neuroJ

Absolutely. In many ways it is so much better to dream of the possibilities ave the very tangible moment of external validation for your career goals/dreams rather than make choices with real consequences.

I keep asking questions about various programs hoping one or the other will have some horrible deal-breaking feature that will allow me to unequivocally rule them out. Like maybe an ancient spider that dwells under the department building and feasts upon the blood of those foolish enough to tarry too long in the halls. That's probably not going to happen though.

If you have something you need to know before you arrive, go ahead and ask. Otherwise, you'll get better and more candid information in a personal conversation than in an email, and it'll be a good way to pass the time you have to spend together.

I would say don't count your chickens before their hatched- unless you have it in writing that you're getting a promotion, it wouldn't seem worth it to throw away the school opportunity.

(that said, remember: grad school is in fact, a trap and is no guarantee of an amazing job)

You say nothing about the type of research you want to do. If you apply somewhere with no one doing research in that subtopic, it doesn't matter what ranking the school is, they won't accept you. At the same time, if you apply only where there are specific labs that mesh very well with your interests, rankings will also not matter too much. Basically, if a PI sees you as a perfect fit in their lab, they can likely help get you accepted, although not all schools/departments work that way. So you're looking at this completely backwards. Apply to the top labs in your area of interest. As to whether you're competitive for them or not, it depends very much on your interests, expertise, research experience, etc., more than your hard numbers. A 2.9 GPA isn't great, but postgrad coursework will certainly help minimize that, so don't focus too much on it.

Good for you for planning ahead! You're at a huge advantage by thinking about grad school this early.

I think most people take time of between grad school and undergrad to get more research experience if that area of their resume is lacking. Personally, I took time off because I wasn't really focused enough on one particular area to apply to grad school. It's not impossible for someone to be accepted straight out of undergrad.

Your credentials are impressive. Research and clinical work/volunteer experience are really important in a clinical application. I'd say you definitely have a chance to be admitted to a clinical program. This might feel far away, but start thinking about the GRE. Plan to take it next summer, when you aren't taking any classes. Give yourself lots of time to study, and study hard. Most clinical programs will want to see a score around 1300 combined.

When looking for schools to apply to, you should focus on research match. Apply to schools with faculty whose interests match yours. Talk to your thesis advisor and the grad students in your lab for advice on where to apply. "Fit" is much more important than program rank.

I completely agree with this. I think it is really important to get research experience as soon as you can- I was able to start my freshman year and it gave me the chance to try working in several different types of labs. Moreover, as sesquipedale said, if you start early in your undergrad career in a lab and stick with it, you will have the time to develop some valuable technical skills that can make you an even more attractive candidate when you go to apply to grad school. Profs who are choosing between candidates how have similar 'numbers' (GPA GRE etc...) are likely to favor a candidate who won't need a long training period just to be 'caught up to speed' on research techniques.

Summer research programs are another reason to consider starting at a research university right away- these programs are something you generally apply for your sophomore or junior year and not only look great on grad apps, but can be really fun, and rewarding experiences (both in terms of intellectual and personal development). I am not sure how it works to apply for these programs from community colleges, but if you have already been working in a lab for a little while, I believe you have a much chance at getting one.

Again, it does come down to financial realities- it's never a good idea to put yourself massively in debt, so if money will be a major problem CC may be a great option. However, another thing to consider is that starting research experience early really gives you a leg up in finding scholarships/fellowships both during your undergrad career. It will also help you get in to more competitive graduate programs- programs which generally have more and better funding for students. So in short going to a CC for your first couple of years could potentially be penny wise but pound foolish: if you want to go to top grad programs, and you are aggressive about finding research and funding opportunities, starting your career at a research university could ultimately be the prudent choice.

tldr; starting research your freshman/sophomore year can be invaluable; bolstering your ability to get into grad school and secure funding during your undergrad and grad career.


*caveat- this was written from a more 'hard science' oriented perspective. It really depends on what type of field you think you might want to go in to.

In addition to what has been said: you need to build a great relationship with your professors in the field after you transfer to a 4 years university. Be an outstanding student in the class, be proactive/participate in discussions, visit the professors' office hours to be known (but with good questions). If the professor likes you, s/he may even invite you to grad seminars. Getting supports from your department professors is crucial. People know each other in the academic circles and it goes a long way.

