juilletmercredi

As someone who went straight through from undergrad to PhD I am a huge huge HUGE advocate of taking a few years to do something besides school. Even for students who really really want it and think they are 95% sure they want a PhD. But especially for a student who is ambivalent and really rates financial stability as being a top priority. Graduate school stipends do NOT confer financial stability. It looks that way from the outside, but there are all kinds of caveats. My first stipend was around $32,000 in New York, which sounds like it should be enough to live on, particularly since I was sharing an apartment with another graduate student. It was - just barely. Had I had some kind of crisis or emergency I would've been wiped out. I had friends who did not have summer support and had to run around to try to get that. There's conference travel for presenting, which often takes a bite out of your income (even if your department says they support students, it's often not enough to cover all the expenses for one trip. And often they reimburse you.) There are additional things you need to get that your stipend will have to stretch to cover. And $32,000 is an extremely generous stipend for a graduate program. I know the anthropology stipends were less even at my same university, and they are quite a bit less at other universities in other locales - even expensive ones. (I think CUNY was paying out around $18,000.) Let me put it this way...I spent 6 years in my PhD program. I don't regret it, and I have an awesome job (in industry) that I could've only gotten with a PhD in the field I finished in. But people still ask me 1) if it was worth it and 2) if I would do it all over again, and I still don't know how to answer either of those questions (my degree was conferred a year and two days ago). Nothing even particularly bad happened to me during my PhD program - I was funded all the way through at above-average levels, got a couple of papers published, lived in a great city, got married, had good friends...but it's just a really long slog to do particularly if you would be equally happy doing something that didn't require a PhD at all. I had no idea of the kinds of jobs I could do without a PhD; I had no idea that I could get involved with research-related jobs even with a master's degree, and very little actual idea of what a PhD-holding person who wasn't a professor actually did on a day-to-day basis (because I didn't want to go into academia). So your professors are just trying to encourage you to explore a little bit before you spend 6-8 years earning a degree that you potentially don't need to do what you want: to see if there are any other jobs you really love, figure out all that life stuff that was referenced above and really make concrete decisions about career and research that are filtered through experience. Also...be easier on those cousins of yours. Sometimes moving back home IS a smart choice. I feel like we're way too hard on our generation; there's no switch that flips at college graduation/age 21-22 that magically helps you find a job that can support you at levels high enough to pay rent everywhere and allow you to save. Being under 30 and broke isn't all that uncommon - and honestly, if you go to graduate school living on a grad stipend, you will probably be 24 and broke, too! I was! It takes time to start earning more money, put enough in savings to be a cushion and build your life up. That doesn't mean you'll be starving, though.

Yeah, I had heard/seen that - which I think is absolutely batty* but - not my field! That said, I was more referring to the research methods than the content coursework. OP already said he took some advanced econ classes in undergrad, so I think he's got that covered. There's an article floating around on the Internet somewhere written by a recent economics PhD who explained why rankings in economics don't matter as much as in other fields. Because economists have high-demand skills - quantitative knowledge, financial/economics knowledge, research skills - I think they have more options outside of academia, so there aren't a glut of PhDs lined up to do the jobs that require a PhD in economics. As a result, according to him, it's easier for graduates even of mid-tier programs to get placed into positions. American U is also right there in DC, so that may explain what you saw wrt that program. *Of course I understand that advanced mathematical facility is required to do modern economics well. I'm talking about the econ part - that a PhD admit to a top econ program may never have had to take an undergrad econ class. Far as I know, economics is still a social science with theories and principles, and I think it's kind of weird that a social science wouldn't care whether or not a student had any coursework in that area - and thus a grasp of the basic theorists and principles. Like wouldn't they want folks to have a basic understanding of micro and macro, or know who Keynes is? But again...not my field.

