Jump to content

spunky

Members
  • Posts

    433
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

Everything posted by spunky

  1. i'm betting my brownies that you'll be just fine with those GRE scores (contingent on everything else that you mentioned happening and working out for you). in the very unlikely even that you get rejected from everywhere you apply (which will you won't, but still) at least you'll know it was those darn GRE scores coming right back at ya
  2. Well, I started off pretty early (3rd year undergrad) because I needed money to finish paying for my degree. At that time there was a website (which I think ended up being bought by freelancer.com) where people would basically just post a brief description of their project, the budget they had available and then people (like me) would bid for those projects. I always took on the social science ones because I knew from my brief stint in psych classes that this is a widely untapped market by people who are mostly familiar STEM areas so I knew I had an angle there. Little by little I started building up some rep and cut the middle man (the website which takes its share of your money) so I would deal with clients (and referrals) directly. Everything happened online: they would email me a description of their project, I’d give them half of it, I get half of the agreed price on my PayPal and then I’d finish everything for the 2nd half. I can’t tell for sure, but just by the type of questions and project descriptions I got, I’m pretty sure there are a few thesis/dissertations/published articles where all the analysis was done courtesy of yours truly. When Kaggle became available I only kept my best online clients (from which I started building a more “official” looking business as a self-employed data analyst) and devouted my time to Kaggle competitions. They take a lot of time but even if you only get one right, they pay REALLY well. At the same time, my graduate program opened a position for a “student consultant” to which other graduate students go to looking for advice in terms of running their statistics for their own research or methods questions. And I just straight up started offering: I can either “consult” you for free (because my meagre salary was being paid for the university) or I can do the whole analysis and write up a report with pretty graphs and colours, everything APA style and unlimited follow-ups in case revisions were requested. And from there I just ended up building a client base of students that, as expected, recommended me to their advisors and profs (who have lots of grant money) and then I just starting getting hired by the advisors directly. Overall, the one thing life has taught me is that there is always more data out there than people able to analyze it properly. And if you know how to analyze things (and, more importantly how to effectively communicate the results of your analyses), work (and $$$) will never run out.
  3. have you considered jumping into the "sharing economy" like becoming an Uber driver or posting on TaskRabbit? from what i read in one of your other posts (and because i assume we are in somewhat similar programs) i can tell you that if you're willing to do data analysis for other people, you can make a pretty decent buck. and i'm speaking from experience here. god knows i wouldn't have been able to afford graduate school without putting some of my quantitative skills to work
  4. well... acing the psych subject GRE would be a good place to start. (and by "acing" i mean really really high scores, like top 80th-90th percentile). plus how's the good ol' research experience for you? you could start volunteering as an RA if you feel you're lacking on this dept.
  5. Vanderbilt's program is pretty Quant Heavy as well. so is UMich. but do keep in mind that non-quant intensive programs can have pretty quantitative people. for instance, Bengt Muthen (the developer of Mplus) and Li Cai have joint appointments in Statistics and Education in UCLA even though UCLA's Social Research Methodology Program is not particularly known for being quant heavy. because our programs are so few and far between, sometimes it comes down to the people who are in each program and not the actual program itself.
  6. my husband and i immigrated to Canada under a now-defunct program (investor) but we looked into the entrepreneurial route (what i think is called now the "start up" visa). my only recommendation is to ask for help. LOTS of it. and not just from anyone. preferably an immigration lawyer who's also got a good business and accounting sense. in my experience with CIC, unless your case is "relatively" straightforward, you definitely need a lawyer or some sort of counselor to make sure your application won't get in trouble. you really wanna get this right from the get go.
  7. sorry... couldn't help myself
  8. i'm glad i could help well, i honestly always try to believe that people don't make mistakes like this on purpose **cough Diederik Stapel cough Michael LaCour** but sometimes it's just the lack of awareness about methodological issues combined with the lack of interest that a lot of people have when it comes to data analysis. Denny Borsboom has an awesome article with the even awesomer title The Attack of the Psychometricians (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2779444/)where he comments on the fact that, more often than not, methodologists within the social sciences and applied social scientists exist in somewhat parallel worlds and we don't really talk to each other very much. so our developments in data analysis do not inform your practice and your data analysis concerns do not always manage to make it to our computers/desks because there's just too many of them. that leaves a good chunk of what i would consider to be good, honest and bright scientists doing some pretty horrible data analysis jobs because they don't even know enough to question whether what they're doing is right. and then this goes on to be reviewed by people who are not intimately familiar with quantitative methodology/statistics and the cycle repeats itself over and over again until a few years down the line people start wondering why so many results fail to replicate but, ultimately, you're the only one who can judge whether this leap is worthwhile for your or not. like if you were to tell me something like "i'm unsure about my job prospects once i graduate, i need a back-up plan that will get me a job, any job that pays more than waiting tables" then sure, absolutely, soldier on through your MSc and you'll be thankful that you have that as a back-up plan. but if you've already established a career route for you that maybe involves more research in psychology, maybe a tenure-track position, etc. then i would devote my time to get more pubs out and getting my name known as opposed to getting an MSc. the good thing about the internet today is that you can maybe enroll in a MOOC or watch Khan Academy or something like that and get a feel of how things are. if you see yourself getting interested then maybe you can progress more into taking Statistics but if you don't like it then at least you're not in a program wasting years of your life for something that's eating away your soul.
