iheartscience

It depends on the program and what kind of research within education research you are interested in! Several science education programs, like the Science Education program at Stanford, are nestled within "curriculum and teacher education" programs, and may require classroom teaching experience to apply. Other programs, like Berkeley's SESAME program, may have doctoral students working on K-12 science teaching and learning, but also attract researchers interested in teaching science in higher ed - this program doesn't require prior K-12 teaching experience, but encourages applicants to have gained a masters in a math or science field (or, be willing to obtain a content-specific masters while at Berkeley). If you're more interested in the more cognitive-sciencey side of education research, then getting involved with research opportunities in education research (as it sounds like you are) or related psychology research is a great direction. I'd encourage you to get involved in some way with science teaching - whether that's tutoring or TAing peers in college, or volunteering with a science after school program, or doing work/internship at a science museum. Any experience that gives you more context to think about science teaching and learning will help you notice interesting puzzles worth researching AND build a deeper understanding of the context in which science learning happens. What matters most in your application is your statement of purpose and being able to articulate a story of the experiences that shape your current goals, thoughts, and questions about science learning. Recommendation letters that can add third party perspectives that align with your SOP are perhaps the second most important piece. If you want to get a jump on this, consider practice writing regularly about the things that draw you to science education, what puzzles pique your curiosity, how those connect to your own past experiences, etc, and seeing what themes emerge. You might notice evolution in your thinking over time and gain some insights about what is most profound to highlight in your ultimate SOP. Lastly, start reading research and noticing what excites you! Don't be afraid to reach out to researchers or organizations doing cool work to share your questions and ask advice on what to consider next. There's also a lot of science education researchers on Twitter, which is a surprisingly good way to get a sense of work in the field and connect to others engaged in this work. Best of luck!

I believe this means that 54% of the doctoral students are coming in with an advanced degree (typically an MA, although I know someone with a JD prior to her PhD program), and 3% of the MA students are coming in having already acquired a previous advanced degree (typically another MA).

To be honest, I haven't talked to anyone that seems unhappy with their advisor at the GSE, but I've probably also had fewer opportunities to talk with more advanced students across different programs than I would have in a normal year where we would be on campus - I don't have a global pulse on GSE student experiences yet. In any case, it's always worth talking to a few different advisees of a POI to get a sense of their communication/support style and their strengths/areas of growth as an advisor, and feeling out if that match might support you personally to struggle productively through the challenges of graduate study. You're absolutely right - a long and important relationship!

I had to go check - and yes, they did identify the names of my advisors in the acceptance letter. Between the admissions offer and accepting an admission, I had a number of contacts with these advisors and their other graduate students to help admitted folks make their decision, so one would definitely know and have spoken with one's advisors (and their current advisees) before starting the program. Honestly, it would be a big red flag if that wasn't the case. That is a really important part of the process of deciding where you want to spend 5-7 years of your life - getting a strong sense for what it is like to work with your potential advisor(s) and the experiences of other graduate students they work with is probably the most important part of the "post-admissions deciding phase," in terms of ensuring a positive graduate experience. FYI, it seems like the Stanford GSE has moved to a 2-advisor system, with a primary advisor one works most closely with and a secondary advisor who provides added perspective and support. Both of my advisors are known among the graduate students for being super supportive, which is an important message to listen for when making matriculation decisions.

I was emailed by a professor I had mentioned in my essay, but not the primary person I'd been in contact with up to that point. And yes - luck has a lot to do with who gets admitted each cycle! My current advisor mentioned to me - some years the pool is more/less competitive, some years they don't admit anyone for a subgroup because one of the area professors is going on sabbatical, some years a POI already has a lot of advisees and can't take on more till someone graduates, some years the funding is earmarked for a student studying X or Y specific topic, etc. Acceptance or rejection doesn't tell you anything absolute about whether you're "qualified" or "ready" or would thrive in a doctoral program - so much of it is luck, and happening to match whatever the context of admissions looks like for that program *that year.* The same person with the same application might be admitted one cycle or not the next. Whatever news you get this year, know that you are worthy of taking on this work and the field needs you. This admission cycle doesn't determine the overall journey. Best of luck!

That I don't know anything about - sorry! I remember seeing an "incomplete" on my matriculation to-do checklist for a while and getting stressed about it, but it boiled down to them needing to process a lot of paper documents at the start of the pandemic when folks weren't in the office where the mail was going. I'm not sure if that's a factor with admissions materials, and I'm sure you've reached out to the admissions people already. I'll cross my fingers for you that it's just a stress-inducing nothingburger.

Yes! This time last year I was SO sure that I had been rejected again, based on not having heard anything back since submitting my application.

