• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


eternallyephemeral last won the day on August 27

eternallyephemeral had the most liked content!

About eternallyephemeral

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Location
  • Application Season
    2016 Fall
  • Program
    I/O psych/OB
  1. SSHRC Doctoral Award/CGS (funding for 2018-2019)

    You would think that makes sense! I'm trying not to fret about it for at least 1.5 months, because I was told we typically don't hear until the break.
  2. SSHRC Doctoral Award/CGS (funding for 2018-2019)

    Apparently, it's normal we wouldn't hear back about Ottawa yet. However, your school might do things differently from the department to the university level. For mine, we were not notified if we did go through to the next stage, and we were notified if we didn't make it to the university level. But then it switches, and you are notified from university to Ottawa, and presumably not notified if you don't make it to Ottawa. So I have made it through the department to the university, but I didn't know, because I didn't hear anything. Confusing system, right?
  3. SSHRC Doctoral Award/CGS (funding for 2018-2019)

    So I went to my grad program person and while speaking to her, I realized that I misunderstood the university deadline as the day the university sends them to Ottawa, instead of its real meaning, the day the departments send their picks to the university. So duhhhhh. I was told that I was forwarded to that level, but that our school won't hear back from the university until near the beginning of the winter break. In case anyone's wondering.
  4. Stacking up against psych PhD prereqs — will my bio deliver?

    I would apply for the PhD, but recognize that clinical is going to be insanely difficult, even for people that have been doing everything "perfectly". Unless you're open to counselling psych, just try for the PhD while working in labs, because that research experience will matter more than a masters. Especially a course-based masters, which is not as helpful as a research-based masters (the latter is less common in the US unfortunately, so you're unlikely to encounter many). In your minor, did you take at least one statistics course and one lab course/research methods course? If so, I wouldn't be concerned. Also getting into labs at Harvard is a pretty good pre-req for getting into graduate programs. They will teach you the research skills you need, hopefully you will get on some posters/papers, and then you will be prepared for the PhD (course requirements in the PhD are not something to be concerned about - most of them are not too difficult to handle, they don't mark very hard, and your real focus should be on your research). I know of people who have worked in labs at top schools and gotten into very good cognitive PhD programs, without doing a masters. In the process of working in a lab, you can learn more about what parts of clinical and cognitive psychology you like, because there is sometimes overlap in what people study.
  5. Love, Academia and Success

    I felt the same way that you do earlier in my life. I was also told by many people that men don't want to be with someone who is driven, accomplished, ambitious, etc. It was so relieving to learn that isn't always the case. I have a wonderful partner that I've been with for almost 4 years, who supports my academic and career goals, genuinely isn't bothered if I make more money than him, doesn't find any of this threatening/emasculating/concerning, etc. Unsurprisingly, he is a thoughtful and considerate person, who supports social movements including feminism, and is open to changing his mind when presented with facts. I met my partner in my research lab, which might not be where you meet someone, but the university environment, especially at the graduate level, has fewer people who are threatened by achievement, who are bigoted and inappropriate, and other things you want to avoid (at least in my experience). This article below is really relevant. Although the message can seem really depressing (stay single if you dont find someone that supports your career), I think you already have this part figured out: As for layering on your minority membership on top of being a high-achieving woman, it is absolutely a challenge. Although I recognize that Canada is no better than the US in a lot of ways, it does not have the same issues of race relations that the US does. And if you're in specific cities in Canada, such as those with more than 50% foreign-born residents which places it at the top of list of diverse cities in the world *coughTorontocough*, you luck will be much better than the majority-white, racist college town I live in right now (for example). So being part of a minority group can make all of these issues even harder, you can still make it easier by choosing specific places to live and people to surround yourself with. I'm taking an online course and reading some books by Richard Florida, who studies cities and economic growth at U of Toronto. He finds that cities that prosper have all the tech and the people, blah blah blah, but they are also tolerant places. Tolerance for some people may be nice to have, but for other people it's the difference between having a relationship and not having one, or getting a job and not having one. So it's in your best interest to try to move towards those types of places, where you are more likely to be accepted for who you are than somewhere that is not tolerant (unfortunately).
  6. SSHRC Doctoral Award/CGS (funding for 2018-2019)

