Jump to content

spunky

Members
  • Posts

    433
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

Reputation Activity

  1. Upvote
    spunky got a reaction from wnk4242 in Quantitative Psychology: what are the PhD programs like?   
    Hello! Sure, I would be happy to help. I am a 3rd-year PhD student (graduating within a few months, actually) and I work both in a Quant Psych lab and an Educational Measurement one, so I tend to see how things are done in both types of programs. Honestly believe you may benefit by looking a little into Educational Measurement programs as well.
    Lemme address each one of your questions one-by-one and I’ll post everything in the forum so other people can benefit from them. I kind of feel like Quant Psych is “psychology’s best public secret” because, although it is a very interesting and fun area to be in (with lots of opportunities for growth and employment both inside and outside academia) there is little info about this area out there and its number of PhD graduates still remains quite low (at least per stats in North American programs). The Crisis of Replicability has been shining the spotlight on us a little bit (particularly because we, as methodologists/statisticians, have been forecasting this crisis for about 30yrs or more) so let’s see how things change in the future. In any case….
    My big question to you, is what can I do to improve my application beyond the basic have a good GRE, good GPA, etc.? I am not applying for programs until the Fall of 2017.
     
    For this question the advice is somewhat standard. Find a lab where you can gain research experience and volunteer. Ideally, a Quant Psych lab would be the best one so you can directly look into what goes in the daily research life of people in these types of programs. Quantitative Psychology can also be very mathematical so it wouldn’t hurt if you have taken Mathematics/Statistics classes outside of Psychology. I place emphasis on outside because, in my experience, courses in research methods/statistics for social scientists are a tad bit skimpy on the theory behind the methods and you want to learn how to do these things beyond the “cookbook” level. I mean, it’s not super necessary but it’s gonna look good on your application.
    I spoke with a Quantitative professor that offered to teach me R in an independent study. Is that a good idea?
     
    It’s more than a good idea… I’d say you’re probably gonna be expected to know some R, SAS, STATA or some other programming environment by the time to apply. But R is very powerful and popular so I would place the bulk of my efforts on learning R. I mean, you can apply without knowing any of this but then you’re gonna be stuck with both having to learn how to program while taking classes, undergoing research, etc. You’re also not going to look as good on your application package when compared with people who already know R. At this level, SPSS is just not gonna cut it anymore so don’t forget everything you know but be prepared to rarely use SPSS ever again. I think I haven’t used SPSS in more like 2 or 3 years? Everything I do is in R. So yes, the faster you can learn R, the better.
    The other software I would recommend you to become familiar with is MPLUS because that is the default now on latent variable modeling. R can do a lot of what MPLUS can, but people just use it a lot so knowing MPLUS syntax will let you communicate with other people who don’t use R. It wouldn’t hurt you to learn about other programming languages and have some idea of how to do database management (SQL) or data-visualization (Tableau), but this is really not as necessary.
    The one thing that you *should* start becoming familiar with is how to code Monte Carlo simulations. Your research as a Quant Psych person happens primarily inside the computer and simulations are our bread and butter. You are gonna end up running A LOT of those so try to become familiar with the basic structure of for() and while() loops, how to optimize computer time and (if you use R) the family of apply() functions. A book I recommend first year students to get themselves started with is this one:
    https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/monte-carlo-simulation-and-resampling-methods-for-social-science/book241131
    so if you can at least start going through some of the chapters and try to reproduce some of the examples it would place you ahead of most people by the time you begin.
    I’ll admit I don’t have a calculus background beyond Calc I, but I do have a course on multivariate statistics. Do you think this will be a problem?
     
    Not really, but then again it depends on what your ultimate goal is. Most people (like yourself) find this field by accident so almost everyone who applies starts off without a strong base of Mathematics/Statistics. You will learn most of what you need as you go but the downside is that (a) you will only know things at an “intuitive” level that does not necessarily generalize to the wider types of data you will encounter and (b) you may not be able to read and use the literature produced by and for Quantitative Psychologists. The primary journal of our field is Psychometrika. It is the most prestigious place to publish and what most people aim for. But, to be honest, without at least some notions of calculus, linear algebra and mathematical statistics most people can’t make it past the first two pages or so of any given article. So, would this be a problem to get in? No, I don’t think so. But it can end up becoming a problem in the future.
    As a curious side-note, I did my BSc in Mathematics with some hints of Psychology and I found it somewhat peculiar that, when I was having my interview, my advisor had highlighted all the Math courses I took and basically ignored anything related to Psychology. The interview also went into that direction and I feel the reason for that is because very few people with background in Math/Stats/CompSci etc. wander into Quant Psych so whenever that happens, advisors are very happy to snatch you from the get-go. Your application does stand over other people’s if you can palpably demonstrate some sort of technical expertise (where technical means theoretical math or an ability to code).
    Is there anything that applicants say/do that is specifically a deal breaker in quant programs?
     
    Uhm… not that I’m aware of? Just make sure you don’t show your preference for Bayesian statistics in front of a frequentist professor (<--- HOHOHOHO I’m so clever… Am I not? Anyone? OK, I’ll let myself out now… :D). Although this may tie in with another question of yours which is…
    I am not particularly interested in creating new statistical methods myself. I am more interested in tackling other people's data and looking into multi-level modeling. Is that a problem?
     
    For the most part, yes. This will become a problem for you sooner or later. And the reason it will become a problem is because you’re aiming at doing the most basic implementation (i.e. data analysis) of what Quantitative Psychology has to offer. It is also a problem because, in reality, any skilled social/ clinical/personality/insert-your-area-of-choice psychologist can do the same thing. As a Quant Psych your selling point is something like “not only can I do data analysis. I can do data analysis, I can create new methods for data analysis and I can evaluate data analysis methods”. If you stop at the “I just want to do data analysis” well, that’s not gonna get you very far. And that is something that in my opinion (and from talking to other people in my area in conferences and whatnot) would be a deal-breaker if you’re trying to get into a program. I mean, think about it… from the get-go, you’re already signalling that you’re not interested in doing what most of us in the field are doing so the immediate question that pops up is “is this person even supposed to be here?”.
    If you’re mostly focused on data analysis over research on statistic and theoretical psychometrics then I would encourage you to apply into a more substantive program (social/clinical/personality/etc.) and just either do a minor in Quant Psych or take as many statistics/methods courses as you can. The fact of the matter is that a Quant Psych PhD program looks more like a watered-down Statistics PhD program (with a few exceptions, Ohio State comes to mind) than a Psychology program. You’ll find out soon enough that most of your research happens inside the digital bowels of a computer and not so much going out in the field and talking to real people. I mean, you do some of that but that’s definitely not what your training as a Quant Psych will do for you.
    Is a Quantitative psychology PhD program a good place for someone particularly interested in measurement of personality and psychological disorders?
     
