TXInstrument11
-
Posts
289 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Posts posted by TXInstrument11
-
-
6 hours ago, The_Old_Wise_One said:
This is a great read. Just to clear things up: "replication guru" aren't really the right words to describe Andrew Gelman. He is one the (if not THE) leading minds in statistics. People who go to his talks literally ask for his autograph – he is just that good at what he does.
That said, he has a big problem with a lot of the things people do to leverage statistical testing in a way that favors their own theories, and his blog describes these things.
This is a problem with people doing bad science, not a political "I don't like you so I'll write a blog post about you" cat fight. The take away for me is – choose an advisor who keeps up with current methods.
Right or wrong, the Replication Movement is causing a lot of academics to tank in popularity. Just because they're right doesn't make it any less political.
Edit: I am part of the Replication Movement so I largely support the mission of people like Gelman, and his confrontational approach is probably what's needed to create change (Cohen, Meehl, & others have been talking about this for ages to no avail, after all), but this is still politics - just between scientists.
-
I'm currently in a PhD program, and I was forwarded a blog post that I would have found useful as an applicant. It's by a prominent "replication guru", Andrew Gelman.
I am not here to take sides in the replication debate, merely to pass along information that may help you more fully appreciate importance of politics in academia. Gelman's condemnation of a professor's former students is demonstrative.
http://andrewgelman.com/2016/09/21/what-has-happened-down-here-is-the-winds-have-changed/
While reading this, some troubling rumors I heard about a few departments I applied to suddenly made a lot more sense, as did offhand negative comments I hear routinely from professors in this department. For better or for worse, the popularity of your adviser matters a lot - and arguably more than ever in the current climate.
At my undergrad institution, a practical "no-name" with few power player professors, I only heard whispers of these things from a few select people. If I had better understood the intensity and commonness of these academic cat fights, I might have taken better care in choosing departments to apply to, and I think now that I might have had a better chance of acceptance if I had gone that route by dodging departments that appear to be falling apart at the seams.
For more examples, check out the feud between Uri Simonsohn and a fellow "replication guru", Greg Francis to see how ugly the mudslinging can get.
- neur0cat and St0chastic
-
2
-
Hm. Yes, I forgot about that. I suppose my job would have to be cash then so it would fly under the radar - babysitting, lawn mowing, private tutoring?
-
If I can't manage to secure an outside fellowship, my budget is going to be extremely tight.
I was considering picking up a campus job for the spring or summer. Does anyone have experience doing something like this?
-
Wrellie
Hm. Good tip! Thank you. I will have to look into him. My first year stats courses don't have him, but perhaps I will have classes with him later. I am not I/O though.
Well, good to hear one person who agrees with my premise at least, though it will be an uphill battle if I decide to do this. I am also intrigued by what stats could do for me professionally. I am a person who likes to have multiple backup plans and I really like the idea of having certifications that could allow me to move out of academics if I had to. For research as well, you can never understand enough about stats.
-
What are your GRE scores? It may be more cost effective to improve those if they are especially low.
EDIT: nevermind, sorry for not reading down to the bottom of your post to see that you plan on retaking the GRE.
I still maintain though that this is an important consideration before you start throwing money down on application fees.
Your GRE x GPA combination matter much more than they should in this hyper-competitive environment. Good grades can't cushion the GRE as well as they could in the past.
Is there a professor who sits on admissions at your school who would be willing to talk to you about this? I don't personally know much about how clinical works, though social/personality also has very low admit rates. It may be better to opt for a terminal master's. I considered it too before I was lucky enough to get my acceptance.
While it seems like a huge risk financially to put down thousands for the master's, that may be what is necessary. It doesn't make anyone a failure to go that route either. Many of my POIs, even the young ones, had to get the terminal master's degree.
Would PsyD be an option for you?
-
Wow, it looks like I'm pretty alone in getting a class ring. This is awkward.....
-
I'm not usually one for pomp and circumstance and all that ritualistic tradition crap, but I caved and bought a class ring. I'm the first one in my family to finish college and I won't be able to walk in the ceremony because I'm moving for grad school, so I need some kind of memento.
