Arcadian

Well, it depends on what's going on in my lab at the time. The summer after my first year, I had a relatively small workload. I don't know, 10-20 hours. This summer (after second year), I've got a lot more because my lab has 6 projects going on at the same time, and I'm involved with 4 of them.

No. That was a caricature to illustrate a point. However, from what I understand, the expected amount of research experience for new grad students is significantly greater than what it was, say, 20 years ago. And I think that's slightly unfortunate. I'm not even sure if I agree with that. I wasn't suggesting that psychology is especially good for changing career paths late. I believe it should be possible to switch into any field if you really want to (and have the aptitude for it). Agree with all of that. I'm defending the type of person who really has the potential to become a great psychologist, but just happened to choose the wrong field early in life. So what if he has no research experience? He's got to start somewhere. And if no one gave him a chance, that would be tragic.

Cognitive psychology - study of mental functions with behavioral measures Cognitive neuroscience - study of mental functions with both physiological and behavioral measures Cognitive science - the "umbrella field" encompassing any field that studies cognition in a scientific manner Sometimes people use "cognitive science" to refer specifically to computational modelling (as if it were a field in its own right), but I use it in the broader sense. I would say that cognitive neuroscience (CNS) is mostly replacing cognitive psychology (CP) - but they were never really separate in the first place. CNS emerged out of CP, adopting its theoretical frameworks and using new methods to study them. I would say CNS and CP are basically the same thing, just with a different emphasis. Neuroscience (broadly) is not replacing psychology. Some philosophers who defend eliminative materialism believe that it should or will replace psychology, but this is by no means a foregone conclusion. Non-reductive materialism seems to be the prevailing view currently. That is, mental states are caused by physical states of the brain, but they have emergent properties that can't necessarily be found at "lower" levels of analysis.

You missed my point. I wasn't claiming to have explained how or why music evokes emotion; I was describing the ways in which music can evoke emotion. So you're just repeating what I already said. Music can cause emotion by way of memory, but it can also cause it by pure auditory stimulation, which is the real mystery. So, to reiterate, I would say that there are three "paths" from music to emotion, each of which is worthy of research in its own right.

He's an interesting fellow. Sometimes I see how hard (and how often) he works, and I feel sorry for him. Sometimes I don't want to become him. Running a lab seems really hard. Lol. We have a lot in common, but also different in some ways. Sometimes I question his motivations. I wonder if he is motivated more by money/recognition or genuine scientific curiosity. I wonder if he's already plateaued and on the decline in his career. I'm not assuming that he is, but I just wonder. I also wonder what he thinks of me. Sometimes I detect disappointment - others I detect a growing sense of camaraderie. I hope he thinks highly of me, but sometimes I don't even think highly of myself.

Indeed, I am interested in musical pleasure. I am just starting some research about the neural mechanisms of music-induced pleasure. It's a fascinating question why music causes pleasure in the first place. I believe it can happen in three ways: 1) by conjuring episodic memories with emotional associations, 2) by conveying some semantic meaning that the listener feels emotionally attached to, or 3) by pure sequences and combinations of auditory tones. That last one is especially interesting to me. To the extent that music conjures memories and meaning, it is not surprising that music evokes pleasure at all. But why would seemingly arbitrary sequences and combinations of auditory stimulation cause pleasure? It has no apparent biological value. It's not particularly abstract like visual art - it can be, but not always. For some reason, particular arrangements of sound are sufficient to cause a pleasure response. It's weird, but interesting. Anyway -- I'm taking your survey now. Edit: OK, a bit of feedback - I find the choices to be too limiting. Liking music isn't dichotomous, just "like it" or "don't like it." There are continuous degrees of liking. If you only have two choices, it's difficult to decide where to draw the line between them. And the third choice, "I know it," doesn't really make sense. Knowing is independent of liking. You can like something you have never heard before, and you can dislike it as well. Why not create two scales, one called Familiarity, the other called Enjoyment? Then you will get continuous data on both dimensions. I am doing something similar in my own research - except I'm looking into the different ways people can enjoy music.