I see you all stress-refreshing, and that was me last year (and in 2017, and 2016), so I thought I might drop a few details from my own experience in case it helps quell some nerves: 1. I applied 3 times to the Stanford GSE - CTE Ph.D. - waitlisted following an interview (2016), rejected without an interview (2017), and accepted without an interview (2020). My POI told me that different programs have different approaches to interviews, and though my subgroup (Science Education) *often* does interviews, they don't always. Based on my conversations with other doctoral students here, it seems all over the map whether admitted people were interviewed and inconsistent year to year even within program subgroups. 2. When I got my acceptance, I heard from one of my POIs first by email, and I think the official email from Stanford came later that day (Feb 14). I don't think there's any rule that professors reach out first, but it seems like a frequent - but not uniform - practice. I know when someone posts here that they just got a POI email and you haven't, it can feel like a sign - but I wouldn't read too much into the promptness or not of POI replies. 3. I hear some nerves about age and parenthood - the current cohort of first-years is maybe ~1/4 parents of little kids, and a number of doctoral students in the cohorts above us are also parents. The ages in the cohort range from just completed undergrad in their early/mid 20s to close to 40 (I might be the oldest this year, but I'm not sure - but starting in your mid-to-upper-30s is not uncommon). If you are admitted this year, feel free to reach out - I'm happy to share what my experience has been like through this unusual first year! And if you aren't admitted this time and your heart is set on Stanford, know that people do reapply - successfully - even after not being offered admission multiple times.

I'm not sure if this is helpful, but... I was in a similar spot many years ago applying to Neuroscience PhD programs, with similar stats (and perhaps slightly more research experience - I graduated in 4 years, was involved in lab work each quarter, TAed several courses, and completed an honors research thesis). I did take the general GRE and Psych Subject GRE, scoring >95%. I took a research assistant position in a lab after graduating because I wasn't sure what I wanted to study in a doctoral program and thought RA work would give me more time on my applications. In contrast to my positive bachelor's research experiences, this lab sucked - it was a toxic and rigidly hierarchical, and my former thesis advisor and other research faculty later told me that research lab was known for being toxic and "a factory." I didn't have the wisdom to ask around beforehand about the culture of different labs, and I didn't have a sense of what I was hoping to learn there, which I think is part of why I stayed so long. Anyway, I applied to graduate programs while in this toxic lab and didn't get admitted anywhere except one master's program. I had also applied to RA in other research labs (this time doing the legwork of asking around about lab culture in advance...) and was offered another RA-ship in a much more positive lab environment. The story has a happy ending - I decided to decline both the M.A. admission and the friendlier RA position and changed fields to science education, which I had a nagging interest in. It turns out that I love science teaching (and science teachers), and after several years in the field, I will starting a doctoral program in Science Education at Stanford this fall. Even though my research assistant job was a terrible experience, I am really glad I took the slow path instead of diving right into a doctoral program. The RA experience gave me some clarity about what it was that I loved most about doing science, and I realized that even in a positive lab environment, the nature of the work that excited me most was central to science education in a way that Neuroscience research was not. I suspect that main reason I was not admitted to Neuroscience doctoral programs, despite having strong grades/scores/research experiences is that I didn't have a strong statement of purpose. Specifically, I hadn't developed a strong purpose for what/why I wanted to research and how that connected to both my professional goals and the work at those specific programs. Reading the list of qualifications that you shared, I wondered: What are your reasons for wanting to pursue a neuroscience PhD? How have your prior experiences (in research and in life) inform your goals and ready you for doctoral study? What are you excited about researching, and why does that matter to you personally, your goals, and the world? How does that match the research and mentorship available at the programs you listed? Your compelling articulation of those ideas will matter most to your chances of admission, this year or in the future. You didn't mention what your role was in your previous research experience, but it sounds like you are thinking that a year or two of RA work might provide deeper opportunities for research experience. My undergraduate thesis advisor (a neuroscience faculty at Stanford) told me: "If you are getting all As, you're not doing enough research," so I think it is reasonable to assume that the depth of your experience will matter for admissions. Additionally, the question that might be more important than "Do I need more research experience to get in?" is "Would this experience help me sharpen my understanding of what I want to study/learn in a doctorate?" I know several people who are now happily Neuroscience faculty who took a couple years to work as RAs or lab managers post-baccalaureate, not because they needed to compensate for grades or undergraduate research experience, but because the experience helped them refine their skills and professional interests, build connections (both mentors for strong recs and a network of insights into the social landscape of the field), and seek out the best match for the long haul that is a doctorate. A PhD is a (poorly paid) job as much as it is an education - 5-7 years of training as a research scientist to prepare you for a research career. Taking a couple years to try out full time lab life, particularly in a positive lab culture with strong mentorship, can be a way to test out whether that (sub)field is the one you want to commit most of a decade to, and to learn in advance which PIs to seek out as mentors (or avoid). TL;DR: Your stats sound strong but your purpose (articulated in your statement of purpose) grounded in your prior research experience is most important to your application. Sometimes the "slower path" to starting a doctorate can lead to a more purposeful, positive doctoral experience. If you do decide to seek out a fellowship/lab work first, definitely ask around to find out where the happy labs are at (and whose labs to avoid).