  9. if this is a formal Statistics degree, the calculus that you will learn won't actually be needed for data analysis itself. you'll usually need to understand calculus to understand something about the properties of estimators or how certain probability density functions become something else. when it comes to the application part of things, the calculus is usually done behind the scenes in the computer. but you'll now be able to say "aha! i know where these numbers come from!"
  10. I guess this can be either a hindrance or an advantage depending on how you work with it. I come from a Math background and jumping into a social science/education/psych background did help me bring in some skills that I know your average student in these programs does not have. Most of the methodology courses that you take in Psych or Ed departments are much more focused on the application of statistics or how to use the methods. Very little attention is devoted to the actual theory or why they work. Whereas this probably serves the needs of your average graduate student, it does leave them at the disadvantage of not knowing how to proceed if they’re dealing with an unusual dataset with complicated dependencies (spoiler alert: those are the types of datasets where the most interesting results are found). A degree in Statistics might not prepare you to become a skilled data analyst in the social sciences but it will give you the necessary background to jump in with new ideas. But then again if you plan on working on research areas where there are standard methodologies in place, then there really isn’t much value in getting an MSc in Statistics aside from fostering your own personal knowledge. Will it make you a better researcher? Well, it depends on what you’re researching, right? It made me a good researcher because my research is very technical in nature. But if say you were interested in doing research in... oh I don’t know, standardized tests or scale development then it would benefit you much more to get some sort of degree or specialization in Psychometrics and not formal Statistics (very little to no Psychometrics are covered in a standard Statistics department). If you see yourself working in areas like neuropsychology or neurobiology, maybe a degree in Biostatistics (with emphasis in fMRI imaging which is a VERY hot topic) would serve you better. It seems to me that if your ultimate goal is to be a researcher more than a methodologist, you’d need to tailor your degree to cover the methodologies that are used in your substantive area of content. Or you can always become just a methodologist… I mean… we’re kinda short on those right now Will it make you more employable in the job market? Oh, it most definitely will! But here’s the catch… will it make you more employable in jobs you are interested in? Like, big pharma companies pay well for DNA sequencing analysts… but last time I worked on something like that I wanted to gouge my eyes out of sheer boredom. So all in all I think this is not a bad idea per se as long as you have a good game plan. I mean, you’re still committing a year of your life to something that you’ve already admitted to you’re not super passionate about.
  11. in my own experience they don't really say anything in those things that you can't figure out by yourself using their website. i went to mine and ended up ditching the orientation half way through. sure, i didn't know anything of what they were saying but it didn't seem like they were saying anything that i wouldn't be able to figure out by myself when needed. i feel like they use these things more like social events to see if new people may end up connecting with other people. or at least that's my take on it.
  12. Hello there. Well, this is a question that I think has been asked a couple of times and for which, I believe, there are very few resources (aside from first-hand accounts and personal experience). Most online “rankings” in Quant Psych that I’ve found out there on the internetz either blend this subfield with the ranking of the department itself or just provide generic descriptions of what some universities offer (and the university’s ranking). Two things are at play here: (a) this field is quite small compared to other more popular areas (like, say, social or clinical psychology) and (b ) it hasn’t been long since it became independent from other areas of psychology (particularly I/O, Cognitive and Mathematical Psychology). I’d venture to say the first programs sort of started popping up in the late 80s/early 90s. Anyhoo, more than rankings of programs themselves I feel like the us, Quant Psychs, know more about each other by our advisors and our advisors’ labs. Again, because we’re such a small group it’s easy to see the same names pop up over and over again in published literature and well-cited papers. For instance, a lot of really good work comes out from UCLA with Dr. Peter Bentler (who I think has either retired now or is about to) and Dr. Li-Cai. The program in UNC Chapel Hill is very-well respected (and quite rigorous in its mathematical formalism) so that’s another good option. In terms of faculties and research interests there really isn’t much to say there outside from Google is your friend. If you come from a background in mathematics/statistics it’s somewhat easier to disentangle what profs are doing and read their papers. If you feel like you’re lacking the necessary background just take your time, look for a couple of buzzwords like, I don’t know, “structural equation modelling” or “factor analysis” and look those up to see if it’s something that would resonate with you. Ask yourself questions like what would you be more interested in? The development of scales and tests? Working with large, complex datasets? Helping other psychologists test their theories through formal statistical analysis? Focus on computer programming? Stuff like that is probably going to lead you to which specific topics within Quant Psych might be interesting to you. Or you can just choose the stuff that's hot right now and hope it still remains hot before you graduate. That's kind of how I started off Good luck!
