juilletmercredi

Regret is too strong a word, but at the same time my PhD hasn't been a very happy road. On the one hand, I sometimes wish I had at least taken about 3-5 years before I started the program to travel, work, enjoy life a little bit. I had a bit of an existential identity crisis in my middle years of grad school that made life unpleasant. Sometimes I wish I just hadn't pursued the PhD at all - I think I could've been quite happy with other careers that only require a master's degree. But then I start to think about what things I would really like to do, and browse some job ads - and most of those things require a PhD, or a PhD (especially from my institution) greatly enhances your chances at getting them. And if I didn't start until 5 years after undergrad, that would've meant I just started this year, and would be in grad school into my mid-30s. Blech. I'm glad for the opportunity to settle down with my husband and perhaps start our family in our early to mid 30s (I did not want to have children in graduate school, although I think that's a valid choice. It was just my personal preference not to). I think it just boils down to "Graduate school sucked and I was poor." I'm doing a postdoc and then, who knows? Part of me wants to make a go at the academic lifestyle at an R2 or SLAC, but what (I think) I'd really love to do is do research for a government agency or think tank. I've also been exploring marketing research and consulting work.

Perhaps a little bit, but not because of the "name." It's instead due to the perceived reputation of the undergraduate preparation at a place, and the institutions that get notice from adcoms are unlikely to be as narrow as, say, consulting or banking firms. For example, there's no reason to believe that a Harvard grad will have a huge advantage over a Penn State grad for the vast majority of programs. It might give you an advantage over the student coming from, let's say, Kutztown University of Pennsylvania or Valdosta State University, all other things being equal.

Baruch College also has an MPA program in health administration; it is considerably less expensive than NYU's program. You may also consider an MBA with a focus in health administration.

I'm in public health. Even if you were well-prepared I would say no. Most MPH programs value some experience in their applications; even more so, they value you bringing experience to shape your classroom experiences and lessons. My own SPH requires at least 2 years of experience for almost all of our MPH pograms. But given that you just returned in mid-December and that you hadn't already prepared, I would say definitely no. Most deadlines are going to be in January and early February; that means from this point, you only have 4 weeks to prepare a list, get recommendation letters, write a statement of purpose, take your GREs...you need more time. I would prepare to take 1-2 years off. Since you have a bachelor's in epidemiology, you may be able to get a job as an entry-level biostatistician (most epidemiologist jobs require a master's, but plenty of people are prepared to hire biostatisticians with bachelor's degrees only). Or you may find a job at a health-related research firm that hires BS holders - for example, Mathematica Policy Research.

I started at 22, and I should be finished this summer, shortly before I turn 28. I definitely would've spent my 20s another way, lol.

First of all, NYU and Columbia both have excellent, well-reputed schools of public policy/affairs - NYU's, in particular, is a top 10 program. So if you thought you were good enough to get into NYU, why would you not prepare to apply to other top 25 programs if that was your goal? Second of all, there are several top programs whose deadlines have not passed yet - actually, *most*. The only ones I could find whose deadlines have absolutely passed are HKS and Princeton (actually, I think Princeton's deadline is January 5, as is Duke's, but that might as well be past.) UGA's is July 1; Syracuse's, Indiana's, and GWU's are all February 1; Carnegie Mellon appears to be rolling. If you look at other universities you'll probably see that there are other schools whose deadlines are in February or later. However, if there's a program that you really want to give a shot to, then it is definitely worth it to wait until next year to launch a full season rather than apply haphazardly this year. However, I'd argue that you don't really need to wait. The two schools to which you hope to apply (and have probably already started) are both located in NYC, which is where you eventually want to work. They're both well-reputed schools that are likely to get you internships and connections in the city, which is what's going to be key to getting a job, not a fancy degree. You may also want to consider adding Baruch College's MPA (one of the top 50 programs, and the deadline isn't until April 1), John Jay's MPA program, or perhaps even Hunter College's Urban Affairs program (students are required to intern, and many intern with NYC governmental agencies). No, a top-tier school is not necessary for such a career path - as was mentioned, there are people with all kinds of public admin and other degrees in city government. The important things are experience and connections.