    You can do that but if what you are really looking for is the measurement aspect of things and not necessarily the statistical aspect, a program in Educational Measurement might be a better fit for you. In my assessment, Quantitative Psychology programs are more programs in Statistics with some Psychometrics thrown into them, whereas Educational Measurement programs are more programs in Psychometrics with some Statistics thrown into the mix. I do find that Educational Measurement programs tackle some interesting aspects of scale construction and development (like how to create norms, psychometrically-sound ways to score tests, etc.) that do not necessarily make it into Quant Psych. And the reason behind this is Item Response Theory, IRT. Educational Measurement programs have been, for the most part, the bastion of IRT because the sample sizes you need to run these models accurately can easily go into the 1000s. And, at least form my experience, your standard Psychology research sample size is somewhere in the low 100s. Plus Educational Measurement programs place heavy emphasis on what happens outside the context of data analysis (The Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing will become your new go-to book for everything) whereas I  feel like Quant Psych programs place a lot more emphasis on the data analysis part itself.
     
     
    Now, again, this is just a wide scope, generalization of how Quant Psych and Educational Measurement works. I’m sure if you look hard enough, you may find the one program with that one faculty member that does exactly what you want to do. But from the type of questions that you’re asking, I’m wondering whether Quant Psych is actually the right fit for you and if you may be better off in another program and just being very studious with your methods. Or perhaps an Educational Measurement program, have you looked into those? I feel the faculty in those programs is a little bit more diverse as far as research interests go. Another thing I would recommend you to do is to grab maybe some of the high impact journals in the field and have a look at what kind of research they publish. When you have the time, look into these 3 journals: Psychometrika, Multivariate Behavioural Research and the British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology. Go through the most recent issues, see the kind of stuff that gets published there and ask yourself: “is this the kind of research I would like to do for the rest of my professional career?” if your answer is “yes”, then Quant Psych is definitely your field. If your answer is “no” then… well, I think looking at other options might be worthwhile.
  2. Upvote
    spunky got a reaction from Jay's Brain in Quantitative Psychology: what are the PhD programs like?   
    Hello! Sure, I would be happy to help. I am a 3rd-year PhD student (graduating within a few months, actually) and I work both in a Quant Psych lab and an Educational Measurement one, so I tend to see how things are done in both types of programs. Honestly believe you may benefit by looking a little into Educational Measurement programs as well.
    Lemme address each one of your questions one-by-one and I’ll post everything in the forum so other people can benefit from them. I kind of feel like Quant Psych is “psychology’s best public secret” because, although it is a very interesting and fun area to be in (with lots of opportunities for growth and employment both inside and outside academia) there is little info about this area out there and its number of PhD graduates still remains quite low (at least per stats in North American programs). The Crisis of Replicability has been shining the spotlight on us a little bit (particularly because we, as methodologists/statisticians, have been forecasting this crisis for about 30yrs or more) so let’s see how things change in the future. In any case….
    My big question to you, is what can I do to improve my application beyond the basic have a good GRE, good GPA, etc.? I am not applying for programs until the Fall of 2017.
     
    For this question the advice is somewhat standard. Find a lab where you can gain research experience and volunteer. Ideally, a Quant Psych lab would be the best one so you can directly look into what goes in the daily research life of people in these types of programs. Quantitative Psychology can also be very mathematical so it wouldn’t hurt if you have taken Mathematics/Statistics classes outside of Psychology. I place emphasis on outside because, in my experience, courses in research methods/statistics for social scientists are a tad bit skimpy on the theory behind the methods and you want to learn how to do these things beyond the “cookbook” level. I mean, it’s not super necessary but it’s gonna look good on your application.
    I spoke with a Quantitative professor that offered to teach me R in an independent study. Is that a good idea?
     
    It’s more than a good idea… I’d say you’re probably gonna be expected to know some R, SAS, STATA or some other programming environment by the time to apply. But R is very powerful and popular so I would place the bulk of my efforts on learning R. I mean, you can apply without knowing any of this but then you’re gonna be stuck with both having to learn how to program while taking classes, undergoing research, etc. You’re also not going to look as good on your application package when compared with people who already know R. At this level, SPSS is just not gonna cut it anymore so don’t forget everything you know but be prepared to rarely use SPSS ever again. I think I haven’t used SPSS in more like 2 or 3 years? Everything I do is in R. So yes, the faster you can learn R, the better.
    The other software I would recommend you to become familiar with is MPLUS because that is the default now on latent variable modeling. R can do a lot of what MPLUS can, but people just use it a lot so knowing MPLUS syntax will let you communicate with other people who don’t use R. It wouldn’t hurt you to learn about other programming languages and have some idea of how to do database management (SQL) or data-visualization (Tableau), but this is really not as necessary.
    The one thing that you *should* start becoming familiar with is how to code Monte Carlo simulations. Your research as a Quant Psych person happens primarily inside the computer and simulations are our bread and butter. You are gonna end up running A LOT of those so try to become familiar with the basic structure of for() and while() loops, how to optimize computer time and (if you use R) the family of apply() functions. A book I recommend first year students to get themselves started with is this one:
    https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/monte-carlo-simulation-and-resampling-methods-for-social-science/book241131
    so if you can at least start going through some of the chapters and try to reproduce some of the examples it would place you ahead of most people by the time you begin.
    I’ll admit I don’t have a calculus background beyond Calc I, but I do have a course on multivariate statistics. Do you think this will be a problem?
     
    Not really, but then again it depends on what your ultimate goal is. Most people (like yourself) find this field by accident so almost everyone who applies starts off without a strong base of Mathematics/Statistics. You will learn most of what you need as you go but the downside is that (a) you will only know things at an “intuitive” level that does not necessarily generalize to the wider types of data you will encounter and (b) you may not be able to read and use the literature produced by and for Quantitative Psychologists. The primary journal of our field is Psychometrika. It is the most prestigious place to publish and what most people aim for. But, to be honest, without at least some notions of calculus, linear algebra and mathematical statistics most people can’t make it past the first two pages or so of any given article. So, would this be a problem to get in? No, I don’t think so. But it can end up becoming a problem in the future.
    As a curious side-note, I did my BSc in Mathematics with some hints of Psychology and I found it somewhat peculiar that, when I was having my interview, my advisor had highlighted all the Math courses I took and basically ignored anything related to Psychology. The interview also went into that direction and I feel the reason for that is because very few people with background in Math/Stats/CompSci etc. wander into Quant Psych so whenever that happens, advisors are very happy to snatch you from the get-go. Your application does stand over other people’s if you can palpably demonstrate some sort of technical expertise (where technical means theoretical math or an ability to code).
    Is there anything that applicants say/do that is specifically a deal breaker in quant programs?
     
    Uhm… not that I’m aware of? Just make sure you don’t show your preference for Bayesian statistics in front of a frequentist professor (<--- HOHOHOHO I’m so clever… Am I not? Anyone? OK, I’ll let myself out now… :D). Although this may tie in with another question of yours which is…
    I am not particularly interested in creating new statistical methods myself. I am more interested in tackling other people's data and looking into multi-level modeling. Is that a problem?
     