You should be fine. Someone will be willing to give you a chance if you are truly passionate and well-read in your research area of interest. This whole idea that PhD students should already be highly-experienced researchers is quite silly. It creates a catch-22 for latecomers because they need experience to get into the field, but they need to get into the field to get experience. What happened to the days when you could just change your career path on a whim because you had a change of heart? I believe you should be able to do it if you want. It's also silly that grades are emphasized so much in the "screening" process of graduate applications. Many of my professors have said something to the effect of, "The best student is not the best researcher." Getting good grades doesn't reflect the qualities of a good academic. Creativity, critical thinking, and novelty are much more important. A 4.0 GPA doesn't tell you anything about that. Surely, someone will realize this and recognize your qualities if you have them. I guess my practical advice would be to take some classes, attempt to volunteer as an RA, and become very well-read in a research area that interests you.

I go about six times a year - once every two months. It's a 5-hour drive, and most of my closest friends and family still live in my hometown.

It's typically only 3-5 hours per week for me. At my school, TAs are relatively low-responsibility.

Although we are in very different fields, so the examples you gave are irrelevant to me, the gist of what you said is exactly like me. I often feel incompetent and like I'm not using my time efficiently with the tasks that I have to do. ...But then I just think, I'm doing my best. It'll be fine. Nothing like blind optimism, eh?

Ah lab websites... The poorest-managed websites in existence. I should know. I was put in charge of updating my lab's website, and it took me a year just to figure out how to edit a webpage. That's what happens when overworked graduate students are given the task of updating a lab website.

It's impossible to measure. I work on-and-off all the time. I do a lot of my work from home, so I only spend a few hours "at work" every day. Haha, damn. I guess I'm not working enough? That seems like a sweeping generalization. The thing is, I can't do good work if I'm not maintaining a work-life balance.

"Immature" isn't the word, but there are definitely days when I don't feel like doing research. I assume it's normal. I mean, come on - most of research is a drag. Most of it isn't fun. The idea is fun, but actually doing it isn't. However, I am mostly referring to the mundane, non-intellectual tasks involved with research. Writing can go either way. If it's theoretical writing, that's fun. If it's writing a method section for a paper, that's not fun.

My dad has a BA and MBA. My mom was a college dropout (starting a family with my dad). They are considered "upper middle class." They paid for my college tuition. I would definitely consider myself privileged, but I have definitely met grad students who are more privileged than me. I know a few people who are able to fund expensive hobbies and travels that I couldn't. I don't really know the SES of my peers, but it seems like there aren't many who are "below" mine. No one in my family has pursued a PhD (or anything beyond a master's), so they were pretty clueless about academic careers. They didn't encourage it, either. I had to discover my passion for academic research independently, and I had to convince my family that it was a viable career option. It's kind of hard to explain my degree of "privileged," though. For the most part, my parents raised me to earn things for myself. But, obviously, being upper middle class, they didn't hesitate to help me when I needed it, either. So it was a balance. And it was a good balance. I commend them for that. They bought a condo for me to live in for grad school, but I pay rent. It's not a super-nice condo, either. It's 40+ years old, and stuff breaks all the time. They help me with that, too, so I can't complain. But I am by no means living in great wealth. I live entirely off of my PhD stipend. My parents actually bought me a Caribbean vacation for this summer, which is awesome - but it's worth noting that I could not have afforded this vacation on my own funds. On that note - some funny comments I saw in this thread: Um, yeah, a plane ticket is pretty expensive. And a backpack isn't going to be enough. You're going to need some place(s) to stay while you're there... Couchsurfing? Hitchhiking? Pitching tents in the middle of cities? Those are risky things to do! I wouldn't be down for any of that. Friends who are stewards? How many people have friends who are stewards? Come on, man. You act like these are legit options that everyone has, but...not really. I'm sure there are some hardass people who are willing to tough it out in a foreign country with nothing more than a backpack and a positive attitude, but that is certainly not typical.

HeatherC, I just want to call to your attention that you ironically misspelled "intelligence" in your program title. Hey, it happens to the best of us. Just don't do that in your SOP. Lol.

