SocDevMum

You're not wrong. It's a million times harder to get into a PhD program now than it was 20 years ago, and it seems like the standards are only going to get higher. Personal opinion - we can thank the culture of unpaid internships for undergrads, and before that insisting every kid was a three-activity super star ? We have cultivated ridiculous expectations for the under 21 set and now it has trickled up to the doctoral level. I was most likely a barely average applicant - no big publications, from a small state school that wasn't an R1 or anything - but what set me apart was my life experiences that tied directly to my research focus. So while I agree that it's unfair and a huge burden, I also agree with @EileanDonan, volunteering or a part time job in the field of interest would go a long way towards improving the chances for 2022.

Research and publish! No one will care about your undergrad GPA now that you have a Masters, and the GRE will likely be going the way of the Dodo... focus on publishing and presenting your thesis and any works you can pull out of that, and getting more hands on experience with your advisor or other PIs, including second (third, whatever) authorship on papers. Also, revisit who you want to apply to - make sure you have amazing research fits, and that you are applying to programs that lead to the outcomes you want. This summer will be a great time to network, make connections and reach out to potential labs and PIs so they know who you are come the Fall application season

As someone who was in that spot last year - take the time to breathe and enjoy yourself! Read some non-academic books, take a weekend getaway (if your area allows travel), indulge in some hobbies, go out with friends and family. Because the next 5+ years will not allow you to do nearly as much of any of that as you would like! Then, yes, start scouting for housing in your new city, maybe make some connections both within and outside your academic program to ease the transition. Congratulations!

Are you applying to clinical programs that are research-focused (Clinical Science) or practicioner-focused (Boulder method or research-practicioner)? Both will get you licensed at the end, but the practicioner-focused programs are likely to reject someone who says they don't want to do therapy or counseling off the top and give those spots to people who actively want to practice clinically, while the research-focused ones will instead only really want applicants who DON'T want to practice at the end of it all so they can focus on developing them into top notch researchers and academics.

Exactly what are your career goals? What is it about clinical psych that you are so passionate about? As mentioned previously, if you aren't interested in holding a license that would enable you to diagnose and treat, you just want to do research, then this could be a great option. There is quite a bit of overlap between the different specializations - cognitive/neuro and developmental especially seem to have a lot in common with the topics that clinical researchers also study, so you may find fulfillment in something that is adjacent to the field. All that said, if you just absolutely know that you want to complete the training and apply for licensure, you would be doing yourself (and the program) a disservice by taking this spot this year. You mentioned that you don't have a lot of direct clinical experience - is that something you would want to work on for another year, to improve your chances for the next application season? I've heard of people with exisiting PhDs in cogntive or developmental going back to school for a few years to get a second PhD in Clinical, but man that seems like a lot time and money to spend (waste!) if you already know you want a Clinical degree.....

A woman in my lab accepted her offer of admission to the joint program last week, under PI SG I think, if that helps

Not specific to UCLA, but in general, if you haven't received a rejection letter by now, you may be on someone's waitlist. Meaning, they are waiting for the candidates that have been made offers to accept or decline before they send you anything. If you weren't immediately rejected by the grad school or program, these schools will wait until all positions are filled, or the April 15 deadline, to send the final rejection letters, whichever comes first. It's not unheard of to get offers as late as March or April, for students who are on waitlists. You will also get a wave of general rejection letters at this time, as they purge their rolls - I got three separate emails of rejection from one university last year, at 3 different times. It's kind of a mess. It's painful to wait. I know. If you know for a fact that interviews are done and offers are out, you could reach out to the program coordinator to check the status of your app. Worst case scenario, they tell you that you are not being considered and you can cross it off your list and stop worrying about it.

That makes sense - it certainly is more useful for some people than others!

