eternallyephemeral

Possibly because everyone doesn't have your experience? I would take this as a learning experience; if and when you have a choice to make again about a place where you'll live and work for several years and will determine your next career move(s), the atmosphere and your connection with the people is just as important as factors like pay, location, and prestige. All I can say is that I (fortunately) didn't have an experience that is anything like yours; I have very fond memories of my grad school days. It's too bad that you don't, but then you're only going to be there for a few more months, so maybe try to see past what's going on now to help with your mood. You can already start planning for things to come, and one can only hope that they'll be better than they are now. 

One tip I want to add, now that I've completed my first year of PhD work, is that you have to develop a certain level of... I'll call it apathy.  This has been a consistent theme when I speak with others in my program as well.
 
What do I mean by apathy?  Well, at the start of your first year doing PhD work you'll likely be somewhat frantic.  Everything must be perfect!  You must study all of the hours!  If you don't you will fail!
 
For me, the realization hit right after my first midterms.  I was just so tired from the pace I was forcing on myself that I couldn't do it anymore.  I started the second half of the term feeling like I wasn't doing enough, but was too tired to change it.  But as things progressed, I realized I was getting basically the same marks on my work.  Then finals came, and... again, basically the same scores. 
 
I think what I observed was probably due to two things:  First, you trade off a little less work for a lot more relaxation, and it balances out.  Second, I think the key is to identify diminishing returns.  For example, I had a professor who assigned really long problem sets of increasing difficulty, one a week, all semester long.  I found I could put in 25 hours or so and get a 9 out of 10... or I could put in 10 hours and get an 8.25 out of 10.  And combined they were only worth 10% of your grade, anyway.  There were way, way more productive things I could use those extra 15 hours a week for than gaining another tiny fraction on my final grade.  Your situations may vary, of course, but I think most PhD programs will require more of you than there is to give over a sustained period, and it will be up to you to figure out how to manage.
 
In short, learn to give up the idea of perfection in favor of doing well + keeping your sanity.  It's not worth the pending emotional breakdown if you try to sustain an unsustainable pace the entire time!

I think that every generation/cohort thinks that the previous generation are doing something wrong, that things were better in the old days. And every generation thinks that the older generation is irrelevant and stuck in the old ways! This semester, a bunch of us who were TAing were mentioning how much undergrads these days want their TAs to just tell them the answer, and they get mad when we ask them questions in response to their questions. But if we're complaining about our undergrads now, I wonder what our TAs said about us ~4-5 years ago!

Easier said than done, but it seems ideal for the new generation to do as Sigaba says, and remember that the older generation gained a ton of experience getting to where they are now. At the same time, the new generation could be bringing in fresh ideas and it might not be a good idea to dismiss these thoughts simply because we don't have the experience. I am thinking more of the generation gap between current students and junior faculty members, but it could also apply to the gap between PhDs-about-to-graduate/postdocs and incoming grad students.

Now, to "defend"/"explain" "my" cohort despite what I said above

1. I don't agree that Internet BBs are ONLY meant to be repositories of knowledge where someone with a question should try to find every single thread on the topic and read everything. Sure, this is exactly what we do for a literature review for our work, but discussing graduate school, while related to work, isn't work. I think this was the original intention now, but with more and more people growing up in an Internet dominated world, Internet technologies are changing fast. Here's why it makes sense for a new user to post a new question instead of digging up old ones:
a ) Internet rule of not reviving dead posts. On most BBs, it's poor etiquette to post in a thread that has been inactive for some period of time
b ) The user wants to interact with current, active members, not just passively read something -- maybe they already read some of the stuff and now want interaction
c ) Related to ( a ) and ( b ), posting in an old (dead) thread is not effective at getting the attention of current active members. If there is an existing thread 5 pages long, most people will not read the previous 5 pages and write responses taking into account all of the past posts in mind. Most people will either see that it's 5 pages long and not bother, or just write a response based on the new post and not consider the previous posts. In the former case, the OP doesn't get the interaction. In the latter case, there was no advantage to continuing a year-old thread since few people make use of the past -- it's more organized to start a new thread.
d ) It's more satisfying to ask your own question, in your own thread, where you can define the parameters of your question instead of a thread where a mood/tone might have already been developed. This point is more "frivolous" but still plays a factor I think.

My solution? I'm a new member of this community but I've been on other BBs for many years and see the same stuff get asked all the time. It might be more useful to link to a specific post that we think is helpful or just copy and paste something we've written before for the OP, if we think we are repeating ourself.

I think nowadays, a BB is more of a place for a person to announce something (e.g. I have a problem!) and then whoever is around and interested can gather and have a discussion. Although it has the capability to function like a library of knowledge, and there are many who do use it that way, I would say that the majority are drawn to BBs because of the ability to talk to active members, not read through past posts. But it's a good thing that BBs can function in both ways and allows users to choose how to use the BB.