My undergrad research adviser had this to say: "Just be yourself, and when they realize you're not an idiot, you'll be good." Seriously, he said that. For me it was squarely in the latter category. It didn't even feel like I was being interviewed. It was hard to tell when I was being evaluated vs. when I was being included in a discussion. The whole thing just felt like "let's all get to know each other for two days." That might be because my department was desperately trying to bring in 10+ PhD students (we're a growing program)...so if anything, they were trying to impress us.

That's good information, but is this really going to be a decision-maker for most people? "I'm not ready to have kids yet, but I better do it now before my ovaries get old!" That would be foolish... People should have kids when the time is right for them. Most people don't have the luxury of letting biology dictate that. For most of us, social/cultural/career concerns are a much bigger factor. And I also want to point out that never having kids is a totally viable option! I'm considering that one myself.

Very common Edit: Hold on, are you referring to clinical neuropsychology or experimental? If clinical, I don't know much about those programs. If experimental, the term "experimental neuropsychology" has gone out of favor, being replaced with "cognitive neuroscience." Not sure, but I think they're supposed to interview everyone who is being considered for acceptance.

I see where you're coming from, but I don't think that's the right approach... Consider it from a practical point of view. Imagine that one of your current male friends/colleagues were accused of rape and charges were dropped. If everything you knew about this man indicates that he is a good person, then it would be wrong to treat him as a potential threat simply because someone accused him of rape. How far are you willing to carry out that principle? By that logic, you should be suspicious of everyone you ever meet in life because there's a chance he/she could be a criminal. But that raises another question...are criminals "bad people"? Should they be treated like they are less than human? No. Every behavior has a natural cause, therefore criminal behavior is natural behavior explainable by the circumstances of that person's life. So even if you do choose to live an overly cautious life and assume that everyone might try to hurt you, you should at least have the empathy and compassion to understand that they are still people with fears and worries of their own...such as a society that will unrelentingly label them for fear of some false accusations. I can also see the "self-fulfilling prophecy" creeping into this. If you assume that someone is a bad person, it will implicitly influence your behaviors toward that person (in a bad way). The person will pick up on these implicit cues and respond in a negative way, which you will interpret as confirming your suspicions. So basically, you will perceive what you want to perceive about a person...even if there is no truth to it. Come on...that's silly. We're all adults here. And even if we weren't, the whole idea of "cursing" is archaic nonsense. As I'm sure you know, the concept of cursing originated in the Dark Ages when people believed that saying certain words would literally cast a magical curse with real consequences. But we know that isn't true anymore, and "cursing" is just a social construct. So fuck it, let's be objective about the situation and use whatever words we think best convey our thoughts.

Mine went down a little from year 1 to year 2. Just a little - about $30.

Disagree. He's not saying he doesn't like research - he's saying he has other passions, and he does them when he has the chance. I'm sort of in between. Much of my waking hours are indeed spent working on things, and even when I'm not, I'm usually thinking about it - but I also relish free time and being able to relax and just enjoy the tranquility of life. You can't fault someone for taking that position. Question - how are you people calculating your "hours per week" of work? I find it impossible to do that because "work" for an academic is basically continuous with non-work, and therefore it is difficult to define concretely. As I said above, even when I'm not technically "working" per se, I'm often thinking about work, which is itself a kind of work. Planning is a huge part of doing research. I can't tell you how many times I've been chilling at home or talking to a friend about something non-academic, and I randomly got an idea for research and wrote it on a napkin or something. Also, I do a lot of my work from home, and I consider this highly advantageous. In fact, there is almost no good reason for me to work in my research center most of the time, because I have access to everything I need from home, including the database of the research center (as I can remotely log in from my PC). The time it takes to commute from home to work and back could be spent getting work done! The whole notion of a rigid workplace with a rigid work schedule is rapidly becoming archaic, and rightfully so. In the next few decades, "work" in all industries will start to happen more and more from home. So I can't just calculate the number of hours I work. It's not a discrete period of time, like 8 AM to 6 PM. It's more like I'm constantly working on and off all the time.

