juilletmercredi

Many APA-accredited counseling psychology programs have full funding for at least 5 years, but of course it will vary by program. The Society of Counseling Psychology has a list of APA-accredited counseling psychology PhD programs on their website: http://www.div17.org/about/what-is-counseling-psychology/list-of-apa-accredited-counseling-psychology-phd-and-psyd-programs/ Also, geographic preferences should probably be down the list when considering programs. You want the best fit program for your research and professional interests.

You don't need a very extensive math or stats background for quant psychology. You just need to show interest. I am doing a quantitative postdoc next year and one of the directors has a PhD in quantitative psychology; she said when she got there, she had taken one statistics class and no calculus. I would say more competitive applicants have probably had an advanced statistics class and 2 or 3 semesters of calculus, but plenty of quant psychology students go in with a psych major and little math. You can always take the classes when you are in your graduate program, if you need them. You may also want to check out UNC-Chapel Hill (quantitative psychology) and Penn State University (human development and family studies; they have a pretty strong quantitative core and you can earn an MAS in applied statistics along with your PhD. They also have a methodology training predoc). NYU also offers a quantitative minor. Here's a list in case you need one: http://www.apa.org/research/tools/quantitative/index.aspx?item=2 If I could go back in time, quantitative psychology is the PhD I would've gotten. I didn't know about the subfield when I was in college! If your focus is more on the outcome than it is on the stats (and I'm not knocking stats, don't get me wrong, I'm a Statistical Analyst), then Ed Psych is the way to go. Well, most quantitative psychologists have substantive interests as well as methodological and statistical interests. I agree that if you are not at all interested in statistical model/test development as well as outcomes, then quant psych may not be right for you, but if you're interested in both a quant psych department still may suit you well. Also, quant psychs do measurement and test validity research as well - psychometrics is definitely one component of quantitative psychology.

Three semesters' worth of research experience is not a lot. Many competitive clinical applicants will have 1-3 years of research in undergrad plus, sometimes, an additional 1-3 years as a lab manager after grad school - especially at competitive clinical programs like UF, UGA, and Emory. What also matters a lot is fit. UF, UGA and Emory are research-based clinical programs so they are going to be really interested in your research interests and goals. You need to identify 1 or 2 people who could mentor you in your research interests. I've noticed that your programs are clustered in Florida and Georgia, so I suspect that you are targeting programs more based upon geographical considerations than research fit, which is a mistake IMO. Your programs range so much - like I know for a fact that UF's focus is on clinical and health, whereas UGA's program has a lot more neuroscience and neuroimaging people. Those are a far cry from industrial/organizational. It actually sounds like you should spend a little more time narrowing down what you actually want to study. I agree that MA programs (or even MSW programs, if you really want to provide clinical counseling) are a better fall-back option than PhDs in I/O psychology.

About Broader Impacts: 1. Whatever you do for your broader impacts criteria should be something you would do regardless of whether or not you were applying for the NSF. Don't go tutor women in science or poor rural math students just because you are applying for a grant. Do it because you genuinely want to increase the number of poor rural students in pure mathematics or the number of women in science, because you think that those are important and valuable things. What's important for the NSF application is not so much that you've done these things but that you're able to talk about why you've done them and why you think they are important. "I think they're important because NSF wants me to do them to get this grant" is not going to cut it. That goes for anything that you do to satisfy your broader impacts criterion - whether it be promoting teaching and learning in science, enhancing the infrastructure for research and education, broadening scientific idea dissemination, or the impact of your research on society. 2. You can't start doing a Broader Impacts activity a few weeks before the NSF deadline and expect it to win you cookies. That comes across as quite obviously doing something for the purpose of winnng the grant, and not because you value the contribution that thing makes to the science. They want people who are going to continue to think about the ways in which science (both their science and science in general) contributes to the wider world, and to take action to involve the wider world in science. Again, they are giving you taxpayer money, so why should they is the question. Here's what I think. Think about what made you passionate about your science in the first place. Why do you love what you do? Now think about all the geeky stuff you've done in service to that passion. Chances are at least some of that stuff fits the Broader Impacts criterion. I judged the NYCSEF not (only) because I thought "I can do some great service and encourage high school students to enter and be passionate about science," but also "I get to see some really cool high school science fair projects, awesome!!" Every serious science student I know has done something seriously geeky "for fun" that they didn't have to do but wanted to because SCIENCE. Think about those. * panabtl - a little of both. Your proposal should have a background and framework that is grounded in things you have already done/have some experience and knowledge in, but the proposal should also show that you want to learn new techniques and expand both your own knowledge and science in some way.

