agrizz

Surely, nothing can be stated outright due to idiosyncrasies of the programs of interest and your current situation, but I'm of the opinion that it will mean absolutely nothing. The only thing "not completing a masters" would impact is the program's initial impression of you. This would lead to a need for you to explain the situation, but not necessarily an outright rejection, and certainly not a rescinded offer. Now that you've gotten your apps in and have even gotten an acceptance, you've really got little to worry about. You were considered and accepted because of your history, not because you would have had two masters degrees. Furthermore, once you're accepted and matriculate, nobody is going to care about your past. You may, however, find a need to explain things a bit further after grad school, but by then, you should have a PhD in the bag and few that care about anything else.

To whose lab did you apply?

I've gotten an invite to interview for a PhD program while the online status still says, "Submitted".

I've gone to a couple grad school fairs and in speaking to professors, staff, and adcom members across an array of programs have found that the vast majority expect there to be delays, particularly with regard to LOR. I've even heard a few state outright that the deadline is for your application only, but they do encourage the accompanying info to be received within a few weeks. That said, some higher-tiered programs consider the date a firm cutoff and will discard any apps that do not have all accompanying documents. Two of my seven apps were lacking one item, GRE scores in one case (deadline 12/1) and LOR in the other (1/15). I've already been invited to interview for the 12/1 deadline despite having been told that 12/1 was firm.

I agree entirely. I wondered this myself. It seemed completely unorthodox to ask such a question prior to having interviewed. However, I think that may have been the point. I think you're on to something here. The intentions could very well be benign, but seems as if the PI is asking you to bark like a dog and beg for the position. The question is egotistical, immature, and to be frank, none of the PIs business. You applied to the program. To the PI that should indicate interest enough. Perhaps, but I think this was less about the PI's ego and more about judging my genuineness on the basis of my response for the sake of extending an interview. Who knows though... I guess I'll find out. That was the impression I got from the verbiage of the email itself. IMO, this probably hits the nail on the head. For those interested, I emailed the PI prior to writing this post. In my response, I basically told him that what was most important to me when choosing a program and PI was a good research fit, and that I had selected what I believed to represent potentially good fits by my application submissions. I went on to say that having done so (selecting good-fit scenarios), I then charged myself to keep an open mind. Furthermore, I stated outright that I could not answer his question with regard to how his institution compared to the others on my list because I had not yet interviewed anywhere but was eager to do so to answer his question, for my sake and his. I did avoid ingratiation, even specifically saying it was my intention to do so. That said, I followed by stating all of the components of his laboratory and university that I thought were the strongest arguments for my acceptance if offered admission. My initial interpretation of his email was along the lines of what CrucialBBQ said. Essentially, "WTH. Who does he think he is?" With thought, I came to the conclusion that he could likely be looking for me to, well, ingratiate myself but filling him with all kinds of fluff about how badly I wanted to work with him and how his was the best fit. How could I know all of things without first interviewing? I wonder if he wasn't dropping the noose for me to tie it around my own neck. I suppose we'll see how this all plays out. Thanks to all for the feedback.

I fielded an email the other day from a PI who asked me how interested was I in working in his/her lab and how much did I prefer his/her institution relative to the others to which I applied. Neither this PI nor the two programs he/she is associated with have sent out their invitations for interviews yet, so I know that these questions were being asked in order to vet my application during his/her decision-making on the matter. So my question is this: We all have at least one "top choice", right? But how open should we be during this recruitment/application phase? These professors and adcom members are not idiots nor can we expect them to be very gullible... so if asked directly how open should we be? "Honesty is the best policy", sure... but if I've got 2 or more schools higher on my list of preference than the one that Professor X is teaching at when he/she asks, should I risk telling him/her the truth? Moreover, it seems risky to go around telling everyone (even those to which this is true) that their school is my number 1 choice. If untrue, you run the risk of being discovered as a BS-er. Thoughts?

To whoever posted in the results section about an interview from U. of Kentucky's Psychology/Behavioral Neuroscience and Pharmacology - who is your POI? Also, who informed you? POI, Program Chair, Staff? Thanks!

I reached out to Michael Bardo (who I'm sure you know is kind of a giant in addiction and decision making), but due to funding limitations, he pointed me towards Josh Beckmann. I've talked with him a few times and met with him at a conference in November. He is doing some very cool research on addiction, decision making and operant learning and even though it seems everyone is doing addiction research of some kind in UKY's psych program, I honestly think his is the most interesting.