2. Regarding the "sense of entitlement" of "our" cohort. I think this is partially due to the fact that the people entering graduate studies today are VERY different than the people running graduate studies (i.e. profs). It's clear that nowadays, more and more people are going to University and getting degrees -- it's the norm to go to college and I think this is spreading into grad school too. So, the demographics are different. I'm not sure if it's true but it sure feels like many programs expect graduate students to devote themselves to academia. I'm not saying this is the case for any particular person, but I feel that someone from a family who has had people in grad school before (so they understand us) and/or aren't from a "working poor" class would have a much easier time adjusting to graduate student life and doing well than others. Someone who wants to start a family, or needs to send money home to their parents, or wants to do other things than just academia will face more challenges in grad school. One can argue that grad school isn't for those in the above categories and aren't able to / willing to face the challenges, though -- but I don't think this is the right way to do things.

I don't know for sure what the job prospects were for our profs though. Maybe it was just as bad for them but they just toughed it out. I don't think it's a bad idea for our cohort to come with certain expectations and fight/push for changes for things that we want. We should have the ability to voice our opinions and shape the way our graduate program is run. Maybe when all of the new people entering college in the past decade reach faculty positions, graduate programs will be drastically different. Or maybe it won't, if the system ends up doing a good job of self-selecting like-minded people. But fighting for better working conditions or improving student life shouldn't be considered a sense of "entitlement". That is, graduate school shouldn't be a place of "conform or perish" -- the norms of the department should be set by all of its members, including students. If the issues are important enough, the students' voice could be strong enough to cause change.

I guess when it comes down to it, I feel this way because I believe that educational programs (at all levels, i.e. BSc, MSc, PhD) exist to serve the students and it should meet our needs. The faculty members with experience would know what kind of skills are important for academic success so they would build the degree program on this. But it's easy for people to think that "I suffered through this to get to where I am so the students have to as well". And the needs of students back in the day may not be the same as the needs now. So it's important for department to seek feedback from students and incorporate what we would like to get out of our degrees into our degree programs. Maybe this is the "sense of entitlement" that Sigaba is referring to, but I don't think it's unreasonable to want to have some say in our degree programs if we are going to spend 5-6 years of our life and potentially opportunity costs during our PhDs.

I was 21 when I started my master's degree, so I can relate to being the youngest person in a batch. I don't know how much use my advice may be, as a master's, rather than Ph.D. student, but I'll try anyway. First of all, congratulations on your acceptances. In my opinion, your age won't make a difference. It obviously didn't to the admissions commitees. Also, based on my experience, I don't think your social interactions with your peers would be altered at all due to your age. I imagine most people start their Ph.D. from 22-25 years of age, and it's not like you're 16 or something.

I see there have already been very thorough posts made in reply to your questions, so a lot of what I am about to say may be repetitive, but here goes.

Selecting a research topic: One suggestion is to try and choose a research topic which has reasonably wide appeal in the field that you intend to pursue your career in. You don't have to pursue a career in whatever you do your dissertation research on, but obviously it would be great when you apply for jobs if your dissertation fits with what your potential employers do. You have time to think about what you want to do after your Ph.D., whether you want to pursue academia or industry, etc., but try to give it a bit of thought.You don't want to pigeonhole yourself by working on an obscure topic which would be appreciated by only a few specialists in the field, and thus limit your job prospects. Picking a research project which would be of significant interest or importance to the field will also help in the short-term, as you'll have a wider pool of professors to choose from to comprise your dissertation committee. Don't be like me, doing a basic molecular biology thesis project despite being an engineering student, and having to scramble to find committee members from my department who have at least passing interest in what I do. Another very important thing is to select a doable project. It's easy to pick the most challenging project, thinking you have so much time to work on it, only to get inconclusive results and find yourself scrambling at the end. Even the best planned project may look great on paper, but when you actually go around to doing it, you can get all sorts of setbacks you had never foreseen. For example, stuff which had been working before can inexplicably stop working, such as genomic DNA purification kits, molecular cloning, and sequencing reactions (drawing from my own experience). You can find yourself spending a lot of time on troubleshooting simple problems for even the best thought-out projects, so don't stress yourself out by being too ambitious in your project choice. Obviously you don't want to do pedestrian, barely original research, but strike a balance. A possible approach would be to pick a high-risk, high-reward topic, but have a less glamorous, "safety net" project as backup. This is what developmental biologist Leonard Zon of Harvard advises his graduate students and post-doctoral researchers. I'm not saying don't pick an interesting project or be afraid of challenges, but be realistic as to what you can accomplish in the timeframe that you have, and have a Plan B if possible. And of course, the main thing is to choose a research topic which you have a passion for; you will likely be spending the next 4-6 years of your life working on this. If you will be doing lab work, laboratory rotations will be extremely important in this process. Three to four weeks of working in a lab will give you a sense of what life would be like working in a particular field or subfield.