    For the most part, yes. This will become a problem for you sooner or later. And the reason it will become a problem is because you’re aiming at doing the most basic implementation (i.e. data analysis) of what Quantitative Psychology has to offer. It is also a problem because, in reality, any skilled social/ clinical/personality/insert-your-area-of-choice psychologist can do the same thing. As a Quant Psych your selling point is something like “not only can I do data analysis. I can do data analysis, I can create new methods for data analysis and I can evaluate data analysis methods”. If you stop at the “I just want to do data analysis” well, that’s not gonna get you very far. And that is something that in my opinion (and from talking to other people in my area in conferences and whatnot) would be a deal-breaker if you’re trying to get into a program. I mean, think about it… from the get-go, you’re already signalling that you’re not interested in doing what most of us in the field are doing so the immediate question that pops up is “is this person even supposed to be here?”.
    If you’re mostly focused on data analysis over research on statistic and theoretical psychometrics then I would encourage you to apply into a more substantive program (social/clinical/personality/etc.) and just either do a minor in Quant Psych or take as many statistics/methods courses as you can. The fact of the matter is that a Quant Psych PhD program looks more like a watered-down Statistics PhD program (with a few exceptions, Ohio State comes to mind) than a Psychology program. You’ll find out soon enough that most of your research happens inside the digital bowels of a computer and not so much going out in the field and talking to real people. I mean, you do some of that but that’s definitely not what your training as a Quant Psych will do for you.
    Is a Quantitative psychology PhD program a good place for someone particularly interested in measurement of personality and psychological disorders?
     
    You can do that but if what you are really looking for is the measurement aspect of things and not necessarily the statistical aspect, a program in Educational Measurement might be a better fit for you. In my assessment, Quantitative Psychology programs are more programs in Statistics with some Psychometrics thrown into them, whereas Educational Measurement programs are more programs in Psychometrics with some Statistics thrown into the mix. I do find that Educational Measurement programs tackle some interesting aspects of scale construction and development (like how to create norms, psychometrically-sound ways to score tests, etc.) that do not necessarily make it into Quant Psych. And the reason behind this is Item Response Theory, IRT. Educational Measurement programs have been, for the most part, the bastion of IRT because the sample sizes you need to run these models accurately can easily go into the 1000s. And, at least form my experience, your standard Psychology research sample size is somewhere in the low 100s. Plus Educational Measurement programs place heavy emphasis on what happens outside the context of data analysis (The Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing will become your new go-to book for everything) whereas I  feel like Quant Psych programs place a lot more emphasis on the data analysis part itself.
     
     
    Now, again, this is just a wide scope, generalization of how Quant Psych and Educational Measurement works. I’m sure if you look hard enough, you may find the one program with that one faculty member that does exactly what you want to do. But from the type of questions that you’re asking, I’m wondering whether Quant Psych is actually the right fit for you and if you may be better off in another program and just being very studious with your methods. Or perhaps an Educational Measurement program, have you looked into those? I feel the faculty in those programs is a little bit more diverse as far as research interests go. Another thing I would recommend you to do is to grab maybe some of the high impact journals in the field and have a look at what kind of research they publish. When you have the time, look into these 3 journals: Psychometrika, Multivariate Behavioural Research and the British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology. Go through the most recent issues, see the kind of stuff that gets published there and ask yourself: “is this the kind of research I would like to do for the rest of my professional career?” if your answer is “yes”, then Quant Psych is definitely your field. If your answer is “no” then… well, I think looking at other options might be worthwhile.
  3. Upvote
    spunky got a reaction from Oshawott in Quantitative Psychology: what are the PhD programs like?   
    Hello! Sure, I would be happy to help. I am a 3rd-year PhD student (graduating within a few months, actually) and I work both in a Quant Psych lab and an Educational Measurement one, so I tend to see how things are done in both types of programs. Honestly believe you may benefit by looking a little into Educational Measurement programs as well.
    Lemme address each one of your questions one-by-one and I’ll post everything in the forum so other people can benefit from them. I kind of feel like Quant Psych is “psychology’s best public secret” because, although it is a very interesting and fun area to be in (with lots of opportunities for growth and employment both inside and outside academia) there is little info about this area out there and its number of PhD graduates still remains quite low (at least per stats in North American programs). The Crisis of Replicability has been shining the spotlight on us a little bit (particularly because we, as methodologists/statisticians, have been forecasting this crisis for about 30yrs or more) so let’s see how things change in the future. In any case….
    My big question to you, is what can I do to improve my application beyond the basic have a good GRE, good GPA, etc.? I am not applying for programs until the Fall of 2017.
     
    For this question the advice is somewhat standard. Find a lab where you can gain research experience and volunteer. Ideally, a Quant Psych lab would be the best one so you can directly look into what goes in the daily research life of people in these types of programs. Quantitative Psychology can also be very mathematical so it wouldn’t hurt if you have taken Mathematics/Statistics classes outside of Psychology. I place emphasis on outside because, in my experience, courses in research methods/statistics for social scientists are a tad bit skimpy on the theory behind the methods and you want to learn how to do these things beyond the “cookbook” level. I mean, it’s not super necessary but it’s gonna look good on your application.
    I spoke with a Quantitative professor that offered to teach me R in an independent study. Is that a good idea?
     
    It’s more than a good idea… I’d say you’re probably gonna be expected to know some R, SAS, STATA or some other programming environment by the time to apply. But R is very powerful and popular so I would place the bulk of my efforts on learning R. I mean, you can apply without knowing any of this but then you’re gonna be stuck with both having to learn how to program while taking classes, undergoing research, etc. You’re also not going to look as good on your application package when compared with people who already know R. At this level, SPSS is just not gonna cut it anymore so don’t forget everything you know but be prepared to rarely use SPSS ever again. I think I haven’t used SPSS in more like 2 or 3 years? Everything I do is in R. So yes, the faster you can learn R, the better.
    The other software I would recommend you to become familiar with is MPLUS because that is the default now on latent variable modeling. R can do a lot of what MPLUS can, but people just use it a lot so knowing MPLUS syntax will let you communicate with other people who don’t use R. It wouldn’t hurt you to learn about other programming languages and have some idea of how to do database management (SQL) or data-visualization (Tableau), but this is really not as necessary.
    The one thing that you *should* start becoming familiar with is how to code Monte Carlo simulations. Your research as a Quant Psych person happens primarily inside the computer and simulations are our bread and butter. You are gonna end up running A LOT of those so try to become familiar with the basic structure of for() and while() loops, how to optimize computer time and (if you use R) the family of apply() functions. A book I recommend first year students to get themselves started with is this one:
    https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/monte-carlo-simulation-and-resampling-methods-for-social-science/book241131
    so if you can at least start going through some of the chapters and try to reproduce some of the examples it would place you ahead of most people by the time you begin.
    I’ll admit I don’t have a calculus background beyond Calc I, but I do have a course on multivariate statistics. Do you think this will be a problem?
     
