juilletmercredi

Any dissertation fellowship you could take would not supplement your fellowship, but likely replace it. Your school may top you up to a certain amount, but you're unlikely to get much more than $30,000 a year on it. All of the dissertation fellowships I know of are for students studying at U.S. institutions. I agree that you and your partner need to check with the graduate school at the university you attend; usually, they maintain a list or database of these things.

I've never heard of anyone with less than a 3.0 GPA getting the award. I would imagine that a person who would be most likely to get it with a sub-3.0 GPA would be a second-year doctoral student with a very high graduate GPA and enthusiastic support from mentors, who may even have a few years between undergrad and now, or who had a valid explanation for it at the time, or maybe strong major grades. With that said, I do think that you should still apply. I thought there was no chance in hell I would get the GRFP, and I got it. Charlies, working with a younger student on a project (even if you were the lead) is not necessarily a mentoring experience. Mentoring is not really just about getting someone up to speed with a new project, but really more teaching them the ways of the science world and sort of helping them build their career in the field or proceed through graduate school successfully. I also haven't seen any NSF essays that I would say looked like padding or overemphasizing. I know that I genuinely talked about my experiences mentoring and volunteering to increase visibility of science to minorities and help more of us enter the field, and I know a few NSF recipients and all of them really did the things they said they did. You do have to be able to market yourself appropriately, but that's not overemphasizing.

There's no one answer to that question; it varies from program to program and school to school. There are some professors (I would guess mostly old-school professors, from back when it was much more common for people to go straight from undergrad to grad school) who do prefer people who come straight from undergrad as they perceive them as more trainable (and, in the case of some, more exploitable). There are others who prefer students with some experience that they can bring into the lab. And that will also vary across department as well. Some departments welcome many or even most of their PhD students with some work experience outside of academia. Also field comes into play, as well. FWIW, I've looked at the possibility of teaching marketing at business schools, so I've perused the profiles of some marketing faculty members. Almost all of them had some marketing work experience outside of their academic ones. I think it won't hinder you at all in marketing. My field (public health) is like that too - work experience is welcomed. Almost everyone in my cohort had at least a year of work experience; the one outlier was me. You probably won't get hurt if you decide to take a year off.

Here are some things I thought very quickly: -I didn't even know what there was to think about before my formal higher education. In other words, I didn't know about the variety of things out there in the world to actually think about. Now that I know, my brain and spirit runs freely rampant over the many things I learned to care about during formal education. -In a very practical sense, if you need formal education to do the work that you are passionate about, then formal education will set your mind and spirit free to do what it is you love. -I've learned skills that have allowed me to hone my passions. For example, I love to write fiction for fun. Going to college (and HS, and MS) has helped me learn the conventions of writing and improve my skills so that I, and others, can read and enjoy my work. And if you wanted to agree with the issue: -Education does sometimes encourage rote memorization and learning, and with the rise of standardized testing people are more and more being taught a constrained set of information rather than to think freely. -Studies show that students are rewarded by saying things that the teacher agrees with, and by obeying the teacher. Girls, especially, are rewarded in the education system because they are socialized to sit still, play nice with others, and wait to be recognized. It's been shown that more creative and out-of-the-box types - and smart kids with behavioral issues - don't do as well not because they aren't as smart, but because the environment constrains them.* -Many schools are cutting interesting, free-thinking or creative/artistic programs in favor of math, science, and sometimes English. Art and music are being shunted to the wayside, even though they've been shown to help kids think creatively and also been shown to improve learning in other areas (music helps math, for example). *This has a little bs mixed in with some truth, but whatever, it's the GRE. They don't care if your facts are right; they only care that you adequately defend your argument.

If there isn't a minimum on their webpages, then they probably don't have one. Why would a graduate program have an "unstated" minimum? They could cut down on a lot of applications if they just stated a minimum on their website, and reduce their own work load. So if they don't have one on their website, there's a good chance that there is no minimum score. In fact, Emory anthropology specifically says: Our program has no absolute standard or minimum for GRE scores, since we consider all parts of the application as a unique constellation. However, low GRE scores often have a negative impact on an application unless complemented by other factors, such as high grades, exceptional letters of recommendation, or special personal background. Students who have trouble with standardized tests are urged to study for the GRE in advance and take the test early enough to ensure the possibility of retaking the exam. JHU doesn't specify but given that they don't I'm betting they have the same policy. * On the converse, my PhD program in psychology DOES have a soft minimum, and we clearly state it on our website: This department strongly encourages a combined verbal/quantitative GRE score of at least 1200 to be considered for admission to the program. Applicants who took the GRE after August 1, 2011, and are therefore subject to the *revised scoring system*, are encouraged by our department to score a minimum of 310 on the combined verbal and quantitative GREs. Departments have nothing to lose and everything to gain by stating a minimum score on their website, so if it was important to them in that sense they would tell you. Since they don't, it's safe to assume that there is no "unstated minumum."