Yeah, I agree with TakeruK - I've been very frugal with conferences, but in the past I've had to pass on them because the least I've ever been able to spend has been $700 for a 3-day conference. If flights are $300 and even if you can snag a room for $100/night and just spend 2 nights there, that's already $500. Add the registration ($300), food (I think a frugal student can spend $40 a day, so $120) travel to and from the airport (could be anything from $10-60 depending on the availability of public transit) and that's already $1,000. Even if you were able to find one student to share a room with and the room rate was around $100 a night, that only reduces the cost by $100. The only way I've been able to save significant money is if the conference was close enough to take a bus to.

Transferring to get a PhD elsewhere won't ruin your reputation. Whether your PI's reputation would override the university's will depend on your field and how famous your PI is. But the thing is, in academia it's the reputation of your department that matters, not your university. For example, in my field the University of Minnesota is better than going to Princeton or Brown. Also what's important are your own personal record. You may publish extensively with your mentor and put yourself in a good position. Also, given that you're in biochem you'll be expected to do a postdoc (or 2) - maybe your postdoc will also be in a top research university and give you the opportunity to seek the kinds of competitive positions you want. I would point-blank ask your adviser what kinds of jobs her former students have gotten and what kinds of jobs a good student from your department can expect to be competitive for. As a first-year student in a doctoral program, your grades and reputation in your doctoral program will be much more important than your undergraduate grades and GRE scores (although ~156 on each section isn't bad).

I think people have already addressed the importance of food. Sugar doesn't really give me a rush but sugar has well-documented influences on people's energy levels (hence "sugar rush"). Sugar isn't really good energy booster food, though. It gives you a boost of energy, but also a crash and the boost doesn't last long if it's not supplemented with something else. But there are other foods you can eat that are good for energy. Someone already mentioned bananas - I freaking love bananas; they give me a nice healthy even energy boost (as opposed to the jittery feeling of sugar or caffeine). So try bananas instead of your small sugar treat. Fruits, vegetables, and whole grains can also give you an even boost. So try celery and hummus or whole wheat crackers and cheese. My favorite writing-boost-treat is grapes + cheddar cheese blocks. Yum! You also need fiber, because fiber helps your body release energy slowly and in a balanced way, so you don't crash. And drink lots and lots of water, if you don't already. Water helps you feel more energized, and being dehydrated makes you feel tired. I started drinking more water - replacing almost everything else I drink, including juices, with water. I try to remember to carry around a bottle of water and sip from it all day. Drinking more water also helps you to feel more full and can curb cravings! Tea may also be a substitute for that chocolate fix. Drink some green tea; it's good for you and is energizing without caffeine. Black tea is caffeinated, but far less than coffee. I definitely would not drink a Coke per day. You can use other things with sugar and fiber that are healthier and give you a subtle energy boost. Also, it could simply be that you're legit tired. If you wake up at 6:30 am and start working at 7, it's no wonder that you feel tired by 6 pm. Even if you don't do a lot physical, your cognitive load also has effects on fatigue (new story in the NYT about that today). Make sure that you are getting plenty of sleep (7-8 hours a night, although everyone's personal needs are different) and exercising at least 3 times a week. I've found that I have to make time, often leaving other things unfinished, to make time for my runs. I also discovered the reason I hated working out is that I hated the gym, so I moved my workouts outside. I run and I'm about to add cycling to the mix as soon as I can afford a bicycle (I used to cycle regularly but moved).

