juilletmercredi

I just checked the website and admittedly, I only spent a few minutes there, but I didn't see any such message.

I think you can share it, BUT you need to make clear about how that difference had an impact on your educational outlook and journey. To be blunt, the statement can't come across as "I was poor, and being poor is hard, so pity me and let me in!" It needs to be more about "I was poor, and being poor was a significant disadvantage in my early life - yet I managed to persevere through it. And in the mean time, I have learned that it has set me apart from my peers in X specific ways, and that I have learned Y specific things that have had Z specific impacts upon my approach to my work." That doesn't mean that your research has to be specifically related - just how is your approach perhaps different?

Can't you just scan it and then edit it in a PDF editor or a Word document to make it fit?

Your statement of purpose is the place to brag. That's where you want to convey that you are well-prepared for the program and that they really want to have you! Bragging in the admissions process doesn't hurt, unless you do it in a way that's off-putting. (And that's generally true in academia in general, btw. You have to toot your own horn a bit; nobody else is going to toot it for you.) I think putting the fellowship in the finances section of your application is fine by itself. But if you want to put it in the statement, I would put it in the paragraph in which you describe your current research interests. You can add a short line like, "I was recently awarded the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship for my proposal to study the role of oxytocin in mother-infant bonding" or whatever.

It's impossible to tell, as each program probably uses the question for different things. But take it at face value - it literally means that if you are admitted without funding, will you attend? The second concern (are they less likely to offer you admission) is kind of a moot point. If you indicate that you won't attend without a financial award, and they don't intend to give you one, it doesn't matter whether they choose not to admit you or whether they admit you without a financial award. You're not going to go, so they might as well offer the spot to someone who might attend without the financial award. The first question is more pressing, but I think that programs mostly offer their aid awards on merit. A shiny outstanding student is unlikely to get a financial award taken from them because they indicated that they would pay. Perhaps it's an issue if you are borderline. Either way, I think you should just answer truthfully.

Personally, I think it is kinder to ask a student to leave rather than let them struggle through qualifying exams and the dissertation if you 1) don't believe he has the skill and/or motivation to get through that stuff and 2) doesn't have enough of it to do well enough to secure a job, or, you feel uncomfortable endorsing him for a job. Probation or failing a class is such a low bar. PhDs are about research; perhaps the student didn't show enough promise in that area. Or it could be a lot of other things - personal problems standing in the way, difficulties that need to be worked out outside of a doctoral program.

My thoughts were the same as rising_star's - that you are actually missing something, probably because you have already decided that you have nothing to learn from your colleagues and have closed yourself off to the discussion. But I agree with Between Fields. If you think that the conversation is so mindless, participate and push it forward. Ask questions of your classmates and/or your professor; don't be hostile, but try to understand where they are coming from. Also, I'm not sure why but the assumption that it's because you're coming from a "hard science" into a "soft science" rubbed me the wrong way a bit. Not the hard vs. soft rhetoric, but because I took it to mean that you believed that your hard science background put you above 70% of the students in your class. But honestly, that line is what made me think you are missing something, rather than you simply being smarter than everyone else. I came from a lab-based social science in which "theory" meant "We did about a thousand experiments and they all point to this." My PhD program was a social science program that had more anthropological and sociological theory. If you're not trying, from the outside it sounds like meaningless mumbo-jumbo - they even make up their own words! I'm sure a biologist or an experimental psychologist listening in would think it was nuts. But once I concentrated and read, delved into discussions, and talked to my classmates it became clear that really I was just missing it. The theory's important; it forms the foundation and underpinning of the field. It's also actually really hard to understand - harder, I think, than a lot of laboratory scientists would expect (and, IMO, much harder than running an experiment or doing statistical analysis. That's easy, to me.) Better yet, the theory turned up over and over again later into my doctoral career - including in my dissertation. So it may be something like that - something that sounds meaningless because you aren't used to thinking that way.