One of the reasons I want to move back home after my PhD is to see my mom and sister more often. I live 900 miles away. Luckily my hometown is considered the "capital of the world" in my field, heh. Anyway, this past weeked I celebrated my friend's birthday with her, her boyfriend and my husband. We had a sleepover at her place, played video games, ate cake, and then went bowling the next morning. This weekend I want to go to a dog convention!

With all due respect, that's rather silly. Especially for someone pursuing a PhD. Nowadays, tenure-track jobs are hard to come by, and research positions are also competitive. What if you finish your PhD and don't get a tenure-track job in your field? Are you going to give up and not work anywhere? What if you do become a professor and you realize that you hate it and it makes you miserable? Not to mention that your training doesn't become obsolete just because you change careers. For instance, you may go from being a professor to being a program official at the NIH. That's a career change, but you're still using your PhD! I never said that you had to stay with that job forever. All I said was that if you and your wife are comfortable where you are, then maybe it's a good idea to stay there *for now* until you're not so comfortable, or are ready to move on. I'm skeptical about this. If you took a leave of absence from your program, you could certainly return later. Moreover, I know people in fields big and small who have left and come back later. In fact, I have a friend in the biomedical sciences who was in a great PhD program, left in year 2 or 3, worked for 2-3 years in the field, reapplied to a program closer to his partner and is starting it this fall. Also, if you say that you can't fathom choosing a job at 24 and doing it for the rest of your life…how does that jive with you saying that you believe that you to go college and then graduate school and do that career for the rest of your life? Aren't those the same thing? How can you hold those two incompatible beliefs? I know one person who has stuck with the same career his entire lifetime, and that's my dad (has worked in transit for the 30 years he's been a working adult). And as I already stated, he's not terribly happy. Like TakeruK, I want to emphasize that I am NOT telling you not to do the PhD.. In fact, given how strongly you feel about it, it may indeed be the right choice for you. I'm merely pointing out some other things that may be useful to take into consideration when you are making the choice. I love my PhD program, and it's been a great 5 years so far (I only have 1 left). But as TakeruK also pointed out, I've found that my happiness in the program has not had so much to do with what I was studying but everything to do with my life AROUND the program. I haven't changed my field in the 5 years I've been here, but I've gone from okay to miserable to very happy during that time - and that was mostly based on me making adjustments to my personal life to be happy, not the way I've pursued my career. I think in this economy, people overstate the importance of what you do for a living to your happiness, and understate the importance of pretty much everything else in life.

It means exactly what it says…they don't have a minimum score. It means that they consider your GRE scores and GPAs holistically with the rest of your application. Consider: -A 30-year-old applicant who got a 2.7 GPA in college, but who has worked as a software engineer in R&D for the past 10 years and has high GRE scores and strong recommendations from advisers saying he's the best researcher that's come through their company in a long time. -A recent graduate with a 4.0 GPA but low GRE scores who has a first-authored paper published in a reputable journal. -An undergraduate with an otherwise outstanding packet, but who has a low GRE score because her father died a week before she took the exam. If you're doing admissions to a program, you may want to admit one or more of these students - because GRE scores don't predict research success or one's propensity to finish the program. What they predict is first-year GPA in the program, which isn't extremely useful in a research program. So while (for a variety of reasons) programs may look for people with relatively high GRE scores, they are willing to make exceptions. Also, plenty of students aren't focused on grad school during undergrad. But maybe it's been a long time since undergrad, or they got very sick during college but are now better and have proven themselves in other ways. So basically, if there are extenuating circumstances to explain one low part of the application packet - or you have such an outstanding holistic profile that the professors are excited and want to ignore the low mark - you can still gain admission, even if you are below what they would normally admit. That's why there's no cutoff; they don't want to inadvertently pass on a potentially great student who made a mistake.