That was exactly my question - was it UTSA or UTHSCSA? (among follow-ups too, I guess). I didn't even know UTSA had a neuroscience program, but apparently they do have a PhD program in neurobiology through the biology department. I'm interested - as a student there now, would you consider UTHSCSA one of your safety schools, mid-levels or hopeful options?

Keep in mind that you are not attending a school for just one professor. You are applying to a program in a department made up of a collection of faculty members. In the end, you will most likely only be doing research with one professor, but you will come to know several if not all of the professors in your department fairly well. A student may be a perfect fit for his/her advisor, but if that student does not fit well with the program (i.e., doesn't get along with others, doesn't show any interest in collegiality, seems to only be one-faceted/interested or competent in only one element of a field of study), then problems could arise later in the course of study, particularly when you choose your committee, as someone referenced above. Also, it's important to keep in mind that many people strive to collaborate within their department. If I were interviewing a student, I would be interested in seeing whether he/she has any networking skills and/or may be interested in or capable of initiating, developing or contributing in some way to collaborative project designs. All told, I'd say you should not feign interest in anything, because you'll only be hurting yourself. If you leave someone the impression that you are interested in their work, you may find a rude awakening later when he/she realizes (which they will) the truth. Worst case scenario is that the interviewer can see through the fictitious interest. As someone said before, be yourself, but also find what, within a person's work, is interesting to you. You don't have to know their research history or even the major findings of his/her lab, but in genuinely showing interest in some component of that person's life's work, you'll make a good impression for all while also opening your own mind for future considerations, if/when necessary.

I have a question or two for the person who posted "accepted" today for Neuroscience at UT San Antonio. Whoever you are, are reading this thread?

For UKY, Experimental Psychology PhD, Behavioral Neuroscience and Pharmacology tract. For UT (Knoxville), Experimental Psychology PhD, Biological Psychology tract. I'd looked into UTHSC a while back but for some reason didn't find a good research match. Funding maybe? I can't remember... I've researched soooo many programs, they're all running together. What program at UK did you apply to. What POI (if you don't mind saying).

UGA's ILS, the umbrella covering neuroscience... Just got an invite. First one. Phew!

Neuroscience is gaining popularity across the board, including in pop culture and media which is surely influencing interest cyclically. It's funded fairly well compared to other fields too, which I'm sure contributes to its popularity within academicians, thereby granting opportunities for neuroscience phd hopefuls. To answer one of the OP's questions: "If it is as popular as I think it is, what does this mean for the postdoc neuroscience world?" There has been a lot of attention recently on this, particularly with regard to an increase in popularity and a decrease in funding and even faculty positions. For instance, look here. Granted, this trend is true across academia, but in my experience, it appears to be affecting neuroscientists particularly hard.

So if/when the time comes, I will find myself having to choose between biomed/neuro programs that have mandatory laboratory rotations, typically over 3 full semesters, or begin straight-away with one PI. I've spent some time working out some pros and cons, but I wonder if any one has any additional insight: Lab rotations - Pros You potentially can survey variable research topics Potentially initiate collaborations with additional PIs from the one you eventually choose Learn variable research techniques Find a good fit for the research itself as well as the lab personnel and advisor Lab rotations - Cons You begin rotations 1-3 semesters prior to when the advisor you hope to choose has to begin funding you and he/she may hope but not actually have sufficient money when the time comes You are now applying based on faculty who won't be responsible for your funding for another 2 years. In some cases, they may be confident that they will be able to take you in 2 years but learn later they are unable. There will be no guarantee that you secure the PI that you want based on what is, essentially a second application process/competition with other students Some have to rotate into their second year Direct-To-PI - Pros If accepted to the program now, you're inherently assured (most of the time) that your funding is secure You can start your research immediately rather than losing a few semesters in the rotation system. Direct-To-PI - Cons All eggs are in one basket once you matriculate No trial period as in rotations Some change their minds about research interests after exposure

It's possible... but I should reiterate that my experience is only with "unofficial" interviews. I am under the impression that you'll have 15-30 minutes with each faculty member during the official interviews, but I'm not certain. I suppose bringing notes as you've described may not be a negative, especially after hearing your rationale. What's more, it would make a statement as to your methods of preparation and attention to detail, which themselves could set you apart from the crowd, if not simply providing an additional, more personal glimpse for the interviewer into your personality.

