rolltheeurydice

That's kind of what I'm saying though, I think it signals the opposite of that (since you are simultaneously preparing for two different things, so it shows you haven't yet picked one with certainty). To me that's just practicality; what you choose is partially a function of where you actually get accepted, and I don't think it's bad, but admissions committees often exclude people for very arbitrary reasons (I don't want my contingency plan to be a self-fulfilling prophecy). In my case, the two things are definitely related but still different paths.

Well, the reasons would be the potential for the committee to (in my opinion, unfairly) judge you for being less committed, the cost, and another thing you would need to explain in interviews if you make it that far. My reasoning is: if I actually get in to one of the programs, I won't need the prereqs anyways, but since that's not guaranteed it's good to have a contingency plan (in other words, I don't think it has anything to do with commitment but it might be perceived otherwise). Maybe I'm overestimating how negatively they would look at taking prereqs.

I'm not sure if this will end up being necessary, but I'm just curious if it would be expected that I send a transcript (from a different school than my undergrad institution) for a few courses that I might end up taking as prerequisites for a professional program to PhD programs (I might apply to both). I don't expect to do poorly in those classes (it will probably bring my GPA up, if anything), but sending this transcript: a.) might signal that I'm "hedging my bets" with a different program (which I would be, but I don't think that's their business, especially not at the pre-interview stage), b.) would mean I need to pay for another transcript for every program I'm applying to, which would add up. What do you think? This seems to be a very different case than not sending a transcript where you had a poor academic record; I don't think a few grades in unrelated courses mean anything once you already have your degree.

^ lol

Thanks juilletmercredi, this is the type of answer I was looking for. It's too bad that there isn't more recent NRC data!

Is it "advisable" to send a message to your POI after the interview weekend to show your interest, assuming it went well? Could not doing this imply a lack of interest that might turn off some POIs?

This is the impression I got too (and of course, even with great fit there is no guarantee). I guess I'm just wondering if the shortcomings of my application are such that even with excellent fit, anyone interested in making a case for me to the committee wouldn't be able to convince them. I forgot to mention that I'm also an international student (which is a huge disadvantage for public schools like Berkeley it seems). My GRE is 162V/160Q/5.5, and again, I have no publications but optimistically might have 1 by next year (most people I see who are successful on the results page have higher GREs and more publications). Even with excellent fit, my suspicion is that those raw facts will hold me back, but I'm not sure.

I also want to add that the "just do your best and it will work out" mindset is somewhat dangerous and is part of the reason there is such a glut of PhDs and the job market is so hard right now. It might work out, but it might also not work out due to factors beyond your control, and how well a program is regarded is partial insurance against this possibility (not total insurance). I maintain this is true in academia, but this is even more apparent in places like law schools, where the school you go to is extremely predictive of where you'll get a job or if you'll get a job at all. Even really competent students who didn't do their research and go to lower ranked schools will be at a huge disadvantage. I would argue the same dynamics are at play in academia, to a lesser degree.

Fair enough, but this is basically what I'm saying. The people hired from UMass and Iowa were probably just incredible candidates, who would have done well most places and probably worked extremely hard to set themselves apart from the competition. I'm not saying this is not an admirable thing to strive for, but despite our best intentions our research doesn't always pan out how we expect. If you come from a more reputable school I get the impression that your margin for error is a bit wider in this respect, and the standards applied to your research program are a bit lower (even subconsciously). Part of this is just the ancillary things that come with a well-regarded program -- you probably have a strong network that would be an asset to the department, for example.

Thanks for the reply Applemiu; I know that it's difficult to answer (which I mentioned), but I guess I'm just looking for reputational opinions, preferably from people in the field. I know there are no guarantees and I'm not asking anyone to predict the future, but I disagree that reputation doesn't matter a lot in academic hiring based on what I've observed (I'm not saying I agree with this, in fact I don't think it should have the influence that it does, but I'm trying to be a realist). Graduates coming from the "big three", as you call it, have an advantage that goes beyond how productive they are; this point is almost indisputable. I didn't mean to imply they are guaranteed jobs, but the cards are definitely stacked in their favor, and when the job market is as tough as it seems to be, I think it's unwise to discount the importance of repuation.

