neuropsych76

Thank you all for your replies! Unfortunately, earning an MA isn't possible at this point, but once I get my MA and PhD in sociology, it hopefully won't matter much. I guess it is confusing because a decent number of credits from my psychology program transfer into sociology. However, I like the idea of just listing my pubs and titles. I was a research assistant and instructor as a psychology PhD student. So I'm think about just listing those titles along with the publications so it makes more sense.

I began my PhD in psychology and had a pretty awful time in graduate school. Poor mentoring, lack of fit, ect. I switched into a sociology program at my same school and I'm much, much happier now. The department actually cares about its students and I can study topics that I am interesting. So I wanted to mention that it's possible to switch if anyone is considering it! Anyway, I do not know what to write on my CV for my 4 years of doctorate training! I didn't earn a MA and will be getting my PhD from the same school. How would be the best way to describe my time at my last PhD program? I was essentially ABD and did all the coursework. Could I just write PhD candidate? Should I say how many credits I earned? I did publish 3 articles during my time there so I was somewhat productive despite the awful experience. Thank you!

That's a good point. I only wrote a small part of the article and mostly helped with data collection/analysis. One thing that worries me in particular is that the grad student told me that they were going to do new analyses for the projects (which would have been my job) and it was assigned to someone else. I told my old advisor I wanted to help finish anything I could for the papers and she did not give me any more work or even details. So I don't really have any opportunity to meet with her since I was waiting for the go ahead to do the extra analyses. I would have been a lower author anyway for both articles, but I still lose the pubs on my CV.

Hello, So I recently switched labs in my graduate program. Before I left my old lab, we collected data, analyzed it, and started writing up two articles. My old advisor told me I would be a co-author on both of these articles since I helped a decent amount with both. However, I was talking with another grad student and she told me that I might not be a co-author anymore since I switched labs before the articles were submitted. She has heard this happen to other students. I have not mentioned this to my advisor yet because I'm not really sure how to bring it up. I think we parted on amicable terms as I expressed to my advisor very openly how I didn't think we were a good fit and was going to look at other labs. My advisor seemed supportive of this as she also realized our research interests were growing apart. However, I did mention to her how I wanted to continue helping with the projects in an email and she never replied to that part which worries me. So my question: Is this normal to be snubbed on authorship because you left someone's lab? This seems somewhat unethical to me. If I did the work and was previously going to be an author, why should it matter that I left the lab? It seems pretty vindictive to not give me authorship and does harm my academic career as I'll lose two publications. Also, any advice on how I should bring this up with my mentor? I imagine I should just be direct, but I'm wondering if there is anything else I should add. Thank you!!

Hi all, So I'm a somewhat regular poster here and am a 3rd year cognitive neuroscience PhD student. Basically, I'm starting to realize fast the cognitive neuroscience is NOT the field for me. I'm much more interested in studying how people work together on a larger scale than one's indivudual neurons. I might try to switch into social neuroscience, but I feel like I'd have the same issues. I love volunteering at my local sexual trauma center and I write for a feminism magazine and I'm interested in studying how to overcome social inequality. I tend to always think big picture which is problematic in a field which is all about minor details of brain imaging techniques. So I would be super appreciative of any feedback on whether or not swtiching is even possible. I would be applying NEXT application cycle so it would hopefully give me enough time to figure out what (and if) I'd like to apply. here are my stats: psychology BA with sociology minor 3.72 undergrad GPA from good liberal arts school tons of undergrad research experience and published my honors thesis tons of extracurriculars glowing LOR's for undergrad GRE in the low 1200's (old GRE, can retake if needed) grad school GPA around 3.8 probably two cog neuro publications (co author) I might finish my masters by the time I apply as well I probably wont have stronger letters from my professors here I'd be aiming for mid-range, fully funded phd programs. my interests are broad, but I would like to study social inequality of some sort. race, gender, ect. anything like that would be awesome. So on paper, I think I look okay, but I'm really concered how awful it might look to leave one grad program to go to another. If I finish my masters, that might look better, but I'm not sure. I do know I want to study sociology or community psychology or something like that. I'm hoping I can write my personal statement along the lines of "I studied psychology and neuroscience but I realized I was missing studying people on a larger level and that's why I want to do sociology." Should I even try to bring psychology and cog neuro to sociology? Do I even have a chance of switching into sociology? Or am I too much of a 'risk student' for switching programs? Thanks for any feedback!

I definitely find it challenging as well. I love writing non-academic things, but writing science is tough for me sometimes. I think the best thing to do is just write SOMETHING and go from there. Even if it's not that great, you'll have something to start with and can always go back and edit things to make it flow better.

I PMed you juilletmercredi, thank you!!