I am immediately intrigued by your statement "really need to get into a PhD [for] 2014." Why? It's generally not a good idea to rush into something if you are unprepared, especially if you want to go to a good program. Your GPA is not ideal but it's solid; I got into my PhD program in psychology with almost the same GPA. Your GRE scores are not horrible, just average. While they will be low for the top programs, most programs admit a range of GRE scores and are far more interested in your experiences than these. But if you only have 6 credits in psychology, you aren't a competitive candidate for a PhD in developmental psychology. Most psychology PhD programs (like PhD programs in any field) will require substantial coursework in psychology; while you don't have to have majored, just general psychology and statistics are not enough for admission unless you're doing like an organizational behavior PhD. What's more, your research experience - while good - isn't very long (looks to be about 1 year and 2 months.) This is a field in which people routinely take 2-3 years after undergrad and work as a research manager, typically on top of the 1-2 years they did in undergrad, before they get into programs. This is especially true in developmental psychology, which is competitive. So were I you, I would be aiming at some mid-ranked programs. Your research experience is not bad, just not at the level that students who to go top programs have. That combined with your lack of coursework in psychology is going to make you uncompetitive for top programs, but you may be able to gain admission to a mid-ranked program. I would apply to a range - perhaps a few within the top 25 that I really, really liked and thought would be a great fit for your research interests (because you never know!), and then the bulk in the 25-50ish range.

^I want to clarify something. It's not true that employers are not "allowed" to contact people that you don't list as references. There's no law preventing them from doing this, there's nothing legally or ethically wrong with it, and in fact employers do it all the time. If you list someone as a prior supervisor/employer on your application, even if you don't explicitly list them as a reference, the employer can contact them. In fact, even if you ask them not to contact your supervisor they still can without legal ramification - although few employers would do that. And it's not 100% uncommon for employers to find contact information for former employers you listed. It's not even that hard. AskAManager.com has written a couple of posts about this. Think about it from their perspective. Say you work at ABC Company and Jill Scott applies. Jill Scott has worked for your old grad school buddy Rob Smith, but she didn't list him as a reference - all of her references are co-workers. You trust Rob Smith's judgment AND you really want to hear from a supervisor of Jill's. Wouldn't you want to call Rob Smith and find out what he thinks about her? A good employer would contact Jill first and make sure that there's no legitimate reason precluding them from calling Rob (i.e., she still works there and doesn't want him to know she's leaving) but many employers don't do this. That's why it's up to job hunters to explicitly say whether or not they want prior employers contacted, if they list that employers' information on a job form. But this is not damaging your career, not in any legal sense anyway.

I just remember that I am awesome. LOL, seriously, I remember that I wouldn't be getting any feedback at all if the people in my professional life thought I was not worth it. My adviser would just be like "Redo this," and any journal reviewers would simply reject my papers. The fact that you get a revise/resubmit is evidence that you've done something worth reviewing.

Seems like you need to do more research. Find out about the department at the school your advisor is moving to. Also, ask your advisor for his advice.

^I'm in psychology too and this has also been my experience. You identify potential advisers before you even apply to the program, and if you are admitted you at least begin working with that adviser.

I go to an Ivy League institution (which I only mention to give you some comparative information). In my experiences, professors could not care less what you wear to class as long as it's presentable. The undergraduates at my institution come from more affluent backgrounds than I do and wear more expensive clothing than me, but professors do not care about that. I mean, it's certainly *possible* that a professor is noticing your clothes, but I think it's implausible. Secondly, no one is bashing you. No one even said anything was wrong with your signature or that you were bragging. They were just saying that your posts, coupled with some other things, gives evidence that you may have a sense of entitlement. And although they are perceptions and feelings, you did give several statements indicating that you believe the cause is the fact that you are an MA student - which I also find implausible. In fact, the way that you immediately acted defensively ("No, it really is because I'm an MA student, and here's some other evidence to show that." and then, when people still disagreed, "You guys are so mean, I'm appalled") actually strengthens mine and probably some other posters' skepticism that this is at all about your student status. Thoughts: 1. Some professors are rude. 2. We all have confirmation bias - when we believe something, we are more likely to perceive experiences that confirm that belief and ignore things that don't. The professor who pushed you aside may have pushed you aside after you said you were an MA student, but not because you said you were an MA student. Likewise, the professor who told you to drop the class and asked you to make an appointment may have been doing this for reasons other than the fact that you were an MA student (and almost certainly was). 3. You can find out whether a class aligns with your research goals and your level of learning by reading the syllabus and attending the first class session or two. I can imagine why a professor might be annoyed if you were asking her that question after class. But she asked you to make an appointment. That is very common. My own adviser asks me to make appointments with him. 4. A "variety of backgrounds and disciplines" comes with the implicit expectation that you will have the prerequisite knowledge. For example, a student in any major may take Spanish 3 - from Spanish majors to biology majors. But you have to have taken Spanish 1 and 2 first, or at least have knowledge at the level of a person who completed Spanish 2. Perhaps she suggested that you drop the class because she felt you weren't well-prepared for it, and maybe your question implied or indicated that you weren't prepared. Perhaps the question you asked was too simple and foundational and made her realize that you wouldn't succeed in the class. Give her the benefit of the doubt. In a discussion, participation oriented class with people truly from a variety of disciplines, I was surprised that this professor clearly favored students in the discipline at a much more advanced level. Why would this surprise you?