I think the answer is a bit more complex than "no, your work ethic is what matters." I think it depends on where you want to work. If you want to be a professor at one of the top universities, then you'll need a PhD from one of the top programs. I took a look at the first 25 professors (alphabetically) in MIT's computer science and electrical engineering department: Berkeley, MIT, Stanford, Stanford, Stanford, Stanford, Stanford, Minnesota, Berkeley, MIT, Oxford, Columbia, Princeton, MIT, MIT, MIT, Harvard/MIT (MD/PhD), MIT, MIT, Stanford, MIT, Berkeley, Columbia, MIT, Berkeley. Out of this 25 (which took me through the Cs), literally 20 out of 25 went to one of three schools - MIT, Stanford, or Berkeley. Those schools are ranked in the top 5 CS programs. The other programs are all within the top 30. (For all the "what is the Ivy League?" talk, Princeton, Harvard, Penn, Cornell, Columbia, Dartmouth, Yale, and Brown are all in the top 25-30 CS programs, as ranked by the NRC.) But I then took a look at the CS departments at Case Western (middle of the pack), Temple (bottom of the doctoral programs), my own mid-ranked SLAC and a lower-ranked SLAC in the same city, and the results were more mixed. Case Western and Temple both had mixed departments, with a few professors from top 30ish programs but most professors came from lower-ranked programs. My alma mater (the mid-ranked SLAC) is located in a desirable city, so both of the professors in that small department come from the same institution - a top 20 program that happens to be in the same city. The lower-ranked nearby department has a larger department and also more of a mix. Also took a peek at a directional state U nearby my hometown, and that was a mix too. So it appears that if you want to teach in a top department, like MIT, Stanford, Caltech, Berkeley, Ohio State, Chicago, Arizona State, etc. you'll probably need a degree from a top department. If you want to teach in a nice solid mid-ranked department, like RPI, Virginia Tech, Oklahoma, JHU, Mississippi State, etc., then you can probably have a PhD from a mid-ranked department. If you're just interested in teaching in general - especially if you want to, or wouldn't mind, teaching at smaller rural schools, directional state comprehensive, 2-year schools, etc. - then a PhD outside of the top 50 or so probably won't hurt you in your quest. It's just that the pool of schools that are realistic for you to shoot for is smaller. Caveats, of course, are subfield, accomplishments, and advisor. If you go to UConn but have a superstar advisor and publish your butt off, you may be competitive for jobs within the top 30-40, especially if you got a prestigious postdoc or something. Or perhaps UConn is mid-ranked for comp sci overall but really highly ranked for *your* specific subfield of comp sci.

Well, it depends. I know some students who have successfully changed their programs in big and small ways. A small way would be going in interested in school-based adolescent sexual health programs and thus working with Professor X, but deciding halfway through the first year that what you'd really like to do is the relationship between substance use and sexual behavior in young LGB adults at risk for HIV, so you switch to work with Professor Y in the same department. (That's actually sort of akin to what happened to me.) A slightly bigger way would be switching more substantively - like maybe now you're not interested in sexual health at all, but you want to work on obesity or cancer research, and maybe you're in year 3 instead of year 1. That may necessitate spending extra time in your program and learning new research methods and literature, but it's still probably within the same program, just a different advisor. That's akin to switching subfields within the same department. Like in a psych department if you do social psych and you now want to do cognitive psych, and your department has both subfields AND there's someone in the department with which you'd want to work, that's also usually not a problem. Things get trickier, however, when you have to change programs/departments in order to change what you want to do, and even trickier if you have to transfer schools. I do know people who have successfully done so, but generally they stayed within an area in which they had expertise and their actual research interests didn't drastically change so much as they shifted. For example, I have a friend who "transferred" from a cognitive psych program to a social psych program, and another friend who "transferred" from an immunology program to a neurosciency program. I say "transferred" because it's really more like applying with experience - generally speaking, you still have to take courses (and often start from the beginning!) and comprehensive exams. The process may actually be a bit more arduous than applying brand-new, since you'd be expected to get approval from your advisor (a good advisor recommendation will be essential) and to speak to any new PI before attempting the transfer. And of course, trying to transfer to a program to which you have no background is a non-starter. As a psychology PhD student I couldn't necessarily expect to get into a PhD program in sociology. * Now if you want my opinion...if your world's been turned a little upside down and you're no longer really sure what you want to study, it may be a good idea to choose NOT to attend any graduate school you get into. It's not really clear whether you have changed areas ("I thought I wanted to study primates, but now I may want to study humans") or whether you've possibly lost the spark for research at all ("I really thought I wanted to be an anthropologist, but I don't like doing anthropology research!") It's possible that you're not really sure yourself. So do yourself a favor, and think about it really hard...now. Summer's too late to do the soul searching; by then, you have to decide whether you want to enter the program. Believe me, you don't want to enter graduate school uncertain about whether you want a career in research. It's too difficult, too time-consuming, and doesn't pay enough (or more accurately, you could make the same amount of money working fewer hours per week with more free time). Plus graduate school will ALWAYS be around. It'll be here in 1-3 years if you take some time off to really decide 1) whether you want a career in anthropological research and 2) exactly what it is you want to spend at least 6-10 years studying. I'm a big advocate for taking time after undergrad. I didn't, and I wish I had.

