Oshawott

According to the College of Psychologists of Ontario: "Psychological associates have completed a masters level degree in psychology (e.g. M.A., M.Sc., M.Ps., M.Ed.), which is then followed by four years of experience working in the scope of practice of psychology. Psychologists have completed a doctoral level degree in psychology (Ph.D., Psy.D., Ed.D., D.Psy.) which typically includes a one-year internship." So as long as your Ed.D. is in the area of psychology, you can call yourself a psychologist.

I highly suggest against taking the overnight flight option. It is better to reschedule (for a reasonable cause!) than to perform poorly at an interview. As a personal example, I am an introverted person and I find a full-day interview exhausting. I was rejected post-interview because my POI had concerns on how I would adjust to moving to a new location because behaviorally, I was described as being too reserved (really just need to decompress a lot and this was literally the first time I've had to do back-to-back interviews and social events). If you can handle such a hectic schedule without it draining you (I couldn't even handle a day!), then go for it, but I just want to add to the caution others have put forth regarding this option. I'd also note that this particular school, due to the size of the program, knew that not all students could make it and actually had an alternate interview day. Explore the options but its better to reschedule and be at full strength than to jeopardize an interview because this is a "once-in-a-lifetime chance" because its not. At the interview stage, schools are just as much trying to recruit you as you are trying to convince them that you are worth the investment, so they'll accommodate.

Assuming you haven't indicated to your POI's at either school... The most fair way to do this is to prioritize whatever school contacted you first, and ask the other one if rescheduling would be possible. With that said, I'd think the more strategic option would be to prioritize the school that you are more likely to attend (reasons for this could range from your own preference, research interest overlap, etc.). There's another option you could consider depending on the location of the two schools. Do you need to fly to both cities or are one of the schools more accessible for you in terms of transport? I'd say defer the school that requires less travel from where you live just because it might be easier to set up an interview in that situation.

I'm relieved that this is more of a curiosity thread than an advice thread. I'll share more of my experiences then. At my undergrad, the students apply to their thesis in the second year, the class is no larger than 15 (generally the maximum size the school allows for research methods courses) despite being the largest school in Canada with enough research faculty to accommodate. I'm don't agree with their rationale because it disadvantages students who do poorly in their first two years (an issue if you're double majoring in Psychology and one of the filter programs that the instructors themselves admit are built to fail students) but they do it because there are additional seminar classes that they want these students to take. To make up for it, the school has a large number of other research opportunities. The program itself has two upper-year independent projects, and there are independent studies the student can take outside the program that they can gear towards as a research project. In my current institution, students go through a series of courses that will filter them out of doing a thesis, but the numbers range from 40 - 60 (or so I am told) despite the smaller faculty. In essence, students who want to do a thesis seem to be able to apply to courses that prepare them for the project and whether they continue depends on their performance in the coursework (don't know the exact cut-offs), whereas in my undergrad, you have to be in that program and once you are in, you only really need to pass course work to continue (there's no chance of failing out unless you literally fail). The reverse seems to be true here--there are very few independent project students since everyone who would have realistically sought one out is doing a thesis, which is a shame because I find independent project students to be more dedicated than regular RAs for the projects they are assigned.

I've talked to one of my undergrad supervisors regarding this because that was one of the weak points in my application. He said that the reasons schools have a "thesis" requirement as part of their application is because applicants aren't necessarily coming from research-intensive universities and the thesis option is really the only way any student gets substantive research experience. Its kind of annoying that there are schools that won't look at you if you don't have an honors thesis, since at my school, depending on your PI, you could be more involved in a research project than a thesis student (especially if the thesis student just came in for their final year) but that shouldn't preclude you from most schools. Considering how big your program is, I'm going to guess there are independent research project options? If you're going to grad school, then you should have research experience. Why not ask one of your current supervisors to do an independent project with them? --------- Disclosure statement (so you can assess my advice accordingly): Currently graduate student in Social Psychology Applied for 2014 - 2015 cycle to 3 schools (2 US, 1 Canadian); Interview at the 2 US schools, rejection post-interivew Applied for 2015 - 2016 cycle to 8 schools ( 2 US, 6 Canadian); Interviewed at 4 Canadian schools, accepted to 3 No thesis, 2 independent projects, extensive research experience (involvement in my independent projects ranged from glorified RA to independently managing the experiment from programming the study to data analysis; had additional RAship with substantial involvement)

The easy answer would be my undergrad institution--its ranked as one of the best nationally and globally, however as an undergrad I didn't really achieve much. My pride for that school would be tied to the school's reputation. I have just started my graduate degree, and I hope that I will be able to be proud of it--not because of my school's reputation but because of what I've achieved.

