eternallyephemeral

You're absolutely right. I should have clarified that when I meant Canadian applicants vs American applicants, that I meant Americans as in people from the US with US degrees. However, that wasn't clear, so you were right to misinterpret what I said. It is the case that Canadians go to American schools and then get hired back in Canada. But it's also the case that you could get citizenship after being in Canada for your degree, though I know it's really difficult to do all of the PR requirements if you're not working full time (or so I was told by an international student). The citizenship and hiring thing is much more complex than just Canadian vs American applicants, but it is also rare that two applicants, one from the US and one from Canada, will have identical qualifications. What I meant here is that in my experience at U of T, the applicants from Canadian schools were not as attractive applicants as those from American schools. Many of the professors hired had no ties with Canada, so it's my assumption that they did not have Canadian citizenship. In this case, because of the higher-ranked schools in the US (like the ones you mentioned), the American applicant (who is more likely to be a US citizen) is preferred over the Canadian applicant (meaning a Canadian coming from a Canadian school). Forgive my ignorance about cultural studies - I don't know what it would take to be qualified. I would find it difficult to be an expert in a region if I had never lived there or experienced the culture. You're absolutely right that people can be Canadian and their heritage could be another country; in the case I was thinking about (which isn't communicated well there), I couldn't see a person from one country who has no ties to the country they study or has no experience being immersed in that culture being a better candidate than a person who has personal experience with that area. But like I said, I have no idea what the study of other cultures entails, so it's possible one could be an expert without having personally experienced the culture. Of course, one can study other areas, like heart transplants or personality disorders, without personal eperience. What I intended to say was that it seems the legal requirement to choose a citizen of one's own country could be problematic if the country did not have qualified applicants with the right experience. For a country less diverse, I wonder if they have difficulty hiring for these positions if they are focused on or obligated to choose citizens of their own country. Thanks for your clarification. I made a lot of assumptions when I was writing that weren't fully fleshed out, and based on my own experience. That wasn't communicated properly, so I unintentionally misled people and for that I'm sorry.

It's unfortunate, but there are many exclusively white, rural areas where these things are happening. This type of behaviour happens much less often in Toronto; being one of the most multicultural cities in the world helps with that a bit. Just recently, a man defended a woman who was being harassed (two other women were telling her to go back to her country and may have uttered the word "terrorist" about her). When the attackers went after the man who defended this woman, people thanked him and stayed with him to give reports to the police. I just moved from Toronto to a much more homogeneous and (dare I say it) backwater place, and I would much rather be back than be here right now. I even thought that before Trump won. That is absolutely the case at some universities. The smaller and lower ranked schools have a clear preference for Canadian citizens. Based on the rules, all of the schools would choose a Canadian applicant over an American one if all other aspects were the same, but this rarely happens. For the best research schools, of which U of Toronto is at the top, they get many more good American applicants, and therefore end up choosing American applicants more often. The smaller schools do not have that caliber of applicants, so they end up going with Canadian citizens. Does that make sense? A degree from Toronto would definitely help with that aspect (given you can also have dual citizenship), or you have the opportunity to go back to the US if you wanted to. It's hilarious that the field is American studies and the citizenship of the applicant is still a concern. I guess there is no special situation when hiring someone with an expertise on another country. For example, would you want to hire a Canadian that does East Asian studies, or someone from that region? Maybe there is not as much of a difference as I would expect. Sorry for derailing the other conversation. Feel free to PM me with questions about Toronto/Canada!

I'm biased (as an alumna), but I'd encourage you to consider Toronto! I don't think you'll find it hard to adjust, and there are strong ties between Toronto and the US that make going back and forth easier than you may think. Not that the rest of Canada isn't connected, of course. Back on topic, the direct effects of the new term on academia concerns me less than the indirect effects of climate change, a general climate of fear, and individual acts by Trump supporters on university campuses, because now they have a new example of the most powerful kind. Even in Canada, people have been grabbing pussies and running around with confederate flags. Part of that is wanting to copy the US in everything they do, but it's a giant, pervasive sign to go ahead and act on baser instincts people may have been keeping in for the past few years.

