khunconan

If you want to go to a PhD program in counseling or clinical (especially clinical) you should rather go to general or experimental psychology master's program or any program that is research-oriented with a lot of research opportunity. Research experience is VERY important for PhD admission. Some professors are very biased against people with a counseling/clinical master's degree (mainly because the applicants may look way too clinical-oriented).

Do you have any kind of research experience? If not, you seriously need to find some (e.g., go to a research-oriented master's program). I heard that even reputable Psy.D. programs put more and more emphasis on research experience. Don't know about school psychology though. You could take Myers-Briggs test just for fun, but it isn't something you should take seriously. And don't ever mention that test in the statement or interview for Ph.D. programs.

It's average age of first year Ph.D. students. I think it's very common that people take time gaining more research experience after undergrad. Entering out of undergrad is less and less common nowadays.

The average age of graduate students in psychology is 25-26.

If you want to go to academia, a program's prestige is not as important as an opportunity to get published when you are a student. You should look at publications of the students in each program. If the program & professors are very famous but only a few students get publications, then it can be a red flag. If many of them have publications, but none of them is the 1st author, then I would be worried too. I recommend going to any program where students are encouraged/supported to get publications and many of them are the 1st author in the papers published by well-known journals with a good impact factor. That's what makes your profile stands out when you apply for a job in academia. If both programs are the same, then I'd say go with your gut....

I strongly recommend calling instead. If you email the admin, he/she may forward it to your POI. Some professors are offended by the fact that you cannot wait for his/her answer and switch to ask another person instead (it can also imply that you don't think he/she is reliable).

Thank you for the clarification. There is one point that still isn't that clear to me. When you talked about candidates "blatantly tossing out unrelated hobbies (in an attempt to do what?) in front of a panel of conservative academics....," did they just bring those hobbies up without being asked? If so, I agree that it's weird and unprofessional. If they just talked about their hobbies because it's a question asked by interviewers/current students, I believe saying "I usually go to anime conferences every week" is a COMPLETELY appropriate answer. Actually, I can't see why going to anime conferences is a weird hobby. Does it imply that the person is otaku (google it if you don't know the term) and thus is quirk/disgusting? Don't you think categorizing people based on some stereotype is inappropriate, especially for psychologists/researchers in psychology? I also can't understand why being part of a burlesque troupe can suggest that a person is weird or uncommitted. Unless a hobby is illegal or morally wrong, no one should be academically judged based on what they like to do in their free time, especially if they are good enough to be invited to the interview. Also, if possible, can you clarify the term "unrelated hobbies"? I have no idea what hobbies are related or unrelated (and to what? to academia? to your own hobbies and interest?). Is reading a book related (and what kind of book)? What about listening to music (and what kind of music)? EDIT because I just saw your edit: If the professor tossed that applicant out because of his/her love of anime alone, then I would say the applicant was lucky.

I don't know about philosophy, but programs in psychology usually give offers to a very small number of people (5-7) so I can understand if someone is afraid of being identified by saying which program s/he *is going to decline* (especially if the decision is not that final). I don't see any problem with saying which program s/he *has already declined* though.

You definitely need more research experience. Many (if not most) people applying to grad schools have already had at least 2-3 posters at regional/national conferences. To be honest, for some POI, one presentation at the "Psych Undergrad Research Conference" means nothing. You really need to present posters/papers beyond your own school. Moreover, did you list your paper from your school's undergrad journal as "publication" in your CV? If so, it can be a huge red flag to many people. In academia, there is a big difference between peer reviewed pub and non-peer reviewed one. When people list pub in their CV, it generally means peer reviewed publications. If you list your paper under "publication" section, your POI may think that you (1) don't know what publication really means or (2) are trying to create fault impression. For some POI, a paper from an undergrad journal means nothing so it can hurt you a lot if you say you have a pub, which for them is not even close. If you believe that paper can really help (like it's very relevant to your POI's research), you should make it clear by listing the paper under "non-peer reviewed publication" section.

I didn't say GRE scores play little role in the admissions process *in general.* I mean his/her scores should be good enough to pass a cut-off of many schools and thus play little role afterward (not all schools, of course). Usually once your scores reach a certain threshold, POI cares much more about research fit and experience (that's why SoP is very important) than GRE (unless you get perfect scores like 170V 170Q 6AWA). If h/she has time and energy to retake the GRE and get higher scores, I'd say go for it. However, raising 155Q to 160+Q is much harder than, for example, 145Q to 150+Q. It is completely possible but h/she must be willing to invest a lot of time and energy for test preparation with no guarantee of success. Even though h/she can break 160 for both sections, there is still no guarantee of acceptance. All in all, I believe his/her research experience (at least in quantity) is very impressive and right now it's much more important to increase relevant experience/skills, find a perfect fit, and know how to sell him/herself in statements/interviews.

To be honest, it is highly unlikely that someone will sponsor a working visa for an RA position. Paid RA positions are very competitive even among U.S. citizens and most people end up being just a volunteer (which is not an option for a foreigner). The only option I can think of right now is to pursue a master's degree in psychology in the U.S. By doing so you can gain more research experience by working with your advisor and other professors.