This would depend on how many years you spend in a community college and where you go after the CC. In any case, definitely address it in your graduate school application and explain your reasons. Some sentence like, "in spite of my high school success, I decided it would be a prudent financial decision to initial enroll in a community college" would probably be all the explanation they needed. This might be a little cynical, depending on the extent of your financial disadvantage, but tying this decision into a story about pursuing academic excellence in spite of financial difficulties could be an asset to your application.

I hope you do not mind some unsolicited advice: transferring from a community college only saves money if you take classes that your four-year school will count towards your BA or BS. I recommend knowing in advance what four-year school you want to attend (or at least having a very short list of options) and asking that school how many transfer units they will accept, and which courses from your community college will fulfill requirements for your bachelors degree. Otherwise you might end up wasting money and time taking classes that will only earn you elective credit, or will not earn you credit at all. I know a lot of people who have spent an extra year or semester in college because they stayed at community college for two years and then were unable to transfer all of their units into their new degree.

I'm going to make a point for the other side of the argument, just to balance things out a bit.

I also did 2 years of community college before transferring to a four-year. The biggest downside, at least for the field I am trying to break into (psychology), is that you only have two years to be a research assistant and gain experience that way, something vital for certain grad programs. It took me some time to find three great labs that had openings, so I was really only an RA for 1.5 years about. If I could do it all over, and I knew that I really wanted to get into grad school in psychology in advance (though, like others have said, it is pretty unlikely you will have that foresight just fresh out of high school, although some do) I would skip community college, if it was reasonable financially. So, I don't think grad schools will directly punish you for going to a CC, but, you may have less opportunities for research, which may or may not be important depending on your field. If research is important in your field, joining labs as a 1st or 2nd year will net you more experience and a higher chance at co-authored presentations and papers than entering as a 3rd year might.

I used to work in food service and hated it when people would ask for "extra" ranch dressing, mayo, whatever (in quotations because their food came with neither, as they were paying for neither), because it involved digging the gigantic bucket of dressing out of the walk-in fridge and sticking my entire [gloved] hand down in there to reach the stuff with the scoop. Inevitably those who demanded free portions of dressing would then stand around whining about how "she's really taking her time in there" and about how we should really just have free portions of dressing sitting out ready for people to take.

I won't miss living far away from my family and many of my friends. I'm moving closer to home this time.

I'm not making a big move to go to graduate school: same region, same lifestyles, slightly bigger city, more shopping, still within an hour of my friends and most of my family. The biggest difference will be NOT working at this pizza place to make ends meet.

I will NOT miss standing on my feet, washing my hands 100+ times a night, dealing with hungry customers, always keeping my hair tied back in the same damn bun, never letting my nails grow out, never getting to wear rings or nail polish, wearing those stupid t-shirts, running up and down two flights of stairs just because someone wants an extra 2 ounce cup of ranch dressing, screaming children, drunk a-holes, skeezy bartenders, and coming home every night smelling like pizza pizza pizza.

I know that grad school will come with its own set of drawbacks, including drama and long hours, but after five years of pizza I'm ready for five years of something else.

Here's my male perspective.
I would personally resent being with a spouse who thinks I am a failure.

I would love advice and perspectives from both males and females on this one.

I'm currently in a relationship with a great guy. He's applying to graduate school this fall, whereas I am finishing up my second year. I'm also currently at a top 5 program in my discipline with full funding, I just received an NSF GRFP, I have a prestigious internship this summer, and I finished my masters thesis a semester early. By most measures in my department I am considered highly successful. The fact that our grad school trajectories haven't matched up has been hard, and we've been long distance for a year. Things are still going well, and he applied to a bunch of schools nearby... but with the market the way it is, he's only gotten one offer so far. And to be honest.... it's practically slave wages. He's already got quite a few loans from undergrad (I have none) and I am very hesitant about him taking out more that he would need to survive. I'm not sure what his next move is at this point, and things are really up in the air.

Although things have been good up until now, it's hard for me to relate or give my boyfriend advice about his graduate career. Sometimes I worry that he will resent my success some day. At this rate, the way things are going, he would be the trailing spouse, the spousal hire. This is a reality that would be impossible for me to cope with, but I'm not sure he thinks of success the same way I do.

So my question is... how do other people cope with success differentials in a relationship? And to my male colleagues, would you honestly be comfortable with a partner who is more successful than you are in the long run? I'm a social scientist, I can take the reality, so don't be afraid to be truthful guys.

Am I the only one who feels like this process is just a crapshoot?