    Not really, but then again it depends on what your ultimate goal is. Most people (like yourself) find this field by accident so almost everyone who applies starts off without a strong base of Mathematics/Statistics. You will learn most of what you need as you go but the downside is that (a) you will only know things at an “intuitive” level that does not necessarily generalize to the wider types of data you will encounter and (b) you may not be able to read and use the literature produced by and for Quantitative Psychologists. The primary journal of our field is Psychometrika. It is the most prestigious place to publish and what most people aim for. But, to be honest, without at least some notions of calculus, linear algebra and mathematical statistics most people can’t make it past the first two pages or so of any given article. So, would this be a problem to get in? No, I don’t think so. But it can end up becoming a problem in the future.
    As a curious side-note, I did my BSc in Mathematics with some hints of Psychology and I found it somewhat peculiar that, when I was having my interview, my advisor had highlighted all the Math courses I took and basically ignored anything related to Psychology. The interview also went into that direction and I feel the reason for that is because very few people with background in Math/Stats/CompSci etc. wander into Quant Psych so whenever that happens, advisors are very happy to snatch you from the get-go. Your application does stand over other people’s if you can palpably demonstrate some sort of technical expertise (where technical means theoretical math or an ability to code).
    Is there anything that applicants say/do that is specifically a deal breaker in quant programs?
     
    Uhm… not that I’m aware of? Just make sure you don’t show your preference for Bayesian statistics in front of a frequentist professor (<--- HOHOHOHO I’m so clever… Am I not? Anyone? OK, I’ll let myself out now… :D). Although this may tie in with another question of yours which is…
    I am not particularly interested in creating new statistical methods myself. I am more interested in tackling other people's data and looking into multi-level modeling. Is that a problem?
     
    For the most part, yes. This will become a problem for you sooner or later. And the reason it will become a problem is because you’re aiming at doing the most basic implementation (i.e. data analysis) of what Quantitative Psychology has to offer. It is also a problem because, in reality, any skilled social/ clinical/personality/insert-your-area-of-choice psychologist can do the same thing. As a Quant Psych your selling point is something like “not only can I do data analysis. I can do data analysis, I can create new methods for data analysis and I can evaluate data analysis methods”. If you stop at the “I just want to do data analysis” well, that’s not gonna get you very far. And that is something that in my opinion (and from talking to other people in my area in conferences and whatnot) would be a deal-breaker if you’re trying to get into a program. I mean, think about it… from the get-go, you’re already signalling that you’re not interested in doing what most of us in the field are doing so the immediate question that pops up is “is this person even supposed to be here?”.
    If you’re mostly focused on data analysis over research on statistic and theoretical psychometrics then I would encourage you to apply into a more substantive program (social/clinical/personality/etc.) and just either do a minor in Quant Psych or take as many statistics/methods courses as you can. The fact of the matter is that a Quant Psych PhD program looks more like a watered-down Statistics PhD program (with a few exceptions, Ohio State comes to mind) than a Psychology program. You’ll find out soon enough that most of your research happens inside the digital bowels of a computer and not so much going out in the field and talking to real people. I mean, you do some of that but that’s definitely not what your training as a Quant Psych will do for you.
    Is a Quantitative psychology PhD program a good place for someone particularly interested in measurement of personality and psychological disorders?
     
    You can do that but if what you are really looking for is the measurement aspect of things and not necessarily the statistical aspect, a program in Educational Measurement might be a better fit for you. In my assessment, Quantitative Psychology programs are more programs in Statistics with some Psychometrics thrown into them, whereas Educational Measurement programs are more programs in Psychometrics with some Statistics thrown into the mix. I do find that Educational Measurement programs tackle some interesting aspects of scale construction and development (like how to create norms, psychometrically-sound ways to score tests, etc.) that do not necessarily make it into Quant Psych. And the reason behind this is Item Response Theory, IRT. Educational Measurement programs have been, for the most part, the bastion of IRT because the sample sizes you need to run these models accurately can easily go into the 1000s. And, at least form my experience, your standard Psychology research sample size is somewhere in the low 100s. Plus Educational Measurement programs place heavy emphasis on what happens outside the context of data analysis (The Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing will become your new go-to book for everything) whereas I  feel like Quant Psych programs place a lot more emphasis on the data analysis part itself.
     
     
    Now, again, this is just a wide scope, generalization of how Quant Psych and Educational Measurement works. I’m sure if you look hard enough, you may find the one program with that one faculty member that does exactly what you want to do. But from the type of questions that you’re asking, I’m wondering whether Quant Psych is actually the right fit for you and if you may be better off in another program and just being very studious with your methods. Or perhaps an Educational Measurement program, have you looked into those? I feel the faculty in those programs is a little bit more diverse as far as research interests go. Another thing I would recommend you to do is to grab maybe some of the high impact journals in the field and have a look at what kind of research they publish. When you have the time, look into these 3 journals: Psychometrika, Multivariate Behavioural Research and the British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology. Go through the most recent issues, see the kind of stuff that gets published there and ask yourself: “is this the kind of research I would like to do for the rest of my professional career?” if your answer is “yes”, then Quant Psych is definitely your field. If your answer is “no” then… well, I think looking at other options might be worthwhile.
  4. Upvote
    spunky got a reaction from Azsy16 in Quantitative Psychology: what are the PhD programs like?   
    Hello! Sure, I would be happy to help. I am a 3rd-year PhD student (graduating within a few months, actually) and I work both in a Quant Psych lab and an Educational Measurement one, so I tend to see how things are done in both types of programs. Honestly believe you may benefit by looking a little into Educational Measurement programs as well.
    Lemme address each one of your questions one-by-one and I’ll post everything in the forum so other people can benefit from them. I kind of feel like Quant Psych is “psychology’s best public secret” because, although it is a very interesting and fun area to be in (with lots of opportunities for growth and employment both inside and outside academia) there is little info about this area out there and its number of PhD graduates still remains quite low (at least per stats in North American programs). The Crisis of Replicability has been shining the spotlight on us a little bit (particularly because we, as methodologists/statisticians, have been forecasting this crisis for about 30yrs or more) so let’s see how things change in the future. In any case….
    My big question to you, is what can I do to improve my application beyond the basic have a good GRE, good GPA, etc.? I am not applying for programs until the Fall of 2017.
     
    For this question the advice is somewhat standard. Find a lab where you can gain research experience and volunteer. Ideally, a Quant Psych lab would be the best one so you can directly look into what goes in the daily research life of people in these types of programs. Quantitative Psychology can also be very mathematical so it wouldn’t hurt if you have taken Mathematics/Statistics classes outside of Psychology. I place emphasis on outside because, in my experience, courses in research methods/statistics for social scientists are a tad bit skimpy on the theory behind the methods and you want to learn how to do these things beyond the “cookbook” level. I mean, it’s not super necessary but it’s gonna look good on your application.
    I spoke with a Quantitative professor that offered to teach me R in an independent study. Is that a good idea?
     