Selecting an advisor: It goes without saying, but pick an advisor whom you can get along well with. Make sure it is a person you feel like you can communicate candidly with, and who will be candid with you. Again, you'll find out about the personalities and expectations of potential advisors during laboratory rotations. Some advisors expect you to be in the lab at certain times, some advisors could care less when you show up, as long as you get the work done. Some advisors are very hand-on, will provide a lot of advice and suggestions, others are more laissez-faire, and will give you a lot of autonomy. Think about whether you want a lot of flexibility in doing your project, or whether you want to be in a more structured environment. In general, established professors, who often have large labs, tend to let students sink or swim on their own; newer professors, who often have smaller labs, are probably more invested in your success or failure. On the other hand, well-established professors tend to have more resources and funding, and their recommendation will carry a bit more weight when you apply for post-doctoral positions. Also, one thing I would like to say is, don't be afraid to let your opinion be heard. Don't just agree with everything your advisor says. He or she may be the most eminent person in the field, but if you have a disagreement over how an experiment should be done, for example, make sure you voice your concerns.

Selecting a dissertation committee: I've only had experience in selecting a master's thesis committee, but I imagine it would translate to a selecting dissertation committee as well. It's important to select committee members who work well together. As in any workplace, there are people who get along well, and those that don't, so discuss your intended committee composition with your advisor before reaching out to potential committee members. I've personally not had to deal with any personality clashes with my committee members, but I would still say it's something to keep in mind. Also, try to include professors who are prominent in your field of interest. Don't think that a professor is too famous or too important to serve on your dissertation committee. I've heard that one physics Ph.D. student was hesitant to ask the eminent Richard Feynman to serve on his committee, but when he did ask, Feynman readily agreed. Apparently this was the first time someone had ever asked Feynman, because all the students were afraid to thus far. Imagine getting a job recommendation from the Feynman of your field! Having said that, make sure that your committee members are there for a valid reason; select committee members primarily based on the skills and expertise that they bring to the table. If you are doing an epigenetics study, it's far better that you pick the lesser-known expert in chromatin remodeling rather than the world-renowned leader in gold nanoparticles, to use an extreme example.

Interacting with faculty: Obviously, it is important that you should try and build strong relationships with the professors in your department. I'm sure you must have been good at that as an undergraduate, since you would have gotten strong recommendations for graduate school, so what I say may be superfluous to your requirements. I think it's more important, but at the same time easier, to interact with your professors in graduate school. In undergraduate, your main avenue for interaction is through office hours, and your grade in their class is mainly what shapes the professor's impression of you. In graduate school, you'll get to go through laboratory rotations with different professors, and the classes will be much more of the seminar variety, where you interact directly, discussing primary literature with the instructor and your classmates. In one of my graduate seminar courses,(headed by the DGS for the program), I, along with some other people, actively contributed to the class discussion throughout the semester. Others were mostly silent throughout, basically just showing up just for attendance. It didn't affect their grade, but the DGS expressed his disappointment that some people did not seem to show interest in the field that they had ostensibly chosen to pursue for their career. That's obviously not the best way to kick things off in a program you are planning to spend the next few years in. If you have strong relationships with your professors, when the time comes to pick your dissertation committee, get job recommendations, etc. it will be much easier.

Graduate work and studies: DO NOT feel that you have to give your dog away. I know plenty of Ph.D. students with dogs, and they do manage to find the time to spend with their pets. However, based on my experience, you'll have to be a bit flexible at times when it comes to your research, being prepared to work on nights or weekends if necessary. This is especially true if you'll be working in a lab. There will be periods where you need to get a lot of stuff done in a short period of time, but there will also be relative lulls, so be prepared to adjust your schedule accordingly. But you don't have to be in the lab 24/7. The most important factor is your time management. If you are organized and plan ahead, there's no reason why you can't do your research mostly in a 9-5 timespan. Some people do that, others, like me, are haphazard, and come at random times in the night to get work done. So definitely, as long as you manage time well, your life won't be swallowed up by research, and you can devote the time that you need to your dog. As far as coursework, I don't think you need to worry about it occupying an inordinate amount of time. The courses will be more advanced, but since you have been accepted into multiple Ph.D. programs, you are obviously smart enough and talented enough to handle it. The courses will be much more of the seminar-type, involving discussions of primary literature, and your exams will be testing your critical thinking more than requiring you to cough up book knowledge. You will have to do a ton of reading of journal articles for both your research and many of your courses, which of course can be done at home. It might take a bit of getting used to at first, especially since many articles are not exactly lucidly written. Unless you do absolutely atrociously in a course, you'll get A's and B's in your courses, so don't stress about grades too much. You're obviously intelligent, so as long as you put in an honest effort, you'll get your just reward; you don't have to put in superhuman time and effort to get good grades in your coursework.