    Has anyone heard back about being forwarded to Ottawa? Our university deadline was this past week, but I wasn't notified (which could mean they haven't told anyone, or it could mean I didn't make it, of course).
  7. 1) I wouldn't put that much weight on what this one professor said. 2) As above, the experience admissions committees are looking for is not work experience, it's typically research or policy experience (where you can demonstrate a research component to the policy development, to make it most relevant). PhDs are not going to care about event coordinator experience. 3) Regardless of the political affiliation or controversy, I would leave irrelevant and nonacademic jobs (see #2 above) off your application. I did the same, because if it doesn't add anything, it's taking up space that could go to other, more relevant experiences. 4) Take a look at example CVs. If there is no section for what you are referring to on examples from your field, then you shouldn't include it. In some areas, there might not be a section for work experience at all, because you would only have sections for research experience and thesis projects.
  8. Giving Up on Graduate School Is Really Hard

    You haven't come across this way, not at all. I have noticed, in other contexts, derision or disbelief that schools could choose younger people, with the underlying assumption that they must not have done anything useful in undergrad and therefore have no added value for the program. That can be the case, of course, but it isn't as common as these people were making it out to be. I absolutely agree that professional degrees often look for older applicants with practical experience. This is one of the main reasons I did not get into a lot of schools I applied to - I did not understand there was a difference in norms and expectations going from psychology to business, for example (both PhD programs). So even within research, those that are more "professionally focused", are looking for a different type of applicant. And that's great! I absolutely agree that no one should try to be something they're not, and that they should play to their strengths. I also agree that one is not inherently better or worse than another (as in, being younger is not always good), and I recognize that ageism is a barrier, especially in the minds of older people that may feel insecure about going back to school. I believe both types of applicants are important and bring different things to the table. However, for a research-based program (which is the limit of this conversation and of OP's focus), there may not be as many differences between younger applicants and older ones with the same research accomplishments. Yes, not many undergraduates have won a best article award, but they haven't all been doing undergrad-level research experience, aka data entry, as was implied. In competitive fields like psychology, if you only do data entry as your "research" experience, you're not going to get in on that criteria.
  9. Giving Up on Graduate School Is Really Hard

    Unfortunately no, I don't think cancer has been cured, and if it was, it wouldn't be people in my undergrad psychology program doing it. Some of them had more relevant experience, some of them had first author publications (none of mine were), many of them had better grades, worked with people who were known for their track record of their RAs going to competitive programs, probably had better GREs, etc. I'm sure there are parts of your application that are very strong, like the publication and the award. Uniqueness is also important, but as someone else said, finding a good fit can be a difficult and frustrating process. My SO was in a similar spot as you're in (not as much the age part, but not even getting a chance to show his research skill because of poor GREs and such). Unfortunately, sometimes there is no way around it. He didn't get in to any of his 7 schools, and then applied for a masters (instead of a PhD) at a much worse school. Things are going pretty terribly right now, not completely because of the school, but the supervisor and the quality of the facilities would probably have been leagues better if he got into one of the original places. He may be changing his life plans because of this, which sucks, but maybe it'll end up working out better in the end. We're hoping so. Best of luck getting through those first hurdles!
  10. Giving Up on Graduate School Is Really Hard

    You are still competing with people, especially at top schools, that have more than what you're dismissing as "undergrad "research experience" ". I worked in five-six labs (one was a collaboration) before starting graduate school, was on two papers, multiple international conference posters, managed a lab, supervised undergrads, etc etc etc. And I wasn't even competitive for the top schools I applied at. This was all during my undergrad, when I worked at other jobs at the same time. I'm not trying to self-aggrandize, I'm simply trying to give you a sense of what a person might have who isn't even at the top of their own class. Many students, especially in cog neuro, either have masters, have worked full time managing labs at Harvard, etc, and those people are who you're applying against. I think it's great for you to apply at any age, and not to give up on your dreams, but I've noticed a lot of older applicants on here expect that not being an "undergrad" with "undergrad experience" is somehow going to be a huge plus for their application. Given that in psychology, most accepted students are right out of undergrad or 1-2 years out having done a masters or worked as an RA full time, they aren't rushing to choose people specifically for their maturity or non-undergraduate qualities. There are other programs that do care, like business PhDs, but in psych, age/maturity/wisdom/whatever you want to call it, isn't a big part of their decision making process. Also, doing well on the GRE can be learnt. Unless you've done all the practice questions, you haven't practiced enough. I highly doubt that you are unable to improve your GREs to get past the cutoff for the schools you want.
  11. What does your University pay you? (CANADA)

