t_ruth

Yes, it does really matter. Showing interest before applying is a fine way to get on a professor's radar. What is your research interest? Are you sure you are applying to places with the best match?

I think the advice to read publications is the right advice, but, if you are new to an area, you may not be reading the *right* publications that are by authors really grounded in that area. I would suggest finding a handbook chapter that relates to what you are interested in. This would give you a nice overview of the field and cite work by those who are also immersed in that field.

You may also wish to check out Educational Psychology programs and faculty--there is good work on EF being done in those programs too.

I accept MS students right out of undergrad and my PhD-granting institution accepted students into the PhD program right out of undergrad. However, if administration is your goal, teaching experience is likely going to be very important. Even if you got into the program, finding a job after graduation would probably be pretty difficult.

Your GPA seems fine. But as many of us have stated on this board, for PhD programs it isn't about the school, but about the PI. You shouldn't be choosing a PhD program based on the school--you should be finding five to ten PIs at various schools that you want to work with and contacting them. I suppose this does depend on what you want to do after graduation. If you want to go into academia, you will be entering into a community based on your sub-field, and if you go to a "top tier" school that has no one in your sub-field, it isn't going to help you much.

Why don't you talk with your department about your concerns--perhaps they would find some way to give you a little extra money...

I just logged on--sorry I am not getting back to you until a month later! I used gradcafe when I was applying to grad school what now seems like ages ago and was even a mod for a time Every once and a while I pop back on to pay back all the great advice I got on here. I'm not sure re: hires. It is probably field-specific. In my field, Education, GRFPs are still relatively new, and there is also a new(ish) push for even jr. faculty to be able to land grants. To the extent that it showed I had potential to get grants as a faculty member, I think it helped me quite a bit. To be competitive, you would still have to have the right number of pubs for your field, but I'd imagine a GRFP could be a tie-breaker. Best of luck to you!

Re: the benefits of the fellowship: I can tell you as a PI it makes a difference to me in funding my students. If I have a student who wins the GRFP I can use my grad assistantship on another student. Also, re: the prestige. Aside from the CV boost, I've been told by a few Program Officers that NSF looks favorably on GRFP recipients who apply for future NSF grants. They like to see that their investment in fellowship winners pays off and are willing to continue to support them (you list the GRFP like other prior NSF funding on grant applications).

Have examples of how you can see yourself connected to and working with everyone you interview with (assuming this is a reasonable number) or at least 3 or 4 faculty members there.

I have lots of friends with Humanities PhDs who really don't see any other option outside of academia (thus, less lucky than us). There are a number of ed think-tanks, research firms, policy groups, etc. that we can work for. There are also educational content developers (traditional and digital), school districts, and many other organizations that can make use of the skills and expertise of Ed PhDs.

There are lots of great industry jobs for Ed PhDs--in this way we are pretty lucky. Most of the PhDs from my program are happily working in industry and making a pretty good living doing something they enjoy.

I know a few people who were accepted on the second go. If you have a good idea of your research interests and they are a good match with the PI at the institution, it's ok to reach out to them and ask how you can strengthen your application. Those I know who made it in the second time did just this--they had quite a few conversations with their potential PI during the year before the second application and this turned the PI into an ally. On the other hand, if you were rejected because of GRE, you may have to retake (some programs have hard cut-offs). If you were rejected for undergrad GPA, strengthen it with other coursework demonstrating that you can get top marks or work to make your research experience overshadow the GPA. One or two or even more years of rejection isn't enough to give up if this is what you really want--but you should also be sure it is

As noted above: look for articles that interest you. Find out where the authors are. Apply there. Good luck!

You've got some good responses, but it would be easier to give you specific advice if you were specific as far as what sub-field of psychology you are interested in. What would you like to research? What burning questions do you have that a degree and work in psychology would allow you to answer?

In general, you'd want a PhD, but if you were to go to Harvard and get an EdD, that would work for an academic career. Re: your GREs, the writing score is a bit of a red flag--if you took it again, that's what you should concentrate on. There are lots of econ-trained people working in ed policy, so I think that's a good background to have. The #1 thing you can do is get research experience. If you can present and publish before applying (or at least have a few things submitted), that is even better. Good luck!

You could always follow up with the programs you were denied admissions to and see what could make your application more competitive. Why not give yourself the best chance for future attempts? Re: a Masters, I'd rather see an applicant who found a way to get more research experience (paid or unpaid or as part of school) than one who just went to take more classes. The value of your Masters will depend on what you do when you are there.

PMing you.

This is true, and I know plenty of people who got into programs this way. Two things though: 1.) your chances are better of getting in if you've made personal contact and 2.) your chances are better of being happy once you are in if you've used the opportunity to make sure you are a good fit for both the program and the PI. Most of the people I know who are/were miserable in their programs either went somewhere because of the school name or because of location without first finding out what their lives would be like behind the admissions curtain.

Just say that you are excited to see they are accepting students and you think you have overlap in your research interests (back this up with examples) and ask if they'd be willing to talk with you about the program.

For most of the PhD programs I'm familiar with it weighs pretty heavily. At my current institution, the potential advisors have complete control unless a student is below a certain GRE cut-point--then it becomes a faculty discussion and they still almost always get in. At a prior institution, there was an admissions committee who would create a list of students they wanted to admit and then try to match each of those students with an advisor. Still, potential advisors could fight to get a student they wanted to work with on that list.

Best practice is to contact your POI and ask them if they are accepting graduate students (with a little info about you and what you want to study). Hopefully this will start a conversation and they will be looking for your application. Generally I think it is good to mention your main POI and then a couple of others on the faculty who you could also see yourself working with on projects.

Just to echo the importance of stating some specific research interests: this is an opportunity for you to demonstrate that you know what research entails, what a research question looks like, and have an idea of a few projects you could start with right away. Yes, your particular focus can change (and likely will), but it is more about getting someone's attention with a line of research that seems interesting and exciting to them. Good luck!

What do you mean by "programs of that nature"? There are lots of programs with a similar research focus (and not teacher training)...

You can go to the highest-ranked program, but if your PI isn't well-regarded, you may not be able to break into the academic market. For a PhD, it's more about who you work with then where you go.

I don't think it will hurt you too much, but you might also want to look beyond specific math ed programs to those that are doing work around math education topics (e.g., policy, ed psych). What articles have you read that really interested you? Who wrote these? Look at those professors and their programs.