) will heavily influence your job prospects.

+1
 
I also asked this when I was on the interview circuit last year. Professors were definitely impressed. It also has the added value of providing you with really important information. There was one program where I asked everyone that question and almost all of them had the same answer in regards to what the program's weakness was. It was a pretty big weakness to have, too, so I knew then that the program might not be the right fit. 

I also always asked about mentorship style. I asked this at every interview and always got really great feedback. I asked this of both the professor(s) I was applying to work with and their graduate students. I would make sure to ask this question in a way that does not ridicule mentorship styles that fall on either end of the spectrum. Don't say something like, "How would you describe your mentorship style? Are you more hands off or do you prefer to micromanage your students?" Conversely, don't say, "Are you more involved with your students day to day activities or do you leave your students out to dry?" (Believe it or not, I knew someone who asked it that way. They did not get in. Shocking, I know). 

I think the final question that I asked both professors and graduate students that they really seemed to love answering was "What made you choose to (study at or be a professor at) X University?" This lets you know what both the students and the professors in the program really value. Also, it's kind of interesting to ask professors this, especially the tenured ones. Tenured professors have usually had someone try to poach them from their university at a certain point, so it's interesting to find out what's made them stay (or conversely, if they were poached, what prompted them to make the move). It was actually the way that both the students and faculty answered this question that made me choose the program that I am studying at right now. 

I cannot stress how important it is to ask questions. It makes you seem interested AND you gain information that is valuable to ultimately making a decision about where to go. 

Another tip: if you know who you're going to be interviewing with aside from your potential advisor, read a couple of their articles. Knowing a little bit about someone's research can never hurt. 

A final piece of advice: do your best to come off as a mature adult. The stilettos that you wear out to the club are not meant to be worn with your suit (neither are your Toms). Don't talk about partying/your fly college lifestyle. Don't get drunk at the social events. (This is probably obvious to most of you, but after having spent enough time on the interview circuit, there are some people this will be news to). Your CV can never be so good that people will be willing to overlook immaturity. 

Good luck to everyone! 

Psych101: If you made it to the interview stage, I wouldn't worry about having to explain your low test scores and marks. These factors are usually used to reduce the applicant pool prior to the interviews. At the interview level, your personality, experience and interests are more likely to be evaluated.

If you are asked, explain that it was an unusually low result for you, because you did so well, for example, in your courses, in the lab, during clinical placements, and does not reflect your true potential. Then, slowly veer the conversation back to your strengths, research project, etc.

Don't let this freak you out, but you are always being interviewed. I am lucky enough to have gotten into a program where everyone gets along very well but there is a reason for that: our personalities were evaluated just as much as our academic credentials during interview weekend. I know one person who got rejected after an interview weekend for being too candid with grad students during a welcome party (I think he was talking about using mdma or something). So be casual with the grad students and don't bore them with your interests (it's fine to talk about them some but don't ram them down their throat) but don't get too comfortable. Don't complain about your undergrad school, advisor, etc too much, either.

So glad I'm not the only one who made an excel doc of this 

Thanks! I may or may not have started hyperventilating upon reading the email.....