I'm a big fan of Academic Twitter, less so LinkedIn. LinkedIn is much less active, and often seems to only be useful for head hunters. I use Twitter to interact directly with PIs, early career academics and fellow grad students, not just in my field but also in those that are adjacent to my focus; I study sexual violence and LGBT issues, so I follow a lot of Sociology academics, for example. This has enabled me to keep up on research at all stages, from initial data collection through to paper or conference submission. Essentially, you can see what the most recent research is, as it is happening, which is priceless considering how far behind the publishing process really is. Twitter has also allowed me to interact with scholars in other countries - for some this may be less relevant I suppose, but if there is cool work happening in Europe or Asia in your field, Twitter makes it easy to connect and keep up. This has opened up opportunities to talk not just about international research, but also potential post-doc or job openings in places other than the U.S. Given the sorry state of the U.S. academic job market I think this is super important. It's been my pleasure to get to know academics all over, and while we are not what I would call friends, it's been a blast to sit in a conference or committee meeting and have the speaker say "hey, I know you, what do you think?" I have met several early career or grad student folks who are in their current position because they "met" someone on Twitter, and through that person were able to make the connections to get an interview, write that grant or land that post-doc spot. Let's face it - academia is as much about who you know as what you know. If you have already interacted with a fellow scholar via Twitter, it makes it infinitely easier to reach out and chat IRL. You can create your own opportunities for joint projects, make plans to meet at conferences, ask for more details about a study or instrument they created; it's all about relationship building. Academic Twitter is an excellent tool for building a network outside of your home institution. Yes, you have to put some work into curating your Twitter. Some people keep a separate personal Twitter; it's a choice about how much you want to share with others. Obviously your frat party photos probably shouldn't be included, for example. And you have to invest some time into it. Not to say you need to spend hours a day on the app but you do have to be willing to actually read some links, share posts for study recruitment or post-doc/job opportunities, leave comments or questions when you read something interesting, and yes, do the social stuff like say congratulations when someone is celebrating an achievement. It's no good if you are strictly a passive follower.

What are the completion and licensure rates like Palo Alto? Is it APA accredited? Those are the big three for clinical programs, so if they are fully accredited and have excellent licensure rates, then it's worth considering unfunded, if you are willing to take on a boatload of debt. But if not... it doesn't matter what connections they have to Stanford, if the graduates aren't getting licensed and getting jobs, it's a bust. Keep building your CV and try again next year

Very true - an invitation is not a guarantee, I apologize if it came across that way. However, it IS a strong indicator of which way they are leaning. As a mentor explained to me, a recruitment event is more for luring you, whereas an interview event is for luring them.... either way, if you act like you aren't interested, haven't done your homework or aren't the match they thought you were, you don't get an offer. Preparation is essentially the same, I think

Recruitment events are typically for candidates that they would like to offer admission to - they use the day to better ascertain personality and fit. It is also their opportunity to show off the lab and campus and lure you to say yes when the offer is extended. You should absolutely still prepare as if it is a formal interview, you will be speaking with grad students and faculty beyond your potential PI, but go in confident - universities don't typically invite candidates they don't anticipate offering a spot to, to recruitment days. Present yourself well, be prepared with good questions and thoughtful answers, and enjoy the time!

Thank you, yes, I am very happy where I landed. Especially now when it's 70 degrees here in January compared to up north!

Congratulations! I applied to that program last year and didn't get anything except rejected You should be hyped. I hope you get an offer soon!

I can't speak for UBC in particular, but usually the candidates invited to the recruitment weekends are the top choices for an open place at the Uni. They may pick one or two applicants to come out, generally they would be ok with either candidate accepting the spot, but also knowing that many applicants get multiple offers and may not choose their lab. So, in short, while being invited doesn't guarantee you a spot, it does mean that you are at the top of their list, and as long as you don't completely blow the weekend by being rude, inattentive or otherwise show yourself to be incompatible with the existing lab members, you should not be surprised to get an offer. He may use the weekend to decide between the two of you which to offer first if he only has one spot, so make sure you are on your A game the whole weekend!

