St0chastic

My two-cents: unless you are very tight on money and can't spare the application fees, I think it's still worth applying this year to at least a few schools. It might be worth reaching out to the directors of graduate studies at the schools you plan to apply to and ask if they screen applicants based on GRE scores. In previous posts I've written about how to boost GRE quant scores. To reiterate, use a combination of Magoosh, Khan Academy, the Manhattan 5 lb. Book of Practice Problems, and all of the official materials that ETS offers on their website and in books (you can find these on Amazon). Start by learning the core math concepts using Magoosh or Khan Academy and then focus on doing as many practice problems as you can. Don't be discouraged if progress seems slow. Just keep at it every day and sooner or later you will begin to improve so long as you believe that you can.

I agree with the above posters. You should first send out a quick reminder email (one or two sentences max). If they still don't respond after a few days you may even want to send a new (brief) message with a different subject line. If that doesn't work and you are really committed to working with this person, try contacting the director of graduate studies. While you don't want to be pushy or annoying by sending out too many messages, it's better to do that than not apply in my opinion. I also agree with pbjcafe that being repeatedly non-responsive is a red flag. If someone doesn't have time to check and respond to their email, they may not have time to mentor their graduate students. This isn't necessarily true but it's something to keep in mind.

This is an impossible question to answer with any kind of certainty. The truth is we don't have good data on how much of a factor the Psych GRE is in admissions decisions and what is considered to be a good score. All we know are average scores of accepted students that schools report. Normally I would say don't submit your score unless it is close to or higher than the average reported by a school, but since you aren't a psych major a slightly lower score might still be viewed favorably. 79% isn't great for a psych major but is pretty impressive for a non-psych major in my opinion. So I am leaning towards reporting it.

I think your message is perfectly clear. I would shoot back a quick one sentence message asking whether they specifically will be able to take on a new student in the upcoming year. My guess is professors are skimming your message. The more information you include the more likely they are to make a reading comprehension error, so keep things short and sweet.

Personally I think this is a good approach. Just be sure to provide a little bit of background info on yourself as well (past research experience mostly).

That varies from school to school. Some enforce strict cutoffs while as other programs review applicants holistically. My advice would be to contact the director of graduate studies for each school and ask if they have GPA cutoffs.

Given that it's October I think by this point it's worth taking the risk and reaching out to professors. Worst case scenario you'll get a curt reply and can contact them again in another month or so. If you do receive a rude response then that's a cue that you might not want to apply to work with that professor. Just be sure to keep your message short (one paragraph).

Maybe you can structure your CV in reverse chronological order so that your most recent experiences are seen first? This way you emphasize what you've done recently (which I take it is psychology/research related?) without being dishonest about your background. I can't imagine that your music education would be held against you so long as you have relevant research experience. If you're creative, you could even spin your non-traditional background into a selling point in your statement of purpose. Daniel Levitin is a psychologist with a music background who has done really great work in cognitive neuroscience.

You should choose the universities you apply to based primarily on the research advisor you will work with. In my opinion that's far more important than the reputation of the school, although this matters as well of course. Let us know specifically what you would like to study and people on Gradcafe can maybe suggest advisors. If you're interested in evolutionary psychology, UC Santa Barbara has a very strong program in that area despite not being Harvard/Yale/Princeton/MIT/Stanford. Also, you will want to apply to a range of programs to maximize your chances of being accepted. UPenn, Yale, and Duke all have very good programs of course, but I imagine that admissions at these schools is quite competitive, so that's something to keep in mind.

Yeah, good point. I quickly typed that up as an example of what you might want to include. You would obviously want to send out something more polished.

Hi, Not a quant psych person so take my advice with a liberal helping of salt. It sounds like social/personality psych might also be a good fit for your interests. Re: calculus--I imagine that if you want to do hardcore quant work then yes, you'll need to know calculus and probably more advanced math. Maybe a quant psychologist can chime in about this? R: I'm a first year grad student currently learning R. So far I really like it! I would highly recommend taking up your professor's offer if you are able to. EDIT: I also recommend checking out Datacamp if you want to learn R. I think they offer a free intro module (although of course, you have to pay a subscription fee to access the rest of the modules). This free online textbook is also worth checking out: https://health.adelaide.edu.au/psychology/ccs/teaching/lsr/

In my opinion it's best to keep things short and to the point. The general format is something like this: Hi [insert professor's name], My name is [so and so] and I'm a prospective graduate student planing on applying to your program. I have done research on [blah blah] using [this and that method, technique, analyses, etc.]. I became aware of your work and have found that it relates to my research interests for [this and that reason]; given how well your research lines fit with my interests, I am very interested in the possibility of working with you. Are you considering accepting students this upcoming academic year? Thank you for your time, [Your name] Obviously you can tweak it to make it sound better and more professional, but I would keep to about that length for the initial contact email. Once you receive a reply you can follow up with more information or specific questions.