Okay, not just a crapshoot. Obviously good stats, a highly ranked undergraduate school, and LORs from well-known scholars help increase your odds. When you start getting into particulars, though, I think a significant part of getting an offer comes down to factors beyond our control. If you get that one Romanticist committee member evaluating your portfolio who thinks that the Analytical Writing GRE is an awesome way to evaluate your ability to succeed in grad school, you could be out of the running right away. If your application had been handed to another (say, Contemporary Americanist) member of the committee who thinks you have a revolutionary interpretation of Toni Morrison's use of capitalization, that faculty member could take your application and champion it all the way to the top in spite of your 2.5 AW score.

Similarly, you might have a fabulous project, great stats, perfect in every way... but the professor you want to work with has already been corresponding with a student and is excited about their project, so no dice for you.

It just seems like there are too many reasons a school may reject someone, so it is best not to psychoanalyse the AdCom. They may have rejected you because you are "too good," or they may have rejected you because they didn't like your project, or they may have rejected you because they really did get more qualified applicants.

Wow, that's kind of a bitchy reply. But get this:

It's so nice and fun to disparage the ranking system, but the simple truth is that, if a school does not have guaranteed funding for its students, strong library facilities, good professorial resources, and an effective history of graduate placement, then that school will not rank well. In this sense, the rankings systems are indeed meaningless on a micro level (that is, saying that #13 School A is qualitatively better than #15 School B as an exclusive result of their ranking differences), but it is by all means relevant on a macro level. Number-13 School A will almost always serve its graduates' careers more effectively than #57 School C. It's silly of you to suggest that a typical graduate of, say, Brown will not have comparably higher buying power on the job market than a typical graduate of, say, Arizona State. Let's be real.

Given that information, it is indeed bizarre that a student who is admitted to virtually all of the top-20 schools s/he applied to is rejected from every single school in the 50s and 60s s/he applied to. I started this thread as a means of helping applicants feel out how to compose their applicant-school lists. If this trend is indeed real, then that information would be crucial.

It is also not the case that every applicant applies to every school sincerely, that every applicant mentions 3 or 4 professors, etc. I certainly did not quote professors from every school I applied to in my writing sample, as I did with many of these schools in the 50s and 60s. And I did not apply to every school with equal sincerity, as a number of my applications were made strictly because of the advice from my undergraduate mentors, for geographical reasons, etc., rather than a personal passion for those programs. I'm certain this is true of many people on this forum, particularly given that many of us are applying to 15 or more schools and therefore cannot devote ourselves equally to each individual application.

Meanwhile, I appreciate how you've listed out all the potential ways by which I may have been rejected. But I was indeed aware of those matters, as any moderately thoughtful person would be. I was curious if anyone had any useful information about the trend of this, as that would be valuable information for future applicants.

I'll start with a story and then draw conclusions.

**
I was invited to an "applicants weekend" at the University of Pennsylvania. This was for an application I put in to study education policy at their graduate school of education. They invited 40 out of over 400 applicants, and it broke down to about 5 people per program track. I quickly realized a few things. First, everyone who was invited had stellar, stellar resumes. Meaning, nearly perfect grades, high GREs, and great work experience. It was a confirmation of what I knew abstractly: extremely talented people with extremely strong records apply to extremely strong schools. Furthermore, they were all articulate and had great personalities. Competition is tough.

Of the 40 people invited, I think a little over half were probably offered positions there. I was placed on a wait-list as I assume everyone else invited to the weekend who didn't get accepted. It was clear that few people there were going to get rejected for being unqualified and unsociable. Rather, those who got in fit with the style of the school and faculty, and more importantly, their research interests. I didn't have a perfect fit and that became to me very clear, especially during interviews.

Of course, I left the interviews thinking: if only I had said that x, y, and z were my interests, and I'd like to study them with methods a, b, and c. Perhaps that would have done the trick, had they not been able to read the lack of enthusiasm on my face. But in the end, I was honest about my approach and interests and they were not sufficiently receptive to that. So I probably don't belong there and had they accepted me I would have been less likely to thrive.

**

In the end, this is what I learned from this experience and the rest of the application process.

Rules:

1: A good academic record and good experience is a necessary condition for a successful application, especially at a top school. However, it is not a sufficient condition.

2: Fit with the style and interests of the program is a necessary condition for a successful application, espectially at a top school. However, it is not a sufficient condition.

3: Luck is a necessary condition for a successful application, especially at a top school. However, it is not a sufficient condition.