I have asked for, and been granted, an extension at least once that I can remember in graduate school. It was also a weekend extension - I think I asked to turn in on Tuesday a paper that was due Friday. I just sent a short email to the professor asking, without giving a reason or anything. I think I might've said that the paper would be much higher quality if I could have the extra 3 days. I got back a really short email that was in the vein of "sure, whatever." So just ask. The worst they can tell you is no, and you'll be right back where you are now.

I use Georgia. I wrote my dissertation in Georgia. If I'm not using Georgia, then I use Arial or Helvetica. I only use Times New Roman if the agency specifies that's what they want. I dislike both Calibri and Cambria, and when I teach, I require students use a specific font. In the past out of habit I used to require Times New Roman, but I think I will give them a choice (Georgia, Arial, Helvetica, or the standard Times New Roman). I'm looking at a grant proposal I'm a consultant on right now, written in Calibri 11-point font, and I want to shoot myself. It's at 125% and it's still too small! I have to blow it up to at least 145% for it be decent enough for me to read. I used to like Garamond, but it's too small and light at standard font sizes for my blind eyes to read. Plus the apostrophes and commas are weird now.

This is also out of pure curiosity, as I already have a PhD. But do sociology PhD programs ever consider students with a non-sociology major - like psychology, if they are interested in social psychology? I understand that social psychology for sociologists is very different than social psychology for psychologists, but if a psychology undergrad evidenced that they understood the distinction, would they be competitive? Also, how do you like being a professor? What's different about advising graduate/doctoral students vs. undergraduates, from a professor's perspective?

It's not. Graduate students frequently put in 60 hours a week between coursework, research/fieldwork/internship, work, and other duties. I have a friend who was getting her MSW when I was in graduate school and she was busy all the time. I agree with the above - if you think you want to do some traveling and such, take a year or two off before you get your MSW and go travel. On the other hand, I think your professor is mostly right. I did a PhD in New York and wasn't even thinking about staying there long-term, but in the course of my program I made many connections to agencies for which I could potentially work or contract with or internship. I don't know that it would be difficult for you to get a job back in MA, but it would certainly be easier for you to get a job in MA if you go to school in MA. Not only that, if you are an MA state resident getting an MSW there at a public institution that offers it would be way cheaper than going to Colorado or Florida. Social workers don't make a ton of money, so you want to minimize the amount that you borrow. So if I were you and I knew I wanted to settle and stay in Massachusetts, I'd take 2 years off, do some traveling and then return to do an MSW once I was sort of finished doing that. (You can also travel once you have the MSW. Traveling is easier and more fun when you have money!)

Ha ha, it doesn't, trust me. People are really not all that impressed by the Ivy brand, especially once you get beyond small talk at parties and get into who they're going to pay lots of $$$ to do top-notch research for them. (I went to Columbia.) If you are talking about people on the street - who cares what they have heard of? As you have demonstrated, the people in Zurich have not heard of one of the U.S.'s (and the world's) top science institutions. It also makes sense that many Americans have not heard of one of Europe's (and the world's) top institutions. Who really matters are people who work in science, and ETH Zurich is well-known as a respected, top university to people in science. I know of it and I highly respect it. Even if you think Columbia's name would've gotten you in the door moreso than Zurich...is it enough to make you an extra $120,000 a year? No? Because it is often said that you shouldn't borrow more than your first year's salary, and that you should make about as much as your first year's salary to comfortably repay loans. I think in 3 years' time you will be patting yourself on the back for choosing a world-class university for free rather than borrowing six figures.