I'd looked at easily 30+ schools in the southeast and saw the same thing. There were a lot of psychology/psychiatry faculty involved in the neuroscience programs as well as in the psych departments' programs themselves. And like you, while clicking on all 40-100 names individually (ugh), I began to find some researchers in psychology departments that did not also work with the neuroscience programs. In my case, it appears that my research interests (neurobiology of stress, decision making, addiction and/or psychiatric disorders in behaving animals) may be more often conducted by a psych faculty member (concurrent neuro appointment or not). What appealed to me more, though, was that I could, most often, skip the laboratory rotations and start right away with the POI. Re: interviews - I'm not really sure what the trends are, because it appears that past updates on this site from the past few years appear to have no trend (other than early Jan-late Feb. That said, I am seeing a few people updating info now about interviews, but not clearly defining whether they are clinical or not.

If I were interviewing a student who says he/she is interested in my work, I think it'd mean more if they knew some facts without needing a reminder. This having been said, I've already had a few unofficial interviews and in every case, the PI spent the majority of the time explaining his/her research and then transitioning directly to questions about me. Whatever questions I had time to ask him/her followed smoothly with the conversation and did not require too much depth-of-knowledge. I got the impression that it wasn't necessary to be that intimate with their work. Even still... it certainly cannot hurt!

When I was in grad school a few years back, I remember one of my professors saying, "any time you sit down with a faculty member, no matter the purpose of the meeting, you should have a notepad to jot down notes. Even if nothing pans out as necessary to jot down, you'll still demonstrate to that prof that you are especially engaged in whatever they have to say." That said, I think its fair to say you should probably prepare yourself ahead of the interview for whatever questions you have for the professor. It is grad school after all, and I'd venture to say you should be able to sufficiently familiarize yourself with their work ahead of time in order to avoid having to look over a "cheat sheet". Therefore, I'd say - bring in a blank notepad to take notes, not read them.

I'm just curious how many active on this site have applied to psychology phd programs to specialize in biological psychology/neuroscience. It seems that a lot of psychology peeps here are clinical or school psych. If there are any like me out there, have you also applied to any neuroscience-specific programs? Have you heard back about interviews yet?

I think it depends on where you've applied and when. I've perused the results section for the last several years' entries for some of my programs and have seen that some applicants are notified of interviews as early as December or as late as Februrary. That said, it does seem like January is a busy time for interview notifications.

I posited this question in another thread, but thought it may deserve its own. Do you think its important to probe your program/POI/PI about funding prior to matriculation? Should you ask (say, in an interview or email communique) about whether a PI you'd like to work with has sufficient funding to cover your 5.5 years of graduate school? Note: I ask this coming from a background in Neuroscience where the norm is 5-6 years in PhD which is fully funded including tuition waiver and stipend. Furthermore, some programs cover students for 1 year (or more) by their respective department funds until an advisor is chosen, at which point the PI picks up the tab. Other programs may enroll a student with his/her funding immediately the responsibility of the PI. I'm interested in opinions from this and other fields.

This is great advice. I think asking about funding (for instance, during the interviews) leaves a firm impression that you are aware of the realities of academia, particularly in this funding climate where so many PIs spend the majority of their time writing grants. Part of the reason I am so focused on the funding is that the major reason I left my former PhD program was because I was brought in under the expectation that sufficient funding would be obtained by the time it was needed. It never was, and I was left in quite a pickle... and so too was my department, who couldn't afford to pay for me as well. Btw, it's pretty hard to do research when you can't afford to buy supplies.... so funding is more important than just covering your stipend and/or tuition.

I too have applied to some programs that require rotations, but most of mine admit students directly to a PI's lab and would therefore be funded under the PI from the get go. I can see great value in the rotation system, but fear too much that I'll find a PI I want that, come to find out 1-2 years later, do not actually have sufficient funding. I think there's no question that this is the best way to go. I too have established rapport with all of my desired PIs short of a couple in the schools requiring rotations. Re: Funding - I currently work in a department that is a part of a rotation system for a biomed PhD program. It is shocking how many people find out after one year of rotations that there's not actually enough money to cover a student. Furthermore, I've heard from numerous sources, including from programs at institutions more prestigious than my own, that it is important that before you start rotations or even when you interview that you be sure your POI can support you when the time comes. Beware of those PIs that are just looking to get a rotation's worth of free work out of you only to reject you later on the basis of limited funding. Even with this said, I've also asked one potential PI (to whose lab I ended up not applying to) who said playfully, "That's in two years? How can I know if I can afford you then." Thanks for the replies... I'm interested in the mindset/"research-fit" element of the field

I discovered Piled Higher and Deeper when I was in a doctoral program a few years ago... at that point, there were a lot of physics comics coming out, but the themes were all-too-relevant for a neuroscience program. I actually found some solace in realizing that many of my woes were depicted in these comic strips, and therefore I must not have been going through them alone.