higaisha

So she didn't offer to take you to Syracuse with her? I think when it comes to faculty moving, students can be offered the choice to move with their advisor or not--I don't think they have to reapply. Maybe you missed out because of the timing (you are incoming but havent officially started)--either way this is pretty unfortunate timing/news, sorry to hear it.

Your NIH post-bacc seems pretty desirable, I know a lot of clin science programs are embracing people with bio backgrounds bc of the need for translational research. I think your grades are a bigger problem than your major; that said, there's definite strengths and weaknesses to your application. 'Marketing' yourself effectively in light of this, and finding a strong research fit might make the difference between being admitted or not in your case. If you find a PI who's doing really biological work, your background might overshadow weaker grades/coursework--who knows, admissions is a guessing game after all.

Canadians aren't eligible for NSF. Basically, the only hope of external funding we can bring are the foreign CIHR one and I think a SSHRC that can be held outside of Canada. Fulbright is also an option to apply for. There's probably a few more area-specific funding things that aren't tied to a certain citizenship. External funding is rare in the states whereas its kind of essential here, but it definitely helps as mentioned^

Canada is as hard as the states and generally harder to get into as an international than the states, but canada generally calculates GPA from last two years. I think a terminal masters from the states might be helpful.

that 1 professor may 1) have a full/busy lab 2) be someone you don't get along with 3) have a research program thats changing from your current interest 4) may not be taking a student 5) may not be taking you...there's hundreds of people that apply. Banking an important decision on a bunch of possible events doesn't really make sense, unless you have established contact with them in advance and otherwise know at the least they want to work with you. Even then, its not certain. Columbia's program seems eeeh..like, the head of the MA program isn't even a full-time faculty...it does seem cashcow-ish. I think viewing Columbia's program through rose-tinted glasses might interfere with making the best possible decision.

I think you answered your own question--if its "somewhat related", its worth the investment. What you described has relevance on a lot of clinical topics, seems like a no-brainer--but only if you have the means. Money spent on a conference is basically never wasted (extra apps though...thats questionable )

Agreed, I wouldn't fear "burned bridges" so much as being stuck in a program for several years of your life where you're unhappy/anxious about career prospects. Every field is small, sure, but I think the people spinning this 'blackball' scenario are making the situation far more dire than it is. Yes its a bad scenario should you back out now, but pretty sure PIs have bigger things to worry about than spending their careers and time punishing a student for making a medium-sized mistake. Maybe switching subfields may be a better idea to avoid all the hullaballoo.

I don't think a rewrite would hurt. I'm at 157/153 so I definitely am in dire need of a rewrite lol. 80/70th p seems like a soft cut off for schools that I'm looking at, so if I cant get 160/160 I'd have to change around my school list a lot.

I think 160/160/5 is a good score anywhere, I'm gonna try to shoot for that (may be impossible for math LOOLOLOL we'll see)

Qualitatively, I think NIMH is a bit more formulaic, especially with their RDoC initiative, which gives investigators a general idea of what to lay out. From what I've seen in clinical psych, a certain 'group' of researchers in the states, mainly people who are involved in translational work may be more likely to hold the bulk of the research $$$. Not sure if thats the case for CIHR, because it seems pretty spread out across institutions. Would love to learn more! Ehhh, the pendulum of funding swings with politics, recent elections in both countries means nothing is certain and recent policies might get cut in transitions.

pending GRE rewrite, got 15 or so schools on my hitlist

Thats also a big deal, some programs don't accept internationals because they'd likely have to fund them themselves for at least a portion of their graduate schooling. This is also the case at the doctoral level for federal funding, but some provincial awards are open to internationals. External funding seems like more of a cherry on the cake rather than a necessity in the US, because some schools do have endowments or more money set aside to guarantee funding, and stuff like NSF is pretty rare (from what I've seen). It seems to be easier to be an international in a phd program in the states than in canada, but I could be wrong.