I use Finaid.org for loan calculations. It's pretty simple, but it gives a good rough estimate.

I am strongly against the idea of pursuing a PhD "just in case." I only think that's a viable reason if a person is already IN a PhD program and has completed a significant proportion of it (3+ years) and is pretty close to finishing. You get a PhD - and sacrifice the time, energy, and earnings - because a job that requires a PhD is your FIRST choice. If there are several other things that you would be really happy doing and you're not even sure that you really want a job requiring a PhD…well, do those other things first! Here's the way I see it: If you can get into a graduate program now, you can get into a graduate program in 3 or 5 years down the road if you change your mind again. There's no reason to believe that you will find it harder to get into a PhD program later just because you left one - I know at least two people who have left one graduate program and started another one in a department that was on par with their original department. In the event that you do get let go for a PhD holder, you can then choose to work another job or return for a doctoral degree. But if you and your partner are settled, you love your area, and you don't really want to move - then stay. Deal with the hypothetical lay-off if it happens. If it does, you can change careers. I disagree that it's easy to adjust your standard of living when you have a family. It's DIFFICULT. It's easier emotionally to do that if you're doing it for something you love, but you also have a wife and daughter to worry about. Also, I've talked to people who have left PhD programs and very few of them say that they "always wonder what would've happened if they had stayed in a PhD program." TakeruK's advice about the economics makes a lot of sense. I also had parents who, growing up, weren't exactly thrilled about their jobs. My dad never loved his, and my mother was a SAHM who worked a lot of low-paying retail jobs part-time at various points in my life until she went to nursing school when I was 15 or 16 (and fell in love with nursing, but by then I was in college). I can't say that it had a significant impact on my development. I'm not saying that you shouldn't stay in your program, OP, but what I'm saying is that there's nothing wrong with making the decision to leave it and definitely nothing stopping you from returning in a few years - say, after your daughter goes to school or you get too tired of your job to continue.

I'm in a PhD program in psychology, although not clinical. My stipend has varied. I think most psychology stipends are between $20,000 and $30,000, although where they fall in there depends. When I began, my stipend was about $32,000 before taxes; I got an NSF and then it went to $30,000; now I am on an NIH-funded fellowship and my stipend is a little over $22,000. I live in NYC. You learn to deal: you live frugally, you make sacrifices in the short-term for long-term gain. 1. Travel funds are very limited. I only go home once or twice a year. It's okay - I'll finish this year. I talk on the phone to my family a lot, and I have made new friends. 2. I started working on the side in my third year of grad school, and have ever since. In your first couple years, it's difficult because of the coursework. I think in clinical it may be difficult all through because you have clients to see. But don't shortchange yourself so early - you haven't even applied and seen financial packages yet. I lived relatively comfortably in NYC on $30,000; I had a roommate, I ate out frequently and I sometimes bought new clothes and accessories. I only worked on the side because I was greedy, not because I was starving, lol. You don't have to live like a monk. If I can do that in NYC in $30,000, you can definitely do that somewhere else on $30,000 or $25,000. 3a. You'll be in your 30s in 5-6 years anyway. You'll be in your 30s regardless of what you do. It's not like you're withdrawing from the world - you're still going to be living in the real world, hopefully doing things you love that may lead you to a partner and/or a family. And you won't have no income if you get a job after graduate school, which most people do. The unemployment rate for PhDs is actually very low. 3b. So you may be married or have kids. So what? I got married in graduate school (at the beginning of my fifth year; I just began my sixth year), and many of my colleagues also got married and had children. One of my cohortmates had her first kid at the end of our second year. Another cohortmate had her first baby in our third year. I also know many academics who had (healthy, thriving) children into their mid-30s and even early 40s, after they finished their PhDs and sometimes postdocs. I'm reading Sheryl Sandberg's book Lean In and in it she says not to quit before you quit - in other words, don't make crucial workforce decisions for a partner and children you don't even have yet. It's entirely possible to be a parent and partner while also a graduate student. If what you really are passionate about requires a PhD in clinical psychology, do that! There are thousands of students every year that survive on the stipend. You have to critically evaluate what you are offered when you are offered it. Obviously if you are offered $18,000 to live in NYC, then that's not viable and you can turn it down. But you may be offered $25,000 in Madison, WI or Ann Arbor, MI, which is totally livable. As a side note, though, if you want to do counseling practice it is possible to do that with a master's degree. Most states license clinical social workers with an MSW to do primary mental health care.