Yes, there have been extensions of deadlines before. The year I applied (2009?) they pushed back the deadline by a week, and that was without a government shut down. I think it's pretty much guaranteed that they will push back the deadlines this year, as they don't have official access to the forms and application guidelines online right now (although there are some sites mirroring the NSF site - links here: http://www.nsfgrfp.org/). But, of course, as the NSF's grants arm is shut down along with the rest of the government, it's not "for sure" yet - nothing is. How much they will extend is impossible to tell right now because we don't know how long the shut down will last. In my previous research statement, I selected the most representative research experiences that would fit in the 2-page essay and briefly summarized each within a paragraph. I made sure to discuss 1) the broader impact of each research experience; 2) what I learned from each one, and how they prepared me to be a better scholar and researcher; and 3) how they all connected together into the semblance of a cohesive research agenda.

^True, but that means that there's no absolute floor for what a "cut off" is, and that other factors may mitigate a poor score. So while you do want to at or above past years' averages if possible (and available), don't disqualify yourself by not applying if you're below the average - it's called the "average" for a reason. The only sure way that you won't get in is if you don't apply. I'm not advocating applying to programs where you absolutely know you are not competitive, but if you are unsure or borderline, make the investment.

Answer the question, but definitely don't answer it "unemployed and sitting at home", lol. Be truthful - in the year since graduating, you've been looking for full-time employment and preparing to apply to graduate school. Part of that preparation process has been studying for the GRE, soliciting letters of recommendation, polishing your statement and researching schools.

You should treat it as an informal conversation, but one that could potentially have bearing upon your admission. So something in between "informal conversation" and "interview." A talk with a PI like this will focus primarily on your research skills and interests, as well as where you envision your research fitting in with the lab. So I think that's probably the outer edge of what they'll ask you, although it depends on the lab. My psychology lab is really big on personality fit, so our lab interviews also sometimes encompass what you like to do in your free time, other interests, etc.

Relative terms like "terrible" or "better" are not useful, because I've found that students have different and sometimes unrealistic perceptions of what's "okay," "decent," "good," "excellent," etc. I know a lot of students who would label a 3.3 or a 3.4 "terrible" (when that's more like "decent" or "good") and other students who would say that a 2.7 is "okay" (when that's not what I thinking of when I think of "okay", wrt PhD admissions). So what was your master's GPA? I think if you're above a 3.3ish and you have a strong background in research, strong letters of recommendation and can clearly articulate what your research goals are, you should still apply.

If you have zero research experience and you want to go to a PhD program, you are not a competitive applicant. It's unlikely you will get into any top or mid-ranked programs without that. It is arguably the most important part of your application. Furthermore, how do you even know that you want a PhD if you don't have any research experience? That means that you don't have any real exposure for what you will be doing for the next 5 to 6 years of your life, much less for the career for which you are preparing. Working on research for the next 2 months isn't going to do anything for you; most competitive applicants hve 2-3 years of undergraduate research experience. You will be competing with applicants with MS degrees, work experience in research and development, or who are coming from undergrad having begun research in their sophomore or junior years. You have a few options: -Apply anyway, see what happens. -Take 2-3 years off, and work as a research associate or in some other research-related position somewhere. That could be at a university's lab, at an industry firm, at a think tank, doesn't matter, as long as you are getting some research experience. It would be preferable if it was in your area of interest, but it just needs to be in computer science (or a related field, like bioinformatics). -Apply to MS programs in computer science. Here, you will prove you can do graduate-level work and can get research experience. Many MS programs in computer science are funded for competitive applicants.