    It’s more than a good idea… I’d say you’re probably gonna be expected to know some R, SAS, STATA or some other programming environment by the time to apply. But R is very powerful and popular so I would place the bulk of my efforts on learning R. I mean, you can apply without knowing any of this but then you’re gonna be stuck with both having to learn how to program while taking classes, undergoing research, etc. You’re also not going to look as good on your application package when compared with people who already know R. At this level, SPSS is just not gonna cut it anymore so don’t forget everything you know but be prepared to rarely use SPSS ever again. I think I haven’t used SPSS in more like 2 or 3 years? Everything I do is in R. So yes, the faster you can learn R, the better.
    The other software I would recommend you to become familiar with is MPLUS because that is the default now on latent variable modeling. R can do a lot of what MPLUS can, but people just use it a lot so knowing MPLUS syntax will let you communicate with other people who don’t use R. It wouldn’t hurt you to learn about other programming languages and have some idea of how to do database management (SQL) or data-visualization (Tableau), but this is really not as necessary.
    The one thing that you *should* start becoming familiar with is how to code Monte Carlo simulations. Your research as a Quant Psych person happens primarily inside the computer and simulations are our bread and butter. You are gonna end up running A LOT of those so try to become familiar with the basic structure of for() and while() loops, how to optimize computer time and (if you use R) the family of apply() functions. A book I recommend first year students to get themselves started with is this one:
    https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/monte-carlo-simulation-and-resampling-methods-for-social-science/book241131
    so if you can at least start going through some of the chapters and try to reproduce some of the examples it would place you ahead of most people by the time you begin.
    I’ll admit I don’t have a calculus background beyond Calc I, but I do have a course on multivariate statistics. Do you think this will be a problem?
     
    Not really, but then again it depends on what your ultimate goal is. Most people (like yourself) find this field by accident so almost everyone who applies starts off without a strong base of Mathematics/Statistics. You will learn most of what you need as you go but the downside is that (a) you will only know things at an “intuitive” level that does not necessarily generalize to the wider types of data you will encounter and (b) you may not be able to read and use the literature produced by and for Quantitative Psychologists. The primary journal of our field is Psychometrika. It is the most prestigious place to publish and what most people aim for. But, to be honest, without at least some notions of calculus, linear algebra and mathematical statistics most people can’t make it past the first two pages or so of any given article. So, would this be a problem to get in? No, I don’t think so. But it can end up becoming a problem in the future.
    As a curious side-note, I did my BSc in Mathematics with some hints of Psychology and I found it somewhat peculiar that, when I was having my interview, my advisor had highlighted all the Math courses I took and basically ignored anything related to Psychology. The interview also went into that direction and I feel the reason for that is because very few people with background in Math/Stats/CompSci etc. wander into Quant Psych so whenever that happens, advisors are very happy to snatch you from the get-go. Your application does stand over other people’s if you can palpably demonstrate some sort of technical expertise (where technical means theoretical math or an ability to code).
    Is there anything that applicants say/do that is specifically a deal breaker in quant programs?
     
    Uhm… not that I’m aware of? Just make sure you don’t show your preference for Bayesian statistics in front of a frequentist professor (<--- HOHOHOHO I’m so clever… Am I not? Anyone? OK, I’ll let myself out now… :D). Although this may tie in with another question of yours which is…
    I am not particularly interested in creating new statistical methods myself. I am more interested in tackling other people's data and looking into multi-level modeling. Is that a problem?
     
    For the most part, yes. This will become a problem for you sooner or later. And the reason it will become a problem is because you’re aiming at doing the most basic implementation (i.e. data analysis) of what Quantitative Psychology has to offer. It is also a problem because, in reality, any skilled social/ clinical/personality/insert-your-area-of-choice psychologist can do the same thing. As a Quant Psych your selling point is something like “not only can I do data analysis. I can do data analysis, I can create new methods for data analysis and I can evaluate data analysis methods”. If you stop at the “I just want to do data analysis” well, that’s not gonna get you very far. And that is something that in my opinion (and from talking to other people in my area in conferences and whatnot) would be a deal-breaker if you’re trying to get into a program. I mean, think about it… from the get-go, you’re already signalling that you’re not interested in doing what most of us in the field are doing so the immediate question that pops up is “is this person even supposed to be here?”.
    If you’re mostly focused on data analysis over research on statistic and theoretical psychometrics then I would encourage you to apply into a more substantive program (social/clinical/personality/etc.) and just either do a minor in Quant Psych or take as many statistics/methods courses as you can. The fact of the matter is that a Quant Psych PhD program looks more like a watered-down Statistics PhD program (with a few exceptions, Ohio State comes to mind) than a Psychology program. You’ll find out soon enough that most of your research happens inside the digital bowels of a computer and not so much going out in the field and talking to real people. I mean, you do some of that but that’s definitely not what your training as a Quant Psych will do for you.
    Is a Quantitative psychology PhD program a good place for someone particularly interested in measurement of personality and psychological disorders?
     
    You can do that but if what you are really looking for is the measurement aspect of things and not necessarily the statistical aspect, a program in Educational Measurement might be a better fit for you. In my assessment, Quantitative Psychology programs are more programs in Statistics with some Psychometrics thrown into them, whereas Educational Measurement programs are more programs in Psychometrics with some Statistics thrown into the mix. I do find that Educational Measurement programs tackle some interesting aspects of scale construction and development (like how to create norms, psychometrically-sound ways to score tests, etc.) that do not necessarily make it into Quant Psych. And the reason behind this is Item Response Theory, IRT. Educational Measurement programs have been, for the most part, the bastion of IRT because the sample sizes you need to run these models accurately can easily go into the 1000s. And, at least form my experience, your standard Psychology research sample size is somewhere in the low 100s. Plus Educational Measurement programs place heavy emphasis on what happens outside the context of data analysis (The Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing will become your new go-to book for everything) whereas I  feel like Quant Psych programs place a lot more emphasis on the data analysis part itself.
     