I think it depends on the field you are attempting to enter and the rest of your qualifications. You won't have built strong relationships with professors to get good references from academic sources, which is crucial for academic PhD programs. Your profile says you are interested in clinical or counseling psychology - yes? Clinical, particularly, is a very competitive field where people often do 2-3 years of research post-college. And psychology programs in general want academic references, not professional ones - maybe one professional reference would be okay if you do a research-related job that is relevant to the topic you want to study in psych, but that person would need to have a PhD in psychology, and you still need 2 others from professors who have taught you in classes and can comment on your potential for success in a PhD program. One from your master's program would be ideal. If you are otherwise an outstanding candidate with the requisite background to be competitive for a PhD program in psych, it might not matter so much, particularly if the job you currently work is a research-related one. It's not going to hinder you per se, but it may not help you that much either.

It doesn't sound like you are miserable because you hate your program or because it was a bad fit for you; it sounds like you are homesick and miss your family and partner. Being homesick is normal in the beginning. The question is, do you think it will get better soon and can you get through 5-7 years being far away (or however long it will be until they can join you)? The other thing is, if you want to join academia, you will need to be open to moving anywhere in the country for a position. I mention this because you said that you are almost 100% sure you want to stay in - this is something you might have to get used to for a long time, possibly indefinitely, if you find an academic position on the other side of the country from where you grew up. On the other hand, being at the best program in the country can go a long way in giving you a little more choice over where you live (because you may be competitive for more positions). It's only October; you've been in the program for a month and a half. The newness has worn off and the reality of every day life is settling in, so it's normal to feel homesick now. Give it some time. If you still feel completely miserable in - say - March, revisit your options then.

Well...it depends. Do you really want a PhD but you're having imposter syndrome issues, or are you truly unsure about what you want to do? If you know you want a PhD, but you're just afraid, I think either option is a good one. A note about option A is that you often don't "convert" to a PhD later; you will likely have to reapply to PhD programs in your second year of the master's degree (or after you finish), even if you want to attend the same program in which you did your MS. You may prefer option B for that reason and for the reason that you may have to pay for the master's - although my understanding is that MS degrees in engineering are often funded. If you really, truly think that you want a PhD and a career as a researcher, there's no harm in entering the PhD program and chugging along. As you say, you can always leave later if you find it's not right for you - although leaving can often be a lot harder than you think. If you aren't sure whether you want a PhD, or you don't really want one right now but you may want one in the future, I strongly suggest option A. First, it's unethical to accept a place in a PhD program when you know up front you don't intend to finish it. (That's not the same thing as deciding part way through that it's not for you and quitting.) Secondly, PhD programs are not set up to help master's candidate to find jobs, so if you knew you wanted to leave after the master's degere to work for a few years you may not find the career counseling support you would at a professional master's program. Third, leaving PhD programs are emotionally and financially more difficult than most people anticipate, I think.

Personal opinion, but I think it's going to be a hard sell. Not impossible, but you have to tread carefully and build a case. Paramount is building a really compelling narrative about why you decided to switch from a research career in engineering to a research career in economics. It needs to come across as a considered, reasoned decision that you've put a lot of thought and effort into. Right now it just sounds like you are sort of exploring or more idly turning it over in your brain - which is ok, but I think that means you're not yet ready to apply to PhD programs in this field. Honestly, I think the fact that you are currently in a PhD program in a completely different field might not matter that much, unless you are intending to blend your research in engineering with research in economics (like financial engineering or something...I don't know). You may have research experience, but you have engineering research experience, which is not directly applicable to economics. The methods, theories, and procedures are very different across those fields. I'm not sure whether a program in econ would want a letter of rec from your current PI: on the one hand, PhD programs like to know that you're not an ax murderer who left the department because you pissed off every single professor in the department, but on the other hand, an engineering professor can't really effectively speak to your potential for success in economics. (Still leaning towards yes - your PI's letter is probably essential but you will probably need 2-3 letters from economists). There are other considerations: whether you have any experience in economics research methods, how long it's been since you've been in an undergrad econ class (this may be more plausible if you graduated undergrad 2 years ago than if you graduated 10 years ago), whether there's anything else on your CV that indicates an interest in academic economics or econ in general (like work experience or something). A couple of Bs aren't going to tank you, so don't worry about that. A 3.75 is absolutely fine. I think it's really impossible to evaluate your chances. I think it's always difficult, but this really is a kind of special case. I think the best thing in this case is to contact an economics professor that you know and trust - possibly one of the professors who taught one of those advanced econ classes you took in undergrad - and pitch this to them, asking explicitly for their advice about how to explain your change of career/field and what you need to do in the interim to increase those chances. Might be easier to go to an MA in economics and then transition into a PhD.