I think that's completely unnecessary. You'll spend time trying to remember what you created as a template, and the wording of your generic sentence, and how to fit it to the prompt. You need to know the general skeleton outlay - intro, example 1, example 2, example 3, conclusion. Maybe having a little more fleshed out (like with example 3 you know you want to address a counterpoint, or you want one example to be personal). But other than that, it's probably best to write it day of because you don't know what you'll get. ^Also, it's perspicacious

I didn't take any courses, but I did teach and tutor SAT prep, which is pretty similar to the GRE tutoring. Most test prep companies operate on the principle that students with high scores can teach other students with how to do well on the tests they scored well, and Manhattan Prep does that to an extreme extent. You have to have a score in the 90th percentile or higher to teach for Manhattan Prep. I'm skeptical though. I'm a good test taker and a good teacher, but in my experience teaching doesn't necessarily come easily from simply knowing the material. Also, in my experience with a big, very well known test prep company - when I was teaching test prep, I wasn't teaching anything different from the book. All the strategies and practice questions were right in that $30 test prep book that you can get from the bookstore. We didn't teach content - like I wasn't teaching vocabulary words or even how to quickly skim and comprehend; it was all test strategies. All the practice tests, nowadays, are on the CD-ROM, and the GRE itself releases two practice tests that are very accurate. So personally, in my experience there are two kinds of students who may benefit from classes and/or individual tutoring: 1) Students whose scores are very low - and by very low, I mean 30-40th percentile. Or 2) People who are very very busy and are very bad at carving out their own time, 1-4 hours per week, to discipline themselves and study for the exam themselves. I am of the personal opinion that if your scores are higher than the 50th-60th percentile, test prep is a waste of money. At that point, what you really need is to hone the strategies you already know and practice them, probably work on speed, perhaps expand your vocabulary a bit. But if you can score in the 50th+ percentile then you already know the basic stuff you need to know to get a high score, IMO, and the rest is just pushing yourself to practice speed (getting sentence completions down to 30-45 seconds, for example) or increase your vocabulary (by creating flash cards from Barron's list, for example).

No. However, you can list those *skills* on your CV under a special section for skills. There's no need to tell people how you got the skills, but if you know basic Python or intermediate R, that could be important information for a professor (i.e., maybe they want someone in their lab who can analyze large amounts of data in R.)

You don't ask. You apply. Applying will tell you whether you are a strong candidate. The closest thing for this is asking your former professors and current graduate students what they think about your materials. I would imagine my advisor would be annoyed if a student emailed him and asked if they were a strong candidate, but if a student emailed *me*, I wouldn't mind at all taking a look at their CV AND I think I could reasonably speak to whether a student was a strong candidate for our program. Your former professors will also know, based on where they have seen students get in, who is competitive for the top programs in their field (and mid-ranked ones, too).

I actually don't see a problem with that, but I am also of the opinion that one should be aiming for application based upon fit and not so much based upon ranking. If you have a great file, it will all come down to your work and whether or not you fit in. You also have to ask yourself whether you want to attend any program that will admit you, or whether you really want to do a specific kind of work, or whether you are willing to make compromises on some areas. For example, are you willing to work on a secondary area of interest for 5-8 years if you get into a lower-ranked school, just for the opportunity to go somewhere next year? I think in most programs, students have one PI - maybe two, if they have interdisciplinary interests. I am in an interdisciplinary/joint program, so I have two advisors (one in each department). The point is to have a choice of at least 2-3 PIs so in case one doesn't work out - she leaves, dies, has a personality mismatch with you, runs out of money, etc. - you can migrate to someone else and still complete your PhD. I think it's okay, though, to apply to a place that has one person that you are really excited about and another person you're like lukewarm about but wouldn't mind working with. I would have described my current advisor that way had I even seen him on the website, but not only did his interests listed on the website not accurately reflect the range of interests he holds (our interests are actually MUCH more similar than they initially appeared), but I discovered that I really liked the field in which he worked and my own interests shifted a bit in graduate school. Plus, he's such an excellent mentor/adviser personality-wise and work-wise that it was totally worth it.