4. A good academic record + fit + luck is sufficient for a successful application, especially at a top schools.

5: You can't take rejection personally and your succeses is in some ways out of your hands.


Advice:

1: To the extent that you can, while still being true to your interests and capacities, tailor your SOP and LORs for the school you are appyling to. Most schools don't interview, so they're going to determine fit based upon what you say about yourself and what others say about you.

2: Don't count yourself out at top schools or fields outside your specialty. If you truly have something to offer the program, you have a chance anywhere, so long as you meet rule 1 above.

3: You can't take rejection personally. Your interests are what they are, and even if you are very competitive on paper, you will probably not be admitted unless you fit well and have some luck with how your interests and talents much up against the accepted applicants.

4: Be very gracious and proud of your acceptances, particularly the funded ones, at top schools. If you were admitted, and the school is willing to pay for you, that means they want you there. This is a necessary condition, I would imagine, for a successful doctoral experience.

5: Apply widely, but appropriately. It's unlikely, even with a 4.0 and a 1600 GRE, that you will get in everywhere you apply. You need to cast the net widely. That said, don't apply to Harvard just because it's Harvard. Apply there because you fit. I made the mistake of applying to top schools I didn't seriously consider just to "see what would happen." What happens is I got rejected, and I could have used that money to buy beer.

Other comments:

I'm kind of ambivalent about professor contact ahead of time. I didn't do it at all, and I got into my top choice. My top choice was literally less than a half-mile from my house, and I was in the first flight of their admits. They had never met me nor heard from me and they knew I was right next door. In the end, it didn't matter -- I fit well so I got in. It may help your application to talk to the faculty, but it's not in every case necessary. Honestly, it's probably better for finding out if your application stands a chance. In any event, if they want to talk to you, after reading your application, they will get in touch. If it's your style to talk ahead of time, go ahead and do it. I guess I was just kind of a hands-off kinda guy. I figured, if they wanted me, they'd want me.


Just a few thoughts off the top of my head.

hmmm pseudoscience vs science

easy choice to me

It's fun. That's the answer I give everyone.

In truth, I don't think we need to justify what we do anymore than the person who handles insurance claims or works in investment banking or defends corporate workers' comp lawsuits. Most people in the world do not have meaningful, productive jobs, i.e. jobs that cure diseases and create policy and help people. Ours, as others have pointed out, is more meaningful than most.

I interviewed in both cities and for me the winner for location is easily, undeniably, Boston. While Carrboro and Chapel Hill are pretty cool, they're not actually particularly close to Durham - they're far enough that I wouldn't drive out there for a weeknight dinner. I found Durham itself to be way too much of a driving city. It does seem to have some nice restaurants and other cool stuff but they're all rather spread out from each other, so you really have to drive everywhere and there are few nice walkable areas. Durham's downtown looks like it's on its way up, but you can't help but notice that it used to be (and sort of still is) rundown and somewhat sketchy. I also found it to feel quite "southern" (conservative, old-fashioned), which could be a positive or a negative depending on what you're comfortable with - personally, it felt a little foreign to me. That being said, when people say the cost of living is lower in Durham, they're not kidding around - the grad students I met were regularly paying less than $500 for nice apartments, and students with children or spouses could easily afford to live in their own houses. Also, I would melt in the summer, but I can fully understand why the weather would be a plus.

On the other hand, I find Boston to be a charming, awesomely compact and walkable city. Despite being fairly small, it really has the feel of a big city. Being able to use public transportation is a big plus for me, as is the abundance of student hangouts and cute areas to explore. I really like the kind of intellectual vibe that Boston has, and it also feels quite liberal and progressive. Boston is also closer to home for me, and I'm more comfortable in very cold winters than very hot summers.

Keep in mind how far your stipend will go when comparing the affordability of either city - I was offered $19600 in Durham and $27800 in Boston, which probably even out.

I think of it this way:

It's pretty easy to conceive of why we value medical or biological research- in order to learn about how our bodies work and what we might do to fix them. But if you really decide to conceive of people as some type of entity arising from building blocks whose functions are based on physical laws, I think you are left with the very nasty question of not how humans work but why we should even care that they do. As wonderful and fascinating as the question 'how the hell does consciousness arises from elaborate relationships between molecules and synapses?' may be, a quest for an answer becomes a futile endeavor if there is no reason to answer it. I think of literature and the humanities/art in general as addressing that point. Studying what humans do with our minds, or why we do and think and feel what we do, or what it even means to be able to produce or communicate anything at all is essential to all human endeavors. If we are entirely unable to begin to speak to the nature of what our existence even is, then we're just a bunch of self-replicating amino acid chains and it's difficult to justify anything we do, from studying medicine to even growing the food to keep ourselves alive.

that's my half-baked attempt.

