Psyche007

A bunch of us applicants from last cycle started a discord to discuss various aspect of the process; I'll drop a link here if anyone is interested.
https://discord.gg/89KAgeTS

I’m starting grad school this Fall semester at 40 ?

I'm a young 42 and have no formal research experience. I completed an independent research project and numerous class research projects during undergrad (in psychology and microbiology), but I imagine everyone does those. Worked in the field for several years in multiple positions. First time applying, applied to a single programme. My POI hasn't told me exactly why he selected me, but I have an idea.
My situation doesn't appear to be at all typical in comparison to the people that frequent these forums, but I'm completely fine with it.

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.

I tried to get into Academic Twitter, but I found it very political. I follow a few people I have direct interest in, but I stopped following highly visible and popular networking accounts (such as AcademicChatter). Part of the issue is that these accounts don't consider themselves political and nor do many of the individuals who participate. I wasn't getting a variety of work from diverse viewpoints. It felt like a bubble.
I'll follow some individuals for specific reasons but I steer clear of the larger hubs.
YMMV.

Oh my gosh, so much THIS. I tell most of the young undergrads I mentor that they should really take at LEAST a year or two, get some experience under their belt, before applying for a PhD.  Or get a Masters, go out in the work force for 2-5 years and then apply. I know that our current economy makes this hard, I know that this is totally counter to what some advisors will tell you. But the person you are at 22 or 25 is not the person you want to spend the rest of your life being strapped to! The things that interest and motivate you at that age will change dramatically, and you need some time to get out and see what the actual world looks and works like before you can really begin to speak about what you want to study, what you want to change.
There's a reason that in many other countries, PhD candidates are in their 30s, 40s, 50s, compared to their early 20s here. I think they've got it right. I wanted to do Clinical Psych when I was a 20 yr old undergrad.  Then I took a job in business and had a first career working hands on with people.  I now know that I was never a great fit for Clinical Psych, and I would have been a miserable person if I had roped myself into that all those years ago. So, even though I am the oldest in my cohort, I have the benefit of knowing exactly what I don't want to do, and what I will and will not tolerate as far as unrealistic expectations. I can advocate for myself (and others) in a clear, concise, professional way that gets the message across.  I could never have done that as a 22 year old fresh out of undergrad. 
I am a firm believer that if you are meant to do something, the gates will open - when it's the right time. Not before. If it isn't this cycle, maybe it's next year. Or maybe it's in 3 years. Or maybe you are applying to the wrong kind of program, not the right research fit. If this cycle isn't it, you've been gifted with another 6 months to really examine yourself and your passions, and find ways to communicate that to others. Just make sure you are focusing on what really drives and fascinates you, because just getting the PhD will never be motivation enough to put yourself through the stress and pain of a 5-6 year PhD program, and PIs can read that in your statements and LORs. 

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.

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.

Hopelessness is a natural reaction to the absurdity and disorder of this process.
While I haven't quite given up yet, I'm terrified of not getting in this next cycle too. We all know the typical advice for making yourself competitive, but if you follow it to the letter and it still isn't sufficient to garner the attention of programs, how else is one supposed to react? What else is one supposed to do? At what point are you forced to acknowledge that the gates will never open for you, no matter how many moats you might have crossed just to arrive there? Of course this will vary between people, their resilience to the rejection. At this point, I feel like just getting accepted to a program will be the greater accomplishment, not completing one. If only the "powers that be" were seriously attuned to that sentiment (much less bothered to find ways of alleviating it).
In the meantime, I'm looking for a new lab job currently. I'm also now dedicating a good portion of my free time to developing a project that is entirely irrelevant to my career goals, but actually has a chance of achieving a small piece of fulfillment. If any of you take something away from this - don't let psych and grad school become your identity. It's too fickle.

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.

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.

Kudos to everyone who make their voices heard ^^^^

Thanks for changing it back, Powers-That-be!

Better late than never! ?

It's back to psychology forum!!!

As an aside, if they intend to open new boards for different psych fields, that's a huge error in judgment. We need interdisciplinary contact, even if it's at the application stages.
I think someone goofed. They leapt on an idea and didn't really think it through.

As of this posting, my message has not yet been read.

As of this posting, my message has not yet been read.

As of this posting, my message has not yet been read.

As an aside, if they intend to open new boards for different psych fields, that's a huge error in judgment. We need interdisciplinary contact, even if it's at the application stages.
I think someone goofed. They leapt on an idea and didn't really think it through.

Oh yeah, they don't like your school, mostly for the PsyD. They're also generally biased against PsyD programs as a whole. 

Match day is indeed tomorrow. If you go over to StudentDoctorNetwork, there are tons of people who applied for internship. That forum also has a lot of TDs and staff psychologists who weigh in on things as well. The internship thread there is basically what the program application thread is here on GradCafe. 

It depends on how big the application committee is. A week doesn't seem like a long time for your materials to make the rounds and be reviewed by all members. It also depends on the programme and competitiveness.
Can you think of anything egregious during interview or potential 'red flags' in your app? If not, then the issues that Regression brought up are even more relevant. Reach out and see if they'll give you feedback.
Definitely don't give up if you know it's what you want.