Sorry for double post, but anyone have any input on this?

I know the application results are far from over, but I’ve applied to couple of top programs this year and haven’t heard back, so I assume I was rejected. The rankings for my field (psychology) are similar to “overall” rankings, so when I say top programs I mean Harvard, Stanford, Berkeley, etc. This year, I applied to around 7 schools, all of which were mostly in the top 20 of the rankings. I was (presumably) rejected from the ones in the top 6 I applied to, but got an interview from one in the 6-10 range, and “almost” got an interview from another in the 6-10 range (was told that I wasn’t due to changes in funding). I have a decent (~3.7) undergrad GPA in an unrelated technical field. I will have ~4.0 in a master’s program in my field. I have a solid and balanced GRE (unlikely to not meet an arbitrary cutoff; e.g., at or above the average GRE that Berkeley reported for its 2014 class). I have no publications, but about 2 years research experience (not counting grad school). By next year I will most likely have 1-2 publications. My main weaknesses I think were: well-written but somewhat unfocused SOPs, solid but not incredible LORs, relative lack of undergraduate experience in the field (not sure if this matters much), and lack of publications. If I reapply next year, I will make my SOPs extremely tailored and ensure the fit is very good, spend more time talking with my referees about applications (they will have known me for longer, as well), and will mostly have a publication. Given these changes and my somewhat decent results this year, do I have a real shot at the absolute top programs, or if they didn’t accept me this year they are unlikely to ever accept me? Again, looking at Berkeley (only because they have the easiest to find statistics), 385 non-clinical people applied and 25 were accepted. Making the assumption that maybe half of the applicants aren’t really that competitive, that’s still 192 people and 25 spots.

My goal in getting a PhD would be an academic career, and I’m curious to hear what people’s perceptions are on the UChicago Psychology program. I know that there are no definite answers to what I’m asking, but general impressions would be appreciated. It's not the only school I'm interested in but seems to be the most anomalous in terms of ranking well in overall rankings but not having a lot of "name brand recognition" (at least compared to others). Based on what I’ve read (and witnessed), prestige does have a large influence on academic hiring (like it or not). If you go to Princeton, Yale or Harvard, you really need to mess things up to not get an academic job *somewhere* (if that’s your goal). My impression is that even the worst graduate students in these programs will be at a significant advantage when it comes to applying to jobs, even if their work is a bit unexciting. I consider myself hardworking and intelligent, and have no intention of being lazy, but I would probably be an “average” graduate student at UChicago. My ultimate goal would be a tenure track position *somewhere*, not necessarily at a school as fancy or fancier than UChicago (in fact, there would be an appeal to returning to my hometown someday, which has a decent university but certainly not on the same level). My question is this: to what extent would the UChicago prestige provide a bit of a “buffer” against failing in this pursuit? I know that UChicago is a great school (it’s usually ranked around the top 10 worldwide; e.g., http://www.metauniversityranking.com/), but I know less about the prestige of the psychology program specifically (though I know it’s still at least reasonably high), and I also know less about how quickly the prestige drops off (are the top 10 programs more or less the same as the top 6, or is there a big difference? what about the top 6 and the top 20?). Let me add that I know ultimately the most important thing is my work, but I have doubts about being the “rock star” that it seems necessary to be to get a job coming from a low-ranking school in this economic climate. So, assuming I do decent (but not necessarily revolutionary) work at UChicago, how much do you think the reputation would help for employment *somewhere*? One of my main concerns is that it seems almost no one in the general public thinks UChicago is a “very good school" (despite it consistently doing very well in rankings), so I wonder how much that carries over to the perceptions of faculty. Thanks for your responses.