I was selective about which experiences I shared. I had had 3-4 research experiences and wanted a 40/60 split, so I only talked about 2 of my research experiences in any detail and then only with the purpose of explaining where my interest in my field came from and how I learned the skills I needed to succeed in graduate school. I only had 500 words, so I had to be choosy. All of my research experiences were listed on my CV, so they knew I had more. I spent the last 60% discussing why this program was a good fit for me, who I wanted to work with, and discussing a potential research topic (this program asked students to specify a potential dissertation topic). I definitely agree that this should not be technical - I spent two sentences on my future research interests and this potential dissertation topic, exactly zero of which actually made it into my real dissertation. I spent my last paragraph discussing future goals.

I am in psychology myself, and I have frequently heard it said by faculty members that students should not use personal family illnesses or disabilities as their motivation for graduate study. See this article by Appleby & Appleby; the second page (under "personal mental health") outlines this. Second paragraph, first sentence: "As an undergraduate at Queens College, I double-majored in psychology and sociology. I was specifically interested in how socioeconomic status and cultural differences influence people's views about disabilities." Don't capitalize psychology and sociology; they aren't proper nouns. Your third paragraph feels incomplete. You had success with the boy, and he started trusting you. Then what? How did that experience contribute to your desire to attend graduate school? I feel like this is an opportunity to elaborate on your desire/passion for your field and further study in it, as well as your future career. The same is true of the fourth paragraph. Elaborate a little more. (Also, minor note, but visual stimuli are not positive reinforcement in and of themselves.) The first sentence of paragraph 5 leas me to ask "why?" You actually don't need a master's to teach special education - but you do need initial licensure. I would reframe that as wanting to study more about special ed so you could further serve the children you really want to, as well as study their problems and try to find solutions. You can also just be explicit and say that you need initial licensure as well, and you thought it would be best to combine your two goals with Hunter's program. I would reverse the last and second to last paragraphs - after you say "…and their behavioral interventions." that's where you should talk about why you want to go to Hunter. You should also elaborate more there - are there classes that appeal to you? Does Hunter have a reputation for placing people in diverse institutions? What makes student diversity important to you? Then your last paragraph should talk about your career goals and plans as a SpEd teacher. Excise the last sentence completely.

