Jay's Brain

In general, I don't think the year makes a difference. A lot of people, including myself, choose to take a year off before going through the rigours of graduate applications. That being said, consider what you will be doing for that year. Will you be involved in work that will improve or help your application (research, volunteer in labs, etc)? Alternatively, will you be finding a job to fund your graduate studies? In my opinion, taking a year off can benefit you tremendously if you are using it wisely to decide on what to pursue or using it to improve your application. However, it is still a long duration and you may run the risk of not having the motivation to pursue grad school. That's something to keep in mind. As for being an international student, I'm not sure if that makes a difference or not. Each year there's a limit to how many international students can be accepted depending on the institution, so you may want to look into that.

Are there any professors whose courses you have been in that can write you a better letter? If you do, those would be a good way to go too. If not, and you're limited to those options, you will probably have to make-do with your co-supervisor. Most professors will not say they will write a reference if they cannot provide good feedback. Unfortunately, you won't know for sure. One suggestion I do have for the postdoc is to have them write the letter of reference WITH the PI who they are working with. You may have worked more closely with the postdoc, but it's the name of his or her supervisor that may lend credence. If the PI knows you too, you can have both of them write the letter together and have the PI sign off on it.

Without any context to your program of interest and other factors, it is hard to say. Most people, including myself, will probably give you the same answer. That really depends on the program, the potential supervisors you may have (if this is research-based), and what the graduate committee at that particular institution holds for these kind of statistical references. If, as you said, your other requirements are competitive, they may give you an exception. If the 3.5-3.6 GPA is not a strict cutoff, you still have a chance! Good luck!

I'm beginning my Masters this coming Fall, so I may not be the best to discuss the implications of funding throughout the graduate studies. That being said, I can provide insight from a recently minted graduate student. Funding did make a big decision for me, but, in my case, I received the most funding from the program that I was most interested in too which biases my decision somewhat. I do come from Toronto, and recently two of the bigger universities here (University of Toronto and York University) went through a very tumultuous period when the graduate students from both went on strike for an extended period of time. At UofT the TAs wanted a raise in their basic funding salary that had been frozen and unchanged since 2000. I'm not sure how the system works for American schools, but even with a seemingly appropriate movement this was met with severe backlash. Here's an from a local newspaper for anyone interested: http://www.thestar.com/yourtoronto/education/2015/02/27/u-of-t-teaching-assistants-strike-late-night-deal.html

I'm not familiar with the Philosophy graduate programs either, but judging by your academic prowess in the area and the number of courses you've taken, it certainly seems like you can make a case that you fit into the program. I agree with random_grad, your major in a science-related field may not be such a deterring factor. After all, you've probably learned a lot of soft skills, such as critical thinking and flexibility, that can be transferred into a philosophy graduate program. From what I know, the Humanities are a bit more flexible with what your original undergraduate degree was in. It comes with what the fields look at. Perhaps you can look for an area in philosophy that interests you, maybe ethics and philosophy of science, and use that to spin why coming from a science background gives you the necessary tools to be a strong philosophy graduate student. If you can stamp out what you hope to pursue, it makes applications a lot easier!

Hello fellow cognitive (memory)-related researcher! Like the other two mentioned, you do have a strong application! The weaker part is your GRE, and, unfortunately, it's one of those things that you must grind through during your application process. Having done the GRE multiple times, I realize that your condition on test day makes a big difference. The time I did better, I had a good night's sleep and had more positive thoughts going into it. Don't let your own anxiety, and knowing that the GRE is important to your application, affect you too much. Like psychkita said, aim higher and you'll have a more than solid application. In terms of the lack of publication/presentation, I went into my application cycle this year with no publication (just a couple of manuscripts in progress) and 2 conference presentations. That's not a whole lot either. I think more than anything what helped me a lot was more statement of interest and my strong LORs. If you've established great relationships with professors that should only help you. This might be a little bit out of the field, but take a look at some of the clinical psychology schools in Canada too. There's a lot of very strong research here, especially in the cognitive psychology and neuroscience-related fields. Otherwise, don't stress out and enjoy the ride of your graduate applications. Good luck!

The biggest difference between PsyD and PhD C. Psych is the depth of research that goes into it. Clearly you have an idea of what research is like given your prior experience. Sure it might be frowned upon, but you should do what makes sense for you. And that should also be what you indicate. Both your lengthy clinical and research experiences should certainly help with your application (along with your GPA and GRE). Not to mention, perhaps you can even indicate your familiarity with the landscape of clinical psychology given your first year in the PsyD program. Ultimately, I think how you word it can make your year in the PsyD program inconsequential. Just let the graduate committees know that you realized your interest in research through your one-year of professional (school) experience and want to carry that on into a program that lets you apply your interests in both. Hope that helps!