I think it's much less common than applicants think for applicants to PhD programs to have publications. Few professors, I think, expect applicants to have a publication before joining the program. Most successful applicants usually don't have one. The expectation may be slightly higher for you because you will have spent a bit more time post-college in a lab, but I still don't necessarily think they'll have expected a publication. (And since you already have one, I think you'll be fine.) It's not always about time spent. As you've noted yourself, some labs just publish more frequently and faster than other labs. Some types of research require longer times to publication. And sometimes you just get lucky and enter the lab at the right time for a publication - 2 years may be plenty of time in a lab that has data sitting around waiting to be analyzed (or already analyzed data that just needs someone to write it up), but not enough time in a lab that just wrapped up most of its projects and are starting new ones from base level.

I think around 2 weeks for something 10-15 pages long is reasonable; allow more time for longer. My dissertation chapters were around 30-50 pages each and I gave my advisor about 4 weeks for feedback for each. He's slower than most when it comes to feedback, so he took a bit longer (and I knew that, so I gave him the 4-week deadline so he would get it back to me in 6 weeks, when I really needed it. You gotta learn to manage your manager ) It depends on what it is, too. Dissertation chapters are denser and require more reading/feedback than journal articles or abstracts, especially if your advisor is already familiar with the study you're writing the article for. And quicker turnarounds in an emergency are possible with some advisors - a couple times my advisor turned around some feedback within a few days for an abstract for a conference.

I've gotten mail for previous tenants in all of the previous apartments I've lived in. That's just the nature of the enterprise, I think. I have accidentally have Amazon packages sent to the wrong address. It's pretty simple, actually - you have a default address, you forget to change it when you order your things, and it ends up at the old place. The last apartment I lived in before this current one I got someone's HR documents and possibly their final paycheck (it was labeled from the payroll division). I brought it to the leasing office.

It's very common for people with doctoral degrees to go back for an MPH, and in fact, there are MPH programs that are specifically designed for people who already hold doctoral degrees. For example, there the accelerated MPH program at Columbia, which is targeted at applicants who either have a doctoral degree or at least 5 years of professional experience. Many times these doctoral degree holders have clinical degrees (MDs, DDSs, DSW, DNP, PhD in clinical psychology, etc.) but often they're doctoral degree holders who potentially want to do broader research in public health and maybe teach at an SPH. Johns Hopkins' MPH programs are actually only designed for doctoral degree holders or people with professional experience. They have another degree, the MHS, that is for people with less experience in the field or straight from undergrad. Harvard has a 45-credit MPH that is designed for experienced professionals or doctoral degree holders. Yale has an 11-month Advanced Professional MPH program. UCLA and Emory both also offer accelerated MPH options for doctoral degree holders. I think it's likely that most schools of public health have an option for doctoral degree holders to do an accelerated program. Sometimes the name of it is "general public health," sometimes it's buried under their executive MPH program. But I'd check the website of most top schools of PH and poke around a bit. You may also be interested in the Epidemic Intelligence Service!

Most policies have exceptions for military service. For example, a quick google search shows that Georgetown does not count military or medical leaves against the limit on semesters on leave, whereas other reasons do. Some exceptions are enforced by law, as there are special legal provisions to prevent discrimination against members of the armed forces. (For example, any conflict of commitment policy would likely not apply to service in the armed forces, since graduate programs legally cannot prevent servicemembers from attending their program and I'm pretty sure they can't prevent current students from joining the Reserves, either.) Summer drill is active duty time and counts as being called up for active duty. Legally, most programs probably have to grant you a leave of absence and preserve your stipend for you to do your summer drill. But summer training is supposed to only be 2 weeks (it can sometimes be longer than that) so you might not even have to take a leave for that - you may just have to arrange it with your PI that you are gone those two weeks. Before you ask anyone I'd check out the student handbook and see if there's anything in there mentioning it. Some student handbooks have these policies spelled out. Legally speaking, you don't need their blessing, although practically speaking it might be a good idea to discuss the impact beforehand. Still, though, I'd be careful about who you approach and how you discuss it. I would not assume that joining the Reserves would be looked at favorably; at best it will be seen neutrally, and at worse some professors may think that you are unserious simply because you are spending time doing anything besides academic work.