As long as it doesn't seem in bad taste to other people, I may opt for a class ring for grad too.
It's not really about showing off the reputation of the school to me (and my undergrad doesn't have much at that), but more about pride in where I came from and connecting with other graduates from my school.
I didn't bother with high school though and have absolutely no plans to buy a ring. I went ahead and threw that in there too just to see the relative popularity of HS vs college rings. Though I can't imagine why a high schooler would be on here so early, I kept the options the same. Maybe there are a few serious go-getters out there who will be able to use them.
-
if this is a formal Statistics degree, the calculus that you will learn won't actually be needed for data analysis itself. you'll usually need to understand calculus to understand something about the properties of estimators or how certain probability density functions become something else. when it comes to the application part of things, the calculus is usually done behind the scenes in the computer. but you'll now be able to say "aha! i know where these numbers come from!"
I guess this can be either a hindrance or an advantage depending on how you work with it.
I come from a Math background and jumping into a social science/education/psych background did help me bring in some skills that I know your average student in these programs does not have. Most of the methodology courses that you take in Psych or Ed departments are much more focused on the application of statistics or how to use the methods. Very little attention is devoted to the actual theory or why they work. Whereas this probably serves the needs of your average graduate student, it does leave them at the disadvantage of not knowing how to proceed if they’re dealing with an unusual dataset with complicated dependencies (spoiler alert: those are the types of datasets where the most interesting results are found). A degree in Statistics might not prepare you to become a skilled data analyst in the social sciences but it will give you the necessary background to jump in with new ideas. But then again if you plan on working on research areas where there are standard methodologies in place, then there really isn’t much value in getting an MSc in Statistics aside from fostering your own personal knowledge.
Will it make you a better researcher? Well, it depends on what you’re researching, right? It made me a good researcher because my research is very technical in nature. But if say you were interested in doing research in... oh I don’t know, standardized tests or scale development then it would benefit you much more to get some sort of degree or specialization in Psychometrics and not formal Statistics (very little to no Psychometrics are covered in a standard Statistics department). If you see yourself working in areas like neuropsychology or neurobiology, maybe a degree in Biostatistics (with emphasis in fMRI imaging which is a VERY hot topic) would serve you better. It seems to me that if your ultimate goal is to be a researcher more than a methodologist, you’d need to tailor your degree to cover the methodologies that are used in your substantive area of content. Or you can always become just a methodologist… I mean… we’re kinda short on those right now
Will it make you more employable in the job market? Oh, it most definitely will! But here’s the catch… will it make you more employable in jobs you are interested in? Like, big pharma companies pay well for DNA sequencing analysts… but last time I worked on something like that I wanted to gouge my eyes out of sheer boredom.
So all in all I think this is not a bad idea per se as long as you have a good game plan. I mean, you’re still committing a year of your life to something that you’ve already admitted to you’re not super passionate about.
Thanks for the perspective and feedback! I was hoping you or another quant person might chime in on this.
I have heard of poor analysis (and sometimes outright fraud) in data going unnoticed for years in psych until someone with a more technical background takes a look. Case in point - http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/jan/19/mathematics-of-happiness-debunked-nick-brown
I hear things like this and I think, "Well, damn, what if I was duped by that? If somebody more qualified than me said the math on an unfamiliar technique was good, would I ask questions? Would I even know what to ask?"
It's scenarios like this that make me worried about taking the average stats courses offered in psych and just sticking with that. The idea even that I could do everything ethically right, analyze the data to the best of my ability, and still royally screw up scares me. Sure, mistakes happen, but this was a bad one that was far from obvious ---- only because other psychologists did not have the technical skill to spot the BS.
Ultimately though, I think you all are right - I need to have a long conversation with my adviser and maybe some other people in my field on this before I leap.