I think what Lisa was trying to say that if you want to pratice as a clinician, you may even just want to stop at the MA altogether and get licensed as an LPC. I perused the list and it appears that the final word on EPPP pass rates for PsyD programs is mixed; some have higher pass rates than others. The pass rates at those for-profit institutions (Argosy, Alliant, etc.) are almost universally awful, but the pass rates at some PsyD programs at legitimate university like University of Denver and Pepperdine are better. For instance, Loyola College at Maryland's clinical PsyD program has a 91% pass rate, and Rutgers' program has a 99% pass rate. There are also some low pass rates among PhD programs, too - like Andrews University's 46% or New Mexico State's 58%. I think here, it's going to be more about school and program quality than the actual letters behind your name, with the caveat that PsyD programs are much more likely to be at lower-reputed schools and for-profit institutions. However, PsyDs are almost never funded and will be 4 years of loans when an MA in mental health counseling - or an MSW and a licensed clinical social worker designation - may get you to the same goal. I would first wonder why you want a PsyD instead of a PhD in clinical or counseling psychology. When I talk to students, I find that in the majority of cases either the PhD (which is usually funded) or an MA that provides master's-level counseling licensure is a better choice than the PsyD. However - whether or not you are competitive now depends on the quality of the PsyD. Some PsyD programs will take you now, given your clinical experience and your research experience (btw, "running experiments" is pretty much all undergraduate RAs do anyway! So you're in good company). Others - particularly ones located at good nonprofit institutions - will want to see you get an MA first with a higher GPA.

Talk to your university ombudsperson; they can help you decide what to do and who to talk to. The DGS is a good step, too. It's unethical for an advisor or a collaborator (or both) to publish work that you also contributed a substantial amount to without crediting you for authorship, and is actually probably against the values of the journal they submitted to, too.

Likely they are ranked by the impact factor. In one of my fields, highest-IF journal has an IF of 15, but our flagship journal is a 5.1 and most of our "great" journals have an IF between 2 and 4 and our "good" journals have an IF between 1 and ~2.5. In my other field, our flagship journal has an IF of 3.93 and most of the great and good journals in that field are somewhere between 0.7 and 3. Very specialized journals often have lower impact factors than general journals, even if they are pretty influential in their subfield, just because the field is smaller. For example, that journal with the IF of 15 (Psychological Bulletin) is our field's review paper journal, so of course people cite it all the time because there are crazy reviews in there. There's another review-paper journal that has an IF of around 15 (Annual Review of Psychology), but it's not as respected as the flagship journal (American Psychologist), which in turn has a relatively low IF because they publish a lot of opinion pieces and retrospectives in addition to empirical articles. I don't go solely based on IF but also general opinion in my field. Also, I don't think you need to totally avoid journals with a low impact factor, but that you should mix it up and make sure you have some higher-IF/higher-reputation journals on your CV, too.

I think your strategy has to be tailored towards your exam itself - i.e., is it written or oral, is it 4 hours or 2 days, how long is your list, and when's the date? I started studying for my written qualifying exam on research methods (6 hours locked in a room; answer 3 essay questions, one you wrote yourself, and define 11 terms), which I took in May 2011, in February 2011. I had a weekly study group I met with. We were all taking the exam on the same date. We each took an essay question and answered it, made copies of our answers and distributed it to our partners, talking through the answer and where we got citations from. That way, I didn't have to answer as many essays myself but still got the benefit of seeing a good completed answer. We worked on areas of expertise (the anthropologist answered the ethnography questions; I answered the statistical and quantitative questions and the mixed-methodologist took interviews and focus group questions). We also divided up the reading lists and discussed the reading with each other; that way, I only had to skim the materials that I wasn't assigned to read. We obtained a list of terms from students who had successfully pased (the 11 come from a pool of 150 terms, and we're supposed to give a one-paragraph definition of each) so that we didn't have to track down definitions alone, and quizzed each other using flash cards. Each week we focused on 15 terms to learn. Studying for my oral qualifying exams (which I took in May 2012) was a completely different experience, because those are not a standardized date and they're very individual. This is a 2-hour oral exam with two professors who can ask you anything on the two lists you submit to them, and the purpose is to test the boundaries of your knowledge in the field and also to see if you are ready to write a dissertation. I compiled my lists using old students' lists that were made available by the department, adding on other works as necessary. Then I got to reading. This exam took about 2 months to prepare for, and most of what I did was skimming and reading relevant excerpts. Then I would summarize - either aloud, or I would write summaries of what I was reading and organize them and reread. As I got closer I used to sit in my room and talk out loud about the points I was reading to see if I could discuss them in tandem with each other. In both cases, I thoroughly enjoyed the process of studying. No, really! You get to learn so much and when else are you going to have dedicated time to just read major works in your field? I think I learned more studying for those two exams than I learned in my coursework. But you definitely don't have to master it all. Think of your qualifying exams as a foundation upon which you will build your career. This is just laying the concrete. You don't have to know everything, but what you learn from qualifiers is where to start and how to find the stuff you don't know.