Non-academic life: The following advice is not stuff which I follow myself (wish I did), but I think it is valid nonetheless. Do not let your graduate work consume your life. Yes, you will have to spend a lot of time and effort on your research and courses, but set a limit. Do not let it prevent you from having a social life, spending time with your dog, etc. If you are someone who wants to have the weekend off, manage your time wisely, as I said before. But if you do find yourself having to spend inordinate amounts of time, just stop, take a step back, and make sure you get your time off. Ph.D. is a marathon, not a sprint, so it's much more important to stay mentally fresh, both for your own sake, and the quality of work that you do. I don't have much of a social life, but that's not because I can't find the time; I'm just simply an insular person. I know Ph.D. students, and they do manage to have time to do stuff, like play intramural sports, spend time with friends, etc. Unlike in undergraduate, where you are focused on coursework, and your schedule is much more rigid, in graduate school, your time is much more flexible; you can make decisions on how to use your time, so you can structure it such that you can have a social life. Just be careful not to procrastinate, because that can come back to bite you. When it comes to friends, I suspect you will make good friends in your cohort, because it is a small group, and they will be going through many of the same experiences that you will be. You can also meet graduate students in other departments, often through mixers and events hosted by your graduate student organization. If you are into sports, you can also make new friends by meeting other people if you play your basketball, tennis, etc. at your school recreation center. And again, your age will definitely not be a problem when making friends, having a social life, etc.


This is about all I have for now, and if I think of anything else I feel is important, I'll post again. Best of luck with graduate school this fall!

Seems like you made your way from reddit!

I know you hold some reservations about marketing/business in general, but you have to realize that they share a surprising amount of overlap with psychology research. To be blunt, marketing is essentially separated into two main disciplines: quantitative marketing (economic modeling) and behavioral marketing (consumer psychology, JDM, etc.). Many marketing professors still publish very regularly in top psychology journals (JPSP, Psych Bulletin, etc.) and arguably two of the most influential marketing professors of our time were both classically trained in psychology before going on to marketing (Dan Ariely and John Lynch). Also, many successful applicants to behavioral marketing Ph.D. programs only hold a psychology degree and many don't have any econ/business coursework (I had 0 marketing/business courses under my belt, though I was a joint math/econ major). Your not being experienced in either shouldn't pose much of a problem for business Ph.D. admission if your numbers and research experience are up to par.

Aside from that, marketing programs have much more lucrative career prospects (2011 placement/starting salary report: http://docsig.org/WWW2011Final.pdf); industry consulting opportunities are much easier to obtain with a business doctorate; there's no post-doc before professorship; median time to completion for a Ph.D. is only 5 years; business-Ph.D. attrition rate is something like 20%; graduate financial package is quite generous ($32k/year fellowship at Kellogg, and higher at places like Stanford GSB); and there's the ability to be faculty in either or both marketing and psychology departments.

I don't mean to sound like some advertisement, but you should at least consider marketing programs.



As someone who was a double major in psychology and joint math/econ (and even got into a couple of econ Ph.D. programs this year), I couldn't disagree more. There are a handful of professors finally including bounded rationality/incomplete information to the microecon/game theory literature, but it still seems that the overwhelming majority of the discipline is still contentious of any psychology/JDM encroachment. I jumped ship to marketing because I still take a good amount of coursework with the econ students at NU and can direct my research which is more inclined to our psychology/marketing departments. Economics is great training for someone looking to model decision making dynamics, but the discipline lacks qualitative depth for my liking right now.



Booth actually seems to have mainly quantitative marketing faculty that due heavily focus on game theory/formal modeling. You're definitely spot on about Kellogg and Fuqua--both have a good number of faculty that have dual-positions in the marketing and psychology departments.

Hello Maria,
 
I apologize for no one replying to your comments.  It's not exactly application season yet, so most of the business phd forums aren't as active as during the academic year.
 
You may want to check out Urch Forums , where a lot more activity goes on for PhD in Business programs.  This site is usually mixed between MBA's and a handful of PhD's who stumble across this resource.
 
 
As for your post, do not ever sell yourself short for a PhD in business program.  First you have to decide on what exactly you would like to pursue your doctorate in.  If you enjoy research, then you might fit in here.  You need to differentiate between marketing and organizational behavior.  Both have some psych foundations, but the more you learn, the more you realize how little you know.  So at the completion of a doctorate, you have specialized into a very specific topic.  Also, I caution you that if you like analytics from the industry side, generally academic research is not data mining driven.
 
 
 
If you don't believe your stats and background is good enough, then take an year or so to prepare yourself so that those weaknesses aren't as bad.  The application process is like a big game of sales.  You need to emphasize your strengths and minimize your weaknesses.  Consider the perspective of the school.  In general, schools want to admit candidates that are the most likely (in their assessment) to complete the program.  Why else would they want to spend all the time and money to develop a doctoral student?  Next, out of the ones that have a relatively high probability (this is all based on what they feel are indicators of a strong student) to have a career where they will benefit the visibility of the group (i.e. the department).  This is done by publishing, successfully getting tenure, active in academic circles, etc.
 