I can relate to this post a lot. When I was an undergrad, I majored in psychology and was very set on becoming a clinical psychologist. I knew I needed research experience to get into grad school, so I did tons of research as an undergrad. Some of that research was in neuroscience which got me very interested in neuroscience. I wanted to be a clinician, but neuroscience was really cool too. So my senior year came along and I was applying to both clinical psych phds and cognitive neuroscience phds. I applied to clinical psych phds that had a neuroscience focus (I wanted to do fMRI of psychotherapy), but at the last moment I retracted all my clinical psych apps and only went for neuroscience since I was focusing on research as my decision on what schools to apply for anyway. I ended up getting accepted into one of my top choices for cognitive neuroscience doing basic research I thought sounded really interesting at the time. I thought I could still incorporate psychology into my research. Fast forward 3 years. I'm in the middle of my program and I absolutely hate it. I realized that I'm way too much of a 'people person' to spend my time isolated working on analyzing brain data. My research directly doesnt help people as it is mostly focused on neuroimaging methods and is very far removed from any clinical or social significance. I'm really regretting not doing clinical psych now and I'm trying to find a way I can still help people with my neuroscience (aiming to focus on teaching/science communication instead). So basically, I would suggest really knowing what you value more. Basic research or helping people. If you are REALLY curious about how the brain does something and can obsess over that problem, then do the basic neuroscience research. If you'd want an option to see clients and have more people oriented research, do clinical psych. That's my advice. Hope that helps. Feel free to PM me if you want more specifics as well. Good luck!

Thank you both for your replies! I'm envious of your passion for your respected areas and I simply do not have that. Like I mentioned in my other post, I feel like my problem is that I'm naturally attracted to depth, not breadth. As an undergrad, I was involved in tons of different projects and it was really cool. There is no ONE area that really interests me. I just like neuroscience in general. I know this is pretty opposite compared to most scientists, but that's just how my brain is wired. My solution to this is to focus on methodology and not focus too much on any one area. I am primarily interested in teaching anyway so I'd be motivated to develop skills to train future scientists as well as communicate good science to the general public. Hopefully that works out!

You are NOT a complete failure for not getting into grad school your first try. I'm not even sure why you would think that. Getting into grad school is HARD and very few people get accepted. I doubt your professor will be annoyed that you were not accepted last year. However, I'm not sure why you would want a letter from her if you are applying to a different field and don't know her well anyway.

Thank you so much for your comments as I found them to be really insightful and helpful! I am in my 3rd year of my program, so right around the halfway point. I think your suggestion to work on national datasets is actually a rather brilliant solution to this problem. I can definitely analyze pre-existing data now and probably can do a paper in that area even if my dissertation is on my own data. Doing at least one project on existing data would look good for this right? I am going to investigate this more, but I would think that it would a nice sell to liberal arts schools if I could teach undergrads how to analyze fMRI data. All I would need is a computer to access the datasets and I wouldn’t have to worry about collaborating with another school. And honestly, I think focusing on methodology is better for me personally anyway. I think the reason I got so burned out with research is that I appreciate breadth more than depth. It's just how my brain works. I get burned out pretty quickly if I focus on one area too much. I'd love to learn methods really well and analyze various datasets in different ways.

After reading through some forums some more, I believe I am in a 'slump' due to a lack of motivation. Basically, how do you guys stay motivated? Like, if your research isn't directly helping people, what drives you? I heard that some people simply get angry at other scholarly work and want to help advance the field. But honestly, that doesn't motivate me either. I'm worried that if I can't see how my work is helping anyone, I feel like I'm wasting my time.

I know I just made another similar post on here, but I'm curious on your thoughts on my predicament from a slightly different angle. When I was an undergrad, I LOVED research. I did as much of it as I could and I definitely thought I wanted to do it for a career. Now, halfway through grad school, I really am starting to resent it. It seems so tedious and uninteresting. I'm not knocking research, I know it is extremely important, but somehow I really lost interest in it. Perhaps having more responsibilities and understanding how it actually works has kind of killed the luster for me. My question is, have any of you gone through the same thing? I know burn out happens, lack of fit can be problematic, and a host of other things can make a grad student not enjoy research. However, I'm worried that I honestly do not find research interesting anymore. I'm not interested at all in what my lab is doing now, but I don't know if I'd be happy doing ANY kind of cognitive neuroscience research. I think I'd much rather enjoy communicating science to the general public or students than actually doing it. Do you guys have any advice on how to tell if my lack of interest is due to a poor fit or overall lack of interest? Like I said in my other post, I'd really like to teach at the college level, but some research wouldn't be so bad. My dream is to teach at a small school, write popular science books, and give talks about science to the lay community. I still love science, but I'd rather be a consumer than producer and I know that is extremely problematic.

Thank you for your insight fuzzylogician. Unfortunately, I think you are totally correct. I really do not want to teach at an R1 school which I know is sac-religious to even mention to my department, but I know myself and I would simply not be happy doing research full time and I really value education. I still have to do my dissertation and I know it will be quite a grind for me. I suppose I can try to emphasize how like Lisa44201 mentioned I can work with other faculty who have scanner access, but that seems like quite a stretch honestly. If I were hiring someone needing off-campus resources to do research it would be a risk and since these jobs are so competitive I would certainly prefer a safer candidate. I'm honestly pretty lost on how I would pitch my research to schools who do not have scanner access. Again, I could try to emphasize my statistics background, but that really isn't a research area by itself. Ah, this is pretty stressful haha. If anyone has any suggestions that would be fantastic, but I know this will probably be something I'll have to figure out by myself. Thank you guys!

Thank you Lisa!! I did think about helping with experiments outside my university, but I know that would be tricky and I probably wouldn't be first author. I do know that liberal arts colleges do not require a high amount of publishing for tenure, but I'd still need some independent research I would imagine. But yes, I am in the process of asking liberal arts professors about this, but I'd figure I'd post here as well