Go for it. If the lab you are in now isn't giving you the opportunities you need, apply to the other one. It sounds like a much better option for gathering actual experiences you can put on your CV and talk about in interviews. No one will fault you for leaving as long as you aren't burning the project down you are currently working on

Best bet is to call the Graduate Director at the second school, and let them know there is a schedule conflict that you missed during your initial call. They understand full well that many candidates have multiple offers on the table for interviews, and most programs are willing to be flexible and reschedule. If they're not, that tells you something about the program and you can think about if you really want to be part of that environment. Congrats on the interviews!

Yes and no. Most schools seem to divide candidates into groups - those they reject outright, those they want to interview for sure, and the second choices. First choice students get interviews first, maybe even offers first - then as spots become available, second choice students get calls for interviews (or just offers of places, in some programs). By the end of January, many/most programs will have likely interviewed or set up interviews with their top candidates, but that doesn't mean it won't still happen for others. I've seen applicants get calls as late as April. The downside of all that is, a lot of rejection letters won't go out til March or April, as candidates who've been made multiple offers decide which one to accept, leaving spaces at the other schools for second choice candidates, and schools don't send the blanket "We're sorry" letters til all spots are officially filled. You most likely won't have final decisions from all your schools until after the April 15 decision date. I went through this last year, and yeah, it's nerve wracking until you have those official offers in hand. Just remember, everyone is feeling the same thing, so you have lots of support out there. And so much of this is purely subjective - the number of interviews you get is less a reflection of the quality of academic you are, and more to do with research fit and compatibility.

Good to know! It's nice to see Missouri catching up to the rest of the civilized world!

Missouri allows Masters in Clinical Psych to take the E-PPP and open or join a practice, just FYI I think both U of MO Columbia and St Louis offer a Masters that leads to licensure, or at least they did in the last couple of years. What can I say. Missouri is weird, that's why I looked for programs anywhere but there...

I would second, this is both very broad, and not mutually exclusive. "Social Justice issues" are at the core of many counseling and clinical programs, especially if you want to talk about addiction, trauma, and other socially-developed dysfunctions. For example, POC tech workers have a different experience than their white counterparts; you can't address the work stressors without addressing the cultural and social influences in which they function. Something to think about as you work through papers and such... I understand the desire for a PhD program - I am also a 2nd career person. However, without more research experience than you've listed here, and a more narrow field of focus, you may find that it is wiser for you to pursue a Masters first. This would allow you to kill 2 birds with 1 stone - gain considerably more research experiences, and narrow down exactly what you are interested in. Clinical programs are notoriously the most competitive PhD programs out there, and an applicant with too broad of interests and limited actual experience is going to struggle to get interviews.

Sorry gang, it doesn't get better after you get accepted either.... I felt the same way last year before I got my admission offer. Then I felt like I was awesome and amazing and qualified. Then I met my cohort and immediately felt like a total failure next to some of them. It comes and goes, my mentor tells me to just expect it for years to come. So much of this process is subjective, and dependent upon personality match and presentation. You could be the most perfect applicant on paper to ever exist, but if their is no cohesion in communication style, interests and personality, it all doesn't matter. Know that you are qualified, beginning scientists, and that when the match is right you will get your offer. You are good enough, you just have to wait and see

Yes, I would say to definitely expect virtual interviews between now and February, and then selected students may be invited to attend an in person event (hopefully!). However, be prepared to pay your own way up front, and then wait for possible partial reimbursement (my interview was in February and it was the end of April before I got my check)

Take a deep breath all. With only a few exceptions, programs won't make decisions about offering interviews until January. You will see some people who get contacted before that, for programs that make earlier decisions, but really, try to enjoy your holiday season and winter break. You will need that energy for January and February when stuff gets real

You might find some smaller Masters programs at state schools that offer a rolling admission, or at least a winter/spring cut off date (for example, U of North Florida cuts off their Masters in April, I think). But PhDs pretty much can't be rolling, because departments have to know exactly how much money they are spending for each year well in advance.