     
    Now, again, this is just a wide scope, generalization of how Quant Psych and Educational Measurement works. I’m sure if you look hard enough, you may find the one program with that one faculty member that does exactly what you want to do. But from the type of questions that you’re asking, I’m wondering whether Quant Psych is actually the right fit for you and if you may be better off in another program and just being very studious with your methods. Or perhaps an Educational Measurement program, have you looked into those? I feel the faculty in those programs is a little bit more diverse as far as research interests go. Another thing I would recommend you to do is to grab maybe some of the high impact journals in the field and have a look at what kind of research they publish. When you have the time, look into these 3 journals: Psychometrika, Multivariate Behavioural Research and the British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology. Go through the most recent issues, see the kind of stuff that gets published there and ask yourself: “is this the kind of research I would like to do for the rest of my professional career?” if your answer is “yes”, then Quant Psych is definitely your field. If your answer is “no” then… well, I think looking at other options might be worthwhile.
  5. Upvote
    spunky got a reaction from TakeruK in How did you start writing your dissertation?   
    Thanks everyone for your great recommendations. Now my proposal is ready and, with some luck, I'll get to defend it before the end of September so I can officially become a PhD candidate.
    OMG! Everything is moving so fast!
  6. Upvote
    spunky got a reaction from fuzzylogician in How did you start writing your dissertation?   
    Thanks everyone for your great recommendations. Now my proposal is ready and, with some luck, I'll get to defend it before the end of September so I can officially become a PhD candidate.
    OMG! Everything is moving so fast!
  7. Upvote
    spunky reacted to fuzzylogician in How did you start writing your dissertation?   
    Well, mine involved two chapters based on existing papers and an additional 4 that were new (based on presentations and proceedings papers to some degree, with one that I would say was basically brand new from scratch). So the first thing I did was compile the stuff I already had in my dissertation format (Latex) just to feel like I have already accomplished something. Then I set a plan for what needed to happen roughly when, based on when I wanted to defend and working backwards, leaving time for last-minute unknowns (which definitely happened!). What I chose to do on a given day depended on my mood -- some were serious writing days, some were editing days, some were silly formatting and other troubleshooting days. I kept daily track of my progress to get a sense of whether my plan was reasonable. There were definitely days and sometimes weeks where less happened. I am going through the same kind of thing now with the book based on my dissertation, which I am basically writing in bursts -- some very good days, some not so good days. It's important to have a routine and to give it a try, but to recognize bad days and cut yourself some slack. The worst thing you can do is both waste the time and be mad at yourself. If you're not having a good day, it might be better to try to do something else for a while and be forgiving of yourself, because this will and does happen to everyone.
    The best thing for writers block (for me) is free-style writing. Write down anything, don't worry about how it looks or sounds, just get something on the page, even if you know you probably won't end up using any of it. It also often helps me to change my physical environment. If I have been unproductive at home for a day or two, it may be time to spend a day working in a coffee shop. If you have friends around who you can work in the same room with, the presence of someone else will sometimes help you feel more accountable. Since your dissertation is a collection of already-written papers, each of them should already have an intro and a conclusion of its own. Is there text from there you could use to say what each chapter is going to do (/did)? Can you tell the story of how they hang together? That's really all that you need to do. It doesn't need to be perfect, or even good. It needs to be done. You can do it. 
    Edit: Oh, and congrats on the job offer, that is great! 
  8. Upvote
    spunky reacted to PoliticalOrder in METHODOLOGICAL BALANCE   
    I'm just gonna post something that needs to be said.
    No matter how much you disagree with the quantification of political science, it is not going away and is only going to increase for the most part. And depending on your field (especially if you study American) qualitative methods may be nearly, or completely dead in the water.
    The name 'Skocpol Wannabe' is alarming. Every graduate student reads States and Social Revolutions and there is a lot to learn from it. However, political science is NOT done like this anymore in basically any capacity. 
    Some of the posters have advised taking extra-departmental qualitative classes, I don't think that is really a good idea (outside of something like a survey qualitative methods course or comparative-historical studies). Archival work isn't a big thing in political science. Ethnography simply does not exist in the field. Interviews, while can be a part of a comparative politics research design, are usually just reserved for theory building and getting information that isn't available otherwise. Furthermore, the critical and gender theory that is heavily used in fields like Women's studies and Anthropology have virtually no standing in political science.
    If you don't have abilities in quant you probably won't get a job nor publish in top journals; it is as simple as that. You need to think about perhaps looking at other disciplines if you are dead set on qualitative methods, it's going to be a huge uphill battle throughout your career if you try to go against the grain.
  9. Upvote
    spunky reacted to fuzzylogician in Stay or not to stay in the US after getting fired?   
    It won't be that easy to move to a new school. They will have to arrange a visa for you, which can be both expensive and time consuming. I think you may have no choice but to leave. More generally, though, I don't think it'll matter if you have a summer RAship somewhere in the US when it comes to applying to a new MA/PhD program. As I said in a different thread, the important question is going to be whether you'll be able to get anyone from your current school to support a reapplication (= write you a strong LOR). Without one, there will be a big red flag in your application. I would interpret the "false hopes" you have been getting as soft rejections which you haven't been understanding correctly. And I would give some serious thought to what that means for what your department thinks of you and how they'll react if you ask them to write you a LOR. I think you should work hard to leave on good terms and mend fences to the best of your ability, to give yourself some chance of coming back to another program in the future. 
  10. Upvote
    spunky got a reaction from eternallyephemeral in The next iteration of the unpaid internship: the unpaid postdoc.   
    plz! don't forget the computer AND printer perk people, that should seal the deal!
     
    (plot twist: you need to pay for your own ink! :D)
  11. Upvote
    spunky got a reaction from Solio in The next iteration of the unpaid internship: the unpaid postdoc.   
    plz! don't forget the computer AND printer perk people, that should seal the deal!
     
    (plot twist: you need to pay for your own ink! :D)
  12. Upvote
    spunky reacted to thegradcafebarrista in Chicago School experience help   
    There's an article in the Huffington Post from 2012 titled "Chicago School of Professional Psychology Sued, Students Call It a Diploma Mill."
    It's probably much better to play it safe and attend a reputable PhD program at a major research university. A degree from a school like the Chicago School isn't going to allow you to break into academia.
    (By the way, "international psychology" isn't an actual field; rather, it's something that the Chicago School came up with to lure more students in. And "business psychology" is generally called "industrial-organizational psychology" at reputable universities.)
     
  13. Upvote
    spunky got a reaction from DC1020 in GRE   
    I dunno, but I’ve always been a little bit reticent to jump into the OMG-the-GRE-so-unfair bandwagon. I feel it is really more of a symptom rather than a cause of a much wider issue which is simply the fact that graduate school applications in programs like Psychology (which I think always rank consistently on the top 5 most popular major in North America? ß could be wrong here) have skyrocketed in the past decade and there really is no system (at least not until that I’m aware of) to place all students on a common standard for evaluation.

    Back when I was intering at ETS (and it seems like I will be heading there next year) we would have a few research talks on the type of validity evidence that’s out there in the literature for the GRE (and other standardized tests) and if a discussion broke out (which it often did) regarding the downfalls of score use and interpretation, we almost always ended up circling back to the same conclusion: the GRE (or your standardized test of choice) is definitely not ideal, but it is the only solution that makes sense given the time/budget limitations of the world we live in. I honestly don’t think a prestigious Psych program would discard a stellar candidate (where by “stellar” I mean publications in peer-reviewed journals, conference presentations, strong LORs from prestigious labs, etc.) just because his or her GRE scores do not match X or Y cut-offs. But I do think that if you’re an “average” candidate with average scores then, yes, the GRE will impact you positively or negatively. The key issue is to recognize that is not because of the score itself, it is because there are 100s applicants who look just like you on paper. And if among the 100s of applicants it just so happens that a few look better on the GRE than you, then your chances  of ending up on the “no” pile as opposed to the “yes” increase.   

    I guess in an ideal world there would be a way to have some sort of “holistic” evaluation of candidates, but unless someone can figure out how to obtain and administer the resources in terms of time, money, labour, etc. to implement said system the GRE is here to stay.