Overall, there are a few key things adcoms look for:
 
1) GPA and GMAT (or GRE) scores.  Before a student moves on to start developing their own research areas, they have to get through coursework first.  Business PhDs may not be out to "fail" you, however you need to pass the coursework years.  Note that a great GPA cannot compensate for a low GMAT score, however a high GMAT score can help with a low GPA.
 
2) Letters of Rec (LOR) and Statement of Purpose (SOP).  These are invaluable.  Once the academic scores generally point in the direction of a successful student, a LOR helps portray how well your recommenders support your ability to conduct research.  Every letter is generally going to have elements such as "hard work", "has potential", "good grades", and/or "i fully support them".  Why would you get a letter from anyone else?  The trick for a great letter is your relationships with your letter writer (how well they know you, how much you have worked with them, how much you have discussed your goals and the steps you have taken to get there).
 
The SOP gives the adcom two pieces of information.  1) your writing ability (can you write a coherent and persuasive essay highlighting why you want to do this) and 2) a feel for how serious you are about a doctoral program.  PhDs are not to be taken lightly, and every school has experienced a number of students who thought it would be a great credential on their resume, but find out that it is VERY different then just a higher level MBA degree.
 
3) if you have any potential research experience that would demonstrate your interest and ability to conduct research.
 
 
 
To my understand, this is generally the order that adcoms consider applications.  If you cannot change an area of it (like ugrad gpa) then stop worrying about it.  If you can do others, i.e. gain some research experience, high test score, etc., then work on those to strengthen your application.
 
Just like in marketing, you should aim to be in the "short-stack".  If you cannot compete with those perfect GPA, perfect test scores, academic super-star students, then your application needs to stand out in a different way: perhaps you are SURE this is the career you would like.  You should focus on this and be able to eloquently communicate how you can to this decision, and why.
 
Prior academic success only points to a student more likely to pass the coursework years.  Of course, you have to pass the first years before you can even successfully complete a PhD.  HOWEVER, at the end of the day, it is the ability to grind it out and mentally endure the grueling journey of a doctorate that gets you to the end.  Some of the most academically capable student fall apart in the latter years.
 
 
Well, there's my essay to you. Feel free to message me if you have an other questions.  Best of luck with your decision.

I agree with TakeruK. Apply for every position that interests you and leave the deciding until you actually have an offer in hand. That's when you can dither about whether or not to leave.
I left academia for industry in 2015, after six years doing my PhD and one year completing a postdoc. My PhD is in social psychology and public health; I went into user experience research in technology at a large technology company. I've posted elsewhere in greater detail about why I left, but the bottom line is that I love my job and I have exactly zero regrets about leaving academia. The academic lifestyle and job duties did not suit me - but I still do love research. Now I just get to do research all the time and apply that to strategic decision-making and product design in technology.
You get over the socialization that academia is the only worthwhile pursuit after a while. Initially I was concerned about what my faculty mentors would think; I thought they would disdain me for throwing away a promising start to an academic career to go into industry. Then I realized it was my life and I didn't care what they thought. (And honestly, the vast majority of them were pretty positive, or at least neutral, about the career change.)
I wouldn't say that my work environment is anything like academia, and I actually work on a team of PhDs who all came from academia (mostly postdocs, a few straight from grad school, one or two from faculty positions). But I do agree that most of the aspects that excited me about academic research are still present in my industry research position. I just have to work a lot faster, write a lot more concisely, and spend most of my time convincing developers with no background in social science rather than other PhDs (which, quite frankly, is far more fun). Also meetings. So many meetings. But faculty members have lots of those too. And I don't have to write scientific journal articles, which is more than enough for me.

I work in industry as well.
You need to show that you have broad, generalizable research skills. The way to do that is to get involved in a variety of projects that showcase your skills. One thing I did was statistical consulting, which allowed me to work with researchers across many different fields, most of which were unrelated to my own. I wrote about this in my cover letter as evidence of being able to apply my skills to a variety of different areas. You can also co-author papers with people who are not in your narrow area or start a side project that's tangentially related to your major area.
As for the skillset - you can take classes or workshops that help you learn in-demand skills, even if you think you won't use them in academia. Maybe you can develop a secondary specialization or "minor." Does your university have concurrent MAs you can complete in useful areas, like statistics? Something like that could help too.

Uhm... any reason of why you didn't consider publishing them? Or polishing them a little before publishing them?
I mean, I kind of feel someone could very well stumble on your blog, read one of your papers and think "oh wow, that's a good idea. I think I'll do a better version of it and publish it!" 