I agree. Gaps in employment are more of a concern for industry, rather than advanced degree programs. Many people take a year off to study, apply, etc, and they are not penalized for it. If people were not accepted for this reason, medical school cohorts and clinical psych programs would be much smaller!

I understand your concerns about the statement. I always perceived there to be unwritten rules about what sorts of challenges you do mention, but which types still have stigma around them. For example, me talking about my family's history of mental health issues and emotional manipulation/psychological abuse, along with my own challenges that stem from that seemed too much for the way I was trying to present myself in my application as a whole. Perhaps its possible to discuss your challenges in a less explicit way? I don't know what people think about just mentioning that you faced difficulties from a lack of support that led you to be more independent and self-driven? I don't think anyone wants the details in these statements, and you shouldn't feel obliged to give specifics about abuse if you don't want to. There must be a way to frame these things positively, in terms of what you've learned. I don't know how best to do this, but do keep in mind that it is a smaller portion of the application, so as long as it doesn't signal any issues to them (of course you don't know what will), then it's likely they won't put too much weight on the level of diversity or the level of hardship (because how could you even do that) for their admission decision.

I feel like there's nothing left to vent about, except the imploding of the US from the inside. A freaking KKK-supported president. Holy effing shit.

I wouldn't worry about your GPA, and your GRE scores are very good. I also realized towards the end of my degree which kind of psych I wanted to go into (I moved from life sci/bio in first year, to cognitive psych, and now I'm in I/O psych in grad school), so it happens to people and you shouldn't worry! People would probably be most concerned about accepting you into a new field. However, it can still work. Especially for educational/school psych, because it's not at too many schools (just like I/O psych!), so it's okay if you don't have exposure to it. As well, people in I/O didn't have a huge problem with my cognitive background. I think your developmental psych background would help for educational psych for sure, so you should be good! Best of luck!

Thanks for the update! That is basically what I've experienced from U of T as well. And given the reputations and rankings of some schools in the US (as in, there are more highly ranked schools in the US than there are in Canada), they end up taking a lot of more qualified non-Canadians. Of course, these more qualified non-Canadians do not always accept the job offer, but that's not something you have to worry too much about!

Hi! i experienced this before, at a very competitive school I didn't think I would make it to anyways. But I contacted 1-2 profs, and one of them asked for my SOP months before (I sent my transcript and my cv with the first email). I did not have a very good SOP at the time (and I don't think it got that much better looking back), and then the POI didn't answer again. In that case, because my application was such a stretch, I believe they didn't think I was that great and therefore didn't answer me. However, I know they were very busy as well. I still did apply to this school, as it was a top choice for me and the people did reply. I considered that good enough. However, you might have different criteria. I would suggest not changing your list of schools over this, or getting anxious. Neither one is helpful, and how will you know if it's even negative? I know all profs get tons and tons of emails. Perhaps there are other people in the department, like admissions officers, that you could talk to and get more information so you feel better? The whole process is just anxiety-inducing, and it's best not to put so much anxiety on yourself because you just add to it. Best of luck!

Hey! I would read her papers, and think about possible next steps beyond what's written in the papers. When I spoke to potential POIs, I asked about how they like to supervise, how often they have meetings, how many students they have, what sorts of funding opportunities you should apply for. I dressed nice-ish, but nothing really excessive. I'm sure a button-up shirt would be fine. Why would any questions be premature? I'm genuinely curious.

You can always apply to OGS at each school directly (if they are in Ontario, of course). I'm sure there are other provincial scholarships that you could apply to in other regions. As well, you might want to prioritize the ones that care more about this, or the ones that you want more, as the five you choose in CIHR. But consider OGS as another option.