If you can't find a program that includes most of your interests, I'll paraphrase the advice from one of my professors (Cognitive Neuroscientist): Go to a program that will give you the best education for the methodology in your field. If you had to choose between a full research interest fit and methodology, choose methodology, because once you have the skills on how to do something, you can apply to to answer any questions you have. So I'd say look at papers that cover your research interests--what are the common methods being used across these disciplines? Then find a school that has the right balance between your current interests and giving you the skill set you need so that you can answer any questions as your interests shift/develop.

A bit late, but I put it under "Academic Employment". I showed it to my supervisor and she had no issue. From an overview of what the CCV document will look like it would seem that "Community and Volunteer" activities would be best, but then it says this for the "more info" button: Services contributed, unpaid, on behalf of one’s locality, social, religious, occupational, or other group sharing common characteristics or interests, but not directly related to the person's research activities Given that last part, we can't put our research experience there. The most relevant area is still "Academic Work Experience" even though it is under "Employment"

The issue pool is definitely something that would require fact-checking, but I'd think that the argument portion relies more on your ability to assess claims made (which is something that we do when we read research papers) and doesn't necessarily need prior research (in fact, one of the prompts asks you to give "types of evidence" that would be required to support the claim, not necessarily provide statement of fact). With that said, do I think that my ability to reason why a restaurant shouldn't have changed from margarine to butter accurately reflects my ability to use my knowledge of Psychological research design to analyze a paper in my field? Definitely not, though I can see why the professor I talked to mentioned a preference towards it--not that having a preference towards Analytical Writing over V and Q necessarily means they even endorse it. Now that I think about it, why would one care about a numerical score on writing when schools can ask for SOP's and writing samples? And I've heard that the Analytical Writing Portion is now scored electronically, which means that it definitely is evaluated based on heuristics (i.e., long paper = good). Not sure if that's true but the ETS provides a ScoreItNow service...which automatically evaluates your writing. It's interesting to get other perspectives on this because its really just boiling down to the fact that while everyone agrees that the GRE's are important for admissions (even if its to the extent that you need to meet a cut-off), how people use that information isn't even standardized raising even more questions about the validity of the test.

@The_Old_Wise_One Also it is rather misinformed to assume that the general GRE is a device meant "just to serve as a filter", as the psychology subject GRE is a better predictor of graduate GPA than the general GRE is. I'm not entirely sure why you're bringing up the subject-test GRE, which I agree has utility. But how does the statement that the psychology GRE is a better predictor of graduate GPA (something that largely doesn't matter in most programs) at all relate to addressing the misinformation that the general GRE being used as a filter? If anything, it sounds like you're agreeing that the General GRE shouldn't be used since its the wrong test to base assessments from. I'd like to get some evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, as to your assertions about the general GRE. There are multiple schools that specifically state a minimum GRE requirement (e.g., UI-Bloomington) and professors I have talked to outright state that in most schools, the GRE is used as a cut-off. At no point in later decision-making processes are GRE's exclusively used to make an informed decision on who to admit. While the GRE may be used in the final decision process, it is used as part of a larger picture (e.g., research experience, reference letters, the interview, whether the other graduate students like you). The only time I can see it making a difference at that point is if both applicants were equally as good in every other dimension, which I doubt ever happens. Now the subject test--I can see why its important, especially since it normalizes scores across schools for general PSY knowledge. The reason I didn't address it when I called the general GRE a cut-off, however: Considering that the above quote was referencing a combined 320+ score, comparisons across disciplines (which you can't do with a subject test), you can see why my post did not take into consideration the Psych subject test in my response--as I had assumed that wasn't the topic at hand. And in terms of comparing students across disciplines--Psychology is probably one of those disciplines where verbal and quantitative reasoning is important. But what about English? Why should that department be disadvantaged because its students score low on quantitative reasoning when they'd never have to use it? Do we now compare the Verbal score of English graduates with the Quantitative score of Math graduates? Or should we compare the scores they'd naturally be worse on (i.e., Quant for English, Verbal for Math) even though those scores would be even less indicative of success in their respective program? The common language argument only works if it makes sense to compare all disciplines verbal/quant scores, but it doesn't. I also have to ask this: Why do schools care so much about Quantitative and Verbal reasoning? In research programs, especially, shouldn't Analytical Writing be more heavily emphasized given what it purports to measure? Related to this, some professors I've talked to who outright stated that the Verbal/Quant GRE's don't factor into their decision making process have actually stated that they look at Analytical Writing. Yet references to GRE's in graduate programs that advertise what they look for almost exclusively talk about Verbal and Quant. It seems counter-intuitive that the one score that could actually be predictive is largely being ignored in favor of the other two....unless they are being used as cut-offs. I don't think anyone on this forum "talks down" the importance of getting high GRE scores in the way you are thiking. Almost everyone will likely suggest that someone getting a 150V/150Q score should retake the test. There is, however, a difference between acknowledging its role in the decision-making process and criticizing the fact that it plays a role in the first place (which is what almost everyone here does). We all know the GRE's are important and that aiming for a 320+ score will almost always guarantee that you are in the green zone with regards to that specific criteria, but that doesn't mean that we aren't critical of how it is being used. Going back to my anecdotal examples with professors I have spoken with--while they do talk about the lack of predictability of the (general) GRE scores, they will always tell a student to get a high score because they understand the role it plays. It doesn't change the fact that they can criticize the test for what it is.