Two things 1) You're not sure about this guy yet - not sure if you want to marry him and make it work forever. I would say definitely don't give up your PhD plans and academic career for somebody you're not sure about. 2) If it's right and you are willing to make it work, you can do long distance for the relatively short amount of time of your doctoral program. Assuming you're in your late 20s/early 30s, your PhD program is just 5-7ish years. But after that, you'll have maybe 30, 40+ years to be together. Although realize that if you want to be in academia, it's hard to limit your academic search to one geographical location - not impossible, but quite difficult. I married my husband after 11 years together, 4 of which we spent long distance when he was in the military and I was in graduate school. At the point at which I was choosing graduate schools, I also worried about an entire country separating us. He told me to pick a grad school based on what was best for me and my career, and that we'd work out the details later. We did make it work - he ended getting stationed relatively close to me (a train ride), and when he separated from the military he moved to join me. We're long distance again (4 hour drive) for my postdoc. We won't be doing this again, lol. Well, in theory, yes. I have a friend whose boyfriend did this, although he also left his program for other reasons. He left his PhD program across the country and moved to our grad school city, where he got a job as a project coordinator. He worked at that for a few years while making connections with potential PIs in our general geographic area. After that, he chose which PhD program he wanted to do and applied. He still ended up not being in the same city - they were about the same distance apart as I was from my husband, but my friend ended up moving closer to him since she was further along in her PhD. But the important thing to note is that 1) he left his program for a variety of reasons, only one of which was the geographic distance from his girlfriend, and 2) it took him a few years before he was able to increase the chances of being where he wanted to be. He had to get to know people and prove his worth a bit. It's difficult to just walk through the front door at one particular school. And no, he didn't transfer any credits. He started over from scratch. I have just a few friends who transferred PhD programs, and none of them were able to transfer any credits. I think that if you plan to transfer, you should do it with the knowledge that you will probably start over from scratch or pretty close to it. We are in the same field, by the way (you and I.) In practice, it sounds quite a bit harder. First of all, if you're accepting it to begin next August, and you're trying to see how it goes this year (between now and August 2015), that means that you'll be making your decision sometime in the summer of 2015. Well, in order to move to the next PhD program in the fall of 2016, that means you'd have to apply for transfer right away in the fall of 2015. I think you could burn some bridges and generate some bad feelings if you are trying to transfer out the moment you step on campus - then it becomes very clear that you already decided that you didn't want to be there, and you took a slot and money from someone else who might have stayed (in their minds). It would be better if you waited a year to try to start in Boyfriend's City in the fall of 2017. Secondly, transferring PhD programs is actually quite an involved process. Transferring isn't really the right word for it, as you're usually starting over. You need the support from your current program - because the new program is going to want to know that you aren't transferring because you set the place on fire or something. So you'd have to tell your advisor early on that you need a letter of support from them to move. That's another reason that doing in next fall is not a good idea, because basically a month after you get there you'll be telling your advisor you're getting ready to leave them. You'll need to contact the potential PIs at the other school and see if they are even taking students AND if they want to take a student who has already begun a PhD program elsewhere. They're going to be curious about why you are leaving (as will your home school). You need to make it mostly about fit - you can't make it primarily about personal reasons, otherwise you look flighty and unconnected. Basically, you need to be an otherwise really strong candidate that any school would want, because the transferring issue raises quite a bit of skepticism from people. I think this right here is all you need to know. If you are not emotionally ready to give up on the offer at the program you love - why do you think you'd be willing to give it up in a year's time, when you've barely begun? Moreover, it is MUCH harder to leave a program once you've begun it (emotionally speaking) than it is to just not go in the first place. Personally, I think that your best options are either to go to this PhD program with the determination that you will finish there, too (and perhaps make plans to move with your boyfriend in 3-4 years when you are at the dissertation stage), OR to choose not to go right now and try to get admitted to the one by your boyfriend's city in a year's time. And I think that the right choice is to continue to go to the program to which you've committed.