This varies a lot from program to program, but a general rule of thumb is that a safe score is >80% quantitative, >90% verbal, and >=4.5 writing. For Master's programs you can probably get away with slightly lower scores (maybe >60-70% quant, >80% verbal, and >= 4.0 writing). These are generally not hard and fast cutoffs, though, so there is wiggle room to have lower scores if you have exceptional qualifications. Also, if you are a non-native English speaker you wouldn't be expected to do quite as well on the verbal and writing sections. Of course, elite universities have higher expectations: http://magoosh.com/gre/2016/gre-scores-for-top-universities/

The one fly in your ointment is your primary undergrad GPA, but otherwise you look like a competitive applicant to me! Make sure you explain your underwhelming early academic performance in your SOP or have one of your letter writers address this. Hopefully your GRE scores will convince admissions committees that you possess the intellectual wherewithal to succeed in grad school. You'll also need to address why you left your Master's program prematurely. Ideally, your Master's advisor would explain this in his/her letter.

Just wanted to add some links: https://www.ets.org/gre/revised_general/prepare/?WT.ac=grehome_greprepare_b_150213 https://amzn.com/1941234518 https://www.ets.org/gre/revised_general/prepare/khan_academy http://magoosh.com/gre/ https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/google-dictionary-by-goog/mgijmajocgfcbeboacabfgobmjgjcoja?hl=en For vocab you might want to check out Word Power, Vocabulary.com, Quizlet.com, the Magoosh vocab app, and the Magoosh vocab videos on Youtube. Best of luck!

My standard advice is always: Khan Academy (online and free), the Manhattan 5 lb. Book of Practice Problems, ETS' Official Practice Books, and the official online ETS practice tests. I also used Magoosh as you are and found it very helpful, especially if you complement the videos with all the posts they have on their blog. Your quant score is actually pretty decent, so what you might need to focus on is building up your vocabulary, reading comprehension, and test taking skills. For test taking skills refer to Magoosh. For vocabulary and reading comprehension, reading a lot should help in this regard, especially GRE-like publications like the New Yorker, The New York Times, The Atlantic, edge.org, etc. I have an extension in Google Chrome that lets me look up the definition of a word just by double clicking on it. I've been compulsively looking up every word I don't know since early high school, and over time this has let me build up a pretty sizeable vocabulary that was helpful for the GRE. Another thing that might help is reviewing all of the questions you miss on practice tests. Think about how your own thinking differed from the test makers' and why you missed the question. You kind of have to learn to think the way ETS wants you to, and this is something you can do by taking a lot of practice tests and examining the rationale ETS provides for the correct answer.

"Is it okay to list people who don't do research in the same area?" I applied in the US and to cog neuro programs. Clinical programs in Canada may be different, so take my advice with a pinch of salt. I listed at least 2 and usually 3-4 POIs in my statement of purpose that I was interested in working with. At a high level they all studied the same topic (memory), but their methods and exact subfield sometimes varied quite a bit. This didn't seem to matter, however. My intuition is that as long as the POIs are roughly researching the same thing then it's fine to list multiple. You just wouldn't want to list people researching completely disparate topics (e.g., anxiety/depression, eating disorders, and schizophrenia). Also, while you might come across as too scattershot if you list diffuse research interests, on the flip side you might be perceived as too narrow minded if your research interests are hyperspecific. It's definitely a bit of a balancing act knowing how broad vs. focused to be. My advice would be to list the topics and POIs you are genuinely interested in and then let the chips fall where they may.

Tangent: Isn't that what IBM is doing with their Watson AI? Plus Google is now using deep learning to help screen for macular degeneration and diabetic retinopathy: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jul/05/google-deepmind-nhs-machine-learning-blindness So in the end maybe Meehl will win.

I basically agree with you. I just think that with social media there's the potential to be overly vitriolic and that's something we should keep in mind. Also, there's a difference between someone who is negligently making methodological or statistical errors again and again and a rookie who goofs up once and then learns from that mistake. As long as we're mostly pointing the spotlight at the former people and not the latter then I'm onboard with Gelman's approach. We also need to think about how we can reform incentive structures in science. Why is it that people are p-hacking (usually inadvertently) and chasing media-friendly hypotheses? It's because in the past academia rewarded people who did this. Until we get rid of the publish or perish rat race there will always be a strong incentive to make spurious claims or to read more into your data than is warranted. We need to start rewarding people for the quality of their work rather than the wow factor of their findings. Also, with the infinite space of the internet, there's no reason why null results shouldn't get published online. EDIT: And here's Neuroskeptic's response: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/2016/09/25/fiske-jab-on-methodological-terrorism/