-
If what you're really interested in is research methods, is there a way to get a graduate certificate or master's specifically in methods, where you might take classes in stats, program evaluation, qualitative research, etc.? I'm thinking of something like the UGA program in qualitative research... You might also just consider taking a more quantitative-focused set of stats classes offered by sociology, political science, or economics at your institution. The only time you usually see people asking for a certain number of hours of math and stats courses are for federal jobs as a statistician (go to usajobs.gov and look some up to see what I mean). Otherwise, people just want to know that you are knowledgeable and capable, which you'd be able to demonstrate without having a separate master's in statistics.
I can minor in it. I didn't know about this kind of degree being viable for statisticians. Thanks
I've had this conversation in the past, and most professors said that, whilst taking stats in the math department may give you broader preparation, you end up learning a lot of stuff that isn't used in your discipline and, conversely, miss out on techniques that are not standard-fare in statistics taken broadly, but which are necessary for your field. If you're interested in statistics per se, taking the MS through the math department may be a good idea, but otherwise you may be confusing yourself and giving yourself extra work without much payback. Also, if your psych department is considerably better than your math department at your school, the stats given in the psych department may actually be stronger. As regards getting a professional edge, I don't know; maybe it would be a good idea to ask people working in your desired field for advice rather than a motley crew of current and potential students.
Another grad student in the program said something similar. I initially considered taking stats through the math department because it looked like I was stuck with the bad apple for one of our first stats classes in the department, but managed to slip in when someone dropped the alternate professor's class. And yeah, you're probably right. I have contacted my adviser, but they have been busy.
My advice, get pdf of a typical calc book used for calc 1, and get another one of linear algebra(these pdfs are abundant online and a number of them are meant to be free). Start working through them like...right now up until the point when you have to make your decision. Once you're there evaluate how you've done.
How far have you gotten into the books?
Did you manage to work on problem sets every day?
How was your motivation to do this?
Also, I wouldn't recommend spending too much time on a trig prep, for most "early transcendentals" calc books you can do just fine with learning the trig as you go along, when and where you need it.
Lastly, really evaluate your motivation to do this, you might end up doing not so well in your math courses simply because you aren't as motivated to do all of the required work, on top of the work your doing for your PhD.
edit:
by required work I don't just mean w/e homework is assigned (if it's even assigned). I mean that you may or may not have to do additional work, on top of that which is required to make sure you have the concepts down.
Yes, I think that would probably be the best course of action for seeing if I'm still capable of it. I was thinking about working in some hours per day/week to work entirely on math in order to do this and have researched a few free resources to learn calc.
I suppose I am worried about being able to understand calc well enough to apply to data analysis. I wasn't sure if I could self-teach some of these things later on. It does sound as if the broad education from the math department might make it harder though. I suppose it depends on how well they tailor it to education and psychology students. The head of the program is actually from education, but it's technically under the stats department.
-
This is good advice.
Can you do this while being ABD?
Not to come of like a hardass, but again the math you have taken is nothing like linear alegebra with math majors. Plenty of people get As in math in HS. I think its a bit premature to be considering a graduate degree in math when someone hasn't taken any college math to begin with.
Rereading my post, I did come off as cocky and should have phrased some of what I said differently.
I was basing it off of the people I know in STEM majors that I knew in HS. They always think they're hot shit and I know I understood the math better and got better grades in high school than they did. I would be very surprised if they suddenly became math prodigies come uni.
-
I aced precalculus/trig and qualified for calc. I just didn't take it because I was going to a humanities major at the time and didn't think it was worth the effort.
Most people do not take calc in high school. You need advanced placement or dual enrollment for it and that's not 50+% of the school population, so I'm not sure what you're talking about.
An MS in stats gets me something tangible that sets me apart from other people, either as a researcher or on the job market.
Also, this stats master's is designed for PhD students. I'm not signing up for it on top of my requirements. Instead, I would be subbing in additional stats classes to cover the typical psych MS and the "minor" requirements, which I was going to put into stats anyway.
-
I've simply emailed folks (whoever the article lists as contact or 1st author) and haven't had to provide much information at all. Between my honors thesis and my UG research lab, I've done this about 4-5 times.
Just use your edu address and the tell them about your topic.
Maybe it's different for the dissertation though?
-
So, I'm thinking about grabbing up a master's through the stats department at my school instead of the regular psych MS built into my PhD.