Most of the math on the GRE is basic algebra and arithmetic, so yes, you do need to know it as a foundation to statistics. There are also some geometric principles in statistics. I got into a top 15 social psychology program with a 3.42 GPA. I think with a 3.46 and a 3.6 psychology GPA (which was very similar to my profile) you will definitely be competitive for PsyD programs, and would also be competitive for some clinical psych programs especially with great research experience, strong recommendations and a strong statement of purpose. Study for the GRE and retake it to get a better score (60th percentile or higher is ideal!) If your eventual goal is a PhD, I honestly wouldn't recommend spending money on an MA or MS program. If you have research experience...get a job as a research coordinator or lab manager in a psychology department's lab. Your grades are not a problem, really; however, if you work as a lab manager, you could take graduate-level classes for free and prove your worth, and get a great rec from the PI of the lab. My lab has had three lab managers and all three have gone on to great programs in psych, 2 of them in clinical psychology. If you do choose to do a master's, then yes, an experimental psychology degree would be fine - but since you want to counsel, I would recommend doing one that would allow you to get licensed as an LPC. Another option is an MSW and getting licensed as an LCSW. The upside to an MSW is that you can then go get a PhD in social work OR clinical psychology, and if you have an MSW you could teach at a school of social work in addition to a department of psychology (even with a PhD in clinical psych).

Yeah, I caught up with the rage online. It is definitely terrible for a big department like UCR to expect their interviewees to make plans in 5 days' time to go to MLA, and their excuses were terrible. The department chair replied in one of the threads and basically said that they screwed up their distribution system and realized they hadn't read some applicants' files, so instead of pushing their interviews back or pulling all-nighters to get through them quicker (as people in other fields do when on tight deadlines) they shifted the consequences onto their applicants. Most amusing to me was how many tenured professors began circling the wagons after Schuman posted her piece - not only Tenured Radical but in the comment sections of both CHE and IHE. One kept insisting that graduate students should stop feeling entitled to things like beds to sleep in, and should maybe drive round trip and sleep on someone's floor to keep costs down (although I think that would still cost around $500, especially if you are driving far. The gas alone from NYC to Chicago would cost around $200). It was kind of amusing to see so many self-proclaimed post-modernist Marxists group up to protect themselves and make the argument about their needs...I'm aware that job searches are, inherently, about the needs of the departments, but many SCs are acting like applicants should worship the ground they walk on and be glad that they are deigning to consider applicants for their positions. I'm not in an MLA field either; one of my fields' major conference is in August and the other is in early November, so neither is really good for interviewing (although sometimes departments have meet and greets or information sessions if they have a TT job open). Usually first-round interviews are done by phone or Skype. My field is similar to rising_star's in that all materials are submitted electronically via email or the school's HR website. I really don't understand the point of Interfolio when email works just as well; I can store my own damn materials on the cloud. I've been to several conferences large and small, and IMO the small conferences are the best for networking. The best networking I've done was at a very small conference which all took place in one room and only had one session at a time. I was specifically invited to this conference and it was concentrated in my field, so all of the attendees were people I was citing in my work and had read a lot about. The biggest conference in my field I only like because the exhibition hall is large and sometimes I can chase down people in the non-academic careers I've been interested in (non-academics rarely go to the small ones) or program officers, but if you want an academic job it's far easier at least in my field to network at the smaller disciplinary/field-specific conferences. So I think it's silly to say that if applicants are really serious about academia they will always attend the big conference. My advisor (a TT professor at an Ivy League) doesn't even attend our big conference every year.