You did not do anything wrong. I believe your GRE scores are good enough and plays little role in the admissions process. Sometimes you can be very, very good but there are still someone who is just a better fit. It's about finding the right person at the right time in the right place. Good luck!

I would recommend against working with any professor who can be distracted by a below-the-knee skirt suit.

I should have clarified but, yes, I meant that now ETS allows you to choose any set(s) of scores you want. I thought IOSearching meant you can't choose the test(s) you prefer because ETS will send all of the tests taken within 5 years to the programs (which was true in the past), so I just want to point out that you can choose now. Sorry for the confusion.

Now ETS has a "Score Select Option" that allows you to send only the score(s) you want. Check ETS website.

Well...everything you have done can look fishy. Having a master's degree can look particularly fishy because many people went there to 'boost' their low undergrad GPA as it's much easier to get a high master's GPA. That's why some people said your master's can even hurt you if you apply to some very traditional, competitive schools (I didn't want to say this at first because I wasn't sure if it's really true). You will never know what they would think, so just do everything you can. If they would heavily pay attention to your undergrad GPA to the exclusion of all else, then whether you have a 2nd bachelor or master's isn't gonna matter. On the other hand, the discrepancy in your grades might mean that your 1st undergrad institution is very harsh in terms of grading so the grade doesn't reflect much on your true performance. If so, the fact that your 1st school is an Ivy League can even help. My point is you can't read people's mind so just move on. Actually GRE is more important than GPA in this case. If you have very strong GRE scores, people can tell that your good grades in 2nd bachelor's and master's are 'real' and your 1st bachelor's is just some mistake in the past (not reflect your performance in the grad school).

Not sure if I got it correctly. So you are in the 2nd bachelor's and master's programs right now and you will definitely get an excellent grade from both? If so, why not? I can't see any disadvantage of graduating with 4.0 undergrad GPA and 3.9 master's GPA. Some program may look at your most recent undergrad GPA. Some may average the old and the new. Either way is definitely good for you.

I'd say it depends. Some top clinical Ph.D. programs pay only little attention to master's GPA. Some even disregard it completely. Unfortunately, it is particularly true for clinical programs (may be because of its competitiveness). I've seen many people having the same issues. I can even give you the specific example of the person I personally know. She got 4.00 GPA from the respectable, research-oriented master's program but her undergrad GPA is around 3.2-3.3 (not sure). She was rejected from a lot of clinical programs and when asked, the programs told her that it's because of her low undergrad GPA and they didn't look at her master's GPA. However, there might also be other factors except the GPA. I mean, nobody knows... I don't want to let you down, but you may need to be prepared for the worst. If I were you, I wouldn't expect too much from my master's GPA but wouldn't be too concerned either. Your undergrad GPA is something from the past that cannot be changed. I believe your high GPA from your master's will make you pass the initial 'cut-off.' So if the rest of your application is great and your POI wants to accept you, he/she may not care about your undergrad GPA. If the POI isn't interested, though, he/she can just easily blame it on your undergrad GPA. Therefore, it really isn't worth worrying.

What kind of programs you will be applying to? Is it Ph.D.? If so, research or practice oriented? I'm not sure about the latter, but if you want to go to a research-oriented Ph.D. program, haven't you already had the POI you share interest with? You didn't expect to be considered from every single professor in the program or got accepted by any professor regardless of the research interest, right? I don't quite understand how stating faculty names would limit your application. Actually, I think it's even an implicit mandatory that you need to specify who you want to work with, except you are not required to have a mentor or will choose a mentor later during the program. If you need to be accepted by a mentor, how could the adcom know to whom they should direct your SOP if you don't give them any name? Moreover, you can list as many POI as you want, right? So how could it limit your application (except you want to list all professors in the program but it's very unlikely that you would actually share the same interest with all of them)?

I'd say it depends. Some top clinical Ph.D. programs pay only little attention to master's GPA. Some may disregard it completely. However, if you have enough resources, time and energy to pursue another graduate study, a master's can be a good option as having a stellar master's GPA is still better than having only a low undergrad GPA. You just can't expect too much from it. Just be sure to choose a research-oriented master's programs (such as general or experimental) because most clinical Ph.D. programs are very research-heavy. Actually you should pay more attention to the GRE. Even you have a perfect GPA from your master's, low GRE scores combined with low undergrad GPA might make Adcom doubt the quality of your master's program (in such case, having a master's might even lower your chance). If you can significantly raise your GRE scores (I'd say at least 90th for Verbal and 80th for Quant for very competitive programs) while maintain a strong master's GPA, they will be more likely to forgive your relatively low undergrad GPA (people understand that it is something you can't change. You just need to prove hard that you are more than that). Besides, when you said you want to go to top programs, I'm not sure what you meant by "top." A lot of big names in the fields are in relatively low ranked schools. You need to be sure that you don't look for only *top* programs in terms of ranking. A good fit with the POI is way more important. You may find a perfect match in much less competitive schools. Good luck!

You seem to be a competitive candidate for most programs. Remember that nobody is perfect!