  13. Halloween costume parties Christmas/Holiday dinners with the colleagues. the rest of the year is a barren wasteland of loneliness and despair.
  14. i still feel like an confronting the prof in private before going all the way serves the purpose of both (1) clarify the situation (you never know... there could be some unusual circumstance that could somehow in some strange way would help justify this heinous behaviour) and, MUCH more importantly (2) make her aware that you know what she's up to and that you're not afraid of her.
  15. if there is any consolation anotherapplicantanotherapp, i'm 100% with you and your initial assessment of the situation would have been the same exact same as mine. my husband runs his own business and he has taught me how to follow your gut in situations like this. at least in the business world/office politics, it is incredibly common for people to do things and then "pretend" they didn't happen or make sure to use other people/fake email accounts/etc. to do their dirty work so they can at least have some sort of plausible deniability excuse. i may entertain the possibility that this person's boyfriend acted of his own accord if there had been some sort of apology or reaching out on her behalf. had my husband done something like this i would have probably slapped him right that moment because of just how ratchet that kind of behaviour is. but the convenient sequence of events that you described and her apparent lack of response seemed just too convenient to me for this to just be an accident of sorts. i personally would confront her in private before going all the way. like "hey, i'm not stupid here. if there's anything you need to say say it now to my face".
  16. i bet my brownies that your prof sent her bf over so she could circumvent any responsibility for those actions... ... now i sometimes wonder how come stuff like this never happens to me? the most salacious piece of gossip i've heard in my program so far is just someone who forgot to lock her office on a Friday and remained unlocked ALL WEEKEND. nothing was taken from the office though #truestory
  17. i think it's this one, right? http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/1/e1400005 it was somewhat of an eye-opener to me. i actually ended up switching unis for nothing else but the ranking of the one i'm now VS the one i started graduate school in. it's a tough world out there
  18. yeaaah.... good luck with that one. but if we're being honest here, i wouldn't hold my breath with that happening anytime soon. ergo, we try to look around for more practical solutions? and in a relatively tangential argument, i'm almost sure there are a few articles here and there where it was mentioned that millennials (who i guess are most of us) were using graduate school as some sort of "diversionary tactic" while waiting for the job market to look better? the jump from potential unemployment to a (hopefully regular) stipend/fellowship sounds like a really smart move to me. but then again it probably sounded like a smart move to hundreds of other students and now we have more PhDs graduating than society can absorb (unless you look for alternative/industry options)
  19. I honestly feel that replication wasn’t sexy a few years ago but it is starting to become increasingly popular and very much in-demand in certain areas of the social sciences. Last year, for instance (link: http://www.apa.org/monitor/2014/09/results.aspx) the American Psychological Association, APA, reported on a $10 MILLION dollar grant that was given to the Centre for Open Science which focuses greatly on replication research. The Association for Psychological Science has its own Registered Replication initiative (https://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/replication) where people are encouraged to follow-up on the work of well-known psychological studies just to make sure the effects they claim to exist are reproducible. I mentioned the Diederik Stapel debacle before because if Political Science decides to follow on Psychology’s footsteps and learn from its mistakes, it may start becoming a lot more interested in replication studies. I feel like a lot of what is going on is still in its infancy and many of the measures being taken might be somewhat misdirected, but at least more and more people are becoming aware of this issue and the importance that it has to further our field as a science. It’s also indirectly making a lot of people very interested in statistics so that always puts a smile on my face Stapel’s data fraud (which is remarkably similar to what happened with LaCour) has forced social psychologists (and Psychology in general, actually) to have a very honest look in the mirror and come to terms with the fact that they haven’t been as careful as they should have been in terms of how they conduct and publish their research. Things like the file-drawer effect from meta-analysis, questionable statistics, transparency in terms of data sharing, etc. are becoming more and more important in the eyes of journal editors and the community of scientific psychology in general. I find it a little bit ironic (and sad) that each area of the social sciences needs to have its own personalized ‘scandal’ before they start questioning their own practices though. Both of the authors in the article you posted are political scientists and they both claim that replication studies are not sexy in their area. Psychology was like that 5-6 years ago but nowadays a good replication study can easily lead to a publication in a top journal. You do bring an interesting point though in terms of the qualitative VS quantitative methodologies in the social sciences. My guess is that replication studies are “a thing” in quantitatively-bent social sciences (of which Psychology and Political Science are preeminent examples) but I’m not sure whether this same paradigm would make sense in, I dunno, anthropology or so. I mean, for replication to take place you kinda have to buy into the idea that the phenomenon under study exists outside of your own perception of it AND it can be measured. Otherwise you wouldn’t expect its influence to manifest itself repeatedly across various samples of the same population.