Nope, I do not intend to. One of my classmates did, though. The way I see it...I don't hire professional proofreaders to edit my publishable research papers, and I don't know anyone who does. So why would I hire someone to proofread my dissertation?

I would say a 3.7 GPA (which is what A-'s are) should be completely fine when applying for PhD programs. Generally speaking a 3.5+ from an MA program is necessary.

This advice may or may not apply for an MA program, but it took me 3 years to learn and I wish I had known it at the beginning. It's a two-parter. The first part is that no matter how much you think you see, you're not living anyone else's life, so you can't really assume that you understand what they are doing. There are going to be students who seem to be perfect - they work round the clock without breaking a sweat; or they are working on about 5 different projects and are churning out publications; or they have a perfect work-life balance. None of those things are likely true, as there are consequences to everything that you do. So try not to compare yourself too much to other graduate students - do what works for you, as they will figure out and do what works for them. The second part is related - only you can decide what you want to sacrifice to grad school and to your career in academia or something academically related (or as tight as the academic market is). You have to make the decision, and then try really hard not to compare yourself to your peers. If you've decided that you only have enough time to work on two projects and it's really important for you to go cycling with your cycling club twice a week, don't be swayed by Sally Perfect who churned out 3 papers this year because she's working 7 days a week on 5 projects. Some people need/want less free time than others, and there are always going to be a few grad students who don't want hobbies and want to live and breathe their research. If you don't want to do that - decide it up front, and then stick to your guns!

Hell to the no! And I don't think it's "easier" for those in the sciences to say that. In fact, I think it's even more important for humanities and arts hopefuls to not pay for PhDs, since their job markets are tougher.

You got accepted to a top 10 master's program without any computer science coursework or programming experience? Huh. They're not mutually exclusive processes. You could choose to get a master's in CS now and a PhD in sociology later. You could decided to do neither. While your decision for one will definitely influence the other, you need to go through semi-separate processes to make that decision. Questions for the PhD program -Do you really want to spend 6-7 years of your life studying a social science? Are you willing to work 40-70 hour weeks for those 6-7 years (on average), taking classes and qualifying exams plus doing research with/for a professor in your department and trying to publish papers? Scientific papers that only people in your field will read? These are the things you need to do to get a job. -Do you have a passion for a job that requires a PhD? That's primarily as a sociology professor at a college or university, but could potentially include being a researcher at a think tank or government agency. Do note that professors don't just teach, they do research and publish scientific papers and books - although the balance of both depends on where you are employed. Also note that these jobs are extremely competitive - most of them are probably just as competitive as trying to get an internship at Google or Microsoft. -Is there a research topic you are particularly interested in? Can you see yourself making that your research agenda for at least 10-15 years? -Are you okay with living on $20-30K for the next 6-7 years of your life, even though you will be working as much as people in much higher-paid fields? Questions for the CS program -How much debt do you already have from undergrad? Can you expect to make at least as much as you've borrowed? $50-60K isn't that much debt for a master's in CS, but you also have to factor in how much you already owe. (Does that amount include living expenses?) -Is working at Google or Microsoft a personal requirement for your CS degree? In other words, is that going to be the only thing that makes it worth it? Because remember that literally *hundreds* of of people are going to be competing for those plum, well-paid jobs at those top tech firms (and others, like Apple, Sun Microsystems, Symantec, Intel, etc.) Everyone who goes to your top program and all the other top 30 programs will want those positions, too. Will you also be satisfied working, say, as the IT person at a more local firm? As a software developer for an unrelated firm that needs software to manage their personnel or store data? Not that you still can't get into a great firm, but chances are slim at those very top-rated places. -How much do you actually know about CS? Are you pretty sure (like 80% sure) that you'd at least be content at working as a CS person for at least 5-10 years?

But you said that you think postdoc salaries aren't enough to raise a family on - most postdoc salaries in the STEM fields are about $40-60K per year. The NIH levels are around $39,000 to start, and once you have 3 years of experience you're at $46,000. I'm not saying this is a great salary - especially with 9-11 years of postsecondary education - but they're not that much lower than what you say you want.