In my opinion, my program got way more enjoyable after I finished my coursework. I was able to spend my time doing what I really loved, which was research. I liked my classes but I didn't enjoy taking coursework. My dissertation was the best - I had a fellowship so I worked 10 hours a week to earn extra money (teaching stats to undergrads) and the rest of the time I just spent working on my dissertation doing research. Glorious! So yes, what you're feeling is normal. I remember my first 2 years; I spent a lot of time stressing out when I was taking a break, reasoning that I could've been working. I think most academics feel like that - the work expands to fit the available time, so there's always theoretically something you could be doing, even when you're sleeping, in the shower, eating dinner, etc. You learn to deal with that over time - you realize that taking a break is part of balancing yourself so that you feel refreshed and ready to work when the time comes. And oh heck yeah did I doubt myself. You're still brand new to all of this, and you see what your professors and the advanced grad students do and you wonder how you could ever. By the end of your doctoral program, though, you'll feel more ready.

I'm glad this is sorted out. On the one hand of course we should follow the rules of any fellowship we apply to, but on the other it seems silly to disqualify someone because their margins were 1.05" instead of 1" (especially when the concern is that people will shrink their margins to fit more words). I do remember obsessively checking my margins the year I applied, lol, because I normally just use the Word defaults.

I do not understand the question. Do you mean what are the chances of getting into a top 100 school? It completely depends. There's a big difference between the #2 school and the #72 school. Also, most schools have a mix of programs - the psychology department at School X might be amazing but their architecture school might be the pits, so getting into the former might be difficult but getting into the latter might be easy. Although there are more than 1,000 schools in the U.S. (there are supposedly 3,000+), the vast majority of these schools do not offer graduate programs. And even the ones that do don't offer graduate programs in every field, so actually even in a relatively large field there might be fewer than 100 programs, or not much more. Mathematics, for example, has about 130 programs ranked by the NRC, so the top 100 is about 77% of them. More importantly, why do you want to know?

I don't think Ivy League prestige means a whole lot in the tech field in general. I have also heard that Silicon Valley recruits heavily in California, and will more heavily recruit from nearby programs even if they are less prestigious than other, faraway programs. If you really want to work in Silicon Valley, then proximity will probably serve you better than the small amount of prestige Columbia will give you over USC (very small; USC is an excellent school). One thing I realized after I left graduate school is how much, without even trying, I had made connections and contacts within the city.

I wasn't being "ridiculously self-aggrandizing." Honestly I'm baffled that anyone got that impression. Self-aggrandizement implies exaggeration for personal gain, and what purpose would I ever have to do that here? I used my positive experiences as an example to specifically refute the points that were made in JoeShmo's post, and the only reason I even stated the positive things that I've done in my doctoral program were as proof of my statements. For example, I could've just said that I went to my program and graduated, but the argument could've been that the faculty secretly thought I was less prepared and just never shared that with me, so I brought up the dissertation nomination as evidence against that. It was simply as a counterpoint to the - what I believe are inaccurate - points that JoeShmo tried to make. Anyway, my point was exactly the same as Hopeful HPM'er, which was so that VulpesZerda and any future students who came to read this thread was not to be discouraged about applying to doctoral programs without a master's because it is possible to do well in a program without one. I shared my personal experiences to support that argument (N of 1 notwithstanding). I'm kind of surprised (and frankly, irritated) that simply stating the facts about my accomplishments in my graduate program is seen as "self-aggrandizing," but whatever. I also pointed out that there was another student who was in my department who had similar experiences, so while my situation perhaps was not the "norm," I don't think it's completely outside of the realm of possibility either. I'd also like to point out that in my secondary field - psychology - it's quite common to go into a doctoral program without a master's degree. Anyway Vulpes, I can also recommend Yale's PhD program in chronic disease epidemiology. Their social & behavioral sciences in public health program is in the chronic disease epidemiology program, for some reason, but they explicitly state that a master's is not required for their program. Tulane's program in Community Health Sciences formally requires a master's, but they say they will waive that requirement for "exceptional students who have a baccalaureate degree." UAB has a coordinated MPH/PhD in psychology which may interest you, too. Harvard's epidemiology department definitely takes students with only a bachelor's, and they have a strong historical focus in social epidemiology there, which I think is relevant to your interests. SBS says they will consider students with a bachelor's. The University of Minnesota doesn't require a master's for its programs in health services research, policy, and administration. George Washington University's PhD in epidemiology doesn't require a master's, although they say most admitted applicants have one. Good luck!