I second the RA position. However, I would consider working for at least 2 years before applying again. The reason for this is you will have more time before applications to actually make a name for yourself in the lab/ get publications & presentations on your resume before applying. If you work a year, you would be reapplying in fall of this year which would not give you much time to gain experience. 
Obviously, the decision is entirely up to you. I am coming from my own experience of applying one year out of undergraduate and I have worked full-time since May (though volunteered in the same lab for a year before). I really REALLY wish I had taken another year. I realized during this process that I didn't have a super clear idea of what I wanted to research and I'm still waiting on pubs/presentations. I spent much of my time focusing and worrying about applications that I didn't delve into my own research and now I feel behind others that took multiple years to really focus on their work. 
Take time, save money, learn about yourself, get happy with your life outside of academia, grow as a person, and then apply again.

Those are all really good ideas. Especially planning networking, extracurriculars and checking our current student CVs! I found this post that has an example:
http://theprofessorisin.com/2014/05/09/in-response-to-popular-demand-more-on-the-5-year-plan/
i think I'll get on the ball and create a rough outline and then talk to my current mentor for ideas and then present it to my new advisor once the semester starts to get it tailored to my program. 

Thanks for the tip, eternallyephemeral. I will definitely pass on the message. This is great news!
I think the idea is to get out of counselling entirely, even anything that is remotely related to it. But the pharmaceutical industry is a good idea. I hope there are some small companies in Canada too and they're not all located in the US and europe.
I may also suggest looking for jobs requiring a PhD in gerontology (rather than psychology). This might be a good way to use that geriatric expertise and explore other avenues in case the pharmaceutical idea doesn't pan out.

As I have wrote elsewhere on these forums, I agree that the PhD should not be viewed only as an avenue for a specific line of work, if that specific line of work is a tenure track professor position. Statistically, we create way more PhDs than there are positions. Instead, as you wrote, I view the PhD as training in a set of useful skills that can lead to a multitude of careers which require these skills. Therefore, I think it only makes sense that a student pursues a PhD if they know that the training from this degree will help them achieve their career goals, whatever those may be.
However, I disagree with the sentiment that a PhD "allows a person to study and contribute to a particular field of inquiry". Well, to clarify, I disagree with this view as the "primary" or "main" focus of a PhD! The PhD should do this but the school should also ensure their students are developing transferable skills. In this sense, I do view the PhD as vocational training or like a "professional school". I believe that the University has a ethical responsibility to ensure their graduates are employable and to provide resources to non-academic career paths, to ensure the degree requirements don't interfere with a student's ability to make themselves employable elsewhere etc.
What do you mean by "Get a PhD for free?". I would never spend money or go into debt for a PhD. In my field, we are "fully funded" which means that we do not pay any tuition or fees and we get paid a stipend for our work (not a ton of money but enough to live on). However, this is a big cost to me, because most PhD students in my field can earn a lot more money if they were not PhD students. In terms of this opportunity cost, I think most students lose out on $10,000 to $20,000 per year. For a 5 year degree, this is up to $100,000, but also 5 years of raises, and 5 years of experience. This is a lot of money over a working lifetime, especially since missing something like 2% raise for 5 years adds up to a lot over 30-40 years of working. Of course, after getting a PhD, I should be employable at a much higher level, and when I made the decision, I decided that there was some risk but that it would be worth it. I would be better off financially and with a better chance at career satisfaction if I had a PhD vs. a Masters degree (In Canada, Masters are also fully funded). 
So, I would say that no, it's never worth the time/money getting a PhD if you don't see any job prospects for you (not necessarily just in the field). I think a PhD is such a big financial risk that I would never go into a program without clear career goals and a clear path of how to achieve them after you graduate. 
To increase your marketability for non-academic jobs? This really depends on what you want to do outside of the academy! My advice is to keep your options open and pay attention to career center events on your campus. My school regularly hosts seminars where they invite recruiters from various sectors to come and talk about what it's like to work in their field. You don't get to hear very much outside of academia, so attending these events taught me a lot about what the options out there really were. As you learn about these other options, you should develop the skills that allow you to pursue these options. Also, a lot of the time, it's not necessarily learning new skills but how to "translate" your academic skills into the jargon that your desired career path uses, so that you can "speak their language". 
I was pretty vague in the above paragraph since I wanted it to be applicable to a wide range of career paths. Currently, I am also interested in data analyst/data science type positions. I am learning how to describe the computational aspects of my research into the methods that companies like Amazon or Facebook would use to describe their work. I am learning some additional skills to round out the computational stuff I just picked up as part of research so that I would have a stronger foundation. I am also learning about the process of hiring in these fields, e.g. how to prepare for that type of interview etc.
I'm currently in my last year of my PhD and I'm applying to jobs. At this point, I've only applied to academic ones (postdocs) because the postdoc job cycle happens a lot earlier. Non-academic jobs have much shorter turn around times and I may be applying to those later this year, depending on how the postdoc cycle goes.