     
    PS - I think it's funny how we started with a thread about strategies to improve GRE scores and we're now back to the old-age debate of whether or not the use of GRE scores for admission purposes is valid. 
  14. Upvote
    spunky got a reaction from clinpsy in GRE   
    I dunno, but I’ve always been a little bit reticent to jump into the OMG-the-GRE-so-unfair bandwagon. I feel it is really more of a symptom rather than a cause of a much wider issue which is simply the fact that graduate school applications in programs like Psychology (which I think always rank consistently on the top 5 most popular major in North America? ß could be wrong here) have skyrocketed in the past decade and there really is no system (at least not until that I’m aware of) to place all students on a common standard for evaluation.

    Back when I was intering at ETS (and it seems like I will be heading there next year) we would have a few research talks on the type of validity evidence that’s out there in the literature for the GRE (and other standardized tests) and if a discussion broke out (which it often did) regarding the downfalls of score use and interpretation, we almost always ended up circling back to the same conclusion: the GRE (or your standardized test of choice) is definitely not ideal, but it is the only solution that makes sense given the time/budget limitations of the world we live in. I honestly don’t think a prestigious Psych program would discard a stellar candidate (where by “stellar” I mean publications in peer-reviewed journals, conference presentations, strong LORs from prestigious labs, etc.) just because his or her GRE scores do not match X or Y cut-offs. But I do think that if you’re an “average” candidate with average scores then, yes, the GRE will impact you positively or negatively. The key issue is to recognize that is not because of the score itself, it is because there are 100s applicants who look just like you on paper. And if among the 100s of applicants it just so happens that a few look better on the GRE than you, then your chances  of ending up on the “no” pile as opposed to the “yes” increase.   

    I guess in an ideal world there would be a way to have some sort of “holistic” evaluation of candidates, but unless someone can figure out how to obtain and administer the resources in terms of time, money, labour, etc. to implement said system the GRE is here to stay.


     
    PS - I think it's funny how we started with a thread about strategies to improve GRE scores and we're now back to the old-age debate of whether or not the use of GRE scores for admission purposes is valid. 
  15. Upvote
    spunky got a reaction from Oshawott in GRE   
    I dunno, but I’ve always been a little bit reticent to jump into the OMG-the-GRE-so-unfair bandwagon. I feel it is really more of a symptom rather than a cause of a much wider issue which is simply the fact that graduate school applications in programs like Psychology (which I think always rank consistently on the top 5 most popular major in North America? ß could be wrong here) have skyrocketed in the past decade and there really is no system (at least not until that I’m aware of) to place all students on a common standard for evaluation.

    Back when I was intering at ETS (and it seems like I will be heading there next year) we would have a few research talks on the type of validity evidence that’s out there in the literature for the GRE (and other standardized tests) and if a discussion broke out (which it often did) regarding the downfalls of score use and interpretation, we almost always ended up circling back to the same conclusion: the GRE (or your standardized test of choice) is definitely not ideal, but it is the only solution that makes sense given the time/budget limitations of the world we live in. I honestly don’t think a prestigious Psych program would discard a stellar candidate (where by “stellar” I mean publications in peer-reviewed journals, conference presentations, strong LORs from prestigious labs, etc.) just because his or her GRE scores do not match X or Y cut-offs. But I do think that if you’re an “average” candidate with average scores then, yes, the GRE will impact you positively or negatively. The key issue is to recognize that is not because of the score itself, it is because there are 100s applicants who look just like you on paper. And if among the 100s of applicants it just so happens that a few look better on the GRE than you, then your chances  of ending up on the “no” pile as opposed to the “yes” increase.   

    I guess in an ideal world there would be a way to have some sort of “holistic” evaluation of candidates, but unless someone can figure out how to obtain and administer the resources in terms of time, money, labour, etc. to implement said system the GRE is here to stay.


     
    PS - I think it's funny how we started with a thread about strategies to improve GRE scores and we're now back to the old-age debate of whether or not the use of GRE scores for admission purposes is valid. 
  16. Upvote
    spunky got a reaction from khunconan in GRE   
    I dunno, but I’ve always been a little bit reticent to jump into the OMG-the-GRE-so-unfair bandwagon. I feel it is really more of a symptom rather than a cause of a much wider issue which is simply the fact that graduate school applications in programs like Psychology (which I think always rank consistently on the top 5 most popular major in North America? ß could be wrong here) have skyrocketed in the past decade and there really is no system (at least not until that I’m aware of) to place all students on a common standard for evaluation.

    Back when I was intering at ETS (and it seems like I will be heading there next year) we would have a few research talks on the type of validity evidence that’s out there in the literature for the GRE (and other standardized tests) and if a discussion broke out (which it often did) regarding the downfalls of score use and interpretation, we almost always ended up circling back to the same conclusion: the GRE (or your standardized test of choice) is definitely not ideal, but it is the only solution that makes sense given the time/budget limitations of the world we live in. I honestly don’t think a prestigious Psych program would discard a stellar candidate (where by “stellar” I mean publications in peer-reviewed journals, conference presentations, strong LORs from prestigious labs, etc.) just because his or her GRE scores do not match X or Y cut-offs. But I do think that if you’re an “average” candidate with average scores then, yes, the GRE will impact you positively or negatively. The key issue is to recognize that is not because of the score itself, it is because there are 100s applicants who look just like you on paper. And if among the 100s of applicants it just so happens that a few look better on the GRE than you, then your chances  of ending up on the “no” pile as opposed to the “yes” increase.   

    I guess in an ideal world there would be a way to have some sort of “holistic” evaluation of candidates, but unless someone can figure out how to obtain and administer the resources in terms of time, money, labour, etc. to implement said system the GRE is here to stay.


     
    PS - I think it's funny how we started with a thread about strategies to improve GRE scores and we're now back to the old-age debate of whether or not the use of GRE scores for admission purposes is valid. 
  17. Upvote
    spunky got a reaction from eternallyephemeral in GRE   
    I dunno, but I’ve always been a little bit reticent to jump into the OMG-the-GRE-so-unfair bandwagon. I feel it is really more of a symptom rather than a cause of a much wider issue which is simply the fact that graduate school applications in programs like Psychology (which I think always rank consistently on the top 5 most popular major in North America? ß could be wrong here) have skyrocketed in the past decade and there really is no system (at least not until that I’m aware of) to place all students on a common standard for evaluation.

    Back when I was intering at ETS (and it seems like I will be heading there next year) we would have a few research talks on the type of validity evidence that’s out there in the literature for the GRE (and other standardized tests) and if a discussion broke out (which it often did) regarding the downfalls of score use and interpretation, we almost always ended up circling back to the same conclusion: the GRE (or your standardized test of choice) is definitely not ideal, but it is the only solution that makes sense given the time/budget limitations of the world we live in. I honestly don’t think a prestigious Psych program would discard a stellar candidate (where by “stellar” I mean publications in peer-reviewed journals, conference presentations, strong LORs from prestigious labs, etc.) just because his or her GRE scores do not match X or Y cut-offs. But I do think that if you’re an “average” candidate with average scores then, yes, the GRE will impact you positively or negatively. The key issue is to recognize that is not because of the score itself, it is because there are 100s applicants who look just like you on paper. And if among the 100s of applicants it just so happens that a few look better on the GRE than you, then your chances  of ending up on the “no” pile as opposed to the “yes” increase.   