Frankly, yes, I do think that you are wasting your time and money applying this year. If you had one or the other, there might be a glimmer of hope. But you don't have any background prerequisite coursework in psychology, nor do you have research experience. Think about how graduate professors are going to see it: They're going to wonder how you can be sure that you want to commit the next 5-6 years of your life, let alone the rest of your career, to studying cognitive psychology without taking a single class in it or working in the field. They know that you don't have the knowledge necessary to succeed in graduate-level psychology classes, which build upon undergrad knowledge. And you won't be a useful assistant to them in the lab; they would have to train you from ground zero, like an undergrad, which they are very likely unwilling to do when they are paying you a stipend. You need the coursework and you need the experience. Having not even taken a single class in psychology, you may not even be competitive for psychology programs. But there are a couple of things you can do to try to increase your competitiveness - although how long they will take depends on how much time and money you have to devote to the endeavor. -I think the best bet for you would be to try to get into a psychology master's program. Normally I don't recommend them, because they are expensive and usually don't shave off any time towards the PhD, plus they usually aren't the type of experience that can boost admissions chances. Your case is one of the exceptions, though. There you can get three things you need: prerequisite coursework in psychology; research experience working alongside professors in the field; and letters of recommendation from those professors. The best would be if you could find a specific MA in cognitive psychology. I suspect that one does not exist (or that there are few of them), so an MA in general psychology or experimental psychology is the next best thing - as long as the department has cognitive psychologists in it. Finding one that has research interests similar to yours is ideal, but not necessary. You just need to get SOME experience. I would recommend looking at your state's public universities first to see if any of them has an MA in psychology. Where you go is not very important, as long as it's a well-reputed program (as opposed to an unaccredited school or something online) and as long as research is the primary focus of the program. The majority of MA programs in psychology are designed as stepping stones to PhD programs, though, because otherwise there's little use to the degree. That'll take you 2 years full-time, and after that you should be at least moderately competitive. -If you cannot get into an MA program in psychology (many of them would want to see at least a few classes in psych), you might want to try a post-baccalaureate program in psychology. I don't know how many schools other than Columbia actually have one. Columbia has a formal post-bacc in psych designed for people who are changing careers and don't have much of a background in the field. The difference between an MA and a post-bacc is that in the post-bacc, you'll be taking largely the undergrad classes (as opposed to graduate-level classes in an MA program), although there are several classes that are cross-listed between the undergrad and grad programs at Columbia and other places. Columbia is actually a stronghold for cognitive psychology. The caveat, of course, is that this program is extraordinarily expensive, and New York is an extraordinarily expensive place to live, and there is no non repayable aid for this program. The post-bacc can take 1 or 2 years, but I think most people choose to stay on the 2 years to get more experience and take more classes. After that you should be decently competitive for PhD programs. You could also go somewhere as a second bachelor's degree student, which honestly wouldn't be that much different from a post-bacc. You would just need to make sure that you seek out the research experiences. -A third option is to take psychology classes as a non-degree student at a local public university while you work or volunteer in a research lab. This can take different configurations. You can try to get a full-time job at a university as a lab manager, and take classes while doing that (this is unlikely given you have no background in psych and no experience). Or you can get a full-time day job to pay the bills and take classes in psychology while you work, and squeeze in some volunteering at a research lab. I would say that you will need at least 5 classes in psychology to be minimally competitive: general psychology, research methods, psychological statistics, a basic cognitive psychology class, and at least one other of your choice. More classes are better, of course. The average psychology major (who are your competitors) will have taken 10-15 classes in psychology by the time they graduate college. You can use the handbook of whatever college you attend to guide your choices: if you take more classes, I also recommend sensation and perception and some other classes that are related to your interests (like a class on memory if you are interested in memory). You also might want to take a class on the brain if your psych department offers it (most, but not all, do). If you were able to take two classes at a time and you only took 6, this process would take you at least 2 years, and that's assuming that you are applying in the fall of the second, at which point you would only have 1 year of classes. My other advice is that if your interests overlap with neuroscience and you think that you are going to want to scan people in an fMRI scanner as part of your research - if you even have an inkling that you might want to do that - you should probably get experience in a research lab that actually does fMRI scans and analyzes that data, so you can learn how to do it before you go to grad school.