@rising_star and @telkanuru are right. I want to address some other stuff: 1) To answer your original question, it's virtually impossible to earn a PhD while teaching K-12 full time. PhD programs are full-time. Classes are usually held during 9 to 5 hours, as are meetings with advisors and departmental colloquia, brown bags, etc. You will have to travel for conferences a few times a year and those usually fall during the academic year. Not only that but the work for a PhD program is pretty grueling - I would expect to work at least 40-60 hours a week on PhD program stuff. I think it would be impossible to do a good job as a K-12 teacher while in a rigorous PhD program. But then there are the optics...quite frankly, many professors will not take you as seriously if you taught middle school history while doing your PhD with them, even if you could. You may find them less willing to write recommendations for you, work on projects with you, or refer you to jobs - since their perception may well be that you are "just" going to be a K-12 history teacher anyway. (And to be clear I'm referencing their perceptions. I think teaching HS history is awesome - my history teacher from high school was one of the most influential people in my young life.) 2) Your status as a K-12 teacher will likely have no bearing on your application to a PhD program. PhD program admissions are about research, not teaching. It'll probably be neutral; it could even be negative. * Also 3) Don't assume that engagement is going to be higher at the college level. Imagine yourself teaching a survey class - American history to 1855 for example - a class that majors take but also many other students take as a humanities or social science requirement or just for an 'easy' free elective. There are also variable levels of students - you may teach at a community college or a regional campus where students are just taking U.S. history because it's a required part of their program (I think immediately of my mother and my cousin, both of whom had to take that class to get nursing degrees, and both of whom complained bitterly about it). If you are thinking about those kinds of places, you may not even get to teach that many upper-level classes in history where you get that "historical nuance" that you want. That's particularly true if you are comparing these kinds of scenarios to well-reputed private/independent schools, or even to public schools in excellent districts with better students. 4) Don't apply to PhD programs just because you can. Don't become overwhelmed with choice because that road seems open to you. Quite frankly, it's useless if it doesn't get you where you want. Of course your professors encourage it - they took that road, and there's some validation in having a young person take the same road you did. 5) The most important one . Professors who say this are in denial, a deep, dark denial. Head about 5 feet under the sand denial. This is NOT true. It has not been true for a very long time. The academic market is bad, and history is just about one of the worst fields. There are MANY excellent graduate students who do not get tenure-track offers - not because they aren't committed, or because they didn't get fellowships as doctoral students (many of them do), or because they aren't great - but because there simply are are not enough tenure-track positions to go around for all the good to excellent PhD students who want them. That's in part because of the sea change in academia, whereby tenure-track positions are being replaced with cheaper contingent labor wholesale. It is a MYTH that the hard-working PhD students will inevitably get good jobs, because pretty much every doctoral student in history is a hard-working student. Most PhD students will not get a tenure-track job in history. Now, you will probably get A job because the unemployment rate for PhD holders is pretty low, but it probably won't be a tenure-track job in history, and it may not be an academic job at all. There are good chances that it'll be a job you don't need a PhD for - which means at this point in time, you need to be comfortable with the idea of spending 8-10 years earning a degree for the sake of earning it in and of itself, and not as a career credential. If you don't mind that, go for it! It can be rewarding. AND It's been my experience that professors are often out of touch with the non-academic world, to the extent that they can't give good unbiased advice about working outside of academia - particularly if the student in question has intimated that they are considering academia as an alternative choice. Not all professors, but most, I think, will go for the option of trying to convince you to enter academia. In order to be a successful academic you have to be incredibly driven and focused. This necessitates a sort of close-mindedness - see academia, eliminate everything else from field of vision. The result is that most academics have never really done any other kind of work besides academia - and as a result academic culture has some weird assumptions about non-academic work that are not always true, and even if they are true, are not as disdainful as they would have you think. For example, some of my mentors have presented industry work as lacking in autonomy. Many academics seem to believe that their career field is the only one that offers any acceptable level of autonomy and flexibility, and everything else is rigid corporate cubicle culture. I work in industry and have found that to be untrue, but in addition, I don't really care - selecting my own research projects and doing them exactly the way I want without any oversight was never important to me. (And "rigid corporate cubicle culture" is just laughable in light of my own job's culture.) Also, nobody intends to take longer than it is necessary to finish a program. It's just that some students decide along the way that 10 years is necessary for them to achieve "mastery" or learn enough.