Perspectives from a Canadian who's applying to Canada and the states 1) There are less opportunities, simply because there is less people compared to the states. There's still lots of demand for clinical psychologists 2) For licensure, most schools will prepare you for that province/state's licensure, with some states' requirements overlapping. Its not too different from the states. I think its best for you to keep the requirements of where you want to practice in mind as you complete your degree. There's equivalency between APA/CPA, but each country does prefer there own students for internship esp in light of current politics (hopefully will change). 3) Canada isn't all that research focused compared to the states for a lot of reasons. I think because there's less people, PIs really have to fight for external funding which can be unpredictable. There's a lot of possibility for students to be externally funded because schools are public and the govn sets aside a lot for funding for graduate students, but the pool dwindles as you get more senior in your career. It isn't really the case here that PIs will have like, multiple ongoing grants from NIMH. That is rare in clinical psych here, so doing research as your only gig is a bit challenging here. So generally low funds and not many TT posts takes the incentive out of focusing on pumping out research-focused graduates, so programs will generally focus on having more well-rounded scientist-practioner types. 4) UBC has a focus on training researchers, so regardless of the country-wide culture, their graduates have gone onto research careers and are an excellent choice if you like research (seems the clinical training is great too but didn't interview there). Not an expert on any of these, would love to learn more from people who did their training in the 'opposite' country. I love Canada, but I want to go to the US for the super research-y schools.

scroll up on the thread, two sites are listed by OP.

First time round right out of undergrad, rejected from all but interviewed at 2/5 so I'm okay with it. Currently looking for full time work, will continue on in research and try again this year or next (will also re-write GRE cuz that was a mess). We got this, taking extra time (even if involuntary) will make us more competitive next round!

Ooo excited for when schools put their new faculty announcements up this summer, pretty much all the schools in Toronto were hiring this past year. Saw some job talks, wonder who went where.

Congrats!! Nice success story to read about

(This mainly goes out to people who buy into the politics/drama around accreditation and clinical psychology PhD training) Here's a bunch of questions. How big did training model and scientific orientation fit into your choice to apply to/accept an offer from a program? Within your program, do you find the relative emphasis on either science or practice comes at the expense of the other (mainly interested in clinical training quality at research-intensive schools)? How does the theoretical orientation of the program align with your career goals? It seems accreditation (at least in the US) has become more politicized recently, with some PCSAS schools declaring that they may not seek APA accreditation if it doesn't match their training standards and their students get equal opportunities for internships and the such. There's a lot of different opinions on how to best train clinical psychologists, and frankly, its a pretty interesting debate. I went to a scientist-practioner school for my undergrad, and while that's not representative of PhD training, I found the clinical department was lax on research productivity, with some exceptions. I'm aiming to apply to only PCSAS-accredited programs (bar a few), and I'm wondering what the general atmosphere is like in programs emphasizing the science of clinical psychology. My goal is to pursue a TT position but I understand things are subject to change, and while PCSAS schools sound like the best option for that, I would love to learn more about whether theoretical orientation plays as big of a role in training as recent controversies suggest. Spare the obvious "uhh just publish as much as you can","it depends on your PI and school durrr" ;)

Unrelated but your supervisor's stuff sounds super cool

Queens and Western LOOLLL the pain it burns. Conspiracy--they made their rankings lists and once psych got official rejections out they passed that onto the awards people and chopped the people who weren't accepted/waitlisted so we couldn't hold the awards and troll (decisions officially sent in as of end-of-march). Seems the only chance of having an award without an acceptance is if you were waitlisted/final short list...SIGH!!

2 rejections still waiting on UBC because they're not in yet

CGS-M portal is down and has been since 8 *facepalm*. Is doctoral out today too? Govn site has crashed LOL

Depends on the PI and their values as well, not all want to take their own students, and some will explicitly state so. If you're in some niche field where your skillset is hard to come across and your PI has basically trained you to work in their lab as a graduate student, of course they would want to take you, which is what you might be familiar with. More popular people in more popular fields have less of a problem finding qualified people to carry on their research, so I would think they have the least incentive to take on their own students. Might've been the case here.

Pretty sure with online forms, writing out your full name is an equivalent to signing (unless specified otherwise).

Just got the official email from CRSNG, they got it down to the hour--hype hype hype lol "The results of the 2019 CGS M Competition will be available to applicants in the Research Portal starting April 1, 2019 at 8:00 a.m. (ET)"