I think it could potentially be a problem, but if you are an otherwise outstanding application they may overlook it. Besides, you could always write a supplemental essay explaining that your transfers were mostly for family reasons/outside of your control.

Rargh, scrolled too fast

I wouldn't send the entire thing, as if it's long, they're unlikely to read it all. Could you send an excerpt or a chapter - perhaps the introduction, or the discussion of findings with a short summary of your results in the front?

I've been wrestling with this question myself since I am a postdoc now. I like the way TakeruK put it My personal dilemma is that my research and teaching interests seem to be taking me in opposite directions. I've done quite a bit of teaching and working with undergraduates, and I know that I want to work closely with undergrads - I want to be the one to "hook" them and give them the solid foundation. I actually really want to teach the introductory classes in my field, and I would love to take an undergrad into my lab and train them about the basics of research from the ground up. I also love teaching small seminar classes in which we can discuss papers, do some critical thinking, and I can give my students intensive writing assignments that make them think and grow as people. All of that points to a small teaching college, probably a baccalaureate college, maybe one with a small master's program. But my research interests? I have big plans! I don't need a lot of expensive or fancy equipment in my research, but a lot of the work I want to do involves patients/clinical work, which would take partnerships and infrastructure. Another piece of it is that I use methodological techniques that sometimes require larger sample sizes. I feel like my work is going to be expensive in the sense of participant compensation and the salary support for consultants, because some of my ideas cut across disciplines and I would need co-PIs in other fields to help out. The other thing is that I burn out on teaching really fast. I love it, but I oddly start to get annoyed when it takes up too much of my time. I could see myself teaching 2 classes a semester - but not 4. So actually when I think about it, it really adds up to me probably being well-suited to a research institution. I think I would be happiest at an RU/H - like Lehigh, Fordham, Wake Forest, Howard, etc - but in a department that for sure had an undergrad program that I could teach in. Those places still somewhat emphasize undergraduate teaching, but there's also a focus on research and turning out good work in that area. I also think I would be really happy at a selective LAC with a 2/2 load and a focus on research support, like one of the top ones. The problem is that a lot of them are located in very small towns (which is okay for me - but I'm not sure my husband would be on board. Actually several of the top SLACs were hiring in my field this year, and while I don't regret not applying to them, I still wonder what the lifestyle would be like and whether I would like it - especially for the ones in rural-ish New England). I think I could be happy at an RU/VH that didn't have a crazy environment; the one I went to grad school I probably would not be happy at, but the one at which I am currently a postdoc I could be (actually if this small town were in the South and not the Northeast I might try to stay here forever lol. I really like the town, and they have an open position in my field. But it's so cooooold lol.) I could also see myself working as a research at a government agency or think tank and adjuncting a course here and there. This is one of the reasons I decided to not go on the market this year for real - other than wanting some time to just concentrating on publishing papers, writing a grant, and putting my materials together, I wanted a year in which I could reflect on what kinds of positions I wanted and how I am going to apply out.

All of them work fine on a Mac except SAS. You need to run a virtual machine with Windows to run SAS on a Mac; I use VMWare, you can also use Parallels. It's kind of a pain in the butt but personally I don't use SAS much unless I'm running some more complicated models with a macro. You just need to make sure you get a sufficiently powered machine - my personal MacBook has 8 GB of RAM and that's fine; my work Mac has 16 GB of RAM and it is GLORIOUS. Stata works fine on Yosemite - I just installed Yosemite on my own computer about a week or so ago and I've been using Stata wonderfully. SPSS does too.