^Er...I would disagree with that. If you wanted to make a special version of your CV for your LOR writers with your GPA on the CV, that's one thing and easy enough to do. But when you apply to programs you will apply with your transcript and your GPA will be in there. If professors in the program really think it's so important as to consider them together, they will staple them or something. But putting a GPA on the CV is a bit outside professional norms and I'd personally be more concerned about the mindset of someone who did so rather than the actual GPA itself - particularly since after a certain point (around a 3.5ish I would say) GPA wouldn't even really matter to me anymore wrt PhD admissions.

@OP: You're essentially asking people to do an enormous amount of work for you. If I count correctly there are 15 programs on your list. You never specified whether you are applying to their MS or PhD programs, so that's a factor. But probably the biggest thing is that we can't really evaluate your profile reliably: it depends on your research interests and fit with the department and how well they align, but also with who else you are competing with this year and other intangible factors we don't know about. @paulwece: What is your reference/frame of knowledge for "many" top programs having an automatic cutoff at the 90th percentile? The UIUC ECE website, for example, has lots of information about cutoff TOEFL scores; I imagine if they had an absolute bottom at 165, they would warn people about that on their website so as to cut down the number of applications they had to read. Conversely, I can't imagine most graduate programs - hypothetically speaking - turning down someone with a 164 who had an otherwise really outstanding, desirable candidate if 165 was their "floor". Some programs may have 165 as a soft floor below which they'd rather not go but be willing to scoop up really awesome candidates with a lower score. I'm not saying this candidate shouldn't retake the GRE (it's probably a good idea for quantitative fields, honestly) but I think lots of applicants have this belief in their head that programs have "automatic cutoffs" or toss applications in the garbage if they don't meet some arbitrary minimum, when in reality most graduate programs have more holistic and forgiving processes than that.

Generally speaking, if you are doing a research project that is based upon a grant in progress, you should avoid doing something that is part of the main aims of the study (because your advisor is probably working on that) and answer some related or peripheral question. That said, you're having a hard time because you can't come up with a research question just based on the questionnaires and scales. You need to know more background. Research is about a conversation between scientists; you're essentially entering the conversation in the middle of it without having heard the beginning. So you've got to backtrack and "ask" everybody what they were talking about - aka, go and do some formative research on the topic your PI is investigating. Ask to see the original grant for an idea of where to start (they have a literature review that you can use). Poke into the background research, and find out where the gaps are. What still has not been answered? What niche can you carve out in the field? What research questions need to be answered in order for the field to advance and address serious problems? You use the questionnaires as an idea for what can be answered given the data that you have, but they alone are not enough to help you generate an idea. That takes some time and thought.