I think you should go for the TT position because I think you should go for every position you have a shot at and have some interest in. It's the committee's job to decide whether or not you can make it, so you don't need to reject yourself.
I also think you should continue to pursue your interests in industry. I think you should read some blogs by data scientists who were PhD graduates and maybe reach out to some people you might know in order to conduct "informational interviews". Learn more about what data science really is like. I've been looking into this field a bit and I actually find that it's a lot more like academic research than I had originally thought. Obviously, it's not the same, but for me, personally, most of the aspects that excite me about academic research are still present in a data science position. The one thing I notice that is common across almost every single person I talk to who got a PhD and went into data science: they don't regret it at all and are very happy with their choice.

Here are some things on my five year plan, 6 months in:
- various financial goals around saving and investing; anyone can ask if they're interested
- get more involved with spreading info about science, specifically through the events people email me regarding science days at middle schools, judging undergrad research competitions, etc
- create and implement lasting change as the grad advisor to our undergrad journal
- start studying for comps early to spread out the work
- increase responsibility at work by coming into the office more, which means rearranging my schedule and being really good at time management
- finish writing my masters thesis early; I'm already ahead with the proposal, so writing the thesis may just involve modifying the proposal - how much is the bigger question
- finish outlining some PhD project ideas this year to bring a formative proposal to my advisor
- follow up on some potential collaborations with another faculty
- get involved with our school's management consulting group to prepare for industry applications
- wrap up undergrad-related work and get it off my plate
- stay healthy, which has been easy to do with food (relatively) but much harder with a more sedentary lifestyle and with living too far to walk to school
This was super helpful for me, just writing all these things down. I'd recommend everyone else consider doing this as well!

First of all, this whole dating undergrads goal you have is a disaster waiting to happen. I'm not saying you are going to intentionally try to have some sort of skewed power dynamic, but that's what you're describing. You have to be very careful about this (and I would say don't do it at all), because you are older, you are in a position of authority over undergraduates, and it's possible that your goals in this relationship would be very damaging to the trust and open communication you should have in a relationship.
 
As well, your assumption that someone who isn't familiar with the "male body" and has some kind of "otherworldly fascination" with all things new and sexual is wrong as well. Many guys I've spoken to have some form of insecurity or jealousy when it comes to sex. Some even go so far as to not date women that have had sex with other people, even after they themselves are not virgins (I guess this is what you're saying?). Now this is completely hypocritical, I hope you realize.
 
It's also not necessary that someone have no experience for them to be attracted to you, to have some kind of childlike wonder (a really creepy term to use in this discussion), or to feel some exciting crush with butterflies in your stomach and all that. I feel that about my boyfriend of 2.5 years, and it's nowhere near the first relationship I've had.
 
"Interestingly, quite a few girls that have been interested in me have been like 180 degrees from that, like having almost exaggeratedly grown-up-womanish features. Grad school for some weird and inexplicable reason seems to attract these sorts of women too--except for the Asians. I know this is extreme stereotyping but it's something I notice, especially when I compare them to the undergrads at the same university.
I also fear that the type I mentioned in the beginning--the ones who find the idea of having a boyfriend almost "mythical", are likely to be hideous and/or have really ugly personalities. In one way it kind of makes sense--why would I be the first guy to like a girl--though on the other hand my lack of dating has had to do with introversion and illness--two things that have nothing to do with my attractiveness per se. A female counterpart of me might have just been late to "get the memo" that people around her had started dating."
1. I can't believe people in grad school (who are generally older) look older than people in undergrad (who are generally younger). It's not extreme stereotyping (except the Asian part), it's just how aging changes your face.
2. This theory you have about finding relationships "mythical" and being "hideous and/or really ugly in their personality" is absolutely wrong. There are many people who are very attractive (in looks and personality, if this is the only requirement) who have not had relationships before. You don't know what experiences they have had, and again you're falling prey to this fallacy that you're so special and no one else has experienced this before. You touch on this point, but you don't seem to recognize that it's completely wrong. As well, people can be unattractive to YOU, while being attractive to others. You can also have a relationship, even if you are unattractive. Your constant talk about women's looks, their inexperience, and how special you want to be to them just reeks of unstable and insecure masculinity.
 
 
"I think I kind of had four things that I listed as important in a partner:
1) Someone who is new to relationships, like myself, and wants a more childlike and playful relationship
2) Someone who is introverted and intellectual, but not a rival/in the same field
3) Someone I find physically and emotionally (in terms of "raw" mannerisms and the like) attractive to me
4) Someone who fits, logistically and practically speaking, into my life."
1. For you two to be compatible, you need not have the same level of experience. If it's a good relationship, it's childlike and playful (if that's what the two people want). You mentioned not wanting to be so professional and serious in your relationship. Well I'm here to tell you that it's possible - relationships are not like going to an academic talk. They're fun, you can laugh and play and run around and go on the swings and act like kids and no one should judge you. Even if you're in a relationship with someone who has been in a relationship before. My most childlike and playful relationship is my current one, technically eight years after my first (middle-school type) relationship and four years after my more serious first relationship.
2. Your concern about the person being a rival shows me that you are still a bit confused about how relationships work. Or you're very insecure about competing with people. Either way, this needs to be dealt with before you get into any kind of relationship. If not, this will all be raising some serious red flags for the people you're dating. If it doesn't raise serious red flags for them, I would be surprised.
3. This is very important. However, you can not limit yourself, and don't think your level of attraction to the person when you first meet will be related to how attracted you are to them later on. Things really change as a relationship develops, and for me the best relationships where my attraction got stronger were never the ones in which I was most attracted to the person at the beginning. Because then you can only go down from there!
4. I agree with this. This is absolutely important as well. I strongly believe that most undergraduates would not meet this.
 