I'm a postdoc! I love being a postdoc, I will advocate everyone do a postdoc forever and always. It's MUCH better than being a graduate student, IMO. Major differences: 1. "Quiet time" for you to focus completely on your research. Whether that is your own research interests or the research of a PI you are assisting depends on the kind of postdoc you take, but there's no dissertation or other requirements hanging over your head. This is heaven, trust me. I'm working on getting my dissertation papers out and I am on the road to submitting three by January, which would've been unheard of for me in grad school. 2. Much more independence. Your every move is not controlled by an advisor; you have a lot more freedom to determine what you want to do and how you will proceed. (I mean, my advisor did not control my every move in grad school, but he does wield a lot of power in what you do and how you do it. That's not the case in a postdoc.) 3. Most postdocs go to a new department or university and thus you have an entire new network of people. This is really good on the job market, because more people have their ear to the ground for you but also more people are serving as recommenders. 4. Success in two place shows that you are not a fluke, but the genuine article who has managed to discover success in two places. 5. Given the heightened level of independence, you are more competitive on the market. Search committees often wonder whether graduate students can operate independently of their mentors, and what the transition will be like for them. Postdocs don't bring the same worries, because you have already demonstrated that you can break away from your graduate mentor and display your independence in fostering a new area of research. 6. Postdocs often have structured environments for you to learn to transition to independence, since that is what they are for. For example, my postdoc so far has had a job market workshop, a couple of job panels, some methodology short courses. In the spring we are having a grant development workshop. Everyone submits at least one NIH grant. HOWEVER. I will add that taking a dissertation fellowship for a year can be similar to a postdoc, depending on how advanced in your diss you are and the resources you have available to you. I have heard of doctoral students who were finished or nearly finished with the dissertation, who subsequently received a dissertation fellowship, basically "sit" on the dissertation for an extra year and publish the papers during that year while going on the market. In fact, we just talked about that in one of the job panels I went to recently, and the professors acknowledged that it was a good strategy. If you are pretty much done you can also use the fellowship year to learn a new skill or travel to some conferences to network. It really just depends on your priorities. For me, I was on a doctoral fellowship that I could've extended for a 7th year of my program, if i wanted to. But I super anxious to get away from my grad school and grad school city, and the postdoc I was offered allows me the opportunity to meet new people and learn some sophisticated new statistical techniques, so I took it. And Oh my gosh, I sleep at night. I haven't gotten so much sleep since I started graduate school 6 years ago. * Two more points: 1. I agree with Eigen. I am assuming that you are advanced in your dissertation - almost done - and at the decision point of whether to finish quickly and move into a postdoc, or take a diss fellowship and "sit" on it for a year. But if you are just beginning your dissertation and won't be done, do note that postdocs require you to have defended first, and will often require a letter from your department saying that you have completed all of the requirements of the PhD other than depositing the dissertation. When I started my postdoc, I had just defended but not deposited, and it was clear that I was expected to finish my revisions very quickly so I could deposit the dissertation and have it off my plate. And I actually had to push my start date back, because my committee was not available for my defense on the original planned date (even though I was finished and ready). 2. These days, it is getting increasingly difficult in psychology for a person to get a faculty position without a postdoc, particularly at R1 institutions. I've been browsing a lot of CVs these days, and I am hard-pressed to find any recently hired faculty members at top research universities who didn't do a postdoc before they were hired. I've seen that even people at top teaching colleges and regional doctoral-level (but not R1 and R2) institutions have done postdocs before getting appointed to a faculty position. If you look at smaller teaching colleges and regional master's or baccalaureate level colleges and universities, many of the professors there still came straight from undergrad - but many did not! If you have any aspirations at all towards an R1 or R2 research institution, you'll be far more competitive if you do a postdoc. And even if you don't, you'll still be more competitive with a postdoc.