My thinking is, it will be good for me as a researcher because I will have more methods at my disposal, allowing for more varied experimental design and greater independence (less need for data analysis help from other faculty).
It also may also give me a competitive hiring edge later on.
BUT the rub is that I have practically zero advanced math right now, necessitating a slow crawl through several calculus classes taught by grad students. If I magically secured an override now, it would take me Fall & Spring for Calc I and II, and then an additional Summer & Fall for Calc III and the other prereqs.
That means 4 semesters for only the damn prereqs!
Realistically, I would bone up on my trig now and then take Calc I in the Spring, so 5 additional semesters before even starting the MS.
Math isn't a great love for me, but I do pretty well in it - maybe even better than the average STEM student on aptitude. So, it's doable, just difficult and time-consuming. I am squeamish about adding an extra year and limiting all of my electives to stats, but maybe it's worth it. In the grand scheme of things, one year isn't that much time and if I shouldn't be penalized by my program according to the handbook.
NOTE: my tuition is covered and, as far as I know, does not have a year cap.
-
-
No, it is quite clear in your post that you see yourself as taking the moral and intellectual high ground. You don't see how condescending your entire tirade was because you think you are there.Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I am on a high horse. I never claimed intellectual/moral/etc. superiority. I simply pointed out that the evidence is there to look at is more objective than the rash of overly emotional opinions on the matter. The issue was, and is as evidenced in your post, that you can't have a simple discussion about this topic without resorting to petty ad hominems and emotional appeals.
Your selection bias argument actually works against your point because the range restriction that would occur from only receiving people who scored highly on the GREs lowers the correlation that would occur if we included the full range of scores.
Second, I did not act as though I am immune to bias; it's inherent in being human. The point is to recognize that, which I didn't see in the knee-jerk reactions to GREs and frankly pure rationalizations about it being an invalid predictor of grad school success. The larger point is that the research is already out there--but most of you were more interested in tearing the test down instead of looking for objective evidence of the test's validity. That is the problem.
- TenaciousBushLeaper and avidman
-
1
-
1
-
I know people are passionate about the topic, but as future academics we really need to have at least some amount of intellectual honesty when it comes to any topic under discussion. This is particularly salient when we're talking about an area within the province of psychology (i.e., psychometrics and psychological testing).
The bottom line is nothing is perfect as a predictor of any outcome. That's just a fact of life. What we have is good evidence that the GRE in general, including the GRE-Q, is a good predictor of grad school "success" across a wide range of operationalizations. The one that has been nitpicked to death in this article:
http://internal.psychology.illinois.edu/~nkuncel/gre%20meta.pdf
is time to completion. It can be easily argued that how quickly one moves through a program is a poor index of "success" as long as the length isn't excessive. For example, my professor advisor suggests doing six instead of five years in my PhD program because it gives you a year to dedicate to research that you wouldn't have if you were a junior faculty member having to mentor students and teach classes. Is the opportunity cost in first year wages worth the potential long-term gain in landing a better job in a better school because of a stronger CV? Well, it's working out really well for my professor advisor to put it mildly.
The larger issue is that the world isn't perfect. The very arguments used to question the *validity* of the GRE (which, btw, isn't actually put into question because the data already shows otherwise) in this thread conflict. Yes, the subject GRE is a slightly better predictor than the general GRE on the one hand, but on the other hand others have mentioned paying for even the general GRE is burdensome. The requirement set forth by the *graduate schools* of universities demand a general GRE--in this regard, the psychology departments hands are tied in that they must at least require these test scores. How can you then suggest using subject GREs when it would further disenfranchise those who are already struggling to pay for the general GRE in the first place? The problem is that we live in a limited world with limited resources and many moving parts. This is life and you deal with it.