    I guess in an ideal world there would be a way to have some sort of “holistic” evaluation of candidates, but unless someone can figure out how to obtain and administer the resources in terms of time, money, labour, etc. to implement said system the GRE is here to stay.


     
    PS - I think it's funny how we started with a thread about strategies to improve GRE scores and we're now back to the old-age debate of whether or not the use of GRE scores for admission purposes is valid. 
  18. Upvote
    spunky got a reaction from hd397 in GRE   
    I dunno, but I’ve always been a little bit reticent to jump into the OMG-the-GRE-so-unfair bandwagon. I feel it is really more of a symptom rather than a cause of a much wider issue which is simply the fact that graduate school applications in programs like Psychology (which I think always rank consistently on the top 5 most popular major in North America? ß could be wrong here) have skyrocketed in the past decade and there really is no system (at least not until that I’m aware of) to place all students on a common standard for evaluation.

    Back when I was intering at ETS (and it seems like I will be heading there next year) we would have a few research talks on the type of validity evidence that’s out there in the literature for the GRE (and other standardized tests) and if a discussion broke out (which it often did) regarding the downfalls of score use and interpretation, we almost always ended up circling back to the same conclusion: the GRE (or your standardized test of choice) is definitely not ideal, but it is the only solution that makes sense given the time/budget limitations of the world we live in. I honestly don’t think a prestigious Psych program would discard a stellar candidate (where by “stellar” I mean publications in peer-reviewed journals, conference presentations, strong LORs from prestigious labs, etc.) just because his or her GRE scores do not match X or Y cut-offs. But I do think that if you’re an “average” candidate with average scores then, yes, the GRE will impact you positively or negatively. The key issue is to recognize that is not because of the score itself, it is because there are 100s applicants who look just like you on paper. And if among the 100s of applicants it just so happens that a few look better on the GRE than you, then your chances  of ending up on the “no” pile as opposed to the “yes” increase.   

    I guess in an ideal world there would be a way to have some sort of “holistic” evaluation of candidates, but unless someone can figure out how to obtain and administer the resources in terms of time, money, labour, etc. to implement said system the GRE is here to stay.


     
    PS - I think it's funny how we started with a thread about strategies to improve GRE scores and we're now back to the old-age debate of whether or not the use of GRE scores for admission purposes is valid. 
  19. Upvote
    spunky got a reaction from Gvh in SF Bay Area - looking for PhD grad students in neuroscience   
    i find this both insulting AND hilarious
  20. Upvote
    spunky got a reaction from seaslugs in Which alma mater are you most proud of, undergrad or grad?   
    graduate school, all the way.
     
    i went to a freakin' small liberal arts college in the middle of freakin' nowhere in the 'Bible Belt of Canada'. i met people there who literally had never left their hometown. EVER.
     
    i remember the first day in a Sociology 101 class the prof was explaining some social myths like how what we call a 'traditional family' is a relatively new invention or that people lived longer before (which is a lie, given the advances we have in medicine today). then this girl raises her hand and says "oh, but long ago people used to
    live like 100s of years!" the prof was like "oh really... like where? or who?" and the girl said "like Methuselah", took out her bible and quoted it. my first week of classes. my 2nd week in Canada. it was like the twilight zone.
  21. Upvote
    spunky got a reaction from VentureIntoNothingness in Any other Quantitative Psychology applicants out there?   
    Well, congratulations in the meantime because they're all great schools with very good programs. I would be happy in any one of them... although I think ASU would be a really good one because of the prestige it carries. 
    Any data analysis job within the realm of the social sciences works well. If you happen to be specifically interested in Psychometrics, working for testing companies (ETS, Pearson, etc.) has the double-benefited of both being well-paid (within reason, I mean, it's still an intro-level position) and directly relevant to your field of study.
    Or you could freelance. Lots of flexible work and interesting projects.
    Anyhoo, my 0.02 right there. 
  22. Upvote
    spunky got a reaction from winterstat in Conferences 2016   
    I submitted to Modern Modelling Methods (M3) in Connecticut! Which probably no one has heard about! But it's super kewl, I promise!  
  23. Upvote
    spunky got a reaction from Yunix in Which alma mater are you most proud of, undergrad or grad?   
    graduate school, all the way.
     
    i went to a freakin' small liberal arts college in the middle of freakin' nowhere in the 'Bible Belt of Canada'. i met people there who literally had never left their hometown. EVER.
     
    i remember the first day in a Sociology 101 class the prof was explaining some social myths like how what we call a 'traditional family' is a relatively new invention or that people lived longer before (which is a lie, given the advances we have in medicine today). then this girl raises her hand and says "oh, but long ago people used to
    live like 100s of years!" the prof was like "oh really... like where? or who?" and the girl said "like Methuselah", took out her bible and quoted it. my first week of classes. my 2nd week in Canada. it was like the twilight zone.
  24. Upvote
    spunky got a reaction from ExponentialDecay in Language Differences   
    i know this sounds awful but... have you considered the option that... well... maybe they just don't really care to include you in their conversations and that's it?
    i had a similar experience in my undergrad (i went to a small university so my cohort was super small). it was 7 of us (all int'l students, curiously enough) but 6 came from the same background/culture + me. throughout my last semester i was only able to talk to them about some class stuff during class time so i asked a friend of mine from a different major (who shared the same background/language) if i was doing something wrong and she just said "oh, don't take it personally. it's not that they don't like you, they really just don't care about being inclusive." i realized then that this idea of "being inclusive" in conversations, social interactions, etc. can sometimes be a cultural trait that not everybody shares. you may think it's rude, but for other people it's perfectly normal. 
    i just gave up on them and started hanging around with other people. maybe just take this as a 'self-growth' moment? you know, getting a little out of your "small town girl from a very conservative background" persona and connect with other people outside your program in different ways?
  25. Upvote
    spunky got a reaction from rising_star in Language Differences   
    i know this sounds awful but... have you considered the option that... well... maybe they just don't really care to include you in their conversations and that's it?
    i had a similar experience in my undergrad (i went to a small university so my cohort was super small). it was 7 of us (all int'l students, curiously enough) but 6 came from the same background/culture + me. throughout my last semester i was only able to talk to them about some class stuff during class time so i asked a friend of mine from a different major (who shared the same background/language) if i was doing something wrong and she just said "oh, don't take it personally. it's not that they don't like you, they really just don't care about being inclusive." i realized then that this idea of "being inclusive" in conversations, social interactions, etc. can sometimes be a cultural trait that not everybody shares. you may think it's rude, but for other people it's perfectly normal. 
    i just gave up on them and started hanging around with other people. maybe just take this as a 'self-growth' moment? you know, getting a little out of your "small town girl from a very conservative background" persona and connect with other people outside your program in different ways?
×
×
  • 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