I think you may be overgeneralizing this. While GRE may be used in some schools to allocate funding, other schools do not. Various schools in Canada have a guaranteed minimum that the graduate school will offer, and whether the student gets more largely depends on the department's resources. For instance, at the University of Toronto, graduate students are guaranteed a minimum of $15k (might have increased to $17k after the TA strike). Some departments are poor and will only give that base funding, and tuition is removed from it. Other departments (e.g., the Psychology Department) will guarantee that base funding plus the cost of tuition. And then there are other departments that offer way more money (e.g., Chemistry). How do these other departments offer more than others? GRE's can't possibly be the deciding factor--Psychology requires the GRE, yet Chemistry doesn't and they have more money to offer students. Departments get a lot of money from the number of students (grad and undergrad) enrolled in their program/courses (hence the generally good funding package in large Psychology departments across Canada) as well as the research overhead (likely the primary source of Chemistry's money, in combination with its large intro classes). That being said, what goes into deciding how much money is offered to each department? This is where things get interesting! Since most doctoral programs cost about the same (within the same university, of course), admissions committees need to come up with ways in which they can compare students across disciplines (it's starting to come together....). I think there's also a bit of a fallacy here. If GRE's are so important to get funding, then why don't all departments not accept students above a certain cut-off? How do you decide what department to fund more if all the graduates have a combined GRE of 320+? Graduate programs have to compete with one another for a piece of the funding, thus we are all studying and banging our heads against keyboards trying to get a 320+ (and all the while wandering why this stupid test exists!). I would think that a university would have better data than a non-predictive score to decide what programs to invest in. A couple things off the top of my head: 1) Graduate Success--measured by placements in Academic or other highly sought after non-academic positions. 2) Research productivity--ostensibly measured by publication output. While some fields do lend themselves to faster publications, you can still normalize and look at how the particular department fairs in terms of research productivity compared to other departments in the same discipline. 3) Impact of research (perceived or real...)--maybe a department takes long to publish, but when they do, its generally a bigger impact in the field (citation count?) or society. Yes, I am shooting myself in the foot here by suggesting other metrics that may not be useful, but at the very least, I would think that metrics like number of publications (relative to the field) and citations are more indicative of departmental success than the GRE score of the incoming cohort. The last two points would at least be a better explanation why STEM fields get more funding from the university than the social sciences. I hope that what I said above gives the community here a bit more insight into why programs require tests like the GRE. The test was created for the sake of making fair comparisons across disciplines, and regardless of how silly it may initially seem, I hope that people can realize how necessary it is. Given that we're in the Psychology sub-forum, I'd think the obvious reason would be that the GRE's just serve as an easy filter for applications. Even if they don't predict anything, committees, especially at larger, more prestigious schools, can't go over the hundreds of applications submitted each year. What I've tended to notice is that programs that have less applicants (either because of the type of program or the prestige) are more likely to not require the GRE's or be more lenient in the cut-off (that isn't to say that's the sole reason for it).

Disclaimer: Not actually an older student, but I like to read about the experiences of them, and tend to frequent these threads often. I have to ask: Why is this an issue? As for 1&2: Are you talking about new grad students? They're probably not out of their undergrad mindsets yet--none of the senior grad students in my program care about grades.