The overarching concern I have with all that I have read in this thread is this contempt for the GRE and dismissal of this validity because you don't *like* what it stands for in your minds. This constant refrain of "well grad schools need something to winnow down the list" and "it's just a way to narrow the list down." The validity of the GRE is an *empirical question* and isn't subject to your whims or values. This is how science needs to be approached in general. Can it be better? Sure. Is it perfect? See above. Does it predict grad school success? Arguably better than most any other standardized way of comparing candidates and predicting success. As aspiring scientists I would expect you all to approach these types of empirical questions with some restraint in how it affects you personally. What's particularly ironic is that you all want to be part of a field that spawned these types of tests in the first place.
There is good reason the GRE is used as a way to select candidates: it predicts performance. Are there other things that also predict performance? Sure. Personality measures have incremental validity in predicting performance. But if your personality profile worked to your detriment in getting accepted somewhere, would you then question the validity of those tests? If any test or predictor worked to your detriment, would you then question the validity of those tests? Again, intellectual honesty is key to scientific progress, which may not always work in your favor or to your benefit. You might want to check how willing you are to put your personal concerns aside when if you want to pursue psychology using the scientific method.
First, you need to get off your high horse. We actually did discuss the predictive validity of the GRE, including the analysis of a Quant psych student who worked for ETS. Before reading the article you posted, I had simply never seen high predictive validity for the GRE before.
However, how did they control for selection bias? Good schools who can demand higher GRE scores typically have superior resources and training for their students. Due to reputation, they also tend to attract the best, most ambitious students.
Second, you act as if you are immune to bias, which is a blind spot in itself. Let me guess - you did well on the GRE? People who do well on the SAT subsequently put more stock in it and people who do poorly on the SAT do the opposite (what you assume of us) . I highly doubt that you went into researching the GRE's validity as a bastion of purely objective, scientific thought. Your own bias doesn't change the numbers - which look good here-but it does mean you are being a sanctimonious ass.
- VulpesZerda, TheMercySeat and avidman
-
2
-
1
-
You're strongly conflating correlation and causation. The fact that average stats are high does not imply that they're weeding based on the stats. Rather, it implies that a number of the successful applicants had high stats.
This is the main reason I'm arguing that schools posting stats from their accepted students on the website can be bad for applying students- it makes them think they need those stats to get accepted, when the chances are it was the rest of their materials that got them accepted, and they also had high grades and scores.
You also say you don't mean to be condescending, but in your first paragraph, you assume that my experience as a current grad student isn't valid (accuratE) based off of a grad student you happen to know who didn't apply broadly and isn't familiar with other schools. As you say, she openly admits it.
I'm more comfortable speaking broadly than she is, likely due to a broader range of experience. On the flip side, I'd argue that you seem to be speaking quite broadly with no experience past having applied to schools.I don't really feel I need to convince you of my experience, however. You're the one that keeps calling my opinion into question based on assumptions about my background and experience.
Most people in academia have a very small "N". The average professor has been at 2-4 schools over their entire career. That said, you'd be amazed at how similar things are across disciplines and across schools within disciplines.
I know the difference between correlation and causation. I'm not brain dead. GPA and research experience/fit simply do not have seem to have a high enough correlation to justify such a narrow range of successful GPA numbers. That is, if GPA were not an admissions criterion at all and only research experience/fit was considered, I would expect to see a much larger range of GPAs. Also, multiple students on this forum have had experience making it to the interview stage, doing well in that interview, and low GPA/GRE numbers being cited in their ultimate rejection. Sure, their POIs could have been lying to spare their feelings, but why?
Also, calling each other's experience into question is going both ways here. You are talking down to me as a senior student and I pointed out that the admissions situation may be different in your discipline. Acceptances rates definitely vary widely in psychology based on subfield - from 48.4% in school psych to 13.7% in social psych. Elevated levels in school psych and I/O (36.3%) vs developmental (23.3%) and social probably have a lot to do with the fact that school and I/O are master's heavy, and master's programs have higher acceptance rates on average. However, quantitative psychology (unreported by APA, so no numbers) is also widely known to have higher acceptance rates because it is a growing field with very few applicants. Social psych, in contrast, is poorly funded and has a glut of applicants. Finally, I applied to criminology programs as well, and they too have a higher acceptance rate than psych does by a pretty decent margin. They also tend to have lower requirements for GPA and GRE because it is an applied field with many applicants coming in with years of work (in this case, law enforcement) experience. Point is - the picture of what admissions looks like is very field-dependent as, I suspect, are norms in how adcomms behave.