That depends if the faculty are cross-appointed, so that varies by the school. Check to see if that's the case. The good thing is that for some programs, the counselling and clinical research overlaps quite a bit. If that's the case, perhaps you can make the case for it, but, again, check with the schools.

Unfortunately, as harsh as it sounds, your best bet is to tell the truth. I agree with velua, tell the people you are working with first. They can vouch for you, and it may make it easier to get through. Regardless, it's still a difficult situation you are in. But it's better to confess now, than to worry and give yourself distress throughout the entire time of your graduate studies. It may work out if you don't tell, but do you want to risk that when you're nearing the end and they find out? That'll be even worse. Good luck, and I wish you all the best!

Quantitative skills are hard to come by, but, again, the GRE is a standardized test. Even though it is considered by universities, it's not the end of the world. Obviously you want to try your hardest, you still have 3 months to go through it and do it to the best of your ability. Take a look at what your schools of interest are asking from their more recent applicants (if the schools post this). If not, consider asking these same departments for historical statistics. Then you can compare what the expectations are. One advice I received from an upper year mentor is that sometimes we find ourselves asking too much, especially when it comes to the GRE. I did the test three times (!) before I came to realize my first set of scores identifies my "aptitude" the best. Remember, not everyone can get reach 80th percentile or higher in all three parts of the test, and your GPA and academic ability can cover some of the misgivings your GRE may have. If it helps, try looking at some high school material (there's a lot online) to simplify how you're studying. The ticking clock towards your test day may be giving you jitters, but 90 days means THREE months. You still have a lot of time!

Someone can argue against this, but unless the professors have been in the field for a long, long time and hold a bit of importance, I don't think you should purposely go out of your way to look for these "influential" professors. Even then, that depends on how well they know you too. You wouldn't want to go out on a whim and find someone without having an actual working/academic relationship with them. Like you said, your professors know your profile the best, and can provide the clearest insight as to whether you are going to be a suitable candidate for whoever you end up working with. Of course, being a student myself, I can't share what bureaucracy arises during the process where the graduate committees review applicants. If someone is able to detail an in-depth look on who you are, however, I'm sure that will be much more useful than a generic LOR. You want LORs that play to your strength, and nobody knows you better than your thesis advisors!

One thing that you have going for you is that your expected scores aren't always the most accurate in depicting where your scores may end up come test day. For example, after doing a series of practices, my official scores always ended up being 2-3 points higher and as you probably know that makes a difference. So right off the bat, stay positive! Now given your challenges in the quantitative side of things, remember that the questions are not meant to be difficult. In fact, I always said that if I had taken the GRE back in high school, I probably would have scored much higher for the quantitative section. The quantitative section are challenging, because the questions are not apparent and make you waste time with convoluted calculations. The best way to approach it, at least for me, was to simplify what you're looking for. Make sure you identify what the questions are asking for, and whether there are really obvious things that makes the question a lot easier than they seem. For your last 90 days, look at the areas that you find the most challenging and work on those. Really, it's about practice and doing questions on a timely fashion. And when it seems like you're stuck, then skip the question. Don't waste extra time forcing yourself. It'll come back to you when need be. The day before the test, make sure you're well rested and thinking positive thoughts. The way you feel the day of the test can make or break your score.