If its a degree in the same area, then it really doesn't add much on top of what a PhD in the same field already tells you. If you got an Masters degree in another area of psychology or in a different but related/applicable field (e.g., statistics, computer sciences) then its a credential above and beyond what a PhD tells you. ----- With that said, a MSc in the same field isn't necessarily a waste of time. In some countries, like Canada, its required to get it before your PhD. I'm currently doing my masters before proceeding to the PhD portion of my program, but there aren't different tiered courses--all grad courses are offered to Masters and PhD's (assuming you have the required pre-reqs). This will actually let me take more advanced stats courses so when I start my PhD, I can design experiments with better statistical methodologies in mind than if I had gone right from undergrad. Assuming you aren't taking the Canadian route (where people are more likely to do their MSc and PhD at the same institution because that's how the program is structured), a secondary benefit of getting a Masters is increased networking opportunities if you do your MSc at a different institution than your PhD. You'll meet students in your cohort who are presumably going to do their PhDs as well, and you're going to meet different faculty members to do research with. I really think the only reason that people say a Masters degree is a waste of time is simply the cost. As I understand it, in most American institutions, terminal masters degrees are unfunded. Tuition in the United States is obscenely large (compared to Canadian schools), and this isn't even taking into account out-of-state tuition fees. Is the extra (and if in the same field, mostly redundant) degree worth the extra debt?

1) Majored in statistics--or actually do an Applied Stats BSc, since my undergrad institution had a concentration on the social sciences for it 2) Computer science--my field is moving in these directions: neuroscience and big data/computation. While I'm at a school that has the former, I would have to try to collaborate with people who have disparate interests, so I'm focusing on the latter since that's a skill I could reasonably learn as I progress through my MSc to my PhD. I could have literally done both along with Psychology since my psych requirements weren't that strenuous At the very least, I am forced into two years of a MSc degree before going into my PhD since that's how most Canadian psych programs (and the one at my school) is structured, allowing me to address those two points above. I definitely have a plan for becoming more statistically competent in terms of my course work by the time I enter the PhD portion of my program...the latter is something I have to work on myself since I can't integrate it into my coursework (the only overlap would be learning R or Python as a programming language). This is going to be a very interesting two years for me, and I hope that I'll come out of it with a good base knowledge for my PhD.

Are you Canadian? You still need Canadian citizenship/permanent residency to qualify for PGS-D. There's also the eligibility criteria with regards to how long you've attended graduate school (which includes programs you dropped out of): you must have completed, as of December 31 of the year of application, between zero and 24 months (between four and 36 months if admitted to the doctoral program directly from your bachelor’s program) of studies (full-time equivalent) in the doctoral program for which you are requesting funding; and you must not hold, or have held, a scholarship or fellowship from SSHRC, NSERC or CIHR to undertake or complete a doctoral program. I believe there's also a section with regards to any difficulties that may have impeded your research progress in the past (unless they don't have that at the doctoral level), so this would be your opportunity to explain why you dropped out of your previous program.

I agree with TakeruK as I don't see what precludes you from continuing being an activist while gaining the skills necessary for your future career. And think about it this way--you may be able to do more good as a doctor who is active in LGBT activism rather than being an activist alone, especially if you want to advocate for LGBT issues within the medical community as well. A less obvious benefit by taking the MSc path in conjunction with being an activist is that you set yourself up as a role model for LGBT youth, especially in a STEM discipline (I haven't seen much research on the issues LGBT youth face in STEM fields, but I've seen some movements to promote both gender and sexual diversity in STEM so I'd assume its an issue).

Actually, the 5-school limit thing has been standard for a few years now. Its kind of dumb considering that it goes to the university's committee, so why are students being limited to 5 schools? The only real change I noticed is that you are no longer required (as in, unable to) to identify your referee's first name or state their relationship towards you.

I'm afraid I don't have much to offer with regards to listing multiple POI's since most of the schools I applied to had a very strict word count on the SOP, meaning I could only develop my argument for one. What I can offer is advice that my undergrad supervisor gave me--people are looking for fit both in their labs and in the department. As long as your interests in each of these labs are well-defined, then I don't think it would be an issue. There's a difference between saying "I would be happy to participate in X, Y and Z's research group" and being able to show why you should be considered for all three. With that said, if there's a strict limit in how long your SOP is, focus on the one you want the most, since you'll likely be able to work across research groups in grad school. I also wouldn't limit myself to only applying to labs with methodologies that I have previously experienced--you were in undergrad before, it would be surprising if you had experience in all those methodologies (especially for ones requiring more advanced skill/more expensive technology). Frame your experience in EEG and ERP as an asset, showing that you are capable of picking up new skills, and express your interest in those other methods.