Furthermore, programs continue to rank GPA and GRE highly in admissions criteria when asked even though professors routinely claim that it means little. Also, you hold that professors even with a small sample size of schools are reliable reporters of admissions criteria, but mine contradict your position. One of my recommenders was very explicit that GPA and GRE are used as blunt weedout criteria in clinical programs.
And really, it doesn't even matter if GPA is as important to adcomms as I say it is. It is still a very solid predictor of whether you're going to get into a top program. Even if the link between GPA and research exp/fit is as high as you presume, someone sitting on a <3.0 needs to stop and rethink whether they should apply. Regardless of the reason - biased selection or true aptitude - if 90% of applicants below a certain threshold don't make it at a certain school, that says something about how someone should view their odds of success and the worthwhileness of applying.
-
I was more assuming that after being in grad school for a while, I know more about the admissions process than you do applying.
The selection process at most schools is the same- faculty roughly rank, and then pick out students who they think would be a good fit, and then the committee discusses those. It rarely goes the same year-to-year, and it's not a mechanical process that can be easily described, because what the school is looking for changes year-to-year, depending on their needs.
I respectfully disagree. While I appreciate advice from current grad students and find it very valuable, the fact that you're a current grad student is not a guarantee that your views on the admissions process are actually accurate. For example, my supervising grad student applied only to my school due to geographical constraints. She openly admits that she can't speak for processes at other schools because she didn't even look at anywhere else besides my university and encouraged me to speak with other graduate students. She has helped our adcomm, so she knows our process pretty well, but that's it.
What I'm citing as evidence is the same as what you are citing - anecdotes, experience. I have an extremely high GPA that's just shy of a 4.0 and my GRE scores are reasonably high, so I obviously don't think my stats are a concern. Instead, I think my problem is as you described - fit. I should have done a better job picking schools and writing my SOP differently. That said, websites for many competitive schools I looked at in researching were very clearly using stats to weed people out. If they didn't explicitly state it in their instructions, it was evident when they posted class averages for the preceding years.
Funding changes and the advisors that need/can get new students is variable, sure, but stats overall were unnervingly stable from year to year. There are so many students to choose from in psychology, so there is little incentive to make exceptions for a promising student when you can likely find another good fit with better stats. This isn't to say, however, that admissions in other disciplines produce less capable students - I suspect quite the opposite with weed-outs being as blunt and indiscriminate as they often are in psych.
A personal experience that has probably given me much angst is another undergrad RA in my lab. We aren't really friends, but I am unnerved about his rejection by all the schools he applied for. He is probably the best student in our lab, perhaps in the whole department, and is overall much more competent than me. Maybe he flubbed his SOP. Maybe. But I don't think it's a coincidence that his stats are below average for admitted students. This also appears to be the case for another RA in our lab. Her GPA is less-than-stellar, as are her GRE scores, I suspect. Even though she completed a competitive summer research program, has years of research experience under her belt, and is a McNair Scholar, she is having significant trouble with admissions. It is enough to make me feel guilty when I talk to them, and I mostly keep my acceptances to myself for this reason.
-
It wasn't condescending. I was simply stating what I (still) suspect to be the case. Stats appear to be very important in the admissions process for psychology, especially in the social and clinical sub-disciplines. I also allow that I know less about chemistry admissions than you would as a chemistry major and, likewise, think it is reasonable to assume the reverse.
Many departments won't admit it and claim to take a "holistic" approach to their selections, but any fair reading of the published stats suggests otherwise.
And it's also never *all* about stats. That's not at all what I'm saying. It is just very important, especially for the superficial weed-out that takes place when sorting through 500+ applications in the first round. Schools who admit to using this process, like UT-Austin and Iowa State, do a great service to students by providing this information.
It may also be that those two schools care more about stats than most others. Unlikely, but possible. Either way, it is good of them to honestly and accurately describe their selection process.