Why does rank matter so much to you? Harvard, yale and other places might be great schools, but not that great in what you want to do. I feel like rank of the school shouldnt matter. You applied to all these schools, so they all must be good. Go with a funded PhD. You could get a masters, and then its a bad year for your programs and they accept few. You never know. It's hard to just give up a fully funded 5 years to go pay money at a masters program. But, it's all up to you.

I think of it this way:

It's pretty easy to conceive of why we value medical or biological research- in order to learn about how our bodies work and what we might do to fix them. But if you really decide to conceive of people as some type of entity arising from building blocks whose functions are based on physical laws, I think you are left with the very nasty question of not how humans work but why we should even care that they do. As wonderful and fascinating as the question 'how the hell does consciousness arises from elaborate relationships between molecules and synapses?' may be, a quest for an answer becomes a futile endeavor if there is no reason to answer it. I think of literature and the humanities/art in general as addressing that point. Studying what humans do with our minds, or why we do and think and feel what we do, or what it even means to be able to produce or communicate anything at all is essential to all human endeavors. If we are entirely unable to begin to speak to the nature of what our existence even is, then we're just a bunch of self-replicating amino acid chains and it's difficult to justify anything we do, from studying medicine to even growing the food to keep ourselves alive.

that's my half-baked attempt.

I think of it this way:

It's pretty easy to conceive of why we value medical or biological research- in order to learn about how our bodies work and what we might do to fix them. But if you really decide to conceive of people as some type of entity arising from building blocks whose functions are based on physical laws, I think you are left with the very nasty question of not how humans work but why we should even care that they do. As wonderful and fascinating as the question 'how the hell does consciousness arises from elaborate relationships between molecules and synapses?' may be, a quest for an answer becomes a futile endeavor if there is no reason to answer it. I think of literature and the humanities/art in general as addressing that point. Studying what humans do with our minds, or why we do and think and feel what we do, or what it even means to be able to produce or communicate anything at all is essential to all human endeavors. If we are entirely unable to begin to speak to the nature of what our existence even is, then we're just a bunch of self-replicating amino acid chains and it's difficult to justify anything we do, from studying medicine to even growing the food to keep ourselves alive.

that's my half-baked attempt.

I think of it this way:

It's pretty easy to conceive of why we value medical or biological research- in order to learn about how our bodies work and what we might do to fix them. But if you really decide to conceive of people as some type of entity arising from building blocks whose functions are based on physical laws, I think you are left with the very nasty question of not how humans work but why we should even care that they do. As wonderful and fascinating as the question 'how the hell does consciousness arises from elaborate relationships between molecules and synapses?' may be, a quest for an answer becomes a futile endeavor if there is no reason to answer it. I think of literature and the humanities/art in general as addressing that point. Studying what humans do with our minds, or why we do and think and feel what we do, or what it even means to be able to produce or communicate anything at all is essential to all human endeavors. If we are entirely unable to begin to speak to the nature of what our existence even is, then we're just a bunch of self-replicating amino acid chains and it's difficult to justify anything we do, from studying medicine to even growing the food to keep ourselves alive.

that's my half-baked attempt.

I think of it this way:

It's pretty easy to conceive of why we value medical or biological research- in order to learn about how our bodies work and what we might do to fix them. But if you really decide to conceive of people as some type of entity arising from building blocks whose functions are based on physical laws, I think you are left with the very nasty question of not how humans work but why we should even care that they do. As wonderful and fascinating as the question 'how the hell does consciousness arises from elaborate relationships between molecules and synapses?' may be, a quest for an answer becomes a futile endeavor if there is no reason to answer it. I think of literature and the humanities/art in general as addressing that point. Studying what humans do with our minds, or why we do and think and feel what we do, or what it even means to be able to produce or communicate anything at all is essential to all human endeavors. If we are entirely unable to begin to speak to the nature of what our existence even is, then we're just a bunch of self-replicating amino acid chains and it's difficult to justify anything we do, from studying medicine to even growing the food to keep ourselves alive.

that's my half-baked attempt.