Some notes to consider: -The SF Bay area is one of the most popular places in the country to live - possibly the planet. Yes, there are more universities and colleges, but there are thousands of young PhDs who would give their right arm to have a job there. That makes things harder, even at junior colleges and smaller regional schools. One truism of academia is that even lower-ranked schools in desirable areas can hire much more desirable people than they would've if they were located elsewhere. -It is theoretically possible for you to get a job ABD, but it's pretty uncommon/rare in fields other than the humanities these days (and is becoming uncommon there, too). Think about it too in relation to point 1: you'll be competing in one of the most competitive markets in the country, in a highly desired city. Most departments would choose to hire someone they don't have to worry about finishing than someone they do. The vast majority of job ads I see in my social sciences field ask that the PhD be in hand by a specific date prior to the start date. -However, I HAVE witnessed that connections and networking matter in academia just as much as they do anywhere else, even though academics would like to pretend otherwise. I've seen people maneuver their way from postdocs to academic positions in the same general geographic region. This happened a lot in New York, where I went to graduate school - another intensely popular place to live. A lot of my friends from grad school simply did not want to leave NYC, so they took postdocs and research positions all over the city at a bunch of different places. A few did manage to turn that into tenure-track jobs there, but not most. Some left academia so they could stay in the city. I'm saying this because the ticket might be to look for postdoc or research associate positions in SF at SF-area universities, funded on a grant of some kind. Alternatively, at the very least look to finish first and apply for jobs during your final year (maybe do a run in your second to last year to see who bites). -You probably need to decide for yourself quite soon which is more important to you: the geographic region or having an academic job? Would you rather work a non-academic job in your desired city or work an academic job somewhere else? Also, people enter PhD programs for all kinds of reasons and people change their minds all the time. I ended up changing careers after I finished - and I don't regret it for a second. I live in a city I love (so far) and I still do interesting work with great people. So it'll probably work out! Just think about what would actually make you happy both personally and professionally in the long run.

After I finished my dissertation, my husband - who had been very understanding and supportive through the whole thing - said "I'm so glad you're done. I feel like you've been walking around in a fog for the last 2+ years and you finally emerged." About 3-4 months after I finished, he again remarked on how different I was from when I was in graduate school, and how happy he was to have the original Juillet back. Being in that thesis/dissertation phase really changes you in ways you probably don't realize. It seems normal to you, because your point of reference is your advisor and other graduate students. But it's not really normal - you're at least slightly obsessed with your topic, you're thinking about it virtually all the time, and especially as the defense approaches you're running around like a maniac trying to do stuff. It is definitely possible your SO is jealous or you have issues you need to work out in the relationship, but always remember that graduate school has a track record of turning people into different - and sometimes undesirable - people.

Definitely the MPH. An MA in psychology doesn't really prepare you for any specific career field, other than going for a PhD in psychology. An MPH is considered the entry-level preparation in public health; it's the most common degree in that field, and is pretty widely recognized. I had a similar tug of war on the doctoral level - "preventing illness and promoting health through psychological study and intervention" was pretty much exactly what I wanted to do - and ended up going to a PhD program that blended psychology and public health together. There's not really a direct equivalent on the master's level, but there are certainly behavioral science and psychology classes (and mental health classes) offered at schools of public health in MPH programs, and at some universities you might be able to take some classes from the psychology department to fulfill electives. You could also get an MHS in mental health from Johns Hopkins.

Meh, I disagree. There have been lots of stories in the news about companies being cavalier with the security of their employees' and customers' personal data like Social Security numbers and credit card numbers. When I applied to grad school back in 2007 I didn't think twice about it, but an application would give me pause these days. It's completely unnecessary for universities to ask for it at the application stage - they can simply ask a yes/no question about U.S. citizenship if they want to know that, and most departments are not running background checks on their students (and even if they have to, they can do this after they've accepted you). I just completed a job search and none of the jobs I applied to asked for my SSN on a job application. I definitely wouldn't have applied for a job that insisted having it up front - because again, not necessary. The only time I had to provide my SSN was once I got hired - the company that hired me contracted a private background check company and I provided it to them, on a secure form; I also obviously had to submit it on my I-9 when I started working. But it's generally a bad idea to send your SSN out there willy-nilly to dozens of companies or schools.