I don't want to sidetrack this thread, but I think this is a very important and timely issue that's worthy of more discussion. I had a chat with one of my labmates about Susan Fiske's letter. He seemed to side with Fiske, arguing that there are a lot of methods trolls out there who are on the hunt for mistakes in others' work, and that these people aren't making positive contributions themselves. I tend to be a little more sympathetic to Gelman (although I'm not a fan of the strident approach he's using) and think that we SHOULD be pointing out methodological or statistical problems and logical lapses. However, I'm in favor of being cordial and giving people the benefit of the doubt. I'd like to think that researchers are part of a larger community, and I think it's important to preserve a positive, collegial atmosphere. At the same time, we shouldn't be so afraid of stepping on someone's toes that we fail to speak up when we notice something amiss. Social media and anonymity offer a vehicle for the less established to do this without jeopardizing their reputations, but they also enable harassment and digital mob behavior (see: Gamergate controversy). People like Gelman and Neuroskeptic should also realize that their word carries a lot of power and has the potential to damage someone's career. Also, this:

Just wanted to chime in. Aside from sending brief messages asking whether PIs were accepting students, I didn't reach out to anyone I applied to. This didn't seem to affect my chances in any way, so I wouldn't worry about this too much. Professors are busy people and have overflowing inboxes, so I wouldn't read into a non-response too heavily.

I would recommend reading through an into psych textbook if you have the time and complementing that with Barron's plus Wikipedia/random web research. The test is fairly comprehensive so it's hard to prepare for it fully without a lot of review, but it doesn't go too much in depth on any one topic. This is one of those cases where being a jack of all trades and having broad but superficial knowledge is helpful. I was able to score in the 99%, but I'm a huge psych nerd and took a bunch of psych classes as an undergrad. If you just want to score well enough to get admitted, reading an intro psych textbook and a review book should be sufficient. EDIT: The official ETS practice test is a good way to gauge how ready you are: https://www.ets.org/s/gre/pdf/practice_book_psych.pdf

Thanks for posting this! I will definitely give it a read when I have more time.

Hmmm, this is a tricky one. I think even if you don't score better in October you should still apply to some schools. It's really unfortunate that your quant score doesn't hit that 60% cutoff as I think you otherwise have a solid application. Are there any particular types of math problems you are having trouble with? Are there any that you are generally getting correct? Look for patterns in your reasoning and where you might be making mistakes. The Magoosh videos were personally very helpful for me, but they don't seem to be working for you. A free alternative is Khan Academy. I used both Magoosh and Khan. I found Magoosh was better tailored for the GRE, but the Khan content is good for building up your basic math sense. I literally started at the very foundations of math (numbers, counting, and decimals) and worked my way through algebra II. I made sure to try solving all the problems BEFORE Sal does in the videos so I could benefit from test-potentiated learning. It doesn't matter if you get the problems right or not, just the fact that you are attempting them in advance will boost your subsequent learning. With only about a month left to study it's going to be hard to improve your score a ton. After all, developing math intuition is not something that happens overnight. What you need to do now is triage where you are going to spend your limited study time. Here is a breakdown of the math problems by frequency: So you should focus on word problems, algebra skills, percents/fractions/ratios, data interpretation, geometry, stats, and maybe exponents. Forget about probability/combinatorics, coordinate geometry, and arithmetic series--this would only matter if you were gunning for a top score. Also, focus on getting the easy and medium level questions right. Don't bother practicing hard and very hard problems until you've mastered the medium ones. It's hard for me to give you more specific advice without knowing where you're having trouble. My weak spot was combinatorics problems, and I eventually got pretty good at them after spending basically an entire weekend doing nothing but practicing them. Make sure you have good foundational knowledge of the underlying math concepts first and then focus on churning through as many practice problems as you can. If the GRE is the only thing keeping you out of grad school, it wouldn't be unreasonable to work part-time for the next few weeks and spend 6-8 hours a day (or more) just doing math like your life depends on it. This might not be your idea of a fun time, but if you approach it with the right attitude (growth mindset) I think you might be surprised by the results you'll get. Expect to fail A LOT before you develop the skill and insight to get problems right consistently. But the feeling when that happens is absolutely magical.

Hi there, I don't really know anything about this field. To answer your question about funding: I was accepted at UCLA last year. Their stipend was a bit over $22,000/year if I recall correctly. That's not great considering the extremely high cost of living in LA, but if you're frugal you might be able to get by. UCLA also has a pretty good track record of getting people NSF's I believe, which offers around 34k/year for 3 years. Master's programs are generally not funded, although some schools do offer tuition remission or even small stipends. The only ones I know that do this are on the east coast: Wake Forest, Villanova, and College of William and Mary. West coasters can maybe chime in about master's programs in that region. Cheers.