Psyche007

Just so you know where I'm coming from: I'm a student who has participated in group interviews for clinical psychology Ph.D. applicants. I'm a mentor for incoming first years as well as for potential grad students through the APA mentorship programme. I'm not an expert, but like everyone else, I have an opinion. I tend to favourably rate interviewees who can speak thoughtfully about their area of interest and certain trends in psychology overall. Interviewees who restate all their previous accomplishments and/or name drop, appear disinterested by not participating beyond promoting themselves, or act as if the programme would be lucky to be graced with their presence don't come across well. They don't seem like students that people might want to be around, even if they are highly accomplished. It communicates a lack of maturity. Don't hide who you are. Don't act as you think they want you to act. Relax as much as you can. Be a fully present and developed person. You're more than just your work and interest in psychology. Respond to other students with grace and curiosity. Remember, you need to know if you'll enjoy being yourself around them as much as (if not more than) they want to know if they want to be around you.

For me, that's next year along with dissertation. Oof. I hope it went well for you. How did you go about shortlisting your sites? Were all your interviews virtual?

Yes, I am all for that! I don't hold a narrow scope of all young PhDs and you can't discredit lived experience. I'm not sure how you read "I've been around a few graduate students under 23 who have struggled massively..." as a blanket statement of "I think all young grad students are less prepared and less mature". I do think there are young grad students who are autonomous, challenging, and highly engaged and I think they're the ones that should be in grad school. Perhaps you are one of them. I appreciate that you don't think of yourself or other grad students as being sheltered or working on an academic reputation, but how would someone know if they were? If students are taught that certain activities are intrinsically part of grad school, what would they look for to know? You have self-admittedly spent the majority of your life in school. You've been able to earn 2 Bachelor's degrees and spend time volunteering in labs. If you've done that while working full time jobs to support yourself, then indeed, I salute and admire your tenacity and hard work because it is clearly impressive. It also looks as though you spent time developing yourself personally, something I always bang on about. But you are *not* the average grad student, just as I am not. I'm not just 7 years older than you. I'm 45. I'm older than most of my professors. I have spent more of my life outside of academia than inside it. I earned my first BS in about 3 years while raising my daughter and working full time and walked away from the idea of grad school for psychology because what I saw and learned demonstrated that academia is largely broken. I earned my second BS in 2 years in order to pursue medicine. But I felt that psychology could be saved, so I decided to go in to try and make changes, which means my perspective has been different from day one. I don't hold anyone's background against them. None of us control the circumstances of our birth. There is an attitude that exists, and you see it clearly on display on Grad Cafe, of elitism, snobbery, and disapproval. If you came here knowing nothing about the logistics of academia (like I did) you'd leave thinking the only way to get in is to be early 20s, with several pubs, a high GPA, and tonnes of lab experience. I'm generally contemptuous of that position and hang out here to offer a counterpoint. I came here looking for help, as I was in the first in my family to go to college and I am an immigrant. I read thread after thread on this board before applying and felt like there was no way in hell I'd ever be accepted to grad school. I didn't see myself represented, which I understand is an important element of encouraging non-traditional or diverse individuals to participate. Applying to a single programme and getting in first time taught me something, and my time spent as a grad student has taught me even more about the process and reality of it, so I stick around to offer support to those who show up and feel discouraged.

I've been around a few graduate students under 23 who have struggled massively with the workload, responsibility, and maturity required to engage and be successful. I have had to ask myself serious questions as to what made them suitable for acceptance. The more unprepared students allowed into a programme, the more the programme becomes diluted in terms of complexity and intellectual demand and concentrated in terms of quantity of work. I've encountered a fair amount of basic busy work and my classes are largely unrewarding, but perhaps that is demonstrative of my programme, even though friends at other programmes say their experience is very similar. I think that students are better prepared for grad school if they've lived and worked in the real world for a while. You get to see how much of grad school is self-important posturing. It's interesting how sheltered individuals are who have spent their lives in academia. It is a rich and fertile ground for nurturing narcissism, encouraging obsession with politics and reputation, taking yourself super seriously, and doing things for the sake of establishing a career instead of contributing to the field, something I see as the essence of any doctoral programme. It's easier to get along with faculty when you are 'non-traditional'. Many seem pleasantly surprised and refreshed by a student who is autonomous, challenging, and highly engaged. Then there are some who just want you to be quiet and do as you're told. It's clear that they're very accustomed to dealing with children but not other adults. But hey, I didn't start undergrad until 30, so my experience has been different the entire journey.

There's a big difference between starting at 30 and starting over 40 or 50. Looks a little ageist to me... ?