So generally, please, please don't start dating until you've dealt with these personal issues and these dangerous misconceptions about women, relationships, and compatibility. All I see coming out of this if you start dating without facing and eliminating these issues is a dangerously power imbalanced relationship where you unknowingly end up taking advantage of the other person, all the while trying to stay special/important to them. And that will not be good.

Hi, mtjamieson! Welcome to our (very little) corner. If you're looking at east coast schools, you may find that many of the schools only do combined master's-PhD programs. Don't be scared off from that - you can definitely still go into industry with a PhD. Plus, you're a lot more likely to find funding in a PhD program than in a master's program. If you do see a school that supposedly offers a terminal master's, do some digging and find out if the program is actually active. 

Your parents actually sound funny  Parents can indeed be so weird!!
My mom always had this thing for telling me "you should go to the States, universities are so good there, it's now or never blah blah" and then every time I wanted to go and I needed help figuring stuff out, she would say how complicated it is to go to school and funding and stuff  And then I would get angry, and once again later when she would do the same thing of asking me why I didn't want to leave!!! Aaaaaaaa!!!
Anyway--when I was going to move to Paris, she told me several times that everybody she knew who had been to Paris hated it and came back. Then it hit me and I replied: So, those who loved it and stayed aren't there to tell you they like it, right?  "I was hoping you wouldn't figure that out!" Took me some time...
I guess the message is: they're always worried about everything and doubt everything too much, like any philosopher has to do. Our role in this is to try and stay calm in the face of contradiction and irrationality! 

@orphic_mel528, I'm out of reputation, but I wanted to say how sorry I am that someone you've known for so long would take that kind of tact. So often it seems to me that people on the outside of academic work have a set of responses, as though they're reading directly from a script, when talking about the academy, no matter the circumstances. It's rather bizarre, to me, that there is such a widespread assumption that academic work isn't or can't be real work, even as more and more people go to college and press their own children likewise to go to college, something that would be impossible were it not for those willing to get PhDs. The current higher educational system relies on people getting PhDs, and yet somehow it is shameful to do so? It's something I certainly don't understand.
 
On the other hand, my father--a high school dropout who's worked with his hands his entire life (although he also does IT work sans degree)--remains completely baffled that he doesn't have to come up with money to put me through a PhD program. I've tried explaining several times that I only really applied to programs that would waive tuition and give me a stipend, but he remains worried about the debt he believes I will certainly accrue. People's assumptions re: academia are really strange.

For anyone reading this in 2017, the overwhelming answer is no. That amount of loans would only be worth it if you were considering an MD as a Psychiatrist and also wanted to add a PhD. Unless you got a grantor to sponsor you so that the loan would almost be interest free - and place you in a job with a under-served community.

I don't have much else to add that others haven't already said. As already stated, at most places the GRE is used as a way to winnow down the number of applications. Unless you are scoring perfect or near perfect it probably won't help too much, although a below average score will hurt your chances. 
You can definitely improve your GRE score with practice and study, perhaps as much as a standard deviation or more. There are tons of resources out there that can help you achieve a good-enough score. My favorites include Magoosh, Khan Academy, the Manhattan 5 lb Book of Practice Problems, and all of the official review books and practice tests produced by ETS. Good luck! 

Do NOT do that! 

Hey Mike, to be blunt - your 7 years of mental health work experience will not get you very far in I/O. In fact, I would say a 22 year old with a higher GRE score may have a better shot. Don't rely on just your work experience - make sure you emphasize your interest in I/O and why you would be a great fit for the program(s) in your personal statement. 

The mental health work experience isn't directly relevant to an I/O program, so I wouldn't emphasize it in a personal statement unless it somehow links to what you want to do with this degree. GREs and GPA are often used as the "gateway" to consideration, meaning that they won't guarantee you an admit, but they can keep you out. However, no one here can definitively say that you do or do not have a chance. The only way to know is to apply and gear your application toward your strengths for I/O. And don't cut down others for having less experience - its your fit and potential for a program that will have the greatest impact. 

I think it's way too variable to try to separate out some pattern.. some programs already mostly know who they want, but they just want to weed out any potential crazies, so it's mostly just to make sure your personality isn't impossible to work with. Some programs I've heard are really tough in interviews, grilling people on their study ideas, and those I'd assume put more stock in interview performance. You'd probably be better off directly asking their current grad students how they typically weight variables when making decisions.