A simple solution would be to not state that you want to exclusively work on that topic. Having a broad interest in many topics does not preclude you from showing specific interest in the professor's work or being able to talk about a topic with specificity. If anything, a broad interest means that you should be able to talk about multiple topics in-depth, as opposed to one. As an example, I had broad interests in intergroup processes that ranged from social neuroscience, social cognition, and applied psychology, however, I don't talk about all those interests in my SOP. Instead, I focus on the interests most relevant to the program/POI and talk about that. The one thing I would look out for when you're applying (not necessarily for your SOP) is to see whether the labs you work at studies a diverse range of topics as well, because then you'll have a better "cultural fit" with the lab.

I didn't get CGS-M last year (didn't send an application to my current school since I was limited to 5...) nor OGS. I'm finding CGS-M to be easier now that I'm in grad school. I know exactly what research I'm doing, how to approach it, and can argue why my school's resources are the best fit for this research (especially since I developed this idea keeping in mind what the school can provide me). I'm hoping I can get a CGS, I'm just worried because my cGPA wasn't the greatest, and while my last 20 credits puts me in the A-range, I didn't really have a full course load (but took summer courses) and deferred taking my last credit in my last year. I was juggling various other research commitments, and long-story-short, personal issues came up and I made the call to reduce my work load rather than let all my course work (and most importantly, research) suffer, but I feel like making a mature decision to make the best of an unfortunate situation is going to be held against me given CGS's criteria for "academic excellence": Indicators of Academic Excellence: Academic record (first class average) Scholarships and awards held Duration of previous studies Type of program and courses pursued Course load Relative standing (if available) The only thing I'm confident in these criteria is my "academic record" and "relative standing"

1. Direct the conversation. Should I be asking questions conversationally? Should I be asking about the direction of her future research? Should I let her drive the entire conversation? I want to be engaging, but also send the message I'm motivated and have the potential for research in graduate school. Technically, you should be interviewing them as much as they are interviewing you--you are going to be investing 4 - 6 years of your life in their program. With that said, keep the tone conversational because you want to appear approachable. Definitely ask thoughtful questions about their research, but be prepared to go off-script (realistically, you should have a strong enough grasp of what they do that you can hold a conversation on things you didn't necessarily prepare for). While its good to ask questions about funding, don't ask if the information is available on their website. Instead, ask about what resources the school has to facilitate research (e.g., research labs, equipment). 2: I already know that she want to talk about my summer internship with her former graduate advisor. Their respective areas of research are very similar, but other than that internship and one other poster I presented as an undergrad, all of my other research experience (two years undergrad and three years working at a university/ research institution) aren't really related to social psychology. Has anyone else gotten admitted into a program of specific interest while having a wide range of other experience? How do I convey that although my CV doesn't show it, I really want to pursue SOCIAL psychology. If its a "wide range of experiences" and not necessarily one specific field, then its justifiable--you experienced many areas of psychology in your undergrad, and found your interest to be in social. Additionally, if you can spin your diverse experience in a way that informs your research interests in social psychology then I'd say it puts you at an advantage. 3. Any other tips to prepare for this meeting? Remain calm and confident. Keep brief notes on talking points in front of you--that's one of the benefits of a phone interview.

To best answer your question, I would suggest looking at the graduate programs in those schools themselves and see how funding is structured. Some schools/programs will have funds for their students by default (i.e., they will always have scholarships and TAships), while some you will need to compete for them. If funding is on a competitive basis, obviously a 3.3 GPA would hurt you in that regard, but I'd also look at other graduate students in the department, see if they got this funding, and what their credentials were at the time (some people post their CVs). A flat out "yes" or "no" response isn't realistic given that funding structures vary greatly between schools (and even programs within schools)

You don't have to do the projects you mention in your application (talking about Canada), but the projects should be realistic and make sense for the program you apply for. Since the application goes through the school, it also benefits you if you mention why that school is the best place for the proposed project. As for the "applying through the school", its because the schools are given a quota on how many scholarships they can award in a given year from these agencies. Each school has its own application process, so yes, you will have to apply more than once (for OGS and OTS anyway). As for American scholarships, check out the NSF.

I applied to a school that had a 4.3 scale when my transcript was on a 4.0. They asked me to re-calculate it using this excel file they provided. If your transcript has percentage grades, they'll probably look at how the marks are awarded and scale appropriately, so if your 4.0 still meets their 4.0 cut-off, it should be fine.

I had that issue last year. Did you try Internet Explorer (I know, I can't believe I typed that too)? It was the only thing that worked.