I'm not sure if this helps, but... a long time ago, I applied to PhD programs in neuroscience, was admitted nowhere, but was offered admission to MAPSS at UChicago (which I had not applied to but it seems like they offer admission to some PhD applicants who weren't admitted to doctoral program but seemed like promising graduate students). I only received a partial scholarship, and was considering a cross country move and those big loans...but I ultimately decided to instead change fields altogether and took my first science teaching job. (Almost two decades and many rewarding years later, I'm entering a PhD program for science education at Stanford...albeit virtually because #covid19). Anyway, my sense of MAPSS was that the program was designed to support promising potential doctoral students refine their applications, gain research experience/mentors with UChicago faculty, and potentially move into doctoral program (at UChicago and elsewhere) the following year. The admissions packet I received emphasized the large percentage of MAPSS students who were admitted to funded doctoral programs after the program. I wonder: if the MAPSS program is mostly online, would the benefits of MAPSS (and those big loans) be as strong for you? That's a question I would have for the program: how they plan to support online MAPSS students in their longer term goals. If the answer is satisfying, it seems like a program that in normal years is structured to support MA students towards moving into funded doctoral tracks. But if that value comes mostly from in-person relationship building and research support, then it might be a lot of debt to take on for a less supportive experience.

@homesteadjoe Yup - so far the only emails I have from NSF are a) notification about the award decisions (March 30), b) notification that reviews were available (April 21) and c) the GRIP/Intern email today.

@homesteadjoeThat's all I have received since April 21.

My understanding is that Honorable Mentions aren't a waiting list for the award. There's no set number of awards they have to distribute. If someone turns the award down, there just is one fewer award given out that year.

I'd check out some of the work happening at Stanford. I studied neuroscience there as an undergrad (about 15 years ago) and there were quite a few folks between the Psychology, Biology, and medical departments whose work might be overlapping with your interests. There's also a robust interdisciplinary program called "Symbolic Systems" that lies at the intersection of cognitive neuroscience, philosophy, and linguistics -- some of what you mention seems like it might fit there. I took a "Philosophy of Neuroscience" course through SymSys as an undergraduate and it touched a lot of the topics you list here. They have a Master's program in SymSys, but all the faculty are cross listed in other departments, so I might look at the SymSys faculty page as a starting point. I worked with Brian Knutson and he's fantastic -- as a person, mentor, and scientist. Jamil Zaki joined the faculty after I graduated, but his work is super interesting and might be adjacent to your interests. I'd recommend poking around the research interests of current faculty and reaching out to whomever seems like they may have overlapping interests. https://symsys.stanford.edu/undergraduatesconcentrations/neurosciences-neuro-concentration From the SymSys class I took, I remember a couple faculty from UCSD (the Churchlands) did work in the area you describe but I think they are retired now --- but it looks like the UCSD Philosophy department has several other folks interested in theory of mind/cognitive science overlap, which might be another avenue to look: https://philosophy.ucsd.edu/people/faculty.html For any program you apply to, there may not be a specific professor doing exactly the work you are imagining, but if there are many professors doing relevant work and working with relevant methodologies, you'd have the intellectual resources and support to chart out your own research.

Awarded, STEM Education, incoming PhD student with a prior masters and ~15 years in the field. E/E, G/G, E/E. Reviewers largely agreed on strengths/weaknesses of my proposal. The IM and BI in my statements seemed compelling and timely to the E/E reviewers, and they spoke specifically to this in their summary comments. G/G reviewer seemed less compelled by the significance of the problem I posed. I wonder if my areas of interest happened to overlap more with the two E/E reviewers than the G/G reviewer, and my results could have easily swung the other direction if I had a different reviewer panel. Surely some of this process boils down to chance. G/G also wanted to see more direct justification for why I should be awarded the GRFP especially given that I had attended a master's program previously, and wanted more direct discussion of my intended institution (I didn't build my essays around matriculation to a specific program as I hadn't been admitted yet.) It ended up working out for me anyway, but I thought I'd name these concerns as at least some reviewers want to see those issues addressed in the application. I'm curious how the individual reviews get translated into decisions. Do the reviewers compare notes and then make a group recommendation? I feel grateful for having been selected, and I found the process has helped me clarify my strengths and areas of growth as I begin my doctoral program.