I agree with psychkita's helpful response, and I want to that. Often our first conclusion about "a mentor" is the professors and potential supervisors in the field that we aspire to be like. That's completely correct in assuming that, but I think you want to classify your expectations of a mentor a little differently. How I approached it throughout my undergraduate career is that I'm relatively new in the field, I want to be part of it for the long haul, and I have a lot of questions yet to be answered (e.g. what I want to do in psychology, what research is the right fit for me, etc). Speak to ANYONE, and I mean anyone, in the field. These could be your professors/lecturers (as mentioned), or even graduate students, postdocs, and fellow aspiring undergraduates. My experience is that everyone is working towards a goal of some kind and they are always more than helpful to answer questions you have. Especially in a field like psychology (and I'm sure this applies to any field), everyone is very opened to sharing their past personal experiences. Mentoring and advice seeking go hand in hand. Have strong relationships with the people in your department, and you can no only bounce off ideas but get a sense of the expectations moving forward. Some of the people I received the best advice from this year while applying to graduate school were the upper year mentors/graduate students who had recently gone through the same rigour that I had to go through. It's great support to know there are so many positive people who you can seek advice from. Now from an academic standpoint, assuming you're interested in looking for someone to supervise your graduate studies, make sure you have a positive attitude towards your graduate admission cycle. Do some research on which field you might like to pursue, and ask yourself the important question of WHY. Once you know, and you have a solid convincing answer, you're more than there. Even if you have the right grades, GRE, experiences, etc., make sure you are the right fit. This is important when approaching someone who might be your academic mentor for the next 5-7 years. Speak to your undergraduate thesis supervisor (if you have one) first. They may or may not be your graduate supervisor, but they also have a wealth of experience on how to be a successful applicant. Learn from them, and just have a humble and sincere approach throughout your conversations. In the end, anyone who can share insight is a great mentor. There may be a few people that are specifically important in your application process (i.e. your LOR writers), but, ultimately, you can learn so much for those around you. I did that, and here I am starting my graduate career this Fall! Best of luck!

Given your extremely strong academic background, the only thing, as pointed out by the posters above, is your lack of researching background in psychology. I do highly suggest you reach out and connect with researchers to start volunteering/working to amass that last bit that would make you an excellent candidate. As mentioned, clinical psychology is a tough and very competitive program. Really hone down what your research interests are, and why you're so resolute about choosing this field. You may want to speak with people in those fields, ask them for advice, and even ask if they are willing to take you on as a volunteer/research assistant. I think this may also be of interest to you: http://www.howigotintostanford.com The author of this website began his journey of wanting to pursue Social Psychology with a minimal background in psychology (like yourself), but an even less stellar GPA. He managed to attain quite a few research experiences simply from connecting and contacting professionals in academia, and in the end he got into Stanford. So, if anything, this might be telling you that the same Ivy league schools that came calling for your back when you considered pursuing your Poli Sci degree might do the same after you establish yourself a little bit more in the field of psychology! Hope this helps!

I'm not, but you may want to give a little context. I assume that UCL has more than one PhD program? That might help others who have information to answer your question!

Clinical psychology is a very complicated and competitive area to get into, so I definitely wish you the best of luck in your goals! Your research interests are very niche, so take a look at the researchers that integrates art and identity (or anything related) into their practice/line of research. Research in psychotherapy comes to mind as well, which actually brings up the idea of exploring counselling psychology programs as well. Those are competitive, but a tad easier to get into than clinical psychology. Overall, I agree with ravyn. Explore more volunteer opportunities, do well on your GRE tests, and look for more options for your LORs. One from a respected academic is a great start, but you may need more that relate closer to your current field of interest (e.g. professors in psychology). Good luck!

"Mr. Brain" haha My lack of knowledge in the academic opportunities in India notwithstanding, it seems like the program is a great fit for you in terms of harnessing the skills that you probably have, but do not have tangible/concrete ways to show them. That's probably the main thing you currently "lack", but I doubt that will be a problem in two years as you've given yourself a bit of time to catch up. Another thing in Sociology, of course, is the need for a strong quantitative skill set since there is quite a bit of statistical knowledge involved. Given your engineering background, you may already have a lot of what is expected which will be invaluable to the application. If you need a refresher, however, there is an ongoing MOOC on Coursera by the University of Zurich that is called "Introduction to Statistics for the Social Sciences" being offered. Take a look at that too if necessary. Overall, use the time between now and 2016/2017 to strongly hone the training and development that is required for your application when the time comes. I'm starting my graduate career this September, so hopefully in a couple of years I'll hear about you pursuing the same! Again, best of luck!

That varies by country and field I believe. There are expectations from some larger labs that they prefer paying research assistants just so that they don't fall under any legal issues if something was to happen. On the other hand, there are also a lot of unpaid positions. However, I have never heard of any position that expects you to be there for 8 hours per day unpaid. Usually those voluntary roles are ~10 hours per week.

Simply put, give yourself some faith. There's never a harm in trying, because if you succeed you've proven that your self-doubts were foolish. If luck runs a little bit dry, then you know where to get back up to continue aiming for what you need to do. You still have A LOT of time. Stay positive, and trust in your mentors for guidance!