    At U of T, the psych program's minimum take-home is 17,500, but the students on average take home much more than that. Their tuition is completely covered from separate money, but they do not see any additional income if the scholarship they win is less than their funding amount. If it is more, from what I understand they get the additional amount beyond their original funding. At Western, the psych program's minimum take home is also around 17,500, but the tuition amount is part of their typical "minimum funding", meaning the numbers look different but they are really the same. Western guarantees you 24-25k per year, and they take out your tuition from that (about 8k), so you're left with around 16-17k as a minimum. There are no extra TA opportunities to make more money at Western the way there are at U of T, which means a common way to make more money doesn't exist at Western. However, if you win a scholarship, you receive that money directly, and the department just assigns you less work for your TAship (or no work at all, depending on how large the scholarship is). At Western in the neuro program, it depends on the host program (anatomy and cell bio, psych, physiology and pharmacology, etc), but you are usually guaranteed a minimum of 20-21k (but you pay tuition from that), so you really take home 12-13k, which kinda sucks. Also, the way the funding structure goes, you actually have to pay some tuition each term, and then you get that money back through the year. I think it's the worst process, but no one asked me. Finally, I believe that people who win scholarships get to keep some of it, but they may not get to keep all of it. In the neuro program, they also recently removed the guaranteed TAships, because of how many people they are admitting. Incoming students won't be guaranteed a TAship, and I'm not sure whether that money will be made up in some other way.
  12. Military Psychologist

    Other people have provided some helpful links here, but the number one thing you should look into is industrial/organizational psychology - all of the concepts above (teamwork, retention, predictive models for selection, performance appraisal, etc) are taught in IO psychology. We also do a lot of work for the military/DRDC during our graduate programs. There are five major IO grad programs in Canada: Western University, Guelph, Waterloo, Calgary, and St. Mary's. Most students apply to all/the majority of them, and you can find their alumni placements on the website. For some of these schools, people have gone to work for the military after graduating, and others have completed the program in the middle of their military work; they had two years off to finish it, and they were funded (I don't know how it split up between department and the military, but they received money to live on). Feel free to PM if you have more questions about IO - there might be military psychology-specific programs out there, but they will be very rare in Canada and I have not heard of them at top Canadian universities.
  13. Fall 2018 I/O Psy

    It is a true IO program as well, yes. A lot of the profs there did their PhDs at Western's program (e.g., Kibeom Lee, Tom O'Neill, etc), and it's a very great place if you're interested in the kind of research happening there. They have been very productive and are really ramping things up in recent years. I'd highly recommend it!
  14. Human Factors to Social to I/O. Halp?

    Absolutely, some findings are highly replicable and based on research and theory from decades of rigorous work. However, it is often the most incredulous findings, from the most implicit or briefly presented stimuli, that initially show the largest affects and then later don't replicate. A lot of this is due to small sample sizes, of course. I agree, a lot of business areas do think they are immune to this, and that is a problem. I also know a lot of people in neuroscience/animal behaviour that don't believe they need to worry about things like power and p-hacking, but it's just as prevalent there and they also have an issue with sample sizes. Definitely! I think it's great when people are rising to the occasion and giving everyone else a good example to follow. Not that it's only on the shoulders of people in social psych, but they can champion these issues and go above and beyond in responding to it. Haha I also don't like theory papers, I came from cognitive psych where the intros to vision/attention papers were 1-2 paragraphs long. Now I read 40+ page papers, mostly intro-heavy, and I don't enjoy it at all. I'm focusing on measurement issues and construct validity right now, and I have a very strong interest in philosophy of science from my undergrad days. Nice chatting with you, I'm glad to hear your perspective from the inside!