I'm the same way. I suspect that I have some extent of "social anxiety disorder" but have never been diagnosed. I absolutely dread interacting with many people (except those with whom I'm already comfortable), and I avoid it whenever possible. With regard to Chai_latte's post, it has nothing to with how attractive or charismatic the person is. Some of us just aren't comfortable with on-the-fly social interaction, and talking to a counselor doesn't necessarily help with that. (Also, ironically, people with social anxiety are the least likely to see a counselor, which is itself a form of social interaction...but that doesn't seem to be the case here.) There are lots of misconceptions about this condition. It also has nothing to do with self-esteem or confidence. I happen to be an optimistic, generally happy, highly confident, high self-esteem person...when I am in a comfortable situation. And even when I am having social anxiety, my inner thoughts still tend to be positive overall. Anxiety is implicit, not explicit - that is, you can have all the positive conscious thoughts you want, but you will still have a physiological response that signals threat and discomfort. My solution is email. Whenever I have a question or comment that I'm afraid to make in class (or even after class with the professor), I simply email the professor after class from the comfort of my home. And this has lots of advantages. First of all, writing is objectively clearer than speaking. Even the best speaker in the world will not be able to deliver the perfect question or comment under the pressure of social interaction. Writing allows you to take extra time to ensure that every sentence is perfectly constructed, every word is optimally selected, etc. Time is of the essence, and it's what you don't have when speaking on-the-fly. I hate speaking on-the-fly! Ugh. Prepared presentations are different. I actually do well with those because I am actually prepared. But if you ask me to give an unexpected presentation, I will go into a panic attack and utterly crumble under pressure. I need lots and lots and lots and lots of preparation before I'm comfortable giving a talk. And I guess that's okay...right? Now, I'm not the most extreme case possible. I do interact with people on-the-fly sometimes, I have made a few friends in my program, and I have built a sense of rapport with two or three professors that I especially like. Maybe I over-emphasized my problems above, but the point is that some people are naturally uncomfortable in these situations, and we just have different ways of communicating.

I live in a sliver of northern Dallas situated between Richardson and Addison (that really is the only way to describe it, as there is no official name for this area). I moved here a year-and-a-half ago for grad school, and before that I lived in San Antonio for 20 years and Austin for 2 years. To be honest, I spend the vast majority of my time either at home or at school/work. My favorite things to do in the city are the Dallas Symphony and arts district in general. We have some nice museums. They often play jazz music at the main art museum. The DART rail system is good and expanding. It pretty much sprawls throughout the whole Metroplex. So it's not true that you need a car to do everything...just most things.

4/5 - cognitive science (2nd year) +I like my research +I like my adviser +It hasn't been as exhausting as I thought it might be. I still have some free time, and I still get to dictate how I spend my time with work to a large extent. +I normally struggle to make friends (extreme introvert), but I am lucky to have made a few already. +I like my living situation, and my location is good with respect to both my campus and research center. +Basically, my department is pretty chill. People just take it easy and don't give each other a hard time. Thumbs up to that. -Most of the classes I've taken have been disappointing. I haven't learned as much as I thought I would. -My research interests have evolved since I started, so sometimes I wonder if I started grad school too soon. If I had waited an extra year, I might have joined a lab that fits my interests better. (That said, it's still a good fit...just not perfect.) -I don't enjoy seeking funding for research. I wish money didn't exist and we could just focus on pure knowledge. -I don't really like being a TA most of the time. It's pretty much a drag, and this semester in particular, I got a shitty professor to work with. -There's this constant feeling that I'm not producing enough, and it seems like "everyone else" is doing more...but I understand this is pretty typical.

I too had poor grades in the so-called "natural sciences" (biology, chemistry, physics) and math, and then I followed that with 60-straight hours of As in psychology and my minor. Part of this is because the course plan at my undergrad institution was ridiculous. Their philosophy is to "throw the students into the fire and see who comes out alive." That's some inspirational education right there. Not. Unfortunately, having a less-than-stellar overall GPA seems to preclude acceptance to some of the top-ranked programs. But since you have lots of research experience (more than I did as an undergrad), that will make a difference. The important thing is finding a program that fits your interests and that has faculty who are taking new grad students with your interests.