I had summer funding so I did research over the summer I do have some friends who didn't have summer funding; they usually got internships or summer jobs both at and outside of the university. Most of the time they were research jobs (as a RA or something) or internships related to our field. One summer I chose to do a non-academic market research internship that I really enjoyed, and two summers I taught in an honors summer program for undergraduates.

I initially had planned to follow the mantra of "If we ignore her, perhaps she will stop commenting and go away." I don't wish that Pinkster12 never gets an MSW. As she mentioned, she already got into a program. Furthermore, we were all 22 once and we all probably believed things that would embarrass us now. She has 2 years in the program and then many years to grow and mature. Perhaps one day she'll look back on this thread and feel ashamed of herself. And perhaps she won't, but maybe she'll be an excellent counselor in several other ways. I do want to address two things, though. One - even when used correctly most of the time, condoms have a 14% failure rate and hormonal birth control pills, a 5% failure rate. There are 3.2 million unintended pregnancies in the country every year - half of all pregnancies. That means about 5% of women will have an unintended pregnancy in their lifetime. - if you have 10 female friends, 2 of them will likely have an unintended pregnancy at some point in their life. And since a little less than half (48%) of those pregnancies occur in women who were using birth control consistently and correctly, one of those friends will have been on birth control when it happens. That's not even including the women who were using birth control, but not perfectly. So yes, they are THAT common. I have a friend who got pregnant after she was sterilized! And I know several women who got pregnant using IUDs, which have a less than 1% failure rate. It happens. In addition to that, many women who have abortions choose to tell no one about it or only a few friends. My closest friends don't know about mine (I got pregnant...on birth control!); it happened before I even met them. I didn't tell my college friends at the time either. So it's entirely possible that some of your friends who you think have not gotten pregnant on birth control actually have and you just don't know it. Two, there's nothing irresponsible about getting pregnant with a lower income. The OP says that he owns a home and 2 vehicles with his partner, so I'm guessing that at the least they are middle-income. They also have family support. But furthermore, there are many many people in the world who live on very low incomes. As a social worker, you will be working with them almost exclusively. Everyone has the right to have children, and it is not at all helpful (especially as a future social worker) to tell those people that they should have been "more responsible," first of all since they often don't have the resources to be what you consider "responsible" (birth control requires access to a doctor, transportation to get there, and money for prescriptions; condoms require money and transportation too); second of all because the child is already here and can't be put back by your finger-wagging; and third and most importantly because there's nothing irresponsible about having children when you're poor. Either way the OP needs help now, not five weeks ago.

Congratulations MrPootawn! I personally am childless, but there are several people in my doctoral program (at all stages) who have children, mostly babies. Almost all of them had the baby after beginning grad school. Think of it as having a baby during a very demanding job - there are plenty of high-powered lawyers and doctors out there who have babies, so why not a grad student? In addition, I am dissertating currently and I always joke that if I wanted to have a baby during grad school, this is the best time. I work from home 90% of the time while writing, and I can also analyze my data from home (social scientist). I will say that you do need some quiet time free from distractions to write, so I do know some dissertating friends who have engaged a babysitter 3 days a week or use daycare services a few days so they can get some solid writing time. You may also find yourself writing later at night after the baby is asleep (so maybe frm 7 or 8 pm to 12 or 1 am) or early in the morning before he/she wakes up (although good luck with that; babies wake up mad early). I also know med students who have had children, either before or during their programs. I have some med school friends and they say that while it's time consuming, it's not as overly onerous as people make it out to be. Good luck! I hope you and your girlfriend take some time to just enjoy her pregnancy, if you decided to keep it.

For anyone else purchasing computers, if you want MS Office eventually but don't need it right this moment, think about waiting until you begin your program. My SPH provides the full MS Office suite for free, and many of your schools might too.

Yes, three master's degrees are overkill, especially if you already have an MSW. If you want to transition to health promotion, the best way is to get an entry-level job in the field and learn that way. Perhaps take a few courses. Or if you are interested in a PhD, consider getting a PhD or DrPH in public health concentrating in health promotion/health education.