-
You may not have, but others have since joined the conversation, and they certainly did. Ain't all about you.
It is when people list my username and use my terms to pseudo-quote me.
By all means, move on from my post. I honestly wish I'd never written the damn thing in the first place.
-
Because stats are the least important part of the application, and listing them just reinforces the impression that they matter. As evidenced in this post, here.
The stats of the people accepted in the past (especially averages) are pretty pointless in the scheme of things.
Your stats will effect things, sure, but good stats don't make up for bad SoP, references, research experience, and the rest of your package. And bad stats will only do so much to an otherwise outstanding applicant.
And as to 1, a qualtrics system reinforces the view that stats are important. They really aren't.
You can't reduce applicants to numbers, every bit of how they write, how they put together their CV, and what they say in their SoP actually does matter.
Because stats are the least important part of the application, and listing them just reinforces the impression that they matter. As evidenced in this post, here.
The stats of the people accepted in the past (especially averages) are pretty pointless in the scheme of things.
Your stats will effect things, sure, but good stats don't make up for bad SoP, references, research experience, and the rest of your package. And bad stats will only do so much to an otherwise outstanding applicant.
And as to 1, a qualtrics system reinforces the view that stats are important. They really aren't.
You can't reduce applicants to numbers, every bit of how they write, how they put together their CV, and what they say in their SoP actually does matter.
That may be the case in chemistry, but it is far from true in psychology. Checking stats for admitted students to top schools confirms this. I often see averages of 3.8 and "lows" of 3.5-3.7.
Applicant pools are simply too large to have it any other way. There's also the fact that - let's face it - psychology is a much less demanding major. Lower GPAs in the hard sciences are more understandable because the course load is much tougher.
Also, your SOP and CV are irrelevant if you're cut based on stats in the first round, and that is extremely common (if not the norm).
-
I am concerned when who you know or where you're from matter more than your aptitude.I didn't have as much of a problem with 10, I think 3 and 4, and potentially 1, are as damaging to applicants as they are helpful, perhaps more so.
I think you also underestimate how much time it takes to deal with hundreds of emails from propsective students.
I'm also clear as to what you think the admissions "game" is, other than trying to show that you're the best fit for a position?
#1 is for efficiency. Schools do this anyway;a Qualtrics-like system would just speed it up.
I don't understand why 3&4 would be bad. Such information would help applicants understand where they stand in the applicant pool and what the school is generally looking for. Exceptions can and should be made for stats, but I think schools are being dishonest when they would not admit an applicant with stats below a certain threshold 99% of the time and fail to indicate that.
Reduced load would also help the email situation.
-
I understand. I really should have anticipated how item 10 could be interpreted and rewrote it accordingly. I am still not convinced that minorities benefit from having their race listed on their application at the graduate level in psycholoy,but I certainly don't see much evidence that they have a special advantage. In fact, I see mostly the opposite - lily white departments.Yeah, I agree. But it seems some misunderstood what you really meant. My post was largely a reaction to those who said minorities are more privileged in the admissions process because the admissions committee will lower the bar for them or white people are discriminated because they will be assumed to have had more resources. I just wanted to note that that's not the case.
At the same time, an applicant's struggles with being from a disadvantaged background is an appropriate topic for the SOP and should be taken into consideration. This would come into play, as it probably does now, after the initial round of rejections.
However, I do think it's appropriate for applicants from who would otherwise be eliminated by such a system to contact professors beforehand for their support and to explain what happened.
It's great advice and I get why people do it in this hyper-competitive environment, but contacting profs like this has always reeked of brown nosing unless someone has something pointed to bring up about their app(as would be the case with someone from a disadvantaged background).
[To be sure, I hate the admissions "game", not the Student "players" who are just doing what's necessary]
Princeton Review book for psych GRE
in Psychology Forum
Posted
I used this. Scored around the 80th percentile as well. However, I also read a general psych textbook and thought it helped more. Princeton Review's practice test greatly overestimated my percentile- placing me at 99%, and I thought it focused way too much on psychodynamic theories.
Other prep courses were pretty much o the money, though they were M&V.