Broader impacts is simply promoting science outside of academia. Broadening the participation of underrepresented groups (whether they be ethnic/racial minorities, poor people, rural people, immigrants, etc.) is only ONE of the broader impacts examples. From: http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2007/nsf07046/nsf07046.jsp Caveat lector - the following list is neither prescriptive nor exhaustive and should not be read in ways that constrain the creativity of researchers in proposing activities with broader impact. However, in all instances a proposal must be specific in how it addresses the Broader Impacts criterion. Advance discovery and understanding while promoting teaching, training, and learning, for example, by training graduate students, mentoring postdoctoral researchers and junior faculty, involving undergraduates in research experiences, and participating in the recruitment, training, and professional development of K-12 mathematics and science teachers. Broaden participation of under-represented groups, for example,by establishing collaborations with students and faculty from institutions and organizations serving women, minorities, and other groups under-represented in the mathematical sciences. Enhance infrastructure for research and education, for example, by establishing collaborations with researchers in industry and government laboratories, developing partnerships with international academic institutions and organizations, and building networks of U.S. colleges and universities. Broaden dissemination to enhance scientific and technological understanding, for example, by presenting results of research and education projects in formats useful to students, scientists and engineers, members of Congress, teachers, and the general public. Benefits to society may occur, for example, when results of research and education projects are applied to other fields of science and technology to create startup companies, to improve commercial technology, to inform public policy, and to enhance national security. You don't have to tutor or mentor minorities - or anyone - to fulfill broader impacts. One of my BI statements was judging the NYC Science & Engineering Fair. Another was how I hoped my scientific research would impact health policy, specifically AIDS outreach and prevention work. I talked about talking about PhD work and science in classrooms with children when I volunteered in elementary schools. Developing applied projects with non-academic labs could be broader impact. Teaching an "understanding science" seminar to business people could be BI; writing science articles for newspapers or magazines could be BI; creating a startup or using your research to design a smartphone app could be BI. People always think "broader impacts" is just a cute buzz word for "diversity" and it's not. It's "Why should anyone care about your research? Why should we take taxpayer money to fund you? What are you ever going to do to give back to society and repay this debt you've incurred?" In fact, I would say it's probably beneficial to your application to talk about several different kinds of ways to impact the community and world more broadly, not just the one about underrepresented minorities.

It's going to be different for every field, and for individual people depending on your application package and circumstances.

Social work is not my field, but the practical side of social work doesn't seem to be too prestige-focused. But UCLA is a top 25 school of social work - not that far below USC - and is likely to be much more affordable for you. UC-Berkeley is actually ranked higher than USC. Also, I know you said you don't want to go to a CSU for your degree. But there are several CSUs in the top 100 MSW programs - San Diego State, CSU-Long Beach, CSULA, San Francisco State, San Jose State, and CSU-Sacramento. Social workers don't earn that much money, so you don't want to be in hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt you can't repay. I seriously disagree that "excitement" is worth crushing debt. Opportunities are only worth it if they lead to better or higher-paying employment.