To be honest, I would completely excise the first three paragraphs of this. They don't add anything to your application. They don't really explain why you want to go into psychology, or what it was that fostered your interest. Clinical psychology programs are not at all interested in your non-psychology employment, especially since you are not specific about what "important skills and knowledge" you acquired. And your family paragraph is really out of place; it doesn't belong in an SoP. So you need to rewrite those starting paragraphs. Paragraph 4 makes sense here, but it tells a lot without showing. You used 3 machines - so what? What did you do with them? The description of yor study should be in that second sentence. "I hope to attend a national conference" is very vague. Instead, say that you are submitting your work to a specific conference ("I am submitting an abstract to the Association for Psychological Science annual meeting, and hope to present in May" or something). Also, I wouldn't express interest in a researchers work simply because of the techniques she used - you can use EEGs and fMRI to do a variety of things that may be completely unrelated. Rather, it should be her use of these techniques to study something that you really want to study. You also have not exhibited any passion for psychopathology. You say you have it, but there's no evidence of that. Even if you've never taken a class or written a paper on it, you should at least discuss what your interest is - HOW do you want to do research on psychopathology? And why is this program the appropriate place for you to do that. Looking at your second post, you didn't answer most of the questions. 1. What IS your specific area of interest? You just say you want to study psychopathology, but that's what virtually all clinical psychologists do. You do talk about your past research, but do you want to continue that or do something else? 2. You don't explain why want to apply to University X. Aside from wanting to work with Dr. Jane, and that's only because she uses fMRI, but there are researchers at a variety of schools that use fMRI. What is special about Univerity X's clinical program? Do they have a special resource center on women? Do they have special expertise on children and you're interested in that? Do they have amazing library resources on neuropsychology? You need to basically say "University X is the best place in the universe for me to study what I want" and then explain why. 3. You sort of answered this one for research. But then you randomly brought up a practicum that you didn't explain, and that sounds important! 4. You didn't answer this question. Other than that you want to get a PhD in clinical psychology, which is obvious. What do you want to do with it? Here's how I think you should structure it. A) Consolidate your first three paragraphs and get rid of 90% of what you wrote in them. Instead, your first paragraph should talk about something that made you want to study psychology on the graduate level. Was there a class that piqued your interest, a first foray into research that especially intrigued you, or some practicum experience that made you say "This is what I want to do for the rest of my life?" Write about that in one short paragraph. Leave out the non-academic employment and everything about your family. It's not relevant. 1 paragraph should be spent discussing that research experience. Be specific - describe your project and say who you worked with, then talk about your tasks on the project specifically. Then describe what you learned - what skills, what content, and how you felt about it. Then you can mention that you are submitting (or plan to submit) an abstract to a *specific* scientific conference soon. C) 1 paragraph should be spent discussing your practicum experience. Be specific here, too. What did you do, who did you work for, and what did you learn? How did that experience prepare you for graduate school? D) If both of these experiences happened in undergrad, then you should share at least something that you gained from your MA in clinical psychology and how that has prepared you for a PhD program. That should take a paragraph or less. E) 1 paragraph describing your research interests and why you are specifically interested in X University's program. Start off with your current interests. What do you want to study in graduate school and make your research agenda? Then definitely mention Dr. Jane, but make sure that you specific what about her work (and not just the tools she's using) interests you. You may also want to mention one other professor there who interests you. Also, if there are any other resources at the university - special library collections, agreements with other schools, equipment, whatever - mention those too. F) Your last paragraph should be *specific* and answer that 4th question. What do you want to do with your PhD in clinical psychology? What is your short-term (as in post-PhD) goal? What is your long-term (think 5-10 years after the PhD) goal?

Why would this matter? It has nothing to do with your own potential to complete your PhD and become a scholar in your field, and it will make you look as if you don't understand how graduate admissions works. Many institutions value legacies for undergraduate programs because they want to build dynasties that give money, as well as school spirit and a sense of connectedness. Graduate programs aren't worried about that, so alumni connections don't really mean much to them.

^Mmm, I think this depends on the student and their goals. First, one can't be guaranteed admission to any doctoral program since all of them are competitive - even if a doctoral program takes in 5 students per year and only 50 apply, that's still a 10% admission rate. Second, depending on your goals, a mid-ranked program may not make as much sense. If you're in a glutted field and you want to teach at Harvard, it may make sense to go to a mid-ranked program (unless Harvard IS a mid-ranked program in your area).

Ten to 12 should be enough. At least in my field it is, and I can't think of a field in which it wouldn't be enough. I don't think it matters whether one has an MA or a BA as long as one is a competitive candidate.

It depends on how far ranging it is. For example in my field (psychology) - if you have research experience but none of it is in psychology, you wouldn't be a competitive candidate. Perhaps you could be competitive if your research experience was in a closely related social science and you planned on studying that in grad school (i.e, behavioral economics, social psychology in a sociology department, decision-making in political science). On the flip side, I don't think they'd really care that you've worked in a variety of fields as long as you have related experience to YOUR field. Lots of people work before they go to graduate school.

My first semester (and for the next 3 semesters) I had to take 4 graduate classes a semester, which here is 12 points, in order to try to graduate in any reasonable amount of time (and for me that was 5-6 years). Plus I was doing 20 hours a week of research. I felt like I was going to go nuts. I always felt behind on my readings, not to mention that I didn't understand much of it because I am a psychologist in an interdisciplinary department dominated by sociologists and anthropologists. They were assigning Marx, Weber, and Durkheim and I was like "What?" Every class had a 15-20 page research paper due. I remember one semester I had to write a paper using historical methods at a graduate level. I am NOT a historian, and I took ONE history class in college and there was no paper required. I'm a sixth year now. I finished my courses and passed my quals and my proposal. You can do it! It feels stressful at first. It gets better! You learn to manage the work, and which stuff you can skim and which stuff you can skip altogether.