Arcadian

That sounds like an awful class. I can't blame the students for being hesitant to participate. If I were you, I'd just bear with it, and be understanding with the students. Make it seem like you're on their side, you get that the class is lame, but here we are, so might as well make the most of it.

Bobbi: You just need to find your passion. If you could study one thing in school - independently of all practical considerations like money - what would it be? What is the most interesting subject in the world to you? Whatever that is, do that. The rest will fall into place. To the person who mentioned depression, get out of here with that. I think it's completely inaccurate and inappropriate. Everyone would seem "depressed" if they didn't have anything to be passionate about.

Just throwin' it out there: clinical and molecular research aren't mutually exclusive. Clinical people can do molecular research, and molecular scientists can do research directed at clinical applications. This is tangential to the topic, of course, but just saying.

Uh...why? You think casual dress in general is fine, but the moment you wear athletic shoes, that's crossing the line? Newsflash...that line is arbitrary. I'm of the opinion that academics should be concerned with academics and not fashion. If you happen to like fashion, then by all means feel free to dress up. But don't think for a second that "underdressed" people are less professional. That's nonsense.

I think there's nothing wrong with asking questions beyond the scope of a class. If he is asking good insightful questions, then other students will gain from them as well. As long as the questions aren't detracting from the thrust of the class, then I say just go with it. Of course, you can't spend too much time on extra-curricular questions - so in that case, offer to talk to him outside of class! Why not?

From the perspective of a student, you should make it clear what they are supposed to be doing. If there is any confusion about what to do, that's probably the TA's fault. You can't expect students to just walk in and know exactly what to do. That's kind of why you're there...to instruct and guide the students.

If you're going into perceptual/cognitive psychology, then biology is absolutely relevant. Perception and cognition would not be possible without biology. You might be able to bring extra knowledge about cellular and molecular levels of analysis that most cognitive psychologists don't have. For that alone, I think you should get respect for your research experience. As for the methodology, they are very different. But I think you can pick up what you need in your first year or two of grad school. The fact that you've done bio research shows that you are capable of learning and doing good work.

Unfortunately, our society (on the whole) has very skewed values. Professions that really matter the most, like the one you're going into, are low on the priority list of the "one percent." Therefore, the job outlook is poor. It's stupid, but it's not your fault. I say if you love your work, just stay with it. Show your contempt for this sick society by doing what you love and not chasing the dollar bills. And in the process, you're helping lots of people. That's great.

First, I'm going to be very straight-up about the salary issue: Get over it. If you are really passionate about psychology, then you shouldn't even have to worry about that. You're afraid that 60k isn't enough to "live comfortably"? Please. That's more than enough. This culture is so obsessed with money and possessions...it's sad, really. I'm living comfortably on my PhD stipend, and I'm happy with that because I'm doing the work I want to be doing. Sorry, that issue just gets me going every time. Other points: That's -0.02. Stop kicking yourself. Those are actually good. I understand clinical is super-competitive, so maybe I see your concern there, but those are still good enough scores IMO. GRE scores really aren't that important overall. Did they really laugh at you? That's rude... I had a similar issue going into grad school. I thought, "I want to study brain-behavior relationships using neuroimaging." And I was open to anything within that. But my adviser still liked me, so I got in. Why not? If you really want to be a clinical psychologist, you should be thrilled about academia. Your job description will be to discover new facts about mental health (i.e. by conducting scientific research) and to communicate those findings with the public through teaching and publishing. How can you not be interested in academia? I understand you want to focus on clinical practice, but surely you understand that psychology is first-and-foremost a science and therefore will necessarily involve scientific research and teaching...which takes place in academic settings. See my reasoning?

It's funny - I can't really imagine myself being a good adviser as a young assistant professor. I'd be way too caught up in my own research and focused on earning tenure. I would think that advising becomes much easier after you get tenure, because a lot of pressure is removed at that point. ...But I could be completely wrong.

My understanding was that he listed several people in his SOP, and he was paired with one of them - but that just happened to be the person with the least amount of overlap with his interests. Initially he thought this person was a solid choice, but then he increasingly became interested in another topic (and less interested in his adviser's). That's entirely possible, and a tricky situation. I think the best course of action depends on the discrepancy between your adviser's project and your desired project. Are they completely different methodologies, or are they just different topics in the same field? If it's the latter, I'd say you're fine to just focus on your adviser's work. You can always study that other topic later in your career. But if it's the former, then you have to really decide what you want to learn during your PhD and how you want to market yourself later in your career. Is your adviser's project setting you up to be a highly desired post-doc? Or is it holding you back from doing something that would be more beneficial for your career?

LOL! I totally forgot there was a new GRE. Well...then I revoke my previous statement. Good job on that GRE!

But your verbal score was also really low, right? You said it was 165 on a scale of 800.

If you have no background in experimental psychology, you'll need to read a textbook on it at least.

So your GRE was a disaster, your GPA is decent (by grad school standards), and you have solid research experience and clearly defined goals. Definitely retake the GRE. It's less important than everything else, yet every committee looks at GRE scores and eliminates people based on that. After you've done that, I think your chances are quite good, assuming you get helpful letters of recommendation, write a clear statement of purpose, and apply to the programs that best fit your particular research goals (and your people of interest are taking new grad students - contact them and find out).

Excel spreadsheet keeps detailed scores, Blackboard is where I post final scores.

LMAO. "A bunch of schmoozers"? I must say, I hadn't heard the term until you used it. Anyway, to the question... I wouldn't make such a snap judgment. I would consider the full context of your credentials. If you have done solid work, then perhaps this so-called "academic inbreeding" can be overlooked.

Yep, I'm going. My poster session is Saturday, May 26 at 4 pm. Poster is titled "Auditory memory distortion for familiar music."

Well, I wouldn't say that it's uncommon for people to get into a psychology program straight out of undergrad. Many PhD programs are combined MS/PhD programs. But it's still a difficult game. Applicants are expected to have more research experience during undergrad. Another big factor is luck (as in the timing of your application relative to openings that interest you). I really lucked out in that sense. My adviser happened to be looking for two grad students when I was applying.

That sounds completely normal. I'm not there yet, but I imagine that I will be one day. You'll be fine man, just stay optimistic and enjoy life.

Cool. There's a big difference between spilling your life story and specifying what field you are in. I'm always interested to know what field everyone is in.

But why?

Heh...some of them are funny, but some of them I did not understand at all. Technicians are seen by post-docs as...gossiping women? Professors are seen by post-docs as...a giant burning eyeball?

Who cares if it's normal? That's great! Congrats.

This is tangential, but I just wanted to say I'm in the cog neuro program at UTD, and I occasionally take classes at UTSW. Both great schools. Good luck with everything.