Short answer: no. Your master's degree is unlikely to offset the mediocre GRE scores. However, if you have strong GPA, letters, research experience with publications and/or presentations, your okay GRE scores may be overlooked. Is your GRE high enough to pass the programs' cut-off? If so, they will be likely to evaluate you based on other aspects in your application.

I think your profile looks great, especially for those programs whose emphasis is on scientist-practitioner model. It seems like you have a lot of clinical experiences which should make you competitive for those programs. Your research experience should be strong enough for non-research heavy programs as well. GPA and GRE may be your major concerns, but if you apply wisely you should still be fine. As ihatechoosingusernames said, many people got into a Ph.D. program with even less scores. To be honest, your GPA and GRE might not pass a cut-off for Duke and Toronto, but if they are your dream school then why don't give it a try? Just be sure to apply to some safe schools too. Do you also consider Psy.D.? There are many funded Psy.D. programs that focus on both research and practice. I agree with ihatechoosingusernames that you shouldn't let anyone decide for you. We may be able to give you our opinion, but at the end you are the one making a decision. It seems to me that your biggest concern is not your chance of being accepted per se. You are undecided rather because you don't know if it's worth trying. Although many people here have assured you that it's worth trying, I understand why it is still hard for you. To leave your decent job and family to pursue a Ph.D. in another country is obviously a major life change. It may not be much a big deal for the young, but I know it can be so scary for older people like you, especially when your life has been settled. Going to Ph.D. means you need to step out of your comfort zone, and the fact that you need to leave your ill dad makes it much more terrifying. I think you need to first figure out why you want a Ph.D. You said you don't know why, right? Well, you should take time thinking about it. It is very hard to decide whether a Ph.D. is worth fighting for without even knowing why you want it so much. You may feel your life would never been fulfilled if you don't get a Ph.D. but is it really true? I'm not trying to point out that it may not be true. But you need to be really sure that the degree is your absolute goal. For example, many people wanted to get a Ph.D. so that they could look at themselves as a more worthy person, but actually a degree is not the root of their conflict. Thus, in my opinion, it is very important to at least understand your own passion. If you really love the field or want to be more specialized, I think it is a good enough reason and you should go for it. Just knowing your passion is valid may help you overcome your fear and uncertainty. If you really want my opinion on whether you should apply, I personally think it doesn't hurt to just apply. You may get rejected but at least you will have experience for the next round (especially if you can make it to the interview). Just don't be let down if you can't get in anywhere. However, applying next year when you will be more prepared may be a good idea too. Just delaying application (to become more competitive) doesn't mean you are abandoning your dream. P.S. Many programs in your list are heavily research-oriented, aren't they? Be sure to check if the programs' emphasis really matches yours.

Yes, that's why I said we need more information about OP's goal and interest. At this stage I didn't say what OP should or shouldn't do. As I mentioned earlier, it depends much on the characteristics and emphases of the programs. Your SOP fitted perfectly with your current program because the program's emphasis is not only research (it is more balanced). You are right that we should look at the culture of the school, but we don't even know what kind of programs OP wants to apply for. It is too hard to give a helpful advice given what we know now.

Without knowing the characteristics and emphases of the programs, it is quite hard to say what would be a good enough reason from the admission committee's perspective. This reason sounds great if OP will be applying to Psy.D. or any program with scientist-practitioner model. If OP wants to go to research-oriented programs, that reason is certainly not enough. Actually, saying you want to better the field in your own country or help people is one of the kisses of death in graduate school application. Of course, it can be your motivation for entering the field in the first place, but don't use it as a main goal for pursuing a Ph.D. because the adcom might believe that you are applying to the wrong place. Instead, you need to emphasize what shapes your research interest, what you did in the past that strengthens your interest and goal, what research questions you want to examine during your Ph.D., and so on. Generally speaking, the adcom in most research-oriented programs wants to be sure that you are really into research and have enough skills to work for your supervisor. Even if OP wants to apply for programs with less emphasis on research, he or she may still need to talk about his or her related work or clinical experiences to convince the adcom that he or she is a qualified candidate. Expressing strong passion or driving force is absolutely great, but still isn't enough if it doesn't come with tangible experiences and skills. However, it can be a completely different story if OP doesn't care about getting into a fully-funded program. Again, it is really hard to give any helpful advice with the only information we have now. For example, if OP wants to do research, has a ton of research experience and wants to go to a research-oriented program, he or she can focus more on family problems (e.g., who will take care of his or her dad) and less on the application itself. If OP wants to go to research-oriented program but doesn't have much research experience, he or she needs to strengthen his or her profile AND cope with family and financial problems at the same time. I didn't mean it is impossible to do or OP should give up his or her dream. He or she just needs to evaluate the situation realistically. By the way, I forgot to mention in the earlier post that OP shouldn't be discouraged by his or her age at all. I know that people in many Asian cultures believe that age 30+ is too old for studying (they are supposed to have a nice family or be settled financially). However, I don't think age will be an issue here. In fact, being older means having more work/life experience, which is considered valuable for many Americans. Good luck! :-)