First of all, I congratulate you on your fine standing in your current field, but more so for your fortitude in embarking on this radical change to your career path. The positive in this is that your prior experience, albeit vastly different from what you plan to pursue, may not be the worse off when it comes time to applications. Assuming as you say that you have the SOP and research field figured out, I think the most ambitious part that you must tackle is how you can translate your prior experiences into a way that suggests your interests in this change. I think in a field like Sociology, where you are studying social behaviour and community, experiences with different skill sets is an added bonus. In the year and a half to follow, I strongly suggest you invest some time into pursuing experiences that will enhance your application, especially into a field as broad and diverse as Sociology. Again, with diversity of Sociology, your volunteer experiences may not do as much harm as you think. Working with people and translating that into tangible roles are all good ways to approach any discipline in the social sciences. Being that you have such an unique case, I think that will be taken into consideration even if your experiences within the field are a bit different. Thorough research and communication skills are a big asset in the social sciences. Those are transferable skills that you can definitely bring to light to convince potential advisors that you have the skill set to pursue this field (I would assume based on your CV that you have all the right aptitude already). Finally, if your ultimate goal is to do a PhD in Sociology, don't stop short of it. Most people in these forums have had their fair shares of troubles as to what held them back during graduate applications. There's always a way to work around it. My advice most likely didn't answer your questions, but I just wanted to respond as a way to fully support your decision to pursue something you're interested in! It's hard to do so, especially when the career change is so drastic. Good luck! EDIT: I would highly recommend you look through this too, and speak with the Sociology professor who is running this thread:

To answer your most recent question, it's a good idea to be a little prepared going into a meeting. If anything that might show even more of that initiative if you ask to read more on the topic prior to meeting with the prof

Thanks for the input! I've definitely started reading more papers on Topic B, and I think what I'm most hesitant on is how best to approach Topic B so that I would actually like it more. There's definitely areas that fascinate me a lot, but again it doesn't seem to be as focused on in the literature. I do agree on trying to find that spin to make Topic B more attractive to me. But if it's not really achievable, is it a matter of gutting through it and hoping I become more interested when I'm actually in the thick of things? Should I just have a more open mindset moving forward?

I'll be starting my graduate studies in September, and, while speaking with my graduate advisor, we've decided on two potential topics of choice that I can pursue. They share some similarities, but the topics are pretty diverging. Topic A is one where I've read papers from the lab I'll be working in, and I am very interested in the topic. The problem is that the area is a bit saturated with publications, and it's slowly becoming a topic that is not as "exciting". Topic B, one which I'm a bit less familiar with, doesn't seem to jive with me as well as Topic A does. There are parts of it that I'm interested in, but definitely not as fully as Topic B. However, many people, including my graduate advisor, believe this area of research is growing and becoming increasingly popular. It is a topic that is currently generating a lot of buzz, and publication opportunities are aplenty. Given these two general outlines about the topics I may have the chance of exploring for my graduate studies, can I get advice on what I should do? I plan to do some more research on both to familiarize myself with the content, but I'm curious if anyone has had similar experiences or have any suggestions/feedback? What would you do in my case?

Hi kudos to you for thinking ahead! I've always told younger students interested in going into any kind of graduate//professional program to think ahead and begin as early as they can in their undergrad. Based on what you've said, and that you've only finished your first year of university, I think you need to first figure out whether I/O (or even Psychology) is the route you want to take. If, of course, you already have a strong reason to pursue this field then don't let anyone stop you. Either way, you want to start building up your portfolio when it comes time to apply to graduate schools and programs. The summer after your first-year may be the best time to do so! Research the profs at your school (or even nearby universities) that have research topics you see yourself immersing in. I/O is a very specific area, and not a lot of profs really focus on that. With that being said, you may want to look at some of the social psychology researchers (since I/O touches on a lot on social behavioural content), or see if the business/management professors at your school does behavioural research. Those two fields are probably my best bet on you starting out. Don't be afraid of not hearing back or being overwhelmed. Once you secure your first researching position, either paid or as a volunteer, this will make it easier for future opportunities. One reason this is important, besides the obvious experience that comes out of these roles, is that these professors will be your references during your application. That's super important. P.S. Although I have a few manuscripts in preparation, and have a couple posters under my belt, I didn't publish during my undergrad. Through hard work, and a bit of luck I managed to get into an amazing program and will be starting my Master's in Clinical Psychology at York in September. Do whatever you can to make yourself stand out, and just remember that perseverance can get you to a lot of places! PM me if you have any further questions! Good luck!

You can word it in a way to suggest that being a TA in certain CS courses demonstrates your prowess in *insert area of CS you were a TA for*. It can also be a segue for you to describe your interests.