I completely agree. Emergence is a fascinating, extremely complex phenomenon. As well, it can be damaging to hold a purely biological view of psychology in some cases, for example with the disease model of mental illness. So reductionism is not the answer to this issue, as both psychoanalysis and neuroscience may (and do!) have statistical issues and methodological issues. Psychoanalysis can be wrong without the biological model needing to be right (or completely all-encompassing).

I don't really know what to say other than that I completely agree with you. As far as your own career/school decisions, I think you've made that clear. As far as what this means for the field, I think its a bit more muddy. We don't need neuroscience to know psychodynamics isn't a falsifiable theory. We won't need "computerized skills" (we've had good statistics for a lot longer) to know what is meaningful is not always what is statistically significant, among other things. And yet through all this, some people still believe in pseudoscientific theories. I don't think any "new approaches" will change what people believe in, because we don't believe in things because they're logically sound or empirically supported. It's just a belief.

This is very strange. I was specifically advised not to contact people in the summer, and that I should wait until the fall. I contacted people around this time, and no one had any issues with it. If this POI has any other stipulations, just make sure you address those (like if they want your cv or something) and make sure that you have read some of their papers. There's no harm in trying! To be honest, I didn't even know which field I was applying to in July (I switched around August, and still got in).

I think youre on a good path with your plan then, especially if the schools have professional based programs with theses as an option. Do you have a supervisor if the thesis is optional? Most of the time, you find this person later on. It might still be good to reach out and contact people, but that might not work in the way you'd expect (or the way I'm used to).

Good point about fit, of course. It's as important in Clinical as in any other program (or maybe more, I'm not in a place to compare). I thought it was a given, but it's always important to stress fit as one of the key determinants of getting accepted!

Can you get more letters from profs? I know it seems as though IO psych programs care about work experience, but the truth is that the admissions committee is still a group of professors and the application process is still extremely similar to other non-applied areas of psychology. Does your masters have a thesis? Do you have a committee? Have you received any scholarships, presented at conferences, are you preparing any publications for submission? Have you reached out to any potential supervisors? I think making a personal connection and then addressing your issues with them if they bring up GPA, etc would be easier than hoping to make it through to the next round and then explain your situation (only because you might not make it through the first bit). Are these professional IO programs (like NYU) or research-based programs? Because I think you wouldn't have difficulty getting into the first type, but the second type might be a lot harder. If you want to focus on research and get into a funded program, then I would start putting a lot more effort towards research opportunities, publishing, etc as schools might say they care about work experience, in my experience it's research aptitude they are looking for.

Hi! I can't answer all of your questions, but I have spoken to profs from the clinical area about the admissions a bit (I went to U of T St George) and they gave me some of this info. 1. Extremely competitive. They all are, of course, but it's Toronto so many people want to go (to the school and to the city). They have about 5 people enroll each year, and from what I remember some of the years the acceptance gpa is in the 3.9s. They might have said one person with a perfect GPA brought it up, but they meant up from 3.7-3.8. Given offer->enrollment rates I've seen for other parts of U of T and other clinical programs, it's unlikely they offer more than 10 spots each year. There are definitely hundreds that apply, but I can't remember how many hundreds it was. There are about five areas of U of T's psych program: brain and behaviour, cognitive, personality and social, development, and clinical. Brain and behaviour/developmental receive the least applications, cognitve/personality and social a bit more, but clinical might be around 60-70% of all applications (I could be wrong, but they might have told us they receive ~600 applications and ~400 are clinical. This might be wrong though. 2. Accreditation: they fully intend on being accredited after the five years. They say the program is good on all fronts except how new it is. Of course, that is not for sure, but they have every intention of making it recognized. It would be pretty terrible if it wasn't. It's a valid reason to be concerned. I know some people might make their decision off it, but it's up to you personally whether the very high chance of it being accredited is worth it for you. 3. You should definitely reach out to the department. They don't always keep all the stats, but that is what they are here for. As well, if you reach out to potential supervisors (which you definitely should), then you can use the tone/enthusiasm of their responses to judge whether they think you are a good applicant (though this isn't a really reliable way, it's just another piece of info that could be good or bad). Sorry if I got the numbers wrong. I'm extremely confident about the 5 enrollments per year though, and you can assume the rest based on the stats for other schools (some of which can be found online). I'd say UTSC is easier than Yale, but more difficult than Ryerson if that helps. Good luck!