When I applied to MPH programs I visited Emory before I was admitted, but that's because I was local. I also visited Columbia after I was admitted because it was the only place I was considering going to over Emory (I also applied to Johns Hopkins and Yale, but I really didn't want to go to JHU and Yale was a distant third to Emory and Columbia). Most MPH programs have an admitted students day - ours at Columbia is usually in April, 1-2 weeks before the decision deadline. Personally I think the best way to do visits strategically is 1) go after you've been admitted; no sense in visiting before unless you're local and it won't cost you anything and 2) choose just 1-3 top choices to visit.

@ gellert: Aw, boo!! I'm in social psych at Columbia and our department is *awesome*. We have tea, and by tea I mean beer (but sometimes also pie). @SocialConstruction: It's only been 2 weeks; that's no time at all in the academic world. I would send them a poke and just say that you're still looking forward to talking to them and perhaps you can talk after the holidays.

I think this varies by professor, but in my experience (in grad school and in undergrad) I was expected to come up with a topic or question that would be interesting. In both settings of course had access to my professor's data, but neither my undergrad advisor nor my grad advisor gave me a topic or idea - I had to come up with one that was related to the data that we had. My first poster arose from a problem that I thought was really interesting in a set of data I was helping my advisor format; it only required basic analyses, so I did them myself. And yes, I had to do the analysis and write-up, otherwise it's not your work. It becomes more hands-off as time goes on. In the beginning you get more help and supervision, and they usually expect more autonomy from you as time goes on. When I wrote my senior thesis it was much more hands-off than the beginning. I obtained my own measures, designed my own recruitment strategy, wrote my own IRB submission, collected my own data, analyzed it myself, and then wrote it up. My advisor was a wonderful guide and mentor, and she realized that part of learning is stumbling through it yourself. I realized how valuable that is now that I am writing my dissertation; my advisors were mildly impressed that I taught myself a new data software package and analysis technique in two months. But I needed it to do what I wanted to do! I was terrified but because I had experience stumbling around in the dark before until I had an aha! moment and taught myself something, I knew that it would work out. Students need that kind of experience. When I mentor undergrads I use a similar approach. I see myself as a facilitator or guide in their own journey. They're welcome to come to me with questions about approach and method; I look over their writing, look over their analyses, look over their posters. In some cases I sit down with them as they do the analyses and we talk about them together (this is very time-consuming!). But I don't do it for them, because then they don't learn! And experiencing a little anxiety/panic (when you know you have a safety net that will help you in emergencies, but not every little thing) is okay - it teaches you lessons.

@VioletAyame: 1. I am a social scientist, heh. I'm a psychologist, more specifically. Psychology is one of those weird social sciences that functions, many times, more like a natural science than a social - in that we are organized into labs, we run experiments, and most of our research runs on national/federal grants. So we're often included in the round-up of people expected to fund our own salaries. I would imagine it's less of an issue in anthropology or sociology or political science, although it would depend. It also depends on the institution. I happen to attend a "soft money" institution where many/most professors across many/most fields (especially the STEM, but in my department as well) fund most of their salary through grants, but it also varies across department and school. There are many "hard money" institutions where that is not the case. Most institutions are hard money, especially if they are not R1 institutions - but even many R1s, like Michigan, are hard money. I'm also attending an academic medical center, which is different. In academic medical centers it is much more common to pay part of your own salary through grants. Con #9 refers not to the long hours (which I don't mind) but to the mutability of those hours. Even many high-level executive may work a 12-hour day, but when they come home at 8 pm they don't do work for the evening. It depends on the job, of course, and you can also go into fields where this is not an issue. I also want to clarify that these are cons for me at this particular point in my career. In 10 years I anticipate that I will want more managerial roles and may be more amenable to leading people. But for now, I want to play with data. I think whether or not expertise only comes with specialization depends on what you mean by 'expertise.' I tend to think that expertise comes with experience, and the point of a PhD is not to teach you a specialty but to teach you how to learn. My experiences have supported that; I realize as I am writing my dissertation that the point of every experience in my PhD program so far has been leading up to this: teaching me how to function as an independent scholar, teaching me how to teach myself things very very quickly so that I can do the work I want to do. Researchers, after all, just find information. Once you realize that you realize how tremendously transferable the PhD skillset is to other areas.