Perhaps. It depends on the employer and their own perceptions. Some employers may not care if you do a PhD part-time, as long as it doesn't interfere with your work. Some might even see it as a bonus. But others will believe (realize?) that even a part-time PhD is a lot of work and might be too demanding to balance with full-time work at their position. Others might not even bother if they have other qualified candidates who are not in PhD programs. You can take the PhD program off your resume if you don't want that to be a red flag immediately - you don't have to have it on there. That's not saying that you should lie if it comes up, but a resume is essentially a marketing document for you, so you only have to put relevant information that will help you find positions you want, not everything you've ever done. If you do leave it on, it might be something you could address in a cover letter if you are deft about it.

You may have to re-roll the dice, but from what you've said you are unhappy with your department anyway. So your choices are "department that I know to be a bad fit" and "department that could be a bad fit or could potentially be a much better fit than where I am". You've listed a variety of really good reasons to leave and do the PhD elsewhere. 1) Unless there's some other way to get outside funding to continue, or your advisor can guarantee you another source, applying somewhere else is probably the best option. 2) It depends on the reason that you leave, but generally speaking a student who leaves because their interests/professional needs have changed would be looked upon favorably, or at least the same as other applicants. When you say you lost funding, make it clear that the loss was due to no fault of your own. Really the trick is to get a letter writer from your current department to address this in their letter, emphasizing that you are a fantastic student that the department would really, really want and that the loss of funding has nothing to do with you and your peformance. 3) What @knp said. Your advisor may have a vested interest in keeping you, but it doesn't sound like she has the money to. It depends on the school whether or not its reflected. On my university's transcript it does list the degree program I matriculated into, so if I had left with an MA it would be obvious that I did so from my transcripts. Others might not. You may want to request a copy of your transcript to see what it says. However, this is pretty easy to figure out. It's not simply from the things you do - undergrad research and publications are not unusual for terminal master's students in many fields (some people get terminal master's degrees as preparation for a PhD program, after all). It's because 1) if your department doesn't have a terminal master's degree, a quick Google search will reveal that and 2) you're going to be expected to have a letter of recommendation from someone in your graduate department, and they're going to reveal the truth. So it's always better to be upfront about it.

Why would the field matter? We're talking about six-figure debt any way you slice this. There's also evidence showing that unfunded students, on average, take longer to graduate. Even if there are enough job prospects out there, few of them are going to pay you the kind of salary you would need to repay the $100,000+ of loans you'd have to borrow for tuition and living expenses (and that would be closer to $200,000 if this is a private school). Don't do it.

Transpersonal psychology makes it sound like you are leaning towards clinical psychology, and you say that you want to work as a clinician, so that narrows your choices to counseling or clinical. If you want to go clinical, you should know that clinical psychology programs are insanely competitive, and doing the minimum is unlikely to result in admission. I mention this mostly because you say you have 9-12 credits in psychology, which is 3-4 classes. I would say that is not enough, and you'll want to take 2-3 more courses - more along the lines of at least 15-20 credits in psychology (the equivalent of a minor) to be minimally competitive. But you will be competing with students who have a full major in the field. Also, I agree with spunky; you need research experience. You won't be competitive for PhD programs without it. If you have some in anthropology, you could perhaps get away with doing a little less in psychology, but you should definitely volunteer in a psychology lab (or work) to get some experience with psychological research methods. One possible solution is doing a post-baccalaureate program in psychology. They tend to be expensive though! However, I have a friend who did the postbacc in psychology at my graduate institution and is now getting a PhD and is focusing on areas very similar to your interests.

Why do you think you should've done an MA in experimental psychology if your goal is a PhD in counseling psychology? An MA in counseling sounds like ideal preparation for a PhD in counseling. You're still getting research experience and presumably still taking some psychology classes, so you'll be fine. (An MA in experimental would've been fine, too - really, you are just fine.) I see that you have plenty of direction. You majored in something in college and worked in it a few years. Then you changed your mind, as people are wont to do. So you entered a counseling MA program, are acquiring research experience in the field, and are now applying to counseling PhD programs. That seems perfectly logical. And oh, stop reading SDN. That place is super depressing. And no, publications are not essential. Most people do not have them before a PhD program. My PhD is in social psychology (and public health), and I did not have a publication before I was admitted.

I change my answer to this.