Ooof. Good taste on your part. Bad look for the interviewers ? HGTTG is widely considered a classic work of fiction. Not knowing it is fine; reacting the way they did is disconcerting. Well, I say that, but then there seems to be a considerable quantity of research-focused clinical psychologists whose interpersonal skills are wanting.

I graduated with my 1st BS (Applied Psych) around age 34, 2nd BS age 38 (Health Science), started clin psych PhD at 42. I think getting a 2 year placement would be great before grad school. If you can supplement with some clinical work and develop yourself with outside interests, reading a wide variety of topics outside of psychology, the chance of you really standing out as an applicant is good.

Can you summarize your research experience into a one or two principles you're observed, learned from, and applied elsewhere? It's a great opportunity to show how you can summarize data into useful and generalizable information. They're going to read your resume, which I imagine will include all the minutiae of your experiences, so I'd avoid repeating anything in your statement that reviewers can find elsewhere. The statement is an opportunity to say something that you can't say elsewhere, something that makes them want to meet you.

For the sake of transparency, it was not a relevant factor for me. I had no formal research experience when I applied. I would look at activities that broaden your world perspective and deepen your character and maturity. Work on being a real thinker, someone who reads and contemplates things deeply to generate meaningful insight. While research experience may be important, the students I am surrounded by that have prior pubs and research experience are ambitious and motivated but don't display any enthusiasm for the process of science. I get the impression that research experience tells a PI what you're willing to do to produce and how invested in the game of academia you are. My TA experiences tell me that students see this as churning out work to fill a resume to jump-start their career. Then again, I'm probably a cynic. So, get research experience to find out if you're interested in producing research in an academic environment but do not neglect personal development. Many people on here stress research experience strongly, but rarely do I hear any suggestion on personal and professional development. YMMV.

My three letters of rec: two PsyDs (a colleague who went to my uni and a professor/employer) and one Microbiology PhD (professor). So technically, the answer is yes.

Good for you! You have much to offer. I'm about to be a 3rd year and I'm 44, haha. Word to the wise: don't look to the majority of your peers for support. They just won't get it. It's not their fault. Make a concerted effort to reach out, network, meet like-minded people with similar life experience. You will probably be on a different developmental level, although there may be some exceptionally mature young people that can relate to you and vice versa.

You could look at Brochu, a social psychgoligist that's part of the faculty in the Clinical Psych dept for PsyD and PhD: https://psychology.nova.edu/faculty/profile/brochu.html However, NSU doesn't offer tuition waiver or stipend, so it's frequently dismissed as a valid option, which I can appreciate.

As I have posted elsewhere, the removal of the GRE will increase the number of unqualified applicants far more than qualified ones. The actual competition you might face probably won't be too much different, but it will be harder to differentiate yourself from the herd. Study for and take the damn GRE anyway and submit if you score well. The quality of your personal statement will come into play. Unless you know your writing is strong, practice writing. Write anything: a poem, an article, a monologue about your favourite pet, whatever. Practice editing. Leave it alone for a few days and come back to it. Play with styles. Think about who you are and what you want to communicate to without spelling it out. Show, don't tell. Craft an engaging and persuasive personal story. I enjoy mentoring and for whatever it's worth, I'm happy to answer DMs for potential applicants or give feedback on statement, time permitting. Do I know everything? Nope. Does everyone agree with my perception of what to work on? Nope. All I can say is that I'm happy to give an honest and thoughtful answer to any question I'm given. I had no guidance whatsoever for my own process, so I appreciate how lonely, confusing, and discouraging it can be. I'd like to help make it better.

This is why the removal of the GRE has an negative effect for individuals who, for a variety of legitimate reasons, haven't been able to accrue the types of experience you talk about. As long as the GRE submission remains an option, that's fine. The grad school process of turning students into indiscriminant publication workhorses is damaging academia in general. The emphasis on quantity over quality is especially prevalent in the social sciences. Taking students fresh from undergrad and putting them into this environment perpetuates this issue. Spending time in the workforce can make one far less tolerant of this type of malarkey. Most academics I speak to acknowledge this issue but feel powerless to make changes, so it has to be generational change at the applicant level.

Being outward focused is great and all, but don't neglect the inward focus. One thing you can always do is read. Read from a variety of sources (classic lit, philosophy, anything outside of psych). Be able to articulate your ideas, not just the knowledge you've accumulated from others, develop your vocabulary and view of the world. Examine the position of your rival theorists. Be able to explain the opposition to your work as well as or better than your 'opponents'. I have met with a few applicants who are very experienced and polished. The ones who stand out communicate original thought or perspectives. Try and get some honest feedback on how people perceive your intellectual and emotional development. Safest place for that is therapy, but failing that, find someone you trust who is interested in your professional development that isn't a risk of souring a personal relationship. This topic comes up time and time again in discussion with faculty regarding the quality of applicants.