  20. I keep on thinking than in this “publish-or-perish” environment where we live in, with ever-growing pressure to obtain grants and fellowships and publish articles in prestigious journals, etc… how can anyone be surprised at all that this is happening? If people feel the pressure to publish novel, surprising findings, each one more impressive than the previous one without the opportunity of being able to make mistakes and not lose their money, people are going to end up cheating. That’s just human nature. Over here in Psychology we had our own scandal back in 2011 with Diedrik Stapel (details here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diederik_Stapel) which was pretty much the same thing: rockstar of social psych prof/researcher was found to have been faking it for a while. This threw the field of Psychology into a mindset that is usually called the “Crisis of Replicability” where some of the dirty little secrets of many social sciences are being exposed (the one that pertains to my area is just how ridiculously bad we can be at doing data analysis) but I think it’s just the general fact that the way in which we do science over here in social-science land is just not sustainable. In my years as a graduate student, I would be willing to bet my brownies that at least two students who I helped out with the methodology of their respective dissertations must have "embellished" their data because they needed to finish their dissertation before their funding ran out. Can't prove it, but I know in my gut they did something before defending.
  21. OMG! How dare you show up in these hallowed halls you!!! … you… BUSINESS STUDENT ( *ugh*, business is such a dirty word. I feel filthy just by writing it… filthy filthy!) But in all seriousness… I do think you have a good point in the fact that universities/industry like to put money into things that will get them money back. And I feel like universities more now than ever are working under the “for-profit” model where money is selectively allocated to areas of research/developments that will yield high ROIs (Return On Investment). For instance, in my university just hiked up tuition (up to 10% more for international students coming this 2015) & residence costs while at the same time reducing graduate funding because of a pull in governmental/federal funding. Yet my program saw an increase in the $$$ we were getting. Why? Well, we have contracts from testing companies in the U.S. so my assumption is that university officials consider us a more valuable program to fund given that we can bring in outside money to them. I honestly can’t think of any other reason since we’re a particularly obscure program within a particularly obscure discipline. I could see how funding business students could be seen (from people in the industry) as a good investment. Like I want highly-trained accountants for my accounting firm, so I'm gonna give $$$ to the uni so that I can have a reliable pool of talent close to me from which I can hire. And you’re right… writing for grants is a soul killer… particularly if you don’t have a cool/interesting research topic that most people can relate to. That happens a lot to me so I honestly just stopped trying altogether.
  22. aww... don't leave! plz! this topic is so ratchet and has gone in so many different directions that i'm now addicted to it. it has everything! generalization fallacies, complaints about fictitious subsidies that don't exist, thinly-veiled arguments in favour of the the natural sciences over the social sciences... gosh, if we can throw in a Agatha-Christie-style murder in here it would be PERFECT
  23. i think things like this are starting to become more and more prevalent given the current environment surrounding academic hiring and the process of obtaining funding. i mean, we in psychology kind of had our own academic scandal back on 2011 with the Diederik Stapel case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diederik_Stapel which has sort of prompted some soul-searching in psychology that goes under the name of generic name of the "Crisis of Replicability" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis). it has mostly prompted a most amusing witch-hunt of sorts as well as some nasty fights on twitter/facebook but as far as any real, long-lasting change... well, we're still waiting for it. maybe the groundwork is being laid now for the folks here in Political Science to have their very own "Crisis of Replicability"?
  24. Uhm…. I think you’re misinterpreting what I said. I never said that only people who are in well-known labs with well-known PIs will get into clinical programs. What I’m saying is that there is a big spectrum of possibilities in cases like this and each one can offset any potential negative consequences of others. For example, if the OP got into Dr Kahneman’s lab from Princeton and ended up even with a conference paper where (s)he’s somewhere in the author list, I can guarantee you that nobody would care about only having 6 months of experience. The reputation of the PI and the lab would outweigh that. But if you can’t get into a place like that then yeah, sure, time starts to matter a little bit more. That’s why I said it would be important to know more about the OP potential (and realistic) options to see whether 6 months could be enough or not.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. See our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use