No problem! Only do what you think you can do well, though!

I totally understand, no worries! It seems the OP would definitely want something more like a personality/measurement program than a quant program, so it's good to hear what Quant IS and what it ISN'T

Sorry about that. I thought measurement and quantitative psychology were similar, as I have come across a lot of personality psychologists that call themselves quantitative psychologists, and they do not create novel methods. I'll delete my post.

It's not greedy! Apply for everything! I'm not ashamed of applying to all the scholarships available, and paying attention to all small jobs and opportunities that come my way. After all, it is the time to expand your cv/experiences, and work is a good way to do that.

Having roommates, looking for coupons/student discounts at grocery stores, looking for farmer's markets to buy food at, buying in bulk (sometimes), and looking for flight discounts can help on the savings side. On the getting more money side, apply for everything you are eligible for. A lot of schools also have RA positions (outside of your own supervisor), work-study positions, on-campus jobs, and odd jobs for a bit of extra money here and there. If your school has a psychology department, they pay people to answer simple questions and do tasks often; just look for the flyers. There might be a different cost of living there, so it might make sense. Often engineering PhDs do okay, but I can't say whether this is true without any details. Although it might be tempting to try to save a bit (if you do take the position), the easiest way to make your budget and savings goals is to make more money. Depending on what the rules are about working outside of your program, you could do an internship part time that's related to your work. Good luck!

I applied to eight programs, two masters+PhD and six direct PhD (out of undergrad). It's not really a numbers game, and it all depends on the fit between you and the people there, and how difficult it is to get in. I don't think eight is impossible to do high quality applications for, but it depends how much time youre spending and how different they are. I also applied to two types of scholarships, but for one I had to apply to two separate schools for that scholarship (so three scholarship applications) and I was in school, so it was a bit crazy.

Do NOT lowball yourself, whatever you do. That's the worst thing you could possibly do in this situation. See some reasons below, that are in line with what @rising_star said: - It shows you don't have a lot of confidence in yourself and your value. - It makes it seem that you expect them to give you this job in some sort of outreach/charitable giving situation to help you "get some experience". This is not how the work world is, this is something they tell you in academia and nonprofits to try and get you to work for less than you're worth. - As a Canadian (which I also am), you're already self-effacing and lowballing yourself would lower that amount even more. - There's something called the confidence gap, where certain people (more educated people, women, other groups) often don't apply to a job unless they meet 100% of the requirements. This is also the worst thing you could do for your career, because those posted requirements are just their dream applicant. And you should apply to jobs, even if you are not exactly their dream applicant. Their dream applicant probably does not exist. - Any estimate you make probably won't be accurate for the industry. I would find some hard data on various companies (not just this one, but their competitors) and use those numbers. Or even increase it by a bit, and then they can negotiate down. I know we are all scared of rejection, and we think that if we asked for a high salary, that it would ruin our chances of getting a job and they would just laugh us out of the room. You have at least two degrees (maybe three) and you are an expert in your field. No matter where you are, 50-60k for an extremely highly skilled person with lots of potential in a high-paying field is about half of what you should put down (but still, check the data first). I would aim a bit higher than you really expect, so personally I would put 110k or 120k down. But check glassdoor and other sites. Remember, the company doesn't want the cheapest person. That's why they are hiring people with PhDs. They want someone who is good at what they do, and salary expectations are a way of signaling that. It can be difficult to do this, and it might go against everything you're used to in grad school/academia, and against your (likely modest) character traits. But it's an important skill to learn, to know your value. Good luck!